Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC 9781841718569, 9781407320427

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Plates
List of Tables
List of Diagrams
Preface and Acknowledgements
Notes on Drawings
Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
Chapter 2: The Later Neolithic background and the role of Beakers in Cornwall
Chapter 3: The Evidence from the barrows
Chapter 4: Barrow cemeteries in their landscapes
Chapter 5: The role of Bronze Age barrow cemeteries in Cornwall: four case studies
Chapter 6: Devon
Chapter 7: Cornish ceremonial landscapes: new interpretations
Appendices
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR 394 2005 JONES

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

CORNISH BRONZE AGE CEREMONIAL LANDSCAPES

Andy M. Jones

BAR British Series 394 2005 B A R

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC Andy M. Jones

BAR British Series 394 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 394 Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC © A M Jones and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718569 paperback ISBN 9781407320427 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718569 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents Preface and Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... vi Notes on Drawings............................................................................................................... vii Summary .............................................................................................................................. viii

1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5 1.4.6

Introduction and background Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1 Terminology .............................................................................................................. 1 Dating........................................................................................................................ 2 The structure ............................................................................................................. 2 The methodology ...................................................................................................... 3 Barrow studies in Britain ........................................................................................... 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 Recent studies .......................................................................................................... 3 Discussion................................................................................................................. 4 Atlantic façade .......................................................................................................... 6 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6 Cornwall and the Atlantic facade ............................................................................. 6 Barrow studies in Cornwall ....................................................................................... 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7 The 18th and earlier 19th century............................................................................. 7 The later 19th century ............................................................................................... 8 The earlier 20th century ............................................................................................ 9 The post-war period 1945-70.................................................................................... 9 Recent developments ............................................................................................... 9

2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2

The Later Neolithic background and the role of Beakers in Cornwall Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11 The Neolithic background to Early Bronze Age ritual tradition in Cornwall ............ 11 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11 The Later Neolithic background .............................................................................. 11 British Beakers - changing perspectives................................................................. 13 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 13 Chronology.............................................................................................................. 14 Recent studies ........................................................................................................ 14 British Beakers: a summary .................................................................................... 15 A comparative study of Beaker use in Dorset and Cornwall .................................. 15 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 15 Results of study ...................................................................................................... 15 Dorset...................................................................................................................... 16 Cornwall ................................................................................................................. 18 Summary................................................................................................................. 22 The Role of Beakers in Cornish ceremonial sites................................................... 22 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 22 Beakers and their associations with other ceramic forms on Cornish barrow sites 22 Discussion: The origins of ritual traditions in Early Bronze Age Cornwall and the effect of Beakers upon them ................................................................................... 25 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 25 Results from the study ........................................................................................... 25

3 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3

The Evidence from the barrows Introduction ............................................................................................................. 30 Cornish barrows and their contents ........................................................................ 30 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 30 Results of study ...................................................................................................... 30 The dating of Cornish barrows................................................................................ 34 i

3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.4

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 34 The dating of the Watch Hill barrow and the implication for Cornish barrows........ 34 Needham’s Chronology and the Bronze Age in Cornwall ...................................... 36 Discussion............................................................................................................... 38

4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5 4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5 4.6 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4 4.6.5 4.7 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4 4.7.5 4.8 4.8.1 4.8.2 4.8.3 4.8.4 4.8.5 4.9 4.9.1 4.9.2 4.9.3 4.9.4 4.9.5 4.9.6

Barrow cemeteries in their landscapes Introduction ............................................................................................................. 40 Background ............................................................................................................ 40 Aims and objectives ............................................................................................... 40 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 41 Background ............................................................................................................. 41 The Method ............................................................................................................. 41 The Tregarrick Tor Cemetery.................................................................................. 45 Introduction and background ................................................................................. 45 Topography ............................................................................................................. 45 Description of the cemetery .................................................................................... 45 Results from the fieldwork....................................................................................... 45 Discussion and interpretation.................................................................................. 46 The St.Breock Down Cemetery .............................................................................. 47 Introduction and background ................................................................................. 47 Topography ............................................................................................................ 49 Description of the cemetery .................................................................................... 49 Results from the fieldwork....................................................................................... 49 Discussion and interpretation.................................................................................. 50 The Davidstow Moor Cemetery .............................................................................. 51 Introduction and background .................................................................................. 51 Topography ............................................................................................................. 52 Description of the cemetery .................................................................................... 52 Results from the fieldwork....................................................................................... 53 Discussion and interpretation.................................................................................. 54 The Botrea Cemetery.............................................................................................. 55 Introduction and background .................................................................................. 55 Topography ............................................................................................................. 55 Description of the cemetery .................................................................................... 55 Results from the fieldwork....................................................................................... 56 Discussion and interpretation.................................................................................. 58 The Treen Common Grouping ................................................................................ 59 Introduction and background .................................................................................. 59 Topography ............................................................................................................. 60 Description of the grouping ..................................................................................... 60 Results from the fieldwork....................................................................................... 61 Discussion and interpretation.................................................................................. 61 The Cataclews Cemetery........................................................................................ 63 Introduction and background ................................................................................. 63 Topography ............................................................................................................. 63 Description of the cemetery .................................................................................... 63 Results from the fieldwork....................................................................................... 63 Discussion and interpretation.................................................................................. 65 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 67 The Integrity of the selected Cornish cemeteries .................................................. 67 Other monuments and barrow cemeteries ............................................................. 68 Barrows and topography ........................................................................................ 69 Barrows and natural places .................................................................................... 69 Zonation of barrows ................................................................................................ 70 Summary................................................................................................................. 72

5 5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3

The role of Bronze Age barrow cemeteries in Cornwall: four case studies Introduction ............................................................................................................ 73 A study of four Cornish Bronze Age cemeteries .................................................... 73 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 73 Treligga ................................................................................................................... 74 Colliford ................................................................................................................... 81 ii

5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3

St.Austell Granite ................................................................................................... 89 Davidstow Moor .................................................................................................... 100 Concluding discussion ......................................................................................... 114

6 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.4.5 6.5 6.6 6.7

Devon Background ........................................................................................................... 123 North Devon .......................................................................................................... 123 Environment .......................................................................................................... 123 Neolithic ................................................................................................................ 123 Beakers ................................................................................................................. 124 Barrows and cairns ............................................................................................... 125 Discussion............................................................................................................. 126 Dartmoor ............................................................................................................... 126 Environment .......................................................................................................... 126 Neolithic ................................................................................................................ 126 Beakers ................................................................................................................. 127 Barrows and cairns ............................................................................................... 127 Discussion............................................................................................................. 128 East Devon............................................................................................................ 129 Environment .......................................................................................................... 129 Neolithic ................................................................................................................ 129 Beakers ................................................................................................................. 130 Barrows and cairns ............................................................................................... 130 Discussion............................................................................................................. 132 South Devon ......................................................................................................... 132 The Early Bronze Age in Devon............................................................................ 133 Devon and Cornwall.............................................................................................. 134

7 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.6 7.2.7 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3

Cornish ceremonial landscapes: new interpretations Introduction ........................................................................................................... 135 A biography of practice ......................................................................................... 135 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 135 Landscape and cemetery...................................................................................... 135 ......Origins............................................................................................................. 136 ......and so to the Bronze Age ............................................................................... 137 ......A place for the dead?...................................................................................... 138 The end of tradition?..... ........................................................................................ 140 Summary............................................................................................................... 142 Some areas for further study ................................................................................ 142 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 142 Towards the future ................................................................................................ 143 Final thoughts........................................................................................................ 144

Appendices Appendix 1: Excavated barrows ..........................................................................................................................145 Appendix 2: Barrows containing pottery ............................................................................................................149 Appendix 3: Barrows containing copper alloy objects......................................................................................152 Appendix 4: Barrows containing gold .................................................................................................................153 Appendix 5: Barrows containing beads...............................................................................................................153 Appendix 6: Barrows containing amber (excluding beads) ..............................................................................153 Appendix 7: Barrows containing inhumation deposits .....................................................................................153 Appendix 8: Barrows containing cremated human bone .................................................................................154 Appendix 9: Barrows with radiocarbon dates ...................................................................................................156 Appendix 10: Lists of terminology ......................................................................................................................157 Bibliography........................................................................................................................ 159

iii

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Cornwall, Devon and Wessex ........................................................................................................................2 Figure 1.2 Distribution of barrows in Cornwall ..............................................................................................................2 Figure 1.3 Wessex monument complexes ........................................................................................................................5 Figure 1.4 The Atlantic façade .......................................................................................................................................6 Figure 1.5 Distribution of lunulae ..................................................................................................................................7 Figure 2.1 Beaker sites in Cornwall ..............................................................................................................................19 Figure 4.1 Map showing cemeteries recorded during fieldwork .........................................................................................40 Figure 4.2 General location map showing the Tregarrick Cemetery .................................................................................42 Figure 4.3 Map of the Craddock Moor System, showing the Tregarrick Cemetery...........................................................42 Figure 4.4 General location map, showing the St.Breock Cemetery ................................................................................48 Figure 4.5 Map showing the St.Breock Cemetery ..........................................................................................................48 Figure 4.6 General location map, showing the Davidstow Cemetery ...............................................................................52 Figure 4.7 Map showing the Davidstow Moor Cemetery ...............................................................................................52 Figure 4.8 Map showing the Botrea Cemetery. ..............................................................................................................56 Figure 4.9 Map showing Botrea Cemetery and the visual relationships within it ..............................................................56 Figure 4.10 Map showing Botrea Cemetery and its relationships with adjacent Groupings and significant landscape features..........................................................................................................................................57 Figure 4.11 Map showing the Treen Common Grouping ...............................................................................................59 Figure 4.12 Map showing Treen Common Grouping and its relationships with adjacent Groupings and significant landscape features..........................................................................................................................60 Figure 4.13 Map showing the Cataclews Cemetery .......................................................................................................64 Figure 4.14 Map showing Cataclews Cemetery and its relationships with adjacent Groupings and significant landscape features..........................................................................................................................................64 Figure 5.1 Map showing the cemeteries studied..............................................................................................................73 Figure 5.2 Plan of Treligga cemetery..............................................................................................................................74 Figure 5.3 Plans of Treligga Sites 1 and 2 ....................................................................................................................75 Figure 5.4 Plans of Treligga Sites 5 and 7 ....................................................................................................................78 Figure 5.5 Plan showing Colliford cemetery....................................................................................................................82 Figure 5.6 Plan of Colliford CRII ................................................................................................................................83 Figure 5.7 Plans of Colliford CRIVB, CRIVC and CRIVA.....................................................................................85 Figure 5.8 Plan showing St.Austell area .......................................................................................................................89 Figure 5.9 Plan showing Caerloggas cemetery .................................................................................................................90 Figure 5.10 Plan of Caerloggas I .................................................................................................................................91 Figure 5.11 Plan of finds from Caerloggas I .................................................................................................................91 Figure 5.12 Plan of Cocksbarrow .................................................................................................................................94 Figure 5.13 Plan of Watch Hill I.................................................................................................................................95 Figure 5.14 Plan of Trenance ......................................................................................................................................97 Figure 5.15 Plan showing Davidstow cemetery.............................................................................................................101 Figure 5.16 Plan of Davidstow 22..............................................................................................................................102 Figure 5.17 Plans of Davidstow I6 and 17.................................................................................................................103 Figure 5.18 Plan of Davidstow I ...............................................................................................................................104 Figure 5.19 Plans of Davidstow 3 and 3a...................................................................................................................106 Figure 5.20 Plan of Davidstow 8................................................................................................................................107 Figure 5.21 Plans of Davidstow 14 and 7 ..................................................................................................................109 Figure 5.22 Plans of Davidstow 4 and 4a...................................................................................................................109 Figure 5.23 Plans of Davidstow 2 and 11 ..................................................................................................................111 Figure 6.1 Barrow/cairn sites in Devon .....................................................................................................................124

iv

List of Plates Plate 5.1 Propped stone on Tregarrick Tor ..................................................................................................................117 Plate 5.2 Tregarrick Tor from cairn 1234.2 ...............................................................................................................117 Plate 5.3 Stowes Pound from the Hurlers ....................................................................................................................118 Plate 5.4 St.Breock barrows 26122.02 and 26122.03 from the east ...........................................................................118 Plate 5.5 St.Breock ring-cairn 26540.08 from the west ...............................................................................................119 Plate 5.6 Davidstow plateau viewed from the east.........................................................................................................119 Plate 5.7 Brown Willy and Rough Tor viewed from the area of Davidstow Site 2 .........................................................120 Plate 5.8 Botrea platform barrow 16252.04 from the east ...........................................................................................120 Plate 5.9 Botrea cemetery viewed from barrow 16254.02 .............................................................................................121 Plate 5.10 Treen barrow 30691.2 from the north........................................................................................................121 Plate 5.11 Treen platform barrow 30691.1 from the south (with Gurnards Head area visible in the distance)...............122 Plate 5.12 Cataclews barrow cemetery viewed from Harlyn Bay (with rock-stack at eastern end of cemetery)...................122 List of Tables Table 2.1 List of terms used in database...............................................................................................................15 Table 2.2 List of Beakers from Cornish barrows.................................................................................................23 Table 3.1 List of terms used in database...............................................................................................................30 Table 3.2 Material for radiocarbon dating ............................................................................................................34 Table 3.3 Results from the radiocarbon dating ...................................................................................................35 Table 3.4 Radiocarbon determinations from Cornish barrows ........................................................................36 List of Diagrams Diagram 2.1 Beaker types found in Dorset ..........................................................................................................18 Diagram 2.2 Contexts of Beakers found in Dorset.............................................................................................18 Diagram 2.3 Percentages of Dorset Beakers by context.....................................................................................18 Diagram 2.4 Beaker types found in Cornwall ......................................................................................................20 Diagram 2.5 Contexts of Beakers found in Cornwall .........................................................................................20 Diagram 2.6 Percentages of Cornwall Beakers by context.................................................................................20 Diagram 2.7 Cornish Beakers and their contexts ................................................................................................28 Diagram 3.1 Percentage of Cornish excavated barrows containing artefacts/burial deposits.......................31 Diagram 3.2 Breakdown of deposits within excavated Cornish barrows.........................................................31 Diagram 3.3 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing pottery ....................................................31 Diagram 3.4 Numbers of identified Ceramic types found in Cornish barrows...............................................31 Diagram 3.5 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing metalwork ..............................................32 Diagram 3.6 Numbers of Cornish barrows containing copper alloy objects...................................................32 Diagram 3.7 Cornish barrows containing gold objects.......................................................................................32 Diagram 3.8 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing beads.......................................................33 Diagram 3.9 Numbers of Cornish barrows containing beads............................................................................33 Diagram 3.10 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing amber (non-bead) ...............................33 Diagram 3.11 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing deposits of human bone ....................33 Diagram 3.12 Numbers of Cornish barrows containing deposits of human bone.........................................34

v

Preface and Acknowledgements This monograph is the result of a PhD thesis undertaken at the University of Exeter between 1998 and 2004. Over the course of the last six years the author has become indebted to a number of people and organisations for their help and backing. Firstly I would like to thank Bryony Coles and Henrietta Quinnell who supervised my PhD thesis and who have provided much needed guidance and advice throughout the course of the study. The SMR data which formed the bedrock of chapter 3 was released by my colleague Steve Hartgroves, downloading was undertaken with the assistance of Tony Bayfield and I am grateful to Konstanze Rahn for her assistance with converting the data to its present format. I am particularly grateful to Graeme Kirkham for reading the final draft text. The fieldwork was undertaken with the assistance of numerous people and I would like to thank Mr Tony Blackman for assistance, for providing the digital camera and for sharing his extensive knowledge of Bodmin Moor. I would also like to thank Paul Harding, Peter Herring, Tansy Collins, Faye Glover, Lizzy Mylod, Cathy Parkes, Debbie Penstraze, Paola Pugsley, Peter Rose, Frank Smiles, Katy and Sarah Taylor, for their assistance during the fieldwork. Peter Herring and Peter Rose also provided invaluable information about previous surveys at St.Breock, Botrea and Treen. Funds for carrying out the radiocarbon dating were provided by the Cornwall Heritage Trust, the Cornwall Archaeological Society and The University of Exeter Fox Lawrence Fund. The Cornwall Heritage Trust also provided an initial bursary which enabled the purchasing of software and numerous papers and books. I would like to thank all three organisations for their gratefully received contributions. Lastly, but not least I would like to thank my family for their emotional and financial support as well giving me the space and time to undertake this project.

vi

Notes on Drawings • •

All drawings are orientated to the north, except where marked on plan. Due to process of reproduction there is some variation in the scales of the drawings.

Map Symbols (Figs. 4.1-14)

vii

Summary It is only within the last two or three decades that regionally based archaeologies have started to emerge for the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of England. However all too many studies which purport to be ‘regional’ are actually devoted to areas within Wessex. This means that the character of Early Bronze Age communities in other regions of Britain still remains to be adequately addressed. This study is focused upon Cornwall which has received little theoretical discussion. Attention has been given to barrows since they have been recorded in the greatest detail and form by largest number of relatively welldated ceremonial sites. In order to identify the underlying principles that lay behind the ritual traditions which are found in Cornwall I have employed a number of approaches. Following a brief review of recent barrow studies in other regions of Britain, Cornish barrows have been examined at a number of levels starting with the use of a database designed to identify common features found across the county. At a more localised level six cemeteries were recorded in the field to establish similarities and contrasts in their composition and topographical setting. Finally a ‘micro level’ approach was used which involved a study of individual barrows within four completely excavated cemeteries. It was found that there was evidence for preferences in the siting of barrows which related to local topography and that a range of site types were used which were intended to structure the use of space within the cemetery. Analysis of deposits within individual barrows produced evidence for the differential use of monuments within the cemetery area. There was evidence for structured deposition and that human bone was one in a range of objects which could be selected for incorporation within the barrow. I have suggested that, given the small amount of human bone which is often encountered on Cornish barrows, funerary rites may not have been of paramount importance. Throughout this book I have tried to place regional ritual traditions within a wider ‘biography’ of practice. In order to do this the Later Neolithic period in Cornwall has been considered in detail and the study concludes with a narrative which traces ‘ritualized’ practices from the Neolithic through to the ceremonial sites of the Early Bronze Age and on to the Middle Bronze Age settlements. I have argued that the start of the Early Bronze Age in Cornwall witnessed the widespread adoption and proliferation of ceremonial monuments. Most of the architectural traditions which are found at these sites were the result of interaction with communities in other regions. However, it has been argued that communities in Cornwall selected, interpreted and used ideas, artefacts and architectural traditions with which they came into contact according to how they fitted into their existing world view and traditions. The results from this study are significant because they have shown that, by examining Early Bronze Age cemeteries and their constituent monuments within their landscapes, it is possible to begin to uncover ritual traditions, which are strongly regional in character.

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction and background ‘They are dispersed on almost every plain as well as on the tops of hills, great numbers of those artificial heaps of earth and stones which are at present called barrows’ (Revd. Borlase 1769, 211).

1.1

Introduction

1.1.1

Background

Ritual Exactly what constitutes ritual is one of the most difficult areas of archaeology to define (Orme 1981). One of the major problems is that there has been a tendency to create an opposition between ritual on the one hand and the secular on the other. Bradley (2003a, 11-12) has recently noted that archaeologists have tended carry a concept of ritual as being something that is divorced from the everyday and associated with religion. This is problematic because rituals are carried out at a number of levels which range from the personal to public and not all are intended as religious acts (Bell 1992; Bradley 2003a). They can occur within a variety of locales including domestic settlements and monuments. The similarities between the types of deposits which are found on settlement and ritual sites suggests that prehistoric communities would not have recognised rigid distinctions between different aspects of their lives. Whittle (2003, 3) has suggested that rituals are better thought of as the formalisation of other activities and Bradley (2003a, 20) has argued that certain aspects of domestic life, such as food production, were so important that they took on special qualities and became ritualized. This is demonstrated by the structured deposits of domestic artefacts and animal bones which are found on some prehistoric ceremonial sites.

The motivation behind this study was born out of a frustration with the lack of interpretation and regional synthesis of Cornwall’s prehistoric archaeology. This study has therefore been driven by a desire to advance models to explain the nature of Early Bronze Age Cornwall. The last twenty years have seen the rise of research which acknowledges the regional diversity that exists within the archaeological record (Barclay 2000; 2001; Harding and Johnston 2000). One of the principal benefits of some of the current approaches to archaeology has been the stress which has been placed upon the interpretation of context, whether at the level of the archaeological feature, the site or the landscape (Thomas 1996a; Tilley 1994; Pollard 1995). However, although some attention has begun to be paid to the southwest region (Bender et al 1997; Owoc 2002), too many studies are still devoted to what are perceived to be the well understood core areas of southern Britain (Brück 2000a; Cleal et al 1995; Exon et al 2000) and many interpretative accounts of British prehistory derive their interpretations from a very restricted geographical area (Barrett 1994; Woodward 2000a). The remainder of this introduction commences with a discussion of some of the terms used in this study. The structure is then outlined and followed by concise discussions outlining the ways barrows have been studied in Cornwall. 1.1.2

Rituals can therefore be seen as an emphasis on certain acts and events which distinguishes them in comparison to ‘conventional activities’ (Bell 1992). These acts will be distinct but related to other spheres of social action. The term ritual is therefore used in this study to refer to distinct acts which occurred at barrows, but it is recognised that these would have been related to practices which occurred in other settings, including the settlement. It is argued here that Early Bronze Age ritual practices did not just appear but were related to practices which had become ritualized in the Neolithic (see 7.2.3 below). Indeed, Bradley (1991a) has emphasised the fact that due to its nature, repetitive acts often carried out over a longue duree, and its frequent importance to prehistoric societies, ritual provides a useful way of studying the past. Several writers have argued that ritual activity can be detected because the acts associated with it were carried out with a high degree of formality (Parker Pearson 1999) and can broadly be divided into two categories, those which occur as calendrical rites and those which are associated with life crisis rites (Richards and Thomas 1984; Owoc 2001b). The former are regular and occur at certain times of the year, whilst the latter are infrequent and are intended to control a situation which causes tension within a given community (e.g., a death). However, the meanings of rituals are neither fixed nor singular (Barrett 1994) and are open to change. Indeed, participants may not always be aware of why they are carrying out certain actions (Parkin 1992; Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994).

Terminology

A number of terms recur in this study which require definition as to the specific way they are used, including Cornwall, ritual, and landscape. Cornwall Although Cornwall forms the geographical area of my area of study (Fig.1.2), this does not imply that current county boundaries had any meaning for prehistoric peoples. The reason for the selection of Cornwall as unit of study is given below (see 1.1.4). However, recent debate regarding ethnicity and particularly the nature of the Celts (James 1999) requires that some comment should be made. The view taken here is that Bronze Age communities cannot be identified as Celts or with current concepts of Cornishness. Instead, whilst links are acknowledged with other parts of Britain and Atlantic Europe (chapter 1 and 7), it is argued that just as today there are multiple Cornish identities (Herring forthcoming), prehistoric communities possessed nested identities which were formed around particular landscapes and shifting patterns of kinship and allegiances.

1

Andy M Jones

There are a number of terms that are used in a particular way throughout this study (see appendix 11). They include: barrow, cemetery grouping, system, inhumation, cremation burial, partial cremation deposit, secondary burial, satellite burial, grave good, ceremonial sites, funerary rites, mourner, ancestor worship, structured deposition. 1.1.3

Dating

Using the available radiocarbon dating evidence, Needham (1996) has devised an outline chronology which is metalwork based, dividing the Early Bronze Age into five periods. • Period 1 (2500-2300 cal BC) • Period 2 (2300-2050 cal BC) • Period 3 (2050-1700 cal BC) • Period 4 (1700-1500 cal BC) • Period 5 (1500-1100 cal BC) Needham’s periodisation of the British Bronze Age will be used throughout this study. 1.1.4

The structure

A key issue involved in undertaking a regional study is the appropriate scale of analysis, for as Bradley (2002, 124) has pointed out such studies can differ widely in both their geographical extent and their chronological range. I have selected Cornish barrows for analysis because they form the best recorded (excavated, surveyed and dated) body of monuments dating to the Early Bronze Age in the southwest (Fig.1.2). In order to uncover the underlying principles behind the regional ritual traditions Cornish barrows have been examined at a number of levels from a macro level, through the use of a database (chapter 3), down to the micro level with the detailed analysis of individual barrow sites (chapters 4 and 5). Establishing a biography of site use and of identified traditions is also essential to this study (chapters 2, 5 and 7).

Figure 1.1 Cornwall, Devon and Wessex. Although these general points are accepted by this study, two further issues need to be stressed. The first is that the diversity in ritual practices needs to be understood on a regional or site by site basis (Barnatt 1998, 92). Stemming from this is a second point, which is particular to the barrows of the southwest, namely that the region’s barrows were not just used for burial and were probably associated with both calendrical and life crisis rites. Landscape Landscape forms one of the most important areas of study for archaeologists, because it provides an invaluable way of looking for and identifying patterning of monuments which can be used to build interpretative hypotheses (Layton and Ucko 1999, 12-15). However, interpreting those patterns has caused debate between those writers who have sought to classify the landscape and the distribution of monuments in terms of its economic or resource value (Daryll Forde 1946; Johnson 1981; Green 1974; Lawson et al 1981) and those who prefer to see landscapes in relative terms as the product of societies’ and individuals’ cultural experience of the world (Cosgrove and Daniels 1988; Schama 1995; Tilley 1994). As with ritual, the meanings which are attached to landscapes are not fixed (Knapp and Ashmore 1999); a single landscape will probably have more than one meaning attached to it, which could be ordered according to class, gender, or kin group (Bender 1993). The view supported here is broadly in accordance with the latter perspective but accepts the caveat put forward by Layton and Ucko (1999, 6-8) that there is a real physical form which will affect the way the landscape is perceived and inhabited. This study recognises the importance of individual sites as marking or referencing important cultural or symbolic places within the landscape.

Figure 1.2 Distribution of barrows in Cornwall (generated from SMR data).

2

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

chapters, the evidence from recent barrow studies in Britain is summarised below.

The contents of individual chapters is as follows: Chapter 2. The background to the ritual traditions of the Early Bronze Age in Cornwall is discussed. Evidence from Neolithic monuments is reviewed and the contexts of Cornish Grooved Ware are reassessed. The context of Beaker use is reviewed and compared with Dorset. This chapter aims to reconsider whether Early Bronze Age ritual traditions in Cornwall evolved out of Neolithic practices

1.2.2

Chapter 3. Evidence drawn from the county SMR is used to generate information concerning the number of artefacts and burial deposits which have been recovered from Cornish barrows. The purpose of this section is to establish the wider setting of Bronze Age ritual traditions in the county. Chapter 4. Presents the fieldwork undertaken at six cemeteries. The character of each cemetery is considered, including landscape setting, the role of natural topography and the evidence for the zonation of monument types within the landscape. This chapter aims to identify the reasons behind the siting of cemeteries and their constituent monuments.

The period witnessed the emergence of what can loosely be termed post-processual theory. These approaches have been influenced by a number of social anthropological approaches including Marxism, feminism and poststructuralism (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984; Miller 1985; Moore 1986). The drawing upon such a wide diversity of sources has resulted in a variety of ways of looking at prehistory, which have questioned the ability of archaeologists to produce an objective view of the past or to be able to identify distinct spheres of social action, such as domestic or ritual (Bell 1992; Brück 2000b).

Chapter 5. Is concerned with identifying ritual practice within the cemetery. Four excavated cemeteries are examined and the sequences within the constituent monuments are considered to identify localised ritual practices. Chapter 6. Is concerned with reviewing the evidence from Devon on a sub-regional basis in the light of the results from Cornwall.

Earlier post-processual studies of the Early Bronze Age tended to be concerned with the ways in which power was articulated through ritual monuments (Braithwaite 1984; Thorpe and Richards 1984). Recent studies have become concerned with the part barrows had in social reproduction, emphasising the role that mortuary ritual played in structuring the lives of people by creating and maintaining ancestral lines. Several writers have tried to explain why sites were transformed over time and the symbolism of the architecture and materials which were used in their construction. Others have looked at the distribution of monuments and their settings in order to consider the underlying cosmology which may have governed their siting.

Chapter 7. Examines the conclusions from the preceding chapters. Themes including the origins of ceremonial landscapes and the role of monuments and artefacts are discussed as well as the transformation of traditions. 1.1.5

The methodology

In order to identify the underlying principles that lay behind the ritual traditions which are found in Cornwall, I have examined Cornish barrows at three levels starting with the use of a database designed to identify common features found across the county. At a more localised level six cemeteries across the county were recorded in the field to establish similarities and contrasts in their composition and topographical setting. Finally a ‘micro level’ approach was used which involved a study of individual barrows within four completely excavated cemeteries. A more detailed exposition of the methods used in this study can be found at the start of chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Social reproduction Influenced by anthropological writings (e.g. Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984) on structure and agency, several studies of barrows have stressed their role in creating particular social identities. Garwood (1991, 26) has suggested that the rituals which took place at barrows were concerned with establishing and maintaining lines of descent and the passing of rights from one generation to the next. He (ibid., 17) pointed out that these relationships need not be seen as an accurate depiction of real social relations, as funerary ritual was open to manipulation by individuals or groups within the community. Following Garwood, Mizoguchi (1992) argued that although mortuary practices are not as

All radiocarbon dates have been calibrated using OxCal 3.5 at 95% probability. 1.2

Barrow studies in Britain

1.2.1

Introduction

Recent studies

The 1980s saw a number of large-scale projects which were designed to set barrows and other ceremonial monuments in their contemporary landscapes. Most of these projects were essentially a result of development, or were in response to the threats posed by agriculture (Lynch 1993; Richards 1990; Woodward 1991). Many projects were multi-disciplinary and involved environmental sampling, field-walking and excavation. The results have proved significant, as they have enabled regional differences to be detected in relation to the ordering of monuments. For example, Lynch (1993) found, that in the Brenig Valley cemeteries did not develop organically as in Wessex but were part of a planned unit used over centuries. These studies have been significant because they formed the bedrock of many of the interpretations which have developed since the 1990s.

In order to provide a background against which the Cornish evidence can be compared in the following

3

Andy M Jones

highlighted the sacred nature which landscape holds (Cosgrove and Daniels 1988; Carmichael et al 1994) for many non-western societies. Some studies have emphasised the pluralistic nature of the way humans interact with landscapes (Bender 1998). Instead of looking to prehistoric survival strategies to explain the siting of monuments and cemeteries, several writers have adopted a phenomenoligcal approach and explained their distributions in terms of prehistoric cosmology (Tilley 1994). The principal factors which have been argued as underlying the symbolic ordering of the landscape have included the enhancement of existing prehistoric monuments (Bradley 1993; Woodward and Woodward 1996; Darvill 1997; Watson 2001), the transformation and the elaboration of natural features in the landscape, for example tors and rivers (Watson 1991; Tilley 1994; 1999; Bradley 2000a). Several commentators have tried to understand how symbolism could have accrued in the landscape in more subtle ways. Discussions have centred around the role of memory in the reproduction of monuments over time and there has been a move to place monuments within landscapes which possessed their own biographies (Holtorf 1998; Thomas 1999; Bradley 2002; Pollard and Reynolds 2002).

frequent as some of the other episodes of daily life which structure individuals lives, their value lies in the fact that they can be made to appear seemingly stable and unchanging. Mizoguchi reasoned that, once tied to a specific social meaning, artefacts would not only signify meaning but would also create a field of discourse by their presence. They would demand that people should act in a certain fashion. Barrett (1994) has distinguished between the different categories of artefact which are recovered from barrow sites. He argues that artefacts enter the archaeological record in three ways; those which are attached to the body, those which are arranged around the body and those discarded by mourners after the funeral is over. He suggested that whereas the grave goods could have been used as signifiers, discarded objects are likely to have been associated with mourning and were cast off at the end of the rituals. Barrett’s argument is based upon his suggestion that artefacts were used during funerary rituals to create categories of people, both amongst the living and the dead, and that the arrangement of artefacts around the grave was designed to create an image of death by the living. Architecture and symbolism The structure of barrows has been reconsidered. Analysis has taken two principal forms, firstly the symbolism of the materials which were used within the sites and secondly the identification of the symbolism of the barrow itself. Several writers have identified the presence of materials such as quartz, coloured clays and stones and charcoal from particular types of wood and have argued that they played a key role in structuring the experience of the site, through their physical and metaphorical properties (Tilley 1996; Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998; Pitts 2000, 157-8; Owoc 2001b). Many commentators have focused upon the symbolism of the barrow form itself. Bradley (1998a) has argued that the round barrows drew upon a long tradition of circular sites which stretched back into the Neolithic, Mizoguchi (1992) suggested that the architecture employed at round barrows was important because it was not only durable, but constrained the movement of the people participating in the rituals. The reasons for mound enlargement have drawn consideration. Barrett (1990) and Garwood (1991) have suggested that the construction of round barrows in linear cemeteries could have enshrined genealogical relationships in a highly visible way, which Garwood termed ‘ordered adjacency’. Barrett (1994) has argued that the enlargement of barrow mounds resulted in the barrow mounds themselves becoming the focus for depositions, on their tops, margins and in the surrounding ditches. He (1988; 1994) has pointed out that the round barrow mound would have changed the nature of access to the dead and in enlarging the mound the availability of the deceased was denied to the living. This meant that funerary rites could evoke more distant images and the lines of descent could become more mythological over the passage of time.

1.2.3

Discussion

The last twenty years witnessed a move away from the processual models which had explained barrow distributions in terms of social ranking, mode of subsistence or territorial division (e.g. Fleming 1971; Green 1974; Hawke-Smith 1981; Pierpoint 1981). However, the split which has developed between economic and symbolic models is unfortunate as prehistoric communities are unlikely to have been solely concerned with either the sacred or the profane; both elements were probably deeply entwined so that much of what we call ritual was probably part of the subconscious daily routine (Gosden 1994; see also 1.1.2 above) and considered as a rational way of acting. Secondly, meanings of sites could change over time and space (Bradley 2002). For example, barrows which were placed within a sacred locale might end up being in a dangerous or liminal zone which people wished to avoid. A second weakness with many of the preceding studies is their limited geographical extent. As can be seen from the preceding section, most of the theoretical models for the study of Early Bronze Age ritual have been developed from evidence from Wessex (Mizoguchi 1992; Barrett 1994, etc.). This is problematic because it has resulted in an underlying assumption that everywhere else must have been similar during the Early Bronze Age. Secondly, within Wessex itself there are biases. Although Wessex has been described as covering the major parts of Wiltshire, Hampshire and Dorset, the eastern part of Somerset and the chalk escarpment of Berkshire (Stone 1963, 13), it would be a mistake to consider that this region represents a continuous archaeological landscape (Fig 1.1). It is one of the most intensively farmed regions in Britain and most of the extant archaeology survives within a series of discrete islands (Avebury, Cranborne Chase, Dorset Ridgeway and Stonehenge, Fig.1.3), which are cut off from much of their surrounding landscapes. It is also true to state that rather more research has been carried out around the best known

Barrows and landscape Many post-processual studies have been influenced by anthropological and social geographical writings which have 4

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Figure 1.3 Wessex monument complexes A= Avebury, C= Cranborne Chase, D= Dorset Ridgeway, S= Stonehenge (after Burgess 1980).

5

Andy M Jones

of these islands, around Stonehenge (RCHME 1979; Richards 1990; Cleal et al 1995), than along the Dorset Ridgeway (Woodward 1991), which has comparable barrow cemeteries, but which lacks a comparably prominent surviving focal monument. 1.3

The Atlantic facade

1.3.1

Introduction

Although it is not disputed that some interaction occurred between Cornwall and Wessex, it is argued here that connections Cornwall and other communities along the western seaboard were of greater importance (Fig.1.4). This section briefly discusses the character of contact between communities along the Atlantic facade. A fuller discussion of the evidence for contacts between Cornwall and other parts of the Atlantic facade has been given elsewhere (Jones 2004). Devon is separately discussed in the light of my research in chapter 6. 1.3.2

Cornwall and the Atlantic facade

The evidence for contacts between different regions of the Atlantic facade during the Early Bronze Age is beyond doubt. It is demonstrated by pan-European artefacts, such as the Beaker and is implied by the evidence of sea-going vessels dating to the Early Bronze Age (Cunliffe 2001; Van de Noort 2004). However, the intensity and nature of those contacts differed over time and between the regions, so although there is evidence for the exchange of material culture and some sharing of ideology, there is little evidence for any kind of overall social or cultural hegemony. This point can be illustrated by a consideration of the monuments and artefacts which are found across the region. A number of monument types around the Atlantic facade indicate contacts between different communities, including stone circles, stone rows, ring-cairns, round barrows and cairns (Bradley 1998a; Burl 1976; 1993; Lynch 1993). Whilst each of these is likely to result from contacts over long distances, there are difficulties with demonstrating their origins, or establishing the precise links between areas such as Cornwall and Ireland; in the latter case material culture could have been exchanged indirectly through Wales or northwest Britain. Most previous discussions of the monumental evidence have taken a diffusionist stance, assuming that material culture only flows one way from a single source. I would argue that we have to consider that contacts between regions would have resulted in a multi-directional flow of ideology. For example, whilst in Ireland a stone circle is found in association with the Neolithic passage grave at Newgrange (Bradley1998b), it is also possible that the Bronze Age axial stone circles which are found in Ireland derive from much later contacts with Scotland (Ruggles 1999, 100). The biographies of the various monument types (ring-cairns and cemetery mounds, etc.) are very much bound up with local practices. So for example, in Ireland and Wales human bone is far more frequently deposited in ring-cairns than in Cornwall, where charcoal and other objects are more commonly found. As we will see in chapter 4, monuments in Cornwall were also sited in

Figure 1.4 The Atlantic façade. relation to a variety of topographical features, which implies that new monument forms were incorporated into existing landscape cosmologies. Similar problems beset artefactual studies, whilst the distribution of lunulae demonstrates contacts between communities around the Atlantic facade (Taylor 1980; Eogan 1995) (Fig.1.5), their deposition was governed by local practice. This point can further be demonstrated by comparison of the contents of Cornish barrows with Breton barrows. Few Cornish barrows are associated with daggers and these are not Armorico-British, but of the later Camerton-Snowshill type. The Rillaton Barrow is one of only a handful of sites which could be considered to be 6

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

The relationships between Early Bronze Age communities were not simply a matter of artefacts, ideas or people moving from a core area to a peripheral one (contra Sherratt 1993). Instead, there was a mosaic of small communities which interacted with one another at varying levels of intensity over time. As Needham (1993, 168) has pointed out, the chances of uniform value systems existing across later prehistoric Europe are quite slim and it is a important to remember the context in which exchange of artefacts or monuments would have taken place. The circulation of ideologies or objects around the Atlantic facade would have involved long journeys in small boats across dangerous expanses of sea, which may itself have been considered to be a liminal zone with spiritual power (Cooney 2004). It is unlikely that any such voyages would have been undertaken for purely economic reasons. Whether these journeys were rites of initiation, quests for symbolic artefacts or ritualized voyages designed to legitimise members of elite groups (Ruiz-Galvez Priego 1999; Needham 2000; Van de Noort 2004), it is probable that they would have become the stuff of legends, which would have inspired fear and wonder in those who heard them. It is argued here, that the evidence indicates that the exchanges of material culture along the Atlantic facade, including Cornwall would have enabled negotiated identities, whereby individuals and local communities reproduced themselves from a range of materials, which though already imbued with meanings and distinctions were always interpreted through existing traditions and practices. 1.4

Barrow studies in Cornwall

1.4.1

Introduction

The study of round barrows in Cornwall, has largely been carried out without regard to prevailing theoretical perspectives. The following outline of barrow studies in the county will therefore be presented chronologically. 1.4.2

The 18th and earlier 19th century

William Borlase (1695-1792) was the founder of antiquarian studies in Cornwall. His book Observations on the Antiquities Historical and Monumental of the County of Cornwall, marked the first attempt to describe and interpret archaeological remains in Cornwall. His study, although influenced by earlier writers such as Stukeley, is a remarkable piece of work. He recognised that barrows were places of burial but was convinced that they were used for ‘religious reasons’ (Borlase 1769, 159) associated with druidical worship, along with stone circles and natural rock formations.

Figure 1.5 Distribution of lunulae (solid dots). ‘rich’ (see 3.4 below). Ashbee (1977, 157-9) argued that there is a connection between the gold cup from the Rillaton barrow and other gold European cups. Although the Rillaton cup is similar to examples from Kent and Brittany and beyond (Parfitt and Needham 2004; Harding 2000, 228-230), it is unlikely that the meanings associated with these cups would have been constant across Europe and this is indicated by the variety of contexts in which they have been found. Whilst the cup reflects contacts with other communities, its use and deposition would have been mediated by local traditions.

Borlase was not primarily an excavator but a recorder of monuments. His powers of observation were rather better than many of his contemporaries and he attempted to classify different types of barrow, noting that some were surrounded by stone kerbs and others by a circle of earth. He was the first to suggest that yellow clay may have been incorporated in the St.Austell uplands barrows in order to make them more distinctive and to consider whether clay was being introduced to enhance the appearance of the mounds. Borlase was the first in Cornwall to note (though crudely) the contents of some barrows and at least in one

A similar argument could be applied in relation to the deposition of ceramics, the location of rock art, or many other of the shared artefact types which are found throughout the Atlantic region. Time and again, the way material culture was manipulated falls within insular practices, indicating that it was used and understood by local communities. 7

Andy M Jones

instance noted the arrangement of a group of urns. His familiarity with the Cornish landscape and topography also makes him worthy of attention. It was this knowledge which led him to recognise that barrows were usually built in places which he thought were designed to ‘excite the curiosity and wonder of the living and perpetuate the dignity and merit of the dead’ (ibid., 217).

(Smirke 1867, 189-195). However, the publication of the cup did at least lead to some discussion of its affinities and origins. Albert Way (1867, 195-202) attempted to ascertain the date of the cup by drawing analogies with artefacts from other parts of Britain and Europe. In particular he noted that Worsaae in Denmark had dated a little cup within a mound to the Early Bronze Age (ibid., 200-201).

Borlase’s ideas were limited by the fact that most of his interpretations were based upon analogy with examples from the Bible, or from classical texts. The prima facie use of this material led him to believe that barrows were a universal tradition which originated in biblical times; this of course meant that assigning a date to them was a difficult task. He argued that, in the absence of artefacts, Cornish barrows might be British, Roman, Saxon or Danish in origin.

1.4.3

The later 19th century

Way’s observations made little impact upon W.C Borlase (1848-1899), the doyen of later nineteenth century archaeology in Cornwall, who during his career as an excavator opened over 200 barrows. Marsden (1974, 88) has described his excavations as representing a retrograde step in archaeology and it is true that they were below the standard of contemporaries (e.g. Thurnam 1871; Mortimer 1905). During his career Borlase published just three major accounts of his excavations, and these only contained accounts of those barrows which he felt were noteworthy. The first published volume was Naenia Cornubiae (1872). The standard of this is rather poor; the descriptions of the excavations lack stratigraphical detail and there are few plans or drawings of the sites under discussion. It was followed by ‘Archaeological discoveries in the Parishes of St.Just in Penwith and Sennen’ in 1879 and by ‘Typical specimens of Cornish Barrows’ in 1885. Both of these reports are of a higher standard than Naenia Cornubiae and include more accurate plans and sections, which were made by the talented antiquarian surveyor W.C Lukis (Atkinson 1976, 112-117). Improvements in the production of his reports did not lead to higher standards of excavation. In particular his excavation at the unusual and multi-phased site at Ballowall resulted in the butchery of one of the most important prehistoric funerary monuments in Cornwall (Sharpe 1990).

The writings of Borlase proved to be extremely influential in subsequent discussions of Cornish prehistory and continued to exert an influence well into the nineteenth century. As late as 1857 the correspondent representing Cornwall for in Archaeologia Cambrensis was discussing Cornish barrows in very similar terms (Edmonds 1857, 350-368) and in the 1860s the Cornish antiquary J.T Blight ruefully commented on the literal way Borlase’s works were being used to judge the validity of barrow sites (1886, 9094). William Cotton carried out the first recorded excavation of a Cornish barrow cemetery in 1826 (see 4.6 below). Although many of Cotton’s interpretations were based upon Borlase’s work, he surpassed Borlase as an excavator and in his consideration of the dating of barrows. Although Cotton’s excavations were by modern standards poor, the descriptions of his findings were superior to any of the earlier investigations in Cornwall and were equal to the work of better known antiquarian excavations in other parts of Britain (e.g. Hoare 1821). His excavations of three barrows on Botrea Hill described the alignment of the barrows, gave a simple description of the stratigraphy of each of the mounds and gave a description of the finds (Cotton 1827, 41-44).

Borlase did note the types of locale where monuments occurred and that they were sometimes built around natural rock formations (1885, 5). He recognised the significance of studying barrows at a regional scale, and suggested that ‘each locality must yield its separate quota of evidence to its own careful observers... before any attempts at generalisations can be made’ (1872, 272). However, his restricted abilities as an excavator and his inability to understand or record stratigraphy led to problems with developing a chronology for and interpretation of the barrows he was excavating. Indeed, his chronology for the construction of barrows was inaccurate, even for its day. He wrote that, with the works of Nelson and Lubbock in front of him, he was impressed with their arguments for the early origins of barrows (1872, 254), but the finds from his excavated sites convinced him that Cornish barrows were much later in date. A third century AD Roman coin, found during the excavation of a barrow at Morvah persuaded him that other mounds must therefore be of Roman date.

Cotton gave more careful consideration than Borlase to the dating of the barrows which he excavated and was able to make comparisons with other excavated barrows in Cornwall. He reasoned that the flint arrowheads he had found at Botrea, together with an urn from one of the other barrows, indicated that the barrows were pre-Roman in date. He attempted to provide a chronology for the sequence of barrow building, suggesting that barrows containing bronze were likely to be older than those containing iron and that barrows which contained flint were likely to be older than those with bronze.

Borlase was reluctant to develop any real interpretative framework. Although he refuted any link between barrow building and the druids and regarded it as ‘quaint speculation’ (1872, 8), his own explanations were equally eccentric. In his later publications (1885, 179) he speculated on the existence of a link between the large number of

Very few supervised excavations took place in Cornwall during the first six decades of the nineteenth century (but see Blight 1866). Even the Rillaton gold cup was discovered by workmen and reported to a correspondent of the Archaeological Journal some 30 years after its discovery

8

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

as a peripheral part of the Wessex Culture was widely accepted for a very long time both in excavation reports (Dudley 1961; Dudley and Thomas 1965), in the period syntheses (Fox 1964; Wailes 1958; Christie 1986) and even in the later writings of Grinsell (1994).

barrows in west Cornwall and the sunset, suggesting that as death was commonly associated with the setting sun the dead were being brought as near as possible to the spirit land (1879, 200). 1.4.4

The earlier 20th century

Borlase was limited as an archaeologist; however, his excavations were the only ones to take place during the later nineteenth century, with the result that they have until fairly recently informed much of our knowledge of barrows in Cornwall. Indeed, the first half of the twentieth century saw few excavations or discussions of Cornish barrows. Notable excavations were carried out at barrow cemeteries during the Second World War by Croft Andrew at barrows on Davidstow Moor and along the north Cornish coast, but neither of the campaigns were published until the 1980s (Christie 1985; 1988). Other excavations within Cornwall were targeted at different types of site, including stone circles (Gray 1908a; Radford 1938) and Iron Age settlements (e.g. Crofts 1955).

1.4.6

Recent developments

Many of these ideas were to change following a campaign of excavations within the St.Austell area (Miles 1975). These excavations provided an opportunity to study the development of a ritual/burial complex and identified the existence of the ring-cairn as a site type in Cornwall. However, the real significance of these excavations was that they demonstrated that burial formed only a small part of the use of these sites and suggested the existence of a regional ritual tradition in the southwest (ibid., 75-76). Understanding of Cornish barrow building was enhanced by the increasing analysis of environmental samples to reconstruct past environments and the submission of material for radiocarbon dating (Griffith 1984a; Smith 1996). Christie’s (1988, 164-5) analysis of 29 radiocarbon dates produced a calibrated range of determinations between 2750BC-1400 BC (see 3.3 below). This series of dates forms a body of material which is comparable with the dates from other parts of Britain, including the Brenig Valley in Wales (Lynch 1993) and the Dorchester area (Lawson 1990). The last decade has witnessed the excavation of several barrows and cairns, including sites at Gaverigan, Trelowthas and Stannon Down (Jones forthcoming b). All of these sites are at varying stages of analysis and await publication.

The first half of the twentieth century did see the publication of Hencken’s Archaeology of Cornwall and Scilly (1932) which included the first synthesis of the Cornish Bronze Age. Although the discussion is led by lengthy consideration of artefact typologies, it attempted to consider the county as an entity in its own right and not as an adjunct to other regions. However, inherent in Hencken’s writings is an acceptance that rich goods equalled a wealthy society and conversely that graves without goods equalled a poor one; thus the Early Bronze Age was a time of prosperity, whilst Cornwall in the Middle Bronze Age was a ‘barren peninsula’ (1932, 82). The post-war period saw an increasing number of barrow excavations, the majority of which were carried out in rescue situations (Christie 1960; Dudley 1962). Some research excavations took place, particularly on domestic sites and it was during this period that Trevisker Ware was identified as a regional ceramic type (ApSimon and Greenfield 1972). In common with the rest of Britain, the 1950s and 1960s witnessed a vast improvement in archaeological techniques, and a growing appreciation of the complexity of the sites and an awareness of the elaborate nature of barrow ritual in Cornwall (Christie 1960). In particular archaeologists during this period began to notice the deployment of materials such as different clays and quartz within burial mounds (Dudley 1964, 431), to detect minor features such as ritual pits and stakehole circles, and to identify different phases of use (Ashbee 1958).

Trahair (1978, 3-24) was the first to consider Cornwall’s barrows and their landscape setting. This survey covered much of Bodmin Moor and listed some 220 barrows, which were placed into eight types. However, the typology was over simple and Trahair’s study was superseded by the Bodmin Moor survey (Johnson and Rose 1994), a meticulous study of archaeological features on Bodmin Moor, which greatly increased the known number of prehistoric sites. The cairns were divided into five site types with 21 sub-groups (Johnson and Rose 1994, 34). However, the Bodmin Moor survey was not particularly concerned with interpretation. The first attempt to integrate landscape archaeology into an interpretative framework was undertaken by Barnatt (1982). Although the study was largely written as a descriptive guide, it raised some interesting theories concerning the existence of sacred landscapes, for example around Stowes Pound, where attention was drawn to an alignment of monuments which also included the Hurlers stone circle and Rillaton round barrow (ibid., 70-71).

Despite this increased awareness of different types of barrow site and their structural complexity, Cornish barrows were interpreted as being part of a unitary culture which covered much of southern Britain. Cornwall was regarded as an extension of the Wessex Culture, mainly because of the discovery of the Rillaton gold cup, which Piggott (1938) had decided belonged within the Wessex assemblage. The identification of the Cornish Bronze Age

Developments in archaeological theory made little impact upon Cornwall during the 1970s and earlier 1980s. The analytical techniques advocated by processual archaeologists were not applied to any of the Cornish barrows. The reason for the lack of interest in theoretical archaeology was in part based upon a reluctance by many excavators to adopt a theoretical stance and partly because of the lack of available data which processual archaeology

1.4.5

The post-war period 1945-70

9

Andy M Jones

needed to create its models; skeletons or artefactual material for example were simply not present. Processual archaeology did influence one sphere of interpretation. This was the tacit acceptance that grave goods were related to the status of the dead. It was therefore assumed that those barrows which contained exotic materials (daggers or gold) were indicators of status (Christie 1988, 137) and provided evidence for social differentiation and the emergence of elites (Todd 1987, 138-9). The increased recognition that there were regional differences during prehistory (Bradley and Gardiner 1984; Harding 1991) and the current interest in the interrelation between landscapes and their constituent sites (Bradley 1993; Tilley 1994) have led to new interpretations being put forward for Cornish monuments. Bradley (2000a) has pointed out how natural rocks could become linked with cultural practices and became the focus for ritual activities. At Caerloggas he noted (1991b) that a small natural tor had become a focal point for the deposition of artefacts. Bradley argued that the site had been modified over time through its enclosure by a hengelike earthwork and was enhanced by the use of yellow clay and quartz pebbles. Owoc (2002, 127-37) has taken this argument further and has suggested that the yellow clay was linked to the sun as a symbol of the cycle of life and death. Tilley (1996) has explored the relationships between people and topographic features on Bodmin Moor. In particular, he, Bender and Hamilton have attempted to integrate field survey with excavation in order to understand the development of the Leskernick Bronze Age settlement (Bender et al 1997) and relate it to wider concerns dealing with how small-scale societies interact with their landscape. Put briefly, Tilley places barrow building on Bodmin Moor within a long tradition of interaction with prominent rocks on the Moor, which he traces back to the Mesolithic period. He suggests that the Bronze Age witnessed a shift in the way people related to the rocks. The monuments of the preceding periods (e.g. long cairns) had referenced rocks by aligning onto them, or by including them within large enclosures. In contrast the later barrows and cairns ‘crowned the ridge and hilltops, resembled, encircled, incorporated and hid the tors’ (Tilley 1995, 55). Tilley argues that the barrows replaced the tors as sacred focal points within the landscape and has suggested that they represent a triumph of the cultural over the natural. Tilley’s work is concerned with Bodmin Moor, and his suggestions may be particular to that landscape, whilst those put forward by other writers are arguably too generalistic (Owoc 2001b). The remainder of this study is intended to advance the interpretation of Early Bronze Age ritual practices in the county. During this process I will return to some of the ideas which have been raised by previous studies and reassess them in the light of my findings.

10

Chapter 2 The Later Neolithic background and the role of Beakers in Cornwall ‘The Beaker Folk themselves hardly touched Cornwall and the only traces of their pottery are a few fragments..........’ (Hencken 1932, 67)

widespread change in ritual practices or were integrated into existing patterns.

2.1 Introduction

When Hencken wrote those words it seemed certain that the arrival of Beaker ceramics in Britain had made very little impact in Cornwall. In the intervening years more Beakers have been found and the time is ripe to reconsider the effect of Beakers upon ritual traditions in the county. This chapter therefore has two major concerns. Firstly, what were the ritual traditions in Cornwall during the Later Neolithic period, were they related to those of the Early Bronze Age and how did the arrival of new ideas affect them?. The second set of questions asks what was the role of Beakers in the introduction of barrows and mortuary ritual into Cornwall and how were they deployed on barrow sites?.

2.2.2 The Later Neolithic background

Any consideration of the Cornish Neolithic period presents two immediate problems. Firstly, although there are a number of sites which probably date to the Early Neolithic period (Mercer 1986; Oswald et al 2001), there are few Later Neolithic sites. Secondly, there are a large number of Early Bronze Age sites and many sites which could tentatively be assigned to the Later Neolithic period (e.g. stone circles) may well be of an Early Bronze Age date. The paucity of information about the Later Neolithic period extends to artefactual assemblages: only a handful of Grooved Ware vessels have been recovered from the county and no vessels of the Peterborough tradition. These problems are not unique to Cornwall but are typical of the southwest peninsula as whole (Quinnell 1994; Griffith and Quinnell 1999). Nevertheless, several questions remain. What happened between 3000-2000 BC in Cornwall? Why was there a sudden upsurge in monument construction towards the end of this period? And was this linked with the introduction of Beakers and a particular form of ideology? The remainder of this section will review the differing categories of evidence.

In order to begin to answer these questions, the evidence from the Later Neolithic period will be reconsidered to see if the types of behaviour which can be identified in that period influenced Early Bronze Age ritual activity in Cornwall. The role of Beakers will be assessed by comparing the way they were used in Cornwall with the way that they were deployed in a well documented region of England, Dorset, in which their use appears more frequent. The remainder of this chapter is divided into five sections:

Monumental evidence There are very few dated or closely datable Later Neolithic sites in Cornwall. There are currently three extant henges in the county (Castilly, Castlewich and Stripple Stones) and a further three probable crop-mark sites (Bozion, Halgarras and St.Newlyn East). The limited investigations at two of these sites have not been productive (Castilly, Stripple Stones). Several writers have argued that the stone monuments, rows, standing stones and stone circles which are found across the uplands of the county are of Neolithic date (Mercer 1986; Bradley 1998a). However, there is no current evidence to determine whether they are Neolithic or Bronze Age in origin or indeed were being constructed throughout both periods.

1. A consideration of Later Neolithic sites and ceramics in Cornwall and the ways in which Cornish Beakers compare in terms of deposition and treatment. 2.

A brief review of the study of Beakers in Britain.

3.

A study of the manner in which Beakers were deposited on sites in Cornwall and Dorset.

4.

A contextual analysis of the Bronze Age ceramics which have been found on sites in Cornwall where Beakers occur (e.g. Food Vessels).

5.

Finally a discussion of the role of Beakers in Cornwall and the nature of regional traditions of Beaker use.

Entrance graves are frequently assigned to the Neolithic period (Piggott 1954; Ashbee 1974; Barnatt 1982; Mercer 1986). This assumption is based on the form of the monument (i.e. megalithic chamber), and a supposed link with other forms of small chambered tombs. However, with the exception of a sherd of a possible round based Neolithic vessel from Bants Carn on the Isles of Scilly (Ashbee 1976), the artefacts from excavated tombs are almost uniformly Early Bronze Age in date (ApSimon 1973; Borlase 1885; O’Neil 1952). Only Bosiliack has produced ceramics which have been described by the excavator as being Late Neolithic and Co-Beaker coarseware (Thomas 1984, 3). However, the pottery has never been properly studied and it was associated with a cremation deposit, which again suggests an Early Bronze Age date. Arguments

2.2 The Neolithic background to Early Bronze Age ritual tradition in Cornwall 2.2.1 Introduction

In the mid-1970s the possibility was raised that the coming of Beakers had a profound effect upon ritual traditions in southwest Britain (Miles 1975). More recently the Beakerusing period has been associated with the development of a particular form of ritual tradition in Cornwall, associated with ‘solstial events’ (Owoc 2001a; 2001b). This section assesses the nature of the Later Neolithic traditions in Cornwall to establish whether Beakers brought a 11

Andy M Jones

based on morphology are similarly suspect given the Bronze Age dates from some of the Irish wedge tombs (O’Brien 1999) and the redating of certain types of (formerly Neolithic) passage tombs in Scotland to the Bronze Age (Bradley 2000b). The burial deposits within the entrance graves are similar to those which have been identified at Cornish round barrows. The date of entrance graves is therefore uncertain; some may have originated during the Neolithic period, but current evidence indicates that most seem to be more strongly associated with the Early Bronze Age.

(Longworth and Cleal 1999, 181; Gossip and Jones forthcoming) and the plain vessel in the pit beneath the Beaker mound at Poldowrian may belong to the Grooved Ware tradition (Parker Pearson 1990). Much of the Grooved Ware has been recovered from residual contexts (e.g. Buckley 1972). Three recently excavated sites at Trevorva Cott, Trevone and third site at Tremough have produced evidence for undisturbed Later Neolithic activity. The site at Trevorva consisted of two shallow pits which contained a deposit of sherds of curated Grooved Ware from seven vessels and worked flint. The pits had been protected by the remains of what was interpreted as a low stony mound (Jones and Nowakowsk1 1997). The site at Trevone was also complex, a pit sealed by a slate slab was found to contain a finely decorated Grooved Ware vessel, whilst in another field a pit containing a sherd of Grooved Ware was found near to a low stone platform covered in knapped flints (Exeter Archaeology 1997). At Tremough there were parts of 21 Grooved Ware vessels from eight pits and a soil spread. Most of the vessels were fragmentary but there was evidence of structured deposition within the pits (Gossip and Jones forthcoming).

Other chambered tombs in Cornwall are almost invariably (though see Wailes 1958) assigned to the earlier part of the Neolithic period (Barnatt 1982; Mercer 1986). Despite the confidence of many authorities, none of the Cornish chambered tombs have been radiocarbon dated and the dating of these sites is dependant upon linking them with morphologically similar tombs in other parts of western Britain, which have been more accurately dated to the Early Neolithic (Powell et al 1969; Barker 1992). However, the recent redating of some chambered tombs and stone circles in Ireland to the Bronze Age (O’Brien 1999; Ruggles 1999) should make us treat the Cornish tombs with more caution. Investigations into Cornish chambered tombs during the twentieth century have generally been small-scale and unproductive in terms of producing artefactual material (Miles and Trudgian 1976; Johnson 1979). Small amounts of pottery have been recovered from Zennor Quoit and Sperris Quoit (Patchett 1944; Thomas and Wailes 1967). None of the excavated pottery is of an obviously Early Neolithic date, indeed both sites produced small biconical vessels (see Thomas 1985, 98). Token cremations and whetstones and a sherd of cord impressed pottery of probable Early Bronze Age date was recovered from the antechamber in Zennor Quoit (Thomas and Wailes 1967, 18-19). The open nature of the Cornish chamber tombs means that they could have originated in the Early Neolithic period, but formed focal points in the landscape where deposits were placed over many generations. Nevertheless the possibility remains that the cremations and pottery could have been primary deposits (ibid., 20). If this is correct then it would mean that in western Cornwall chambered tombs and cremation as a burial rite could have their origins in the Later Neolithic period.

Nationally, the main period of Grooved Ware use is currently dated from approximately 2900 to 2300 cal BC (Garwood 1999b). In Wessex, the introduction of Beakers has often been associated with a supposedly extended period of contact with Grooved Ware using groups. Various models have been proposed (Braithwaite 1984; Thorpe and Richards 1984) which suggested that Beakerusers who were associated with a prestige goods economy may have been drawn into an ideological battle with Grooved Ware users whose power rested upon ritual authority. However, Garwood (1999b, 161) has argued that the available dating evidence indicates that the period of contact is likely to have been quite short as Grooved Ware production is likely to have ceased before 2100 cal BC. He has suggested that explanations which require extended periods of ideological contradiction and social transformation between Grooved Ware and Beaker-users will need to be reconsidered (ibid.). Instead, he envisages social change which consisted of rapid localised shifts in cultural expression and social organisation.

Similar difficulties in dating exist with the other categories of monuments which are often assigned to the Later Neolithic period, these include large round barrows (e.g. Chapel Carn Brea), miscellaneous chambered tombs (e.g. Ballowall); and timber circles (Gibson 1998). Once again, any of these monument types could belong to either the Later Neolithic or to the Bronze Age, but so far in Cornwall they have usually been found to date to the Bronze Age (Borlase 1885; Cole 1999). Only the post-ring at Davidstow Moor has been successfully dated to the Later Neolithic (see 5.2.5 below).

In Cornwall the only direct scientific dating comes from the two pits containing Grooved Ware at Trevorva Cott and from two of the pits at Tremough. The two samples submitted for radiocarbon dating from Trevorva have given determinations which range between 2900 and 2200 cal BC (J. Nowakowski, pers comm). The two from Tremough range between 2710 and 2290 BC (Gossip and Jones forthcoming). In addition to these dates, a radiocarbon determination was obtained from the possible undecorated Grooved Ware vessel from Poldowrian (HAR3108: 4000 BP ± 150 2900-2000 cal BC) and the primary phase of Davidstow Site 22 gave a determination of HAR6643: 4130 BP ± 70 (2890-2550 cal BC). All of these determinations fall within the current accepted date range for Grooved Ware usage. Despite the lack of direct dating the use of Grooved Ware in Cornwall is likely to span the

Artefactual evidence The majority of the evidence for the Later Neolithic period in Cornwall is derived from the identification of Grooved Ware. Six sites have definite Grooved Ware associations 12

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

argue below, it is these places and types of ritual activity which became of central importance when monument building and ceramic use became widespread after circa 2000 BC. The implications for the association of Beakers with the spread of particular ritual traditions, such as the construction of barrows, is therefore diminished, especially if a date after 2000 BC is accepted for the introduction of Beakers into Cornwall (see 2.4.4 below).

chronological gap where there is little other evidence (i.e. 3000-2000 BC). The deposition of Grooved Ware in Cornwall can be broken down into four types of context: 1.

Cave site: Carrick Crane Crags. Sherds from four vessels were recovered from the floor of a cave below some narrow tall rocks (Patchett 1950).

2.

Round barrow: Trevone cairns A and B. Sherds of Grooved Ware were found beneath two slate cairns which were probably Early Bronze Age in date.

3.

Pit circle. Davidstow site 22. Three sherds of Grooved Ware associated with a post-ring of Later Neolithic date, remodelled into a barrow during the Early Bronze Age.

4.

Ritual pits. Trevorva Cott, Trevone, Tremough and possibly Poldowrian. Whole vessels and curated sherds representing circa 30 vessels have been recovered from ritual pits in Cornwall. This material has been found in cist-like pits, near stone platforms (Trevone) and below a residual stony mound (Trevorva).

It is possible to envisage a situation in which during the Later Neolithic period practices associated with pits, Grooved Ware and charcoal were carried out at particular locales in the landscape, the biographies of which may have made them suitable places for acts of deposition. Monuments such as chambered tombs may have been constructed during this period, or become focal points for acts of deposition. During the Early Bronze Age monuments were constructed on a large-scale (some of which may have had Later Neolithic origins) and deposits of human bone (usually cremated) were incorporated into the pattern of established ritual traditions. The introduction of Beakers may have been quite incidental to the introduction and spread of these ideas (see 2.6.2 below). 2.3 British Beakers - changing perspectives 2.3.1 Introduction

Beakers have traditionally been linked to both the introduction of round barrows and single gave burial (Kendrick and Hawkes 1932; Ashbee 1960). By 1979, Kinnes (1979, 75) had recognised some indigenous elements within the British round barrow tradition. However, he continued to stress the importance of Beakers in the development of funerary traditions and essentially maintained a diffusionist perspective which argued that Beakers and certain elements of the single inhumation grave tradition were introduced from the continent by foreign settlers. The argument over the origins of British Beakers has continued to be hotly debated, with some archaeologists asserting that quite small-scale population movements may have occurred (Brodie 1994), whilst others prefer to view beakers as exotic items which were exchanged between groups (Shennan 1986). However, as Brodie himself has pointed out, there is little evidence in the skeletal record to resolve the argument either way. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that the introduction of Beakers was to some degree associated with changes to ritual traditions and practices.

The quantities of Grooved Ware in Cornwall (around 40 vessels) are still very small but the context of these finds, although limited, is useful in considering the origin of Bronze Age ritual traditions (see 2.6 and 7.2.4 below). Finds of Grooved Ware share several common points, as well as contrasts, with Beaker assemblages. The primary difference is that Grooved Ware is not associated with midden, domestic or burial activity. Nonetheless, Grooved Ware and Beakers are both associated with pits and were found on the same site at Davidstow and possibly at Poldowrian, but not in association at either site. The types of material found in the pit deposits with Grooved Ware and Beakers are also similar in that they were both deposited with charcoal and quartz. This may point to both ceramic types being incorporated into a shared ritual tradition. The deposition of curated, fragmented sherds of Grooved Ware and Beaker into contexts associated with ritual pits is of interest as it indicates a similar attitude to the retention of pottery. The differences between the contexts in which Grooved Ware and Beakers are found may be one of chronology and unfolding practices. If we accept that Grooved Ware use ceased before 2000 BC and that Beakers post-date 2000 BC in Cornwall, then it is possible that by the time Beakers were introduced practices involving human bone had been introduced from elsewhere.

The intense interest in British Beakers can probably be attributed to four causes. Firstly, they are unlike any of the preceding Later Neolithic ceramics in Britain and are arguably of a finer quality. Secondly, they are part of a panEuropean phenomenon and as such provide an incontrovertible link with the continent (Abercromby 1902; 1912; Harrison 1980). It has long been recognised that Beakers first emerged on the continent during the first quarter of the third millennium BC (Case 1993, 248), but they do not appear in Britain until the middle of the third millennium (Needham 1996, 125). This means that the first Beakers to enter Britain must have been derived from some form of contact with mainland Europe.

Summary This review of Later Neolithic monuments and ceramic traditions in Cornwall is on one level frustrated by the apparent absence of monuments and paucity of artefacts. Nonetheless, there are hints of a preoccupation with certain types of places and certain types of behaviour. As I will 13

Andy M Jones

Thirdly, they have been recovered from inside and around the great iconic Wessex sites such as Avebury and Stonehenge. Lastly, Beakers have been recovered in large numbers from single inhumation graves in association with a restricted range of artefacts including barbed and tanged arrowheads, stone battle axes, wrist guards, copper daggers (e.g. Annable and Simpson 1965; Ashbee 1984; RobertsonMackay 1980), and on rare occasions, gold basket ear rings and other gold objects (Barclay and Halpin 1999; Hughes 2000). They form a recognisable horizon in the archaeological record which has been associated with a specific group of people (Beaker folk) and the introduction of particular burial rites, including the perceived introduction of single grave burial, and associated ritual practices or power structures.

Amesbury 39, Ashbee 1981); in other regions it is likely that cremation burials became firmly established during this period (see 2.4 below). There is a marked diversity within burial rites and among the associated ceramics accompanying funerary activity. Period 4 (1700-1500 cal BC) The fourth period saw the disappearance of Beakers and Food Vessels from the funerary record (Needham 1996, 132). However, it is suggested by this study that there are some indications that Beaker use may have continued in Cornwall during this period. 2.3.3 Recent studies

The approaches taken to the study of Beakers in recent years can be broadly divided into two areas: regional studies and contextual studies.

A fuller discussion of the study of British Beakers has been given elsewhere (Jones 2004). For the purposes of this chapter, recent studies have been summarised under two headings which are discussed below; chronology and recent contextual studies (regional studies and smaller-scale intrasite analysis). This section concludes with a summary of the evidence and its implications for the study of Cornish Beakers.

Regional studies Garwood (1999a, 281) has argued that regional cultural factors are central to the understanding of Beaker chronology and typology and any regional study should include Beakers from all types of contexts (funerary, ritual and domestic). One of the best attempts to develop such a regional approach to the study of Beakers was made by Case (1993; 1995a), who argued that Beakers can be understood in relation to local sequences. He divided Britain into five regional groups and found that regional diversity and complexity in Beaker forms is evident from the outset (Case 1993, 265). He discovered that the context of Beaker use varied between the different regions, for example in some areas Beakers are predominantly associated either with funerary behaviour (as on Dartmoor, (Grinsell 1978a), or in others, for example East Anglia, with domestic sites (Bamford 1982), whereas in Wessex Beakers were associated with both burial and domestic contexts (Case 1993, 241). Case also argued that Beaker pots tend to be made of local clays, which indicated to him that it was ideas rather that pots which were on the move (ibid., 265).

2.3.2 Chronology

Using the available radiocarbon dating evidence, Needham (1996) has argued that the Early Bronze Age in Britain can be divided into four periods (see 3.3.3 below). Beakers were used during the first three of these periods and in some areas, including Cornwall, their use probably extended into the fourth. Period 1 (2500-2300 cal BC) This period witnessed the introduction of a restricted amount of metalwork and Beaker ceramics. In Britain Beakers have been recovered from a limited number of funerary contexts (e.g. Barclay and Halpin 1999). The associated burial rite is inhumation. Beaker burials dating to this period can be inserted into older monuments (Burl 1979), or inside graves which are sometimes marked with a low mound (Green and Rollo-Smith 1984), or into flat graves or long cists.

Contextual studies The second area which recent studies of Beakers have focused upon is the context from which vessels have been recovered and the vessels themselves (fabric and decoration, etc.) (Boast 1995; 2002; A. Jones 2001). These studies differ from the earlier works in that the interpretations which are generated by them do not seek global solutions to the Beaker problem, but are instead far more rooted in the context of the assemblage and restricted to site specific interpretation.

Period 2 (2300-2050 cal BC) The second period saw the widespread adoption of Beaker pottery within inhumation graves across much of Britain. As Needham points out, Beakers became the commonest diagnostic find during this period and other artefacts are usually found in addition to them. Beaker burials beneath low mounds are relatively commonplace in southern Britain where they are found around the major monument complexes (Cleal et al 1995; Green et al 1982; Smith and Simpson 1966).

One of the most informative of the recent discussions of British Beakers was provided by Boast (1995). He has pointed out that pots are mundane objects which do not carry inherent meanings, other than those which people attribute to them (ibid., 69). Furthermore he has argued that the meanings which are given to pots are likely to differ according to the type of context in which they are used. Boast argued that it is more important to establish how the context where the vessel was found affected the form, fabric and decoration of the vessel. This analysis found that in general, Beakers which were found with burial were

Period 3 (2050-1700 cal BC) The final period of Beaker use dates to a time when there were significant changes in funerary behaviour. Although Beaker inhumations did continue throughout this period, they are much less common (Needham 1996, 131). The predominant mode of burial is still inhumation in southern England, but there are some cremation burials (e.g. 14

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

more poorly made but better decorated than those from domestic contexts. His explanation for this was that in their usual roles Beakers were mundane objects associated with food and feasting. When they were deployed in burials contexts the superior decoration marked the special nature of the context but did not alter their associations with food and feasting (ibid., 78).

as follows AOC, BW, E, E.ang, N1, N2, N3, N4, N/MR, N/NR, S1, S2, S3, S4 and W/MR), and a further nine sub/minor classes (Bowl, FN, FP, H, Inc., SH2, SH3, SH4 and Undec.), though his interpretations of the reasons for the changing vessel forms are not upheld here. 2.4 A comparative study of Beaker use in Dorset and Cornwall

2.3.4 British Beakers: a summary

2.4.1 Introduction

It has become widely accepted that Beaker use should be understood at a more localised level and several writers have suggested that as Beakers carry no inherent meaning of their own the level of discussion should be that of the site (A. Jones 2001; Boast 2002). Whilst these arguments are appealing, I think that it is still useful to consider artefacts at a variety of levels, local, regional and national. In order to be able to discuss large assemblages from across Britain it is necessary to have some system of comparanda. The classification system devised by Case (1977) Early, Middle and Late (or Styles 1, 2 and 3, Case 1993) is probably the most up to date in terms of current Beaker chronology and places least weight on invasion theory. However, Clarke’s 1970) original system of classification is still the most comprehensive as it allows the greatest detail in the comparison of vessel forms and decoration. Clarke’s system will therefore be used in the following sections (abbreviated

In this section it will be established whether there is any evidence for regional patterning in the use of Beakers in Cornwall. In order to do this they have been compared with the assemblage from Dorset, which was selected for study because it contains a large number of sites with Beaker associations (at least 371) and is geographically the nearest county to Cornwall with widespread Beaker use. 2.4.2 Results of study

The results of this study were obtained by creating a database. Beakers were classified according to Clarke’s system of typology (AOC, W/MR, etc.). The Beakers were also grouped according to their context of deposition (burial or henge, etc.). By categorising the Beakers in this way it was possible to identify regional preferences in terms of form/decoration and their context of use.

TERM Long Barrow

USE Neolithic burial mound, including chambered and bank barrows.

Neo Monument

Other Neolithic sites including causewayed enclosures.

Henge

Later Neolithic Henge sites including hengiform monuments and ring ditches (where specifically assigned to this period by the excavator).

Bronze A ge Barrow

Category includes all Early Bronze Age burial contexts including sites without mounds (e.g. cists). All Beaker sherds from burial sites are included (unless stated as being settlement related, etc. by excavator).

Midden

Sherds of Beaker incorporated into an accumulated mound of selectively stored material.

Pit

Beaker sherds incorporated into cut features of uncertain function.

Pit/Domestic

Sherds of Beaker incorporated into a cut feature in a domestic site.

Domestic/UX

Sherds of Beaker recovered from a domestic site, unstratified contexts and from fieldwalking.

Table 2.1 List of terms used in database

15

Andy M Jones

The data which forms the database was initially taken from Clarke’s (1970) work and augmented by the Dorset and Cornwall county journals and all major excavation reports in both counties which post-date Clarke’s survey.

problematic as excavations now tend to take place only in areas where development is occurring. 2.4.3 Dorset

The survey of Dorset Beakers found that there were at least 371 excavated examples. This figure is likely to be an under representation because where sherd numbers rather than vessel numbers are recorded by an excavator, the minimum number of vessels was entered into the database. Secondly, as noted above several sites with Beakers have not been published.

The references for Dorset include: Allan and Green 1998; Bailey 1980; Barrett et al 1991b; Bellamy 1991; Bradley 1975; Gingell 1987; Green et al 1982; Grinsell 1982; Ladle 1997; Ladle 1998; Ladle 1999; Lewis and Green 1980; Keen 1976; Piggott and Piggott 1944; RCHME 1970a; RCHME 1970b; RCHME 1972; RCHME 1974; RCHME 1975; Smith 2000; Smith et al 1997; Wainwright 1979; White 1972; Woodward 1980; Woodward 1991.

In terms of typology it appears that there is a broad spectrum of Beaker types represented across the county (see diagram 2.1, below). Virtually all types of Beaker have been recovered and there is a fairly even spread across the styles from the earliest AOC Beakers to the later Southern forms. Only two of the Northern types (N3 and N4), the Southern S1 and East Anglian Beakers are totally absent. However, by far the largest number of Beakers (163) are not attributed to any of Clarke’s styles. This means that the relative proportions of differing styles is open to question and allows for the possibility that some or all of the styles which appear to be absent are in fact present amongst the unattributed assemblages. It is possible to say from their typology that Beakers appear to have remained in use for the full span of their usage in Britain, circa 2500-1700 cal BC.

In addition to Clarke the updated references for Cornwall include: Cole 1999; Cole 2000; Christie 1985; Christie 1988; Dudley 1964; Harris 1979; Nowakowski 1991; Parker Pearson 1990; Patchett 1944; Smith 1987; Thomas and Hartgroves 1990. A number of potential problems were encountered during the compilation of the database, which are as follow: •

•

•

•

•

•

As Gibson (1982, 1-3) has pointed out, there are problems in deciding what is domestic. The nature of the context of the Beaker is not always well defined in the literature for example, some writers record Beaker sherds in a pit as being domestic related, whereas others prefer a ritual explanation. Not all the identified Beakers have been classified within Clarke’s scheme and have not been sufficiently described to do so, particularly those from more recent excavations and especially small sherds from domestic/settlement contexts. This has meant that they have been included in the database as unknown. Many of the published sources were interim or incomplete statements where numbers of vessels are not given. In those circumstances a minimum number of vessels has been assumed (e.g. 5 sherds of AOC and 2 Barbed Wire will be recorded as 1 AOC and 1 Barbed Wire Beaker in the database). This means that the actual numbers of Beakers are likely to be greater than the database suggests, especially for domestic contexts. Several sites with Beakers have not been published to a full enough standard to even estimate a minimum number of vessels (e.g. Hambledon Hill, Mercer 1980) or have catalogues which include but do not distinguish material previously included in Clarke’s survey (e.g. Sharples 1991). This means that the number of Beakers appearing on Early Neolithic sites is under represented. The types of site which have been targeted for excavation by archaeologists in the past have distorted the distribution of Beakers towards particular types of contexts (i.e. burial) and has until recently led to an under representation in others (domestic/settlement). As a result of rescue archaeology and PPG16 the nature of the contexts in which Beakers are found is altering drastically from burial-related finds to domestic sites. However, this change is still

The contexts which have produced Beakers are of interest. Very few Beakers have been recovered from Early Neolithic sites (diagram 2.2). In contrast with Wiltshire, where a large Beaker assemblage has been recovered from West Kennet long barrow (Piggott 1962), only a few isolated vessels have been found inserted into Dorset long barrows (Grinsell 1959). Finds from causewayed enclosures are quite rare (e.g. Maiden Castle, Wheeler 1943; Sharples 1991) and seem to confirm the nationally accepted finding which suggests that, with few exceptions, most Beaker finds from causewayed enclosures are coincidental and are not indicative of continuous activity (Bamford 1982; Oswald et al. 2001; Whittle et al 1999) from the earlier Neolithic through to the Bronze Age. Later Neolithic henge monuments form the largest single site type with Beaker associations (142 vessels or 38%). The overwhelming majority of these vessels were recovered from a single site, Mount Pleasant (Wainwright 1979), though small amounts of Beaker pottery have been found on other large henge monuments (Bradley 1975) and hengiform type sites (Barrett et al 1991a). The finds from Mount Pleasant are significant in that they raise the problem of creating statistics from an incomplete record and because they provide evidence that the site continued to be used into the Middle Bronze Age, after all of the other enclosures in the area had fallen out of use (Smith et al 1997, 290). After studying the patterns of ceramic deposition Thomas (1984) has suggested that the ceramic assemblage from Mount Pleasant gives credence to the idea that different parts of the landscape may have become associated with distinctive activities. At Mount Pleasant, Beakers are found in the centre of the enclosure, Collared 16

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Urns in the outer ditch and Wessex Biconical and DeverelRimbury urns are excluded altogether. He (1996a) argued that Mount Pleasant provided a forum for large gatherings where material symbols with their associations could be deployed, manipulated or transformed.

The problem here is trying to separate ritual from domestic (see Brück 1999), as sherds of Beaker derived from domestic activity may have been ritually discarded into a pit. The growing body of Beakers from non-burial and nonhenge related sites suggests that Case (1993, 241-243) was correct in being cautious about accepting the received wisdom that Beakers were used only for burials in some areas (Thomas 1991b, 102). Indeed, surface collecting in north Wiltshire (Hamilton 1999) has found increasing evidence of non-burial-related Beaker use and we might expect a similar pattern to emerge in Dorset. This is not to argue for a homogenised pattern of Beaker use across Britain, but rather to suggest that variations in Beaker usage are likely to be very much more subtle than at a county level and where possible are best considered at the level of the site (Pollard 1992; Thomas 1996a) or small-scale landscape (Thomas 1999).

When Clarke compiled his original corpus of Beakers he recorded that 42 of the 59 (then known) Dorset Beakers were from Bronze Age burial contexts, this finding was supported and enhanced by Grinsell’s (1959; 1982) surveys of Dorset barrows which increased the number of associations. Beakers in burial contexts now form less than a quarter of the total number of Beakers in the county (22% or 84 vessels). In the 30 years since the publication of Clarke’s corpus, burial-related Beakers have been exceeded by vessels recovered from henges and are being rapidly caught up by Beakers from pits and domestic related contexts (diagram 2.3). Virtually all of the Bronze Age burial-related Beakers in Dorset identified by Clarke were associated with inhumation burials. In contrast with Wiltshire, associations with other Beaker artefact types such as daggers, barbed and tanged arrowheads and wrist guards, are rare (Clarke 1970; Grinsell 1982). Although flints and occasional items of metalwork have been found (Woodward 1980) it is more usual for the Beaker to be deposited into the grave by itself. A small number of Beakers associated with inhumation burials have been recovered from more recent excavations (ibid.), though others are being recorded within barrow contexts which are less directly associated with the act of burial itself (Bellamy 1991; Smith 2000).

The final consideration of the Beaker material in Dorset relates to the chronology of use and the possibility of changing uses over time. Previous writers have suggested that the first Beakers were associated with elite burials and that over time they lost their status and became used as everyday vessels (Bradley 1984, 72). However, recent studies of domestic and funerary assemblages have found little difference between the earlier Beaker pots chosen for inclusion in burial and those which were not and it is only in the later period of Beaker use that distinctions began to emerge (Boast 1995, 76). Furthermore, given that most Beakers in the county are not associated with radiocarbon determinations and the problem with inferring the date of sites from Beaker typology alone, there is a readily apparent difficulty with trying to establish such a simple pattern.

Although there is evidence for the association of Beakers with inhumation burial rites in Dorset, it does not point to Beaker burials having particularly strong associations with high status activity or with having strong associations with the classic Beaker package. Instead Beaker deposition in inhumation contexts may have been more directly linked to the creation of particular social identities (Barrett 1994; Thomas 1991a). The significance of Beakers which are not directly deposited with the burial itself is more complex. These vessels may have entered the burial sites in a number of ways which are not always clear from the excavation reports. Stray sherds could be present as a result of earlier use of the site, or be the product of other forms of ritual activity associated with the site including pre-burial activity or with post burial rites of mourning.

The evidence from the corpus of recorded vessels in Dorset indicates that Beakers which can still be regarded as early (e.g. AOC, following Case 1993) are found on domestic sites (Bamford 1982), at henge monuments (Wainwright 1979), and in burial sites. This means that there is little evidence for elite burials being associated with the primary phase of Beaker use in Dorset. It is certain that this diversity of use continued throughout the Beaker-using period (2500-1700 cal BC), for example note the variety of middle and later period Beaker contexts on Cranborne Chase (Barrett et al 1991a). We may conclude that there is a wide variety of Beaker types in the county and that they were used in a large number of differing contexts including domestic, ritual and burial. It was found that Beakers in Dorset were not commonly deposited with metalwork or exotic items. We can argue that they were used over a long period of time from the middle of the third millennium BC through to the middle of the second millennium BC and that there was a diversity of usage throughout that period.

As noted above, Beakers with domestic associated contexts now form a larger proportion of the overall pattern of Beaker use in the county. Around 65 vessels (or 17.5%) are recorded from pits or layers which are likely to have been associated with settlement activity. Another 64 vessels are recorded as being from pits which may have been associated with ritual deposition (e.g. Allen and Green 1998). But others could be related to settlement activity.

17

Andy M Jones

Preston Jones 1987; Keene 1999). Some Beaker period metalwork is also recorded, including the Harlyn Bay lunulae (Pearce 1983, 418), though none is associated with Beaker ceramics (see 3.2.2 below).

1 60

1 40

1 20

1 00

80

60

40

20

0

160 140 120 100 80

A moderately wide range of Beaker types found in the county (see diagram 2.4). The range of identified Beaker types is more restricted than was found in Dorset. AOC Beakers are absent and based on evidence from other regions (Garwood 1999a, 281), it is probable that the earliest Beakers in Cornwall are the handful of E and W/MR vessels. Southern forms are most common and only a single N2 vessel is recorded. By far the largest number of Beakers (20 or S S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S H H F N F P Bo w U nd I nde U nk AOC E W / N/ B/W E. A N/N NI / N2 N3 N4 almost 50%) are not attributed to any style, which means that the range of differing Diagram 2.1 Beaker types found in Dorset (Bow = Bowl, styles is open to question. The small Und = undecorated, Ind = Indeterminate Unk = Unknown). numbers of Beakers and the lack of radiocarbon dates means that it is not possible to know for certain when Beakers made their first appearance in Cornwall. It is therefore possible that they were in use between circa 2500-1700 cal BC (e.g. Barclay and Halpin 1999), or more probably that they were associated with a more limited period of use around 2000 BC or later (see 2.6.2 below).

60

The contexts which have produced Beakers are more restricted than in Dorset (diagram 2.5). No Beakers have been recovered from Early Neolithic occupation or burial sites in Cornwall. This situation may in part be due to the county’s relative paucity of identified Neolithic sites. However, Beaker pottery was not found during the largescale excavations on Carn Brea or during small-scale excavations at Helman Tor or Bury Down (Mercer 1981a; 1997; Ray 2001).

40 20 0

Long B. Neo Mon.

Henge

BA Barrow Midden

Pit

Dom/pit Dom/UX

Diagram 2.2 Contexts of Beakers found in Dorset

D o m / U X (12.9% )

Lo n g B . (3.0% )

Do m / p i t (4.6% ) H e n ge / R D (38.3% )

Pi t (17.3% )

B A B ar r o w (22.6% )

N e o M o n . (1.3% )

Diagram 2.3 Percentages of Dorset Beakers by context 2.4.4 Cornwall (Fig.2.1) The survey of Cornish Beakers found that there were at least 41 recorded examples in the literature. Although this total is likely to be an under representation, the number of Beakers in Cornwall is undoubtedly far lower than in Dorset. Soil conditions are unlikely to be a factor in the preservation of pottery as earlier Neolithic ceramics have been recovered from acidic granitic sites in the county (e.g. Mercer 1981a). At the same time artefacts which are often associated with Beakers, such as shaft-hole axes and barbed and tanged arrowheads, are found in the county (Rose and

There is a similar lack of association between Beakers and Later Neolithic henges or their suggested upland counterparts, the stone circles. The lack of association may be due to the small number of sites dated to the Later Neolithic or to the low level of excavation of monuments which may be of Later Neolithic date. However, small-scale excavations at Castilly henge (Thomas 1964), the Stripple Stones henge (Gray 1908a) and the Hurlers stone circle (Radford 1938) did not reveal any Beakers or in fact any other ceramic. Antiquarian investigation of sites (e.g. Merry Maidens and numerous entrance graves) which may be of Later Neolithic date failed to produce any Beakers other than from nearby burial-related contexts (Borlase 1872; Patchett 1944). Only one site of Later Neolithic origin in Cornwall has produced any Beaker material (Site 22 on Davidstow Moor, see 5.2.5 below). However, as the Beaker was associated with a cremation deposit and the site was used into the Bronze Age, it has been included in the burial category of the database. The lack of any Neolithic evidence for the deposition of artefacts may be due to absence of a tradition which

18

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Figure 2.1 Beaker sites in Cornwall. required structured deposition of artefacts into ditches and pits. This may account for the paucity of causewayed enclosures and henge sites in the region. It may not have been until towards the end of the Neolithic period, when Grooved Ware begins to be deposited on sites (see 2.2 above) that a tradition of structured deposition begins to emerge.

Beaker deposits at Lousey barrow are the only known Cornish occurrence with an inhumation but may also have been associated with a cremation deposit as well as the inhumation burial (Christie 1985, 54). However, the excavator of the Harrowbarrow site felt that the size of the empty cist indicated that it may have originally held an inhumation burial (Thomas and Hartgroves 1990). The three remaining sites of Trevedra, Tregiffian and Sancreed were all poorly recorded and were reported to have been associated with cists without any surviving bone (Russell and Patchett 1954; Patchett 1953; Borlase 1872). The nature of the burial rite in these three instances is therefore open to question.

When Clarke compiled his original corpus he recorded that the majority of Beakers in Cornwall (7 of the 12 documented examples) were associated with Bronze Age burial activity. However, even 30 years ago it was apparent that the intensity of the association between Beakers and burial was lower in Cornwall than in Dorset. Today the proportion of burial-associated Beakers is far lower, with only 11 vessels (or 26.8%) being recovered from funerary contexts (e.g. Dudley 1964; Thomas and Hartgroves 1990).

The lack of associated classic Beaker artefact types such as daggers is even more marked than in Dorset. Other types of pottery and flint-work (Dudley 1964; Christie 1985; 1988) have occasionally been found with Beakers, or on the same site. None of these artefacts can be classified as prestige items and metalwork of any description is totally absent on sites with Beaker pottery.

In contrast with Dorset, where virtually all of the burialrelated Beakers were associated with inhumation burials, the majority of Cornish burial-associated Beakers are found with cremation deposits. Of the eleven Beaker burials, five (Denzell Down, Carvinack, Crean, Davidstow Moor and Try) were definitely found with or near to cremations. The

The available evidence suggests that in common with Dorset, Beaker burials in Cornwall were not high status.

19

Andy M Jones

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

AOC E

W/

25

20

15

10

cremation burial rites would have highlighted the role of mourners and brought their social obligations into focus. Implicit in Barrett’s argument is the belief that graveside artefacts will no longer play such a pivotal role in categorising the dead in cremation rites, so they cannot be used to make comparisons about the relative wealth of the dead. Part of this argument could apply to the Cornish cremations. However, although prestige items are lacking from Cornish Beaker cremation contexts, some are associated with elaborate forms of deposition (see 2.5 below). At Carvinack the Beaker burial was found beneath one of several small cairns, each with its own type of deposit (Dudley 1964). The Crean Beaker N/ B/W E. A N/N NI / N2 N3 N4 S S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S H H F N F P Bow U nd I nde U nk was discovered alone in a miniature cist to the south of a second larger cist which Diagram 2.4 Beaker types found in Cornwall contained ashes and non-Beaker pottery (Marsden 1923). At Lousey sherds from two Beakers were found with a cremation deposit which was associated with deposits of charcoal, wood, quartz stones and an inhumation burial (Christie 1985). At Denzell Down a handled Beaker was found with a multiple cremation deposit beneath a mound made up of different coloured soils (Borlase 1872) and at Try the cist was found to hold a burial deposit which also contained possible animal bone, sherds from at least one broken Beaker, charcoal and waterworn pebbles (Russell and Pool 1964). Sherds of Trevisker pottery were recovered in an adjacent pit and from the filling of the cist.

5

0

Long B

Neo Mon

Henge

BA Barrow

Midden

Pit

It is worth noting that the Beaker phase of activity at many of these sites represented just one moment in the life of monuments which were used for a variety of purposes, frequently over much longer periods of time (Denzell Down, Carvinack, Davidstow, Lousey and Try). It is probable that Beaker burials in Cornwall were not associated with the creation of social identity or with the obligations of mourners. The Beakers found in Cornish sites are more likely to have become incorporated and used in rites associated with social reproduction, but which may have been much more esoteric in nature than a straightforward interest in funerary rites (chapter 5). Beaker-associated burial in Cornwall may have been more closely associated with local cosmologies which were particularly linked to the veneration or control of sacred places in the landscape. The inclusion of human bone and Beakers along with other types of deposit (charcoal, etc.) may indicate an attempt to control a bad death (Downes 1999) within a sacred place, or perhaps presence human spirits within a particular locale (see 5.3 below).

Dom/pit Dom/UX

Diagram 2.5 Contexts of Beakers found in Cornwall

26.8% (B A B arrow)

51.2% (Dom /UX)

17.1% (M idden) 4.9% (P it)

Diagram 2.6 Percentages of Cornwall Beakers by context The dominant rite in Cornwall was cremation and, given the relative rarity of Beaker cremations nationally (Barclay 1983, 185), this difference in use not only reflects a regional preference for cremation but suggests a different attitude towards the dead. In Dorset I have suggested that the role of inhumation may well have been in establishing a particular form of social identity. In Cornwall the situation may have been more complex. In his discussion of Wessex burial traditions, Barrett (1994, 119) has suggested that

The number of Cornish Beakers which have been found in non-burial contexts dating to the Early Bronze Age have dramatically increased since Clarke compiled his corpus (30 vessels or 71%). Three categories of non-burial related context have been identified in Cornwall: middens, pits and domestic (see diagram 2.6). Seven of the Cornish Beakers has been recovered from 20

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

using period (see Kinnes et al 1991). There are only two radiocarbon determinations associated with any of the Cornish Beakers and both were derived from Poldowrian where dates of HAR2892: 3490 BP ± 90 (2050-1500 cal BC) and HAR3107: 3360 BP ± 70 (1780-1490 cal BC) were obtained, both from the bottom of the mound (Harris 1979). The date range is not helpful as it covers the later half of the Beaker-using period. However, the overlap in the determinations would weight the interpretation towards the later end of the spectrum, perhaps suggesting that the mound was in use from around circa 1750 cal BC onwards. Thus, despite having the appearance of early Beaker types (Harris 1979, 23), these vessels seem to have been used at the end of the Beaker-using period.

middens. Five of these are from Poldowrian (Harris 1979) and single examples were found in midden sites at Cataclews and Praa Sands (Patchett 1944). All three of these sites are located close to the sea. Midden sites are often interpreted as being associated with ritualized social feasting (e.g. McOmish 1996), indeed the excavators of the Poldowrian site suggested that it might have been used as a fulacht fiadh or burnt mound site. Fulacht fiadh sites are most commonly found in Ireland (Buckley 1990) and are associated with the cooking of meat and feasting. It is unlikely that the Poldowrian site is a true fulacht fiadh as it lacked the characteristic trough which is associated with these sites. It seems possible that all three sites were located at significant places in the landscape. The site at Praa Sands is poorly documented, and little can be said about it beyond noting its coastal location. The remaining sites were located near to the sea and both were places which were or became associated with other forms of ritual activity. The site of the Cataclews midden later became associated with a barrow cemetery (see 4.8 below). If the midden site was in the form of a prominent mound, it may have influenced the siting of the later barrows. The site at Poldowrian did not become the focus of a barrow cemetery but was constructed over an area of several pits. One of these pits, which lay beyond the edge of the mound, contained a possible undecorated Grooved Ware vessel (Parker Pearson 1990) which was radiocarbon dated to HAR 3108: 4000 BP ± 150 (29002000 cal BC). This suggests that the area may have been used for ritualized purposes for some time before the mound was constructed. The deposition of the midden material onto the site would have transformed its use and may have made a visible statement in the landscape.

The remaining Beakers in Cornwall are not closely datable, though where associations with other artefacts are found, they point to dates after 2000 cal BC. The non-Beaker pottery from Crean is likely to belong to the Trevisker tradition (Patchett 1944). The Trevisker pottery from the site at Try must be contemporary with the Beakers in the cist. At Carvinack the Food Vessel association also points to a date post-dating 2000 cal BC. The identified Beaker vessels from Lousey, Praa Sands, Tregiffian, Trevedra and Try are all Southern types which again suggest a later date. Despite the problems with dating, the suggested late associations of Cornish Beakers in burial, domestic and midden sites indicate that they were adopted into a restricted range of contexts and were probably used for a span of time which was no more than a couple of centuries. They were not associated with high status burials but were used on a limited number of domestic sites, at a small number of mounds which were the result of social feasting and in rites which had a funerary element to them. The localised importance of Cornish Beakers has been suggested by fabric analysis. Unlike other forms of Bronze Age pottery in Cornwall (especially Trevisker Ware), but in common with Beakers in other parts of Britain (Case 1993), Cornish Beakers (or their constituent clay) were not transported very far from the source of the clays from which they were made (Parker Pearson 1995). This indicates that Cornish Beakers were produced in small numbers for particular purposes, used, and finally deposited locally.

A total of 21 Beaker vessels (51%) were recorded from pits or layers which are likely to have been associated with domestic activity. Two of these are recorded from Gwithian, and the sherds have been published as being associated with a circular structure (Simpson 1971; Darvill 1996). However, the brief discussion of the Gwithian Beaker assemblage (Megaw 1976) could be interpreted as suggesting that the Beaker sherds were residual and associated with earlier layers which lay beneath the structure. In fact; recent assessment of the Gwithian structure has shown that it is of Middle Bronze Age date and the Beaker sherds are worn and are not associated with it (Henrietta Quinnell pers comm). The remainder of the domestic Beakers have been recovered during fieldwalking (Smith 1987), or as residual finds during excavation projects (Nowakowski 1991). A further two vessels are recorded as being from pits which may have been associated with ritual deposition or with settlement activity (Cole 1999).

However, it must be admitted that the majority of Cornish Beaker vessels have not been identified or closely dated and the possibility of an early date for the commencement of Beaker use in the county cannot currently be entirely disregarded. Based on the current evidence, we may conclude that a relatively limited range of Beaker types were of use in the county and that they were used in a restricted number of contexts which were limited to: domestic, feasting and ritual and burial. It was found that Beakers were not associated with single inhumation burial in Cornwall, but that cremation was the dominant rite. We can argue that they were probably used over a short period of time from the turn of the second millennium BC through towards the

The final deliberation on the Cornish Beaker assemblage relates to its chronological span and the possibility of changing uses over time. In Dorset it was found that there was evidence for early usage through to the end of the Beaker-using period and that Beakers served a variety of functions, not least as domestic containers. In Cornwall there are very few vessels which can be regarded as being of an early form (E type and W/MR) and these may in any case have continued to have been made late into the Beaker

21

Andy M Jones

middle of the second millennium BC. This is significant because Beakers appeared in early contexts in Brittany and Ireland, which means that despite Cornwall’s contacts with other parts of the Atlantic facade, it is unlikely that Beakers were introduced into Cornwall from Ireland or the continent.

resemble the covering mounds of round barrows. 6. In Dorset a handful of Beakers have been found with metalwork. In Cornwall no Beakers are associated with metal artefacts or metalworking. This is significant as metal ores are present and metal artefacts dating to this period have been found in non-Beaker contexts.

Instead, it is proposed here that Beakers are likely to have been introduced into the county along the southwest peninsula from Devon in the east. This position is supported by the findings of a review of Devon Beakers and their associated contexts (Quinnell 2003), which has revealed a similar pattern of deposition to Cornwall, with vessels being found in a wide range of contexts and with few occurring with human burials. In common with Cornwall, Beakers were found to have been deposited as fragmentary and complete vessels, with the former practice being the most common. This argument will be developed further in chapter 6.

7. In Dorset there is the potential for studies of pottery decoration to find similarities between Later Neolithic ceramics (e.g. Grooved Ware), or to look for shared design elements in later pottery traditions, for example Food Vessels. In Cornwall this type of task will prove much more difficult (see below) due to the paucity of Later Neolithic pottery and the prevalence of the Trevisker tradition which ran concurrently with and post-dated Beaker use in Cornwall The differences in the patterning of Beaker uses highlights the fact that although Case’s (1993) regional approach to the study of British Beakers was a step in the right direction, his areas were still too broad and do not allow for the amount of localised variation in Beaker adoption or use. Little evidence has been found for the single tradition of Beaker use argued for by Case (1995b); instead the indications point to a more complicated picture of adoption and varying use as recently put forward by Boast (1995; 2002). Nevertheless this study has highlighted the usefulness of being able to carry out intra-regional or county based research into ceramic assemblages as a way of beginning to understand more localised patterns of behaviour. Further studies of county assemblages are likely to reveal regional patterning in Beaker use and in those counties where sufficient material exists it may be possible to carry out intra-county analysis of Beaker use. In Dorset, for example, a cursory look at the distribution of recorded Beakers (RCHME 1970a; 1970b; 1972; 1974; 1975) reveals an uneven distribution, with the majority of vessels being found in the southeast of the county.

2.4.5 Summary

The comparative study of Beakers in Dorset and Cornwall has reinforced the need to consider Beakers in their local setting. Whilst this study has not been as fine grained as been advocated by a number of recent writers (e.g. A. Jones 2001), and despite the great disparity in numbers of Beakers between the two counties, it has uncovered patterns which are unique to each region as well as points of similarity. These patterns can be summarised as follows: 1. Beakers appear at an early date in Dorset this is indicated by early Beaker forms (e.g. AOC types) and by their presence on Later Neolithic henge sites. This pattern is not shared with Cornwall where current evidence suggests that most Beakers post-date 2000 BC. This would suggest that here Beakers were not associated with the onset of metalworking or introduced from the continent. 2. In Dorset Beakers are found in large numbers and seem to be used throughout the span of the Beaker-using period (circa 2500-1700 BC). In Cornwall Beakers are used in small numbers and seem to have been used for a relatively short period of time (circa 2000-1700 BC).

2.5 The Role of Beakers in Cornish ceremonial sites 2.5.1 Introduction

This section is concerned with the relationship of Beakers to other contemporary forms of ceramic and with identifying whether the treatment of Beakers was related to other ceramic traditions.

3. In Dorset Beakers are found in a wide variety of contexts, including Neolithic monuments, Later Neolithic henges, domestic settlements, pits and burial sites. In Cornwall the range of contexts is restricted to domestic contexts, middens and burials.

To address these questions I will review the ceramic associations of Beakers which have been recovered from ceremonial sites and barrows in Cornwall. This review will adopt a contextualized analysis of the Bronze Age ceramics which have been found with Beaker sherds and attempts to make fine comparisons (decoration, mode of deposition and association).

4. In Dorset there is a strong link between Beakers and inhumation burial (usually without prestige items). In Cornwall Beakers are not found with inhumation burials but are associated with cremation rites and non-funerary activity at barrows.

2.5.2 Beakers and their associations with other ceramic forms on Cornish barrow sites

5. In Dorset Beakers were probably used for social feasting (henges, etc.). In Cornwall there is evidence of social feasting, although there it was associated with the development of midden mounds, which may have come to

This section will be divided into three parts: an overview of Beakers and other ceramics, a site by site discussion, followed by a summary of the evidence.

22

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Site DENZ ELL DOW N

Association A whole miniature Handled Beaker was recovered but no other pottery was found (Borlase 1872).

CA RVINA CK

Barrow contained several urns, including a Food Vessel, a whole Beaker and Trevisker Ware sherds (Dudley 1964).

CREA N

Barrow contained a whole Beaker and sherds of probable Trevisker Ware (Marsden 1923).

DA VIDSTOW MOOR 22

The finds included Grooved Ware sherds, a whole Beaker from a central pit and sherds from two other plain pots (Christie 1988).

HA RROW BA RROW

A largely complete Beaker was recovered but no other pottery was found (Thomas and Hartgroves 1990).

LOUSEY

Sherds of two Beakers were recovered but no other pottery was found (Christie 1985).

SA NCREED

A whole Beaker was recovered but no other pottery was found (vessel lost) (Borlase 1972).

TREG IFFIA N

A whole Beaker was recovered but no other pottery was found (Patchet 1953).

TREVEDRA

A whole Beaker was recovered but no other pottery was found (Russell and Patchett 1954).

TRY

A whole Handled Beaker vessel was contained within a cist. Other sherds of Beaker were found and Trevisker Ware was found in the cist and in two adjacent pits (Russell and Pool 1964).

Table 2.2 List of Beakers from Cornish barrows Beakers, barrows and other ceramic associations In section 2.4.4 it was found that approximately 11 of the identified Beakers were associated with barrow contexts in Cornwall. These finds can are detailed in table 2.2.

same site as any Cornish Beaker material. As it is likely that the use of Beakers and Collared Urns were at least partially overlapping, the lack of association may have been intentional.

The data shown in table 2.2 reveal a couple of interesting points about the nature of Beaker use in Cornish barrows. Firstly, they clearly show that at a county level the majority of Beakers (six vessels) in barrow contexts were not associated with other pots and that in all but two of these instances (Lousey and Try) only one Beaker was deposited. Secondly, all of the vessels which are found with Cornish Beakers are either Food Vessel (one instance) or Trevisker Ware (three instances). Two unidentified plain vessels were recorded from Davidstow Moor. Plain Trevisker Ware vessels are known in the county so it is possible that they belong with this tradition.

Intra-site analysis of Beaker ceramic associations This section considers each of the sites where Beakers have been found with other ceramics. Carvinack The site consisted of three small cairns, four ritual pits and a quartz platform encircled by a low bank which contained a large quantity of quartz. After a period of time these features became covered by a large turf mound (Dudley 1964). The pre-mound site was the focus of a series of specific activities, including cremation burials beneath two of the cairns. The Beaker was recovered from below one of the small cairns and was associated with one of the cremation deposits. It is a rusticated Beaker, decorated with finger nail ornamentation arranged in panels around the middle of the vessel. The excavator described the Beaker as being a degenerate form. The Food Vessel was recovered

Finally, despite being recovered from Cornish barrows (Longworth 1984, 165-66) in similar numbers to Food Vessels and having an overlapping chronology, it is noticeable that no Collared Urns have been recorded on the 23

Andy M Jones

near to a ritual pit which contained charcoal and a cupped pebble. It was decorated with three rows of irregularly stabbed or notched ornamentation around the rim. Unlike the Beaker, the Food Vessel was not associated with any burial activity and was not complete but had been smashed into many fragments. None of the other cairns or pits were associated with ceramics, though a burnt flint was found in the quartz platform. The remaining pottery (Trevisker Ware) was recovered from two deposits in the southeastern quadrant of the mound. It formed part of a series of deposits within the mound which included a small cremation deposit and stone discs. The Trevisker Ware deposits consisted of at least four vessels, and which included finely decorated cord impressed sherds.

the eastern side of the barrow there was a further deposit which contained non-Beaker pottery, ashes and a few fragments of cremated bone. The first cist to be opened was found to contain the rim of a probable Trevisker urn (Patchett 1944), some ashes, but no burial. The second cist was found to contain a Beaker but no ashes or cremated bone. Although the site at Crean is poorly recorded it had its own biographical sequence and there are points in common with Carvinack. Firstly, differing forms of ceramic are treated in contrasting ways and are associated with different forms of deposit. At Crean the Beaker was complete and was placed empty into a cist. The probable Trevisker Ware is fragmentary and is placed into a cist with charcoal but no human bone. Lastly, sherds of an unidentifiable vessel were deposited with cremated bone and charcoal, not into the cist but onto ground. Once again, pottery was being used not as a reference to deceased individuals but to draw attention to certain acts.

The ceramic associations at Carvinack are of particular interest because it is the only site in Cornwall where three different pottery forms were drawn together by being sealed by a covering mound and where deposition of the differing forms has been well recorded. In his paper on Early Bronze Age ceramics and burials in Scotland, A. Jones (2001, 345-350) was able to demonstrate the links or citations between the decorative motifs found on differing forms of pottery. He was able to suggest that pots could have stood for the deceased and that in cremation burials the decoration on the pot could have been deployed to define memories associated with the deceased individual. The striking thing about the three types of vessel found at Carvinack is the lack of any kind of citation, either in decorative motif, treatment on the site or the type of deposit with which they were associated.

Davidstow Moor 22 Site 22 was one of the most complex and long-lived barrows on Davidstow Moor (5.2.5 below and Fig.5.16). During the Later Neolithic period it appears to have initially consisted of a post-ring which enclosed an area which later became the focus for a number of pits and fires. Grooved Ware was probably associated with the primary phase of the site. During the Bronze Age a cairn-ring was constructed and the site was mounded. The Beaker was recovered from a central pit accompanied by a quantity of charcoal and a few fragments of unidentified bone (Christie 1988). The Beaker was complete but poorly made and crudely decorated with a chevron design. A second cremation deposit was recovered from one of the pits, but this was not associated with any ceramics. Other sherds of pottery were recovered from the southeast quadrant of the barrow and from the floor of the northeast quadrant. At least two vessels are represented by these sherds, but they are plain and have not been assigned to any particular ceramic tradition (ibid., 1988). Plain Trevisker Ware vessels are known and as they are the most ubiquitous vessels in the Cornish Bronze Age, it is possible that the sherds from Davidstow 22 are Trevisker Ware.

The Beaker was formally decorated, associated with a cremation deposit and buried complete inside a pit which was sealed beneath its own cairn. The Food Vessel was poorly decorated and smashed next to a ritual pit. It was not buried until the mound was constructed. The Trevisker Ware was well made and finely decorated, but the fact that none of the vessels were complete means that they must have been brought to the site in a fragmentary state, where they were placed as one of a series of mound-related deposits. Under these circumstances it is difficult to imagine that particular pots were being associated with the deceased. Indeed, two of the three cremation deposits were not accompanied by an urn at all. This is not to argue that ceramics were passive or did not play a role in the construction of the social memory. Rather, it seems that the different pot forms were highlighting particular acts and marking differences between them.

The relationships between ceramics and particular activities are as marked at Davidstow 22 as at Carvinack and Crean. Once again, the Beaker is complete, though the deposit with which it was associated is different from either of the previous sites. At Davidstow the Beaker deposit involved a token amount of bone mixed with charcoal. In contrast with the decorated Beaker, the remaining Bronze Age pottery is plain and is fragmentary and in one instance may have been associated with an episode of burning. As at Carvinack and Crean it is possible that it was introduced onto the site in a broken state. Again it seems that different kinds of pots were treated in different ways, with some pots decorated and whole and others broken and plain.

Crean The site at Crean is far less well documented than Carvinack; indeed, it is only mentioned in passing as part of a wider discussion on prehistoric sites in Penwith (Marsden 1923, 169). Nevertheless, from the evidence of a brief description of the find and two photographs it is possible to make some observations. Firstly, the site consisted of two cists encircled by a stone kerb which included some very large monoliths. It is uncertain whether prior to the construction of the cairn the kerb had ever been freestanding. Secondly, each cist held a particular deposit and at

Try The site at Try consisted of a standing stone, to the east of which was a cist and pit covered by a cairn, and to the east of the cairn was a shallow depression or pit (Russell and

24

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

3. There is little evidence for the curation of Beaker vessels prior to their deposition. 4. Beakers are only found with Trevisker Ware and Food Vessels, not Collared Urns. The most common association was with Trevisker Ware. 5. Where other types of vessel occur, Beakers are treated in a different way and are often confined to a restricted context. 6. The decorative scheme on Cornish Beakers has little in common with any of the vessels with which they are found. There is no evidence of the citation which is found in other regions.

Pool 1964). The site appears to have developed in a linear fashion from west to east. The earliest element was the standing stone, though this part of the site was undated, followed by construction of the cist. The cist contained a handled Beaker with poorly executed comb decoration and, lying nearby, two unburnt bones which could not be identified as human. The cist was then deliberately filled with fragments of burnt human bone, haematite, small waterworn pebbles, charcoal, and sherds of another Beaker and Trevisker Ware. The cist was associated with a pit which lay to the southwest. It was filled by charcoal, soil and three sherds of Beaker, and partially sealed by a slab. The cist and pit were then covered by a cairn. A deposit of charcoal, waterworn stones and sherds of Trevisker Ware was found in the top of the cairn. This deposit was interpreted as being derived from the remains of a disturbed secondary burial. However, no cremated bone was recovered from this layer despite the fact that it was ‘2 to 3 inches thick’ (ibid., 6). The second pit or depression was recorded as a layer (ibid., 16). The pit contained fragments of at least four Trevisker vessels, cremated human bone and four flint flakes. The Trevisker Ware mostly consisted of rim sherds ornamented by cord impressed decoration. Sherds from the same Trevisker Ware vessel were also present in the cist. The excavators interpreted this material as being derived from the mound; however, the plan and section drawings show what appears to be a shallow pit.

The concluding section of this chapter, discusses likely reasons for this patterning in the archaeological record. 2.6 Discussion: The origins of ritual traditions in Early Bronze Age Cornwall and the effect of Beakers upon them 2.6.1 Introduction

At the start of this chapter two key questions were raised, what were the ritual traditions in Cornwall during the Later Neolithic period and did they have any relation to those of the Early Bronze Age?. Secondly, what was the role of Beakers in the introduction of barrows and associated mortuary ritual into Cornwall and how were they deployed on barrow sites?.

Once again, there are differences in the way particular pots are treated. At Try the handled Beaker is complete and was placed empty into a cist with a mixed deposit containing a variety of materials. The remaining handful of Beaker sherds are fragmentary and are confined to the cist and the pit which were sealed by the cairn. As at Crean, Carvinack and possibly Davidstow, the Trevisker Ware is again found in a fragmentary state. Unlike the handled Beaker the Trevisker Ware was selected so that particular decorated sherds were incorporated into the cist, the cairn deposit and the shallow pit to the east of the cairn. This means that throughout the lifetime of the monument, sherds from a restricted number of curated Trevisker vessels were being repeatedly deployed at key moments during the site’s use, whereas the Beaker deposition was confined to an initial pre-cairn use. Again it is likely that pottery was being used in different and contrasting ways to draw attention to certain acts.

To answer these questions, the evidence has been reviewed and interrogated at a number of levels. The Later Neolithic evidence was reviewed at a county level (2.2 above). The Beaker question was reviewed at a national level (2.3 above), this was followed by a regional study of Beaker assemblages in Dorset and Cornwall (2.4 above), and finally, Beaker assemblages in barrow contexts were looked at on a site by site level (2.5 above). As a result of the adoption of this multi-scaled approach the two primary questions were addressed along with a number of other secondary questions. The remainder of this section briefly reviews those results under four headings: chronology, Beakers and metalworking, Beaker regionalism, tradition and change. The chapter will conclude with a brief summary. 2.6.2 Results from the study

Summary The review of Beakers from burial-related contexts has thrown up some important insights into ritual practices associated with the deposition of Beakers into barrow sites and the relationship between Beakers and the treatment of other kinds of ceramic. Although there were differences between the sites, several points of commonality existed between them.

An outline chronology for Beaker use in Cornwall The dating of Beakers in Cornwall is problematic not least because the number of Cornish Beakers is quite small. Our understanding of their chronology is based upon three factors: the revised chronology of the British Bronze Age (Needham 1996), two radiocarbon dates from one site (Harris 1979) and current interpretation of the dating of other ceramic forms, notably Trevisker Ware and Food Vessels, with which Cornish Beakers are sometimes associated.

1. Beakers were usually deposited whole, or whole and accompanied by fragments of other Beaker. 2. Where fabric analysis and detailed descriptions of decoration are given Beakers were frequently badly made and/or poorly decorated.

It has been suggested earlier that Beaker use in Cornwall post-dates 2000 cal BC and is likely to be contained within 25

Andy M Jones

the period circa 2000-1600 cal BC. The implication of this chronology is that the introduction of Beakers into Cornwall was not, as in other regions of Britain and Ireland (O’Brien 1995; Needham 1996), associated with the introduction of the first metalworking (circa 2500-2300 cal BC). Indeed, the current evidence suggests that there was little metalworking in the county before the Middle Bronze Age (Herring 1997b; Rohl and Needham 1998).

Britain, during the Later Neolithic, polished stone axes were often deposited in special contexts, for example within large ceremonial enclosures. This pattern is echoed in the Early Bronze Age, where metal axes were placed within similar contexts but rarely included within graves (Bradley 1990). Early Neolithic traditions could have influenced the location and way metal was obtained. During the Neolithic period axes were quarried at particular places in the landscape (e.g. Bradley and Edmonds 1993) which were often inaccessible, spectacular locations (Cooney 1998). Obtaining axes from distant sources, especially for use in ceremonial contexts, was important to Neolithic communities. In both Britain and Ireland, local, more easily accessible sources of suitable stone were frequently not quarried at all. The places where stone was quarried were likely to have been redolent with symbolism and may have been regarded as being connected with the spirit world and therefore ritually dangerous (ibid., 109-110). The extraction of ore from the rock is in many ways analogous to the quarrying of stone, and it may well have been mined under the same prescriptions as stone axes had been. It is possible to speculate that metal ores and finished items may have been drawn into existing symbolically charged exchange systems, with metal being obtained from a limited number of prescribed sources and produced under ritualized conditions (Budd and Taylor, 1995, 138-140). This hypothesis may account for the apparent absence of copper production in Cornwall. If we follow Bradley’s (2002, 58) argument concerning the close link between metalworking and Beakers, then the absence of early metalworking in Cornwall may account for both the paucity of Beakers in the county and their lack of special treatment.

The suggested chronology means that it is improbable that Beaker usage could have been directly associated with the spread of new burial rites (e.g. single inhumation burial) or the barrow building tradition. If the chronology of Beaker use put forward here is accepted it is probable that cremation burial, the enclosure element of barrows (ringcairns, etc.) and mound building would all have been established traditions by the time Beakers arrived in the county. This view is supported by the early radiocarbon determinations from a number of non-Beaker barrows across Cornwall, including Chysauster, Trelan, Colliford and Davidstow Moor (Smith 1984; 1996; Griffith 1984a; Christie 1988), which have all given calibrated dates from before and around the turn of the second millennium BC (see 3.3 below). Beakers and metalworking in Cornwall The lack of Beaker-associated or other early metalworking in Cornwall could be seen as surprising given the availability of local sources of copper and tin (Pearce 1983, 263), the probability that some tin may have been extracted in Cornwall (e.g. Penhallurick 1986; Barber 2003) and the association between Beakers and metalworking in Ireland (O’Brien 1995). In addition there had been a tradition of stone axe quarrying and long-distance exchange of Cornish axes during the Neolithic period (e.g. Mercer 1986). The extraction of copper ore did not require a great leap of expertise beyond that needed for the production of stone axes.

Regional patterns of behaviour The evidence for regional differences in the use of Beakers and other ceramic forms was considered in two ways, firstly through the comparison of Beaker assemblages in Dorset and Cornwall and secondly through the more detailed study of the contexts in ceremonial sites which have produced Beaker material.

The apparent dearth of interest in exploiting Cornish resources requires further consideration. Herring (1997b, 19-21) has argued that the paucity of evidence for metal winning in Cornwall was due to the fact that societies in Cornwall were primarily agrarian in nature and that these small-scale communities would have been content to produce relatively little metal as their economies were not dependant on its production. Herring suggested that the elites which may have existed during this period would have found it in their own interest to restrict the amount of metalwork in circulation, so that it would retain its prestige status by virtue of its rarity. Whilst ore extraction could have been open to manipulation by elites, the production and circulation of bronze was likely to have been highly symbolic and, as has been argued for stone axe quarrying, an extremely structured activity (Edmonds 1995, 63-66). Bradley (1990, 71) has argued that the attitude of Early Bronze Age societies towards metalwork was shaped by existing patterns which were associated with exotic lithics, for example polished stone axes. The first metal objects were assimilated into existing practices associated with lithics and were therefore treated in a similar manner. In

In Cornwall it has been found that Beaker use was less common and restricted to a limited number of contexts (barrows, middens, pits and uncertain domestic contexts). This contrasted with evidence from Dorset where Beakers are found in a much wider range of contexts; these include older Neolithic sites and Later Neolithic henge monuments but not middens. Where Beakers are found within Cornish barrows the rite is almost always cremation, rather than inhumation as was found in Dorset. In Cornwall the Beakers were almost always deposited into the barrow site as complete vessels, rather than as sherds, as is found in areas such as Wiltshire (Woodward 2000b, 59). It was found that there was little evidence for the curation of Beakers, indeed where comment on the ornament and fabric of the vessel has been recorded they are usually described as being poor. This would indicate that in Cornwall Beakers were not, at least in burial contexts, being retained as heirlooms. Instead, Beakers in Cornish burial

26

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

contexts may have been made for deposition on the barrow site. Finally, on the relatively infrequent occasions when Beakers were deployed on barrow sites with other ceramic forms (Trevisker Ware or Food Vessels) they shared few decorative traits and were treated in markedly different ways from other ceramic forms (see below). Again this is in marked contrast with some regions of Britain where the ubiquity of Beakers could have been the result of a desire by individuals to be seen to be part of a wider grouping which could have been linked to perceptions of ethnicity, status or other forms of social identity (e.g. Thomas 1991a).

tradition and its elaboration with new artefacts and practices.

Tradition and change The reasons behind the adoption of Beakers and any associated ideology in Cornwall may be found through the consideration and interpretation of existing Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age tradition and the identification of change to those traditions. The importance and role given to Beakers, or to any artefact type, would have depended upon the way that individuals decided to incorporate them into their understanding of the world and the ways that artefacts should be used. This understanding would have been directly related to the culture and memories of the community. This point has been illustrated in an interesting way by Montanari (1994) in his discussion of the introduction of new foods into Europe during the medieval and renaissance periods. He was able to demonstrate that following the opening up of trade routes and the discovery of the New World, new types of food were incorporated by their contextualisation or classification into the familiar dietary system. For example, maize was compared to chick peas and tortillas to bread (ibid., 99).

Existing traditions. The nature of existing traditions may permit the introduction of some artefact types but not others. As has been suggested, new artefact forms may be adopted because they can be readily incorporated into an existing system or tradition. Conversely, they can be adopted by a section of society as a means of subverting or challenging authority. In Cornwall, there had been a long history of exchanging stone axes and these traditions may have been drawn upon during the Early Bronze Age to determine how metals and new ceramic forms could be exchanged and used.

•

Memory and misremembering. The role of social memory will play a part in whether and how an artefact can be used. As part of the decision to deploy an artefact the community will remember what it has been used for before and how it has been deployed on previous occasions. The process of remembering can be erroneous even in societies with written records (Hutton 1996; Darvill et al 1999) and was demonstrably so during prehistory (Mullen 2001; Bradley 2002). Nevertheless, the act of remembering/ misremembering may be vital to the continuation of

The biography of the artefact. New objects would in their initial stages have arrived through exchange. In prehistory exchange was unlikely to be equivalent to trade in contemporary western society (Mauss 1990); instead, artefacts are likely to have accrued a biography (Appadurai 1986) which would have been a determining factor in the way they were treated.

•

Emulation and innovation. Contact with other communities may lead to a desire by members of a given society to engage with or emulate other groups. This may lead to the introduction and spread of new ideas, monuments and ceramic forms. In prehistory the desire to engage with a wider world can be demonstrated by contact between southern Britain and the Roman world during the later Iron Age (Cunliffe 1987) and has been argued for the exchange of ideas and monuments across the Atlantic facade region during the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods (Bradley and Chapman 1986; Bradley 1997).

To this list of influences we could add access to a new artefact type (e.g. Kristiansen 1998) and invasion. In the case of ceramics it is difficult to pursue the argument of availability as they are easily made and forms and designs can be readily copied (Brodie 1994), which means that restriction of access is unlikely to be much of a factor. The small number of Beaker ceramics in Cornwall means that invasion or large-scale migration is improbable. We can consider which of the above factors (or combination of them) were associated with the spread of Beakers into Cornwall. The comparatively small number of Beakers in the county and their suggested late date indicate that it is unlikely that they were ever objects which were associated with emulation or were regarded as status objects. The use of local clays in their manufacture suggests that they did not possess long biographies and were not used as items of exchange. Their pattern of use in Cornwall indicates that most Cornish Beakers ended up on sites which can be considered as traditional (see diagram 2.7). These traditions were arguably derived from those of the Later Neolithic and pre-Beaker Bronze Age. The deployment of Beakers at coastal midden sites could represent an innovative practice which marked a departure from established tradition, but it happened so late in the broader British history of Beaker use that it is unlikely to have been linked to a desire to engage with the wider world. Instead, the coastal midden mounds may have been associated with established traditions of social feasting and the burial of earlier features beneath mounds. It is possible to argue that the coastal middens were located at places in the landscape which were already important. By the time Beakers were in use in Cornwall there was an established practice of covering earlier ceremonial sites (particularly enclosure barrows) beneath mounds. The coastal middens may therefore represent an embellishment of existing tradition or acts of misremembering.

I would suggest that the adoption of a new form of artefact and its use would have been dependant upon a combination of contingencies. These may have included: •

•

27

Andy M Jones

Diagram 2.7 Cornish Beakers and their contexts In common with Grooved Ware, Beakers in Cornwall often ended up as sherds in pits where they are found with charcoal, burnt stone and quartz. They are also found as sherds with flint-work of varying periods or in barrows with other forms of ceramic, where they often merely form one distinct act. It has been argued in this chapter that, in common with other non-Trevisker forms of ceramic, when Beakers were deployed on Cornish barrows they were being used to mark episodes of activity or particular events. Their relative rarity in the archaeological record in Cornwall (as with Food Vessels) would have meant that their deployment at a barrow site would have drawn attention to the act of deposition and made it more memorable. Indeed, this is true of their use in the large coastal middens, and their deposition in pits, as well as on barrow sites.

similar nature to those of the Early Bronze Age. There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that during the Later Neolithic period there was a focus upon certain types of landscape feature which were to become of central importance when monument building and ceramic use became widespread after circa 2000 BC. This is indicated by the number of probable Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age sites (stone circles, etc.) that are aligned on or located near prominent topographical features (e.g. tors), which became the focus for later barrow cemeteries. It is therefore appropriate to view the introduction of new ceramic forms (Trevisker Ware, Food Vessel and Collared Urns), use of human bone and widespread monument construction as embellishments to existing ritual practices. These, although already imbued with meanings and distinctions, were always interpreted through existing traditions and the memory of those practices. The wide variety of new ceramics enabled distinctions to be made and differences highlighted at the level of the site and between contexts within the site. This range of choice was particularly marked in Cornwall, where the usual repertoire of ceramic forms was increased by the addition of Trevisker Ware.

Current evidence indicates that Beakers were incorporated within existing ritualized patterns of behaviour and were not associated with challenges to the community, or with the introduction of new burial rites. They were absorbed in small numbers into barrows, domestic sites and pits. The real problem in Cornwall therefore is not with Beakers, but is instead with identifying the traditions of the Later Neolithic period.

Arguably the most important question concerning prehistoric ceramics in Cornwall does not revolve around the introduction of Beakers but instead lies with the origins of Trevisker Ware. The increasing number of earlier radiocarbon dates (circa 2000 cal BC) associated with these ceramics mean that Tomalin’s (1988) ideas that they developed as a result of contact with Breton urns are no longer tenable. It is therefore arguable, given the suggested late date of Beakers in Cornwall, the small numbers of Food Vessels and Collared Urns, and the problems of finding close affinities with other forms of Bronze Age ceramics (ApSimon and Greenfield 1972), that Trevisker Ware developed from Later Neolithic pottery forms, particularly Grooved Ware.

The nature of the Later Neolithic period in Cornwall is the secondary focus of this chapter. It is argued here that the difficulty in determining the nature of this period in Cornwall is partly due to the lack of difference between the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods; in that there are monument types which span both periods (stone circles and standing stones, etc.), but also to the increased use of ceramics and widespread construction of barrows from around 2000 cal BC onwards. The increase in the construction of monuments, together with the common deployment of ceramics (notably Trevisker Ware) and the occasional inclusion of deposits of human bone on ceremonial sites does at first glance suggest major changes to established tradition. Nevertheless, there is also evidence for continuity in traditions between the Later Neolithic period and the Early Bronze Age. Firstly, it is apparent that artefacts were treated in similar ways during both periods. Whole vessels and curated sherds of Grooved Ware have been found in pit contexts which are of a very

Beaker pots, the Later Neolithic period and ritual tradition: a summary The position taken here is broadly supportive of that of Barrett (1994) and Boast (1995; 2002), that there is no one explanation for Beaker use in Britain. This is because, as Boast (1995) has argued, a Beaker was just another pot, like any other, with no inherent value or meaning of its own. 28

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

The meaning of the vessel would have changed according to context and or the area it is found in. Across Britain the use of Beakers may have been associated with the arrival of people, with the inception of metalworking, was the exchange of goods or exotic substances, with social feasting or ritual activity, or with the creation of particular social identifies in death. I have argued that the only way to understand the reasons which influenced the use of a ceramic form (in this case Beakers) is to consider the nature of the contexts which they are deposited into (diagram 2.7), the way that they related to existing practices and the effect which they had upon succeeding traditions. It is only when this kind of study is carried out more widely across the country that we will be able to fully understand the impact that Beakers had upon past communities and their links with Later Neolithic tradition. It was suggested earlier that Beakers in Cornwall were not associated with the spread of particular ritual traditions, such as the single inhumation burial, or with the introduction of round barrows. Instead existing local traditions of the Later Neolithic period which were associated with pits, Grooved Ware ceramics and charcoal became embellished over time by the increasing use of a variety of ceramics (including Beakers) and other artefacts (see 3.2.2 below). During the Early Bronze Age, special places in the landscape were more formally marked and enclosed by a variety of barrow forms. The adoption of these monuments undoubtedly arose through contacts with other communities. However, as we shall see in chapters 4, 5 and 7, the places at which these monuments were sited and the way that they were used were derived from preexisting local traditions.

29

Chapter 3 The Evidence from the barrows ‘The barrows do not afford much information upon which to build any theory respecting their religious ideas, nor indeed could much be looked for’ (William Greenwell 1877, 120).

Standardised keywords including terms for ceramic types and mode of burial were used so that it would be possible to generate a series of charts from the database. Several problems were encountered relating to the information included within the database:

3.1 Introduction

This chapter represents both the starting point for my analysis of Cornish barrows and the most general level of study that I will be undertaking. It is concerned with establishing the overall character of the regions’ barrows in terms of contents and their chronology. It is intended that the results from this chapter constitute the regional backdrop against which the detail of the succeeding chapters took place. To achieve this aim the chapter is divided into three parts. The first deals with the artefactual and burial evidence from the barrows, as recorded in the county SMR (Sites and Monuments Record). The second discusses the newly available dates from the Watch Hill barrow; the datable finds and radiocarbon determinations from Cornish sites are inserted into Needham’s (1996) chronology for the British Bronze Age to construct a regional sequence for barrow construction and use. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of the major points that have been raised.

•

The database was compiled in 1998 before the National Mapping Programme aerial photographic evidence was entered into the SMR. This means that crop-mark sites are under represented.

•

Recent geophysical surveys across low lying parts of Cornwall have identified ring-ditch and ploughed down mounded barrows, which means that the total number of barrow forms is probably far greater than current estimates have allowed (Jones and Taylor 2002).

•

In upland areas of Cornwall the complexity and number of Early Bronze Age cairns is likely to have been underestimated. Small ceremonial cairns have been recorded as being the result of field clearance and on Stannon Down ring-cairns were documented as roundhouses (Jones 2001; Jones forthcoming b).

•

The quality of the information within the SMR was found to be variable in terms of the information about sites; in some cases it was found that important investigated sites had been omitted from the record altogether (e.g. Davidstow 22). As a result of this study significant excavated sites have been entered into the database and obvious inaccuracies corrected. However, grid references have not been systematically checked.

•

Many sites have been dug into in the past without any record, which means that much information concerning the deposits within them has been lost.

•

Although the number of excavated barrows stands at around 10%, the vast majority of these were investigated in the nineteenth century or earlier and were therefore not systematically recorded. This is particularly problematic with regard to the identification of token deposits, such as human bone or pottery and for being able to quantify the number of sites containing placed deposits of quartz and charcoal.

•

The SMR does not include very much information on landscape setting or reliably record whether natural features, such as outcrops of rock are located near to or within a monument. Given the importance of natural topography to barrow location (see chapters 4 and 5) this is, at even a generalised level, a serious limitation.

3.2 Cornish barrows and their contents 3.2.1 Introduction

In this section investigates the deposits which have been incorporated into Cornish round barrows, including ceramics, metalwork, gold, beads and amber together with evidence for burial (inhumation and cremation). This part of the chapter attempts to identify broad regional trends, such as the preference for a particular ceramic form or burial rites from the 261 barrows which are recorded as having been subjected to some form of excavation (appendix 1). The documented evidence accounts for just over 10% of the barrows which were documented in the county in 1998 (2424 recorded sites) and therefore forms a useful sample from which to make a number of generalised points about behaviour associated with barrows in the county. 3.2.2 Results of study

The results of this study were obtained by creating a database of all the barrow and cairn sites listed in the Cornwall SMR in 1998 (see appendix 1). The data on the barrows were divided into seven fields, listed in table 3.1. Field Name

Comments Site name as recorded in SMR.

PRN

Unique number as given by SMR.

Grid ref

Ordnance Survey grid reference

Parish

Parish in which site is located.

Structure

Recorded size, shape and structural characteristics of barrow.

Object

Recorded artefacts (ceramic and metalwork, etc.).

Description

Free text with additional information.

Table 3.1 List of terms used in database 30

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

•

The remainder of this section considers six categories of artefact or deposit which are likely to have been recorded in a relatively systematic way (diagram 3.2).

Due to the prevalent acidic soil and the dry-land settings of the barrows, organic materials including unburnt bone and wooden objects have not generally survived. Given that this study is concerned with the identification of patterns of deposition, this poor survival is a limiting factor. However, as I am not specifically concerned with the identification of status it is not such an important one.

•

Ceramics A total of 158 barrows (59.8%) are recorded as containing pottery (diagram 3.3), which forms the largest single artefactual category to be recovered from round barrows (appendix 2). Pottery has been recovered from another five barrow sites through ploughing or quarrying rather than through deliberate antiquarian or modern investigation.

The number and condition (e.g. whether complete or fragmentary) of ceramic vessels which have been recovered from barrows is often unclear. Therefore the quantities of vessel given in the following charts reflect their presence in individual barrows, rather than the number of vessels found. This applies to beads and other artefacts.

W ithout potte ry (40.2%) W ith potte ry (59.8%)

Despite these limitations, the information held in the SMR is of sufficient quality to ascertain general characteristics in terms of the relative frequencies of deposits (artefactual and burial-related) which have been recovered from Cornish barrows. These are examined in greater detail in subsequent chapters.

Diagram 3.3 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing pottery A total of 83 investigated barrows have produced pottery identified as probably belonging to the four major ceramic traditions of Beaker, Collared Urn, Food Vessel and Trevisker Ware (diagram 3.4). The remaining ceramic finds were either undiagnostic or not sufficiently recorded to be assigned to any tradition.

Artefacts from Cornish barrows Just over a quarter of the 264 excavated Cornish barrows (69 or 26.1%, diagram 3.1) have no kind of artefactual or burial association. As stated above, this total is likely to be inaccurate, as fragmentary ceramic vessels and small artefacts may not have been reported by early excavators, and deposits of charcoal and quartz will probably have been ignored. Also, barrows which were excavated without result by antiquarians were probably not recorded at all. Nevertheless it is assumed that these biases are evenly distributed between ceramic form and artefact type (excluding quartz, charcoal and lithics), and therefore possible to compare meaningfully the relative number of occurrences of a given artefact type or ceramic form.

50

40

30

20

10

0

Without Artefacts (26.1%)

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Burial

Collared Urn

Food Vessel

All four main types of ceramic vessels which were current during the Early Bronze Age are found in barrows (diagram 3.4). However, the numbers of the vessel forms display a definite preference for Trevisker Ware, which accounts for 45 vessels (or 54% of identified vessels). The remaining vessels are more or less equally spread between Beakers, Collared Urns and Food Vessels, the latter forming a slightly larger group (fifteen examples or 18% of the total). Unfortunately, the ceramics provide little information on chronology or changing preferences in ceramics as Trevisker Ware seems to have been current from 2000 cal BC to 1000 cal BC (Parker Pearson 1990; 1995) and Food Vessels have been recovered from barrows which contain Collared Urns, Beakers and Trevisker Ware (Longworth 1984; Patchett 1944; 1950). There appears to have been a considerable overlap in the use of ceramic forms and a marked overall preference for Trevisker Ware. Fragmentation of Trevisker vessels is recorded at a number

Diagram 3.1 Percentage of Cornish excavated barrows containing artefacts/burial deposits

Gold

Beaker

Diagram 3.4 Numbers of identified ceramic types found in Cornish barrows With Artefacts (73.9%)

0

Trevisker

Beads

Amber

Ceramic

Copper alloy

Diagram 3.2 Breakdown of deposits within excavated Cornish barrows 31

Andy M Jones

two unidentifiable pieces of metal.

of sites, e.g. Trelowthas and at Carvinack (see chapter 2), though complete Trevisker vessels have also been found (e.g. Chysauster and Crig-a-Mennis). However, the complete or fragmentary nature of ceramics has often been left unrecorded and cannot therefore be considered in a meaningful way at this level.

Most of the metalwork has been recovered from barrows which have also produced ceramics. Where identification has been possible, all but one of the ceramics (the exception was the Collared Urn from Highgate) were Trevisker Ware. Where burial deposits have been identified, all but one of the copper alloy objects (Rillaton) are associated with cremation rather than inhumation deposits.

Metal objects Just twenty of the investigated barrows (under 10%) are recorded as containing metalwork (diagram 3.5). Seventeen contain copper alloy objects (appendix 3), whilst six contain gold (appendix 4). Copper alloy and gold objects are found together in two or possibly three barrows (Rillaton, Harlyn Bay 21708 and possibly Woolley barrow).

The goldwork from Cornish barrows is comprised of three classes of find: lunula, cup and other (diagram 3.7).

3

With metalwork (7.6%)

2

1

Without metalwork (92.4%)

0

Diagram 3.5 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing metalwork The copper alloy objects fall into four basic types: daggers, awls, pins, axes, with a small number of other unidentified pieces (diagram 3.6).

10

8

6

4

2

Dagger

Awl

Pin

Axe

Cups

Other

In actuality the verified goldwork from Cornish barrows forms a closed group of finds, which provides evidence of interaction with other parts of the Atlantic facade and Europe (Eogan 1994; Taylor 1980). The two ‘other’ objects refer to word of mouth discoveries of gold which are unreliable. The largest category of identified goldwork is in the form of lunulae. Two of these are from a cist at Harlyn Bay, a third from a barrow at St.Juliot and the fourth recorded as coming from an earthwork (possibly a barrow) near Gwithian (Pearce 1983, 409, 411, 417-418). All four examples were fashioned in Ireland. Lunulae are very unusual in barrow contexts elsewhere (Taylor 1980) none of the Irish finds have been from burial contexts. The only other goldwork find in the county is the Rillaton cup. The Rillaton find has similarities to other gold and silver cups in Europe (e.g. Ringlemere), as well as with non-metallic examples in amber and shale from across southern Britain (Ashbee 1977; Harding 2000).

12

0

Lunulae

Diagram 3.7 Numbers of Cornish barrows containing gold objects

Other

Diagram 3.6 Numbers of Cornish barrows containing copper alloy objects Daggers comprise the majority of copper alloy objects, with eleven recorded from Cornish barrows; the ‘spearheads’ from antiquarian investigations at Pennatillie and Roche are likely to have been daggers rather than spearheads. Of the seven identifiable daggers five are of Camerton-Snowshill type and two are knife daggers (Gerloff 1975; Pearce 1983). None appear to be associated with the earliest phase of metalworking but instead centre around 1700-1500 cal BC. Awls and pins form the next largest group of metalwork (4 examples) and axes the smallest (1 certain example). The inclusion of an axe within a cist at Harlyn Bay 21708 is in any case unusual as most examples have been recovered from hoards rather than from burial contexts (Clarke et al 1985). However, the cist at Harlyn included another exceptional find in the form of two gold lunulae. The ‘other’ objects include the spearheads mentioned above and

The lunulae almost certainly predate the copper alloy daggers, dating to around 2300 to 2050 cal BC (Needham 1996, 130). Taylor (1985, 191) has drawn attention to the similarity between the decoration on lunulae and Beakers. The Rillaton cup may have been an heirloom as it was found in association with a Camerton-Snowshill dagger and its deposition therefore dates to around 1700 cal BC. Beads and amber Beads have rarely been recovered from Cornish barrows; indeed, there are just eight documented examples (appendix 5). Only one site has produced anywhere near enough beads to form a complete necklace (diagram 3.8).

32

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

the number of beads from these sites is not known. None of the bead finds are particularly helpful in terms of dating, as all may have been derived from larger necklaces (Woodward 2002, 1043-1046) which were selected for deposition and are therefore likely to be curated objects.

The beads from comprise of four types: stone, faience, amber, clay, with beads from two barrows of unknown type (diagram 3.9). With beads (3.0%)

In addition to the two amber beads, two further amber objects have been recorded (appendix 6), which makes amber the smallest category of artefact type recorded in this study (diagram 3.10). An amber pinhead was found within the Woolley barrow (Dudley 1968) and an amber object, possibly a pendant, was found at Caerloggas I (Miles 1975 and see 5.2.4 below). Deposition of human bone within Cornish barrows Subsequent chapters will argue that deposition of human bone does not always equal burial per se and that human bone can be considered as one of a range of deposits which occur on barrows. Nevertheless, burial in the normal sense of the word does occur at some Cornish barrows, though at this scale of analysis, bearing in mind the limitations of much of the evidence, it is not possible to draw distinctions between a burial rite and a ritual act involving human bone. The following part of this section will therefore treat the deposition of human bone in a neutral way and not attempt to distinguish whether it was deposited as an act of burial or not.

Without beads (97.0%)

Diagram 3.8 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing beads 2

1

0

Stone

Faience

Amber

Clay

Under half of the investigated barrows (112 or 44.1%) have been recorded as containing deposits of human bone (diagram 3.11), with cremation and inhumation deposits being found together on four sites. This total is likely to be an underestimate, as small deposits of cremated bone may have been missed by antiquarian investigators and acidic soil conditions will have resulted in the destruction of inhumation deposits. Nonetheless controlled excavations have lent support to the fact that many Cornish barrows do not contain human bone and that inhumation deposits are comparatively rare (Dudley 1960; Thomas 1962; Hooper 1976; Smith 1984).

Unknown

Diagram 3.9 Numbers of Cornish barrows containing beads Amber other (0.8%)

With bone (42.4%) Without bone (57.6%)

Diagram 3.11 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing deposits of human bone Without amber (99.2%)

Early Bronze Age deposits of human bone can be broken down into two broad classes; inhumation and cremation (diagram 3.12).

Diagram 3.10 Percentage of excavated Cornish barrows containing amber (non-bead)

Cremations form the largest number of sites with 96 recorded instances, compared with just twenty certain or likely examples of inhumation (appendices 7 and 8). Even allowing for the destruction of bone by acidic soils, few barrows have been found to contain large cists or pits which could have contained inhumation burials (Wainwright 1965) and evidence for coffins has rarely been found (Miles 1975). Indeed, the paucity of evidence for

Where beads have been recovered they occur in very small numbers, with the largest quantities being the twelve faience beads from Carn Creis (Borlase 1885; Beck and Stone 1935) followed by four clay beads from Liskey (Christie 1960). It is probable that the unknown beads from Harlyn Bay and Rillaton (Beck and Stone 1935; Rose and Preston Jones 1987) were really of faience. Unfortunately

33

Andy M Jones

discussion is a summary in advance of a paper (including charcoal analysis) which will be published elsewhere (Jones and Quinnell forthcoming).

inhumation has long been commented upon (Borlase 1872, 80). Multiple inhumation burials are even rarer, being confined to just one example (Watch Hill, Miles 1975). It is possible that token inhumation rites in the form of small amounts of unburnt bone were also being deposited into barrows, though evidence for this is restricted to one site on the Roseland (Bousfield and Bousfield 1952).

Since the inception of radiocarbon dating in the mid-1950s there have been many round barrow excavations in Cornwall (see Christie 1986). Approximately twenty barrows have published radiocarbon dates attached to them, though a larger number remain undated by radiocarbon techniques (table 3.4 and appendices). Only two published barrows Trelan and Chysauster have more than two radiocarbon determinations attached to them (Smith 1984; 1996); though the dating strategy was found to be problematic at the latter site. In other parts of Britain multiple dates from complex barrows have been used with great effect to demonstrate the sometimes lengthy spans of time that occurred between phases of barrow construction. An example of this approach is a barrow at Deeping St.Nicholas, where seven samples for dating were taken (French 1994) and showed that the site had been extensively remodelled over a period of around 500 years.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Cremation

Inhumation

Diagram 3.12 Numbers of Cornish barrows containing deposits of human bone

In order to begin to address issues relating to the length of use of barrows in Cornwall, the Watch Hill barrow was selected for further dating because it had been excavated to a high standard and because the stratigraphy indicated that there were several distinct phases of use. The site was excavated in 1973 by Henrietta Miles (now Quinnell) and published in 1975 (Miles 1975). Two radiocarbon determinations obtained from a pit in the base of the ditch (HAR654: 3470 BP ± 70 and HAR655: 3420 BP ± 80). The excavator sampled the same context twice in order to establish a greater degree of certainty (Henrietta Quinnell pers comm). However, questions relating to the origins and the length of use of the site remained. As the site archives and environmental material (including charcoal from most of the phases of the barrow) were stored in Truro Museum, it was decided that the site would be suitable to provide the first comprehensive date range from a multi-phased Cornish barrow. Charcoal identification was carried out by Rowena Gale and five samples were submitted (table 3.2) to the University of Waikato for accelerator mass spectrometry dating (AMS). This method of dating can be carried out on very small amounts of material and gives a high precision date (table 3.2).

Cremation deposits consist of a wide variety of practices which range from the interment of whole individuals down to exceedingly small token deposits (Christie 1960; 1985; 1988). Multiple deposits of human bone are particularly well documented in the west of Cornwall (Bonnington 1999; Borlase 1885; Smith 1996). Although the evidence from central southern England suggests a broad shift from inhumation to cremation during the span of the Early Bronze Age, there is little evidence for such a change in Cornwall. Inhumation and cremation deposits have been found together at two sites (Polhendra and Lousey, Bousfield and Bousfield 1952; Christie 1985) and datable or diagnostic artefactual associations and radiocarbon dates (see appendices below) do not indicate primacy of either tradition. In addition, so little is known about Later Neolithic burial traditions in Cornwall that it is not currently possible to establish the origins of burial practices within the Neolithic period. 3.3 The dating of Cornish barrows 3.3.1 Introduction

The following section provides an outline and review of the available dating evidence for the sequence of barrow building in Cornwall. It commences with a discussion of the evidence from the new dates which are available from the site at Watch Hill and continues with an adaptation of Needham’s chronological scheme for the British Bronze Age (1996) through incorporation of available radiocarbon dates and artefact associations from Cornish barrows (appendix 8 and table 3.4).

CEMETERY

SA MPLE No

Watch Hill 1 Primary ditch fill [29]

Sample WH 1(163)

Watch Hill 1 Soil layer in ditch [22]

Sample WH 1 (72)

Watch Hill 1 Upper ditch fill [47]

Sample WH 1 (119)

Watch Hill 1 Central burial [58]

Sample WH 1 (168)

Watch Hill 1 Central cairn [56]

Sample WH 1 (164)

3.3.2 The dating of the Watch Hill barrow and the implications for Cornish barrows

Table 3.2 Material for radiocarbon dating.

The background During the course of this study it has been possible to obtain additional radiocarbon dates. The following

The results The following discussion is concerned with the meaning of the radiocarbon determinations from the Watch Hill 34

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Context

SAMPLE No

BP

CAL BC/AD

Primary ditch [29]

WK12937

3653 ± 45

2140-1880

Pit in ditch [60]

HAR 654

3470 ± 70

1980-1600

Pit in Ditch [60]

HAR 655

3420 ± 80

1920-1620

Soil layer in ditch [22]

WK12936

3474 ± 45

1920-1680

Upper fill of ditch [47]

WK12938

3651 ± 43

2140-1880

Burial deposit [58]

WK12940

3532 ± 48

1980-1730

Cairn [56]

WK12939

680 ± 40

AD1270-1400

Table 3.3 Results from the radiocarbon dating calibrated using OxCal 3.5 (including previously obtained dates HAR 654 and HAR 655 from pit [60]). determination would be that it dates to the latter end of the range, circa 1900 cal BC. However, it is more likely that the charcoal in this deposit was residual and had entered the ditch when it was backfilled. It is possible that it may have been associated with curated material from the original ditch cutting.

barrow. A full discussion of the results from the dating in terms of their relevance to the suggested phasing of the site is presented in chapter 5 (see 5.2.4 below). Four of the chronologically useful dates relate to the sequence within the ditch and the fifth was associated with the burial deposit (table 3.3). The earliest date from the ditch Wk12937: 3077 BP ± 56 (2140-1880 cal BC) was obtained from [29], the primary fill of the ditch. This fill was a silty deposit which is likely to have accumulated very rapidly after the ditch had been originally excavated, or alternatively very quickly after any cleaning of the bottom of the ditch had ceased. The next pair of dates HAR645: 3470 BP ± 70 (1980-1600 cal BC) and HAR655: 3420 BP ± 80 (1920-1620 cal BC) were the previously obtained determinations and derived from a ritual pit [60] which was cut into the base of the ditch. The relationship with the primary silting is uncertain. The pit was below a charcoal deposit and may have been cut into the ditch prior to, during or after silting had commenced. It was certainly not covered by a substantial deposit of silt (which was 30-60cm deep in places) as the excavator noted that one of the major stony infill deposits was ‘almost immediately’ above it (Henrietta Quinnell site archive).

The sequence within the interior of the site was more difficult to date as none of the contexts associated with the Old Land Surface, the cairn-ring or the covering mound deposits(s) provided any suitable material for dating. Only the central burial deposit and the overlying cairn had sufficient organic material which could be submitted for dating. The central burial [58] produced a determination of Wk12940: 3532 BP ± 48 (1980-1730 cal BC). This determination is later than the date from the primary ditch, but unfortunately has a significant degree of overlap with the determinations from the ritual pit and the soil layer in the ditch, which makes it impossible to be absolutely certain on radiocarbon grounds how the burial phase relates to the infilling episode within the ditch. The final determination obtained from the site Wk12939: 680 BP ± 40 (AD 1270-AD 1400) was derived from charcoal within the covering cairn. This determination must be the result of disturbance to the site during the medieval period and requires no further discussion.

The determinations from the pit have wide ranging deviations. Given that the primary ditch fill was associated with a rapid silting process, it seems likely that the latter end of their range can be ruled out. This view is supported by the next determination from the ditch Wk12936: 3474 BP ±45 (1920-1680 cal BC), obtained from the overlying soil layer [22] that had been placed into the ditch and which was associated with sherds from an enlarged Food Vessel. The degree of overlap might suggest that the soil layer was deposited relatively soon after the infilling of ritual pit [60]. The final date from the ditch was obtained from its upper fill [47] Wk12938: 3651 BP ± 43 (2141-1880 cal BC). Although there is a degree of overlap with the preceding determinations, this date is identical to the date obtained from the primary silt of the ditch and therefore does not readily fit into the sequence provided by the stratigraphically earlier contexts. One way of explaining the

The radiocarbon determinations obtained for Watch Hill barrow present a good picture of the stratigraphic sequence of activity at the site and in particular from the ditch. From the results we can build up a model for chronological sequence which spans a period of up to 300 years. This could mean that the initial use of the barrow dates from around 2000 BC, though it is possible that if the bottom of the ditch was regularly cleaned prior to the formation of the primary silt, the site could predate 2000 BC. It is possible that activity within the interior of the ring-cairn may be earlier than the ditch (see 5.2.4 below). The combined evidence from the deposits within the ditch indicates that it was infilled sometime between the 19th to 17th centuries BC, sometimes in the form of natural silting and at others as a result of deliberate activity. The determination from the

35

Andy M Jones

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

HAR8099 3510±70BP OXA822 3430±80BP HAR6652 3740±80BP HAR6549 3790±120BP HAR6651 3680±80BP OXA821 3330±80BP HAR6654 3110±70BP HAR6927 3280±120BP HAR6926 3150±90BP HAR6548 3650±80BP HAR2624 3610±70BP HAR2617 3500±80BP HAR2994 3610±80BP HAR2991 3580±80BP NPL193 3515±90BP HAR6643 4130±70BP HAR6640 3740±90BP HAR6635 3580±70BP HAR6634 3520±70BP HAR8098 3440±100BP NPL21 3070±105BP BM2472 3460±70BP HAR 3550±80BP HAR5130 3440±70BP BM935 3489±59BP HAR5280 3970±120BP HAR4540 3970±110BP HAR5510 3330±120BP HAR8100 3380±80BP AA29735 3665±65BP AA29736 3530±50BP AA29733 2895±55BP AA29734 3435±50BP WK12937 3653±45BP HAR654 3470±70BP HAR655 3420±80BP WK12936 3474±45BP WK12938 3651±43BP WK12940 3532±48BP 4000CalBC

3000CalBC

2000CalBC

1000CalBC

Calibrated date

Table 3.4 Radiocarbon determinations from Cornish barrows (updated from Christie 1988 using OxCal 3.5). The table should be used in conjunction with appendix 9. burial indicates that it was inserted after the ditch had started to infill and probably after the ritual pit had been dug into the base of the ditch during the 19th century BC. It is probable that the burial was broadly contemporary with either the deposition of the soil and the Food Vessel into the ditch or with the final backfilling of the site during the 18-17th centuries BC. Indeed, it is tempting to link the burial of artefacts in the ditch with the burial of individuals in the interior of the monument.

Cornwall and attempts to place it into the framework of Needham’s (1996) chronology for the Early Bronze Age. Needham’s scheme has been used because it is flexible enough to allow this regional information from Cornwall to be included within a national framework. •

Period 1 (2500-2300 cal BC) and Period 2 (2300-2050 cal BC).

Despite the fact that Beakers became the commonest diagnostic find in Britain during this period (Needham 1996), within Cornwall there are few Beaker burials and domestic and other types of ritual sites, though more numerous, are not particularly common. It has been suggested that Cornish Beakers may in fact belong to Period 3, rather than Period 2. As chapter 2 has already highlighted, there are currently very few sites with radiocarbon determinations (see table 3.4) or securely stratified artefacts that can be assigned to this period. In

Below, the results from the dating are incorporated into the wider discussion of the dating evidence from Cornish barrows, with particular reference to Periods 3 and 4. Table 3.4 presents the radiocarbon dates obtained form Cornish barrows (see appendix 9). 3.3.3 Needham’s chronology and the Bronze Age in Cornwall

The remaining part of this section considers evidence from 36

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

•

short Beakers and associated rites, including single inhumation burial, do not appear to have made an impact on the region at this time. •

Period 4 (1700-1500 cal BC).

Nationally, this period saw further changes in burial practices, pottery and metalwork (Camerton-Snowshill daggers and faience beads). During the early stage of this period Beakers and Food Vessels disappear from the British funerary record (Needham 1996, 132). In Wessex other types of urn including Collared Urns come to the fore and are widely associated with cremation burials.

Period 3 (2050-1700 cal BC).

Within Cornwall ceramics are commonly found in barrows (see appendices and 3.2.2 above). Although substantial objects of gold, amber and some metalwork have occasionally been found, the region has fewer rich burials than have been found in Wessex (e.g. Burgess 1980). It is argued here that this relative paucity reflects depositional practices rather than a true poverty in material culture.

The current available dating evidence from Cornish and Devonian barrows suggests that the majority of them were constructed between the later part of Period 3 and the earlier phase of Period 4; where multiple radiocarbon determinations exist there is evidence for continuity on sites (see Watch Hill above as well as Trelowthas and possibly Chysauster). Artefactually there is little evidence for changes in either rites or ceramic associations (Griffith and Quinnell 1999), though it is probable that as in other parts of Britain, Food Vessels and Beakers disappeared during the earlier part of this period. Calibrated radiocarbon determinations from both Cornwall and Devon indicate that most barrows were built between 1900 and 1650 cal BC (see table 3.4 and Quinnell 1988, 4). The current dates from Cornish barrows indicates a peak of barrow building around 1800 cal BC. Some of the Collared Urns recovered from barrows may date to this period and it is certain that Trevisker Ware continued to be deposited on barrow sites into the following Period. Period 4 saw some of the richest deposits of metalwork being made at Cornish barrows. Most of the identifiable daggers which have been recovered, including Caerloggas and Pelynt, are of Camerton-Snowshill type and the Rillaton gold cup was recovered from a barrow which contained a CamertonSnowshill type dagger. Faience beads have been recovered from two sites including Carn Creis and Trelowthas. As in Period 3, where human bone occurred in Cornish barrows at all, the usual rite was cremation, though Rillaton was associated with an inhumation deposit.

In terms of ceramics, Food Vessels have been found, for example, at Carvinack, Treligga 7, Watch Hill and possibly at Cataclews 1. Two of these vessels come from sites which are associated with radiocarbon determinations, though the association is not a direct one in either instance. At Cataclews possible sherds from a Food Vessel were scattered inside a site which a charcoal deposit dated to HAR8099: 3510 BP ± 70 (2030-1680 cal BC). The Watch Hill barrow (see 5.2.4 below) produced sherds from an enlarged Food Vessel which was recovered in the ditch with a placed deposit of soil dated to Wk12936: 3474 BP ± 45 (1920-1680 cal BC). Collared Urns have been recovered from several barrows including sites at Trannack, Bears Down and Gaverigan (see appendices). Two Collared Urns and one related miniature vessel have been found in barrows which have been radiocarbon dated. The earliest determination is from Davidstow Site 2 which produced a determination of HAR6635: 3580 BP ± 70 (2500-1900 cal BC). However, this date was obtained from the charcoal spread beneath a cairn inside the monument, which may have predated the Collared Urn. A miniature vessel from Colliford CRIVC produced a determination of HAR2991: 3580 BP ± 80 (1720-1690 cal BC), whilst charcoal inside a Collared Urn from the Tregiffian entrance grave yielded a determination of BM935: 3489 BP ± 59 (1980-1680 cal BC).

•

Much of the Trevisker Ware which has been recovered from barrows all over Cornwall (see appendices for frequency and determinations) can probably be assigned from this phase onwards. Dating evidence from Cornish barrows suggests that it originated around 2000 cal BC.

Period 5 (1500-1100 cal BC).

Nationally, this period witnessed a marked decline in barrow building. A few barrows did continue to be constructed into Period 5, around and after 1500 BC, but they tend to be smaller and less complex than in preceding periods. Typically these later barrows cover, or are surrounded by, multiple cremations in Deverel-Rimbury urns. Flat cemeteries consisting of Deverel-Rimbury urns containing cremations are also found without any accompanying mound.

In summary, most of the ceramics which have been found in barrows dating to this phase have been Trevisker Ware vessels. Food Vessels, Collared Urns and Beakers have also been recovered. The dating evidence does not allow us to identify primacy of ceramic tradition and this is reflected in the fact that there are several instances where different forms are found together in the same context.

Within Cornwall unmounded graves dating to Period 5 are extremely rare and there is a notable absence of the Deverel-Rimbury ceramics which are found widely in Dorset in funerary contexts and at settlement sites (e.g. Rahtz and ApSimon 1962; Petersen 1981). Trevisker Ware continues to be used on settlements in the region until around 1000 cal BC (Jones 1998/9), which means that it spans the entirety of Periods 3 to 5. No radiocarbon determinations are associated with barrows during this

Where human bone has been recorded it is usually cremated. As we shall see in chapter 5, Cornish barrows frequently contain deposits which are of a more ritual in character rather than associated with burial; examples include charcoal pits and fragments of bone rather than whole bodies. 37

Andy M Jones

period, though a late date NPL21 3070 ± 105 (1600-1000 cal BC) was obtained from beneath a small cairn at Gwithian Site GM/X (Thomas 1958) which was associated with settlement activity. Although the cairn was not associated with a burial, human bone was recovered from this phase of activity, which may indicate the continuation of earlier practices within the settlement: Period 5 coincides with the time that settlements become visible in the landscape and it seems likely that the disposal of human bone may have taken place within the domestic context.

appendix 9). This evidence is significant as it points to the longevity of sites as focal points in the landscape and highlights the complexity in the ways sites were used over time. Examination of the multi-phased nature of Cornish barrows and barrow cemeteries will be developed in chapter 5. ‘Rich’ barrows. Around five or six Cornish barrows are known to have contained deposits which could be described as rich. With the exception of pottery, there are comparatively few finds which could be interpreted as status symbols or as conferring wealth. The excavated record (see appendices) shows two clear trends in relation to rich barrows. Firstly, with the exception of beads, which are generally deposited in small numbers, there is no even spread of exotic or non-local items across the county. Rather such items (e.g. amber and gold) are often found together in the same sites. So, for example, Rillaton is associated with a copper alloy dagger, a gold cup and probably with faience beads. Similarly Harlyn Bay 21708 was associated with two gold lunulae and a copper flat axe and Woolley barrow was associated with an amber pin head and possibly with metalwork (gold and copper alloy). Secondly, with the exception of the Woolley barrow, which was covered by a sizeable mound, the deposits are not associated with large or ‘fancy’ barrows. Harlyn Bay was a cist burial which was not covered by a substantial mound and the Rillaton deposit was possibly associated with a mound enlargement burial.

However, ancient places may not have been entirely forgotten, continued interest in earlier sites is indicated by a late date AA29733 2895 BP ± 55 (1260-910 cal BC) which was obtained from a hearth covering the upper fill of the ditch around the barrow at Trelowthas. It is arguable that the late determinations from the adjacent burials at Chysauster (Smith 1996) HAR6654: 3110 BP ± 70 (15201210 cal BC) and HAR6926: 3150 BP ± 90 (1700-1100 cal BC) may represent continued veneration of an ancient monument. 3.4 Discussion

This chapter has highlighted the general characteristics of the county’s excavated barrows. However, even at this broad level it is possible to identify and summarise a number of points which will be relevant to the detailed discussions of barrow ritual which follows in subsequent chapters.

It is worth noting that there is no real temporal concentration of these sites to form a coherent elite burial phase of activity in Cornwall. This would suggest that exotic items were deployed at barrows at very particular times and for very specific reasons over several centuries. Indeed, these items are, in their mode of deposition (e.g. the Rillaton cup, the faience and amber beads), very much situated within localised Cornish ritual practices. This would therefore indicate that they were constructed, utilised and understood by local communities. I would argue that whilst exotic or non-local artefacts reflect contacts with other communities, their use and deposition were mediated by local traditions and practices.

The key points raised by this chapter can be summarised as follows: Origins of barrow construction. There is little evidence for barrow construction in Period 1 (2500-2300 cal BC) or for the formal disposal of the dead in low mounds with Beakers during Period 2 (2300-2050 cal BC). Currently only one barrow, Davidstow 22 has a certain Later Neolithic radiocarbon determination associated with it, HAR: 6643 4130 ± 70 (cal BC 2890-2550); however, this was obtained from a pit which was associated with the post-circle phase of the site (see 5.2.5 below). Most Cornish barrows were constructed during Periods 3 and 4 (2050-1500 cal BC). This assertion is supported by radiocarbon determinations and by artefactual associations. There is little evidence for primacy between the main ceramic traditions, Beakers, Food Vessels, Collared Urns and Trevisker Ware with the latter being the ceramic of choice for almost the whole of the Bronze Age.

Funerary rites. Deposits of human bone in the form of cremations or inhumations are found on a large minority of Cornish barrows (but see chapter 5). However, even allowing for acidic soil conditions, there is little evidence for the primacy of the single inhumation tradition. The Rillaton Barrow, for example contained an inhumation deposit, which must on artefactual associations post-date 1700 cal BC, whereas Harlyn Bay 21708 was associated with the gold lunulae and a cremation deposit, which should predate the Rillaton barrow by several centuries. At Lousey cremated bone and an inhumation deposit were found together with the fragments from two Beakers. The relatively low incidence of burial supports the argument that Cornish barrows were associated with a range of complex activities which transcended the need to bury an individual as an act of central importance. This is a theme which will be returned to in chapter 5.

Multi-phase barrows. As well as providing evidence for the span of barrow construction in the county, the results from radiocarbon dating have confirmed stratigraphical and artefactual evidence which suggests that a large number of Cornish barrows were in use over many years. Although sites with multiple radiocarbon determinations are still few and far between, the dates from those sites with more than one radiocarbon determination, Watch Hill, Chysauster, Trelan 2 and Trelowthas, all indicate that activity on the sites took place over hundreds of years (see above and

38

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

blocks) appear later in association with the abandonment of roundhouses and settlements; this will be elaborated on in chapter 7.

Ceramics. Pottery formed the largest single category of artefact. In contrast with neighbouring Devon (Quinnell 1988), ceramics are found in almost two thirds of all the excavated barrows and appear to have been deposited throughout the span of barrow building in the county. Although ceramic vessels were used for containing human remains, there are plenty of instances (appendices, chapters 2 and 5) where vessels are found on sites or within contexts that are devoid of human remains. The deposition of parts of pots or smaller sherds from fragmented vessels is well documented (see appendices), again indicating that the deployment of ceramics on barrows was bound up with an elaborate set of practices which extended well beyond their usage as containers of the dead. This is another theme which will be expanded in chapter 5.

Summary In this chapter I have provided the background against which much of the detail of the succeeding chapters can be set. It has focused upon those characteristics which have been most readily documented since barrows were first recorded from the later part of the eighteenth century onwards and it has allowed a series of key points to be identified, such as the range of deposits placed into barrows, which can be discussed and developed in relation to the detailed levels of information which will be presented in chapters 4 and 5. Other key contextual issues such as the siting of monuments or the biography of individual monuments and cemeteries cannot be addressed at this level. Therefore, from this point forward I will argue that the only way to begin to comprehend the reasons which influenced the siting and use of Cornish barrows is to consider the locales into which they were set, the ways they developed and the nature of deposits which were placed into them.

Metalwork. Despite forming the third largest category of reliably recorded artefactual deposit within Cornish barrows, metalwork is found in comparatively few sites and when the gold lunulae are excluded it appears late in barrow sites. As we have seen, the most common and datable finds are daggers which were probably deposited around 1700 cal BC. This raises the point, already discussed in chapter 2, namely that for much of the Early Bronze Age copper alloy objects were not deposited in Cornish barrows. It is argued here that this must have been due to local belief and practices, given the relative ubiquity of metal ore in the county. In marked contrast goldwork which had been obtained from Ireland (pre 1700 cal BC), was occasionally deposited within barrows. Again this is a local phenomenon and was perhaps a result of the association of goldwork with mythologised distant places beyond the sea which were charged with cosmological meaning. Finally, it is worth pointing out that although the majority of copper alloy objects were found in barrows containing cremated bone, others were not associated with human bone (see 5.3 below). The end of barrow construction. In common with much of Britain there appears to have been very limited barrow construction after 1500 cal BC. Nevertheless, as Barrett (1999) and Bradley (2002) have pointed out, many monuments must have continued to have retained some form of significance to societies, even after the meanings that were originally associated with them may have been forgotten. The Middle Bronze Age date from the charcoal at Chysauster and the hearth deposit at Trelowthas both indicate that these particular monuments continued to be focal points in the landscape and it is likely that many other barrows in the county continued to be important as places of mythology, respect or fear. A final point for consideration is that permanent settlements appear in the archaeological record at just the time that barrows disappear from it. Recently certain writers have drawn attention to the fact that changes in society may have led to ritual being carried out within the domestic setting of the settlement (Barrett et al 1991a; Brück 1995). In Cornwall it is apparent that several of the activities which are associated with barrows (e.g. the curation of sherds of pottery and the deposition of quartz

39

Chapter 4 Barrow cemeteries in their landscapes ‘And here the question may well arise, why is it that this narrow tract of land is so much more thickly strewn than other districts with the monuments of the dead ?’ (W.C Borlase 1885, 182).

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 Background

This stage of my research was designed to examine monuments within their landscape setting. It necessarily included a large element of fieldwork, recording cemeteries and their constituent sites with reference to the wider landscape, in which they are set. Figure 4.1 shows the location of the relevant cemeteries within Cornwall. The aim was to combine phenomenological approaches to the study of landscape (see Tilley 1994) with more traditional, and perhaps more easily verifiable, methods of fieldwork. As Bradley (1996) has noted, although archaeologists have studiously mapped landscapes, they have largely not attempted to consider them in any other way than in terms of their economic potential. This is because, even though many archaeologists are aware that non-western societies view landscapes in a variety of ways and may hold their own personal views, there has been a reluctance to appear to be acting in a non-objective manner. In order to minimise potential criticism of subjectivity (Fleming 1999), it was determined that the study should be carried out in a controlled manner via the medium of recording sheets based on standardised questions. It was intended that the observations made during this piece of work should be verifiable and would be readily separable from the interpretation which will develop from it. In short, with the exception of the concluding discussion and the inevitable subjectivity involved in selecting the questions, this chapter minimises the subjective elements of the phenomenological model and is intended to ‘inhibit the interpretative impulse’ (Boado and Vázquez 2000).

Figure 4.1 Map showing cemeteries recorded during fieldwork.

4.1.2 Aims and objectives

The objectives of the fieldwork were to record the cemeteries and analyse the information thus obtained in order to determine the underlying principles which determined the way cemeteries were organised at a local level. For example, do views of rocky tors or hilltops play an important role in Cornish barrow cemeteries? Are certain site types placed in prominent positions whilst others are hidden? By understanding and identifying localised patterns of behaviour it should be possible to answer several key questions concerning localised patterns of ritual within Cornwall.

Other monuments and barrow cemeteries: Did Cornish barrows generally have predictable relationships with other earlier and contemporary monument forms (stone circles, etc.), or is there local variation within Cornwall? How did Cornish barrow cemeteries relate to other monument Groupings?

•

Barrows and topography: Did natural features such as rivers, tors and rocky-outcrops affect the siting of monuments? What was the role of natural features, in terms of their inclusion within barrows, and their proximity to the barrow site?

•

Zonation of barrows: Were monuments sited at specific locations within an ordered landscape, and did specific monument types and ritual practices occur at certain locales?

Six cemeteries from across the county were selected for analysis. The small size of the sample could lead to the charge that it is not representative as a whole. However, this study was not devised to record all cemeteries in the county, as it is not considered likely that all barrow groups were the product of the same processes or were built to a predetermined template. The chosen groups were selected according to their preservation, varying topographical situation (coastal, hill top or upland) and diversity of region (west Cornwall, central Cornwall, etc.).

The primary questions can be summarised under the following headings: •

•

The integrity of Cornish cemeteries: Can Cornish barrows readily be grouped into discrete cemeteries, how were barrows sited in relation to one another and what evidence is there for intervisibility within and between cemeteries?

40

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

The basic unit of both the Cemetery and the Grouping is close intervisibility between individual sites in the landscape and their physical proximity, and a shared topographical location (e.g. ridge top, cliff edge).

4.2 Methodology 4.2.1 Background

There have been comparatively few recent studies of the siting of round barrow/cairn cemeteries (e.g. Woodward and Woodward 1996; Field 1998). Only a handful have involved any actual fieldwork (e.g. Tilley 1995) and until the study of the Stonehenge barrow groups (Exon et al 2000) (which post-dated this fieldwork) none have included any kind of methodological procedure for the recording of visual relationships.

Notes: Although the term Cemetery has been used, the evidence from excavated sites would suggest that it is likely that funerary activities formed only a minor part of the activities which took place (see chapter 5). The six Cemeteries/Groupings which are discussed in this chapter were the only ones studied and they are presented in the order in which they were recorded. Information from other cemeteries is based on published accounts and has not been cross-checked in the field.

The nearest comparable study which has produced any kind of methodological analysis into visual relationships between prehistoric sites was carried out in the north of Britain by Bradley et al (1993). This study was designed to assess the views from a large number of rock carvings to see if they were sited on rocks with extensive views over the surrounding landscape (ibid., 130). The direction and extent of visibility was recorded from each site.

The pilot study In order to develop a practicable working methodology for recording barrows, Cemeteries and Groupings, a pilot study was carried out in November 2000. The barrows/cairns on and around Tregarrick Tor (Figs.4.2 and 4.3) were selected for the initial study on two grounds; firstly, the author was reasonably familiar with the area, and secondly because they have already been the subject of previous studies, including the Ordnance Survey and the Bodmin Moor Survey (Johnson and Rose 1994). All the sites in the study area were listed in the county SMR. The area had been subjected to a previous intervisibility study (Tilley 1995) and was situated on the fringes of the Cheesewring/Hurlers Grouping of monuments which had been discussed by Barnatt (1982, 187) as an ‘important ceremonial complex’. None of the subsequent study areas were visited by the author prior to recording.

There are significant differences between rock art sites and barrows since barrows/cairns are far more widely distributed across the landscape and assume a diverse range of forms in a variety of local topographic locales. However, it seemed to me that some elements of Bradley’s approach to the recording of rock art would be useful in considering the siting of Cornish barrow cemeteries. The systematic recording of the range of visibility from each of the sites was of particular importance. However, a greater range of variables needed to be considered than for rock art: for example, the proximity and visual impact of landscape features had to be examined at each site as did the overall cohesiveness of the group. 4.2.2 The method

A number of items were taken into the field to assist with the recording:

Recording sheets Two sheets were designed to record the barrow cemeteries. The first form (Grouping/Cemetery sheet) targeted the cemetery itself to ask questions about the underlying landform, the cohesiveness and form of the cemetery, and about natural features. The second form was designed to be specific, to record the details of the individual sites, including the range and scope of visibility from each and the presence or absence of notable topographical features (including rivers and tors) and other cultural sites (including other barrows and standing stones).

• • • • • • •

Terminology Throughout the course of the fieldwork and this chapter a series of terms have been employed to define individual monuments, their groupings and landscape settings. A table of terms and their meanings can be found in appendix 11.

•

The terms Grouping and System were devised for this study. A Grouping is defined as a group of various monuments, which can include barrows, stone circles, stone rows, standing stones and henges. A System is defined as a collection of Groupings and Cemeteries which combine to form a broader ceremonial landscape.

A Grouping/Cemetery recording sheet and several Site recording sheets. A 1:10,000 map extract printed from the county SMR GIS showing the cemetery and accompanying SMR numbers. A 1:25,000 scale map showing the prominent (natural and cultural) features in the area. Compasses. GPS equipment to check grid references. A site diary recording the procedures of the survey. A camera (a limited photographic record is being made for future illustrative purposes). A digital camera which was used to produce a 360 degree panorama view taken from the northern end of the cemetery.

It was anticipated that the pilot survey would commence with the completion of the Grouping/Cemetery form and that it would be followed by the analysis of the individual sites using the individual Site forms. The larger scale map would be used to cross check that prominent landscape features and monuments had been looked for. 41

Andy M Jones

Figure 4.2 General location map showing the Tregarrick Cemetery. (Numbers next to barrows refer to their SMR PRN).

Figure 4.3 Map of the Craddock Moor System, showing the Tregarrick Cemetery and its relationships with adjacent Groupings.

The proposed methodology was modified in the field. The Cemetery was approached from the Craddock Moor stone circle which lies to the northeast. The length of the Cemetery was then walked from north to south and all of the sites shown on the prepared maps were checked and identified; only then were the Site forms filled out.

recorded of the landscape from the end of the Cemetery. Unfortunately, problems with the software meant that this was the only Cemetery where digital photography was attempted. During recording the GPS equipment was abandoned because all of the sites were identifiable from the OS/SMR GIS maps. Following the pilot study the GPS equipment was only used to locate sites which were no longer visible in the field (at Davidstow Moor and at two of the Cataclews barrows).

The methodology which became established was that the initial questions on the Site form (setting and monument type, etc.) up to the section on visibility were completed. The recorder then systematically walked out from the site in the direction of each of the cardinal points and noted the approximate distance from which it was no longer visible. The recorder then returned to the site and began to consider visibility from the site, whether there were any restrictions to visibility from (e.g. ridges, tors), which resulted in any landscape features or other sites being hidden. Finally, the recorder identified architectural (e.g. alignment of a cist or standing stone) or natural features (e.g. a boulder) which created an alignment or focused the monument on a particular part of the landscape.

The methodology for recording the Tregarrick Cemetery worked well. The recording sheets forced a systematic approach to the observations, which meant that all the sites were assessed in a similar manner and individual sites were not over emphasised. The pre-recording walkover of the Cemetery also enabled its parameters to be distinguished from the outset. This would not have been possible from the mapped evidence which does not indicate the complexity or number of individual barrow Cemeteries or monument Groupings.

The recording started at the southern end of the Cemetery and progressed towards the north. The Grouping/ Cemetery form was then completed listing all the characteristics of the group which had been observed during the fieldwork.

The developed methodology The pilot study produced a number of significant results of high enough standard to be used in comparison with the other Cemeteries and Groupings which were subsequently studied. The methodology described in the preceding section formed the basis for the remaining cemeteries in the study. However, several modifications were made to the recording system which included:

Finally, a digital camera was set up on the northernmost barrow in the group and a 360 degree digital image was 42

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

• •

A scaled and labelled OS map sheet showing the individual sites in the Cemetery attached to each of the recording sheets. Fieldworkers were asked to mark on the maps the lines of sight between each barrow/monument, so that visual relationships were recorded both pictorially and in words.

•

Problems during the recording Virtually all fieldwork projects have certain limitations placed upon them. Some of the problems can be resolved in the field whereas others are more fundamental and relate to the nature of the available information which is being collected. Although the fieldwork methodology was revised to make it more workable, some problems remained, these include: • A lack of good chronological data with which to link constituent sites within the Cemeteries/Groupings. Poor environmental records, which had an obvious • effect upon gauging the level of intervisibility of sites in the past. A lack of information regarding the relationships • between settlement and ceremonial sites. The uneven pattern of survival of sites, which • means that large areas of lowland Cornwall cannot be studied. However, the apparent preference for barrow construction in elevated locales may mean that the current distribution of barrows is not radically different from the Bronze Age pattern (4.9.3 below). Modern damage to sites through agriculture and • other activities means that the original form of the monument is sometimes unclear. In particular, mounds may have been reduced in height, stone kerbs removed and ditches infilled. Some smaller sites, may have been lost from the cemetery area altogether. Modern restrictions to visibility or movement • between sites meant that many barrows could not be looked at due to high hedges and buildings, etc.). This again resulted in many cemeteries in central and eastern Cornwall not being considered for study (e.g. Carland Cross and Taphouse). There was an inherent bias in that well-preserved • coherent barrow groups were selected for study. This meant that despite the fact that isolated or very dispersed barrows form the largest categories, they were not analysed. Varying level of preservation made it hard to link • some of the Cemeteries into wider monument Systems. This was particularly problematic at Cataclews, but was also a factor in Penwith where much of the lower lying land has been enclosed. On Davidstow Moor where no mounds survive, • there was the problem that the establishment of the position of the sites was dependant upon the site location map which accompanied the excavation report and the use of hand-held GPS units. At Botrea and Treen Common the monuments • within the Cemetery/Grouping were covered by

•

•

differing levels of vegetation which meant that ascribing a form to the sites was sometimes difficult, as was assigning the level of visibility within the landscape (e.g. a barrow with gorse growing upon it becomes more visible). At Treen Common there was the problem of additional sites of uncertain origin, specifically small cairns which had been identified as being of prehistoric origin. However, these sites were located near to an area of mining and have now been identified by the author as spoil heaps. The Cemeteries were situated at different distances apart, which has resulted in the GIS mapping producing different types of images (e.g. compare Fig.4.3 and Fig.4.10). Watercourses were not located within any of the studied Cemeteries, but more distant sources could not be displayed on the GIS generated images.

The first three of these problems require further discussion. Chronological problems The dating of the Cemeteries and Groupings is problematic, yet their chronology is of fundamental importance in discussing their relationships with surrounding monuments and establishing the principle of zonation in the landscape. Very little large-scale modern excavation has taken place in Cornwall on sites which are not threatened by development. This means that there are no published radiocarbon dates for any of the Cornish stone circles or stone rows. As a consequence, dating of the development of practically all the Cemeteries and monument Groupings which were chosen for analysis is virtually impossible (with the exception of Davidstow Moor) and is dependant upon the relative dating of different monument types (Burl 1976; 1993; Barnatt 1989). This is particularly frustrating in a System such as Craddock Moor of which the Tregarrick Tor Cemetery is a component. Here there is a large number of diverse site types which can only be understood via very poor old excavations. For example, the plundering of the Rillaton barrow, which is situated within the Hurlers Grouping, produced a number of artefacts which are Early Bronze Age in date (Smirke 1867, 189-195; Gerloff 1975, 107). Similarly, the excavation at the Hurlers stone circle was carried out before the advent of modern sampling techniques and was inconclusive in terms of obtaining dating information (Radford 1938). The difficulty of chronology is not merely confined to relationships between the Cemeteries/Groupings but applies also to the sites within them. The dating of the development of the analysed Cemeteries is problematic. This is because very few of the barrows which were examined have been excavated under modern conditions and most of the information about construction and the content of the sites was again derived from old sources. The question of chronology was particularly problematic in the St.Breock Cemetery: the nearest barrows with any kind of datable information were those which Borlase (1872) excavated on Bears Downs, several kilometres to the west.

43

Andy M Jones

For the purposes of this study it is assumed that the basic chronologies which have been put forward for the construction of ceremonial monuments in Britain (Needham 1996) and the southwest (Griffith and Quinnell 1999) are applicable here. Therefore the stone circles on Craddock Moor, the post-ring beneath Davidstow 22 and possibly the embanked stone circle at Treen Common and Embanked Avenue on Craddock Moor are probably the earliest ceremonial monuments encountered during this study (likely to date to between 3000 and 2000 BC). The similar size of the Craddock Moor stone circle and the central circle at the Hurlers (Barnatt 1980) may indicate that they are broadly contemporary and predate the barrow groupings. Based on analogy with other areas (e.g. Barnatt 1990), the embanked stone circle at Treen Common, may be later than the free-standing stone circles but earlier than the barrows. It is tempting to follow other commentators and argue that the tor cairn around Tregarrick Tor formed the earliest element (possibly Neolithic, Oswald et al 2001, 159) in the Tregarrick Tor Cemetery, and that it is contemporaneous with the stone circles; but there is no current evidence to demonstrate this. The bulk of the barrows, which comprise the majority of monuments recorded by this study, will have been constructed between 2200 and 1500 cal BC.

The available environmental information from excavated barrows in upland settings in Cornwall suggests localised patterns of clearance, with some sites showing evidence of clearance for a considerable time prior to the construction of the site (e.g. Griffith 1984a). However, the extent of clearance around the individual sites is uncertain and hazel is certainly present at some of them (Caseldine 1980, 12). Hazel woodland would undoubtedly affect the level of visibility between the Cemeteries/Groupings. The nature of the environment in prehistory for non-moorland barrows is especially difficult; the environmental record for the St.Breock area is poorly understood and Caseldine’s palaeoenvironmental survey of Cornwall contained no environmental sample sites located in the area (ibid., 4). On the available evidence, it is assumed by this study that during the Early Bronze Age there was a mosaic of cleared areas and more extensive areas of woodland, which would have (at least at certain times of year, see Cummings and Whittle 2003), reduced levels of intervisibility. Problems with the relationships between ritual and settlement sites The final major problem with the study of ceremonial landscapes has been their relationship with settlement archaeology. Whilst it is extremely unlikely that prehistoric people ever organised themselves or the landscapes which they inhabited according to such simple oppositions (Ucko and Layton 1999; Hirsch and O’Hanlon 1997), the relationship between the ceremonial monuments and the roundhouse settlements and field systems which are found in close proximity to the Cemeteries and Groupings in several of the study areas, namely Tregarrick Tor (Johnson and Rose 1994), Botrea and Treen Common (CCC SMR), does require further comment.

Environmental problems The problem of establishing ancient vegetation coverage should be central to any study of prehistoric monument Groupings and their visibility/views into the wider landscape (see Exon et al 2000, 20). The environmental record for Cornwall, although little studied, is of utmost importance when considering intervisibility between monuments. Although visual relationships between monuments and major hills may not have significantly altered, any appreciable increase in vegetation, particularly woodland cover, would have had a large impact upon the visual relationships between Groupings/Cemeteries and would have created a sense of isolation between them; this would in turn have heightened the intensity of experience at each of the individual Groupings.

In recent years there has been some debate concerning the chronological relationship between settlement and ceremonial sites in Britain. In some areas it appears that permanent settlement and ceremonial monuments were contemporaneous, for example in Scotland (Barclay 2001), Ireland (Cooney 2000a) and some parts of England (Barnatt 1999, though see Edmonds 2001). Some writers have argued that there was an overlap in round barrow use and the development of field systems (Peters 1999; 2000), though much of the available surviving evidence from southern Britain points to settlement features post-dating the ceremonial features (Brück 1999). This evidence has been taken to indicate that Early Bronze Age communities were mobile and that barrows and other ceremonial monuments were located at places with powerful mythologies attached to them (Field 2001). The available evidence from lowland Cornwall (see 7.2.6) and at Leskernick on Bodmin Moor (Sue Hamilton pers comm) supports a mid-second millennium origin for the establishment of fixed settlements. Therefore, in contrast with several earlier commentators (e.g. Johnson and Rose 1994), the Bronze Age roundhouses and field systems which are frequently found near to the study areas (e.g. Tregarrick Tor) are not viewed by this study as being contemporaneous with the construction or use of the ceremonial monuments, but are instead interpreted as postdating them.

The general pattern of evidence from the southwest region indicates that woodland clearances became marked by ceremonial monuments from around 3500BC onwards, with the most intensive phase of monument construction dating between 2200 and 1500 BC (see 3.3 above). Localised patterns of vegetation coverage and clearance are particularly poorly understood, though there is very little current evidence for widespread cultivation on Bodmin Moor during the Early Bronze Age (e.g. Caseldine 1980). Indeed, the results from pollen sampling at two locations on Bodmin Moor have both indicated that there was little widespread woodland clearance prior to the Middle Bronze Age (Jones forthcoming b; Sue Hamilton, pers comm). A similar picture of late clearance in Penwith is indicated by the pollen sequence from the excavated cairn at Chysauster (Smith 1996, 208-209).

44

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

4.3 The Tregarrick Tor Cemetery (SX 24297132)

4.3.4 Results from the fieldwork

A number of results were obtained from the detailed analysis of this Cemetery group, which could not have been achieved solely from map based or GIS analysis. The fieldwork revealed that the monuments at Tregarrick were carefully sited and made maximum use of the local topography. Although the surrounding monument groups were not examined in such a detailed manner, the evidence suggests that they occupied specific points in the landscape which allowed some features to be hidden whilst others were highly visible.

4.3.1 Introduction and background (Figs.4.2 and 4.3)

The Tregarrick Tor Cemetery is a small group of barrows situated on the southeastern side of Bodmin Moor, at the western end of Craddock Moor. It is one of several Groupings on the moor and was selected for analysis due to the large number and wide variety of site types which are found in the vicinity. The Craddock Moor area became a focus for prehistoric activity during the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, with groups of monuments occurring between the Cheesewring and the Hurlers, in the valley around the Embanked Avenue, around Craddock Moor stone circle, and at Tregarrick Tor. Each of these Cemeteries and Groupings contains an unique arrangement of monument forms. Several writers (Trahair 1978; Barnatt 1982; Tilley 1995) have previously noted that larger barrows and cairns occupy the more prominent positions in the landscape and that stone circles have relatively few barrows in their immediate vicinity. Barnatt (1982) has drawn attention to the Grouping of monuments around the Hurlers and Tilley (1995) has commented upon the visual relationships between the monuments on Craddock Moor. However, none of the published sources have analysed the composition of the smaller Groupings in this area or considered how they might have worked together as part of a wider System.

The fieldwork results can be summarised as follows: •

Despite being loosely arranged, the six sites form a distinct group which is visually and topographically distinguishable from the adjacent Cheesewring/ Hurlers Grouping and the Embanked Avenue Grouping (Fig.4.3). Although the Cemetery could be described as linear, the overall cohesion of the group in terms of spacing is low. The group actually consists of a series of paired (1235.1 and 1235.2, 1234.2 and 1234.3) and individual sites (1234.1 and 1278) which can be defined as a group, in terms of their:

•

-

4.3.2 Topography

The Tregarrick Cemetery is sited upon a broad saddle shaped ridge, which apart from the southern (Tregarrick Tor itself) end is gently elevated above the surrounding moorland. When viewed from a distance the moor appears to form a reasonably flat open plateau which is ringed, except on the southwestern side, by a circuit of large hills and tors. In actual fact this impression is misleading, for the plateau between Tregarrick Tor and the Hurlers is far from even, being subdivided by a series of shallow valleys and quite prominent ridges which compartmentalise this part of the moor into a series of micro-landscapes, with rather different visual outlooks.

•

4.3.3 Description of the cemetery

The Cemetery consists of a dispersed linear arrangement of six sites which occur in pairs or individually. The sites within the Cemetery maintain overall cohesion, through their relative isolation and visual separation from the majority of other prehistoric ceremonial sites in the area. The sites in the group are simple bowl or platform cairns (1234.1, 1234.2 and 1234.3), except for at either end where complex multi-phased monuments are found. A pair of complex cairns are found at the northern end (1235.1 and 1235.2). Tregarrick Tor (1278) is situated at the southern end of the group. A propped stone (a large slab supported by smaller stones) surmounts the top of the tor (Plate 5.1) and an encircling cairn of small stones surrounds much of its base. The sites at either end of the Cemetery are the most visually prominent and have the most extensive views, which include many of the prominent hills and tors, some other barrow groups and the coastline (see below).

•

•

•

45

-

intervisibility with one another shared alignment on Tregarrick Tor (where the cemetery terminates) use of the same well defined ridge The Cemetery is sited so that there is almost no intervisibility with the Groupings of small cairns around the Embanked Avenue located in the valley to the north. Although the northern barrow in the Tregarrick Cemetery is just visible on the skyline from the cairns at the eastern end of Embanked Avenue Grouping the visual relationship is not reciprocated: the small cairns on the northern side of the Embanked Avenue are not identifiable and the linear earthwork itself is not at all visible. The same lack of intervisibility occurs between Tregarrick Cemetery and the majority of the sites in the Hurlers Grouping. Only isolated sites including Stowes Pound and the Rillaton barrow are visible. The widest range of views are obtained from the northern (sites 1235.1 and 1235.2) and southern extremities of the group, with the widest views of all being obtained from Tregarrick Tor (site 1278), which has extensive views to the south coast and Dartmoor. The southern coast and the Craddock Moor stone circle are only visible from either end of the Cemetery. The most conspicuous sites are located at the ends of the Cemetery group. Tregarrick Tor with its encircling cairn and propped stone on the summit, is located at the southern end. At the northern end are two large rimmed platform cairns with kerbs. Little Tor, a prominent rock-stack which lies to the immediate south of Tregarrick Tor, was not visible from any of the barrows within the Cemetery as it is hidden by Tregarrick Tor. It only becomes visible

Andy M Jones

either from the summit of Tregarrick Tor or after the point when the main Tor has been visited and the walker continues on to the south. The remains of a possible cairn consisting of monolithic upright slabs is situated between the southern side of Tregarrick Tor and Little Tor. This possible site is also blocked from view by Tregarrick Tor from the main barrow alignment to the north.

of focus for the Tregarrick Cemetery or the adjacent Groupings. Indeed, Craddock Moor stone circle has very few barrows within 200m of it and fewer still have any visual relationship with it. The exception to this general principle is at the Embanked Avenue Grouping, where a large number of small cairns are grouped along the axis of the embankment, on its northern side. Local topographic features seem to have been more important focal points for barrow groups than stone circles in the majority of the alignments within this part of Bodmin Moor. The Tregarrick Cemetery is quite obviously aligned on the tor at its southern end (Plate 5.2) and it was interesting to note during the fieldwork that the barrows lie along a natural path/ridge which was being used by ramblers, most of whom were ignorant of the sites which they were passing. The importance of the topography is evident at the Groupings which were visited (the Cheesewring/Hurlers Grouping, Embanked Avenue Grouping and the Craddock Moor Grouping). The Cheesewring/Hurlers Grouping is clearly aligned from south to north and ends upon a spectacular tor (Plate 5.3) flanked by the Cheesewring, the summit of which is encircled by Stowes Pound, an enclosure of probable Neolithic date (Oswald et al 2001). Topography guides the orientation of the monuments at the Embanked Avenue Grouping, where all the sites are aligned along the bottom of a valley which, with the exception of the western horizon, essentially shields them from the rest of the landscape. It is more difficult to demonstrate the role of natural topographic features at the Craddock Moor Grouping, which consists of the stone circle and a few dispersed barrows, as the stone circle is sited in a flat area which is surrounded by prominent hills and tors. However, Barnatt (1982, 73-74) noted that, viewed from the circle, the Midsummer sun rises above the Cheesewring and sets over Brown Willy.

4.3.5 Discussion and interpretation

The results from the Tregarrick Tor Cemetery study will now be used to approach the questions which were put forward at the start of this chapter (see 4.1.2 above). Cemetery integrity The evidence for the integrity of the group was obvious from the outset. The barrows were sited on a ridge which distinguished them topographically from the large number of surrounding sites (none of the other barrows in the area extended onto this ridge). All of the sites were clearly intervisible and followed the spine of the ridge towards the tor, though the sites were not tightly organised as in a classic linear cemetery, where there are long almost interlocking lines of barrows. Visual relationships between monuments Visual relationships with other monument types were of interest in this study area, since the Tregarrick Cemetery is one of the few barrow groups in Cornwall to have been located in relatively close proximity to several stone circles, stone rows and the Embanked Avenue. Despite this proximity the level of visibility between the major classes of site is low. Though the Tregarrick Tor Cemetery can be seen from the eastern cairns in the Grouping, the Embanked Avenue itself is not visible from the Tregarrick Cemetery, and neither are the Hurlers. Craddock Moor circle is only visible from the top of Tregarrick Tor and from the northernmost barrows. The most prominent barrows from Tregarrick are the sky-lined cemetery on Brown Gelly, where despite being approximately 4.5km away to the northwest, individual monuments are visible from all of the Tregarrick Tor sites. Other visible sites comprise the larger of the mounds to the southwest of the Hurlers (visible from all sites), the Rillaton barrow and the distant barrows on Langstone Downs to the northeast (visible from the sites at either end of the Cemetery).

Zonation in the landscape The organisation of the sites is quite apparent at the level of the Cemetery/Grouping. At Tregarrick this is evident in the way that the more complex monuments are sited in the most visually prominent positions at either end of the Cemetery. At the northern end the first sites which would have been encountered when the site was visited were the two large rimmed platform cairns, which may cover earlier structural forms (e.g. cairn-rings). Based on the evidence from excavated Cornish examples (e.g. Miles 1975), these cairns are likely to have been the sites of complex rituals, which may have been carried out over many generations and are likely to have developed over time. The central part of the Cemetery was occupied by simpler, smaller monuments with less extensive views, which perhaps had a much more localised significance. They may have acted to maintain the central focus upon Tregarrick Tor and demarcate the controlled route of approach towards it. The tor itself is the most visually stunning site. The rock-stack is several metres high, and almost entirely encircled by a ringcairn. The top of the stack is surmounted by a large flat, propped stone (identified during the course of the fieldwork by Tony Blackman), which has the appearance of

The northern pair of barrows at Tregarrick (1235.1 and 1235.2) are visible as skyline features from the eastern cairns in the Embanked Avenue Grouping, but this visual relationship is dependant on there being little obstructive vegetation. The visual arrangement is not reciprocated because the small cairns of the embankment group are small, poorly defined and rapidly become lost against the background of the moor. Despite the apparent proximity of these monument groups the visual relationships between the Groupings are quite restricted and were probably more so in the Early Bronze Age. The role of topographical features Local stone circles do not appear to have formed any kind

46

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Groupings, which have their own intimate relationship with the local topography and each of which has its own unique composition of monuments. The remaining task is to consider the possible links between these monuments. One way of interpreting these Groupings would be to identify them as separate entities which acted as territorial foci for individual communities (following Woodward 1991). However, the approach which is favoured here is that the individual Groupings discussed above were part of a landscape cosmology. Bradley (1993) referred to Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age landscapes as being defined by communal centres, and burial mounds, linked together by a network of pathways. If the vegetation coverage was more developed than today it is possible to envisage the experience of space being structured to a high degree, with pathways between the major Groupings being reinforced by the monuments found along their routes. We can imagine groups of people walking along paths with quite restricted views, which suddenly opened up to reveal wider vistas associated with the more complex elements in the System. There are some indications that some parts of the System may have been hidden, for example the rockstack behind Tregarrick Tor, or the small cairns associated with the Embanked Avenue in their concealed valley. Perhaps some parts of this landscape were infrequently visited, or access to them reserved for the initiated. Over time the different Groupings and Cemeteries might have accrued and carried different meanings which were associated with different kinds of behaviour. The Hurlers, for example may have been associated with large gatherings and the Embanked Avenue Grouping with mortuary practice.

a miniature megalithic monument. Similar stones have recently been recorded at other tor sites across Bodmin Moor (Herring 1997a) and could represent an early development in localised ritual practices. A second isolated rock-stack is located to the south of the main tor. When approached from the north, this second stack is totally hidden from the rest of the Grouping and is only revealed after the main tor has been visited. The possible significance of this final revelation is perhaps hinted at by a ruined structure of stones on this side of the tor which may represent a ring-cairn. The careful arrangement of monuments or landscape design element is evident within the other Groupings which are found across the Moor. The Embanked Avenue Grouping contains just two kinds of site type, cairns and the embankment itself. The Embanked Avenue is completely unparalleled on the Moor (e.g. Johnson and Rose 1994), though it may ultimately be derived from the cursus monument tradition and shares certain similarities with avenues which have been found in Ireland and northern Britain (Barclay and Harding 1999). It was noted during the fieldwork that the cairns are all small and are visually unimpressive. They are all are sited on the northern side of the embankment and run along the length of the valley. The relationship between the cairns and the avenue suggests that the cairns post-date the avenue (Johnson and Rose 1994). Evidence from the excavation of other small cairns on Bodmin Moor may indicate that these sites were more intimately associated with death and burial (e.g. Harris et al 1984) than the more complex barrows which are found in the other Groupings.

Summary The study of the Tregarrick Tor Cemetery, one of the Cemeteries on Craddock Moor, revealed a distinctive arrangement of sites focused upon a prominent rockoutcrop. The group was found to be organised in such a way that complex sites were sited in the most prominent positions, whilst simpler monuments were more concealed. It has also been argued that each of the Groupings on Craddock Moor was unique and that they may all have been linked via a network of pathways, visual cues and specific modes of behaviour.

The Craddock Moor Grouping is the most diffuse and simple. It primarily consists of an isolated single stone circle which is flanked on either side by large cairns. The Cheesewring/Hurlers Grouping is the most sophisticated arrangement of monuments within this area of Bodmin Moor and several writers have identified it as a sacred area (Barnatt 1982; Johnson and Rose 1994), though I do not totally accept this terminology as it implies that there are non-sacred areas (see Cleal et al 1995 and Brück 1999). The Grouping begins with two large cairns and then proceeds to the north with the Hurlers stone circles. This site consists of three closely-spaced stone circles, aligned north to south, with two outlying standing stones flanking their western side. The stone circles have a direct alignment onto the Rillaton barrow which in turn is aligned onto the Cheesewring; a prominent natural rock-stack stack situated at the southern end of a hill, which was probably enclosed by a massive stone bank (Stowes Pound) during the Neolithic period. Two large cairns lying at the southern end of Stowes Pound are not visible from the rest of the Grouping and can only be viewed from within the enclosure. Thus, as at Tregarrick Tor, there is an element of the hidden.

4.4 The St.Breock Down Cemetery (SX 95596803) 4.4.1 Introduction and background (Figs.4.4 and 4.5)

The St.Breock Down Cemetery was studied as one of the few cemeteries in central Cornwall which has not been compromised too heavily by agricultural activity and longterm enclosure. The Cemetery is situated within a wider area which includes standing stones and a stone row. During fieldwork the sites within the St.Breock Cemetery were recorded and the adjacent Cemeteries and Groupings were visited (Longstone Grouping, Nine Maidens Grouping and the Pawton Springs Cemetery), though they were not recorded in detail.

From this analysis of the Cemeteries and Groupings it is evident that there exists a number of well defined

47

Andy M Jones

Figure 4.4 General location map, showing the St. Breock Cemetery. (Numbers next to barrows refer to their SMR PRN).

Figure 4.5 Map showing the St. Breock Cemetery and its relationships with adjacent Groupings. 48

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

The St.Breock Down Cemetery consists of thirteen upstanding barrows. Additional circular sites which are visible on aerial photographs may increase its size to around 16 barrows, although these sites may be related to other activities, such as mining. Only the upstanding barrows are considered here. None of the barrows in the Cemetery have been the subject of archaeological or antiquarian investigation.

Longstone Grouping may have developed around existing standing stones, a possible chambered tomb and the Nine Maidens Grouping around the stone row, there are no clear antecedents within the St.Breock Cemetery. Peter Herring has suggested (pers comm) that barrow 26122.03 may overlie a possible Neolithic long barrow. However, this feature is not at all clear on the ground (when visited by the author) and it has not been excavated.

4.4.2 Topography

The monuments within the Cemetery generally appear to be simple structures. The large mounds may mask elaborate behaviour, for one of the large mounds on the nearby Bears Downs appeared to Borlase to have been composed of layers of different soils (Borlase 1872, 245). The ritual deployment of different coloured soils in barrow mounds is known from several other Early Bronze Age barrows in southwest Britain (Owoc 2002; Pollard and Russell 1969; 5.2.5 below). It is possible that mounds within the St.Breock Cemetery incorporate similar layers, which were probably symbolic in nature, although excavation is the only way to test this.

The St.Breock Down Cemetery is situated on recently enclosed downland, on a plateau at the western end of an undulating ridge. The plateau is quite steeply elevated above the adjacent sections of the ridge. The area today is almost completely treeless and consequently there are extensive views into the surrounding landscape. However, because the barrows are set in from the edges of the ridge they do not form prominent landscape features. 4.4.3 Description of the cemetery

The Cemetery consists of a long, dispersed, arrangement of ten core sites which are found individually or in small groups of up to four and three barrows. Three outer sites are spaced along the northern edge of the Cemetery near to the edges of spurs (26540.05, 26540.06 and 26122.05). When viewed on the OS map the Cemetery appears to be part of a much larger linear arrangement of sites which extends along a ridge from the Longstone to the Nine Maidens Stone Row. Indeed, this is exactly the manner in which this group has been discussed in previous publications (e.g. Barnatt 1982). In actual fact, the existence of a single super Cemetery is questionable, for although the ridge between the Longstone and the Nine Maidens undoubtedly contains a large number of barrows, it is in fact subdivided by a series of shallow depressions. These act to compartmentalise the ridge into a series of self contained units with their own groups of monuments: the Longstone Grouping, the St.Breock Down barrow Cemetery itself and the Nine Maidens Grouping. Each of these groups contains an arrangement of monuments which appear to have been laid out with reference to each other but not to the immediately adjacent barrow cemeteries and monument Groupings.

4.4.4 Results from the fieldwork

The fieldwork revealed that the monuments at St.Breock were carefully sited and made maximum use of the local topography. The fieldwork results can be summarised as follows: •

•

-

The sites in the core and outer parts of the St.Breock Cemetery are simple platform or bowl barrow types except for at either end and in the centre where very large or complex monuments are found. A pair of barrows are found at the eastern end (26122.02 and 26122.03) (Plate 5.4). A large ring-cairn (26540.08) is situated at the western end of the group (Plate 5.5). A large barrow (26122.04) occupies the centre ground and plays a pivotal role in visually unifying the components within the Cemetery. These sites are the most prominent monuments and all have extensive views (see below). However, all the sites within the Cemetery possess a wide range of views, only restricted by the next prominent ridge top to the east upon which the Longstone Grouping is set.

•

It seems probable that the barrows of the Longstone and Nine Maidens Groupings and the St.Breock group itself are all roughly contemporary (3.3 above). Whereas the

•

49

Although the Cemetery appears to be linear, the overall cohesiveness of the group in terms of spacing is low and the group actually consists of small sub-groups and individual sites. Despite having a rather loose linear arrangement, the thirteen extant barrows within the St.Breock Cemetery form a distinct group, comprised of an inner core and northern outer zone, which is readily identifiable from the adjacent groupings to the west (Nine Maidens Grouping) and to the east (Longstone Grouping). The barrows in the Cemetery can be defined as a single group, in terms of their: intervisibility with one another (excluding 26540.05) use of the same well defined ridge restricted intervisibility from adjacent Groupings and Cemeteries The Cemetery is sited in such a way that the inner core has no intervisibility with the Groupings of barrows around the Nine Maidens in the valley to the west. Only outer barrow 26540.05 can be seen from the northern end of the Nine Maidens Grouping. The same lack of intervisibility occurs between the St.Breock Cemetery and the Longstone Grouping; only the Longstone itself is visible. The outer barrow 26122.05 and the top of barrow 26122.02 is just visible from the higher southern end of the low lying Pawton Springs Cemetery. More distant barrows can be seen to the west on Trelow Downs from the western end of the Cemetery. Within the core, the most conspicuous sites are located at the ends and centre of the Cemetery. Two

Andy M Jones

•

•

• •

•

their own prominence and visibility (Exon et al 2000, 105-7; Olding 2000, 81). However, there was a low degree of intervisibility with other types of site. The Longstone itself was just visible from a number of the barrows which were located in the central and eastern parts of the Cemetery. The Nine Maidens stone row and the Fiddler standing stone to the west were not visible at all. The strongest visual relationships were with more distant sites, such as the skylined barrows on St.Agnes Beacon and Trelow Downs. The outer barrows were sited in such a way along the northern spurs of the ridge that despite the fact that they were not particularly large, they were the most visually prominent monuments. Two of the outer barrows (26540.05 and 26122.05) were visually linked to the barrow at the northern end of the Nine Maidens Grouping and to the barrows in the Pawton Springs Cemetery.

large bowl barrows occupy the eastern end and another large example is situated in the centre. At the western end is a large ring-cairn. The outer barrows have simple forms; a bowl barrow (26540.06) and two platform barrows (26540.05 and 26122.05). The only complexity is found at the latter site (26122.05) which is ringed by quartz boulders. The outer part of the Cemetery is more prominent in the wider landscape. None of the core sites have extensive prominence in the landscape. Indeed, they are sited just inside the rim of the plateau, which greatly reduces their outside visibility. All of the sites have wide ranging views which include the coastline, streams and rivers, a range of prominent hills and tors and distant monuments, including the summit of St.Agnes Beacon to the west. Rough Tor and Brown Willy are particularly prominent, especially from the eastern end of the Cemetery. When viewed from the southwest the two large barrows at the east end of the end of the Cemetery appear to frame the tors. It is uncertain whether this effect was intentional, though the same effect has been noted at several other barrow cemeteries on Bodmin Moor (P.Herring pers comm). Within the Cemetery there are no prominent natural features which could have formed a focus for its development. There are no obviously earlier features present within the Cemetery. Indeed, the Cemetery seems to occupy a space between two Groupings which could have had earlier origins. The outer barrows which lie on spurs slopes to the north and west of the Cemetery may have cued the visitor that they were approaching some kind of sacred space.

The role of topographical features Topographic features may have been important to the communities who used the St.Breock Cemetery, than views of other monuments. Many prominent hills and tors are visible, including Rough Tor, Brown Willy, Carn Brea, St.Agnes Beacon, Helman Tor and the St.Austell Downs. The coastline, the River Camel and the Isle of Lundy are in sight to the north. All of these distant places may have had strong cosmological associations; many of them were associated with their own monuments and others may have been connected with even more distant real and imagined realms which existed beyond the sea. Zonation in the landscape The spatial organisation of the sites is quite apparent at the level of the Cemetery/Grouping. At the St.Breock Cemetery this is evident in the way that there is a core and outer Cemetery. Within the core, larger barrows are sited at either end and in the centre of the Cemetery which is aligned east to west along the ridge top. At the eastern end the first sites which would have been encountered when the Cemetery was visited were two large bowl barrows, which if comprised of layers of quartz or bright coloured clays when first constructed may have been visually striking. With the exception of a single larger barrow (26122.04), the central part of the Cemetery was occupied by smaller monuments. These sites may or may not have acted as places of complex rituals and may have been locales where the attention of the participant was focused out to the surrounding landscape and the other larger sites in the group. It is noticeable that the platform type sites occupied less conspicuous places and throughout the Cemetery tended to be situated down slope from the larger barrows. The large central barrow plays a central role in visually linking the Cemetery together in that all but one of the barrows (26122.01) are visible from it. The western end of the Cemetery was marked by a line of three barrows, set on a perpendicular alignment to the ridge. This alignment is interesting, for although none of the barrows are of the same magnitude as those at the eastern end, there is a level of complexity which is not found elsewhere. The barrow at the southern end of the alignment (26540.03) is a simple platform site. The centre of the alignment is occupied by a very large ring-cairn (26540.08) and the northern end by a bowl barrow (26540.07). The western end of the Cemetery may therefore

4.4.5 Discussion and interpretation

The results from the study of the St.Breock Cemetery will now be used to approach the questions which were put forward at the start of this chapter (see 4.1.2 above). Cemetery integrity The evidence for the integrity of the group was visibly clear from the beginning. The barrows were sited upon a raised section of the ridge which helped to separate the monuments from the adjacent sites. There was little intervisibility with core barrows in the immediately adjacent Cemeteries and Groupings. Visual relationships between monuments Although the core Cemetery included large barrows at either end and in the centre, they were sited in such a way that they lacked any kind of presence in the wider landscape. Olding (2000, 41) has noted that a similar phenomenon occurs in the Black Mountains of Wales and has suggested that their significance was essentially restricted to their immediate surroundings. Recent studies have found that some barrows may have been sited with reference to what could be seen from them, rather than to 50

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

The study of the monuments on the St.Breock Downs indicates that there are several well-defined Groupings, which contain their own individualised sequences of monuments. With the possible exception of one of the sites in the Longstone Grouping, natural features do not seem to have played an important role. Instead, more distant features with possible cosmological significance may have been referenced (e.g. distant hills).

have been the most intense area of ritual activity this is particularly marked by ring-cairn site 26540.08, which may have been used for larger communal activities. The outer Cemetery consists of just three sites (26540.05, 26540.06 and 26122.05) placed at the edges of the northern spurs along the ridge. None of the sites are remarkable in monumental terms. However, their siting is important as each barrow enjoys wide views out towards Padstow Bay and has a greater prominence in the landscape, particularly to the north, than any of the barrows in the core Cemetery. These barrows may therefore have served a different purpose to those in the core; it is possible that they have may have been demarcating or sign-posting the ritual zone which lay beyond them on the ridge. These apparently simple sites, could have alerted the onlooker to the fact that they were entering a special place, without revealing the complex character of the space beyond.

The presence of distinct Groupings does not necessarily mean that there were totally isolated groups of ceremonial monuments which served separate communities. The interpretation which is adopted here is that the individual Groupings were part of a wider System, which may have been centred upon the Nine Maidens Grouping. The ridgeway upon which both the St.Breock Down and Longstone Groupings are sited forms a natural pathway which is still used. The linear groups of barrows which are found along the ridgeway may have served to channel people from the east where the Longstone Grouping was found, to the west, passing the St.Breock Cemetery and down to the Nine Maidens in the valley below, or indeed from the Nine Maidens towards the east. Similar processual arrangements of barrows have been recorded in other parts of Britain (Barclay and Halpin 1999; Olding 2000). It is likely that the St.Breock Cemetery and adjacent Groupings developed and intensified over a considerable period of time.

To the east of the St.Breock Cemetery lies the Longstone Grouping, which consists of two standing stones and a linear group of round barrows. The largest of the standing stones is the Longstone, which is 4.13m high and stands just below the summit of the highest part of the downs (Payne and Lewsey 1999); a second smaller stone lies 500m to the east. All but one of the barrows in the Grouping are located to the east of the Longstone and share the same east to west alignment as the standing stones. It quite possible that the standing stones would have formed the focus for the barrows which then took the same alignment. There is one further possible early site which occupies the summit of the hill. It was described by Borlase (1872, 97) as consisting of one large flat stone resting upon another which formed a ‘Kist-vaen’, though Daniel (1950, 241) considered it to be a natural feature. Today the feature is overgrown: it may be a ruined Neolithic chambered tomb or a natural rock-outcrop, but in either case it may have formed the original focus for the later standing stones and the Cemetery.

Summary As stated at the beginning of this section (4.4.3 above), the barrows and monuments in the area did not form a continuous entity, but were instead arranged in groups. The impression which is given by the arrangements of sites along the ridgeway is of a path that was guided and punctuated by intense and potentially diverse forms of ritual activity which culminated with the arrival at the Nine Maidens Grouping. 4.5 The Davidstow Moor Cemetery (SX 1464385506)

The Nine Maidens Grouping is located to the west of the St.Breock Cemetery, aligned north to south along a relatively shallow valley bottom. The Grouping contains two potentially early elements which could have formed the focus for the succeeding barrow Cemetery. The first element in the Grouping is the Nine Maidens stone row itself which may have Later Neolithic origins. This row aligned along an even slope towards the second potentially earlier element, the stump of a standing stone known locally as the Fiddler located approximately 520m beyond the northern end of the stone row. According to Borlase (1872, 99) this stone stood to a height of seven foot six inches and was surrounded by a small circle of stones on edge. This grouping of stones around a standing stone has parallels with the terminal cairns which are so frequently found at the terminals of stone rows on Dartmoor, though there is no evidence to prove that the two features were ever physically connected. The five or six barrows which occur in this Grouping are simple in form and follow the same north to south alignment of the stone row. This is in marked contrast to the monuments that lie to the east, which are all aligned east to west.

4.5.1 Introduction and background (Figs.4.6 and 4.7)

The Davidstow Cemetery was studied because it is one of the few barrow groups in Cornwall to have been excavated on a large-scale and as such offers an opportunity for excavated data to be married with new information from field surveys. The results from the excavations will be discussed in chapter 5 (5.2.5 below). The cemetery is of interest because it is located between two major ceremonial landscapes. To the south are the major monument groupings around Rough Tor; to the north and west, the coastal barrow cemeteries, the nearest being the Starapark/Tichbarrow Cemetery (Trudgian 1976a; 1976b; 1976c). The Cemetery is situated on reclaimed moorland which was partially converted into an airfield during the Second World War. Only two of the barrows are extant as standing monuments (Site 16 and the new Site 26).

51

Andy M Jones

Figure 4.6 General location map, showing the Davidstow Cemetery. (Numbers next to barrows follow Christie 1988). 4.5.2 Topography

The Davidstow Cemetery is located on a high plateau (296m OD) (Plate 5.6) which is surrounded by prominent hills and ridges, including Dartmoor to the east, Bodmin Moor to the south and ridges which block the view of the coast to the north and west. The moor itself is now constituted of the disused remains of the airfield and open grassland. The southern fringes have been covered with a conifer plantation, which has resulted in the outlying Site 11 being visually cut off from the rest of the moor. The sites lie beyond the granite of Bodmin Moor and are situated upon the killas. The moor is Figure 4.7 Map showing the Davidstow Moor Cemetery and its relationships with cut off from Bodmin Moor by the lower lying adjacent Groupings. marshes of Crowdy and Tyland; the higher parts of the Crowdy have been found to contain prehistoric cairns (Trudgian 1977). The Cemetery enjoys wide views of The Cemetery consists of a long, dispersed, arrangement of the surrounding landscape. Many prominent natural thirteen sites (one of which was discovered during the features are visible, including Rough Tor and Brown Willy fieldwork carried out for this study) which are found (Plate 5.7). individually or in groups of up to three. The majority of sites within the Cemetery maintain overall cohesion, as a 4.5.3 Description of the cemetery result of their topographical separation from the adjacent This group of barrows has largely been defined as a landforms. Cemetery because most of the members of the grouping are found on the plateau. The fringes of the Cemetery are The northernmost site (Site 22) was situated in relative poorly defined and two of the sites (Sites 22 and 11) could isolation on a ridge around 800m beyond the nearest sites be argued to be outliers of adjacent barrow groupings in the Cemetery (Sites 16 and 17) and over 1000m from the (Starapark/Tichbarrow and Crowdy Marsh Cemeteries). plateau where the majority of the sites in the Cemetery are Isolated barrows are found beyond the eastern edges of found. Indeed, the nearest barrows to Site 22 are those of plateau, but these are not considered to be part of the the Starapark/Tichbarrow Cemetery, which share the same Davidstow Cemetery as they are not intervisible with the ridge. Sites 16 and 17 were situated midway between Site 22 Davidstow barrows and are not situated on the plateau. It is and Sites 1, 3 and 8, on an intermediate lower ridge possible that they may have demarcated the edge of what overlooking the plateau where the majority of the was considered to be a sacred area. Davidstow sites are located; they constitute the spatially closest pairing or group of sites within the Cemetery. Their

52

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

contemporary with the barrows. The lack of radiocarbon dates or controlled excavation makes it difficult to be certain.

placing at the northwestern end of the Cemetery on the ridge could indicate that they were outlying members of the Davidstow Cemetery or alternatively of the Starapark/Tichbarrow Cemetery. However, they are situated nearer to Davidstow and have therefore been retained within the Davidstow Cemetery.

The excavations on Davidstow Moor have contributed little to our understanding of the environmental record of the area (Christie 1988, 154). The charcoal from the barrows merely indicated the presence of both woodland and scrubland vegetation. However, the choice of material for the fires may have been a cultural one and several writers have noted the high frequency of oak in Cornish barrows, though this may be due to an ease of identification. The nearest available environmental information, from a peat section on Stannon Downs 4km to the south, suggests that prior to the Middle Bronze Age, much of what is now moorland may have been covered by an oak and hazel woodland, with alder in the wetter areas (Jones forthcoming b).

Sites 1, 3, 3a and 8 were situated at the western end of the plateau. With the exception of Sites 3 and 3a, the sites were only loosely grouped together, being spaced at a distance of 150m to 200m from one another. Nevertheless, they were all intervisible with one another and their nearest neighbour on the plateau lay some 600m to the southeast. Sites 4, 4a, 7, 14 and 26 were situated in the central part of the plateau. With the exception of Sites 4 and 4a (under 100m apart), the sites were only loosely grouped together, spaced at a distance of 150m to 300mfrom one another. Nevertheless, they were all intervisible with one another and their nearest neighbour on the northwest part of the plateau lay some 600m away. Site 2 to the southeast was over 400m away and Site 11 to the southwest over 500m.

4.5.4 Results from the fieldwork

The fieldwork revealed that the monuments on Davidstow Moor were widely dispersed and can only be regarded as a single Cemetery in terms of the siting of (most of) the barrows on a plateau.

Site 2 was located close to the eastern end of the plateau. It is an isolated site, standing 400m from the nearest member of the Davidstow Cemetery and nearly 1000m from the nearest barrow on the higher ground to the southeast.

The fieldwork results can be summarised as follows: •

Site 11 was located just beyond the southern edge of the plateau in isolation at a distance of around 600m beyond the nearest sites in the Cemetery (Sites 7 and 2). This isolation was emphasised by the fact that it was down slope from the other sites, which may have meant that it was not intervisible with any other sites in the Cemetery (though this could not be tested because of the surrounding plantation). Indeed, Site 11 could arguably belong to the Crowdy Marsh Cemetery which lies to the southwest. It seems probable that the barrows around Starapark/Tichbarrow, Crowdy Marsh and the Davidstow Cemetery itself are all roughly contemporary (see 3.3 and 5.2.5). However, the radiocarbon dating and ceramic evidence from Site 22 indicates that it originated during the Later Neolithic period (Christie 1988). The adjacent cemeteries would at present seem to have Early Bronze Age origins, though the cup-marks (Barnatt 1982, 248; Beckensall 1999) on a probable natural rock which has in the past been described as a ruined chamber tomb (Daniel 1950, 241) at Hendraburnick (on the Starapark/Tichbarrow ridge), may be of Neolithic or Bronze Age date (Beckensall 1999, 7). Bradley (1997, 64) has suggested that cup-mark sites may have Neolithic origins and has pointed out the similarity between the designs on Later Neolithic Grooved Ware and rock art motifs. Although Cornish rock art is poorly dated, it is possible that the Hendraburnick site formed an early focus for the subsequent Bronze Age activity on the ridge. Cup-marked slabs have also been recovered from barrows in this Cemetery (Trudgian 1976a; 1976c), though it is uncertain, as has been found in other parts of Britain, whether the slabs were reused from older monuments (Bradley 1992; 1997) or whether they were

•

•

•

53

Despite their loose grouping, the majority of barrows within the Cemetery form a dispersed group which is identifiable from the adjacent groupings to the northwest (Starapark/Tichbarrow Cemetery) and to the southwest and south (Crowdy Marsh Cemetery and the Rough Tor System of monument Groupings). However, Sites 22 and 11 may be more closely associated with the Starapark/Tichbarrow and Crowdy Marsh Cemeteries respectively. The barrows in the Cemetery can be defined as a group, in terms of their: - intervisibility with one another - use of the plateau Although the Cemetery can be described as being linear, the cohesion of the group in terms of spacing is extremely low. The group actually consists of small sub-groups and individual sites, which due to the flatness of the terrain upon which they are sited, are visually linked. The Davidstow Moor Cemetery is sited in such a way that there is a high level of intervisibility with the barrows along the Starapark/Tichbarrow ridge to the west. The same level of intervisibility occurs between the Davidstow Cemetery and the Showery Tor Cairn, which is situated at the northern end of the Rough Tor System of monuments. Due to recent tree plantations, visual relationships with the Crowdy Marsh Cemetery could not be checked. There was little indication of the edges of the Cemetery being marked with complex or large sites. The groups of sites which constitute the overall Cemetery seem to contain a mixture of site types. Site 22 with its long sequence of complex behaviour

Andy M Jones

•

•

• •

may have marked the boundary between the Starapark/Tichbarrow and Davidstow Moor Cemeteries. None of the sites had particular prominence in the landscape. Indeed, sites in the Cemetery were so indistinct that prior to the 1940-41 excavations the OS had only mapped two of them (the new Site 26 has not previously been mapped). This is in contrast to the adjacent Starapark/Tichbarrow Cemetery which has a high level of visibility in the landscape, despite recent building and enclosure. All of the sites have wide ranging views which includes a range of prominent hills and tors and distant monuments, including Dartmoor and Rough Tor. There are no prominent natural features within the Cemetery, which could have formed a focus for its development. There are no obviously earlier features present within the Cemetery itself, though Site 22 did seal evidence for Later Neolithic activity (see 5.2.5 below). The Cemetery seems to occupy a space between three major clusters of monuments (Starapark/Tichbarrow, Crowdy Marsh Cemeteries and Rough Tor System. The Rough Tor System of monument Groupings are likely to have had earlier origins (Johnson and Rose 1994) and if the Hendraburnick cup-marked site is accepted as being early, the Starapark/Tichbarrow Cemetery may have Later Neolithic origins.

The role of topographical features Many prominent hills and tors are visible, including Rough Tor, Brown Willy, Tichbarrow ridge, Bray Down, Kilmar, Buttern, High Moor, High Wilways (Dartmoor) and many other Dartmoor hills. All of these places may have had cosmological associations and many of them were associated with their own monuments, especially the area around Rough Tor which was a focal point for numerous cairns, stone circles and barrows. Zonation in the landscape At the level of the Cemetery/Grouping, I would argue that spatial organisation in this instance is less obvious than at some of the other cemeteries in Cornwall, but nonetheless is evident in the way that the barrows are sited in a linear arrangement across a plateau. The range of site types is striking and contrasts with the types of sites which are found in the adjacent Cemeteries and Groupings. With the exception of some of the sites in the central part of the Cemetery, which is mostly occupied by simple monuments, including low platform barrows and smaller Cornish-variant pond barrows, there was a general mix of complex sites, enclosure, pond and platform barrows throughout the Cemetery (see 5.2.5). In general, though not including the Rough Tor Grouping, the surrounding Cemeteries seem to have a far more restricted range of site types within them. The Cemetery may have been punctuated by semiautonomous areas of ritual activity, with some sites being used as platforms for display, others being sunken and more hidden, and enclosure sites as arenas for more complex activities.

4.5.5 Discussion and interpretation

A handful of individual barrows are located beyond the eastern edge of the plateau, but these are not considered part of the Davidstow Cemetery as they do not have any intervisibility with the Davidstow barrows and are not situated on the plateau. It is possible that they may have demarcated the edge of the plateau and have been placed to alert the visitor that they were entering a sacred space.

The results from the fieldwork at the Davidstow Moor Cemetery will now be used to approach the questions which were put forward at the start of this chapter (4.1.2 above). Cemetery integrity Due to the widely dispersed nature of the Cemetery, the evidence for the integrity of the group was not as clear as at Tregarrick Tor or Botrea, though by removing Sites 22 and 11 from the Cemetery it is easier to distinguish a distinct Cemetery. As has already been noted the majority of the barrows were sited upon a level plateau which helped to separate the monuments from the adjacent Cemeteries.

To the northwest of the Davidstow Cemetery lies the Starapark/Tichbarrow Cemetery. This Cemetery consists of a linear group of barrows, which has two principal groups situated at either end, around the sites of Starapark in the south and Tichbarrow in the north (though other sites may have been lost due to agriculture and quarrying). All of the barrows are located upon the same northeast to southwest aligned ridge. Many of the barrows in this Cemetery, despite being situated within farmland still possess large earthen mounds. Little is known about the sites in the group, though cup-marked stones have been recovered from two of them and a cist was recorded beneath the Tichbarrow Beacon in 1864 (Trudgian 1976b). The Hendraburnick ‘chambered tomb’ is situated at the Starapark end of the Cemetery (Fig.4.7). Although Daniel (1950) was sceptical about its authenticity as a tomb, the large slab has been engraved with cup-marks, and as an engraved natural boulder it may have formed the original focus for the later Cemetery.

Visual relationships between monuments Although the Cemetery included large enclosure barrows (2, 3, 8 and 22) they were not, when recorded in 1940, covered by substantial mounds, which meant that they lacked any kind of visual impact in the wider landscape. The presence of low platform and Cornish-variant pond barrows indicates that the sites were not intended to make much in the way of a visual impact, other than on their immediate surroundings, and it seems possible that the barrows might have been sited with reference to what can be seen from them. There was a high level of intervisibility with barrows in the immediately adjacent Cemeteries. There was a low degree of intervisibility with other types of site, though the summits of Showery Tor and Rough Tor, with their circuits of enclosing walling, were visible.

The Crowdy Marsh Cemetery is located to the southwest of the Davidstow Moor Cemetery. It consists of a widely 54

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

moorland. Three of the constituent sites were partially excavated by William Cotton in 1826 (probably sites 16252.01, 16252.02 and 16252.04), following the discovery of an urn in one of the southern barrows (16254.01 or 16254.02) by a workman (Cotton 1827, 69). The investigated barrows were found to be low platform barrows, one of which contained traces of probable burialrelated activity in the form of a cist. Activity in the Cemetery seems also to have encompassed more diverse forms of behaviour. The sites were found to have contained small stony mounds and in one case a small stone vaulted cell. One of these stony mounds was found to contain deposits of ashes in a ceramic vessel (16252.04) (Plate 5.8). Despite Cotton’s (ibid., 70-72) discussion of cremations being placed within urns in barrows, he made no mention of actually recovering any human bone from either urn. Two barbed and tanged arrowheads were recovered from a probable cist structure in site 16252.02. Cotton (ibid. 69) thought that the barrows had originally been large mounded sites which had become truncated. This explanation is improbable; only site 16254.01 ever seems to have been covered by a substantial mound. However, the excavations were small-scale in nature and the description of the non-funerary activity was very brief. There is a report of ashes and additional cists being uncovered during later nineteenth century barrow digging (CCC SMR).

dispersed group of (mostly) individual sites, spread across the lower lying ground between the Davidstow Cemetery and the Rough Tor System of monuments. The barrows within the Cemetery are generally simple cairns, with one triple barrow (Trahair 1978). Only one of the monuments has been investigated, a simple cairn not associated with any funerary activity (Trudgian 1977). The Cemetery does not contain any prominent natural focal points or known earlier monuments. The mapped evidence suggests that there is no patterning at all and the barrows/cairns merely occupy an area of space between more coherent groups of monuments (Fig.4.7). The analysis of the monuments in the Davidstow Moor area indicates that there are several cemeteries, each containing an unique arrangement of monuments. The interpretation which is put forward here is that the Davidstow Moor Cemetery and the adjacent Cemeteries and Groupings were part of a wider System of monuments which could have been linked together by a network of pathways. Site 22 may have linked the Davidstow Moor Cemetery with Starapark/Tichbarrow Cemetery, which may account for the difficulty in assigning it to either Cemetery. It seems possible that the Davidstow Moor, Starapark/Tichbarrow and Crowdy Marsh Cemeteries were part of a larger System of Cemeteries and Groupings each occupying a distinctive topographical location, which may have been centred around Rough Tor. Each of the Cemeteries and Groupings may have been associated with particular types of behaviour, or with different sections of the community.

A tentative hypothesis which can be drawn from the excavation report is that several sites may have had open centres which were later infilled with small cairns, cists and other deposits. Support for this idea is provided by the fact that two of the sites survive as probable ring-cairns (16252.05 and Site 8).

Summary The arrangement of sites which are within the Davidstow Moor Cemetery indicates that it was not just a single unit but was rather comprised of visually linked clusters of sites spread out across a topographically distinctive plateau. Although prominent natural features were not recorded within the Davidstow Cemetery itself, distinctive natural hilltops and tors were highly visible from it. It is possible that the Davidstow Moor Cemetery is part of an outer circuit of barrows (including Starapark/Tichbarrow) which encircle Rough Tor.

4.6.2 Topography

Botrea Cemetery is located on a broad oval hilltop which reaches its highest point (215m OD) at its southern end. The underlying geology is of granite and this has shaped the character of the area. The Cemetery enjoys wide views of the surrounding landscape. Many striking natural features are visible from the hill. It is surrounded by prominent distinctive hills and occasional rocky-outcrops, which include Bosvenning to the east, Bartinney, Caer Bran and Sancreed Beacon to the south, Carn Kenidjack, Carn Galver, Boswens Common and Beacon to the north. The hill has views to Mounts Bay and St.Michaels Mount and the southern end of the hill has additional views out to the sea to the west. The hilltop itself is a treeless expanse of grassland and moorland. Deep, well defined, east-west aligned valleys are found around the northern and southern sides of the hill and a shorter deep valley is found on the western side of the hill. The visual effect is to make it appear to be paired with Bosvenning Hill which lies roughly 1000m to the east.

4.6 The Botrea Cemetery (SW 4031 3121) 4.6.1 Introduction and background (Figs.4.8, 4.9 and 4.10) The Botrea Cemetery was selected for study because it is one of the best preserved hilltop cemeteries in the west of Cornwall. The Cemetery is furthermore of interest because it is situated within a wider ceremonial landscape of hilltop cemeteries, prominent rocky-outcrops and ceremonial enclosure sites of probable Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date. The Cemetery was the first in Cornwall to receive any kind of recorded excavation (Cotton 1827).

4.6.3 Description of the cemetery

The Cemetery group is composed of two lines of north to south aligned barrows which converge at the southern, higher end of the hill. The overall Cemetery consists of a ‘V’ shaped arrangement of eight sites (a ninth existed to the

The Cemetery now consists of eight barrows; a ninth site, now destroyed was recorded, by CAU ahead of a moorland improvement scheme. It is situated in a mixture of reclaimed moorland, rough grazing and unimproved

55

Andy M Jones

Figure 4.8 Map showing the Botrea Cemetery. west), which follow the axis of the hilltop (Plate 5.9). With the exception of the two sites at the southern end of the Cemetery 16254.01 and 16254.02, the sites are found individually and are spaced approximately 30m-120m apart from one another. There is little evidence to suggest that (excluding 16254.01) any of the sites have been covered by substantial mounds.

Figure 4.9 Map showing Botrea Cemetery and the visual relationships within it (Numbers next to barrows refer to their SMR PRN). The pair of sites which form the apex of the Cemetery (16254.01 and 16254.02) contrast with the other sites in the Cemetery in several ways. Site 16254.01 is unlike any of the aforementioned sites, being a large bowl-type barrow with evidence of a substantial stone kerb around its base. The adjacent site 16254.02 is smaller and has been greatly disturbed by later activity. In common with site 16254.01 there is evidence for a substantial stone kerb around its base. As well as being morphologically different from the rest of the Cemetery, the close proximity of the two sites is unusual.

The majority of the sites are found on the eastern arm of the ‘V’. Four sites are found on this arm (16252.01, 16252.02, 16252.03 and 16252.04). Two sites are situated on the western arm (16252.05 and Site 8), and a third has been destroyed. Two sites are found at the apex where the alignments converge (16254.01 and 16254.02). The four sites which comprise the eastern arm of the Cemetery are all kerbed platform barrows, though this form may only relate to the final appearance of the sites. Site 16252.03 was located at the lower northernmost end of the Cemetery. The site is one of the smallest in the main arm being 15-20m in diameter and was only visually linked to the remainder of the Cemetery via its proximity to site 16252.02, which lay to the south. The remainder of the sites in the eastern arm (16252.01, 16252.02 and 16252.04) are all large barrows (30-40m in diameter) with extensive views across the Cemetery and into the surrounding landscape. The two ring-cairns which constitute the western arm of the Cemetery (16252.05 and Site 8) are both much smaller and visually less impressive than the barrows in the eastern arm of the Cemetery (both circa 10m in diameter). The western alignment also differs from the east in being comprised of ring-cairns, as opposed to platform barrows.

4.6.4 Results from the fieldwork

The fieldwork revealed that there is an intricate arrangement of monuments at Botrea which were carefully sited and made use of the local topography. The fieldwork results can be summarised as follows: • • 56

The barrows in the Cemetery can generally be defined as a group, in terms of their: intervisibility and close proximity with one another use of the hill top visual separation from adjacent Cemeteries and Groupings The eight sites which comprise this Cemetery form

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Figure 4.10 Map showing Botrea Cemetery (large black dot) and its relationships with adjacent Groupings and significant landscape features.

•

•

a distinct group which is completely separate from adjacent monuments (e.g. Bosvenning Cemetery to east and Bartinney and Sancreed Cemeteries to the south). Although the Cemetery can be described as being linear, it is actually rather more complicated, having a ‘V’ shaped arrangement of contrasting monument types. The overall cohesiveness of the group in terms of spacing is high. The group spacing of the monuments within the group is constant and all the sites are visually linked. The Botrea Cemetery is sited in such a way that there is no intervisibility with the nearby barrows on Bosvenning Common to the east or (with the

•

• •

57

possible exception of Sancreed Beacon) any of the more distant cemeteries or monuments. Only one end of the Cemetery was marked with a large complicated site. This structured the experience of the Cemetery, by giving a heightened sense of linearity from the simple at the north to the complicated at the south. The structuring is evident in the Cemetery, with its division into platform barrows to the east and ring-cairns to the west and its ‘V’ shape, which again channels the onlooker towards its southern end. None of the sites have extensive prominence in the landscape. All of the sites have wide ranging views which

Andy M Jones

• •

include a range of prominent hills and tors, including Bosvenning, Bartinney, Caer Bran and Sancreed Beacon, Carn Kenidjack Carn Galver and St.Michaels Mount. The northern sites 16252.02 and particularly 16252.03 have views which are more restricted than those in the central and southern ends of the Cemetery. Indeed, site 16252.03 does not have any wider views of the southern landscape and features such as Carn Galver and St.Michaels Mount are not visible. However, the site does have unique views of the Tregerest valley to the south. The widest views of all are obtained from the southern sites (16254.01 and 16254.02). There are no prominent natural features within the Cemetery which could have formed a focus for its development. There are no obviously earlier features present within the Cemetery itself, though it is possible that one or more of the barrows (which are largely unexcavated) may conceal evidence for earlier activity.

contained Cemetery group. Again it is arguable that the barrows in the Cemetery were sited with reference to what can be seen from them. The role of topographical features Topographical features have been found to have featured in each of the studied Cemeteries and Groupings and Botrea is no exception. Many prominent hills and tors are visible. The coastline to the south and west is visible from either end of the Cemetery and most of the barrows have views into Newlyn Bay. The prominent hills and the sea may have held strong cosmological associations, indeed many of them were associated with their own monuments. St.Michaels Mount may have had strong associations with long-distance exchange and may have been a liminal point in the landscape connected with mythologised places which existed beyond the experienced world. In addition the results from Botrea indicate that the barrows were arranged so that they were aligned on a prominent hill, Sancreed Beacon. The hill only comes into view at the southern end of the Cemetery. Zonation in the landscape The organisation of the barrows within the Cemetery is strongly apparent. Indeed, with the possible exception of the Tregarrick Tor Cemetery, with its single emphasis on the tor, the degree of spatial structuring at Botrea was unparalleled.

4.6.5 Discussion and interpretation

The results from the fieldwork at the Botrea Cemetery will now be used to address the questions which were put forward at the start of this chapter (4.1.2 above). Cemetery integrity The integrity of the Cemetery was evident in terms of its visual separation from adjacent barrow groups, the close proximity of the constituent sites and the overall structuring of the Cemetery. As has been noted above, the barrows were sited upon a broad oval hilltop which helped to separate the monuments from adjacent monuments and Cemeteries (Fig.4.10).

This spatial structuring is evident in several ways: •

Visual relationships between monuments Although the Cemetery included large platform barrows in the central part of the eastern alignment and a mounded site at the southern end, these were sited in such a way that they lacked any kind of presence in the wider landscape. Their significance was essentially restricted to their immediate surroundings. The hill is visually distinct from the surrounding landscape but the sites within the Cemetery are sited in such a way and are of a type that they make little impact on the surrounding landscape. Although many hills and natural features are evident, no other contemporary human made sites are visible, with the possible exception of the barrows on Sancreed Beacon (Herring 1994). Although Sancreed Beacon was visible from the barrows which were located at the southern end of the Cemetery (16254.01 and 16252.02), it is uncertain as to whether either of the barrows on the summit of the Beacon are visible or not since they are poorly preserved (Herring 1994). This is in spite of the fact that monuments are found on virtually all the surrounding hills (Bartinney, Herring 1995; Caer Bran, Lawson-Jones and Herring 1997; St.Michaels Mount, Herring 2000). In other words, the monuments within the Cemetery visually refer to and define each other but do not engage with other Cemeteries and Groupings. This suggests that they were intended to be experienced as a self-

•

•

•

58

The smallest site 16252.03 is placed at the northern lower end of the Cemetery and the most visually dominant site 16254.01 is located at the southern highest end of the Cemetery at the only point where two sites are found in close proximity to one another. The apex of the ‘V’ of the Cemetery is focused upon the southern end, which again channels attention in a linear fashion towards the south and the large barrow 16254.01. The arrangement of sites into this pattern may have been entirely intentional, designed to help define a ceremonial pathway. Upon reaching the southern end of the Cemetery (site 16254.01) there is a sudden opening up of the southern horizon, with a view onto Sancreed Beacon, which appears to be framed by the hills ether side of it and which is thrown into even sharper relief by the sea beyond. This sight is only seen from this end of the Cemetery and if the movement through the Cemetery followed a prescribed route from the north along the axis of the hill, this vista could have been kept as a final revelation. There is an obvious east-west division of space in the central section of the Cemetery. Smaller ringcairns are sited on the western arm and larger platform cairns on the eastern arm. This separation may mark a division in activities, with public rituals taking place on one arm of the Cemetery and perhaps smaller ceremonies on the other. The

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

•

a minimal record of the contents of the barrows and their internal structures.

dominance of the southern end of the Cemetery is again suggested by the possible entrance in ringcairn (16252.05) which faces to the southeast. The siting of the paired sites at the southern end of the Cemetery is of interest in that one is a large mounded site (16254.01) and the other is smaller (16254.02). It is possible that this pairing represented the unification of the two lines of barrows which are found to the north. The fieldwork shed some light on the wider relationships between the nearby Groupings and Cemeteries. Despite the relatively large number of prehistoric sites in the region it is evident that each Cemetery or Grouping occupies a discrete locale and they are not spread out across the landscape to form a wider System or overarching ceremonial landscape. In this part of Penwith the emphasis appears to be on Groupings or Cemeteries which have very defined and topographically small-scale foci. Each Grouping/Cemetery has its own unique arrangement of monuments which are generally small-scale in terms of visual impact (Bosvenning), often complex (Caer Bran), and are frequently arranged, as at Botrea, on the summit of a particular hill or rock-outcrop (Sancreed Beacon). Although there are visual linkages between the hills, the monuments which are located upon them do not stand out. This suggests that the marking of boundaries was not of paramount importance, but that the locale and the views from it might have been.

The Grouping is taken here to consist of three barrows and the embanked stone circle. Several possible other barrows have been identified over the years, but they are all small cairns located within areas of mining/medieval cultivation on the slopes below the proven barrows. All of the potential barrows were visited but none of them were convincing enough to be included within the following discussion. Two sites (sites 30691.1 and 30691.2) were partially excavated by Borlase (1872, 283-285). The investigated barrows were referred by him as being ‘ring-barrows’ (barrows with substantial kerbs). Neither site produced burials or pottery, but both were found to contain natural rock-stacks, which had been covered in ashes. The third site (30691.3), the large ring-cairn, was not investigated by Borlase, but an inverted urn (Patchett 1944) was reportedly recovered from the site in the early twentieth century (CCC SMR). It is not known whether this urn was associated with any human bone. Recent fieldwork has been restricted to field survey, in particular the detailed recording of the embanked stone circle.

Summary The study of the Botrea Cemetery revealed a distinctive ‘V’ shaped arrangement of sites which were focused and converged upon the higher southern end of the Cemetery where a pair of barrows were located. The Cemetery was arranged in such a way that larger platform barrows sites were sited along one side of the Cemetery, whereas smaller ring-cairns were situated on the other. It has been argued that each of the Groupings in the area was sited in such a way that it was not the monuments that formed components of a larger-scale ceremonial landscape; instead, the hills and tors themselves would have had a wider significance. 4.7 The Treen Common Grouping (SW4400 3600) 4.7.1 Introduction and background (Figs.4.11 and 4.12)

The Treen Common Grouping was chosen for study because it is a well-preserved ridge top Cemetery located close to the Treen Common embanked stone circle. It was located near to a number of other Cemeteries and monuments including Mulfra Hill barrow Cemetery and chambered tomb to the south and numerous cairns and barrows which are found on the lower ground to the north. The proximity of the Grouping to other monuments meant that there was a possibility that relationships within a wider west Cornish ceremonial landscape or System of monument Groupings could be investigated. The Cemetery was explored by Borlase (1872), with the result that there is

Figure 4.11 Map showing the Treen Common Grouping. (Numbers next to barrows refer to their SMR PRN).

59

Andy M Jones

Figure 4.12 Map showing Treen Common Grouping (large black dot) and its relationships with adjacent Groupings and significant landscape features. 4.7.2 Topography

4.7.3 Description of the grouping

The Treen Common Grouping is situated along a low sloping ridge (180-200m OD) which reaches its highest point at its southern end. The underlying geology is granite and the ridge is surrounded on three sides by higher granitic hills and rocky-outcrops. The Grouping enjoys extensive views to the north where the coastline and the sea are framed by the hills to the east and west. It is surrounded by prominent rocky-outcrops and hills, which include Zennor Hill to the east, Mulfra Hill to the south, Carn Galver, Hannibal’s Carn and Watch Croft to the west and Gurnards Head area and the coastline to the north. The ridge itself is an open expanse of ungrazed moorland, which despite being relatively high-lying is dwarfed by the surrounding landforms.

The Grouping is composed of a north-south line of three barrows and an embanked stone circle. It runs from a large ring-cairn or ring-barrow on the summit of the ridge in the south down to the lower part of the ridge in the north where the embanked stone circle is located. The sites are found individually and with the exception of the embanked stone circle, which lies 200m down slope from its nearest neighbour, are spaced approximately 50m-100m apart from one another. The Grouping contains a diverse range of site types including a large ring-cairn (30691.3) which is located at the southern highest end of the ridge (often referred to as the Beacon), the central part by a mounded barrow with a substantial stone kerb (30691.2) (Plate 5.10) and a mutilated platform barrow (30691.1), which may have been 60

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

surrounded by a kerb or bank. The embanked stone circle (30839) is located on the lower slopes of the ridge at the northern end of the Grouping. This site consists of a number of orthostats which are linked together by low rubble walling and which enclose an area approximately 30m in diameter. The date of the embanked stone circle is uncertain. It may be contemporary with the barrows in the Grouping, or may be earlier, acting as a focal point for the subsequent alignment.

•

4.7.4 Results from the fieldwork

The fieldwork revealed that there is an interesting progression of monuments at Treen Common which were carefully arranged to make use of the ridge, the view of the coastline and the sea.

•

The fieldwork results can be summarised as follows: • •

• •

•

•

•

The monuments in the Grouping can generally be defined as a group, in terms of their: intervisibility and close proximity with one another use of the ridge line visual and spatial separation from adjacent Cemeteries and Groupings shared alignment onto the coastline and Gurnards Head area The monuments which comprise this Grouping form a discrete unit which is completely separate from the adjacent monuments found to the south on the higher ground on Mulfra Hill (Fig.4.12) and from the cairns and entrance graves which are found on the lower lying ground between Bosporthennis and Boswednack to the north. Although the Grouping could be described as linear, the overall cohesiveness of the group in terms of spacing is low. The Treen Common Grouping was sited in such a way that there is intervisibility with the barrows on Mulfra Hill to the south, though these barrows were skyline features which were clearly separate from the Treen Common Grouping. Both ends of the Grouping were marked with a complicated or large site. A very large ring-cairn is located at the southern end (30691.3) and the embanked stone circle is situated at the northern end (30839). None of the sites have extensive prominence in the landscape. The central site (30691.2) is visible from Carn Galver to the west, but was only identifiable because of the large gorse bushes which grew upon it. All of the sites within the Grouping have views which are directed and constrained by the surrounding topography. Nevertheless, the views include a range of prominent hills and tors, including Carn Galver, Hannibal’s Carn, Zennor Hill, Watch Croft, Mulfra Hill and Gurnards Head. However, the northern site 30839 has views which are more restricted than those in the central and southern ends of the Grouping. The southern landscape is largely blocked from view from site

30839 by the immediate rise of the ridge and Mulfra Hill and the widest views of all are obtained from the southern sites (30691.2 and especially from 30691.3). Indeed, the southern coastline is only visible from site 30691.3, which means that the most extensive views are obtained from the largest simplest site in the south and the most restricted from the most complex in the north. Natural rock-outcrops feature within the Grouping and these may have formed a focus for its development. However, these natural features lie buried within the monuments (30691.1 and 30691.2) and do not (and probably never did) dominate the surrounding landscape. Unlike the majority of the cemeteries which have been examined (with the possible exceptions of Davidstow Moor and Tregarrick), which possess no obviously earlier monuments, it is possible that the embanked stone circle at the northern end of the Grouping may have been a focal point for the barrows, though it is only visible from barrow 30691.1.

4.7.5 Discussion and interpretation

The results from the fieldwork at the Treen Common Grouping will now be used to approach the questions which were put forward at the start of this chapter (4.1.2 above). Grouping integrity The integrity of the Grouping was evident in terms of its visual separation from adjacent groups of monuments and the close proximity of the constituent sites. The sites were sited upon a distinct north facing ridge which acted to separate the monuments in the Treen Common Grouping from adjacent monuments and Cemeteries. Visual relationships between monuments Despite being comprised of four distinct monuments including a large ring-cairn and an embanked stone circle at either end the sites were situated in such a way that they lacked any kind of visual impact in the wider landscape. Again it is likely that the barrows in the Grouping were sited with reference to what can be seen from them or their relation to particular natural features, which were incorporated into at least two of the four sites. The only intervisibility with barrows in the immediately adjacent cemeteries is with the Mulfra Hill barrows which lie in an elevated position, clearly separate and isolated from Treen Common. There is a low degree of intervisibility with other types of site. Carn Galver is believed to have been enclosed by a Neolithic enclosure (Oswald et al 2001) and has a propped stone monument near its summit (T. Blackman pers comm). Part of the Gurnards Head area and Cudden Point were visible (which later became enclosed by cliff castles) though it is uncertain whether they had been modified in any way during the Bronze Age. However, it is likely that both sites were focal points in the landscape (Sharpe 1992). Once again, topographic features and the wider landscape may well have been important.

61

Andy M Jones

The role of topographical features Topographical features have been found to play an important role in the Treen Common Grouping, through the incorporation of rock-stacks within two monuments (30691.02 and 30691.1). However, as the rock-stacks were not discovered during the fieldwork the role of the topography will be discussed below (see 4.9.3 below). Several prominent hills and tors are visible, for example Carn Galver and although the rocky outcrop on Gurnards Head is not visible itself, the Grouping is aligned onto it (Plate 5.11). The coastline, to the south and north is visible from either end of the Grouping and it is arguable that the view of the northern coast/Gurnards Head area becomes more important as the views to the south, east and west become more restricted as one approaches the embanked stone circle from the south. The view of the southern coast may be important since it is only visible from the southern end of the Grouping, indeed the southern highest end of the Grouping is the only place where both coasts are visible from the Grouping. It is of interest that St.Michaels Mount could not be seen, as it would have been if the Grouping had been sited a couple of hundred metres to the southeast.

•

Zonation in the landscape The organisation of the sites within the Grouping is perhaps less apparent than at Botrea, Tregarrick or St.Breock. However, the arrangement of four different kinds of site along a linear alignment, is indicative of an underlying desire to structure space in a particular way. At Treen Common the zonation/spatial structuring of monuments is evident in several ways: •

•

•

•

The largest but least complex site 30691.3 is placed at the southern highest end of the Grouping and the most outwardly complex site 30839 is located at the northern, lowest end of the Grouping. The centre is occupied by a smaller platform barrow (30691.1) (Plate 5.11) and a mounded site with a very large kerb (30691.2) (Plate 5.10). Both of these sites cover rocky-outcrops, whereas the other sites are unlikely to do so. This means that a communal monument is found at either end of the Grouping and concealing sites are located in the centre. The highest point of the Grouping is at the southern end, which has unique views of the southern coast, the widest views, but a rather less extensive view of the north coast and the Gurnards Head area. The view of the north coast improves as one travels down slope, towards the embanked stone circle at the northern end of the alignment. Upon reaching the northern end of the Grouping (site 30839), the coastline/sea becomes framed by the hills to the east and west and the view to the south is blocked by the ridge. The view is channelled towards the north and the area of Gurnards Head. There is a division between the south, which is associated with the widest views and unique restricted views to the south coast, and the north, which is associated with restricted views into the

landscape and a framed extensive view out to the north coast. The central area contrasts with both ends of the Grouping. In travelling between the communal sites, one has to pass two distinctive smaller sites. Both of these sites were probably associated with complex acts associated with very particular landscape features. Neither site could have accommodated the numbers of people that could have entered the sites on the ends. This suggests that the acts which took place in the central part of the Grouping may have been more restricted in nature. The large unbroken kerbs; still found around site 30691.02 and said to have encircled site 30691.1 would have limited entrance into these sites and may have been designed to contain the activities which took place within them. Despite being close in terms of mapped monument distributions, the results from the fieldwork provided little information about the relationships between Treen Common and its wider relationships with nearby Groupings and Cemeteries. In spite of the large number of prehistoric sites in the immediate environs it is evident that each Cemetery or Grouping occupies a discrete locale and they are not easily linked together to form a wider System. Once again, the emphasis appears to be on Groupings or Cemeteries which have very defined and topographically small-scale foci. Each Grouping/Cemetery has its own small-scale arrangement of monuments which are generally small, often complex, and are often arranged as at Treen along a ridge or on the summit of a hill. Although there are visual linkages between the hills, most of the monuments which are sited upon them do not stand out. The exception to this were the barrows on Mulfra Hill. The high visibility of these barrows may indicate that a symbolic boundary was being drawn between the two groups of monuments and their users. It is worth noting that the barrows on Mulfra Hills are arranged east to west, or perpendicular to the barrows on Treen Common, as are the scattered barrows on the lower ground to the north of the Treen Common Grouping. Whilst these spatial arrangements may suggest divisions between different communities it may be significant that several barrows in the area appear to have been focused on Gurnards Head, including the passage grave at Pennance. This suggests that certain features in the landscape may have held a wider significance than the small groups of monuments sited upon them.

Summary The fieldwork at the Treen Common Grouping revealed that behind an apparent simple linear arrangement of sites was an element of landscape design in which larger communal type monuments were sited at either end and smaller kerbed monuments, hiding rock-outcrops were contained within the centre of the Grouping. It was found that the large ring-cairn at the southern end of the ridge had extensive views into the landscape, whereas the view from

62

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

(30-50m OD) dominates the skyline when viewed from the southeast (Harlyn Bay area) (Plate 5.12). The top of the promontory is undulating, reaching its highest point in its central section before sloping towards the rocky-outcrops at its eastern end. To the south of the barrow Cemetery the promontory rapidly begins to fall away in the direction of Harlyn Bay. To the north of the Cemetery the ground is more or less even for 20m to 40m before sheer cliffs are encountered. The cliff face on the northern side of the promontory has been accentuated by quarrying.

the embanked stone circle at the lower northern end was channelled to the north. Each of the Groupings in the area were sited in such a way that they did not form a large-scale ceremonial landscape, but had views of natural locales which had a more widely acknowledged significance. 4.8 The Cataclews Cemetery (SW8712 7607) 4.8.1 Introduction and background (Figs.4.13 and 4.14)

The Cataclews Cemetery was selected for study because it is a well preserved coastal Cemetery which has been partially excavated and which has over the years produced a variety of interesting and varying artefactual assemblage. The Cemetery is located near to Harlyn Bay which has produced an interesting array of burial-related practices, sites and artefacts, which are quite distinct from those which are found within the Cataclews Cemetery (Bullen 1912; Christie 1985; Rose and Preston Jones 1987). The close proximity of two such important cemeteries means that there is the potential to examine the relationships between them. The Cemetery consists of six barrows, four of which are still extant (the sites of the other two are marked on modern OS maps).

The underlying geology is of killas and the barrows lie in uncultivated coastal scrub. To the south the land has been cultivated. To the east, west and north the promontory looks into a mixture of open sea, islands (Gulland and Newland) and striking coastal landforms including Trevose Head, Pentire Point, Roundhole Point, Newtrain Bay and St. Cadocs Point (Fig.4.14). To the south the most outstanding feature is Harlyn Bay itself and the St.Breock Downs in the distance to the east (4.4 above). 4.8.3 Description of the cemetery

The Cemetery is composed of an uneven east-west line of barrows. It runs along a slightly domed promontory from a small barrow in the west to the central raised section, where the four largest barrows are found, down to the lowest part of the promontory in the east where a removed barrow was situated. The sites are found individually and are spaced approximately 30m-70m apart from one another. The Cemetery contains four large (up to 18m in diameter and over 1m high), apparently simple (though they are likely to conceal complex deposits and structures), bowl barrows (21710.2, 21710.3, 21710.4 and 21710.5) located along the central highest section of the promontory. The lower lying western end of the Cemetery was marked by a much smaller site (21710.6) which prior to excavation was just 9.0m in diameter by 0.60m high. The dimensions of the removed barrow (21710.1) at the lowest eastern end are not recorded, but the small area that the barrow could have been sited on would indicate that it would not have been large and may have been near to site 21710.6 in scale.

Two of sites in the Cemetery (21710.6 and probably 21710.2) have been excavated and a third site (21710.4) may have been investigated. In addition to the recorded excavations, a number of artefacts have been recorded as coming from the barrows (Crawford 1921, 283-99; Rose and Preston Jones 1987, 85-94). Site (21710.6) was excavated by Croft Andrew in the 1940s (Christie 1985). The barrow was found to consist of two concentric stone kerbs, which enclosed areas of burning and a cist. Cremated bone from two or perhaps three individuals was recovered from the cist and additional bone was found in the central area. Deliberately smashed pottery belonging to Trevisker vessels and perhaps a Food Vessel was recovered from the centre of the barrow (ibid., 93-105). Large stones were recorded within the central area but their significance was not commented on. The second excavated barrow (21710.2) was excavated by Penrose Williams (Rose and Preston Jones 1987). A cist below a cairn contained an inverted Collared Urn (Longworth 1984, 166), which held a cremation deposit. The third site (21710.4) was possibly excavated early in the twentieth century and it may have been the barrow from which a Food Vessel was recorded. However, the vessel may have been recovered from any of the other barrows in the Cemetery, early accounts suggest that they have all been disturbed (Rose and Preston Jones 1987). A number of artefacts have been recorded within the vicinity of the barrows; they include an urn (found before 1730), a collection of human bones, a perforated battle axe from one of the barrows and Beaker pottery from a nearby midden deposit (Patchett 1944, 23). Ploughing at site 21710.3 led to the exposure of a paved surface (Rose and Preston Jones 1987, 93).

The nearest monuments to the Cemetery are clearly separated from the Cataclews Cemetery, being sited on much lower ground and composed of very different sorts of monument (e.g. Harlyn Bay, 500m to the south), or by being set on equally isolated coastal promontories (e.g. Trevose 1500m to the northwest). 4.8.4 Results from the fieldwork

4.8.2 Topography

The fieldwork demonstrated that the barrows had been carefully arranged to make use of the promontory, so that they were highly visible from Harlyn Bay and possibly from the sea to the north. The barrows were organised so that they culminated at a small but prominent rock-stack at the eastern end of the Cemetery (Fig.4.13). They were grouped so that the most prominent monuments occupied the central raised part of the promontory and so the smaller ones were situated on the lower parts.

The Cataclews Cemetery is situated along the top of a coastal promontory, which despite being relatively low lying

The fieldwork results can be summarised as follows:

63

Andy M Jones

Figure 4.13 Map showing the Cataclews Cemetery (Numbers next to barrows refer to their SMR PRN).

Figure 4.14 Map showing Cataclews Cemetery (large black dot) and its relationships with adjacent Groupings and significant landscape features.

64

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

• •

• •

•

•

•

•

The barrows in the Cemetery can generally be defined as a group, in terms of their: intervisibility and close proximity with one another use of the same distinctive east to west aligned promontory visual and spatial isolation from adjacent barrow Cemeteries visual distinctiveness and domination of the landscape when viewed from Harlyn Bay to the south alignment on the rock-stack at the coastal end of the Cemetery The barrows which comprise this Cemetery form a discrete entity which is completely separate from the adjacent barrow cemeteries found to the south on the lower ground at Harlyn Bay and from the other barrows which are found on the adjacent coastal promontories and headlands at Trevose Head, Pentire Point, and Newtrain Bay. The Cataclews Cemetery can be described as linear, though the overall cohesiveness of the Cemetery in terms of spacing is relatively low. The Cataclews Cemetery was sited in such a way that there was little intervisibility with the barrows belonging to other Cemeteries. The Cataclews barrows would have been visible from the Harlyn Bay Cemetery, but the small-scale nature of the Harlyn Bay sites, would have meant that the visual relationship was probably not reciprocated. The ends of the Cemetery were not marked with a complicated or large site. Smaller sites were located at the western (site 21710.6) and at the eastern (21710.1) ends. All of the sites have a degree of prominence in the landscape. The sites dominate the view to the north from Harlyn Bay and are perhaps visible from the sea to the north. Due to the angle of the promontory, they have much less impact from any other direction. All of the sites have extensive views into the surrounding landscape. The views include a range of prominent hills and the striking coastline features, including the islands Gulland and Newland, Trevose Head, Pentire Point, Roundhole Point, Newtrain Bay and St. Cadocs Point. To the south the most outstanding feature is Harlyn Bay itself and the St.Breock Downs. The widest views of all are obtained from the four central sites which are located on the highest part of the promontory (21710.2, 21710.3, 21710.4 and 21710.5). Indeed, much of the northern and southern horizons are blocked from barrow 21710.1 by the sudden rise in the promontory. Prominent natural rock-outcrops may have formed a focus for the development of the Cemetery. The rock-stack is a highly distinctive feature, which because of its low-lying position can only be viewed from the eastern end of the Cemetery. Indeed, the Cemetery ends where this feature becomes apparent and this fact may have influenced the siting of

•

barrow 21710.1. There are no obviously earlier features present within the Cemetery itself, though it is possible that one or more of the barrows, which with the exception of barrow 21710.6 have not been fully excavated, may conceal evidence for earlier activity. The presence of Beaker sherds from a nearby midden indicates pre-barrow activity in the vicinity of the Cemetery.

4.8.5 Discussion and interpretation

The results from the fieldwork at the Cataclews Cemetery will now be used to approach the questions which were put forward at the start of this chapter (4.1.2 above). Grouping integrity The integrity of the Cemetery was evident in terms of its visual separation, adjacent groups of monuments and the close proximity of the constituent sites. The sites were situated upon a visually distinctive east to west promontory which jutted out over the low land to the south. This promontory not only acted to separate the monuments in the Cataclews Cemetery from adjacent cemeteries, but made a major statement of cohesiveness and purpose over the lower lying ground. The only intervisibility with barrows in the immediately adjacent Cemeteries was with the Harlyn Bay burials which lie in a low lying locale on the cliffs beside the sea, clearly separate from the barrows on Cataclews. Visual relationships between monuments Despite originally being comprised of six barrows set upon elevated ground, there was, with the exception of the Harlyn Bay Cemetery to the south, a low degree of intervisibility with other monuments. Nevertheless, several important topographical features which possess barrow cemeteries were visible, including Trevose Head, Pentire Point, Newtrain Bay and the St.Breock Downs. The Cataclews sites were visible in the wider landscape, although the angle at which the promontory projects from the shore means that its impact upon the landscape to the north, east and west is minimal. The setting of the barrows is therefore unlikely to have been entirely linked to conceptions of marking territory since the space which is being defined is largely surrounded by sea; the Cemetery is only really visible from Harlyn Bay (Plate 5.12) and possibly from the sea. It is arguable that the distinctiveness of the sites at Cataclews was related to the proximity of the Harlyn Bay Cemetery and this may represent an attempt at marking difference between the low-lying small sites and large elevated sites. This distinction was also marked by the differing nature of the artefactual assemblages which have been recovered from the two Cemeteries (see below). The role of topographical features Several important topographical features were visible from the cemetery. To the south the most outstanding feature is Harlyn Bay itself and inland the St.Breock Downs. Once again, visual links with topographic features and the wider landscape may well have been important.

65

Andy M Jones

The results from the Cataclews Cemetery indicate that the barrows were arranged so that they were aligned on a prominent natural feature. In contrast with Tregarrick Tor, where the rock-stack is large and possibly modified by Neolithic activity, at Cataclews the natural rock is a surprise which is only revealed to onlookers when they reach the eastern end of the Cemetery. The appearance of the rockstack comes as a revelation and marks the culmination of the Cemetery. The only place where this revelation can be experienced without walking the line of the barrows is from Harlyn Bay and, as I shall suggest below, this may have been entirely intentional. Zonation in the landscape The arrangement of the Cemetery along a linear alignment culminating at a natural rock-stack is indicative of an underlying desire to structure space in a meaningful manner. As I shall argue below, this may have been because it was intended to be ‘read’ from a distance in a certain way. At Cataclews the zonation/spatial structuring monuments can be demonstrated in several ways: •

•

of

The largest and possibly the simplest barrows were sited in the centre of the Cemetery. At least one of the large barrows, when excavated, was found to cover a simple cairn and a ceramic vessel containing a cremation. The least imposing sites were found at the eastern and western ends. Although the eastern site was not excavated before its destruction, the investigation of the western site suggested that elaborate ritual activities had taken place there, which involved the construction of a double kerb followed by the smashing of pottery, lighting of fires and deposition of bone within a cist (Christie 1985, 98). Both of these smaller end sites may have been associated with rocky-outcrops, the western site possibly covered prominent stones, whereas the eastern site was located in the nearest place to the rock-stack where it was possible build a barrow. This suggests that simpler rites may have occurred at larger sites and that complex activity may have been associated with smaller sites, which may have been sited over or in sight of important stones. If this hypothesis is correct it implies that distinct activities took place in different parts of the Cemetery, with the most intensive ritual practices occurring at the western end and eastern end of the Cemetery, when the rock-outcrop was reached. The second way in which there was evidence for zonation of the Cemetery relates to the ways in which it could be viewed or ‘read’, depending on where the onlooker was in the landscape. The natural way of approaching the Cemetery would have been from the west. The promontory is surrounded by sea on its northern and eastern sides and the ground to the south slopes away quite steeply. This means that the Cemetery could only be seen from the south and easily approached from the west. Visitors to the Cemetery would therefore have started from the west and have progressed in a

•

66

prescribed manner from site to site until they reached the eastern end and the culmination of the experience. From the western end of the Cemetery it would not have been possible to know what lay ahead at the eastern end until each site had been experienced first. The view from Harlyn Bay represents an inversion of this process. All of the sites leading to the rock-stack are silhouetted against the skyline and are clearly visible. The significance of the approach to the rocks and the sea could hardly have been lost upon the users of the Harlyn Bay Cemetery. However, the intimacy of the experience of moving from site to site, of witnessing and participating in the rites which occurred at these places, or hearing the stories that were told about them would not have been passed on to an onlooker in Harlyn Bay. I am suggesting that the Cataclews barrows were deliberately sited to be viewed from Harlyn Bay and that this was done to make a statement about the users of the Cemetery and their symbolic connection with the promontory, the rock-stack and perhaps the sea beyond. The siting of the Cataclews barrows was another way in which the community who used them marked their distinctiveness from the people who used the Harlyn Bay Cemetery. The final way in which the subject of zonation can be addressed is by further consideration of the relationship between the Harlyn Bay Cemetery and the Cataclews Cemetery. On artefactual grounds, the cemeteries are considered here to be contemporary, or at least overlapping in use. The details of the Cataclews Cemetery have been discussed above (see section 4.8.1) and do not need repeating here. The Harlyn Bay Cemetery does require a little further discussion. It is located to the south of Cataclews on a low cliff on the edge of the coast. The full extent of the Cemetery is not known as the monuments within it are covered by sand dunes and have only gradually been exposed over the years as a result of cliff falls (Bullen 1912; Rose and Preston Jones 1987). The sites appear to have been small and associated with cremations in cists. The artefactual associations are of interest as they contrast with the assemblage from Cataclews. Four vessels have been recovered from Harlyn Bay; in contrast with Cataclews and its diverse collection of pottery, all of the Harlyn urns belong to the Trevisker series (Rose and Preston Jones 1987; CCC SMR). In addition, a large amount of metalwork has been recovered from Harlyn Bay (none has been found at Cataclews), including a flat axe (Bullen 1912), a bronze dagger (Gerloff 1975, 108), a bronze tag, two bronze pins (Pearce 1983, 418) and two gold lunulae (Taylor 1980, 79). In other words, the Harlyn Bay Cemetery contrasts with the Cataclews Cemetery in almost every way: it consists of small low-lying sites with an uniform ceramic assemblage and a large amount of metalwork. The evidence suggests that the scale, type of activity and materials which were included within the Harlyn Bay sites were other ways of

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

marking the distinction with what was occurring at the Cataclews Cemetery.

Cemeteries (particularly adjacent Cemeteries), marked them out as being separate from other surrounding monuments.

Summary The study of the Cataclews Cemetery revealed a visually distinctive, linear arrangement of sites focused upon a natural rock-outcrop. The fieldwork found that behind an apparent simple linear arrangement of sites was an element of landscape design in which the sites could be viewed or read from the Cemetery at Harlyn Bay. It was also found that the sites at Cataclews and the nearest Cemetery at Harlyn Bay contrasted with each other in almost every way, from the size of the barrow to the artefacts included within them. Due to the widespread alteration of the landscape inland of the barrows, little could be stated about the wider ceremonial landscape, but the Cemetery did have extensive views of natural locales (hills and the coastline) which may have had symbolic significance to the users of the Cemetery.

The studied Cemeteries and Groupings were found to occupy distinctive areas of land, well defined plateaus (Davidstow Moor), ridges (St.Breock, Treen Common and Tregarrick Tor), hill tops (Botrea) or elevated coastal locations (Cataclews). The views from all of these places were found to be extensive yet the monuments themselves, with the exception of the Cataclews Cemetery when viewed from Harlyn Bay, generally made little impact on their surroundings and indeed were often sited in such a way that they were not in the most conspicuous place. This indicates that although examples of visually prominent barrows are found across Cornwall (e.g. on Brown Gelly and Mulfra Hill), they were more commonly sited in relation to what could be seen from them or were intended to surprise the viewer when they suddenly encountered an unexpected monument. There may have also been an intention to keep the activities which took place within the Cemetery contained within the topographically defined space.

4.9 Conclusions

The study found that one end (Botrea and possibly Davidstow Moor) or both ends (Tregarrick Tor, St.Breock and Treen Common) of the Cemetery/Grouping was frequently demarcated by the largest or most complex sites and that within the Cemetery/Grouping there were interlocking patterns of visibility so that all of the sites were visually bound together. The defining of space would not only have marked the parameters of the ritual area but directed movement within the monuments. This process can be demonstrated at Botrea, where the ‘V’ shape arrangement of sites guided the visitor towards the south and the special view. In other examples with a lower complexity in the arrangement of the monuments, for example at Tregarrick Tor or Cataclews, the sites may have been intended to guide the individual in a certain direction and let them know when they were entering/leaving the ritual area. This may have been particularly important in those Cemeteries which were sited on a linear ridge or location that may have served as a pathway through the landscape (St.Breock or Cataclews), or on a wide plateau like Davidstow Moor where the monuments may have been strung out to create a prescribed or structured way of moving through the landscape (see Barclay and Halpin 1999; Kirk and Williams 2000).

The fieldwork in each of the Cemeteries and Groupings has found both similarities and contrasts. It is suggested here that the Cemeteries/Groupings which have been studied developed as a result of what could broadly be termed a regional tradition of ritual practice. However, there are differences which I would argue resulted from the more localised interpretation of those wider traditions. Each of the studied areas contained a unique arrangement of monuments which were the result of several processes. These included the localised interpretation of ritual practices (Barrett 1991), the remembering (Mizoguchi 1992; Gosden 1994) and forgetting of the past (Mullen 2001), contestation and conflict (Bender 1993), reinterpretation of past monuments (Barrett 1999), interpretation of the local topographical features (Tilley 1999) and the changing needs of the communities over time (Bradley 1993). Each of these factors would have resulted in both individual monuments and Cemetery/Groupings which had their own biographies. This is demonstrated by the differences which exist between the six Cemeteries/Groupings. Nevertheless, despite the recognition that no two Cemeteries/Groupings were exactly the same, and were the product of differing biographies, the results from the fieldwork can be discussed in relation to the specific broad questions which were asked at the start of this chapter (integrity of the Cemetery; the role of other monuments; the role of topographical features; the evidence for zonation within the Cemetery). 4.9.1 The cemeteries

Integrity

of

the

selected

The results demonstrated that the investigated examples could not easily be placed within the categories which have been devised to define Cemeteries in other regions (Woodward 2000a). Although a handful of Wessex-type cemeteries are recorded in the county such as Twelve Barrows, none have been studied contextually (e.g. to record their topographical setting and alignment). Many of the examined Cornish Cemeteries could reasonably be argued to contain elements of dispersed, small nucleated and linear types (ibid.). This is particularly true of Davidstow Moor, which was a linear cemetery, dispersed across the landscape in smaller nucleated clusters. Other examples, such as Cataclews, Tregarrick Tor and Treen Common, have an overall linearity; the spatial cohesion is so low, however, that they do not have the feel of a true

Cornish

The results from the studied barrow groups indicate that it is possible to identify distinct clusters of barrows within the landscape and that it was even possible to do this in areas where the density of barrows was such that the mapped evidence suggested otherwise (e.g. Craddock Moor or Davidstow Moor). It was found that groups of sites tended to occupy blocks of land which spatially and/or visually by their lack of visual interaction with other barrow 67

Andy M Jones

linear cemetery, in which there are long, almost interlocking, lines of barrows, for example around Salisbury Plain (Grinsell 1978b). The study found that the form of the Cemetery/Grouping was very much linked to the local landform, for example narrow ridges, and the desire to have views of prominent topographical features such as tors and hills.

monuments, to have taken their alignments from them or to have acted to encircle areas containing Neolithic monuments. In part this is because there are comparatively few known certain or potential Neolithic monuments (see 2.2.2 above) in the county, whereas there are large numbers of round barrows and cairns (in excess of 2400). It would therefore be impossible for all the barrow cemeteries to be closely associated with Neolithic sites. Nevertheless, it was noticeable that in areas where Neolithic monuments are present and could have acted as major focal points for Bronze Age sites, they frequently did not (e.g. Craddock Moor stone circle or Mulfra chambered tomb near Treen Common). Indeed, in several instances where Neolithic monuments were located in the vicinity of the studied cemeteries, they tended to occupy marginal positions; for example, at Davidstow Moor Site 22 did not form the nucleus of the later Cemetery, but was found at the edge. The embanked stone circle at Treen Common was found at the end of the alignment and was only visible from one of the barrows. On Craddock Moor the orientation of the Embanked Avenue did not give rise to a major linear barrow Cemetery. None of the stone circles on Craddock Moor were ringed by circuits of barrows. Instead, the stone circles and the linear embanked monument occupied their own distinct places within the wider System.

Finally, each of the investigated cemeteries was found to contain a wide variety of monuments, which again suggested that they were conceived to cater for a wide variety of needs. This suggests that monuments within individual Cemeteries/Groupings may have had overlapping (as Lynch 1993 has argued in Wales) rather than sequential chronologies (as Barrett 1990 has argued in Wessex) and that each Cemetery/Grouping may have served an individual community or a part of one (see 4.9.5 below). 4.9.2 Other monuments and barrow cemeteries

One of the objectives of this study was to look at whether there are associations between earlier Neolithic monuments and the barrow cemeteries investigated. The results from the fieldwork are by their nature small-scale and cannot be used to make sweeping generalisations. Nevertheless the results indicate that in most of the studied examples there was some tentative evidence for isolated Neolithic features close to areas which later became the focus for Early Bronze Age activity. On Craddock Moor it is possible that the two stone circles, the linear embanked avenue and possibly the Tregarrick Tor cairn-ring are of Neolithic date. On St.Breock Downs the standing stones, the stone row and the possible chambered tomb may have formed the primary focal points, with the Bronze Age barrows developing between them, though as at Craddock Moor, none of these sites is securely dated to the Neolithic period (e.g. Williams 1988). At Davidstow Moor direct evidence for Neolithic activity is found at Site 22 and in the adjacent area in the form of the Neolithic enclosure on Rough Tor. The cup-marked slab/chambered tomb in the Tichbarrow/Starapark Cemetery may be of Neolithic date. At Treen Common the northern end of the Cemetery was marked with an embanked stone circle which could be of Later Neolithic or Early Bronze Age date. Finally at Cataclews, sherds of Beaker were recovered from an uncertain context from the vicinity of the barrow Cemetery, indicating that the site may have been a focal point during the final Neolithic-Bronze Age transition.

It is noticeable that many of the Early Neolithic sites in the study areas occupy striking topographical locations. The Tregarrick Tor cairn-ring, the Stowes Pound enclosure, the Rough Tor enclosure and the Carn Galver enclosure and propped stone monument were all built on or around prominent natural landscape features. Other Early Neolithic sites in the study areas, such as the chambered tombs/natural rock-outcrops in both the Longstone and the Tichbarrow/Starapark Groupings, consist of prominent arrangements of stones which may be natural or cultural in origin and which occupy significant places in the landscape. Barnatt (1998, 98) has noted that in Penwith Early Neolithic chambered tombs were set apart on hilltops and were constructed in a way and from materials which linked the natural and the cultural. The result would have been that within a few generations it would have become impossible for prehistoric communities to distinguish natural places from constructed cultural places (Bradley 1998c). Over time chambered tombs which looked like natural rock and natural rocks which looked like chambered tombs may have become confused and consequently may have had similar meanings attached to them.

Whilst the results have undoubtedly highlighted the possibility that there were relationships between Neolithic sites and the later round barrows, there were no particularly consistent associations between potentially earlier types of monuments and barrow cemeteries. The strong linkage between Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments which has been noted in other parts of southern England (Ashbee 1970; Watson 2001) does not appear have been so developed in Cornwall. With the notable exception of two of the Groupings on the St.Breock Downs (the Longstone and Nine Maidens Grouping), few of the studied Bronze Age barrows seem to have been focused on potential earlier

The Later Neolithic or Early Bonze Age stone circles, standing stones and post-ring, were frequently found to be set back from and or aligned on these prominent natural/cultural topographical features. Site 22 at Davidstow, the Treen Common embanked stone circle and Craddock Moor stone circle were all constructed in sight of prominent tors which were associated with earlier Neolithic sites, and the Hurlers stone circles were aligned on the Cheesewring/Stowes Pound. The linear monuments did not specifically reference earlier features, though the

68

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Cemeteries/Groupings developed in exactly the same manner. I would argue that the reasons behind the selection of the Cemetery/Grouping area and their subsequent development can only be understood at the level of the individual Cemetery/Grouping. The reasons for the siting of monuments form the basis of the discussion in the remaining sections.

Embanked Avenue on Craddock Moor and the Nine Maidens stone row followed distinctive valleys. In many ways the siting of Bronze Age barrows represents an intensification of practices which was started during the Later Neolithic or Earliest Bronze Age. These practices can be demonstrated in several instances, including the way that both the St.Breock Downs and the Starapark/Tichbarrow barrow Cemeteries/Groupings proliferate along prominent natural ridges which were the sites of Early Neolithic chambered tombs/natural rock-outcrops. On the St.Breock Downs, the barrows lead into a valley where a possibly earlier stone row marked movement of people and ancestors through the landscape. At Craddock Moor the barrows intensify the alignment which was established by the Hurlers stone circles onto the Stowes Pound/ Cheesewring.

4.9.4 Barrows and natural places

One of the most important developments in recent years has been the recognition that natural topographical features such as prominent ridges, hills, tors, caves and water could become the focus for prehistoric activity (Tilley 1994; 1996; Bradley 2000a; Cummings 2002; McOmish et al 2002). The problem involved with trying to identify this behaviour is not the concept that natural topographical features played a major role in the way that humans structured their cosmologies and landscapes. Indeed, the anthropological record contains many examples (e.g. Arango and Andoque 1999). Rather it is that same record gives a bewildering range of natural features which can be drawn upon. Many of these features, for example, trees leave little trace in the archaeological record and unless they have had significant quantities of artefacts deposited at them or have been altered in some way (Bradley 1990; 2000a), evidence of their importance can rarely be established. Nevertheless, the ethnographic record does indicate that large features which are identifiable by archaeologists, such as rock-outcrops and hills, do frequently, for a variety of reasons become the focus for human activity (e.g. Mulk 1994; Roe and Taki 1999). The results from the study indicate that in Cornwall conspicuous natural features, particularly tors and rockyoutcrops, played an important role. Prominent hills and rocks are directly associated with the Cemeteries and Groupings at Tregarrick Tor, Botrea, Treen Common and Cataclews. Views of prominent natural features are visible from the St.Breock Down and Davidstow Cemeteries.

Although Neolithic/potential Neolithic monuments are often found in the vicinity of Bronze Age monuments, the latter do not appear to commonly form the actual focal point of the later activity. If it is accepted that the relationship between monuments of different periods is more complex than mere proximity, the question must now turn to what the actual relationship was. I would suggest that in the majority of the studied examples it is the power of place, rather than the actual Neolithic monuments which is of primary importance (4.9.3 below). 4.9.3 Barrows and topography

One of the characteristics of sacred spaces is that they are set apart in some way from everyday places (Smith and Brookes 2001). This does not mean that there were large areas of uninhabited land or that people did not ever use the areas of the cemeteries for non-ritual purposes. Indeed, during the medieval period churches were used for a variety of purposes in addition to Christian worship and burial (Jenkins 2000, IX) and these activities did not diminish the sacred nature of the buildings. Nevertheless, the siting of monuments in distinctive topographical locales would have marked them out as special places which could have been the focal points for pilgrimages and other forms of ritual activity (e.g. Scarre 2001). It is therefore unsurprising that ceremonial monuments are frequently found in a range of distinctive topographical locations including hills, mountains and river terraces (Bergh 2002; Cleggett 1999; Olding 2000; Peters 1999; Scarre 2002; Watson 1991).

In order to demonstrate the importance of natural features to the studied Cemeteries/Groupings, I have developed four categories of evidence. These are: 1. The presence of distinctive natural features within the Cemetery space or within individual monuments. 2. The alignment of the Cemetery on a natural feature. 3. Evidence that the Cemetery or monuments within the Cemetery were sited to obtain views of prominent natural features.

All of the studied Cemeteries/Groupings occupy what can be described as distinctive spaces: Tregarrick Tor, St.Breock Down, Cataclews and Treen Common are placed on elevated ridges; the Botrea Cemetery is situated on a hilltop and the Davidstow Moor Cemetery is located on a distinctive raised plateau. Each of the above Cemeteries/Groupings were located within a spatially distinct setting whose boundaries would have been apparent to people who used them and to visitors.

4. Evidence that the architecture or components of a monument were mimicking natural features (e.g. granite kerbing having the appearance of a natural boulder). The inclusion of natural features within the Cemetery/Grouping or inside one of the component monuments constitutes one of the strongest means of establishing the link between cultural place and natural locale and is frequently recorded in anthropological studies. Natural features were recorded within the Treen Common

However, not every distinctive place in the landscape became adopted as a focal point for a barrow Cemetery or monument Grouping and none of the studied

69

Andy M Jones

Grouping in the form of rock-outcrops which were sealed within two of the barrows (sites 30691.2 and 30691.1). Natural stones were recorded under one of the excavated barrows at Cataclews (21710.6), though their significance was not commented on by the excavator (Christie 1985). Other barrows within the studied areas may also conceal similar features, though the lack of excavation in the majority of those Cemeteries/Groupings makes this difficult to quantify. Across the county there are many instances where prominent natural stones have been found to be incorporated within barrow sites (Borlase 1872; 1885; Miles 1975; Johnson and Rose 1994; Jones forthcoming b). Bradley (1991b; 1993) and Tilley (1995) have both argued that natural rocks in prominent places could become linked with cultural practices and become the focus for ritual activities; for example, the Caerloggas I barrow had a small natural tor in its centre which became a focal point for the deposition of artefacts (see Bradley 1991b and chapter 5). This may indicate that the rock was associated with an ancestor or spirit of the place and as such may have been an appropriate place for veneration. At Treen Common (and Caerloggas) it is possible that the covering of these features represents an attempt by community leaders or ritual authority figures (for example, a shaman) to restrict access to rocks which may have been considered to contain dangerous or secret entities. The bounding of these features is indicated by the large unbroken kerbs still found around site 30691.02 (and probably around site 30691).1 at Treen Common and by the bank of clay around Caerloggas I (see 5.2.4 below).

Wessex were established in order to enshrine genealogical relationships of descent in a highly visible way. In Cornwall, where burial in barrows is less frequent and where secondary burial is uncommon, it is possible that communities may have been attempting to enshrine links with particular topographical locations where spirits or ancestors were believed to dwell. The third means by which the role of the natural features can be postulated is by establishing that the Cemetery was sited to obtain views of distant prominent natural features. The fieldwork for this study demonstrated that there were striking views to prominent topographical features from all of the barrows. In addition to views out to prominent hills and tors, the sea was found to be visible from five of the six investigated Cemeteries and Groupings (the exception being Davidstow). Given the large number of barrow cemeteries in coastal locations, the sea is likely to have been associated with a range of metaphorical associations and may well have been viewed as a liminal place associated with death. It may also have been seen as a facilitator of contacts with mythologised distant zones for the exchange of artefacts charged with cosmological importance. Views to these features were usually more important than the prominence of the barrow itself. Again, ethnographic study has shown that distant distinctive landscape features, or liminal places (such as the sea), can form important cosmological features (Carmichael et al 1994) and can be places of pilgrimage or burial (Silverman 1994; Pollard 1999).

The second means by which the role of natural features can be established is through the alignment of the Cemetery/Grouping on a prominent natural feature. This type of alignment was found at three of the studied Cemeteries, Tregarrick Tor, Cataclews and Botrea. At Tregarrick the alignment was onto one of the most prominent features in the landscape and as such was visible from the outset. At Cataclews and Botrea the natural features (a rock-stack and a hill) only became visible as a final revelation once the rest of the Cemetery had been progressed through. The importance of distinctive natural features is unsurprising given the widespread identification with hills and rock-stacks as symbolic territorial markers or guides through the landscape (Gonzalo 1999; Theodoratus and LaPenna 1994), or as the home of spirits, gods or ancestors (Mountford 1965; Mulk 1994; Arango and Andoque 1999).

Despite the fact that all of the barrow Cemeteries and Groupings enjoyed views into the surrounding landscape, including prominent hills, it is difficult to prove that features such as Rough Tor or Carn Galver carried such a wide significance. In the case of Davidstow Moor it is possible to suggest that Rough Tor was an important focal point. This interpretation is possible because the Davidstow Cemetery is one of many barrow groups arranged in great numbers around and in sight of Rough Tor (Johnson and Rose 1994; Tilley 1995; Jones forthcoming b). Finally, evidence that the architecture or components of the studied monuments were mimicking natural features or drawing on their properties requires some consideration. Several writers have suggested that the perceived properties of natural elements may explain their incorporation into cultural sites (Bradley 2000a; Tilley 1996). In Cornwall, this type of behaviour could be indicated by the presence of oak wood, quartz stones, or yellow clay on barrows (see 5.3 below). In the case of several of the studied monuments, for example at Treen Common and Botrea there were large stone kerbs of granite. These boulders may have been used because they were intended to transfer the power of the place from which they were taken to the site of the barrow.

The significance of the prominent natural rocks and hills in the three Cornish examples is highlighted by the fact that they are only reached after the sites leading to them have been experienced. This may therefore imply that members of the community could only approach the natural features after they had undergone the appropriate rituals at the preceding barrow sites. The individual barrows acted to determine the correct approach towards the referenced topographical feature and it is possible that the monuments themselves were sited in order to establish a direct link with the natural feature. Barrett (1994) and others (e.g. Garwood 1991) have suggested that linear barrow cemeteries in

4.9.5 Zonation of barrows

In recent years there has been increasing recognition that monuments were sited at specific locations within an ordered landscape according to the cosmological

70

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

At the St.Breock Cemetery internal zonation was evident in the way that the larger barrows are sited at either end and in the centre of the Cemetery. At the eastern end there are two large bowl barrows. With the exception of a single large barrow the central part of the Cemetery was occupied by smaller monuments. It was argued that these sites may have acted as places of complex rituals. The platform sites occupied less conspicuous places within the Cemetery and tended to be situated down slope of the larger barrows. The large central barrow was found to have a key role in visually linking the Cemetery together. The western end of the Cemetery is marked by a line of three barrows. Although the alignment lacks the same magnitude as the barrows at the eastern end, there is a high degree of complexity of barrow type. The western end of the Cemetery may therefore have been marked by the most intense area of ritual activity.

categorisation of its different parts (Darvill 1997; 1999; Field 2001). It has been suggested that certain landscapes (for example around Stonehenge and Dorchester) developed in a structured manner throughout the Neolithic period and the Early Bronze Age (Richards 1990; Thomas 1996a; 1999; Exon et al 2000). Several commentators have argued that not only were sites placed into an ordered landscape but that the activities within them such as the deposition of artefacts were subject to specific rules of ritual practice (Richards and Thomas 1984; Pollard 1992; 1995). These principles governed not only where but also which artefacts could be deposited within a monument (i.e. structured deposition). It has also been argued that this ordering of the landscape or zonation is of a regional character and should be understood in relation to the longterm history/tradition of each landscape’s use, in terms of both the character of the particular natural landscape (e.g. Tilley 1999) and as a product of communication between different communities (Holst, Breuning-Madsen and Rasmussen 2001).

At Davidstow Moor the organisation is evident in that there was a limited range of site types which recurred throughout the Cemetery. Each of the clusters of barrows which constituted the Cemetery was found to contain the low platform barrows, Cornish-variant pond barrows, enclosure or complex sites. The surrounding Cemeteries were generally found to have a far more restricted range of monument types within them. It was suggested that throughout the Cemetery there were areas of contrasting ritual activity, with some sites being used as platforms for display and enclosed arenas used for more complex activities (see also 5.2.5 below). The Botrea Cemetery provided the best example of zonation. The Cemetery is arranged in a ‘V’ shape. The Cemetery was focused towards the south, on the large barrow which marks the apex of the ‘V’. The arrangement of sites into this pattern may have been entirely intentional, designed to help define a ceremonial pathway through the Cemetery. In addition to the north-south axis of the Cemetery, there was an eastwest division of space. Small ring-cairns were sited on the western arm and large rimmed platform cairns on the eastern arm. It was argued that this separation may mark a division in activities, with public rituals (including burial) in one arm of the Cemetery and perhaps smaller or private ceremonies in the other. Finally, it was noticed that the siting of the pair of sites at the southern apex of the Cemetery may have represented the unification of the two lines of barrows. The last example of zonation at the Cemetery/Grouping level was found at Treen Common. Here the largest sites were found to be located at either end of the Grouping, whilst the centre was occupied by two smaller barrows. Neither of these sites could have accommodated the numbers of people that could have entered the sites at the ends. This suggests the acts which took place in the central part of the Grouping were different in nature from those which occurred at either end. In summary, it is possible to argue that not only did each of the Cemeteries contain monuments which performed a variety of functions, but that they were ordered in specific ways which structured the experience of space. Outlying sites were recorded at both the St.Breock and Davidstow Cemeteries and it has been suggested that these barrows may have been demarcating or sign posting the ritual zone which lay beyond. These sites could have alerted the

In Cornwall the idea that specific parts of the landscape and the monuments within them were associated with different kinds of behaviour has received little attention. Barnatt (1982) and Tilley (1995; 1996) have looked at Bodmin Moor and the locales where monuments were constructed. Tilley has argued that monuments were sited at particular places in the landscape in relation to views of natural topographical features. To date, very little work has been carried out on understanding the ways that artefacts were deposited on Cornish barrows and this aspect will be developed in chapter 5. The discussion will now focus on the evidence for zonation in the studied Cemeteries/Groupings. Although the role of artefacts in this process has been touched on in relation to Cataclews/Harlyn Bay, the remainder of this section will be concerned with the siting of the monuments themselves and their relationships with wider Systems of monuments. The evidence for zonation has already been partially addressed by factors, such as pre-existing monuments or earlier activity, the integration of Groupings of monuments and particularly the presence of prominent natural topographical features. As I have argued above, all these processes led to the construction of monuments in certain locales or zones. However, during the fieldwork each of the studied cemeteries was also discovered to have had a unique layout which reflected the traditions and needs of the individual community which constructed it. All of the Cemeteries provided evidence that they were structured in a meaningful way, by being related to a wider System of monument Groupings (where preservation allowed), and were internally zoned so that different parts of each Cemetery were clearly associated with particular forms of ritual behaviour. All of the Cemeteries/Groupings provided evidence of internal zonation (e.g. by having the largest sites at one end, etc.). St.Breock, Davidstow Moor, Botrea and Treen Common demonstrated more complex evidence for zonation at the Cemetery/Grouping level. 71

Andy M Jones

onlooker to the fact that they were entering a special place, without revealing the complex character of the space beyond.

4. It was found that natural topographical features, such as hills, the sea and especially rocky outcrops, formed focal points for the Cornish barrow cemeteries.

At four of the studied Cemeteries (Tregarrick Tor, St.Breock, Davidstow Moor and Cataclews) there was good evidence that they were part of a wider System of monuments. The best example of this was at Tregarrick Tor, where the Cemetery obviously formed just one element in a series of monument Groupings spread across Craddock Moor. Each Grouping was found to have its own intimate relationship with the local topography and each had its own unique composition of monuments. It was argued that this was evidence that the individual cemeteries and Groupings were linked together via a series of pathways to form a wider System of monuments. On the St.Breock Downs there were several Groupings, each containing its own individualised arrangement of monuments, along a ridgeway which led to into a valley: there was a strong sense of being guided along a pathway by monuments. At Davidstow Moor the sites were spread out across a plateau and it was argued that the Cemetery may have been punctuated by semi-autonomous areas of ritual activity. Once again, this suggested that the monuments were sited to facilitate the prescribed movement across the landscape. Finally, the Cataclews Cemetery seemed to have been sited with reference to the Harlyn Bay Cemetery. It was found to include a range of monuments and an artefact assemblage which entirely contrasted with its neighbour. However, the evidence suggesting movement around the landscape was less compelling due to the alteration of the landscape further inland. Three of the studied Cemeteries (Tregarrick, St.Breock and Davidstow Moor) provide evidence for movement across the landscape and as such may have been associated with journeys from settlement areas, or possibly with the types of semi-mobile societies which have been suggested to have existed in southern Britain during the Early Bronze Age (Brück 1999).

5. It was found that the Cemetery or monuments within the Cemetery were sited to obtain views of prominent natural features and were often sited as places to look out from, rather than to be viewed themselves. 6. It has been argued that there is evidence for the zonation of barrows in the landscape, with Cemeteries/Groupings being sited in particular places within a wider System of monuments. There is widespread evidence for monuments within the Cemeteries being carefully sited so that specific ritual activity was associated with certain parts of the Cemetery. There are differences which I have argued resulted from the more localised interpretation of those traditions. Although there are shared features, there was no obvious overall blueprint, each of the studied cemeteries had developed along its own unique lines which were related to local topography and the needs of the communities who had constructed them. The field study has been significant not only because it led to the identification of the results which have been described above, but also because the method is of relevance to the study of ceremonial landscapes and the monuments within them in other regions. The recording techniques used in this study involved the collection of data which generated a particular set of results. However, as stated above the method did not seek to establish a blueprint which is particular to Cornwall, but instead was intended to ask questions which would enable patterns to be established. The same method if used more widely would produce data which could be used to establish regional patterns in the distribution, siting and morphology of barrow cemeteries across Britain. The wider application of this type of approach to barrow studies would mean that it would be easier to compare and contrast monuments in different regions and would lead to the ability to test the applicability of suggested models which have been put forward for the siting of barrow cemeteries.

4.9.6 Summary

The results which have been obtained from fieldwork at six Cornish barrow Cemeteries/Groupings suggest that there were a number of shared underlying beliefs which guided the layout of monument Groupings and which resulted in what could broadly be termed a regional tradition. These results can be summarised as follows: 1. It was found that despite the large density of barrows across the county it was possible to identify discrete barrow Cemeteries and monument Groupings. 2. It was suggested that the places which were occupied by barrow cemeteries were of a special character which set them apart from the rest of the landscape. 3. It was argued that although Bronze Age barrow cemeteries were often found near to earlier monuments, the earlier sites did not form the focal point for the later cemeteries in the same way that they appear to do in other areas. 72

Chapter 5 The role of Bronze Age barrow cemeteries in Cornwall: four case studies ‘...our knowledge of the internal arrangement of Cornish barrows has been gleaned chiefly from the labouring classes... It would be desirable to investigate others, taking careful notes and drawings of what they might contain’ (J.T Blight 1886, 94). 5.1 Introduction (Fig.5.1)

are relevant to the region as a whole. It will be established how the cemeteries under consideration developed over time, whether there is a regional ritual tradition and how this relates to current theory concerning Bronze Age ritual practices. The four cemeteries will be analysed in terms of their phasing and architectural development, the types of deposit which were included within them and their relationship to natural topography.

This chapter is concerned with issues which have been overlooked or insufficiently discussed by past researchers in Cornwall. It has several concerns which break down into five key areas. How did sites and cemeteries develop?. What was the role of burial activity in barrow sites?. How were artefacts deployed on sites and what was their role?. What influenced the siting of barrow cemeteries in the landscape?. Lastly, what evidence is there for zonation in the landscape?. Some of these themes, such as deposition of artefacts, the role of natural features and zonation have already been discussed during chapters 4 and 5 but will be further elaborated in the light of excavated evidence.

5.2 A study of four Cornish Bronze Age cemeteries 5.2.1 Introduction

Most of the excavated barrows in Cornwall have been reported without recourse to theoretical models (Christie 1960; Dudley 1961; Harris and Trudgian 1984, etc.). Nevertheless, despite the absence of overt interpretation, many of the assumptions and terms used in the models developed for other regions have permeated the literature on Cornish barrows. These terms have often been used in an uncritical way. In particular, several writers have used terms such as secondary and satellite for sites where there is no evidence for such deposits (Ashbee 1958, 178; Dudley 1962, 14; Christie 1985, 68) and other writers frequently use terms such as funerary, mourners and ancestors in relation to sites which were not used for burial (Tilley 1996, 172; Owoc 2001a, 195; 2001b, 34). Over the years far more attention has been paid to identifying and recording those aspects of round barrow structure and ritual practice which are found elsewhere than establishing what is characteristic of the region, such as the enclosure element of many Cornish barrows. Indeed, the architectural and ritual traditions of Cornish barrow cemeteries have received little attention in recent decades, Miles (1975) and Owoc (2001a) being notable exceptions. Most discussions have focused on establishing overarching beliefs, for example, the orientation of some enclosure barrow entrances onto the mid-winter sunrise, which can be linked into theories of Early Bronze Age ritual practice which have been developed for other regions (e.g. Owoc 2001a).

Figure 5.1 Map showing the cemeteries studied. In the course of the chapter I will attempt to determine the roles which barrows played during the Early Bronze Age through a reconsideration of four previously excavated barrow cemeteries: Treligga, Colliford, Davidstow Moor and the barrows on the St.Austell Granite. These barrow groups were selected because they have been excavated and published to a reasonable standard, they include contrasting site types (simple cairns and complex barrows) and occur in a variety of topographical settings (moorland, plateau and coastal). Although the number of barrows is quite small, it is the identification of similar patterning at different cemeteries, and at different levels of analysis (see chapters 2, 3 and 4), which is important to my argument.

This issue is important because if we are to develop the regionally based archaeologies which are currently being called for (Harding 1991; Harding and Johnston 2000) we must move away from uncritically borrowing models and terminology which have been developed in other restricted geographical areas (see appendix 11). This is especially true of the use of terms such as ancestors (Whitley 2002), frequently applied to all types of sites dating from the start of the Neolithic period to the end of the Bronze Age and ultimately reductionist in nature. Note on the data tables.

The available stratigraphical information from each of the sites has been presented in a site data table. Information is given vertically and horizontally. The vertical axis displays the recorded sequence with earliest events at the bottom

The aim is not just to test existing theoretical models but to develop new ideas about Cornish barrow cemeteries which 73

Andy M Jones

Figure 5.2 Plan of Treligga cemetery. and the latest at the top. The horizontal axis displays events which cannot be demonstrated by the stratigraphy to fit into a simple vertical sequence. The number of horizontal subdivisions is relative to the complexity and/or the definite stratigraphical relationships. Where there are distinct separate sequences within a site (e.g. between a ditch and the interior of the site) a heavy line is used. Terms used in the table are, wherever possible, those used by the excavator.

Note on the stone artefacts.

The number and treatment of the lithics which have been recovered from the excavated barrows discussed below is sometimes unclear. Therefore the discussion of the lithics in the following sections generally reflects their presence in individual barrows, rather than their context. 5.2.2 Treligga (Figs.5.2, 5.3 and 5.4)

Introduction The barrow cemetery consisted of seven sites located on 74

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Figure 5.3 Plans of Treligga Sites 1 and 2 (after Christie 1985). reconstructed from notebooks by Christie. This has resulted in illustrations which are simple and lacking in detail. It is uncertain whether old land surfaces had been removed prior to the construction of any of the barrows.

the north Cornish coast. They were aligned roughly north to south, from the lower ground at Start Point to the higher ground (91m OD) to the north of the Tregonnick Tail promontory, echoing the curvature of the coast. The cemetery possessed a nucleated core of four barrows (Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5), sited within 20m of each other and three outlying dispersed sites (Sites 1, 6 and 7) which lay over 100m from the core grouping to the north and the south.

Of the seven investigated sites, three were found to be natural knolls (Sites 3, 4 and 6) with no evidence for Bronze Age activity. Four sites were found to be barrows (Sites 1, 2, 5 and 7). Large amounts of cremated bone were recovered from Sites 1 and 2 and a small amount of possibly human burnt bone was recovered from Site 5. However, burial was only one of the activities which took place at these sites which, though relatively small, were of a complex nature.

The cemetery was excavated in the 1940s by Croft Andrew (see also 4.8 above), but was not published until the 1980s (Christie 1985). Although the excavations were reasonable for their time, none of the sections or plans were drawn up by the excavator and contextual information had to be 75

Andy M Jones

Site data table: Treligga 1 Quartz kerb Burials 2 and 2a in Burial 4 alcove in pit

Burial 3 in pit

Slate cairn Burial 1 in pit/fissure

Fissured Bedrock

Treligga 1 (Fig.5.3) Treligga 1 was located at the northern end of the cemetery. It was a small slate cairn, sited upon a natural knoll, measuring 8.50m in diameter by 0.45m high. The cairn, comprised of inclined slates, within a kerb of white quartz blocks. Five cremations were found within the barrow. Three cremation deposits were located in fissures or pits in the rock and the two more were sealed beneath the kerb (Christie 1985, 69).

which seems to have been complete (1395g of bone), the remainder being partial (53g, 93g, 293g and 323g). At least two deposits of human bone were associated with a deposit of charcoal (2a and 4). There are some indications that the bone deposits were of young adult females, though the identifications made by Sheelagh Stead (1985, 88-90) were not entirely certain. The lower part of a plain ceramic vessel was recovered from the site, but its location was not marked on the site plan.

Christie’s interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there was one phase of activity and that the cremations (full and partial) represent a single event. However, an alternative outline can be put forward to explain the events on the site.

Treligga 2 (Fig.5.3) Treligga 2 was a small slate cairn located in the centre of the cemetery, measuring 5.20m in diameter by 0.90m high. The cairn was surrounded by a kerb of large stones and covered a central corbelled cist, with a west facing entrance. The cist comprised a rock-cut pit covered by a slate structure which was covered by a capstone. There were traces of a mound around the cist. One or two cremations were located within the cist, a third was recovered from beneath the kerb and a possible fourth from the eastern side of the barrow. A radiocarbon determination of HAR8100: 3380 BP ± 80 (1890-1440 cal BC) was probably obtained from charcoal from a fire on the southeastern side of the site.

1. Cremations deposited (cremation burial 2 and partial cremation deposit 2a) possibly immediately before construction of the kerb. 2a. The laying out of a free-standing kerb, covering cremation burial 2 and cremation deposit 2a. 2b. Multiple partial cremation deposits 1, 3 and 4 (representing three individuals) within the interior of the site around a natural rock-outcrop, in rock-cut pits and fissures in the rocks, occurred over an unspecified period of time and contemporary with or after the kerb building but before cairn construction.

Christie’s (1985, 74) interpretation of the stratigraphy does not suggest any phasing for the activity and implies that the cremations all represent a single event. However, an alternative outline can be proposed. 1. Partial cremation deposit 3, possibly immediately before the construction of the kerb.

3. Construction of the slate cairn covering the rockoutcrop and cremated bone but not the quartz kerb.

2. Free-standing kerb of quartz and slate stones, with an accessible central cist/chamber which was used for the deposition of partial cremation deposit 1.

Only burial 2 was accompanied by an artefact (a copper alloy pin) and this was the only deposit of cremated bone Site data table: Treligga 2 Quartz kerb Slate cairn

Possible cremated bone deposit below kerb (Burial 3)

Fires lit, pottery, charcoal HAR8100: Objects placed 3380 BP ± 80 outside site (1890-1440 cal BC) and perhaps Construction of cist and deposition of two cremated bone burials (Burial 1 ) deposited (Burial 2?) Fissured Bedrock

76

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

3. Additional partial cremation deposit 2 in the eastern side of enclosure. Fires lit on the eastern side of the area enclosed by the kerb. Deposition of pottery, charcoal, cupmarked stones and a wooden object into the enclosure area.

depicts a mound measuring approximately 20m north-south by 10m east-west. The excavation record is poor but the site appears to have consisted of a rocky-knoll which was the focus for the deposition of pottery, charcoal and small amounts of burnt bone in two rock-cut pits on its northern side. The site was then covered by a cairn.

4. Construction of a slate cairn covering the central cist but not the kerb.

Other than the fact that the deposit was very fragmentary, there is little information concerning the cremated bone which was recovered from the site. A complete miniature handled vessel of probable Beaker or Trevisker influence, which had been placed on its side, was uncovered in a pit under the cairn on the northern side of the site. Residue analysis suggested that the pot may have contained mead (Christie 1985, 93) and was possibly associated with fragments of bone and charcoal, but this is uncertain (ibid., 85). A second pit beyond the cairn contained a partial deposit of cremated bone (possibly human). A holed stone, possibly a spindle whorl, was recovered from an unstratified context.

5. Deposition of charcoal deposits and cup-marked stones onto the ground around perimeter of barrow. The bone deposited in the central cist may have been of a young adult male, although the identification was not entirely certain. All three deposits of bone are partial (9g, 123g and 88g). None were accompanied by artefacts, but some charcoal was recovered from the central cist. Decorated and basal fragments belonging to a Trevisker vessel were recovered from the eastern side of the barrow enclosure and several cup-marked stones were found in the kerb and on the northeastern and west sides of the cist. Complex activity is indicated by fires which were lit in the southeastern quadrant of the enclosure and the deposition of charcoal beneath at least one of the kerb stones. There are indications that the site continued to be of significance after it was covered by a cairn, as it became the focal point for further depositions of cup-marked stones.

Treligga 6 This site was located towards the southern end of the cemetery. It was recorded as a natural slate knoll and was not further discussed (Christie 1985). However, as with Sites 3 and 4, it had previously been identified as a barrow by both the excavator and the 1880 Ordnance Survey map, where it is depicted as approximately 10m in diameter. Once again, there is no reason why it could have not been considered to have been an ancient site by Bronze Age people. It is possible that deposits were placed on or around the outcrop but were not detected or had not survived.

Treligga 3 and 4 These sites were located in the central area of the cemetery and were recorded as being natural slate knolls (Christie 1985), but not discussed or planned. However, they were initially identified as barrows by both the excavator and the Ordnance Survey (1880 OS map) and there is no reason why they could have not been identified as barrows bypeople during the Bronze Age. This may account for the development of the subsequent activity of the cemetery (Bradley 1998c, 13-22; Mullen 2001, 533-588). Alternatively, the knolls may have been considered powerful in their own right, the home of spirits or other beings. Furthermore two of the constructed barrows were found to contain natural rocks (Sites 1 and 7) and a third (Site 5) consisted of little more than a modified natural outcrop. For sites 3 and 4 it is possible that deposits, of bone, pottery charcoal and other deposits were placed around the knolls in the Bronze Age, but did not survive into recent times.

Treligga 7 (Fig.5.4) Treligga 7 was located at the southern end of the cemetery on the highest ground. It was the largest of the sites, measuring 19.50m in diameter by 2.40m high and was the only one to be encircled by a ditch. A mound of yellow clay covered by earth sealed a cairn-ring of white quartz blocks and slates which would have encircled an area approximately 5.0m in diameter. The central area contained a cist, which measured just 0.70m long by 0.30m wide, on its western side and a fallen central orthostat which had stood to a height of circa 0.50m (Christie 1985, 65-7). The cist contained an inverted Food Vessel, which had had its rim removed in antiquity. Prior to the construction of the mound a deposit of pink clay and charcoal was placed over the centre of the enclosed area covering the cist and the standing stone.

Treligga 5 (Fig.5.4) Treligga 5 was a small oval-shaped slate cairn situated in the centre of the cemetery to the south of Sites 2, 3 and 4. It was recorded as being 3.70m high but no other dimensions were given (Christie 1985). The 1880 Ordnance Survey map Site data table: Treligga 5

Construction of a stony cairn over the area of the knoll. Pit containing possible cremated human bone and charcoal

Pottery placed into a rock cut-pit.

Natural rocky-knoll

77

Andy M Jones

Figure 5.4 Plans of Treligga Sites 5 and 7 (after Christie 1985). The published interpretation allows that the site was multiphased although Christie largely confined her discussion to the elements of the site rather than their phasing.

2. Erection of the orthostat, the construction of the cist, the deposition of an inverted Food Vessel into it and the placing of two cup-marked stones and quartz blocks into the enclosed area.

An alternative outline can be put forward to explain the events on the site.

3. Infilling of the interior of the site with pink clay, charcoal and shillet.

1. The laying out of a free standing kerb of quartz and slate stones.

4. Construction of the mound of yellow clay and then 78

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Site data table: Treligga 7 Mound of earth and shillet Yellow clay mound Deposit of pink clay, charcoal and shillet covering the kerb Upper ditch fill lower ditch fill Ditch cut

Quartz blocks

Orthostat in pit

Inner kerb, cist, Food Vessel and cup marked stone Old Land Surface Rotted Shillet Bedrock

earth and stones covering the quartz kerb.

•

Phasing. Only one radiocarbon determination was obtained, from a deposit of charcoal associated with an area of burning in Site 2, HAR8100: 3380 BP ± 80 (1890-1440 cal BC), which means that any phasing has to be tentative. Christie assumed that the cemetery had developed from Site 7 in the south (though she allowed the possibility that Site 5 may have been early). This was because at the time the cemetery was published Food Vessels were believed to have predated Trevisker Ware. However, the chronology of Trevisker Ware has now been extended back as far as 2000 cal BC (see 3.2.2 and 3.3 above), which means that it is possible for the sites to be coeval. The similarities between the sites in terms of their structure and the similar number of stages found at each (open enclosure; deposits; mound sealing the site) suggests that they were conceived as a group. Comparably, Early Bronze Age barrows in Scandinavia (Holst, Breuning-Madsen and Rasmussen 2001, 131) have provided evidence for very short chronological horizon for particular phases of ritual activity (in this case the use of log coffins), whilst radiocarbon determinations from a single cemetery at Brenig in Wales have indicated that the barrows were contemporaneous (Lynch 1993).

•

Deposition of human bone. Only two sites (Sites 1 and 2) produced unequivocal and a third (Site 5) possible evidence for human remains and these were all found at the northern and central portions of the cemetery. Of the six to nine individuals deposited in the barrows only one of the deposits of human bone (a possible female cremation in Site 1) is a straightforward burial. Recent analysis of cremated bone from Early Bronze Age barrows has revealed that adult cremation burials typically weigh between 902gm to 2747gm with an average weight of 1525gm (McKinley 1997, 142). Only the central cremation in Site 1 falls within this range; the others are nowhere near approaching it. The remaining depositions are partial cremation deposits (see below). There is little evidence for sequential burials being deposited to form lineages as have been argued elsewhere (Mizoguchi 1992; Barrett 1994), and, until the sites became mounded, there is little indication that the dead were separated from the living.

5 The excavation of the ditch around the site. The site was not associated with any identifiable burial activity. The cist was small and contained a Food Vessel, which means that even allowing for the acid soil conditions, it is unlikely to have been large enough to have held an inhumation burial. Instead, the barrow appears to have been associated with complex activity including the placing of two cup-marked stones onto the site and the deposition of the partially complete Food Vessel. Residue analysis by John Evans indicated that this had contained a fatty substance (perhaps milk, Christie 1985, 93) into a cist. The central area was infilled with a deposit of charcoal and pink clay. The development of the site was marked by the use of materials which had contrasting colours, including white quartz, followed by pink and then yellow clays. It is only at the end of the site’s use that the yellow mound became hidden by dull soils. The site was bounded off by a ditch which became partially infilled by material from the mound. Treligga: a discussion When Christie (1985, 114-118) discussed the results of the excavations, she confined her interpretation to a review of the architectural features of the excavated barrows, a general summary of what had been found and the problems involved with making any interpretation. I would argue that the excavation of the cemetery produced a set of results which can be discussed in relation to their structure, phasing, deposition of human bone, placing of artefacts and deposits, topography of the barrows and zonation of ritual activity. •

Structure. As Christie rightly noted, the barrows have several features in common. Sites 1, 2 and 7 all have kerbs, which contained large numbers of quartz blocks. Sites 1, 2 and 5 were sealed by stony mounds, though in contrast Site 7 was sealed beneath a clay mound. None of the mounds were enlarged over time. There were some differences between the sites, notably the cist, orthostat and ditch which were unique to Site 7 and the corbelled structure at Site 2. These differences may relate to the zonation of activities which will be discussed below. 79

Andy M Jones

Indeed, the corbelled cist in Site 2 would have allowed access to the bones. There are some indications of gender differentiation with possible female bones being deposited at Site 1 and possibly male bones at Site 2. •

northern side of the rock-stack. Site 7 differed from all of the other barrows. The centre of the site was marked by an orthostat and a large quartz block but was not the focus for deposits of bone or charcoal. Unlike Sites 1 and 2, deposits were placed on the western side of the barrow. These deposits included a rimless Food Vessel in a cist and a cup-marked stone on the edge of the site. Finally, the interior was filled by the pink clay and charcoal.

Topographical siting and natural features. The importance of natural topography and natural materials to the builders of the barrows is evident in several ways. Within the cemetery three sites were natural rockyknolls (Sites 3, 4 and 6) which were barrow-like in appearance. To the builders of the barrow cemetery these sites may have been perceived as ancient barrows. This false memory may have influenced the location of the cemetery. It is noticeable that the natural knolls were incorporated in the centre of the cemetery by the addition of Sites 1 and 2 at the northern end and Site 7 at the southern end. There are indications that the topography may have been used to heighten the experience of the cemetery. The northern end of the cemetery is located on lower lying ground at Start Point. From here, the cemetery follows the curve of the coastline and finishes on higher ground to the south on another point overlooking the sea.

With the exception of the burial in Site 1, all of the cremations are partial deposits which in some ways are comparable with the deposits of charcoal, quartz, cupmarked stones and pottery which are found in the barrows. Cremated bone may have been used as a symbolic resource deployed in specific contexts in the cemetery. There is some evidence that only the bones of young people were being deposited in the cemetery, which could indicate selective deposition of bones needed for specific ritual purposes rather than veneration of the dead per se. The study of the placing of artefacts at the Treligga barrows has revealed a number of practices. The materials deployed on the sites were restricted to pottery, charcoal, cremated bone and cup-marked stones. The deposition of the artefacts was confined to the centres and the margins of the sites and no deposits were placed into the mounds. It is true to say that each site had its own rules of deposition and that the differences between the sites became increasingly marked along the length of the cemetery (see zonation below). Finally, it can be seen that different types of ceramics were treated differently, with the miniature handled vessel being deposited whole, the Trevisker Ware in fragments and the Food Vessel partially complete. Woodward (2000b) has drawn attention to the large numbers of broken vessels which have been recovered from barrows and has subsequently argued that the deployment of partial and fragmentary vessels may have been associated with the circulation of heirlooms or relics which would have been redolent with memories of the past (Woodward 2002, 1046). As we have seen in chapter 2, the difference in the treatment of varying types of ceramic is found on other barrows across Cornwall (e.g. Dudley 1964; Russell and Pool 1964). It is likely that different pottery forms were associated with contrasting types of behaviour and may have been used to hold different contents, possibly milk in one case and mead in another. Some vessel forms such as the Trevisker Ware may have been curated as fragments for some time before their inclusion into the site, whereas the complete miniature vessel may have had a much shorter lifespan before it was deposited. Put simply, at Treligga the differences in pottery types could have been used to mark distinctions in barrow rites.

Finally, a particular significance for the natural knolls is indicated by the way that deposits were placed around the rocky outcrops in Sites 1 and 5 and the burial of the outcrops beneath cairn material at both sites. •

Placing of artefacts and deposits. Only Site 1 produced a possible grave good, in the form of a copper alloy pin (though organic objects would not have survived). Other deposited items, including pottery, charcoal, cup-marked stones and deposits of burnt human and animal bone, were treated in particular ways. At Site 1 deposits of bone and charcoal were placed in the centre and northeastern quadrant of the site. The position of the pottery vessel was not plotted but it was not associated with the deposits of human bone and nothing was recorded as being recovered from the other quadrants. A similar focus on the centre and eastern half of the barrow can be seen at Site 2, though on this site the range and overall distribution of finds was greater than at Site 1. The major deposit of human bone was located in the central cist along with a deposition of charcoal and cup-marked stones around the cist. The eastern side of Site 2 was marked by the ‘Offertory’ stone and was the focus for the deposition of the fragmentary Trevisker vessel, fires, charcoal, bone deposits and cup-marked stones. Unlike Site 1, Site 2 became a focal point for a series of deposits, including charcoal and cup-marked stones, outside the area marked by the enclosure wall. Although these deposits were concentrated around the eastern half of the site a number of similar deposits were also found on the western side. At Site 5 a different pattern emerges. Here, two deposits, one consisting of the deposition of a complete handled miniature vessel which may have contained mead and another consisting of burnt bone, were placed in pits on the

•

80

Zonation. Although it has been noted that there are similarities between the barrows in terms of their structure, type of deposits and phasing, there are

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

recognise the underlying tradition linking the elements together but would have encountered different practices designed to serve a variety of purposes as they progressed along its length.

distinctions between the sites in term of the zonation of ritual activity along the axis of the cemetery. Three broad zones can be identified, northern, central and southern. This is indicated by a number of factors, several of which have been touched upon above.

Summary The evidence from Treligga presents a picture of contrasts. At cemetery level there is a unifying logic which ordered ritual practices and bound the cemetery together. It is possible to see that the cemetery unfolded in an ordered way and may have only been intended for use over a specific period of time (Bradley 2002, 110). At barrow level it is possible to see patterns of behaviour which are found on other Cornish sites. These include an emphasis on defining the barrow space via the act of enclosure, the prominence of natural features, the lesser importance of burial activity and mounds which mark an end to activity, rather than provide a focus for it. However, as we shall see (5.3), the cemetery and the sites within it possessed their own biography tailored to suit the contingencies of the communities who built them.

The northern zone comprised of Sites 1 and 2 is characterised by the deposition of human bone within the centre of an enclosed space (the open enclosures) followed by the structured deposition of fragmentary pottery and small amounts of burnt bone and charcoal into the eastern parts of the barrows. Within the northern zone there is a suggestion of the classification and separation of human remains according to gender and age and for the placing of deposits next to natural rocks and cultural orthostats. The activities ended when the sites in this zone were covered by carefully constructed slate cairns which left the enclosure walls exposed as kerbs. The effect of the dull cairn material would have highlighted the kerbs which contained some large stones and quartz blocks. The open enclosures in the northern zone were thus finally transformed into monuments which were clearly closed down by the cairns in a way which was particular to this part of the cemetery.

5.2.3 Colliford (Figs.5.5, 5.6 and 5.7)

Introduction The barrow cemetery consisted of five sites located in the centre of Bodmin Moor. They were aligned roughly northeast to southwest and were grouped into two concentrations, with three barrows being found on the western side of the St.Neot River (Sites CRIVA, CRIVB and CRIVC) and two sites on the eastern side (CRII and CRIII). The cemetery was relatively low lying (between 225m and 254m OD) and there were few prehistoric sites in the immediate vicinity, the nearest barrows being situated on the adjacent hilltops 0.5km or more away (Johnson and Rose 1994).

The way the barrows were treated in the northern zone contrasts with the central zone (comprised of Sites 3, 4, 5 and 6). As we have seen the sites in this zone were natural. However, it is possible that they were already imbued with meaning, perhaps as already ancient sites or as places of mythical beings or spirits. Evidence for the veneration of these sites is indicated by the deposits which were placed on the northern periphery of Site 5 and which included a possible libation offering in the complete handled vessel. There was no attempt to enclose any of the sites within a cairn-ring and the mound at Site 5 differed from all of the others excavated in that it took the form of an unstructured cairn. The intention here may have been merely to augment an existing venerated site rather than to undertake the radical transformation of space which took place in the northern and southern zones.

The cemetery was excavated in the 1970s by Frances Griffith (1984a), ahead of the construction of a reservoir. The excavations were carried out to modern standards, but the published illustrations were over-reduced. Of the investigated sites, four were found to have enclosure elements (CRII, CRIVA, CRIVB and CRIVC). Cremated bone was recovered from only one site (CRIVC). Evidence in the form of artefacts and placed deposits for the activity which took place at these sites was quite limited.

The southern zone comprised Site 7. This area witnessed an inversion of the practices which had taken place in the northern and central zones. The central area of the barrow did not contain a deposit of human bone or a natural rock, but instead held an orthostat. Structured deposits were placed on the west side of the barrow including a near complete Food Vessel, rather than a fragmented Trevisker vessel. The site was filled with pink clay and capped with a yellow clay mound which sealed the cairn-ring. The mound became the dominant visual statement rather than the kerb. Finally, the site was encircled by a ditch and the clay mound was masked beneath a layer of brown soil and stones. These final acts would have created a monument which was distinct from all of the other sites in the cemetery. In summary, it is argued here that visitors to this cemetery in the Bronze Age would have been able to

CRIII CRIII was located at the northeastern end of the cemetery. It was a small circular cairn, measuring 4.50m in diameter by 0.90m high, which was constructed over a natural ‘stone stripe’ (ridge of natural granite). It did not cover any burial or other obvious ritual activity (Griffith 1984a, 67). Site data table: CRIII Cairn constructed Natural granite bedrock

81

Andy M Jones

Figure 5.5 Plan showing Colliford cemetery.

82

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

ridge of natural stone could have been more than fortuitous; given the inclusion of large stones within all of the remaining cairns in the cemetery the siting may have been deliberate. Indeed, the chief reason that the excavator did not interpret it as a barrow was because there were no underlying features or deposits of human bones. Since the report was published it has become more apparent that many barrows and cairns do not contain burials. The seemingly simple nature of the site may be misleading given the complex ritual beliefs which can be associated with small cairns of stones (Hallenday 2000; Humphrey 1997, 146). CRII (Fig.5.6) CRII was located in a mid-slope position towards the northeastern end of the cemetery. It was a small cairn measuring approximately 6m in diameter by over 1.0m high. The cairn covered an infilling deposit of charcoal and clay, a placed boulder, two cairn-rings and four pits (Griffith 1984a, 62). Two radiocarbon determinations were obtained from the site. The first, HAR2617: 3500 BP ± 80 (2040-1610 cal BC), was from charcoal in one of the pits. The second, HAR2624: 3610 BP ± 70 (2150-1740 cal BC), from the charcoal deposit from inside the cairn-ring. Although the second determination appears to be earlier than the first, the overlap is such that it can be regarded as insignificant. The published interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there are five elements to the prehistoric activity (prebarrow activity associated with flints; pit digging; cairn-ring construction; infilling of the interior; the building of the mound). Although I agree with the stratigraphical sequence offered by the excavator, it seems possible to me that the three pits within the enclosed area post-dated the erection of the boulder (and its associated pit) and the cairn-rings.

Figure 5.6 Plan of Colliford CRII, separated by phases (after Griffith 1984).

The following sequence is therefore offered:

The barrow is undated, although two flints (a microlith and a barbed and tanged arrowhead) were recovered from beneath it. The excavator suggested that the site may represent a post-prehistoric clearance cairn. I would suggest, however, that it was in fact a prehistoric site marking the northern end of the cemetery. The cairn appears to have been carefully built and its location upon a

1. Clearance of the turf and stone before the construction of the cairn-rings (though turf was not used in this barrow), the erection of a large boulder and the excavation of a pit on its southern side.

Site data table: CRII Cairn constructed Interior infilled with clay and charcoal HAR2624: 3610 BP ± 70 (2150-1740 cal BC) Two concentric cairn-rings The erection of a large boulder.

Pit beside boulder

Removal of Old Land Surface

83

Three pits HAR2617: 3500 BP ± 80 (2040-1610 cal BC)

Andy M Jones

2. The laying out of two concentric free standing cairnrings, one of which incorporated the large boulder in its northern side.

(orthostat erection; central cairn construction; cairn-ring and turf-stack construction; mound building; posthole digging) which were carried out over a relatively short period of time. However, this short sequence is based on the proposition that the cairn-ring was constructed after the central cairn and that the bonding of the turf-stack and the cairn-ring indicated that they were contemporary. I would argue that neither assumption is necessarily correct. The published section and photographs allow for the possibility that since the mound was built (and during construction), stones from the dry-stone wall could have become dislodged and turves could have slipped into position between the courses of the stones in the cairn-rings

3. The excavation of three pits within the interior of the enclosed area in the southeast quadrant. Three of the pits contained charcoal and one also contained quartz pebbles. Two of the pits were sealed by cover stones. 4. Infilling of the interior of the site with light coloured clay, charcoal and stones, covering the pits. Seven small fragments of bone were recovered from this material but they could not be confirmed as human. 5. Construction of the cairn covering the infill material and the cairn-rings.

The following sequence is therefore offered: 1. Partial removal of the Old Land Surface and the erection of two orthostats on the northwestern side of the barrow before the construction of the cairn-ring.

The pits did not contain any cremated bone and phosphate analysis of the largest pit (next to the boulder) did not reveal any evidence of an inhumation burial (Griffith 1984a, 63). Instead, the barrow appears to have been associated with elaborate activity involving the veneration of a natural looking boulder, deposition of charcoal and quartz pebbles into pits, which in two instances were carefully sealed by cover stones, and the infilling of the central area with a deposit of charcoal and light coloured clay. The excavator noted that the charcoal had been evenly spread throughout the infilling (ibid., 65). The effect would have been to create a series of contrasts between the grey of the cairn-rings, the brownish yellow clay and the black of the charcoal. Finally, the site was sealed by a cairn which prevented further access to the interior of the enclosure.

2. The laying out of a free standing cairn-ring (southeast of above), which did not incorporate the large orthostats to the northwest. Deposition of a bank of soil along the northwestern outer edge of the cairn-ring. 3. The construction of the central cairn, involving a layer of oak charcoal being covered by a cairn and turves with an outer facing of ‘elegantly’ fitting stones. Orange clay had been deposited against the northeastern side of the cairn and it is possible that the cairn had been covered in earth. 4. Infilling of the interior of the site with a turf-stack, which may have been constructed to be flush with the top of the cairn-ring. The cairn-ring was left exposed.

CRIVA (Fig.5.7) CRIVA was the most northerly of the three barrows situated on the western side of the river. It measured 17m in diameter over 1.05m high. It consisted of a central cairn and was 5m in diameter covering a deposit of charcoal, situated in the middle of an area covered by a turf mound and defined by a cairn-ring which appeared to be ‘bonded’ (Griffith 1984a, 67-71). Orthostatic stones, postholes and a bank of soil were found just beyond the northwest quadrant of the barrow. One radiocarbon determination was obtained from the central charcoal deposit: HAR2994: 3510 BP ± 80 (2040-1620 cal BC).

5. Erection of posts on the northwestern side of the barrow. The barrow appears to have been associated with elaborate ritual activities which involved the marking of two areas of the barrow in contrasting ways. The northwest quadrant of the site was repeatedly re-inscribed firstly with orthostats, later by a bank of earth and finally by the erection of timber posts. The central area of the site was marked by the deposition of a large quantity of oak charcoal into the centre of the site followed by the construction of an elaborate cairn, the northern side of which was marked by a deposit of orange clay which would have highlighted this

The published interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there are five elements to the prehistoric activity Site data table: CRIVA Cairn- ring Mound construction

Posts on the northwest side Orthostats on the of barrow northwest side of barrow

Central cairn constructed The deposition of charcoal HAR2994: 3510 BP ± 80 (2040-1620 cal BC). Partial removal of Old Land Surface

84

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

side of the cairn. Finally, access into the interior of the enclosure was prevented by a turf-stack. CRIVB (Fig.5.7) CRIVB was the central barrow of the three situated on the western side of the river. It measured approximately 6.5m in diameter and under 1m high. The barrow was a relatively simple structure which consisted of an area defined by a cairn-ring (referred to as a stone-ring by the excavator) and covered by a turf mound (Griffith 1984a, 72-74). A ‘cist like’ structure was erected in the eastern half of the barrow and deliberately deposited stones were found in the centre and northwestern areas. The site was not dated but the close similarity of its structural history to that of known Early Bronze Age barrows indicates that it was of this period. The published interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there are three elements to the prehistoric activity (placing of a granite boulder; construction of cist and deposition of other stones; cairn-ring and turf-stack construction). Again the excavator argued that these events were probably carried out over a relatively short period of time. This short sequence is again based on the position that the cairn-ring was constructed at the same time as the turf-stack. However, the excavator admitted the lack of certainty in the temporal relationship between the mound and the cairn-ring (ibid., 74) and I would argue that neither of these assumptions is necessarily correct.

Figure 5.7 Plans of Colliford CRIVB, CRIVC and CRIVA (after Griffith 1984).

85

Andy M Jones

Site data table: CRIVB Cairn-ring "Cist" type feature built

Construction of mound The placing of a large boulder into what would be the centre of the barrow

Old Land Surface

The following sequence is therefore offered:

northern side of the barrow. A stakehole containing charcoal was found to the east of the pit. An inverted complete miniature vessel was recovered from the northeast quadrant of the turf-stack. One radiocarbon determination was obtained from the charcoal in the central pit: HAR2991: 3580 BP ± 80 (2150-1730 cal BC).

1. The placing of a large boulder into what would become the centre of the barrow before the construction of the cairn-ring. 2. The laying out of a free-standing cairn-ring around the large natural looking boulder.

The published interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there are two elements to the prehistoric activity (excavation of the central features; construction of the cairn-ring and mound construction). Again the excavator suggests that these events were probably carried out over a short period of time. However, as the excavator noted the ‘temporal relationship between the mound and the stones around the edge was unclear’ (ibid., 77). The sequence is therefore open to interpretation and small sites with cairnrings have been found elsewhere (see Treligga).

3. The deposition of upright stones into the northwest quadrant and the construction of a cist type structure on the eastern side of the barrow. The free-standing nature of the cist and the stones in the northwest quadrant indicate that they were probably contemporary with the infilling of the interior of the site with the turf-stack. The cairn-ring was left exposed. 4. Mound construction.

The following sequence is therefore offered:

The site was not associated with any identifiable burial activity. The cist measured just 0.95m in diameter which means that it could not have held an adult inhumation. Instead, the barrow appears to have been associated with the enclosure of a large unmodified boulder. As at site CRIVA, activity seemed to have been directed at marking particular areas of the barrow. The northwest quadrant of the site was the focus for the deposition of stones, the centre with the large boulder and the east with the cist. Once again, access into the interior of the enclosure was finally prevented by a turf-stack.

1. The laying out of a free-standing incorporating a large natural boulder.

2. Excavation of a central pit which was the site of a fire and then filled with a mixed deposit, which contained oak charcoal and human bone. This was followed by the sealing of the pit with a stone. A stakehole was dug to the east of the pit and filled with charcoal. Additional charcoal was deposited in the central enclosed area. 3. Infilling of the interior of the site with turves and stones and the deposition of the inverted miniature vessel within the northeast quadrant of the mound. The cairnring was left exposed and the site was capped with stones.

CRIVC (Fig.5.7) CRIVC was the most southerly and lowest lying of the three barrows located on the western side of the river. It measured approximately 8m in diameter and 0.7m high and was a relatively simple structure which consisted of an area defined by a cairn-ring (referred to as a kerb by the excavator) covered by a turf and stone mound with a stone capping (Griffith 1984a, 75-77). A pit was found in the centre of the barrow which contained some charcoal and cremated bone; a large natural boulder was located on the

This site was the only Colliford barrow which was associated with cremated human bone, although even here the scale of the deposit is uncertain. The number of individuals has not been ascertained and the weight of the cremation was not given.

Site data table: CRIVC Cairn-ring Construction of mound containing inverted miniature urn Stakehole filled with charcoal

cairn-ring

A pit containing a cremation deposit and charcoal HAR2991: 3580 BP ± 80 (2150-1730 cal BC)

Old Land Surface

86

Charcoal spread across site

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

The fact that the pit was not large (0.85m in diameter by 0.35m deep) and contained a lot of charcoal suggests that the deposit of human bone was probably partial. The partial cremation deposit was not associated with any artefacts, though this was the only barrow in the cemetery to produce any ceramics. It is of note that the only barrow in the group to contain human bone was the most poorly constructed (ibid., 75). CRIVC produced evidence for elaborate behaviour such as the deposition of charcoal in the central pit and the stakehole. The inclusion of the large natural boulder in the cairn-ring may have been significant, given the similar position of orthostats and placed boulders at sites CRII, CRIVA and CRIVB. Finally, the interior of the site was sealed beneath the mound material, which uniquely at this site, was capped by a deposit of stone. This layer would have demarcated the site as being different from the rest and would have emphasised its closure. This could be viewed as being the result of human skeletal material being buried on the site or that the rites which were being performed there (which included the deposition of pottery) differed from those at the other barrows.

(CRII and CRIII), the remaining ones were sealed beneath turf or turf and stone mounds. None of the mounds were enlarged over time. There were some differences between the sites, including: the central cairn in site CRIVA; the deposition of placed stones, the cist in the mound and the central boulder in site CRIVB; the stone platform on top of site CRIVC. I would argue that these differences are related to the zonation of activities which will be discussed below.

Colliford: a discussion Although Griffith (1984a, 82) acknowledged that the Colliford barrows were composite structures related to the enclosure barrow tradition, she interpreted them as being single phased entities. I have argued that the evidence from the barrows can be interpreted differently, as the single phase model is largely determined by a view which argues for the mounds and enclosure walls being contemporaneous with the turf-stacks. However, as the excavator acknowledged, site CRII could have been left open and the relationship between the cairn-rings and mounds at two of the sites (CRIVB and CRIVC) was uncertain. The interpretation at the latter sites is based on the lack of impression which they would have made as freestanding cairn-rings (ibid., 83). The lack of stature does not rule out their function as free-standing cairn-rings. The remaining site (CRIVA) was argued by the excavator to provide indisputable evidence for the single phasing of the site in the form of interleaving between the cairn-rings and the turf-stacks. I would argue that it is perfectly possible that the turves slipped into position between the stones in the cairn-rings. Indeed, a variety of taphonomic processes, including wind, rain, animal and human trampling could have caused the turves to slip and the exposed dry-stone wall to collapse and lean against the mound. It is possible that the walling was tidied up during the construction of the mound and stones replaced onto the site. The excavation of the Colliford barrows led to a set of results which can be discussed in relation to barrow structure, phasing, the deposition of human bone, placing of artefacts and deposits, topography of the barrows and zonation of ritual activity. •

•

Phasing. The cemetery has four radiocarbon determinations associated with it (two dates from CRII and single dates from CRIVA and CRIVC). The determinations from all three sites are overlapping, centring around 2000-1700 cal BC. This date range supports the argument that the sites were contemporary. However, because mature oak was used for the radiocarbon samples, the chronology is not precise, which means that the sites could have developed sequentially over the span of 300 years. Nevertheless the similarities between the sites in terms of their structure and the similar number of stages which were found at each site (open enclosure; incorporation of natural boulders; deposits in pits; turf and stone mounds sealing the site) suggests that they were broadly contemporary.

•

Deposition of human bone. Site CRIVC was the only barrow to produce any certain evidence for the deposition of human bone, though it is possible that the tiny fragments of bones in the infilling site of CRII may have been human. The small amount of bone recovered from CRIVC argues against it being a straightforward burial; it seems more probable that it was a partial deposit (following McKinley 1997) which was intermingled with a large deposit of oak charcoal. It appears that cremated bone was being treated as a symbolic resource deployed within a specific context in the cemetery and it will therefore be discussed below.

•

Topographical siting and natural features. The importance of the natural topography and of natural materials is evident in two ways. Firstly, the siting of the cemetery in a low lying position, though unusual on Bodmin Moor, may have related to the position of the St.Neot River. Barrow cemeteries in Britain are often found in close proximity to rivers (Watson 1991; Cleggett 1999). Evidence for the importance of the river is suggested by the fact that the barrows nearest to it either side (CRII and CRIVA) were the most complex. Secondly, there is evidence that natural stones were of central importance to the activities which took place on all of the barrows. This is demonstrated by the siting of all five cairns in stony areas, by inclusion of the natural boulder within site CRIVC (and possibly beneath CRIII), by the movement of large natural boulders and incorporation of in situ or placed boulders within the northern perimeters of sites CRII and CRIVC and in the centre of CRIVB, and by the erection of orthostats to the northwest of CRIVA. The symbolic significance

Structure. Four of the barrows are enclosed by cairnrings, three of which contained large placed boulders or natural boulders (CRII, CRIVB and CRIVC) and the fourth was constructed beside a pair of orthostats (CRIVA). Two sites were sealed by stony mounds 87

Andy M Jones

•

of stones is perhaps most blatantly demonstrated at site CRII, where a pit was excavated at the foot of the boulder. I would argue that both placed and in situ boulders were of significance. This is demonstrated by the fact that none of the boulders had been modified (at least one of the moved boulders was initially taken to be in situ by the excavator). It is arguable that the inclusion of large stones within the barrows was an attempt to draw upon their perceived properties. These boulders may have been used because they were intended to transfer power of place from their original location to the barrow site. •

Zonation. Although it has been noted that there are similarities between all of the barrows in terms of their structure, type of deposits and phasing, there is some evidence for the zonation of ritual activity within the cemetery. Two zones can be identified which are divided by the St.Neot River. The eastern zone (comprised of sites CRII and CRIII) is characterised by sites with stony mounds. The activity at CRII commenced with the laying out of cairn-rings, by the digging of pits in the southern half of the enclosure and by the inclusion of a large boulder (which already had ritual significance) in the northern perimeter of the site. When activities within site CRII were completed the centre of the enclosure was filled by carefully placed deposits of contrasting coloured materials (clays and charcoal) which drew distinctions between each act. Finally, the cairn-ring was sealed beneath the cairn. CRIII appears to have been a far simpler site (but see above) consisting of a neatly constructed cairn. This site could have been used to demarcate the northern end of the cemetery and may have been sited upon an already significant exposure of rock. Both of the sites in the eastern zone became stony monuments which were clearly closed down in a way which was particular to this part of the cemetery.

Placing of artefacts and deposits. There is evidence that artefacts (including pottery, charcoal and stone) and cremated human bone were deposits which were treated in particular ways. At CRII deposits of oak charcoal and quartz pebbles were placed into pits in the southeastern quadrant of the site. In the subsequent phase charcoal and fragments of bone were placed in the centre of the barrow in layers separated by deposits of light coloured clay. A similar focus on the centre of the barrow can be seen at CRIVA, though on this site a deposit of oak charcoal was sealed beneath a central cairn. Unlike CRII, the northern half of site CRIVA became a focal point for a series of deposits, including the marking of the central cairn with orange clay and the erection of posts outside the area marked by the cairn-ring. The centres and northern margins of sites CRIVB and CRIVC were the focal point for acts of deposition. Stones were placed in the centre and northern part of site CRIVB, whilst a pit containing charcoal and cremated human bone was located in the middle of site CRIVC. At site CRIVC a complete miniature vessel was recovered from the northern part of the turf-stack.

The barrows in the western zone contrasted in several distinctive ways, with those in the eastern zone. As in the eastern zone, the northern perimeters and centres of the barrows in the western zone (CRIVA, CRIVB, and CRIVC) were associated with placed boulders, orthostats or natural boulders. However, structured deposits in the form of charcoal and stones were also placed on the northern side of the barrows (or within the mound) and the central deposits were more complex; an elaborate central cairn (CRVI), a pit with in situ burning (CRVIC), an orthostat and a cist (CRIVB). At site CRVIA there is elaborate activity beyond the perimeter of the barrow, initially in the form of orthostats and later by the erection of wooden posts. The range of deposits in this zone was extended at site CRIVB to include human bone and pottery. The barrows in this zone were sealed in a different manner to those in the eastern zone. The mounds were of turf and the cairn-rings were left exposed so that they acted as kerbs. Indeed, the black turves used in the mound would have highlighted the kerbs and thrown them into relief.

The study of the placing of artefacts at the barrows has uncovered a number of practices. The materials deployed on the sites were confined to oak charcoal, cremated bone and stones; the deposition of artefacts was largely restricted to the centres and northern (with the exception of CRIII) parts of the sites. Deposits within the mounds of the sites were confined to stones and the pottery vessel at CRIVC. With the exception of the human bone deposit and the pottery vessel from CRIVC, the deposits within each of the barrows with cairn-rings were very similar with little distinction along the cemetery. The pottery deposition was significant in that it occurred on the only site which contained human bone and because it was a complete vessel. The completeness of the vessel suggests that it had either been made for incorporation within the barrow or had been carefully curated for some time before it was deposited. As we have seen at Treligga, this treatment is in marked contrast with the way other vessel forms were treated but is consistent with the way small vessels (including Beakers and miniature pots) were frequently deposited as whole vessels in Cornish barrows.

Summary It has been argued that there is a ritual tradition linking the barrows in the cemetery together, which is evident in the structure the phasing and the placing of deposits within them. The similar phasing of four of the five sites points to the fact that the sites underwent comparable processes and were in use over a similar length of time. The differences between the sites are less pronounced than at Treligga, but it is suggested that there were significant differences between the barrows on either side of the river and that there was evidence for distinctions between the barrows

88

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

within both zones. This would indicate that individual barrows were associated with particular forms of practice and possessed their own biographies.

The St.Austell barrows were excavated in the 1970s by Henrietta Quinnell (Miles 1971; 1975), ahead of their destruction by the china clay industry. Of the six investigated sites, four were found to have primary enclosure phases (Caerloggas 1, Cocksbarrow, Trenance and Watch Hill) and two were simpler mounded sites (Caerloggas II and III). Cremated bone was recovered from one site (Cocksbarrow) and evidence for a double inhumation burial was recovered from a further site (Watch Hill). Evidence of structured deposition at these sites was extensive.

5.2.4 St.Austell Granite (Figs.5.8-14)

Introduction Of the 72 recorded barrows on the St.Austell granite, 45 have been destroyed or survive only as field names (Herring and Smith 1991). The excavated St.Austell granite barrows consist of six sites, three of which (Caerloggas I, II and III) comprised a cemetery of closely-spaced barrows, aligned northwest to southeast and situated on the highest part of the Downs (266m OD). Two of the barrows had been damaged (Caerloggas I and II) by modern disturbance, with much of the interior of Caerloggas II being removed altogether. The remaining barrows were excavated as individual sites (Cocksbarrow, Trenance and Watch Hill), though they probably formed elements within complexes of barrows and other monument forms (Miles and Miles 1971; Miles 1975; Herring and Smith 1991). This means that although questions relating to structural similarities, artefact deposition and phasing can be discussed, the evidence for zonation must be confined to the Caerloggas cemetery.

Caerloggas I (Figs.5.9-5.11) Caerloggas I was the northwestern of three closely-spaced barrows (approximately 10m apart), situated on the summit of a hill. It was a large enclosure, measuring approximately 25m in diameter surrounded by a ring-bank which stood up to 1.35m high. The ring-cairn was a complex structure which had been the focus for the structured deposition of a large number of artefacts. It consisted of a natural tor and pit complex situated in the middle of an area defined by a three phased ring-bank, ditch and post-settings (Miles 1975, 26). Pollen analysis indicated that the barrow stood in a clearing within a wooded environment.

Figure 5.8 Plan showing St.Austell area (large dots =excavated barrows, small dots = barrow sites) (after Miles 1975). 89

Andy M Jones

Site data table: Caerloggas 1 Bank covered by large stones. Posts embedded in bank Yellow clay bank Turves

Silt

Ditch cut

Deposit of yellow clay

Pits Postexcavated settings around tor

Posts embedded in bank Artefacts deposited

Bank constructed

Turves used as levelling The removal of boulders from around a small tor (but Old Land Surface left in situ) and modelling to make orthostats around entrance

Figure 5.9 Plan showing Caerloggas cemetery (after Miles 1975).

90

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Figure 5.10 Plan of Caerloggas I (early phases (a), later phases (b)) (after Miles 1975).

Figure 5.11 Plan of finds from Caerloggas I (early phases finds (a), later phases finds (b)) (after Miles 1975). The published interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there were three broad phases of prehistoric activity. Although this sequence is accepted it is possible to argue that the site was modified and reworked on a more frequent basis.

may have been removed by later disturbance) with a 4.8m wide entrance in the southwest. The entrance was marked by a deposit of yellow clay and by in situ ‘pruned’ orthostats on one side of the causeway and propped stones on the other.

The following refined phasing is therefore offered:

2. Some time later, a 0.8m high bank was laid out. It consisted of a granite stone core with turves wedged over it. The bank also had an entrance in the southwest, but it was offset from and partially covered the original causeway through the ditch. The bank encircled the tor.

1. Removal of the natural boulders from the area around a central tor, the levelling of the area around the site with turves and the excavation of a segmented ditch around the western half of the site (the eastern segments of the ditch

91

Andy M Jones

3. The bank was further elaborated by an irregular postring, embedded in it. Posts were used to mark the entrance and to screen the central tor from the outside and the entrance. At this stage there would have been a zigzag entrance into the site. It is possible that the central pits around the tor were excavated; a series of deposits were made within the large pit which included burnt bone, flints, white pebbles and a quartz crystal. The pit was found to have a high phosphate content, which indicated that organic material had been placed within it. The interior surface of the enclosure, particularly centre and the entrance was the focus for the deposition of objects, including fragments of a Camerton- Snowshill dagger, flint, quartz pebbles, white pebbles and tin slag (Fig.5.11a).

Site data table: Caerloggas II Addition of yellow clay capping on mound Construction of mound and laying out of kerb Excavation of a pit Partial removal of Old Land Surface

The following stratigraphical sequence follows that of the excavator. It is likely that the site was built over a very short period:

4. The bank around the site was further heightened by a deposit of yellow clay and a new ring of posts. The entrance was redefined by a spread of yellow clay and it is possible that the top of the bank may have been defined by the deliberate deposition of quartz blocks and flints.

1. Partial removal of the Old Land Surface and the excavation and backfilling of a pit with black soil and lumps of granite. 2. The construction of the turf-stack covering the pit and the laying out of the kerb which overlay the turf-stack.

5. The bank was covered by granite stones and the interior of the enclosure was covered by a deposit of soil/turves up to 0.20m deep. The interior of the enclosure was again associated with deposition of a large number of artefacts including an amber amulet/object, flints, white pebbles, quartz and other stone objects. The artefacts were distributed across the interior of the enclosure and around the perimeter of the exterior of the site. They were recovered from throughout the turves which were placed over the interior, which means that it is likely that they were deposited during phases four and five (Fig.5.11b).

3. The addition of the yellow clay capping to the barrow. The barrow is not closely dated, as the pit was backfilled with a dark soil and stones. Three undiagnostic flints were recovered from beneath the barrow. The pit was described by the excavator as a ‘ritual focus’ (Miles 1975, 45). However, the construction of the turf mound would have sealed the ‘ritual focus’ off from further use and could have acted as a level platform for gatherings of people. The deposition of the yellow clay would have created a highly visual statement which could have been intended to draw activity on the site to a close.

Although the site was not scientifically dated, it is possible to argue that it was used over a considerable period of time. Caerloggas I was a focal point in the landscape for acts of deposition which became increasingly controlled over time. The site began with the simple demarcation by two ditch segments of a small natural tor; which may have been the focus for human activity since at least the Neolithic period (Bradley 1991b, 137). Artefactual evidence indicates that throughout the Early Bronze Age the site was reworked and made ever more elaborate. Access to the central tor became increasingly restricted through addition of banks and post-settings and through the use of yellow clay in the entrance and on the banks to highlight the special or restricted nature of the site. Over time it is possible that the significance of the tor declined and the site itself became as important as the tor which lay at its centre.

Caerloggas III (Fig.5.9) Caerloggas III was located at the southeastern end of the cemetery. It was a circular, flat-topped barrow measuring approximately 25m in diameter and 1m high. It consisted of a simple turf-stack which had been encircled by a stone kerb and partially capped by a deposit of yellow clay, through which was an entrance to the top of the mound in the southeast. The only features beneath the mound were a 0.4m high orthostat located in the northwestern quadrant (Miles 1975, 5) and two branches from the southeast quadrant. Pollen analysis indicated that the barrow stood in a clearing within a wooded environment. Site data table: Caerloggas III Addition of dark soil over mound

Caerloggas II (Fig.5.9) Caerloggas II was located at the centre of the cemetery. It was a circular flat-topped platform barrow measuring approximately 15m in diameter and 0.80m high, consisting of a simple turf-stack which had been capped by yellow clay and encircled by a kerb of stones. The only feature beneath the mound was a shallow pit which was located in the northeastern quadrant (Miles 1975, 43-45). This barrow was the simplest of the excavated sites (although it had been damaged by a pipe trench).

Addition of yellow clay capping on mound Construction of turf-stack and laying out of kerb The erection of an orthostat and deposition of two branches Old Land Surface

92

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

The following stratigraphical sequence follows the sequence put forward by the excavator. Once again, it is possible that the site reached its final form over a short period of time:

and 0.40m high which covered earlier cairn-rings, postrings, three ritual pits, a central pit and an Old Land Surface. The central pit contained a cremation deposit which was accompanied by a horn ladle. The site was not scientifically dated, but the ladle has some Early Bronze Age comparanda. Pollen analysis indicated that the barrow stood in a clearing within a heavily wooded environment.

1. Erection of the orthostat and the deposition of the branches. 2. The construction of the turf-stack covering the stone and branches and the laying out of a penannular kerb with an entrance in the southeast quadrant.

The published interpretation of the stratigraphy recognised that there were several phases of activity (Miles and Miles 1971; Miles 1975). With the exception of the addition of phase 2a, the published sequence is largely followed here:

3. The addition of the yellow clay capping, especially around the edge of the barrow leaving an entrance in the southeastern quadrant, through the kerb and the clay capping to the top of the mound.

1. Excavation of three pits, which were backfilled with black soil and quartz blocks. 2. The construction of two free-standing concentric cairnrings in an area covered by natural boulders. The outer ring was penannular with an entrance in the southeast. The inner cairn-ring was breached by an entrance in the northwest, diametrically opposed to the entrance in the outer cairn-ring. Both entrances were marked by large stones in the cairn-rings. At the end of this phase the monument would have been a complex ring-cairn.

4. Partial concealment of clay except for the perimeter and turf-stack below a dark layer of soil. The barrow is not closely dated, as only flints were found. The site did not contain any evidence of burial activity (though phosphate analysis was not carried out) and the orthostat beneath the barrow did not seem to have been the focus of any long-term activity. It is probable that the turf mound was constructed shortly after the erection of the orthostat and the deposition of the branches and was designed to draw a close to activities of short duration. As at the other sites in the cemetery yellow clay was used to bound off the barrow. The gap in the clay at the entrance would have signalled where access onto the mound was permitted. The entrance in the southeast quadrant would again indicate that the primary purpose of the barrow was as a platform designed for larger gatherings of people. Finally, a deposit of soil masked much of the clay and turfstack. This brought construction activity on the site to a close.

2a. A double post-ring may then have been inserted into the outer cairn-ring and through the Old Land Surface. The original entrance was respected. Piles of stones may have been dumped in between the cairn-rings the eastern side of the barrow in this phase. 3. A central slab-lined pit held a cremation deposit accompanied by a horn ladle. It is possible that the outer entrance was blocked with stones at this stage, after a fire had been lit and yellow clay deposited in it. 4. Removal of the posts and construction of a turf mound and outer yellow clay ring which covered the outer cairnring. Flints and white pebbles were recovered from the turfstack.

Cocksbarrow (Fig.5.12) Cocksbarrow was a single site located around 300m to the northeast of a pit and a standing stone of probable Early Bronze Age date (Miles and Miles 1971). The site was covered by a low mound approximately 21m in diameter

5. The yellow clay was covered by a layer of dark soil.

Site data table: Cocksbarrow Soil deposit over mound

Yellow clay Construction of mound Blocking Post-rings Inner of cairn-ring cairn-ring entrance

Dumps of stones Central pit Excavation of three ritual between containing pits cairn-rings cremation deposit and horn ladle

Outer cairn-ring Old Land Surface

93

Andy M Jones

Figure 5.12 Plan of Cocksbarrow (after Miles and Miles 1971). Cocksbarrow was the only St.Austell site to produce evidence for a cremation deposit and again it was probably of a partial nature (less than half of the individual, Henrietta Quinnell, pers comm) and, I would argue, one of the last acts to occur on the site. The bones were not burnt on the site but had been cleaned and consisted of skull and long bone fragments belonging to an adult. They were probably deposited in a bag and were associated with a horn ladle which had not been burnt. It appears that there is evidence for increasing control over access to the site over time and for the selective burial of deposits. The site began with three ritual pits, this was followed by the demarcation of the area with the cairn-rings. The initial alignment which had been established by the pits was maintained by the entrances. Over time the site was reworked, and made increasingly elaborate. Access to the centre of the site became ever more restricted, the dumping of stones on the eastern side of the barrow limited the ways for moving around the site and it is possible that the posts were inserted into the cairn-ring at this stage. Finally, the site was

used for the deposition of human bone. This resulted in the ritual sealing of the outer entrance with yellow clay, fire and stones, the removal of the posts and the construction of the turf mound. Again yellow clay was used to mark the site before the site was finally closed by a covering deposit of dark soil. Watch Hill (Fig.5.13) The Watch Hill barrow cemetery was a small dispersed group consisting of three sites on top of Watch Hill. Two of the barrows were destroyed by the 1970s, but the third survived until 1973, when it was excavated (Miles 1975). The site was covered by a mound 24m in diameter and 1.20m high which covered earlier cairn-rings, a two phase ditch and ritual pit, a central cairn and burial deposit and an Old Land Surface. The central pit contained the remains of two wooden coffins which had contained inhumation burials (evidence for at least one was identified by phosphate analysis). Flint artefacts and sherds from an enlarged Food Vessel were found in the ditch. Pollen

94

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Figure 5.13 Plan of Watch Hill I (early phases (a), later phases (b)) (after Miles 1975).

Site data table: Watch Hill Ditch backfilled Wk12938: Soil deposit masking 3651BP ± 43 (2141-1880 cal BC) mound Soil layer in ditch Wk12936: 3474 Yellow clay and BP± 45 (1920-1680 cal BC) kerb Food Vessel sherds placed into ditch

Upper turf-stack

Compaction

Lower turf stack

Further silting Blocking of entrance Central cairn

Pit backfilled HAR645: 3470 BP ± 70 (1980-1600 cal BC) and HAR655: 3420 BP ± 80 (1920-1620 cal BC)

Upper coffin Lower coffin Wk12940: 3532 BP±48 (1980-1730 cal BC)

Pit cut into ditch Rapid silting Wk12937: 3077 BP± 56 (2140-1880 cal BC) Ditch cut

Central pit Outer cairn-ring Inner cairn-ring incorporating small cut tor.

Orthostat erected

The removal of boulders from around a small tor (but Old Land Surface left in situ)

95

Andy M Jones

analysis indicated that the barrow stood in a clearing within a wooded environment.

Food Vessel were placed in clusters around it and covered by a placed deposit of black humic soil.

Seven radiocarbon determinations (see 3.3.2 and tables 3.2 and 3.3 above) were obtained, five of which relate to the sequence of events on the site. The earliest date, Wk12937: 3077 BP ± 56 (2140-1880 cal BC), was obtained from the primary ditch fill. Two dates, HAR645: 3470 BP ± 70 (1980-1600 cal BC) and HAR655: 3420 BP ± 80 (19201620 cal BC), were derived from a ritual pit which was cut into the base of the ditch. The next determination, Wk12936: 3474 BP ± 45 (1920-1680 cal BC), was obtained from the overlying soil layer which was associated with sherds from an enlarged Food Vessel. A final date was obtained from the upper fill of the ditch: Wk12938: 3651BP ± 43 (2141-1880 cal BC). Within the interior of the site only the central burial had a suitable sample for dating. It produced a radiocarbon determination of Wk12940: 3532 BP ± 48 (1980-1730 cal BC). Importantly, the radiocarbon determinations indicate that the site was probably used for around 300 years; if the ditch was kept cleared it is possible that it was used for much longer.

5a. The ditch was backfilled with soil, stones and yellow clay. Flints, charred fruits and tubers were recovered from the upper fills of the ditch, especially the eastern half. 5b. The act of burial: a central pit (2.90m long by 1.30m wide) holding two coffin burials. This was followed by construction of a cairn. 5c. Construction of a turf mound with upper and lower turf-stack and outer yellow clay bank after the ditch is infilled. Flints and quartz pebbles were recovered from the turf-stack. 6. Concealment of clay ring and turf-stack by a dark layer of soil, as at Caerloggas III and Cocksbarrow. Watch Hill was the only St.Austell site to produce evidence for inhumation burial and even here I would argue that it was probably one of the last acts to occur on the site before it was mounded. As at Caerloggas I, it seems that the site may have started out as a focal point in the landscape (situated around a small tor). Once again, there is evidence for increasing control over access to the site and for the structured deposition of artefacts. The site began with the demarcation of the area by the cairn-rings. Attention was focused to the northern part of the site via the standing stone in the outer cairn-ring, the outcrop of natural boulders and by the setting of the orthostats in the inner cairn-ring. Access to the site then became restricted by the ditch. The ditch became the focus for a series of activities including pit digging and backfilling and as a place to deposit artefacts (firstly pottery, followed by quartz and offerings of charred fruits). For much of this time the centre may have become neglected. At a later stage, possibly 200-300 years after the site was first used and when the pottery was being deposited within the ditch, the centre of the old enclosure was used for burial. Following this act the whole of the area inside the ditch was buried beneath turf, then yellow clay and finally by soil. The mound on this site was the most complex of any in its layering and this may relate to the fact that humans had been buried on the site. Again, the yellow clay may have been used to mark the site when it was in a particularly dangerous or liminal phase.

The published interpretation of the stratigraphy recognised that there were several phases of activity (Miles 1975, 8-12). However, the phasing offered here differs in two ways. Firstly, I have suggested that the ditch was not a primary feature and secondly that the soil layer within the ditch was not a natural formation. The first alteration is interpretative, based on my perception of how the site was used. The second change is based on the condition of the ceramics. The Food Vessel sherds were located immediately below the soil layer. Had the soil developed naturally we would expect the sherds to have become weathered. As this is not the case, I have argued that the sherds were covered by a placed deposit of soil. The phasing suggested here is as follows: 1. Clearance of some boulders around a small natural tor. 2. The construction of two free-standing cairn-rings in the area of the small tor. The outer ring consisted of two segments, the larger of which was built around the northern side of the barrow, the smaller around the southern side. A standing tone was located in the western end of the northern section. The inner cairn-ring was complete, except for the southwest quadrant, where later disturbance destroyed it (alternatively the ring may always have been penannular). In the northern part of the inner cairn-ring natural boulders and the tor were incorporated into the ring. A setting of orthostats was located in this area.

Trenance (Fig.5.14) The Trenance barrow was an isolated site, although other destroyed barrows were located within the general area. A second barrow could not be found at the time of Miles’ excavation, and was presumed covered by a china clay waste tip (Miles 1975, 51-52). The site was a ring-cairn around 20m in diameter and 0.6m high and which enclosed an orthostat and it was later infilled with soil. The site was not scientifically dated, but its structural history and the finds assemblage show that it was Early Bronze Age. Pollen analysis indicated that the barrow stood in a clearing within an open grassland environment.

3. After some time, a ditch was dug around the perimeter of the site. 3a. After some initial silting a pit was cut into the base of the primary ditch and backfilled with charcoal and clay. 4. The ditch partially filled and sherds from an enlarged

96

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Site data table: Trenance Yellow clay Interior of site infilled deposited Cairn-ring

Orthostat erected

Pit dug in centre of site

Pit dug in northeast quadrant Small spreads of white clay The removal of boulders from around the site (but Old Land Surface left in situ)

The published interpretation of the stratigraphy recognised several phases of activity (Miles 1975) and is followed here: 1. Clearance of boulders and the deposition of small spreads of white clay over some areas of the Old Land Surface. This was followed by the excavation of a pit in the northeast quadrant which was filled with stones and soil and a central pit which was filled by soil. It is possible that the orthostat (under 0.40m high) was erected. 2. The laying out of a broad, low ring-cairn with an entrance in the northeast quadrant. The space enclosed by the ring-cairn was asymmetrical so that after entering the site the space opened up to the north, where the standing stone was located. 3. Two deposits of yellow clay were placed on top of the ring-cairn, marking the southern and northern parts of the ring. 4. The infilling of the interior of the site with soil may have been flush with the top of the ring-cairn. The infill deposit contained flints and white pebbles.

Figure 5.14 Plan of Trenance (after Miles 1975).

97

Although the site was not scientifically dated, it is possible to argue that it was used over a considerable period of time. Trenance displayed the same concerns with control of movement, and increasing architectural

Andy M Jones

complexity which have been identified at Cocksbarrow, Caerloggas I and Watch Hill. Again there is evidence that access to the central focal point of the site (in this case a standing stone) became more restricted. The long narrow entrance passage and the asymmetrical division of the space meant that movement around the site would have been controlled. The use of yellow clay on the ring-cairn would have highlighted the special nature of parts of the site. Finally, access to the focal point of the site was ended altogether when it was filled by a deposit which contained flints and other stone objects.

Cocksbarrow and Caerloggas I. With the exception of the Camerton-Snowshill dagger fragments, which date between 1700-1500 BC, none of the objects are closely datable and may have been heirlooms (e.g. horn ladle), all slot within the period between circa 1900-1700 BC. The analysis of the pollen from the investigated barrows was used by the excavator to suggest a sequence for their construction, with dense woodland being used to suggest the earliest barrows and open grassland the latest. Dense woodland was found around Cocksbarrow, a mix of woodland scrub at three of the barrows Watch Hill, Caerloggas I and III and open grassland at Trenance. Whilst the sequence offered by this model is attractive in some respects, its limitations should be taken into account, namely the distances between the sites and the difference in Ordnance Datum (Trenance being 40m lower than Cocksbarrow), all of which could have led to differences between the sites. However, the comparability in vegetation conditions between the Caerloggas barrows does lend support for their contemporary use. Finally, the similarities between all of the St.Austell sites in terms of their structure and the similar number of stages found at each (enclosure; incorporation of stones and orthostats; deposits in pits; yellow clay and turf mounds) suggests that the barrows were in use over a similar time span, rather than, as the excavator suggested, being of differing dates (Miles 1975, 73).

The St.Austell Granite Barrows: a discussion The excavator identified many points which are cogent to this discussion (Miles, 1975 71-78) including the composite nature of the barrows, the structural similarities between them, the importance of the enclosure element, the lack of burial activity, the lack of grave goods and the need to develop an understanding of the regional nature of Early Bronze Age ritual in the southwest. The following sections therefore builds upon many of the observations put forward by the excavator but adds some thoughts on the phasing and the nature of the ritual activity which took place. •

•

Structure. Four of the excavated barrows were enclosed by cairn-rings and the remaining two sites (Caerloggas II and III) were surrounded by kerbs. Two of the sites contained natural tors at their centres or as focal points within the cairn-ring (Caerloggas I, and Watch Hill); placed orthostats were found within two of the other sites (Caerloggas III and Trenance). Primary pits were found beneath three of the sites (Caerloggas II, Cocksbarrow and Trenance). All of the sites had been covered or partially covered by deposits of yellow clay and were sealed beneath turf or soil mounds which sealed access to what had been ritually important areas. Three of the sites had finally been closed by deposits of dark soil which masked the yellow clay and covered the mounds (Caerloggas III, Cocksbarrow and Watch Hill). The infilling deposits/turf layers were all associated with artefactual material which may have been purposefully derived from occupation areas. There were differences between the sites, reflected in the wide range of architectural features used to demarcate, hide and restrict movement into and around the sites. These features include: post-rings (Caerloggas I and Cocksbarrow), post-settings (Caerloggas I), ditches (Caerloggas I and Watch Hill), and offset or restricted entrances (Cocksbarrow and Trenance). Phasing. Only Watch Hill barrow has been radiocarbon dated. The determinations, which range from around 2000-1700 cal BC, were obtained from a sequence within the ditch and from the central burial. None of the dates may necessarily be from the primary phase of the site, which may be significantly earlier. The determinations overlap with the relative dating evidence from the artefactual material (the horn ladle, dagger and amber amulet/object) recovered from 98

•

Deposition of human bone. Only two of the barrows produced evidence for burial activity and the rite was different at each of the sites. At Watch Hill two inhumations in coffins were inserted into the centre of the site, which I would argue had been a long established focal point for ritual activity. At Cocksbarrow cremated remains of part of an adult were placed into a pit, within the centre of the site. Again I would suggest that this was an old monument. In both cases the deposition of human bone resulted in the enclosure sites becoming mounded. The performance of burial at Watch Hill can be regarded as an act of appropriation of an ancient monument which resulted in closure and abandonment. However, the Cocksbarrow cremation was partial and it is probably better to consider this as a placed deposit (see below).

•

Topographical siting and natural features. The role of natural topography in the siting of the barrows is difficult to ascertain as the landscape had already been heavily transformed by the china clay industry at the time of excavation. All of the barrows were sited on hill tops or ridges, though little can be said about their relationship with the wider landscape beyond noting the results from the environmental analysis. This indicated that four of the barrows, Caerloggas I and III, Watch Hill and Cocksbarrow had stood in scrubby clearings within a wooded environment, whereas Trenance had been sited within a more open landscape. There is evidence that natural boulders and stones were important to the activities which took place on at least

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

four of the barrows. Two of the sites included small tors (Caerloggas I and Watch Hill) and two sites contained orthostats (Caerloggas III and Trenance). The stone filled pits beneath Caerloggas II and Trenance may be related to the importance of stones. The reverence of stones is demonstrated by the central position of the tor and the offerings which were made around it at Caerloggas I, by the enclosure of boulders and the orthostat at Watch Hill and Trenance and by the possible offering of branches to the southeast of the standing stone at Caerloggas III. The importance of these stones is also demonstrated by the tendency to restrict access to them over time, via posts and banks (Caerloggas I), narrow offset entrances (Trenance) and an encircling ditch (Watch Hill). •

settlement activity were selected as sources for mound material. The adding of this material to the sites may therefore represent a localised tradition of closure with cultural deposits. Another feature of the way in which artefacts were deposited was the condition in which they were placed. The pottery vessel at Watch Hill was deposited in a fragmentary state, the same is true of the dagger, pottery sherd and the amber amulet at Caerloggas I. In short, objects were spread around particular locations within both of the above sites before they were covered and hidden from view. These practices have similarities with the way in which the yellow clay was used at all six sites. Yellow clay was spread around particular locations around the perimeter of sites or over the centre. In two cases the clay was then hidden by soil (Watch Hill and Caerloggas I). Artefacts and yellow clay therefore were used to denote special activities and highlight particular acts. In the case of the clay it has been argued that it was used to control movement and indicate a stage in a site’s life-cycle.

Placing of artefacts and deposits. Only Cocksbarrow produced what could be termed a grave good, in the sense of an artefact directly associated with a deposit of human bone. As was noted by the excavator, the horn ladle from this site could be regarded as an object belonging to the dead, though it could also have been a votive offering (ibid., 72), akin to the other artefacts which were deposited on the barrows. The cremation was partial and I would argue that it was a placed deposit associated with the closure of the site.

•

The remainder of the artefacts (including pottery, flint, quartz pebbles, branches, stones and soil) ended up in the barrows as a result of two processes. At all of the sites there is evidence for the deliberate incorporation of objects. At its simplest this takes the form of the placing of the branches at Caerloggas III or the burying of soil and stones and perhaps organic deposits within pits at Caerloggas I, Caerloggas II, Cocksbarrow and Trenance. Elaborate rules of deposition were found at Caerloggas I and at Watch Hill. At Caerloggas a diverse range of artefacts were placed in a central pit, including a fragment of burnt bone, quartz and flint. This was followed by the deposition of more flint, quartz pebbles, an amber bead, a fragment of a CamertonSnowshill type dagger (Pearce 1983, 399) and tin slag in the area around the tor and the entrance. Over time activity became less focused on the tor and more generally spread throughout the enclosed area. At Watch Hill the ditch became the focus for placed deposits. This took the form of a deposit of charcoal which was placed into the pit on the eastern side of the barrow, and was followed by the placing of sherds from a fragmented enlarged Food Vessel into the southern part of the ditch and in the segment of the ditch closest to the standing stone in the outer cairnring. Finally, flints and carbonised fruits were placed into the eastern half of the ditch. The second way that artefacts were incorporated into the sites was in the soil and turves which were used to infill and mound the sites. This material took the form of quartz pebbles, flints and other stone objects. As the Old Land Surface beneath none of the barrows had been stripped, it is arguable that areas with abundant 99

Zonation. The discussion of zonation has to be restricted to the three closely-spaced sites at Caerloggas. They were arranged on a southeast to northwest alignment, with the most complex site (Caerloggas I) occupying the summit of the hill. At the southeast end of the alignment, activity consisted of the erection of an orthostat, which for an unspecified period of time acted as a focal point in the landscape, possibly for gatherings of people. At a later stage the site was mounded and was used as a platform for gatherings of people. Entrance onto the site was clearly marked by a break in the yellow clay and the kerb. The lack of trampling on the mound may indicate that access onto the mound was restricted and that the majority of people watched events on the mound from the periphery. The central site was the smallest and the least complex. Much information about the site, such as any evidence for a central orthostat, would have been lost when the site was damaged by a water pipeline, though evidence for the excavation and backfilling of a pit suggested that the site had been used for small-scale rituals. Again, the site was covered by a turf-stack bounded by a kerb and covered by yellow clay. At this site there was no evidence to suggest that it continued to have any importance other than as a highlighted area in the cemetery. The northern site was constructed around a tor and activity in this area of the cemetery revolved around the placing of objects around the natural rock outcrop. In common with the other sites, yellow clay was deployed to restrict movement. But, as we have seen, in contrast with the preceding sites, access to the original focal point was not cut off by a mound but became ever more restricted by a range of banks, ditches and postsettings. Thus we can envisage the cemetery commencing with three focal points: a standing stone to the southeast, pit digging at the centre and a venerated tor on the summit of the hill to the northwest. Over time the particular biographies of

Andy M Jones

each pre-barrow site resulted in the subsequent zonation of activity within the cemetery. A large platform barrow acted as public arena, built over the orthostat, whilst the area of the pit was marked, but sealed off. The natural tor remained a focal point, but increasingly became a place of restricted entry.

Davidstow 22 (Fig.5.16) Davidstow 22 was located at the northwestern end of cemetery upon a low ridge approximately 800m from the nearest barrows (Sites 16 and 17). It was a complex barrow, approximately 16m in diameter in its final phase, surrounded by a ditch. Initially the site consisted of a postring measuring 10m in diameter which contained a series of pits. The post-ring and pits became covered by a ring-cairn 12m in diameter and up to 1.35m high. The centre of the enclosure was the focus for the structured deposition of artefacts and for a further series of pits. Finally, the centre of the site was covered by a low cairn. One radiocarbon determination HAR6643: 4130 BP ± 70 (2890-2550 cal BC) was obtained from a charcoal deposit in one of the earlier pits. The published interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there were three broad phases of prehistoric activity (flint-work, stone-ring and central pits, cairn-ring) (Christie 1988, 123-129). It is argued below that this sequence is too simple and that an alternative outline can be put forward to explain the stratigraphical sequence.

Summary It has been possible to argue that through their similar structures, development, siting and depositing of artefacts, all six sites belong to a shared ritual tradition which was found throughout the St.Austell Downs during the Early Bronze Age (Borlase 1769; Johns 1994). In particular, the use of yellow clay to mark areas and the infilling and mounding of sites with culturally rich material draw these sites together as a group. The sophisticated use of structural features designed to restrict access or direct movement was found on many sites. Over time there appears to have been a growing desire to control access to places which may have been relatively open to begin with. There is also some evidence to suggest that some sites changed from being enclosures around focal points (e.g. tors or orthostats) into mythological or sacred places in their own right which were the focus for the depositing of artefacts, further structural embellishment, or for an act of burial before closure.

The following refined phasing is therefore offered: 1. Occupation of area during Later Neolithic period resulting in a scatter of flints.

5.2.5 Davidstow Moor (Figs.5.15-23)

2. Laying out of a circle of 36 pits, which probably formed a post-ring. A possible entrance in the southeast is indicated by the wider spacing of the pits.

Introduction The layout of the Davidstow cemetery has already been discussed in chapter 4 (see 4.5 above) so it will only be summarised here. The cemetery consists of thirteen barrows (twelve excavated), located on a plateau on the northwest edge of Bodmin Moor. The cemetery was excavated between 1941-1942 by Croft Andrew, but was not published until 1988 (Christie 1988). It was the only cemetery to be both visited during the fieldwork stage of the study and analysed in detail.

3. Activity in the southeast quadrant of the enclosure, involving the lighting of a fire and the digging of a pit containing a sherd of Grooved Ware. A second pit just outside the ring gave a Later Neolithic radiocarbon determination. These features were located in the area of the probable entrance. 4. A cairn-ring was constructed. It covered the southeastern pit and the fire. The cairn-ring contained 40 or so stones which were marked with notches or pits.

Cremated bone was recovered from five of the sites (Sites 1, 8, 11, 16 and 22). However, the deposition of human bone was only one of the activities which took place at these sites, which were of an elaborate nature.

5. Pits were dug inside the cairn-ring of the site. One contained an upright Beaker, another fragments of cremated human bone, charcoal, a quartz lump and a holed

Site data table: Davidstow 22 "Black" fill Cairn-ring

Central cairn

Stony fill Ditch cut

Grooved Ware feature Post-ring Fire and pit on SE side of site. 3 sherds of plain pottery found near fire

Central pits, one containing a Beaker HAR6643: 4130 BP ± 70 (2890-2550 cal BC ). 1 sherd of plain pottery found in south quadrant and another in the northeast

Old Land Surface removed?

100

Figure 5.15 Plan showing Davidstow cemetery (see also Fig. 5.2).

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

101

Andy M Jones

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.16 Plan of Davidstow 22 (early phases (a), later phases (b)) (after Christie 1988). stone. Another pit contained substantial quantities of charcoal. Several sherds of plain pottery were found, three near to the fire, one in the ‘south trench’ and another in the northeast quadrant.

this has not survived. There are indications that the cremation deposit which included quartz, charcoal and a holed stone was partial. It is possible that the activity associated with the central pit was one of the last things to happen within the interior of what had been a very longlived site. Another pit contained a Beaker. This was not associated with the partial cremation deposit, though a few fragments of unidentified bone were recorded. The deposition of the bone may have led to the construction of the cairn and the encircling of the site with a ditch, which together prevented further access to the site.

6. The centre of the enclosure was covered by a cairn (full extent not given). 7. A continuous ditch approximately 16m in diameter was excavated around the site. Initially the site consisted of a post-ring with an entrance in the southeast quadrant. This area became the focus for fires and for pit digging. One of the pits in the southeastern quadrant produced a sherd of Grooved Ware and another gave a radiocarbon determination dating to the first quarter of the third millennium BC. During the Early Bronze Age (post 2500 cal BC) a ring-cairn was constructed (entrance unknown) over the post-ring and a series of pits were dug in the centre of the site, rather than in the southeast quadrant. Access to the centre of the site was more clearly defined and possibly more restricted. The Early Bronze Age activity may represent the manipulation of what must have already been an ancient monument. Several sherds of plain pottery were discovered, which could be Trevisker Ware, but these were not located on the plan. A small quantity of burnt human bone was recovered from the central pit but Site data table: Davidstow 16 Cairn-ring

Davidstow 16 (Fig.5.17) Site16 was located near to the northwestern end of the cemetery on an intermediate ridge between Site 22 on the higher ground and Sites 1, 3 and 8 on the plateau to the east. It was paired with Site 17 which lay a few metres to the west. Davidstow 16 had a low turf and clay mound measuring circa 11m in diameter, and circa 0.5m high. The mound was covered with quartz and sealed three or four pits and a spread of charcoal. Burnt human bone and charcoal were found with a fragmentary Trevisker vessel at the base of a depression in the mound. A radiocarbon determination of HAR8098: 3440 BP ± 100 (2050-1500 cal BC) was obtained from the charcoal spread beneath the site.

Quartz and pottery and yellow clay deposited on mound Mound constructed

Pottery, cremated bone, Three or four pits dug in the centre and southern half of the site charcoal and quartz deposited Old Land Surface removed?

102

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Figure 5.17 Plans of Davidstow I6 and 17 (after Christie 1988). 3. Charcoal was spread over the interior of the enclosure and covered by quartz stones.

The published interpretation allows that the site was multiphased, but Christie largely confined her discussion to the elements of the site rather than their phasing.

4. Partial cremation deposit with sherds of Trevisker pottery and charcoal.

A more specific phasing is offered below.

5a. Shortly afterwards a mound of turf was constructed.

1. Free-standing ring-cairn of quartz enclosing central ritual space.

5b. A deposit of yellowish clay was added to the existing mound. More quartz and fragments of the same Trevisker vessel were scattered upon it.

2. Three or four pits containing charcoal and soil were dug in the centre, southeast and southwest quadrants of the enclosed space.

Davidstow 16 was not primarily a burial site, although a

103

Andy M Jones

small quantity of burnt bone was recovered from the site. There are indications that the bone deposited in the centre of the mound was probably that of an adult although the sex could not be ascertained (Stead 1988, 108). The deposit was partial (31g) and accompanied by fragments of a decorated rim from a Trevisker pot and charcoal. Further fragments from the same vessel had been sprinkled on top of the mound with quartz. There are indications that the activity associated with the deposit of human bone was one of the last things to happen on a potentially long-lived site, which had started as an enclosure ringed with quartz blocks. Complex activity in the enclosure is indicated by the charcoal-rich pits which were dug in the southeastern quadrant and centre of the enclosure and by the deposition of charcoal and quartz across the interior. There are some indications in the section drawing that the mound may have been two-phased with a primary turf mound with a later clay capping. Unlike Site 22, the mounding of Site 16 did not lead to its total abandonment, and further deposits of quartz and pottery were placed on the mound before it was closed.

central area within the barrow which was infilled during the Bronze Age. The established stratigraphical sequence is followed here. Site data table: Davidstow 17 Mound constructed A pit containing soil and “organic” material was dug in the east of the site Old Land Surface removed?

Davidstow 17 did not produce any burnt bone or pottery. Charcoal and quartz were recovered from the central disturbed area but their original context is uncertain. All that can be speculated is that prior to the construction of the mound the site had been used for ritual purposes. Its close proximity to Site 16 may indicate that the two sites were associated. Davidstow 1 (Fig.5.18) Davidstow 1 was located at the western end of the main plateau upon which the majority of the cemetery was sited. It was the westernmost of a group of four Sites 1, 3, 3a and 8. The site had a complex history, a low two-phased turf and clay mound measuring circa 25m in diameter and circa 0.9m high covered quartz blocks, a stake-circle measuring 21m in diameter, a trench measuring 24m in diameter, the sites of fires, charcoal spreads, 3 wooden objects, and 3 pits. A second stake-circle measuring approximately 21m in

Davidstow 17 (Fig.5.17) Site 17 was paired with Site 16 which lay a few metres away. It had a low turf and clay mound measuring circa 11m in diameter and was circa 0.5m high. The mound sealed a pit in the eastern quadrant (Christie 1988, 105-7). Little else can be said because the excavator recorded that the centre of the site had been destroyed by a modern pit. It is, however, possible that the ‘modern pit’ was in fact an open

Figure 5.18 Plan of Davidstow I (early phases (a), later phases (b)) (after Christie 1988). 104

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Site data table: Davidstow 1 "Marking out" trench

Pottery, charcoal and quartz deposited, 6 fires lit

A stake-circle was laid out Mound constructed

Pottery, cremated bone, charcoal and quartz deposited, 8 fires lit. HAR6634: 3520 BP ± 70 (2040-1680 cal BC)

A stake-circle was laid out

Old Land Surface

diameter was built on top of the mound. A tiny amount of cremated human bone was recovered from beneath the mound. Further spreads of charcoal and a fragmentary Trevisker vessel were recovered from the top of the mound. A radiocarbon determination of HAR6634: 3520 BP ± 70 (2040-1680 cal BC) was obtained from the charcoal spread beneath Site 1.

Davidstow 1 was not primarily a burial site, as the cremation deposit consisted of only five fragments of burnt bone and two fragments of teeth. It was not accompanied by artefacts but instead formed part of an elaborate deposit which involved activity around a fire located near to the centre of the site. Again, there is evidence that the site was used over a long period of time before it was mounded over. Fires were lit, charcoal spread and wooden artefacts deposited on numerous occasions over the eastern half of the enclosure. Of the fourteen deposits which were recovered from the barrow, only two extended into the northwest quadrant of the barrow and none were found in the southwest. There was little stratigraphy within the enclosure, so it is not possible to suggest that the deposition of human bone led to the mounding of the site. The mounding did not result in closure for, after the site had been marked by a small yellow clay mound, a large mound was built and a new enclosure built on top of it. The activity on top of the mound inverted the rituals which had taken place before. The entrance of the enclosure did not face east, large quartz blocks were placed in the centre and fires and pottery and charcoal were sited in the western half of the site. Thus the order was reversed, from black to white in the centre, and from east to west as the appropriate place of deposition.

The published interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there is more than one phase of activity. The existing phasing is largely followed here but is elaborated upon. 1. Marking out of site with a trench and a stake-circle. The stake-circle was discontinuous on the southeastern side, indicating a possible entrance. 2. Fires were lit, pits dug and human bone, charcoal, quartz and burnt wooden objects were placed in the centre and in the eastern half of the enclosed space. 3. A mound (9m in diameter) was built of yellow and grey clay. 4. A yellow-brown earthen mound was constructed over the earlier mound, forming a low platform. 5. A double stake-circle was built around the top of the barrow. It does not appear to have been continuous and had entrances in the north and the south.

Davidstow 3 (Fig.5.19) Davidstow 3 was a member of a group of four Sites 1, 3, 3a and 8. It was a complex site, consisting of a ditch surrounded by banks on either side, measuring approximately 24m in diameter. A small central cairn 2.4m in diameter sealed a deposit of charcoal (Christie 1988, 5255). The interior of the site may have been covered by a low mound but this is uncertain.

6. Large white quartz blocks and Trevisker pottery was scattered upon the mound. Six fires were lit on top. However, activity was largely concentrated in the western half of the site. Site data table: Davidstow 3 Brown clay and gravel fill

Deposit of yellow clay

Deposit of yellow clay

Mound constructed?

Outer bank

Inner bank

Central cairn

Dark and yellow clay fill Peaty fill containing wooden objects and quartz blocks Yellow clay and quartz fill Ditch cut

Charcoal deposited Old Land Surface

105

Andy M Jones

Figure 5.19 Plans of Davidstow 3 and 3a (section across Site 3a bottom) (after Christie 1988). The published phasing is largely followed here but is elaborated upon.

recorded from the western part of the ditch (not described in the report).

1. A deposit of charcoal was covered by a cairn of quartz blocks.

4. The interior of the enclosure may have been infilled to form a low platform.

2. A continuous ditch with concentric banks covered by yellow clay was excavated around the cairn.

At Davidstow 3 a low cairn sealing a charcoal deposit appears to have become bounded and then the focus for a number of prescribed acts of deposition consisting of wood, organic material and quartz within the eastern part of the ditch. The large space within the enclosure does not appear to have been used at all. The absence of human

3. Artefacts in the form of over 100 quartz blocks, two wooden objects and an organic deposit were placed into the east quadrant of the ditch. A sherd of pottery is 106

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

the fact that Cornish-variant pond barrows appear to be different from excavated pond barrows in Wessex (Atkinson et al 1951; Barrett et al 1991a), where artefacts and burials are recovered. However, its siting next to a complex monument (Site 3) could be significant. Site 3a may have been used for gatherings, or as a place from which to watch the formal acts of deposition into the ditch of Site 3.

bone may account for the fact that the site was not covered by a substantial mound. Davidstow 3a (Fig.5.19) Davidstow 3a was located near to Site 3 which lay a few metres to the northwest. It was a small sunken Cornishvariant pond barrow measuring circa 5m in diameter and 30cm deep. The site appears to have been kept clean, though only a small area was investigated. No artefacts or deposits were recovered from the site (Christie 1988, 5556).

Davidstow 8 (Fig.5.20) Davidstow 8 was located at the southern end of a group of four Sites 1, 3, 3a and 8. It had a low flat mound approximately 4m in diameter and under 1m high which sealed a low cairn approximately 1.5m in diameter. The site was surrounded by a bank and ditch 10m in diameter. The bank had an entrance in the east. A cremation deposit was placed on the cairn. The central cairn was mostly constructed from quartz blocks. The barrow may have been ritually sealed by a low mound across the entrance. Site 8 produced a determination of HAR6640: 3740 BP ± 90 (2500-1900 cal BC) from the Old Land Surface.

Site data table: Davidstow 3a A sunken circular area with a slight bank around it was constructed Old Land Surface removed

The published phasing is followed here. Davidstow 3a did not produce any burnt bone or pottery and had not been used for the deposition of artefacts or charcoal. Indeed, in common with the other barrows of this type at Davidstow (Site 4a and 7), little can be said about its function beyond Site data table: Davidstow 8 Quern stone deposited in east and a pit dug in west

Yellow clay covered bank

Fires on mound

Central mound

Inner bank

Eastern mound

Cremated bone deposited

Peaty fill

Pit in northeast

Central cairn constructed

Ditch cut Old Land Surface HAR6640: 3740 BP ± 90 (2500-1900 cal BC)

Figure 5.20 Plan of Davidstow 8 (after Christie 1988). 107

Andy M Jones

The existing interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there is more than one phase comprised of activity within an enclosed space followed by the blocking of the entrance and mounding of the site (Christie 1988, 57- 68).

speculated is that prior to the construction of the mound the site had been used for ritual purposes. The site had clear parallels with Site 17. Davidstow 4 (Fig.5.22) Davidstow 4 was located in the centre of a group of four Sites 4, 4a, 7 and 14 and was paired with Site 4a which lay to the north. Site 4 consisted of a low subcircular annular bank of clay measuring 22m in diameter by approximately 5m-6m wide. The centre of the site was roughly square in shape and filled with a low turf mound (Christie 1988, 6872). In some respects the site looks like a post-medieval peat drying platform. However, Site 4 lacked the internal ditch which is found at these sites (Christie and Rose 1987, 182) and was far larger than recorded peat platforms (ibid., 183).

The published phasing is largely followed here but is elaborated upon. 1. A cairn of quartz blocks was constructed. 2. A shallow continuous ditch was excavated outside the bank. A bank was built, covered in yellow clay and with an entrance in the east. 3. An artefact in the form of a quern was placed in the northeast quadrant of the enclosure. A pit was dug in the northeast quadrant and filled with earth, another was dug in the west

Site data table: Davidstow 4 Yellow clay Central mound constructed added

4a. A small deposit of cremated human bone was sprinkled on the cairn and a turf mound was constructed over it.

Bank

4b The entrance of the enclosure bank was blocked by a dumped mound of yellow and red clay which contained charcoal and bore signs of burning. Fires were lit on the mound, perhaps to finally seal the site.

Old Land Surface

The published stratigraphical summary is followed here. Davidstow 4 did not produce any burnt bone or pottery. Again, all that can be speculated is that prior to the construction of the mound the site had been used for ceremonial purposes.

Davidstow 8 was not primarily a burial site, although a small quantity of burnt bone recovered from the central cairn, probably from an adult, who was possibly male (Stead 1988, 67). The deposit is of a partial nature (36g) and was accompanied by two granite stones and fragments of burnt pig bone (9g). It is possible that this deposit was placed shortly before the site was mounded. I would argue that the low cairn had been the focus within an enclosure, indicated by the trampling around the cairn, where movement was controlled through the entrance in the east. The closure of the site was very formalised, with a mound which sealed the central cairn and by the deposition of brightly coloured clay and fires in the entrance. The site had clear parallels with Site 3 which lay to the west. The significant difference was the deposition of human bone and the subsequent mound building.

Davidstow 4a (Fig.5.22) Davidstow 4a was paired with Site 4 which lay to the south. Although some doubt exists as to its date, its similarity to Sites 3a and 7 indicate that Site 4a was a small Cornishvariant pond barrow site measuring circa 9m in diameter and 60cm deep. The site appears to have been kept clean (though investigation was limited to three trenches), as no artefacts or deposits were recovered from it (Christie 1988, 55-56). Site data table: Davidstow 4a The sunken area was lined with gravel

Davidstow 14 (Fig.5.21) Davidstow 14 was located at the northern end of a group of four Sites 4, 4a, 7 and 14, which were loosely clustered around the central part of the plateau. Site 14 consisted of a low turf mound approximately 6m in diameter and under 0.50m high, which sealed a burnt deposit near to its centre (Christie 1988, 79-80).

A circular area with an entrance in the form of a holloway was constructed Old Land Surface removed

The published phasing is followed here. Davidstow 4a did not produce any burnt bone or pottery and had not been used for the deposition of artefacts or charcoal. However, its siting next to Site 4, provides an obvious parallel with the relationships between Sites 3 and 3a, although the relationship between Sites 4 and 4a was more controlled as they were linked by a formal pathway.

Site data table: Davidstow 14 A mound was constructed A burnt deposit of "red clayey matter" was placed onto the ground

Davidstow 7 (Fig.5.21) Davidstow 7 was located at the southeastern end of a group of four Sites 4, 4a and 14. It was the most complex of the barrows in the central group; a Cornish-variant pond barrow 9m in diameter and encircled by a low bank. There

Old Land Surface removed?

The published phasing is followed here. Davidstow 14 did not produce any burnt bone or pottery. All that can be 108

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Figure 5.21 Plans of Davidstow 14 and 7 (after Christie 1988).

Figure 5.22 Plans of Davidstow 4 and 4a (after Christie 1988).

109

Andy M Jones

was no evidence of an entrance. In the middle of the area there was a small pit measuring up to 0.60m wide, which was found to contain two large quartz blocks (Christie 1988, 77).

2. Activity within the enclosure was confined to the eastern part of the enclosure and the entrance. Two small cairns containing quartz blocks covering deposits of charcoal were constructed (one inside the enclosure and a second within the entrance). An oak post was erected and then burnt down just outside the entrance. The remains of other posts were recorded in this area (but not located on the plan). Artefacts deposited in this area included a holed stone and an upright Collared Urn in a pit just outside the entrance.

Site data table: Davidstow 7 Bank A pit filled with two quartz blocks A sunken circular area was constructed Old Land Surface

Old Land Surface removed from central area

3. The interior of the enclosure was sealed by a low mound and a kerb of quartz and slate was constructed around its outer edge.

The published phasing is followed here. Davidstow 7 was similar in size and form to Sites 3a and 4a. Unlike either of the other pond barrows it contained a central deposit of quartz within a pit. The deposit of quartz links this site with several of the more complex barrows in the cemetery, including Sites 2, 22, 16, 3 and 8.

4. Quartz blocks were deposited onto the northwest side of the mound. At Davidstow 2 an area was enclosed by a bank capped by yellow clay with an entrance in the east. Activity was concentrated at the eastern margins of the site which became the focus for a number of acts of deposition, consisting of one or more posts which were burnt down, the construction of quartz cairns concealing charcoal and the burial of a complete Collared Urn. Residue analysis suggested that the pot contained degraded fats and traces of wood resin (Christie 1988, 86). The large space within the enclosure appears to have hardly been used at all and activity in the west of the enclosure was confined to the erection of an orthostat and the deposition of quartz onto the site during its final phase of use. Access inside the enclosure was finally prevented by a low platform mound which covered the interior of the site.

Davidstow 2 (Fig.5.23) Davidstow 2 was located at the eastern end of the cemetery, close to the end of the plateau. It was an isolated site, standing 400m from the nearest member of the cemetery. It is described as a platform barrow with a stone kerb between 18 to 24m in diameter and less than 0.50m high (Christie 1988, 81-85). The mound sealed two small cairns. A Collared Urn containing charcoal and stiff clay was recovered from a pit to the east of the site. A large posthole was found on the eastern side of the barrow. Site 2 produced a determination of HAR6635: 3580 BP ± 70 (2140-1740 cal BC) from the charcoal spread beneath the eastern cairn.

Davidstow 11 (Fig.5.23) Site 11 was located just beyond the southern edge of the plateau, in isolation, at a distance of approximately 600m beyond the nearest sites in the cemetery (Sites 7 and 2). The site consisted of a low mound covering a stone-lined pit sealed by a small cairn which contained a cremation and a possible standing stone. The mound was 10m to 12m across and under 0.50m high (Christie 1988, 89-91).

The published interpretation of the stratigraphy suggests that there were three elements: construction of a small cairn; building of a platform barrow with clay rim and stone kerb around the perimeter; cairns and other features on the eastern side of the barrow. This sequence is based on the supposition that the clay rim was constructed at the same time as the turf mound. However, this assumption is not necessarily correct.

Site data table: Davidstow 11 Mound constructed

The following sequence is therefore offered:

Standing stone erected ?

Cairn built A stone-lined pit containing a cremation deposit

1. A free-standing bank of yellow clay with an entrance in the east and an orthostat in the west was constructed.

Old Land Surface

Site data table: Davidstow 2 Posts erected and Collared Urn deposited in pit

Quartz and orthostat on west side

Quartz blocks placed on mound

Yellow clay bank

Mound constructed Two central cairns constructed HAR6635: 3580 ± BP 70 (2140-1740 cal BC)

Old Land Surface

110

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Figure 5.23 Plans of Davidstow 2 and 11 (after Christie 1988). With the exception of phase 1, the published sequence is followed here.

3. A low clay and turf mound was constructed which sealed the site.

1. A standing stone was erected, possibly in the centre of the site? (no details about the stone were recorded).

Davidstow 11 was the only excavated site which may primarily have been for burial: this formed the major activity on the site, although even here the quantity of burnt bone was small (80g). There are indications that the bone was from a sub-adult but the sex could not be established

2. A pit was lined with stones and a cremation deposit was placed into it. The pit was covered by a small cairn 111

Andy M Jones

(Stead 1988, 94-95). No artefacts were recovered from the site and it is possible that the burnt bone was inserted shortly before it was mounded. This site was one of the simplest and it has parallels with Sites 14 and 17, though human bone was not recovered from either site. Site 11 was the only barrow to the east of Site 8 to contain human bone. It is possible that this may account for its marginal position in the cemetery.

probably due to the fact that the Old Land Surface was submitted for dating. The activity within the enclosure is therefore likely to have been of a similar date to the barrows in the cemetery. In general, the radiocarbon dating supports the structural information which suggests that, with the exception of the earlier phases of Site 22, the sites were broadly contemporary. The similarities between the sites in terms of their structure (bank, low mounds, variant pond forms, etc.) and the similar number of stages found at many of them (open enclosure; structured activity within the enclosures; clay and turf mounds sealing the site) suggests that they were part of a group which was in use over several generations.

The Davidstow Barrows: a discussion Christie (1988, 154-160) largely confined her interpretation to a review of the architectural features of the excavated barrows and a general summary of what had been found. However, I would suggest that the excavation produced a very significant set of results, particularly in regard to the zonation of different sorts of activity which had taken place over such a large area. •

•

Structure. Although the barrows display a wide variety of building techniques, several shared elements can be ascertained. Broadly speaking, three different site types were found: simple mounds covering a primary deposit (Sites 11, 14 and 17), enclosure barrows (Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 16 and 22) and Cornish-variant pond barrows (Sites 3a, 4a and 7 which are so far unique to Davidstow Moor). Enclosure of a defined space is a feature of most of the barrows (excluding the simple mounded sites). Sites 2, 4, and 7 were all surrounded by banks and Site 3 and 8 by banks and ditches. Site 16 was probably enclosed by a ring-cairn of quartz and Site 1 by two phases of stake-circles. Site 22 was repeatedly re-enclosed, firstly by posts, then by a cairn-ring and lastly by a ditch. Similarly the addition of a kerb to Site 2 probably represented the symbolic enclosure of the ritual space. The majority of the sites were mounded (excluding Sites 3a, 4a and 7). Most were low simple turf and clay mounds. Only one of the mounds may have been enlarged over time (Site 1) and none of the mounds were used for burial (see below). However, at least two of the mounds (Sites 1 and 16) became the focal points for subsequent activity. Yellowish coloured clay was used widely across the cemetery to cover banks (Sites 2, 3, 3a?, and 8), the primary mound at Site 1 and the mound at Site 16. Differences between the sites included the post-ring which was unique to Site 22, the stake-circles which were only found at Site 1, the orthostats at Sites 2 and 11? and the quartz lining at Site 4a. These differences may relate to the zonation of activities which will be discussed below.

•

Deposition of human bone. Five of the barrows produced evidence for the deposition of cremated bone (Sites 1, 11, 16, 8 and 22). With the exception of Site 11, these are all found at the western end of the cemetery. Of the individuals deposited in the barrows only one subadult burial within Site 11 could have been a straightforward burial. All of the interments were partial in nature with the largest deposit at Site 11 (80gm) falling far short of the quantities which are normally found with cremation sites (McKinley 1997). The act of depositing human bone precipitated the abandonment of most of the sites where it occurred. Only Site 1 continued in use after it was mounded and here the area of the site used changed.

•

Topographical siting and natural features. Topographic features were probably meaningful to the people who used Davidstow Moor Cemetery. Many prominent hills and tors including Rough Tor are visible (see 4.5 above). However, although these places probably had cosmological associations and many were associated with their own monuments, Rough Tor probably had the greatest significance. This argument is based on the fact that Davidstow is just one of many cemeteries located in sight of Rough Tor. Although the cemetery occupied a distinct level plateau, it did not incorporate any prominent natural features. The barrows incorporated materials which were local to their area (yellow clay, turf) and objects which may have come from further afield such as granite, slates, quartz and oak posts. These elements may have been incorporated to make specific links with the immediate locale and the wider landscape.

•

Phasing. The cemetery has five radiocarbon determinations from sites spread fairly evenly along its length (single dates from Sites 1, 2, 8, 16 and 22). The determinations from three of the sites are overlapping (Sites 1, 2 and 8) centring around 2000-1800 cal BC. Two of the determinations were earlier, though this reflects the contexts which were submitted for dating. Site 22 was shown to have Later Neolithic origins, which were demonstrated by the radiocarbon determination and the Grooved Ware. The slightly earlier date from Site 8 (centred around 2150 cal BC) is 112

Placing of artefacts and deposits. Most of the barrows produced evidence for structured deposition (with the exception of Sites 3a, 4 and 4a). However, none of the sites produced what could be termed grave goods and few produced any ceramics. The majority of the placed deposits consisted of fire sites, quartz, charcoal, organic soil, wooden objects, holed/notched stones and cremated human bone. Within the cemetery there seem to have been rules governing the way artefacts were deposited into the barrows. At its simplest level an object was placed on the ground or in pits within

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

deposited (Sites 1 and 16). Artefacts and yellow clay therefore were used to denote particular acts or to highlight the margins of sites and control movement into them.

the central or eastern part of the barrow (Sites 11, 17 and 14) and the site was then covered by a mound (except for Site 7 which was left unmounded). More commonly, the eastern half of the barrow and usually the centre of the barrow became the focus for structured activity (Sites 1, 2, 3, 8, 16 and 22). This behaviour is exemplified by Site 3 where quartz and charcoal were placed in the centre of the mound and a series of deposits including quartz blocks, wooden objects and an organic deposit were placed into the eastern half of the ditch. Entrances were usually found in the eastern part of the barrows and they too became focal points for deposition (Sites 1, 2, 8 and 22). Pits were dug in the entrance to the earliest Site 22 and a cairn, posts and Collared Urn were sited in the entrance to Site 2. The most elaborate activity of this kind took place at Site 8 where the entrance was blocked by a mound of clay and fires lit.

•

Zonation. As we have seen (see 4.5 above), there is evidence that activity within the cemetery was structured. The evidence from the fieldwork can now be built upon in the light of information from the excavations. The organisation at Davidstow is evident in the way that the barrows are sited in a linear arrangement across a plateau and takes the form of the zonation of ritual activity along the axis of the cemetery. Four broad zones can be identified: northwestern, western, eastern and southeastern. The northwestern zone comprised of three sites (Sites 16, 17 and 22) was located on elevated ground above the plateau. It is characterised by three contrasting sites, two of which were complex and a third simpler. Sites 22 and 16 both originated as open enclosures and concluded with the deposition of human bone within the centre of an enclosed space (the open enclosures). The structured deposition of fragmentary pottery, small amounts of burnt bones and charcoal was found in the centres and eastern parts of both barrows. However, there were significant differences between the two sites (timber post-ring and Beaker pits at Site 22, spreads of charcoal quartz and yellow clay at Site 16), which relate to the primary phase of Site 22 predating Site 16 by several centuries. Site 17 was located close to Site 16 but was far simpler, consisting of an organic deposit which was covered by a mound. The simplicity of the site may be more apparent than real. It was located in closed proximity to Site 16 and it is possible that they were conceived of as a pair. The activity within the northwestern zone is very elaborate and involved a much wider use of ceramics (Grooved Ware, Beakers and Trevisker Ware) than anywhere else in the cemetery. Site 22 became marked by a cairn and a ditch and Site 16 by a mound of yellow clay. These features would have made the sites visually distinctive and it is possible that this was because they were located on the margins of the cemetery and were therefore made visible to cue visitors that they were entering a sacred area. Indeed, it is possible that Site 22 was reused during the Early Bronze Age by a community who wanted to reinforce their claim to use the plateau by forging a link with an ancient site (see Bradley 2002).

The treatment of cremated human bone is comparable with the deposits of charcoal, quartz, holed stones and pottery which are also found in the barrows. In particular, bone seems to have been mixed with charcoal, fragments of pottery and, in one instance, with animal bone. Again, there is little evidence for sequential burials being deposited to form lineages and it appears that cremated bone may have been used as a symbolic resource, deployed in specific contexts in the cemetery. Although the bones in most of the deposits could not be sexed, there is some evidence that the bones of young people and older members of the community were being deposited in the cemetery. As Cooney (2000b, 249) has argued in relation to Irish tombs, it is unlikely that members of the community (gender or age sets) would all have become the same sort of ancestor. However, bones may have been used to make links between the living, the landscape and the spirit world. The deposition of human bone seems to have resulted in the sites becoming mounded (Sites 22, 16, 1, 8 and 11). Another point of interest concerning the deposition of artefacts was the condition in which pottery was placed into the sites. The Trevisker vessels at Sites 1 and 16 were deposited in a fragmentary state; the same is true of the Grooved Ware at Site 22. In contrast, the Beaker from Site 22 and the Collared Urn from Site 2 were both placed upright into pits. The marked differences in treatment of the different pot forms again suggests that they were associated with contrasting types of behaviour. Both the Grooved Ware and the Trevisker Ware may have been curated as fragments for some time before their inclusion into the site. This leads us to the intriguing possibility that Trevisker Ware may have been conceived of in a similar way to the Later Neolithic pottery (see chapter 2).

The way the barrows were treated in the northwestern zone bears both similarities and contrasts with the sites in the western zone (comprised of Sites 1, 3, 3a and 8). As with the northwestern zone, the sites in this area were for the most part complex. Site 1 consisted of a stake-circle which formed an arena for the lighting of fires and for the deposition of fragmentary Trevisker Ware. After mounding, the site continued in use with a new stake-circle being constructed and pottery, quartz and charcoal being scattered on top. The spreading of materials on the mound (including Trevisker Ware) has

As at the St.Austell barrows, yellow clay was deployed on most of the sites. The clay was used in two ways, either being spread around the perimeter of sites or as a mound covering after human bone had been

113

Andy M Jones

Site 2 was a complex site which had several phases, whereas Site 11 was simple, consisting of a single phase involving a burial deposit covered by a low mound. Interestingly, both sites may have been marked by orthostats and the zone produced the only human bone to the east of Site 8 and the only pottery to the east of Site 1; this was in the form of a complete Collared Urn on the eastern side Site 2. Elaborate deposits were placed on the eastern side of Site 2 and at least one post was erected and burnt down. In many ways the eastern end of the cemetery was marked and used for the same kinds of acts which occurred at the western end of the cemetery at Site 22. In short, the burial deposit at Site 11 and the frequent high-profile activities such as the burning of timber uprights at Site 2 may have been ways of ingraining the boundary of the cemetery space via memorable acts into the memories of the communities who inhabited the area (Thomas 2000).

its closest parallels with Site 16 in the northwestern zone, but in other ways it is entirely different (stakecircles and fires, etc.). Sites 3 and 8 were very similar in that they consisted of central quartz cairns which were encircled by banks and ditches. However, the deposition of human bone at Site 8 resulted in an elaborate rite of closure, involving the blocking of the entrance with red clay, the lighting of fires and the mounding of the site. In contrast, at Site 3 there is little evidence that the interior of the enclosure was ever entered other than to cover it with a very low mound. Instead, the ditch and double bank were continuous and the formal depositioning of artefacts was contained within the eastern half of the ditch. Site 3a was a Cornish-variant pond barrow which contained little evidence to indicate its function. However, it was paired with Site 3 and may have been used for gatherings or for activities which were carried out in secret. The pairing of sites has obvious similarities with Sites 16 and 17 in the northwestern zone and with Sites 4 and 4a in the eastern zone, though in each zone the activities which took place are different. In summary, the western zone contained the densest concentration of complex sites. This contrasts with the eastern zone described below which contained the densest concentration of sites which were of an apparently simple nature.

Summary It is possible to conclude that through their similar structures, development, siting and depositing of artefacts, the 12 or 13 sites belong to a shared localised ritual tradition with points in common with the other studied cemeteries (for example, the use of yellow clay and the deposition of partial cremations). However, the way those elements were articulated was unique to Davidstow. It is argued here that a visitor to this cemetery in the Bronze Age would have been able to recognise the underlying tradition linking the elements together but would also have experienced a space punctuated by ritual zones, intended to serve a variety of purposes along its length.

The eastern zone was comprised of Sites 4, 4a, 7, 14 and the unexcavated Site 26. These were in most ways markedly different in nature from those in the other three zones. This area witnessed an inversion of the practices which had taken place in the western zone. Only two of the sites contained any obvious signs of activity and none contained any evidence for the deposition of human bone. At Site 14 a burnt deposit was placed under a mound and at Site 7 a quartz block was buried in a pit in the centre of a pond barrow. These activities have parallels with several of the barrows in the cemetery. However, they are the only acts which can be identified in this zone. Site 4 was devoid of activity and was surrounded by an unbroken yellow clay bank which may have been intended to prohibit access. Site 4a was lined with quartz but does not appear to have been used. Similarly, the bank around Site 7 was continuous and there is no evidence that it was used after the quartz had been buried. There is no indication that the mound at Site 14 was a focal point for gatherings. In short, evidence for the use of the barrows in this zone is extremely limited. One explanation is that the sites were deliberately kept clean but another would be that the sites in this zone were not really intended to be used by a living community, but may instead have been intended for the use of a mythological community of gods, spirits, or even the ancestors (Parker Pearson 2000). Whatever the case, the lack of use contrasts with the adjacent western and southeastern zones.

5.3 Concluding discussion

The results from the study of the excavated cemeteries have drawn out a number of significant points. Firstly, there is a need to consider the full range of deposits from barrows. In Cornwall metalwork, beads and even pottery are but a small part of the repertoire of items which were formally deposited (see 3.2.2 above). Secondly, it is apparent that when human bone occurs on Cornish barrows, the quantity and nature of the deposit needs careful consideration. This study has found evidence of cremation and inhumation burial activity, but the quantities of bone are often so small that formal burial may not have been the driving force behind the act of deposition. Thirdly, Cornish barrows usually began as ritual enclosures; the need to enclose the site by cairn-rings, stake and post-rings and ditches was a recurring theme at all the barrows. Lastly, it is necessary to stress that although similarities between the cemeteries were noted in terms of structure, phasing, burial, treatment of artefacts and zonation, no two cemeteries were totally alike. Furthermore, the excavation of individual sites across Cornwall indicates that there were a wide range of practices associated with barrows (Ashbee 1958; Christie 1960; Dudley 1961, 1964; Smith 1984, 1996, etc.) and it is apparent that many of the features identified at Cornish barrows are found across the southwest (Gray 1908b; Pollard 1967, 1971; Pollard and Russell 1969). I would

The southeastern zone was comprised of just two widely dispersed sites (Sites 2 and 11) which marked the edges of the plateau. The two sites are contrasting, 114

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

argue that communities drew from a range of elements which comprised a southwestern ritual tradition to suit their specific needs, in the context of the particular cosmology of the landscape in which they were inserted.

incorporate the symbolism of the water within the barrow cemetery. The significance of natural rocks is indicated by the way that they were incorporated into monuments in three of the four studied barrow groups (Colliford, St.Austell and Treligga). Similar evidence for the incorporation of natural rocks has also been found during recent excavations at Stannon Down (Jones forthcoming b). The use of natural materials in the barrows (orthostatic stones and clay and quartz, etc.) may have represented a desire to link monuments into the landscapes in which they are inserted (cf Scarre 2000); they may have been considered to contain the power of the source from which they were derived (Bradley 2000a).

The following is a summary of the principal points: •

Structure. A wide variety of structural features were encountered (platform mounds, cairn-rings, ditches and pits) However, with the exception of the Cornishvariant pond barrows, which were confined to Davidstow, most structural elements were widely distributed between the barrow cemeteries. It was found that the majority of sites were enclosed in some way (cairn-ring or post-circle, etc.) at an early stage and that most barrows were covered by some form of mound (turf, clay or cairn) as an act of closure.

•

•

Phasing. The majority of the barrows were found to be multi-phased structures and where radiocarbon dating results were available they indicated that the sites were being constructed and used over a period of around 300 years (2000-1700 cal BC. It has been suggested throughout that this evidence can be cautiously used to argue that many of the sites within a cemetery were being used contemporaneously but the depositing of human bone was a short-lived phase.

•

Deposition of human bone. Of the 30 studied barrows, only ten produced any evidence for human bone and half of these deposits were recovered from Davidstow, where just under half of the barrows contained a deposit of human bone. Only one barrow produced evidence for inhumation burial (Watch Hill) the remainder were associated with cremations. It was found that where depositions of human bone occurred they were frequently the last act on the site before it was closed down. No burials were inserted into the mound of a site and the act of burial was confined to particular areas of the cemetery. However, most of the deposits, where the weight was recorded, were very small (tens, rather than hundreds or thousands of grams in weight). I would argue that although the larger deposits and the inhumation burials may have been linked to funerary rites (Watch Hill, Treligga 1 and possibly Davidstow 11), the majority of small deposits should be interpreted in another way and are more properly regarded as placed objects (see below).

The placing of artefacts and deposits. Structured deposition was evident at all four cemeteries. In general this took the form of the burial of artefacts (including charcoal, quartz, organic material, wooden objects, pottery, cremated bone and other artefacts) within pits located at the margins or in the centre of the barrows. Where entrances or ditches or orthostats were present, they often formed focal points for acts of deposition. The eastern and southern quadrants of the barrows were often the most favoured areas for deposition, though even within the cemeteries there was a certain amount of variability in the appropriate area for placing artefacts. It was also found that materials were deposited on sites to mark particular areas (e.g. yellow clay) or as a way of controlling movement or blocking access to the site (spreads of clay and charcoal, etc.). Lastly, although pottery was found on comparatively few of the sites an interesting pattern in the treatment of ceramics is beginning to emerge between the more exotic pots, such as Beakers and Collared Urns and the more commonly used Trevisker Ware. Handled vessels, miniature vessels, Collared Urns and often Beakers occurred complete in all of the cemeteries where they were found. By contrast, Food Vessels were deposited near complete or as large sherds and Trevisker Ware was deposited in a fragmentary state (though complete vessels are known from other sites, see 3.2.2 above). I have suggested that different forms of pottery may have been treated in alternative ways to mark distinctions between acts of deposition on the sites.

•

Topographical siting and natural features. The role of natural topography in the siting of barrows and the importance of unmodified natural materials takes three major forms (see also 4.9.3 and 4.9.4 above). At Treligga, it was found that three of the barrows were actually natural rocky-knolls or outcrops which were barrow-like in appearance. To the builders of the barrow cemetery these sites may have been misremembered as barrows or as the barrows of mythical beings or ancestors. At Colliford the barrow cemetery was sited either side of the St.Neot River and it has been argued that this reflected a desire to

Small deposits of human bone were found on seven of the barrows. As stated above, cremated bone in any quantity resulted in the closure of the barrow site. However, it is argued here that whereas the larger deposits and the inhumation burials may have been linked to funerary activity and the desire to link the community with the landscape, the majority of small deposits could be interpreted in another way. The small amounts of bone could better be viewed as having their own power (see Taylor 2002), used in ritual contexts as a symbolic resource in much the same way as was oak charcoal, quartz stones and other artefacts. 115

Andy M Jones

•

Zonation. Finally, there was evidence that particular activities took place at specific locales within each of cemeteries. Typically human bone was deposited only in one area (as at Treligga and Colliford), as were particular forms of artefact. There was also evidence for specific types of monument being constructed at particular places. This can most clearly be seen at Caerloggas and Davidstow where there are areas in which complex monuments occupy distinctive places within the cemetery. Often the most complex sites and acts of deposition occurred at the margins of the cemetery (Davidstow and Treligga) and/or upon the higher ground (e.g. Davidstow, Caerloggas, Colliford and Treligga). However, the nature of the activities and the forms of the monuments differed between the cemeteries. These differences include the clear punctuation between zones and the potentially unused area of Davidstow, the secret bounded area within the Caerloggas cemetery and the stone and turf mounded areas of the Colliford cemetery. In short, each cemetery was patterned in a way which was not repeated elsewhere.

Although only four cemeteries have been analysed and there has been disturbance to some of the sites, there is cogent evidence for local variation within a regional ritual tradition. Each cemetery had its own biography and there is little evidence for exact replication of structural features or acts of deposition. The results from the analysis of the four excavated cemeteries have highlighted the important fact that barrows in Cornwall were not just places for the dead to reside and for genealogies to be established. Rather, Cornish barrow cemeteries were places of structured space, where a variety of ritual acts took place and sacred and powerful landscape features were referenced and venerated for the benefit of the community. Objects were transformed and deposited into these sites as a part of this process. Oak was turned into charcoal, coloured clays, stones and quartz were taken from the earth, pottery was fragmented and human bone burnt and crushed. Sometimes pots were buried whole and sometimes people were formally buried. But these were special acts: the burial of whole pots raised the profile of particular actions, the burial of people marked the closure of the site.

116

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Plate 5.1 Propped stone on Tregarrick Tor.

Plate 5.2 Tregarrick Tor from cairn 1234.2. 117

Andy M Jones

Plate 5.3 Stowes Pound from the Hurlers.

Plate 5.4 St.Breock barrows 26122.02 and 26122.03 from the east.

118

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Plate 5.5 St.Breock ring-cairn 26540.08 from the west.

Plate 5.6 Davidstow plateau viewed from the east.

119

Andy M Jones

Plate 5.7 Brown Willy and Rough Tor viewed from the area of Davidstow Site 2.

Plate 5.8 Botrea platform barrow 16252.04 from the east.

120

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Plate 5.9 Botrea cemetery viewed from barrow 16254.02.

Plate 5.10 Treen barrow 30691.2 from the north.

121

Andy M Jones

Plate 5.11 Treen platform barrow 30691.1 from the south (with Gurnards Head area visible in the distance).

Plate 5.12 Cataclews barrow cemetery viewed from Harlyn Bay (with rock-stack at eastern end of cemetery).

122

Chapter 6 Devon ‘I think that as Scotland has the thistle, Ireland the Shamrock, and Wales the leek as their emblems, we the Western men of Devon and Cornwall should adopt the furze.’ (Baring-Gould, 1900, 12).

character of the archaeology and has resulted in stuntedlooking stone settings.

6.1 Background

Baring-Gould’s lack of distinction between Devon and Cornwall illustrates why a discussion of Cornwall must include Devon. The irrelevance of the present county boundary to the Bronze Age is indicated by the fact that some barrow cemeteries run across it, and within Devon there is evidence for contacts with communities in Cornwall, Somerset and beyond (Piggott 1979; Quinnell 1988, 3; Fitzpatrick et al 1999, 218).

6.2.1 Environment

The environmental background evidence is poor. Limited evidence from a long barrow at Tiverton (Smith 1990, 25) indicated that the area around the site had been cleared before the long barrow was constructed, although there was no evidence for cultivation. Two pollen diagrams from Exmoor indicate some land clearance during the Bronze Age but that there was little cultivation until the Iron Age (Silvester 1979, 186). Palaeoenvironmental sampling of deposits in the Bow area and the upper Exe Valley (Caseldine et al 2000; Fyfe et al 2003) indicate areas of clearance and limited cultivation from the Neolithic period onwards on the lower ground with larger-scale clearance taking place during the Bronze Age. The number of barrows, stone circles, stones rows and artefact scatters (Grinsell, 1970a; 1970b; Miles 1976) may indicate that quite large areas had been cleared of trees by the end of the Early Bronze Age. However, given the fact that monuments may have been sited within small clearings or at gathering places along pathways, the extent of the clearance is uncertain.

Antiquarian investigation in Devon was geographically biased in favour of Dartmoor and parts of eastern Devon and this has resulted in a bias in knowledge which survives today. A further handicap is the standard of recording and the resulting level of publication: unlike Cornwall and Wessex, which possessed antiquaries who were eager to publish the results of their works widely (Borlase 1872; Greenwell 1877; Thurnam 1871), Devon antiquaries often tended to publish their works in a very brief form (Kirwan 1872), or not at all. During the first half of the twentieth century comparatively few excavations were carried out on Devon barrows. Since the 1950s there have been a number of excavations, most of which have taken place in eastern Devon.

6.2.2 Neolithic

Our knowledge of the Neolithic background is similarly unsatisfactory. Large tor enclosures and Early Neolithic causewayed enclosures are absent. There is a possible henge site at Parracombe (Allcroft 1908, 578), although the site is probably a disc barrow (Grinsell 1970b, 127). Probable oblong enclosures, a cursus and a henge monument have been identified by aerial photography at Bow (Griffith 1985). The henge is a Class II site which appears to have an oval of pits/settings within it (Griffith 1985, 311). Timberrings have been recorded within a number of henges (Mercer 1981b), though on other occasions internal pits do not appear to have held anything at all (Harding 1981). A number of crop-mark round barrow sites are visible in the vicinity of the henge.

The remainder of this section will consider regional variation within Devon. The review of the evidence from Devon has been undertaken to see if any of the characteristics which have been identified in Cornwall occur further to the east. The approaches used follow those of chapters 2 to 5 and to some extent test their wider application. The regional divisions are based upon Grinsell’s (1970b; 1978a; 1983) surveys, and they are as artificial as the county boundary. For this reason I have included information on Exmoor barrows from Somerset (Grinsell 1971). Further difficulties are caused by geology. More monuments survive on upland areas such as Dartmoor, creating an imbalance which is becoming resolved by aerial photographic reconnaissance, which suggests that ceremonial monuments extended into areas where they have not previously been known (Griffith and Quinnell 1999) (Fig.6.1). The acidic soils which cover much of the region affect levels of preservation and have led to the destruction of many artefact types including inhumed human bone.

Although the site at Bow is unexcavated, Neolithic flints have been recovered from its vicinity (Griffith 1985, 314). Concentrations of Neolithic lithics have been found (Grinsell 1970a, 23) and several stray Neolithic axe heads have been recovered from Exmoor (Grinsell 1970a; Minnitt 1982). There are fewer artefact sites in the centre of the moor, though this sparsity may be a bias due to land-use and fieldwalking. In 1970 there were no known Neolithic funerary sites within the North Devon region (Grinsell 1970b) and there was only one probable Neolithic long barrow in southwest Somerset at Battlegore (Grinsell 1969). Since Grinsell’s surveys, a ditched Neolithic long barrow site has been identified and partially excavated at Tiverton (Smith 1990). The site did not produce a burial or any datable features and only flints were recovered.

6.2 North Devon

North Devon is a large area to the north of Dartmoor and is bounded to the west and east by Cornwall and Somerset. Much of it is made up of Exmoor, which is formed from slates and grits, quartz and sandstone, which means there are few outcrops of rock which are suitable for building monuments. This lack of large stone has affected the 123

Andy M Jones

Figure 6.1 Barrow/cairn sites in Devon (solid dots = extant sites, open dots = ring ditches) (after Griffith and Quinnell 1999). Note distribution of barrows in Exmoor is not shown. 1970a, 46). Exmoor boasts a number of stone settings, situated around the headwaters at the ends of several valleys, with stones grouped in rectangles, triangles and other geometric shapes (Riley and Wilson-North 2001, 2730). Traditionally, these monuments have been assigned an Early Bronze Age date (Grinsell 1970a). However, none of the Exmoor rows or stone settings have been investigated, and it remains possible that they originated during the Later Neolithic.

There are three recorded stone circles from eastern Exmoor (Burl 1976; Grinsell 1970a, map IV); these consist of tiny stones and are up to 36.40m in diameter (ibid.). None of the circles has been scientifically dated, though typological dating has assigned them to the Early Bronze Age (Burl 1976; Grinsell 1970a). However, Barnatt suggests that the larger irregular stone circles of southwestern Britain may have Later Neolithic origins (Barnatt, 1989, 160). This argument is perhaps strengthened by the recent geophysical survey of Stanton Drew in Somerset, which was shown to have a timber predecessor (Anon. 1998).

6.2.3 Beakers

There are few settlement or funerary related Beakers in the region. All of the funerary Beakers are from northeast Exmoor (Grinsell 1969; 1970a; Quinnell 2003). A single Beaker was found accompanying an inhumation in a stonelined grave at Culbone (Oare 7a, Grinsell 1969, 4). The three remaining Beakers (two of which were probably

Around twelve stone rows are known on Exmoor, generally much shorter and consisting of much smaller stones than their Dartmoor equivalents (Riley and Wilson-North 2001). The stone rows of Exmoor also differ in their lack of close relationships with other types of monuments (Grinsell 124

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

broken at the time of burial) were recovered from noncentral inhumation burials within Stogursey 1 (Gray 1908b). Grinsell (1970a; 1970b, 97) suggested that the empty cist in Langridge Wood (Withycombe 4) might have been associated with a Beaker period burial and that the dagger and the inhumations within barrows at East Putford may be of a similar date. However, none of the daggers in Devon (Quinnell 1988, 7) or Cornwall have been found to date to Needham’s Period 3 (see 3.2.2 above). Neither Gerloff (1975) nor Pearce (1983, 441) attempted to classify the East Putford dagger. It is probable that the dagger which accompanied one of the burials dates to Period 4. The battle axe from Bratton Down (Grinsell 1970a, 31) is likely to date to the earliest part of the Bronze Age, though it was not associated with a Beaker.

and Rogers 1947, 159-160). A wooden tent-like structure under Barrow 2, covered up to eight inhumation burials which had been placed into tree trunk coffins (Radford and Rogers 1947, 162). Mortuary houses have been found beneath a number of British barrows (Ashbee 1960, 54), though curiously the nearest parallels come from beneath excavated barrows in the Low Countries (Harding 2000, 83). Although Grinsell (1970a, 55-56) and Fox (1948, 15) argued that some of the artefacts from barrows within the North Devon region have affinities with those in Wessex, few can truly be claimed to be rich. The richer finds include bronze daggers from East Putford 1 and Huntshaw 2, an amber bead from Halwill (Grinsell, 1970b) and faience, lignite and amber beads from North Molton (Fox and Stone 1951). The majority of artefactual assemblages do not include large amounts of metalwork, etc. and have more in common with the kinds of assemblage found in Cornwall (see chapter 5). Most of the artefacts consist of whole or fragmentary ceramics (Challacombe 3; Berrynarbor 12c). The ceramics include Collared and Biconical Urns (Whitefield, Grinsell 1970a, 56) and, in contrast with Dartmoor, Trevisker urns have been recovered (Berrynarbor 12b) (Pearce 1973, 45-47). In common with Dartmoor, there are a number of sites which have produced absolutely no finds (e.g. Martinhoe). Due to the paucity of good excavations it is difficult to assess how many artefacts can be called grave goods. There are indications, for example, that the amber bead from Halwill did not accompany a burial (Grinsell 1970b, 119).

6.2.4 Barrows and cairns

Around 370 barrows have been identified on Exmoor and others are likely to be found, (Riley and Wilson-North 2001, 32). A further 95 are recorded from outside Exmoor (Grinsell 1970b, 98). Few have been investigated under modern conditions, and Grinsell almost certainly underestimated the number of ring-cairn type sites (Quinnell 1997, 32), which were not generally recognised when he wrote his paper (Grinsell 1970b). The barrow cemeteries are typically distributed along ridgeways and hilltops (Grinsell 1969, 6). Linear (Chapman Barrows) and nucleated (Black Hill) cemeteries are known, but looser clusters and groups of ones, twos and threes are found (Grinsell, 1969; 1970a; 1970b). There are a number of differing barrow forms which contain a variety of structural features. Grinsell argued that some of the barrows in the region indicate an influence from Wessex and he included a number of saucer barrows and bell barrows in his listings (Grinsell 1969, 8-9). However, the majority of the barrows are not standard Wessex forms, instead they incorporate structural features which are typical of Cornwall, Dartmoor, and south Wales (Miles 1975; Turner 1990; Fox 1959). These features include: cists, buried cairn-rings, internal cairns, off-centre burials and exterior rings of stones (Grinsell 1969; 1970a; 1970b).

In contrast to the other regions of Devon there is reasonable evidence that barrows continued to be built into Period 5. Two sites on the western fringes of Exmoor have been excavated which show a continuation of earlier traditions (Quinnell 1997). At Bratton Down (Barton Fleming 4), there was a small ditched barrow with a remnant mound covering a central pit (Quinnell 1997, 4-7). The central pit had been lined with a wooden cist which contained a deposit of charcoal, cremated bone and sherds of a Trevisker vessel. A radiocarbon date of 1150-900 cal BC was obtained from the charcoal. At Shallowmead (North Molton 20) there was a small ring-cairn under 10m in diameter with a prominent kerb. With the exception of a spread of charcoal, it lacked any internal features (Quinnell, 1997, 18-22). The charcoal gave a radiocarbon date of 1500-1200 cal BC (ibid., 26). The site did not contain a burial and very few artefacts were recovered.

There is a great deal of diversity in funerary practices. Inhumation burials are rare in North Devon and where they do occur there are significant differences from the Wessex region, where single inhumations are more usual, than the multiple interments which were found below East Putford 2 (Radford and Rogers 1947). Cremations are more commonly found in the region, as at Challacombe 3 (Grinsell 1970b). A number of barrows which do not appear to have contained any burials (e.g. Coombe St. Nicholas, Grinsell, 1969, 9). Charcoal seems to have been central to the rituals which took place at these sites. Large quantities of charcoal without any evidence for burial have been found at Martinhoe and Halwill 1 (Grinsell, 1970a).

In some aspects both sites conform to the generally held view that Middle Bronze Age barrows represent a decline from the ritual traditions of the Early Bronze Age. However, they also display characteristics which are typical of the southwest region. The charcoal-rich layers which were found at both sites are commonly encountered at other southwestern ceremonial sites. Much of the charcoal was of oak which has strong associations with ritual sites elsewhere in Devon and in Cornwall (Tilley 1996). The smashed pottery deposit at Bratton Down has parallels with other excavated sites in Devon (Grinsell 1983, 32). The

Wooden mortuary structures have been discovered beneath two barrows at East Putford (Radford and Rogers 1947). At Barrow 1 a four-post mortuary structure was found in the centre of the site covering an inhumation burial (Radford

125

Andy M Jones

discovery of Trevisker Ware and the lack of grave goods is likewise in keeping with ritual practices in the region and the absence of a burial within the Shallowmead ring-cairn is consistent with other ring-cairns in Devon (e.g. Pollard 1971). The later second millennium radiocarbon date from Shallowmead is of interest as it is much later than the radiocarbon dates centring around 1750 cal BC produced by the Shaugh Moor ring-cairns (Wainwright et al 1979). The available radiocarbon dating indicates the longevity of this form of monument in the southwest.

6.3.2 Neolithic

The evidence for Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement activity is limited. Silvester (1979, 188-189) has suggested that the tor enclosures at Whittor and Dewerstone Rock may be akin to the Neolithic upland enclosures which are found in Cornwall (Johnson and Rose 1994). However, neither of these sites has been dated. There is a dearth of flint scatters (Miles 1976). This paucity is likely to be a result of biases in fieldwalking. Berridge (1984) has published a large collection of Neolithic and Bronze Age flints from Bridford on the eastern side of Dartmoor and in the nineteenth century lithics were found in several locations, including Postbridge and Batsworthy Corner (Henrietta Quinnell pers comm). Even though clearance may have been quite small-scale, it is unlikely that Dartmoor would have been ignored by Neolithic people.

Unmounded graves dating to Period 5 are also extremely rare in North Devon, though an urned cremation burial in a pit was found at Lower Ashmore Farm (Rose Ash) (Wainwright 1980). A radiocarbon date of 1400-1000 cal BC was obtained from the charcoal.

Few Neolithic funerary sites have been identified on Dartmoor. Worth (1967, 180) cited just three chambered tombs situated around the fringes of the moor, at Drewsteignton, Cuckoo Ball and Corringdon Ball Gate. To these Grinsell added the sites of Butterdon Hill and Meacombe (Grinsell, 1978a, 89), though the latter site may be a denuded cist grave with a large covering slab (Butler 1997, 155). More recently, Turner (1980) has identified two further chambered long cairns at Gidleigh. Following Kinnes’ (1979) publication of Later Neolithic round barrows, Butler (1997, 156-157) has argued that some of the smaller cairns and some of the large summit cairns of Dartmoor could be Neolithic. However, excavated small cairns and barrows in Devon have all been found to date to the Bronze Age (Quinnell, 1997). As yet none of the excavated cairns on Dartmoor has been found to be in Neolithic origin (Grinsell 1978a).

6.2.5 Discussion

Most of the Neolithic artefacts and monuments which have been recorded from North Devon are found around the edges of Exmoor. This pattern contrasts with the Early Bronze Age, when many of the hills and ridges across the area, including Exmoor, become the focal points for round barrow cemeteries. This is echoed in many of the other uplands of Britain, (Smith 1994; Lynch 1993) including Cornwall (see chapter 4). Lynch (2000, 127) has argued that this might be due to the fact that the uplands were first colonised during the Early Bronze Age. However, we must be careful in assuming that the blank spaces are indicative of a lack of cultural importance. Natural rock-outcrops and other natural features may have held cosmological significance (Bradley 2000a). During the Neolithic period monuments may have been deliberately built at a discreet distance from sacred natural places. The apparent upsurge in activity in the Early Bronze Age could be viewed as a new willingness to transform the landscape in ways which had not been sanctioned in earlier periods.

Butler has identified a trapezoidal enclosure at East Glaze, which could arguably be interpreted as a Neolithic enclosure. It measures approximately 112m long by 34m wide and is defined by low stony banks (Butler 1997, 155). This feature has certain similarities with crop-mark sites in Wessex and the Thames Valley (e.g. Case and Whittle 1982) and may represent an upland variant of the Neolithic mortuary enclosure.

6.3 Dartmoor

Dartmoor occupies the centre of the county and is visible from most of the surrounding regions of Devon (Rowe 1848; Quinnell 1988, 8). The moors reach a height of up to 620m OD (Barnatt 1989, 192). With the exception of summit cairns and a few of the stone circles, most of the ceremonial monuments are situated around the fringes of the upper moors.

Indisputable Later Neolithic sites are scarce on Dartmoor. Turner (1984, 103) has identified a possible henge site at Teignhead; though investigations at the site in the early twentieth century proved fruitless (ibid., 104). However, this is not unusual, since excavations at Cornish henge sites have failed to produce any internal features or significant artefacts (Gray 1908a; Thomas 1964). The siting of the monument at the head of two rivers may be significant, as it was probably an important meeting place (Turner 1984, 105); location on a probable thoroughfare and other aspects of the site are typical of many Class II henges (Loveday 1998) and are an indicator of its Later Neolithic origins.

6.3.1 Environment

Most of the environmental samples which have been studied have been produced by a small number of site excavations (Eogan and Simmons 1964; Wainwright et al 1979). As yet there is little evidence for large-scale Neolithic clearance. Caseldine and Hatton (1994, 42-43) have suggested that some clearances may have taken place during the Neolithic around ceremonial sites and that this process increased during the Bronze Age. However, Quinnell has suggested that Neolithic tree clearance need not have been much more extensive than during the Mesolithic period (1994, 52) and the monuments of the Later Neolithic period and Early Bronze Age periods could have been set in clearings with pathways between them.

There are fourteen open stone circles on Dartmoor (Butler 1997, 145), with an additional larger number of small circles which are found at the ends of stone rows or encircling cairns. Barnatt has divided the stone circles into two groups, larger and smaller, each with their own distinctive 126

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

further example from Cornwood 3 as a possible Food Vessel or a devolved Beaker (sherds were fragmentary). The types of Beaker include a Southern Beaker from Fernworthy (Lydford 24), a Barbed Wire Beaker from Watern Hill (Chagford 4), sherds from a European Beaker from Langcombe (Shaugh Prior 8) and sherds from a probable ‘coarse’ Beaker from Lakehead Hill (Lydford 52) (ibid.). A handful of ‘Beaker-associated’ artefacts have been discovered within Dartmoor cairns. These include a wrist guard from Archerton Newtake (Lydford 39), a ‘V’perforated dress fastener from Fernworthy (Lydford 24) and a tanged arrowhead from Shaugh Prior 3 (Calveslake Tor). Beakers seem to have played only a minimal role at ceremonial or funerary sites, although they perhaps form the largest single ceramic category on the moor. The Beaker-associated artefacts at Lydford 24 and 39, the dress fastener and the wrist guard, were not intended as grave goods, as they were associated with deposits of charcoal (Grinsell 1978a, 90; Quinnell 1994, 59). This indicates that Beakers were quickly incorporated into local traditions after their introduction (Quinnell, ibid.).

associations (Barnatt 1989, 193). He argues that the first group can be subdivided into large symmetrical circles (e.g. Langstone Moor) which are widely spaced and are situated at higher altitudes, and large western irregular circles (e.g. Scorhill) found on lower elevations in central locations within river valleys. The western irregular circles are more closely linked with complexes of other ceremonial monuments (ibid.). The second group of stone circles are much smaller than the first group and sometimes consist of multiple rings (Robinson and Greeves 1981). Circles in this group are typically found in monument complexes and have associations with stone rows and cairns (Barnatt 1989; Butler 1997). Barnatt (1989, 194-200) has suggested that the distribution of stone circles may reflect their role in interactions between communities, with symmetrical circles being used for inter-group meetings and western irregular circles being the focus for intra-group activities. The limited number of excavations of Dartmoor stone circles have produced no evidence of burial, though charcoal has been recovered on a number of occasions (Butler 1997, 154). None of the stone circles have been radiocarbon dated, though a Later Neolithic origin is often put forward (see Exmoor above).

6.3.4 Barrows and cairns

Butler (1997, 198) has placed the number of cairns within cemeteries on Dartmoor at close to 1000. However, this figure does not include the non-nucleated ring-cairns, the isolated summit cairns or the many likely boulder cairns (e.g. Shaugh Moor Cairn 71, Wainwright, et al 1979), and the total number of cairns on the moor is probably well in excess of 1000.

Dartmoor has around 76 stone rows (Butler 1997, 210). The length of the rows varies considerably and there is a variety of forms which includes single, double, triple and multiple rows (Grinsell 1978a). Most are sited on slightly sloping ground (Emmett 1979, 102) and have terminal cairns at their highest ends (Worth 1967, 244). Standing stones or slabs are more commonly found at the lower end (Butler 1997, 226). However, cairns are sometimes found at both ends (Worth 1967, 244). The majority of Dartmoor rows are situated within monument complexes (ibid., 191), for example at Merrivale and Fernworthy stone rows are found within complexes which include barrows of varying form and stone circles (Fox 1973, 74).

Several writers have in the past, on the basis of artefacts and structure, attempted to establish a Wessex origin for some of the earthen barrows (Fox 1973; Grinsell 1978a). In particular the Hameldown barrow (Manaton 12) has been seen as an outlier of the Wessex Culture (Fox 1948, 11). Closer inspection of the evidence demonstrates that the connection is extremely unlikely. The excavation of two of the barrows at Hameldown revealed that they are composite monuments, which began as small cairns surrounded by cairn-rings. The rings were later covered by turf stacks, which gave the monuments the outward appearance of Wessex bowl barrows, but the sequence at Hameldown is more typical of other excavated sites across Devon and Cornwall (see chapter 5). Indeed, the Hameldown Manaton 12 barrow displayed characteristics which are typical of southwestern ceremonial sites, such as a central cairn covering a ritual deposit, paving and an offcentre cremation deposit on a group of flat stones.

There have been few modern excavations of stone rows and none have provided any datable material (Butler 1997, 278). Butler (1997, 244) has suggested that some of them may be contemporary with the Middle Bronze Age reaves, but it is rather more likely that the reaves followed the alignments of earlier stone rows and are themselves much later in date. Fleming’s work (1983, 223; 1988, 45) showed that where relationships did exist, reaves tended to cut through the stone rows. Emmett (1979, 107) has argued that the rows were possibly constructed in sections over a considerable period of time, and Quinnell (1994, 55) has argued that the Bronze Age cairns which are located at their terminals may represent a final phase of activity, which was possibly associated with the closure of the rows.

The Dartmoor barrows and cairns display a number of recurring features, including retaining circles, kerbs, pits and paved areas (Grinsell, 1978a). Perhaps the most typical feature of many sites is the presence of a cist. Cists on Dartmoor take two forms, either stone sided to form a box (e.g. Sheepstor 12) or constructed from corbelled stones (e.g. Manaton 5). Occasionally the floor of the cist is paved (Peter Tavy 39), but is usually the natural subsoil. The orientation of the Dartmoor cists is of note, for as Worth (1967, 178) commented, most examples are aligned northwest to southeast.

6.3.3 Beakers

Five Beakers have been recovered from cairns on Dartmoor (Grinsell 1978a, 89-80; Quinnell 2003). Three were discovered within cists which were large enough to hold inhumations and the fourth was from a central pit within a cist (Grinsell 1978a). The fifth came from a cist within a cairn at Thornworthy (Chagford 3). Grinsell lists a 127

Andy M Jones

Aileen Fox (1964) identified three locations upon the moor, Shovel Down, Fernworthy and Merrivale, which she termed sanctuaries due to the large number and variety of ceremonial and funerary monuments within them. Similar complexes probably exist elsewhere on the moor and could include the group of linear cairns and composite barrows at Hameldown (Manaton). Smaller groups of varying cairn types are commonly found and these include the excavated group at Shaugh Moor (Wainwright et al 1979), where a group of six sites included two ring-cairns, a kerbed cairn and three small cairns. Complexes of funerary and nonfunerary monuments are also found in Cornwall (Miles 1975) and in Wales (Lynch 1972). However, there are differences between the regions. Firstly, as Lynch (1993) has pointed out, Dartmoor sanctuaries contain fewer funerary monuments than their Welsh counterparts. Secondly, stone rows form an integral part of many of the Dartmoor complexes, whereas in other regions where they are found (for example, Cornwall) they play a much more marginal role (Tilley 1995).

known for some time that charcoal played a major role at Dartmoor barrows (Worth 1967), where it is often deposited within a pit (e.g. Sheepstor 21). Although charcoal deposits are found in adjacent parts of Devon and Cornwall (see chapter 5), this form of ritual behaviour is most strongly developed on Dartmoor. The chronology of the Dartmoor barrows is poorly understood. Fox (1973) saw the initial round barrows as an offshoot from the Beaker phenomenon, with most of the barrow cemeteries developing throughout the course of the Bronze Age, while Grinsell (1978a, 107) suggested that the barrows may have spread into Dartmoor from the southwest and northeast fringes of the moor. However, several writers have argued that sites of ring-cairn type may have evolved from the henge and stone circle tradition (Burl 1972) and that the rituals which took place within stone circles and ring-cairns may have had shared functions (Barnatt 1989, 11). Dating based on radiocarbon determinations places the Shaugh Moor cairns between 1800-1600 cal BC (Wainwright et al 1979) and the majority of radiocarbon dated barrows across Devon and Cornwall fall between 2000-1600 cal BC (Quinnell 1988 and 3.3 above).

Turner (1990, 27-86) devised a scheme to classify over 200 ring-cairn type sites which were not satisfactorily covered by the categories which had been established for other regions of Britain. He identified five principal categories of monument, with numerous subdivisions (ibid., 32-48). His classification system demonstrated the diversity of monuments on the moor and found localised spatial patterning of a variety of site types. However, there are too many subdivisions and a tendency for the various categories to merge into one another. It should be recognised that any classification scheme imposes an order onto sites which had their own biographies and which were tailored to suit the needs of individual communities which used them.

It is uncertain how long barrow building persisted on the moor, due to the paucity of artefactual evidence and the lack of radiocarbon dates. Some of the smaller cairns could date to the Middle Bronze Age, but they could also be of a Later Neolithic or Early Bronze Age date. Butler (1994) has suggested that the cairn building tradition could have survived in transformed manner through the burial of abandoned Middle Bronze Age roundhouses beneath cairns. However, the available evidence indicates that there is little overlap between the construction of the cairns and ceremonial monuments of the Early Bronze Age and the field systems of the Middle Bronze Age (Fleming 1988).

There is a paucity of artefacts within Dartmoor barrows (Quinnell 1988; 1994; Butler 1997). The only rich grave artefact was the dagger with the amber and gold pommel from the Hameldown barrow (Manaton 12). Five faience beads were recovered from a pit with charcoal from one of the Shaugh Moor ring-cairns, but this did not accompany a burial (Wainwright et al 1979). Most of the artefacts which have been recovered from the barrows appear to have been flints (Grinsell 1978a; Butler 1997). There is a notable lack of ceramics. One possible Food Vessel was discovered at Cornwood 3 (Grinsell 1978a, 136) and a Collared Urn was found covering a deposit of charcoal within a barrow at Hurston Ridge (ibid., 146). A few barrows have records of fragments of pottery being found, but they constitute a minority of sites (ibid.). None of the sites have produced any Trevisker Ware, which is unusual given its presence on barrows across other areas of Devon and in Cornwall (see 3.2.2). Trevisker Ware was, however, used on later domestic sites in Dartmoor (Wainwright and Smith 1980), which suggests that it was excluded from ceremonial activities.

6.3.5 Discussion

There are indications that the experience of space, natural places and monuments may have been purposefully structured during the Neolithic period and that this continued into the Bronze Age. As we have seen, the monuments which are found around the fringes of the moor (e.g. the Sourton cairn alignment, Turner 1991) differ from those in its centre, a division which may have originated during the Later Neolithic. If we add the stone rows to this scenario, it is possible to hypothesise that different parts of the landscape may have been experienced in diverse ways. During the Neolithic period the periphery of the moor may have been associated with communal monuments. Beyond the Neolithic tombs, the terrain may have been quite heavily wooded and penetrated by a series of pathways which led up into the heart of the moor. If it were wooded, this zone could have been a mysterious labyrinthine area (Newman 1996) with liminal associations, and the monuments within located within small clearings. It is perhaps not surprising then that linear monuments, possibly associated with ceremonial processions (e.g. stone

Burials on Dartmoor are rare. All of the recorded burials have been cremations; some of the empty cists may have held inhumations, though the acid soils would not permit their preservation. However, a large number of sites yielded no evidence for funerary activity. Indeed, it has been

128

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

High Peak is unclear and it is uncertain whether either site was actually enclosed during the Neolithic.

rows), were probably the first monuments to occur in this zone and that they often pointed into the locally high ground or into the heart of the moor (Barnatt 1998, 100). Beyond it is likely that the terrain became more open and it is here that we find the larger communal monuments and perhaps the earliest summit cairns and ring-cairns which were constructed upon and around prominent rocks. It is possible to argue that over the course of the Early Bronze Age the experience of space was increasingly manipulated as diverse forms of ceremonial and funerary monuments appeared and complex sanctuaries developed. These complexes were used for a variety of purposes, including the deposition of charcoal in pits and more rarely human bone and ceramics. None of the sanctuaries are exactly the same and different types of cairn have quite localised distributions, which means that it is probable that there were regional divisions across the moor and that the sanctuaries and cemeteries had their own biographies which reflected the needs of the communities who used them.

Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement sites are virtually unknown. Later Neolithic activity was found at Topsham (Jarvis and Maxfield 1975) though the nature of this activity is ambiguous. The same imbalance is evident in the recovery of the ceramics, with little Later Neolithic pottery compared to the Early Neolithic. Small amounts of Peterborough Ware were recovered from Topsham (ibid.) and more recently from Castle Hill (Fitzpatrick et al 1999), but there is much less Later Neolithic pottery in Devon than in neighbouring Dorset. This paucity of ceramic evidence may be due to the absence of identified Later Neolithic henges and enclosure sites, which is where large quantities of ceramics are often recovered (Wainwright and Longworth 1971). The primary evidence for Later Neolithic domestic activity consists of flint scatters, which are usually of a chronologically mixed nature extending into the Early Bronze Age (Smith 1956; Miles 1976; Pollard and Luxton 1978; Berridge 1984; Silvester et al 1987). The density of these scatters, coupled with the lack of evidence for fixed settlement, indicates that it is probable that groups of nonsedentary people and animals travelled along the river valleys and hillsides and repeatedly reused the same locales.

6.4 East Devon

East Devon lies between Dartmoor and Dorset. The region has no major upland zone, though the eastern hills and ridges were described by Aileen Fox (1948, 1) as having ‘the remoteness characteristic of true hill country’. Many of the ridges were the focus of enclosures and barrows. Although the region has fewer upstanding monuments than either Dartmoor or Exmoor, it is undoubtedly richer in artefactual information and contains a large number of crop-mark sites and slighter earthworks.

East Devon lacks stone circles, stone rows and stone settings. This may partly be due to geology and partly to a poor level of survival; one possible stone circle, the Seven Stones, was recorded as being destroyed in the nineteenth century (Barnatt 1989, 473). However, survival of stone circles in nearby Dorset (Piggott and Piggott 1939) means that this argument is not entirely satisfactory. The absence of the types of stone monuments which are found in the other regions of Devon may be due to their replacement by other forms of monument which are not so visible in the archaeological record. Over the past twenty years an increasing number of crop-mark sites have been identified, including oblong enclosures and a cursus (Griffith 1994).

6.4.1 Environment

The only significant collections of environmental material have been from recent excavations around Honiton (Fitzpatrick et al 1999) and from palaeoenvironmental sampling in the lower Exe Valley (Fyfe et al 2003). The Neolithic evidence is limited and currently there is little evidence for large-scale Neolithic crop cultivation, though emmer wheat was identified within the enclosure ditches at Castle Hill (Fitzpatrick et al, 1999, 197), spelt seeds were found within Neolithic pits at Hembury (Helbaek 1952) and cereal type pollens were found in the Lower Exe valley (Fyfe et al 2003). It is currently assumed that there was some clearance of the river gravel terraces during the Neolithic period followed by widespread clearance between the Early to Middle Bronze Age (Fitzpatrick et al 1999, 196; Fyfe et al 2003, 178-179).

Just as the role of stone circles may have been fulfilled by henges or hengiform sites, it is arguable that the growing number of oblong enclosures and cursus-type monuments (Griffith 1985; 1994; Fitzpatrick et al 1999) may have performed a similar function to the stone rows. Linear enclosures have been identified at North Tawton (Griffith 1985) and at Nether Exe, where a cursus monument has been recorded (Griffith 1994). These enclosures appear to be similar to the linear monuments which have been identified in other regions of Britain including northern England, the Thames Valley and Cranborne Chase (Manby 1970; Case and Whittle 1982; Barrett et al 1991a). None of the linear crop-mark sites in this region of Devon has been excavated. The recent excavation of two oblong enclosures or possibly cursus termini on Castle Hill has produced Peterborough Ware and gave radiocarbon dates which range between 3600-2600 cal BC (Fitzpatrick et al 1999), consistent with those from cursus and oblong or mortuary enclosure sites across Britain (Barrett et al 1991a; Barclay et al 1995; Whittle et al 1992).

6.4.2 Neolithic

A small number of Early Neolithic causewayed enclosures have been recorded in the region, most notably at Hembury and possibly Haldon (Todd 1984; Gent and Quinnell 1999b) and Raddon (Gent and Quinnell 1999a). Each of the excavations at Hembury and Haldon produced evidence for a Neolithic structure. The Haldon example is the only certain trapezoidal Neolithic house in the region (Darvill 1996, 102). The site produced the only possible Later Neolithic Grooved Ware vessel in Devon (though it may be an Early Bronze Age miniature vessel; see Fox 1964). An Early Neolithic site has also been investigated at High Peak (Pollard 1966). The character of occupations at Haldon and 129

Andy M Jones

As in other parts of Britain (Case and Whittle 1982; Barclay and Russell-White 1993), the east Devon henge/hengiform and oblong enclosure sites are associated with ring-ditches (Griffith 1994, 91) of presumably Early Bronze Age date and may have formed the focus for subsequent development of complexes of ceremonial monuments. The available evidence indicates that there was contact between communities in east Devon and those in other regions. However, this is not to suggest that these sites represent cultural dominance over eastern Devon by communities from farther afield. Rather the presence of these monuments is indicative of an exchange of ideas which were integrated into existing traditions and the cosmologies of particular landscapes.

barrow cemeteries in the region are to be found at Farway/Broad Down, East Hill, Upton Pyne and Haldon and may be linear (e.g. Farway/Broad Down) or nucleated (e.g. Woodbury). Smaller groups and isolated barrows are also found (Grinsell 1983, 14-16). Analogies between the arrangement of Wessex and east Devon linear cemeteries are not that close, since in general the Devon barrows are widely spaced so that one to three members of a cemetery frequently stand apart from the larger group (e.g. Farway/Broad Down, Fox 1948, 3). Indeed, the linear layout of many of the east Devon cemeteries is probably due to their location on long narrow spurs and ridges, rather than to any intentional link with Wessex.

6.4.3 Beakers

Only three Beakers have been recovered from funerary contexts (Quinnell 2003) and only a handful of sherds from domestic sites (Jarvis and Maxfield 1975; Fitzpatrick et al 1999). At Woodbury (Colaton Raleigh 4) sherds from a comb-stamped decorated Beaker were found with a barbed and tanged arrowhead beneath a small cairn. It was reported that there was a matrix of ‘black earth’ but no burial (Grinsell 1983, 32). Grinsell suggests that the lack of a body may have been due to acidic soil conditions (ibid.). However, it is possible that, as in other parts of the southwest, the Beaker was associated with ritual activity other than burial. The Beaker at Farway 28 accompanied a cremation burial which was recorded as being in a secondary position to a Food Vessel (Fox 1948, 5). The evidence suggests that, unless the Beaker had been curated for a long period of time, Food Vessels and the rite of cremation might have been adopted from an early date in the region. The last Beaker was recovered from a pit in the centre of a ring-cairn at Burnt Common (Sidmouth 9, Grinsell 1983) which was large enough to have held an inhumation burial (Pollard 1967). This find is significant because it indicates that ring-cairns were being used in the region from around 2000 cal BC. Indeed, it is possible that the Beaker may have been deposited towards the end of the site’s use as a place of ritual.

Such cultural affinities between east Devon and Wessex have been suggested by a number of writers (Fox 1948; Todd 1987, 144). In the 1940s Fox argued that eastern Devon was culturally distinct from those parts of Devon which lay to the west of the River Exe (Fox 1948, 13). The Farway/Broad Down barrow group, which consists of up to 80 sites of varying shapes and sizes, was held to provide support for this model. Based on the records of antiquarian excavators of some of the most prominent barrows (e.g. Kirwan 1872), Fox (1948, 7-9) suggested that the barrows formed a ‘necropolis’ which had been constructed by incoming peoples from Dorset. This argument was largely based upon the recovery of a handful of more exotic finds which included two shale cups, a Food Vessel, a grooved dagger and a small Wessex cup. She (1948, 13-14) argued that there were structural similarities between Wessex barrows and those of eastern Devon. It was suggested that the orthostatic stone-rings which surrounded a number of the Farway barrows had affinities with the small stone circles of Dorset. Fox also suggested that stone-rings (ringcairns were not identified in 1948) and eccentrically placed burials were absent from eastern Devon. However, excavations subsequent to Fox’s 1948 analysis have demonstrated that ring-cairn type monuments are found within and adjacent to the Farway/Broad Down necropolis. Four of the seven sites excavated by Pollard (1967; 1971) in the vicinity of the Farway cemetery were found to be ring-cairns. Two sites produced some evidence for the rite of inhumation, and a third contained some cremated bone in a charcoal pit. All four ring-cairn sites contained ritual pits, many of which were associated with the deposition of charcoal. Pollard (1967, 30-31) rightly noted that these sites were most closely linked to similar sites on Dartmoor and in Cornwall and she speculated that they spanned the gap between the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods (Pollard 1971, 174). The remaining three sites were analogous to sites in the southwest. The Farway cairn (Honiton 4) was a small cairn covering an oval central platform, which could have held a burial, and five pits containing charcoal and a ring of postholes (Pollard 1967, 32). The Daggers Piece cairn (Sidmouth 10) covered two charcoal pits, which were sealed by stones, and a deposit of charcoal (ibid., 34). Lastly, the White Cross cairn (Sidmouth 11) was found to be devoid of internal features (ibid., 36).

A handful of Beaker-associated artefacts have been discovered within barrows in the region. These include a barbed and tanged arrowhead from Woodbury (Colaton Raleigh 4) and a flat dagger (Gerloff 1975, 54) and perforated stone battle axe (Roe 1966, 234) found in a barrow at Woodbury Common (Bicton 1). An unstratified perforated cushion macehead was found in Honiton (Fox 1948), which may date to this period (Roe 1979, 30). 6.4.4 Barrows and cairns

Over 200 barrows are recorded in east Devon (Grinsell, 1983, 13). Aerial photography has led to the location of new sites (Griffith and Quinnell 1999) and the number of ploughed down ring-ditch sites identified is likely to increase. Barrow cemeteries are frequently distributed along hilltops and ridgeways (Fox 1948; Pollard 1967), though other examples are sited upon hillslopes and false crests (e.g. Collaton Raleigh 4, Grinsell 1983, 16-17). The principal 130

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

of structural features including; cists, paved areas, central cairns, off-centre burials, token burials and the deposition of charcoal (Grinsell 1983, 11-13). Ring-cairns have been found in several parts of the region (e.g. Mamhead, Griffith 1984b) and a cemetery mound (Upton Pyne 248bBrampford Speke 1) was recorded (Pollard and Russell 1969). The artefactual assemblage from these barrows is similar to those in the Farway/Broad Down group and typically consists of flints and pottery. Only a few of the urns have been properly recorded; Collared Urns (Honiton 1) and Trevisker Ware (Upton Pyne 248b - Brampford Speke 1) have been found (Grinsell 1983). A ring-ditch and flat grave cemetery associated with fragments of Collared Urns and other ceramics has recently been found at Digby, Exeter, though this site was damaged (Henrietta Quinnell, pers comm). Current evidence suggests that localised communities across the region were adopting elements from a broad repertoire of material culture to suit their own needs.

The features displayed by the Farway sites are typical of others across Devon. Paving has been found under a number of Farway barrows (Farway 24, Grinsell 1983) and at numerous sites on Dartmoor (Grinsell 1978a, 100). Small cairns are also typical of western Devon, as are charcoalfilled pits, which are often found at Dartmoor barrows. Closer inspection of the Farway sites reveals further features which are closely related to other sites to the west of the Exe. The free-standing orthostatic stone-rings (Farway 31) and massive kerbs (Farway 28) have parallels with sites on Dartmoor (Turner 1990) and Exmoor (High Bray 6, Grinsell 1970b). The enlargement of primary cairns (Farway 28 and 32) with a covering of earth or turves is a feature of many barrows in the southwest, including Hameldown (Manaton 12) on Dartmoor (Fox 1973) and Carvinack in Cornwall (Dudley 1964). The mounds of the Farway barrows also lack the mound heightening burials that are typical of Wessex barrows (Barrett 1994) but which are almost entirely absent from the southwest region (Miles 1975).

Possible regional differences within the area are indicated by the results of excavations at the second largest group of barrows in eastern Devon at Upton Pyne. Approximately 35 barrows have been recorded within this group, including the cemetery mound mentioned above (Pollard and Russell above). Further ring-ditches have been identified by more recent survey (Griffith and Quinnell 1999). The barrows are sited in a fairly low-lying position aligned upon and along the River Exe, and located on both sides of the river (though it is not visible from most of the barrows). Only four of them have been investigated and three of these were dug into in the nineteenth century. Upton Pyne 4 consisted of a cremation burial of one or more individuals beneath a mound (Grinsell 1983, 44), accompanied by a small bronze dagger, a necklace of lignite beads, an incense cup and a bronze pin which may have fastened the bag which contained the cremations (Fox 1969, 76). The remaining mounds in the group (Upton Pyne 3 and 5) were found to cover burnt earth and charcoal (ibid., 77).

The artefactual assemblage from the Farway barrows is not indicative of strong cultural links with Wessex. The cemetery does contain some fine objects and the shale cups and the Camerton-Snowshill dagger do indicate contacts with other communities beyond the immediate east Devon region. However, these are objects which are found in funerary contexts across Britain and Ireland (Clarke et al 1985) and do not therefore indicate a specific Wessex colony in Devon. Exotic cups are fairly evenly distributed across southern Britain (Curwen 1929; Smirke 1867; Parfitt and Needham 2004) and Europe (Harding 2000; Demakopoulou et al 1999), and there is in fact only one certain example of an exotic cup from a Wessex barrow (Drew and Piggott 1936). There are differences in the ways the cups were deposited. At Hove in Sussex the cup was found accompanying the burial (Curwen 1929, 34), whereas at Farway, Clandon and possibly Ringlemere in Kent (Parfitt and Needham 2004) they did not. In other words, the dagger and cups which were recovered from the Farway barrows are probably indicative of local interaction with widespread networks of exchange. Of the ceramic finds, only the Wessex cup (Fox 1948, 9) could really be argued to represent an import from Wessex.

Site 248b (Brampford Speke 1) is the only barrow in the Upton Pyne group to have been excavated under modern conditions. The structure of the barrow consisted of a sand core, covered by a turf layer, sealed beneath a layer of pale sand, capped with a layer of red clay (Pollard and Russell 1969, 6). The site appears to have begun as a very small mound of sand covering an inverted Trevisker Urn which contained oak charcoal and the cremated bones of an infant. To the west a large Collared Urn was found inverted within a cist. The urn contained a ‘vesicular’ substance which was thought to have been some form of vegetable material (ibid., 60). A third pot, a small Trevisker Urn placed inverted on the east side of the cist, contained a tiny quantity of bone and oak charcoal. Adjacent to the third urn was another Trevisker urn which contained oak charcoal and more of the ‘vesicular’ deposit. Two deposits of cremated bone were recovered, the first in a shallow pit and the second in the core of the mound. The first deposit was of a child’s remains mixed with oak charcoal. The second deposit could not be identified. Finally, three deposits of oak charcoal were found within the mound

With the exception of the shale cups, the Farway barrows have not produced many more artefacts than any of the other barrow groups in the southwest and cannot be considered especially rich. Pollard’s excavations of seven of the smaller sites revealed relatively little in terms of material culture, other than one Beaker, some flints and an occasional fossil (Pollard 1967; 1971). It is worth noting that of the seven sites which were excavated by Pollard, only two produced evidence for inhumation (the ring-cairn sites). Structural features and artefacts analogous to those on Dartmoor are found throughout the remainder of the region although there has been relatively little excavation. There are a number of differing barrow forms and a variety

131

Andy M Jones

Markham Lane appears to represent a blend of traditions and practices. Smaller ring-ditches and barrows are a feature of the Wessex Middle Bronze Age and are usually associated with Deverel-Rimbury ceramics (White 1982). However, at Markham Lane this general trend is again incorporated into existing local traditions. As at many Early Bronze Age southwestern barrows, the cremations were token deposits which were associated with charcoal. The incomplete nature of this vessel is analogous to finds at several other sites across Devon (Quinnell 1997) and is therefore indicative of a continuation of regional ritual behaviour.

material (ibid., 62). The nine deposits represented the gathering together of a number of different symbolic materials for burial. Human bone played a relatively minor part in the ceremonies which took place on the site and status goods were not deposited. Instead, charcoal and other organic materials seem to have played a central role in the rituals which took place on the site. Pollard (1969, 72) argued that the central deposit may have preceded the following activity by a year. However, given the wide range of behaviour at this site it is arguable that all the deposits were placed at more or less the same time. The site has broad similarities with excavated cemetery mound sites in Wales and the southwest. The burial of children has been noted at cemetery mound sites in Wales (Lynch 1971; 1991) and the inclusion of urns containing non-funerary deposits has been recorded at several sites in the southwest, including Crig-a-Mennis (Christie 1960).

6.4.5 Discussion

Within east Devon there is relatively good evidence for Early Neolithic activity and a range of sites comparable to those in other parts of Britain. It is in this area that we also have the strongest (though tentative) evidence for Later Neolithic ritual activities at circular sites, presaging Early Bronze Age traditions. The evidence from the Neolithic sites suggests that there was a blending of artefacts, monuments and ritual traditions comparable with those from other parts of Devon and Cornwall with elements from areas to the east including Wessex.

Pollard (1969, 72-73) suggested that the pale sand layer may have been an attempt to make the barrow appear to be a Wessex chalkland site and that the red clay was added to stabilise the mound. It seems more probable that the deployment of coloured soils was highly symbolic and that both the pale sand and the red clay capping were imbued with particular meanings which would have been understood by the barrow builders. The use of different coloured stones, soils and clays has been noted at a number of sites across Britain (Bradley 2000b; Lynch 1998) and has been recorded on a number of barrows in Cornwall (see chapter 5).

During the Early Bronze Age the strongest cultural links in eastern Devon were undoubtedly with groups to the west of the region, as there is a scarcity of Beakers, central burials, inhumation graves, secondary burial, and of status artefacts. The distribution of bronze artefacts from barrows shows a low density of metal artefacts extending across most of the southwest, which contrasts with the Wessex region (Pearce 1983, 145). In place of those elements which are distinctive of Wessex burials, there are charcoal pits, multiple burial and token cremations. The available evidence from across east Devon therefore suggests that individual cemeteries developed according to local traditions.

The Upton Pyne barrows display both similarities with and differences from the Farway/Broad Down barrows. Both groups contain a diverse range of monuments and ritual practices and in both groupings there is an emphasis on cremation and ceremonies involving oak charcoal. However, the form of the cemeteries and the specifics of the ritual activities which took place are unique to each cemetery and reflect local preferences. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the choice of location for the cemeteries. At Farway/Broad Down the majority of the barrows were strung out north to south along a narrow ridge which runs up from the coast. By contrast the Upton Pyne barrows were sited between the rivers Exe and Credy. In each case it seems probable to me that the communities which built these barrows chose places which were important to them and which were imbued with cosmological significance.

6.5 South Devon

This region lies to the south of Dartmoor and to the west of the Teign Valley. It is distinguished from Dartmoor by its topography. The area is predominantly farmland and has few known sites and virtually no recorded barrow excavations. The only attempt to look at the landscape was undertaken by the South Hams Survey, but this did not identify many new sites (Balaam et al 1982, 261-266), though subsequent aerial reconnaissance is increasing the number of barrows (Griffith and Quinnell 1999).

One east Devon site suggests that traditions associated with barrow building continued, into the Middle Bronze Age. At Markham Lane (Exminster 1, Grinsell 1983), a damaged, simple ring-ditch measuring approximately 9m in diameter was excavated (Jarvis 1976, 63). Two cremations were recovered from pits which had been cut into the ditch. The first was unaccompanied but the second was accompanied by several sherds of a plain vessel (ibid., 640). Although the site is undated, the urn may be part of the Deverel-Rimbury series (Parker Pearson 1995, 97) and the small size of the ring-ditch is more typical of Middle Bronze Age barrows.

One Early Neolithic site has been investigated at Hazard Hill (Houlder 1963), though the character of occupation is unclear and the main evidence for Neolithic domestic activity consists of flint scatters (Miles 1976; Parker Pearson 1981; Berridge and Simpson 1992). The character of these scatters may indicate that they were produced by nonsedentary, groups of people reusing the same locales. Few Neolithic funerary sites are known. Grinsell listed a single small circular chambered passage tomb at Broadsands (Torbay 1) (though this identification may be 132

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

field system dating to the eleventh to tenth centuries BC (Silvester 1980). All three were low stony mounds, associated with scatters of pottery, flint and bone. One, S2 is of interest because it contained human bone and metalwork, crucible fragments and metalworking debris in a pit near to the southern edge of the mound (Needham, 1980 179; Silvester 1980, 20). Bradley (2000a, 157) has noted that this pit occupies a position which in previous centuries would have been associated with the deposition of cremated human remains and he suggests that the deposit may have been of a ritual nature. The excavator speculated that S2 might have had a sepulchral origin (Silvester 1980, 44). However, the weight of evidence was felt to be indicative of settlement activity. More recently, archaeologists have become more cautious about separating ritual from domestic activity and it is possible to argue that the cairns can be interpreted as incorporating or transforming earlier ritual practices within the newly enclosed agricultural landscapes of the Later Bronze Age.

dubious). It contained parts of three primary inhumations associated with ‘Western Neolithic pottery’ and a later inhumation accompanied by sherds of probable Peterborough Ware and sherds of a Beaker (Radford 1957/8). The tomb is near to the coastline and may be allied to similar monuments which have been found around the Irish Sea province (Lynch 2000, 73; Herity and Eogan 1989, 58). To Broadsands, Grinsell (1983, 27) added the more dubious site of a possibly destroyed chambered tomb called the Bradstone (Christow 1). The possible hengiform site at Bulleigh Meadow near Marldon (Berridge and Simpson 1992) is the only probable circular Later Neolithic site to have been investigated in Devon; it gave a radiocarbon date of between 2900-2300 cal BC (ibid., 3-4). A series of human cremations were found near to the main encircling ditch, but they were not closely dated and had no artefactual associations (ibid., 15). The site does, however, provide some evidence for Later Neolithic ceremonial activity and it gives a possible link between Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age ritual practices. Bulleigh Meadow conforms to a wider regional pattern which has been identified in the southwest, namely a general paucity of Later Neolithic ceramics at ceremonial sites (Gray 1908a; Thomas 1964). This pattern is in marked contrast with Wessex where large quantities of ceramics and other artefacts are frequently recovered (Pollard 1992; 1995).

The metalworking pit at Dainton provides a link with another ritual recorded at a number of Early Bronze Age barrows in Devon. During the Middle Bronze Age a number of sites, including Dainton, Farway 44, Southleigh 5, Gittisham 3, Roseash and Winkleigh, became the focus for the deposition of metalwork (Grinsell 1983; Pearce 1983, 431-461), most of it weaponry (ibid.). Weaponry was frequently deposited at wetland sites during the Later Bronze Age (Bradley 1990; Pryor 2001). The Devon evidence would suggest that certain barrows continued to play an important role and were associated with ritual practices long after their original use had ended.

Aside from the example at Broadsands, sherds from two Beakers accompanied two inhumation burials at Kents Cavern (Quinnell 2003, 16), which may suggest that the vessels had been curated.

6.6 The Early Bronze Age in Devon

Only small groups of barrows are documented, including examples at Halwell, Marldon and Ipplepen (Grinsell 1983, 16). Aerial photography has identified new sites (Griffith and Quinnell 1999) and since much of this area is intensively farmed, the number of ploughed down ringditch sites is likely to expand dramatically.

The Early Bronze Age in Devon was distinctive and shared certain characteristics with other parts of the southwest. The differences between Devon’s regions can be summarised as follows: •

Flat graves associated with Trevisker Ware, a Collared Urn and other ceramics have been discovered at Elburton, Plymouth (Watts and Quinnell 2001). The limited evidence suggests that communities were adopting elements from a broad repertoire of material culture to suit their own needs. This mixing of traditions is shown at Kingswear 1, where an earthen mound was found to cover a small cairn which in turn sealed a pit containing the remains of a cremated child and a cist. The cist contained the remains of another child and a miniature jadeite axe (Rogers 1947; Fox 1948).

•

One site indicates that traditions associated with barrow building continued, albeit in a transformed manner, into the Middle Bronze Age. The interpretation of the site at Dainton as a ritual site is more contentious because it is usually seen as a Later Bronze Age field system with clearance cairns (Needham 1980, 177-179; Silvester 1980) though, as Silvester (1980, 45) noted the two interpretations need not be mutually exclusive. The three excavated cairns, which were part of a complex of 36, were located within a

•

133

The varying level of Neolithic ceremonial activity. The centres of North Devon and Dartmoor reveal little evidence for unequivocal Neolithic activity. This contrasts with east Devon where a range of sites have been identified. Distinctive local traditions. For example, Dartmoor possesses forms of stone row and cairns which are unique. Exmoor has stone settings which lack any close comparanda in the southwest or anywhere. East Devon has a number of monuments, including cursus, oblong or mortuary enclosures and earthen cemetery mounds, which are not paralleled in the rest of Devon, but are found further to the east. There are differences in the spatial arrangement of monuments between each of the study areas, which were the result of local ritual traditions. This is demonstrated, by the way stone circles, rows, barrows and cairns and natural rock formations are frequently found in close association on Dartmoor, whereas in North Devon they are not. In east and south Devon the rows, stone circles and prominent

Andy M Jones

•

rock formations are absent and instead the barrows and cairns are focused upon Neolithic enclosures, prominent ridges and rivers. Variation in the deposition of ceramics within Dartmoor barrows. Pottery was seldom placed and Trevisker Ware was never found. This contrasts with eastern and Northern Devon where Trevisker Ware forms were sometimes deposited.

6.7 Devon and Cornwall

The survey of the evidence form Devon has proved useful in the light of the study of Early Bronze Age ceremonial traditions in Cornwall (chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5), as it has been found that there are similarities and contrasts between the regions. The artefactual assemblages and burial practices found in Devon are similar to those in Cornwall (see chapter 3). Despite limitations in the evidence, some patterns in both funerary and other ritual behaviour and in architectural traditions have been established, including unifying factors which occur across Devon and Cornwall. These similarities can be summarised as follows: •

•

•

• • • •

Devon does not possess in great quantities the kinds of Neolithic sites which are found to the north and east (see Grinsell 1959; Grinsell 1971; Darvill 1982, Barrett et al 1991a). A lack of single inhumation burials and their replacement by token and multiple cremation interments, which are often not placed centrally but are found on the periphery of the barrow site. The presence of barrows without any burials at all and a lack of evidence for the secondary or mound heightening burials which are found in Wessex barrows. A paucity of Beakers and other Bronze Age ceramics (e.g. Collared Urns), which are commonly found within barrows in Wessex. The use of charcoal (particularly oak) and quartz at barrows as ritual deposits within pits and as scatters upon pavements. A scarcity of grave goods or artefacts which could be deemed indicative of the status of the interred persons The presence of distinctive architectural forms, including ring-cairns and other variant forms, cairnrings and orthostatic settings, which are not found in the Wessex region.

This does not imply that Devon was part of a Greater Cornwall, for there are differences between the two areas; for example Devon lacks entrance graves and chambered tombs and Cornwall lacks the complexes of stone rows which are found in Devon. Similarly, I am not arguing that there was any kind of overarching social organisation within Cornwall. Indeed, I would suggest that the variation between the regions which we have seen in Devon would also have occurred across the regions of Cornwall.

134

Chapter 7 Cornish ceremonial landscapes: new interpretations ‘Each generation considers itself wiser than the preceding, and better able to explain those matters which to their fathers and grandfathers only appeared more difficult of explanation as they advanced in their enquiries’ (William Long 1876, 3).

perhaps mythological experience, far removed from modern concepts of travel. Furthermore, it has been argued throughout that the character and size of Early Bronze Age societies would mean that Britain would have been made up of socially fragmented small societies with different beliefs and social and economic practices, rooted in generations of engaging with and interpreting the world.

7.1 Introduction

The author C.S. Lewis once commented that he was the ‘product of long corridors, empty sunlit rooms, upstairs indoor silences....also of endless books’. The reason for including that statement here is to make the point that we are all products of the world we encounter, the landscapes and places we inhabit, the objects we handle and our social experiences when we interact with others. These influences shape us as individuals and structure the way we perceive and interpret the world. This was no less true for the Bronze Age communities of four thousand years ago than it is today. Whilst we can acknowledge these processes, there are three obvious problems for the prehistorian. Firstly, we can seldom identify the way that individual lives were shaped by their personal experience of the world. Secondly, as several recent writers have pointed out, the way that we as archaeologists interpret the past is restricted to our own particular experience of the world and this can change at different times of our lives (e.g. Edmonds 1999). Lastly, it apparent that there is no one way of interpreting the world. Even within modern small-scale societies, different interpretations of events and places can exist side by side. In his book on the Inuksuit stone monuments of the Arctic Circle, the anthropologist Norman Hallenday (2000) points out that he only came to realise the diverse range of meanings attached to them over many years of discussion with a variety of members of the Inuit community.

It has therefore been argued that, although regional studies offer the most suitable way of beginning to come to terms with the way in which Bronze Age communities understood their world, it is necessary not to study them at one scale but instead at a variety of levels. The establishment of a biography of practices has been central to the arguments which have been put forward here. Cornish Bronze Age societies did not appear out of nowhere around 2500 BC; instead, their past would have played as important a role in the way that they organised themselves as did the arrival of metals or other exotic materials. I would argue that comparable studies in other regions would result in the confirmation of the diversity of the communities which inhabited Britain and help us to move away from the single focus models which are often put forward to explain changes in the Bronze Age. In the remainder of this chapter I do not intend to simply reiterate of the findings from previous chapters, as the results are summarised at the end of each section. Rather, the first part advances a discussion, enabled by the results from this study, of the nature, origins and the transformation of the ritual traditions which have been discussed in the preceding chapters. It addresses a series of key themes which have been raised during this study and places them into a biography. The second part of the chapter summarises the significance of the study. The third, to conclude, considers themes for future research.

However, the acknowledgement that there was no one way that the world was experienced in the past can in one sense be turned into a strength because it means that there is no absolute truth which we must search for. Instead, we can focus upon those particular aspects of the archaeological record which lend themselves to interpretation by the archaeologist. Ceremonial monuments fall into this particular class of evidence, for as Bradley (1991a) has argued, due to its nature, ritual can provide a useful way of studying an aspect of the past.

7.2 A biography of practice 7.2.1 Introduction

This study has therefore largely been concerned with the exploration of one particular aspect of Bronze Age communities, their ceremonial landscapes. Nevertheless a central problem remains as to the appropriate scale at which to study those sites. Traditionally archaeology has been polarised between the minutiae of the site excavation or the vastness of the distribution map. It has been argued that neither approach is in itself helpful to understanding the past. On the one hand, individual sites did not exist in isolation from their locales and wider landscapes: it is important that we do not become myopic in our scale of analysis (Bradley 2003b). On the other, nation or Europe wide distribution maps would have been meaningless to Bronze Age communities, for whom Cartesian maps were unknown and long-distance travel a wholly different,

The preceding chapters of this monograph have worked at a variety of levels, from county down to site specific. This has enabled the identification of practices which can be found across the region, as well as others which are particular to the individual cemetery. This section discusses the most significant themes which were identified by these complementary methods of study. It will commence with a discussion of the relationship between landscape and cemeteries before moving on to a framework charting the transformation of ritual traditions from the Neolithic through to the Middle Bronze Age. 7.2.2 Landscape and cemetery

The artefactual and scientific dating evidence which was outlined in chapters 2, 3 and 5 indicate that in Cornwall the 135

Andy M Jones

widespread appearance of barrows and other ceremonial monuments occurred in the Bronze Age around 2000 BC; barrow cemeteries continued to develop until around 1500 BC, when they fell into disuse. Closer study of the cemeteries and barrow sites (chapters 4 and 5) demonstrated that they were typically sited in distinctive, clearly defined settings such as plateaus and ridges, and that the barrows were often aligned on, or incorporated, prominent outcrops of rock. It was found that most of the barrows studied were not sited to have a wider prominence in the landscape. Views from monuments, rather than views of them were shown to be most significant. Indeed, when the evidence from excavated sites such as the Watch Hill Barrow (see 5.2.4 above) is taken into account, it is evident that many of the larger mounded sites which have greater visibility in the landscape might only have achieved this in their final phase, perhaps after centuries of being inconspicuous. Other sites, such as some of the Davidstow Moor barrows (chapters 4 and 5), may have had brief phases of being more conspicuous during periods when fires were lit and smoke became visible rising from the barrow, or when post-rings were erected upon them. The St.Austell barrows may have had greater visibility in the landscape during particular phases, for example when yellow clay was spread upon them, though again this visibility would have been transitory.

traditions and particular needs of their users. I have suggested that the initial concern of the communities who constructed the monuments was to enclose and deliberately appropriate a specific locale within the landscape (see 4.9.4 and 5.3 above). However, each cemetery was almost certainly located at a place which was already associated with its own sets of meanings (see 7.2.3 below) and this would have influenced the way the place was used from the outset. Over time the results and memory of past actions and the reinterpretation of appropriate ritual practices would have led to greater diversity between cemeteries. Finally, I would argue that the development of cemeteries in the landscape ultimately resulted in unintended consequences, and saw the demise of the barrow cemetery. It is possible that the intensive engagement with defined parts of the landscape led to ever greater attachments with particular blocks of land and resulted in quite radical transformations of ritual traditions associated with the roundhouse settlements and enclosed landscapes of the Middle Bronze Age (see 7.2.6 below). 7.2.3 ......Origins

The first certain permanent occupation of Cornwall was during the Mesolithic period and it is tempting to try and trace the biography of the origins of Bronze Age ritual traditions to this period. However, aside from numerous flint scatters and the likelihood that landscape features played an important role in Mesolithic cosmologies, there is currently little evidence to establish what the beliefs of the period were. Whilst particular places were almost certainly periodically visited as part of the seasonal round, there is as yet no indication that those places were in any way marked by the ritualized placing of artefacts or deposits, as is found in the succeeding Neolithic and Bronze Age periods.

I have suggested that experience of the cemetery space was often structured, as at Botrea (see 4.6.5 above), where the arrangement of barrows prompted the visitor to experience the landscape in a particular way. Special views and hidden natural features often occur at one end of the cemetery so that there is a final moment of revelation. Differing forms of monuments within the cemeteries (platform cairns and ring-cairns) provided another way of structuring space and I have argued that this allowed a variety of ritual practices to be associated with different areas within the cemetery (see section 7.2.5 below). This was evident at St.Breock, where large barrows occurred in one part of the cemetery and low platform barrows in another (see 4.4.5 above) and at Davidstow a limited range of site types (low platform, Cornish-variant pond barrows and enclosure barrows) were found to recur in small clusters across the cemetery area (see 4.5.5 above). At Botrea, a different pattern was evident. Here, large sites were placed upon one arm of the cemetery and small sites on the other (see 4.6.5 above).

The Earlier Neolithic period therefore forms the starting point for this discussion, as it was during this period that certain practices seem to have emerged within domestic contexts that became ritualized by being given a particular emphasis (Bradley 2003a). It has already been argued here (chapter 2) that there was a direct link between Later Neolithic practices and the sorts of ritual deposits which are found at barrows in the Early Bronze Age, but I wish briefly to discuss the possibility that there was also a connection with the more distant past.

The differing arrangement of sites highlights the fact that, despite the points of similarity between the cemeteries in terms of the locations which were chosen and the types of monuments within them, there is also a great deal of diversity between them. Each of the cemeteries was found to be distinctive, with its own biography of use (see chapters 4 and 5). I would argue that this is because, in spite of the existence of more widely held beliefs and traditions, each of the cemeteries and their constituent sites developed in an organic manner. Although I have argued that many of the constituent sites within cemeteries were contemporaneous, the fact that sites such as the Watch Hill barrow (see 3.3.2 above), were in use over centuries would have meant that new sites could have been added and old ones periodically remodelled according to the changing

Contrary to recent assertions (Mercer 2003), our knowledge of the Neolithic in Cornwall has not stood still for the past twenty years. There is in fact a steadily growing body of information derived from the Neolithic period which extends far beyond a handful of tor enclosures and chambered tombs. Much of this evidence is outlined in chapter 2 (see also Jones and Taylor 2004). Within Cornwall the nature of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement activity is mostly in the form of relatively large numbers of flint scatters and hearth or charcoal filled pits. During the earlier part of the Neolithic period this evidence is augmented by the construction of a small number of tor enclosures. Although there are less than twelve known enclosures (Oswald et al 2001), and the 136

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

their deposition was governed by the same kind of conventions as were followed at the tor enclosure sites. The difference in the scale of these activities can be explained in terms of the context in which they took place. At tor enclosures the deposition of artefacts was associated with large gatherings; acts of deposition would have been public and therefore of a conscious and public character. Conversely, the placing of deposits within pits elsewhere is unlikely to have been associated with large numbers of people and was therefore of a more private nature, perhaps carried out more as part of a subconscious ‘right way’ of acting when certain locales or situations were encountered.

character of their occupation remains uncertain, they have been interpreted as the typical form of Neolithic settlement site in the county (Mercer 2001; 2003). Excavations at Carn Brea and Helman Tor have found that they consist of circuits of stone walling enclosing prominent rocky hilltops (Mercer 1981a; 1997). Their interiors are associated with pits and structures as well as large quantities of worked stone and pottery and it has been argued that they were associated with cultivated fields. However, the absence of environmental evidence and the small quantities of artefacts associated with cultivation or food production (for example, grain processing stones, etc.) means that the latter assertion is not proven.

The geographical and temporal occurrence of these Neolithic pits means that it is unlikely that they had a single function. However, it is likely that they were the product of the ritualization of particular aspects of domestic activity. The deposits within them show a repeated concern with the manipulation of a fairly restricted range of material culture that was associated with settlement-related contexts, including broken pottery, lithics and charcoal which may have been associated with the hearth. It is argued here that these were not primarily religious sites, but may have been produced as part of routine ritualized practices during a more seasonal or transitory occupation of the land, the result of repeated visits to a special locale.

Most of the recorded Earlier Neolithic settlement evidence is of a much more ephemeral nature. Investigations across Cornwall (Gould 1994; Jones 1997a; 1997b; Lawson-Jones 2001a; 2001b; Smith 1988; Steele 1991) have led to the identification of large numbers of small flint scatters dating to the Neolithic/Bronze Age. Typically these sites are small-scale and they are usually found on less exposed valley sides or around prominent landscape features such as rocky-knolls (e.g. Smith 1987). In addition to the flint scatters, charcoal-rich pits have been found which have been dated to the Early to Middle Neolithic (Jones and Taylor 2004). Some of these pits have been found to contain sherds of Neolithic pottery, flint, quartz or worked stone (e.g. Smith and Harris 1982; Jones et al 1995), but more usually they contain deposits of charcoal. These pits are often found in small groups and in areas where flint scatters are evident (e.g. Lawson-Jones 2002).

7.2.4 ......and so to the Bronze Age

Most of the excavated pits containing structured deposits have been found to date to the fourth millennium BC. There are fewer occupation-related features which are securely dated to the Later Neolithic. As we have seen (chapter 2), a number of pits are associated with the deposition of Grooved Ware at sites which include timberrings and small monuments. The pattern of small settlement-related sites with ritualized deposits in pits and larger-scale communal sites is currently less obvious during the Later Neolithic period, for which there are far fewer identified settlement or aggregation sites. However, as has been argued above (chapter 2) the location, treatment of artefacts and type of sites (e.g. circular monuments) associated with Later Neolithic Grooved Ware do bear a close resemblance to the practices which were associated with Early Bronze Age ceremonial sites.

A major point of interest with these fourth millennium BC pits is their relationship to the tor enclosures and the deposits that are contained within them. At face value, it would appear that the nature of the activities associated with the two site types was substantively different. The small pits are associated with small numbers of artefacts, whereas activity at the tor enclosures was characterised by the deposition of large quantities of flint, stone axes and ceramics. Rather than associating the use of the tor enclosures with a settled elite and the charcoal pits and flint scatters with marginal groups, there is an alternative interpretation. This would suggest that the differing scale of the placing of deposits hides the similarities between them. It is argued here that the tor enclosures were sited around prominent focal points in the landscape and that the occupation within them was not permanent, but instead was associated with the coming together of dispersed communities. These gatherings involved both the exchange of artefacts and the structured deposition of stonework and pottery, which at Carn Brea was often deposited in an unabraded condition in and around the enclosure walls and within pits. The small pit-type features and flint scatters which are found elsewhere were produced by the same communities who gathered on the hill tops. The deposits within the pits represent activities which occurred at the regular stopping places of smaller dispersed groups of people moving across the wider landscape.

Pits securely dated to the Early Bronze Age are not common outside of barrow contexts, though domestic pits containing Beakers and other Bronze Age ceramics (Food Vessels and Trevisker Ware, etc.) have been recovered. Sherds of pottery have been associated with pits from a number of sites, including Poldowrian (Smith and Harris 1982, 49) and Metha, near St.Newlyn East (Jones and Taylor 2004), and Trevisker Ware was recently found in a charcoal pit at Trenowah, near St.Austell (Charlie Johns pers comm). The significance of ritualized deposits within pits on Early Bronze Age settlement sites lies in the similarities they share with features which are found at contemporary ceremonial sites. Again, this is illustrated by the types of deposit which were chosen for inclusion and the formality with which the placed deposits are treated. There is a strong link between

The link between the two kinds of site can be seen in the way that, where deposits were placed into pit-type features, 137

Andy M Jones

the deposition of artefacts in the pits and the way artefacts (including charcoal and quartz) were treated on round barrows. The evidence from recently excavated small pits (e.g. Jones and Taylor 2004) indicates that some of the ways of treating artefacts were directly related to the way artefacts were manipulated in ceremonial sites. As we have seen in chapter 5, small pits containing selected deposits of quartz, charcoal and ceramics have been recorded at all of the barrow cemeteries studied, including Colliford Down, the St.Austell barrows, Treligga and Davidstow Moor. The deposition of sherds of pottery rather than whole vessels is another strong parallel between the two groups of sites. In particular, the placing of unabraded sherds or partial vessels (see chapters 2 and 5) is a feature of several Cornish barrows, for example at Carvinack (Dudley 1964), Watch Hill (Miles 1975), Treligga 7 (Christie 1985) and at Scarcewater (Jones and Taylor 2002).

a primary feature. Likewise, the association of Beakers with ceremonial sites may have been a relatively late development and not linked with the inception of barrow construction (chapter 2). Beliefs and practices associated with the spread of alcoholic drinks or exotic foods are not easily demonstrated, and currently there is little identifiable evidence in the archaeological record for large-scale feasting or cooking at any of the cemeteries. Once again, I would argue that the problem lies in trying to adopt a single explanation for the changes which occur at the start of the Bronze Age. Instead, I would suggest that the monumentalization of ritual practices was a result of a flux of new ideas which combined with established traditions. It has been emphasised in previous chapters (see chapters 1 and 6) that Cornwall did not exist in isolation from the rest of Britain or the Continent. Indeed, it has been suggested that because of its geographical position on the Atlantic facade it would have been open to contacts with Ireland, Wales and Brittany as well as having mainland interaction with communities in Devon and Wessex. Indeed, there would also have been interactions between communities within Cornwall. Evidence for these contacts is provided by artefacts such as lunulae from Ireland found in Cornwall and Trevisker Ware found outside Cornwall. Beyond Cornwall, the isotope analysis of human bone has provided evidence for movement over large geographical regions within Britain and from the continent (Budd et al 2003; Fitzpatrick 2003). The initial impetus for these movements may well have been stimulated by the quest for metals, but it is argued here that such exchanges and longdistance journeys would have become mythologised, a source of wonder and stories. The monuments which were seen by travellers from Cornwall, or described by visitors to the region, may well have stimulated the desire to create permanent forms of architecture or even have led to the spread of new beliefs and ideas. In short, communities in Cornwall are likely to have encountered and heard of an extensive range of practices and places as a result of interacting with people from a wide range of geographical locations. Whilst members of Cornish communities may have encountered new forms of architecture and new beliefs, these would have been interpreted and rationalised in relation to the world as it was already understood. For example, an Early Bronze Age traveller from Cornwall to Salisbury Plain would have encountered barrows, but unless their visit happened to coincide with an act of burial, and they were allowed to witness it and had all stages of the events explained to them, how would they make sense of what they had seen? Likewise, contemporary anthropologists have argued that when western objects enter into non-western societies they are modified to fit existing perceptions and social systems (Sahlins 1992, 15). To demonstrate these points I will return to four specific examples from earlier chapters in this study: enclosure, mounds, cemetery development and the deposition of human bone.

In summary, I am suggesting that it is possible to argue that during the Earlier Neolithic a series of practices emerged out of domestic social practices, which involved the ritualization of certain acts via the placing of selected artefacts into pits. The small-scale nature of these acts was ultimately linked with the large-scale actions at communal enclosures which were sited at prominent or socially significant places in the landscape and which involved larger audiences. As we have seen in chapter 2, during the Later Neolithic deposits within pits occur within a more restricted range of contexts, including timber-rings and small monuments such as stone platforms. By the Early Bronze Age the majority of placed or structured deposits were not made within settlement-related contexts, but were formal ritual acts which took place in front of larger gatherings within the prescribed setting of the barrow site. 7.2.5 ......A place for the dead?

Although I have argued that we can trace the origins of many of the practices which were associated with Bronze Age barrow cemeteries back into the Neolithic period, the question remains as to why there was such a huge increase in ceremonial sites from around 2000 BC and why so many became mounded monuments?. Various possibilities have been offered by a variety of commentators for the upsurge in ceremonial monuments at the onset of the Bronze Age. It has been suggested that monuments may have been associated with the spread of metals, as part of the Beaker package, or with new rites of burial ritual associated with single inhumation. It has been posited that new practices could have been associated with the spread of novel types of food or beverages (Parker Pearson 2003). Could any of these factors have produced changes to communities in Early Bronze Age Cornwall?. In fact each of these interpretations has its own particular drawbacks. As we have seen (chapters 3 and 5), metalwork did not play a significant role at most Cornish ceremonial sites and where it does occur there is no evidence that it was a particularly early feature. The deposition of human bone was not a strong characteristic at the majority of Cornish barrows and on most sites inhumation burial is not

The enclosure of circular spaces is not unique to Cornwall, or the southwest peninsula. The demarcation of a circular space by earthen banks, stone-rings, ditches and posts is

138

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

the mounds did not seal any deposits of human bone at all. I would argue that the sealing or closing down of earlier ceremonial activity is a Cornish or southwestern tradition which arguably persists into the Middle Bronze Age on domestic sites long after barrows had become disused (see 7.2.6 below).

widely found in Britain throughout the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods to create a variety of monument forms (Bradley 1998a). As has been discussed in chapters 1 and 6, ring-cairns and other cairn types are found in Ireland, Wales and Devon. Indeed, the demarcation of an enclosed area forms one of the most important features at many Cornish barrows and this is demonstrated by the fact that most of the barrows within my study (see chapter 5) had an enclosure element. The act of enclosure seems to have formed an important element in sites which were used over a long period of time. However, I would argue that the act of enclosure at Cornish barrow sites represents a regional adaptation of a widespread practice. Although it is possible that enclosure was derived either from earlier henge traditions, or from contacts with other regions, the Cornish evidence indicates a rapid absorption within local traditions. Cornish enclosure barrows and cairns did not usually surround burials, but as we have seen in chapters 4 and 5, frequently encircled natural rocks and places which had been important to previous generations. They provided ritual arenas for the formal placing of artefacts and deposits in pits, which previous generations had placed in unenclosed pits (see 7.2.3 above). The abandonment of the enclosed space can also be seen to follow a recognisably localised pattern. Although free-standing ring-cairns have been identified in Cornwall (Johnson and Rose 1994), it is far more usual for the cairn-ring in Cornwall to be sealed beneath a mound (chapter 5). This contrasts with other areas of western Britain, where ring-cairns are more frequently left as free-standing monuments (Turner 1990; Lynch 1993).

The second form in which mounds appear is as a platform (chapters 4 and 5). I would suggest that many of the low, flat mounds which are found in Cornwall had their own ceremonial functions. This assertion is supported by the formal entrance which was found leading up to the mound at Caerloggas III, by deposits of quartz on top of Davidstow Site 16/23, by the large size of the platforms at Botrea and by the fact that some excavated mounds have been found not to cover any features at all. If, as I have suggested throughout this study, the majority of sites within a barrow cemetery in Cornwall were contemporary, then the platform barrow may have assumed a particular role within the barrow group, perhaps as a place of gathering and public display or as a site to observe important topographical features in the wider landscape. The theory that specific sites may have played particular specialised roles leads us to the third area where there is evidence for localised interpretations. Another feature of southern British round barrow cemeteries is that many of them appear to have accreted over time and were developed from an initial founding grave. In many cases, large linear cemeteries of closely-spaced barrows evolved, which some commentators have argued could have been used to enshrine genealogical relationships (see chapter 1).

This brings us to the second major feature of barrows, namely the mound. The analysis of the development of many southern British barrows has identified a generalised sequence of events, starting with a primary burial which is then typically covered by low mound subsequently enhanced until it becomes a large, frequently monumental, mound. This process of enlargement is usually accompanied by the addition of later burials (generally cremations) that are often placed around the periphery of the site. Several writers have argued that the enlargement of the mound was to deny access to the original burials and to permit an abstract concept of the ancestors to develop through the performance of rituals at monumental sites (e.g. Barrett 1994).

However, we have seen (in chapters 4 and 5) that in Cornwall the majority of barrow cemeteries exist as small, poorly defined, loose groups of diverse monuments (e.g. Davidstow Moor, Tregarrick Tor and Treligga, etc.), rather than as tightly grouped complexes, which were frequently sited so that they did not have a dramatic presence in the wider landscape (e.g. Botrea and Treen). There was evidence for specific types of monument being constructed at particular places. This was seen at Botrea, St.Breock and Davidstow Moor, where there are areas where complex monuments were located within a distinctive place within the cemetery. Often the most complex sites and acts of deposition occurred at the margins of the cemetery and/or upon the higher ground. There was also evidence that particular activities took place at specific locales within each of cemeteries. Typically human bone was deposited only in one area (as at Treligga and Colliford), as were particular forms of artefact. However, although it was found that the nature of the activities and the forms of the monuments differed between cemeteries and there was no blueprint, the identification of the zonation of the cemeteries into areas with specific monuments and practices again suggests that widely distributed monument forms were adapted to suit local custom.

Although large mounded sites do occur in Cornwall, which were probably progressively heightened (e.g. Lousey barrow, Christie 1985), the evidence for the insertion of associated heightening burials is exceptionally rare. Indeed, none of the barrows which were studied in chapter 5 gave any indication that they were associated with secondary or mound burials. This point is significant because it marks a departure from developments elsewhere. I have argued that in Cornwall mounds tend to appear in two contexts. The first is as a sealing deposit which covers or closes sites which have probably been used for a considerable period of time. Occasionally, as at Watch Hill, this sealing deposit was preceded by the deposition of a burial, or more frequently a token deposit of human bone, but in the majority of cases

The final area in which I wish to argue for localised interpretation is in the way human bone was treated. The traditional archaeological view held that single inhumation

139

Andy M Jones

burials of the Early Bronze Age marked a sharp contrast with the communal multiple burials of the Neolithic period. One of the most influential explanations for the development of the round barrow cemetery in Britain has been the identification of funerary rites as being of paramount importance to Early Bronze Age communities (Barrett 1994; Garwood 1991; Mizoguchi 1992). This viewpoint has become quite widely accepted in the literature and there are evident instances in the archaeological record where funerary rituals clearly became quite elaborate.

Thomas has referred to as ‘bricolage’ (1999, 80, 96), or in other words the creation of a particular social strategy or creative play derived from a repertoire of available possibilities. Of course, tradition does not stand still, and ritual traditions are always being reworked, altered and subtly transformed with every performance. This is one reason why no two barrow cemeteries are the same. Nonetheless, around 1500 BC a major alteration does occur. After more than five centuries or so of building and using ceremonial sites, there is a halt to their construction. This section therefore ends with another question which is as important as the ones which opened it; namely, what happened to ritual after 1500 BC?

However, the evidence from Cornwall suggests that burial rites were of much more limited importance and that inhumation was extremely uncommon (see chapters 3 and 5). Of the 30 fully-excavated barrows which were studied in chapter 5, there is only one definite and one probable primary inhumation burial and only two of the barrows contained large quantities of cremated bone. The evidence indicates that from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age there were a variety of contemporary practices at barrow sites in Cornwall, which included cremation, token burials and, most frequently, no burials at all. Indeed, I would argue that, although the larger cremation deposits and the inhumation burials may have been linked to funerary rites, the majority of small deposits should be interpreted as placed objects, similar to pottery, charcoal and quartz which were frequently deposited into barrow sites in small amounts or in a fragmentary condition. The majority of small cremation deposits could therefore be interpreted in another way. I have argued that the token quantities of bone which are found in Cornish barrow sites could more usefully be viewed as having their own power, used in ritual contexts as a symbolic resource in much the same way as was the oak charcoal, the quartz stones and other artefacts. Currently there is no evidence for the burial of human remains during the Neolithic period in Cornwall but, as we have seen (chapter 2 and 7.2.3 above), there is widespread evidence for the burial of fragmented pottery and charcoal in small pits. In this way it is possible to see the idea of burying human bone as representing the incorporation of a new material into existing practices which involved the fragmentation of artefacts and deposits, for the purpose of achieving a desired ritual outcome, rather than the veneration of the dead per se. In summary, I have argued that the start of the Early Bronze Age in Cornwall witnessed the widespread adoption and proliferation of ceremonial monuments. As in much of Britain, the most common form of monument was the round barrow and the development of the cemetery. It seems probable to me that most of the architectural traditions which are found at these sites were the result of contact and interaction with communities in other regions. But importantly I have argued that to leave the analysis here misses the most important points concerning the nature of ritual activity in the region. I believe that communities in Cornwall selected, interpreted and used those ideas, artefacts and architectural traditions with which they came into contact according to how they fitted into their existing world view and traditions. I am suggesting that what we are seeing at Cornish round barrows is the result of what Julian

7.2.6

The end of tradition?.....

The research which was undertaken in chapters 3, 4 and 5 enables links to be made between the Earlier and Middle Bronze Age. This is because the research focused upon ceremonial landscapes and ritual traditions rather than on funerary activity. The remainder of this section will therefore consider the transformation of ritual practices in the Middle Bronze Age. In recent years it has been recognised that during the Middle Bronze Age there was a dramatic decrease in the construction and use of barrows and an upsurge in the number of permanent settlements and field systems. This pattern is found across southern Britain and holds true for Cornwall (see chapters 3 and 4). Several writers have suggested that ritual or ritualized practices associated with certain aspects of domestic life became drawn within the arena of the settlement (Barrett et al 1991a; Brück 1995). At the same time, it has been argued that these changes were associated with the adoption of new forms of land tenure (Barrett 1994) and with the social fragmentation of Early Bronze Age communities (Brück 2000a). Whilst the Middle Bronze Age may well have witnessed major social changes which involved the abandonment of ceremonial sites and the formalisation of boundaries between communities, the question emerges as to how much of the Early Bronze Age ceremonial tradition survived. I would suggest that the way to address this question is to look at the similarities between round barrows and roundhouses. Indeed, the suggestion that there might be a connection between houses and barrows is not a new one; as early as 1905 the antiquarian excavator Mortimer (1905, 155) claimed that the remains of roundhouses existed below some round barrows and Cyril Fox (1959) posited the existence of circular houses beneath round barrows which he had excavated. However, I would argue that there is a better case to be made for arguing the connections from the opposite perspective by identifying the round barrow in the roundhouse. Recently Bradley (1998a, 152-158) has argued that across southern Britain there are parallels between the organisation of space and artefacts within Bronze Age round barrows and roundhouses. On the moorlands of the southwest, Butler (1997, 137-138) has suggested that some

140

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

sites. Human bone is an infrequent occurrence at Cornish round barrows and where human bone is deposited it is often in very small quantities (see chapter 5). There are few instances of human bone being recovered from roundhouse sites in Cornwall. This is unsurprising given the acid soils which cover most of the county. Human bone is often recovered from Bronze Age settlements in areas of southern Britain with more favourable soil conditions (Brück 1995; Bradley 1998a); however, some evidence for the deposition of human bone in Cornish settlement contexts has survived where soil conditions or peculiarities of preservation have permitted. Some inhumation and cremation deposits have been found within or near to Cornish roundhouses (Thomas 1958; Nowakowski 1991). In short, therefore, both barrow and roundhouse could under certain conditions be used for the structured deposition of human bone.

of the roundhouses on Dartmoor may have been converted into cairns at the end of their use and Tilley and Bender have argued that a similar pattern of house closure is discernible at Leskernick on Bodmin Moor (Bender et al 1997). In the uplands of Cornwall it is possible to see a link between ring-cairns and houses in the way that both types of site often include large natural stones within their circuits (see chapters 4 and 5; Griffith 1984a; Bender et al 1997). Although the uplands provide some evidence for a link between barrows and houses, I would argue that the strongest evidence for the continuation of practices associated with round barrows lies in the sunken roundhouses of lowland Cornwall. Evidence for the controlled abandonment of the roundhouse has been found on several Middle Bronze Age settlement sites in southern Britain (e.g. Woodward 1991; Ladle and Woodward 2003). However, it is a particularly characteristic feature of lowland Bronze Age settlement sites across Cornwall. The process of abandonment which is identifiable in the archaeological record typically includes the placing of deposits within empty post sockets, and the deposition of pottery, stone and very occasionally metal objects in key contexts. Another feature of the abandonment process is evidence for the destruction of buildings by fire as at Trevisker or by the burning of structural elements of the house off-site followed by the burial of the embers on-site (ApSimon and Greenfield 1972; Jones and Taylor 2004). This controlled destruction, followed by the infilling of the interior of the roundhouse, occurred from around 1500 BC until approximately 1000 BC and is found on a variety of settlement types ranging from isolated buildings up to larger settlements (Jones 1998/9; Nowakowski 1991). Although there is a general pattern of abandonment every site had its own biography of closure. I would suggest that the choices which were undertaken were intended to personalise the abandonment process and in some instances were made unforgettable by practices such as the use of fire (Thomas 2000), which were intended to burn the event into the memory of the onlookers.

It is therefore argued here that the similarities in the deposition of artefacts and the presence of human bone, indicate associations between barrows and roundhouses. Indeed, given the lack of what can be termed grave goods within many Cornish barrows (see chapters 3 and 5), the most significant difference between the two kinds of site was actually that roundhouses are likely to have been strongly identified with the social identity of the individual/s that had inhabited them. This is suggested by the individuality of many of the deposits which are found within Cornish roundhouses. Several roundhouses have been associated with curated sherds of pottery that had been retained for years (Jones 1998/9; Nowakowski 2001) and which may have been family heirlooms. The recently excavated roundhouse at Trevilson contained a structured deposit of possible briquetage associated with coastal salt production, whilst another roundhouse at Penhale Moor contained a broken copper alloy spearhead which was deposited into the infill layers of the house (Jones and Taylor 2004; Nowakowski 2001). These items were probably associated with the lives of certain individuals and as such would have held their own biographies which contained memories of their owner. Their incorporation within the infilling deposits would have personalised the activity and created a memorable link between individual/s and a particular place in the landscape.

Recently, I have argued that the abandonment practices which have been recorded at roundhouse sites across the Cornish lowlands indicate that the process was linked to the life-cycle of the settlement and drew upon Early Bronze Age traditions which were associated with ritual practices at round barrows (Jones 1998/9; Jones and Taylor 2004). Direct analogies can be made between the way deposits were made at Cornish round barrows and the manner in which lowland roundhouses were abandoned. These analogies include the curation, fragmentation and structured deposition of objects and deposits into small cut features or infilling layers. There is also a similarity in the limited range of artefacts and deposits which were selected for inclusion (for example, sherds of pottery, charcoal, quartz and, more rarely, metalwork). The deployment of fire as an agent of transformation and spectacle is commonly found at both site types (chapter 5; Jones and Taylor 2004).

In addition to the parallels between the deposits chosen for incorporation into both round barrows and roundhouses, there are analogies between the life-cycles of both kinds of sites. As we have already seen (chapters 3 and 5), the majority of excavated Cornish barrows are probably multiphased structures which were often used for a considerable span of time, sometimes several centuries. At the end of their period of use or life-cycle, after generations of use as places for the deposition of artefacts/deposits by communities, they were usually sealed by mounds of earth and or stone. This process necessarily resulted in the ending of access into interior the site. A similar process can be seen at lowland roundhouse sites, where recent excavations have revealed that they were often used over long periods of time. Once more following many years of use, after being the focus for family or communal activity, they became a

Although the occurrences are infrequent, there is a similarity in the way that human bone was treated on both

141

Andy M Jones

It is suggested here that the knowledge of how to act in these situations was based around the memory of the way people had controlled similar situations in the past. In other words, whilst the setting may have shifted into the settlement, I am suggesting that the rites of mediation which were employed at Cornish settlements were drawn from traditions which had been associated with the performance of rituals at round barrow cemeteries.

place for the deposition of artefacts/deposits before they were finally sealed beneath a layer of earth and stone. Again, this action would have resulted in the ending of entry into the interior of the site. I would argue that these processes resulted in visual similarities between the two site types. The infilling of roundhouse sites (particularly before the infill deposits settled) would have resulted in them being transformed into low mounds, which would have resembled round barrows. At some roundhouse sites this visual association may have been especially potent. At a number of excavated roundhouse sites the edges of the houses were delimited by quartz blocks. In some instances these blocks were associated with the occupation of the site, but at Callestick they were clearly added after the site had been infilled (Jones 1998/9). Quartz is associated with a variety of prehistoric ceremonial sites in Britain (Darvill 2002) and as we have seen (chapters 4 and 5) is frequently included within the kerbs which enclose so many of the county’s barrows. Once again, the metaphors and symbolism associated with the use of quartz at ceremonial sites are unlikely to have been unknown by the inhabitants of the roundhouses. In summary, I would suggest that the resemblance between the final forms of round barrows and roundhouses is unlikely to be fortuitous. It is argued here that Middle Bronze Age communities were intentionally referencing the appearance of an older monument in order to mark the roundhouse site so that it would be understood in a particular way.

Finally, just as it has been argued that there was a link between round barrows and roundhouses, there may also have been a link between cemetery and settlement layouts. I have suggested that Cornish barrow cemeteries reflect the unique development of, and relationship between communities, with their landscape. It is possible that the settlements themselves will also show similar patterns, when we have enough data. 7.2.7

Summary

The preceding discussion has sought to provide an outline biography for the kinds of practices which are found at Cornish barrows. The narrative is in no sense complete, as it covers many centuries and there are innumerable gaps in the evidence. Nonetheless, if my interpretation of the available evidence is correct, then there is a certain degree of irony. Rather than adopting a traditional position in seeing the Early Bronze Age as the time when monuments were erected to mark the passing of the individual, I have developed the argument that in Cornwall barrows and their constituent cemeteries were essentially places of communal ritual and ceremony, that developed out of ritualized practices which had originated in the Neolithic.

The expansion of permanent Middle Bronze Age settlement and enclosure certainly resulted in changes to the way the landscape was ordered and the way the experience of space was structured. However, it is argued here that the great abundance of Early Bronze Age barrow cemeteries which are found across Cornwall could hardly have failed to continue to exert a powerful influence in structuring the lives of Middle Bronze Age communities.

This has led me to argue that the Middle Bronze Age should also be thought of in different terms. The period is often taken to be the beginning of an understandable, rational time when the mumbo jumbo of illogical ritual was shed, the practicality of the farming year established and village life emerged. However, I have argued that in Cornwall it was the Middle Bronze Age which saw the enshrining of particular individuals through the ritualized practices associated with the abandonment of the house, and that those practices were appropriated from ritual acts which had occurred on sites within cemeteries.

I believe that these monuments continued to be important for two principal reasons. Firstly, the recurrent day-to-day visual contact which many Middle Bronze Age communities would have had with round barrow sites and cemeteries would have meant that they would not have been forgotten. Whilst their true meaning may have been lost in the past, the frequent visual interaction could have resulted in their association with mythological individuals and there may have been a desire to create a link with the past.

7.3 Some areas for further study 7.3.1

Introduction

The need for more data is a stock phrase for many archaeologists. There are in fact too many archaeologists who happily spent their time collecting endless amounts of information for future use, without seeing the need to do anything further beyond adding it to the database or the store. Indeed, there are those who see the act of interpretation as a gross distortion of what archaeology should be about and tantamount to dishonesty. I would argue that this is an untenable position. To me, above all else, archaeology should be about the creation of narratives about the past and should rise above an obsessive desire to collect and catalogue objects. Nonetheless, archaeology is a discipline, which unlike other related areas such as social anthropology, relies on residues which were generated by

Secondly, although changes to the nature of Early Bronze Age communities resulted in the decline of communal ceremonial monuments and the spread of permanent houses and enclosed landscapes, they would not have led to the development of a secular ‘rational’ view of the world. Although certain domestic activities may well have become ritualized, rather than formal ceremonial acts, I would argue that particular life crises such as the death of an important community member would still have been needed to be ‘controlled’ to restore order and balance to the community. 142

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

affected the way they were approached, their visibility in the landscape and whether they were part of an everyday encounter, experienced as part of the daily routine, or whether they were set apart from the realm of daily experience. Currently too much of our information is taken from a restricted range of data sets, which are usually derived from individual monuments or from upland contexts. However, this range of contexts may not present an accurate picture of the wider landscapes which occurred across the county. Recent small-scale analysis of palaeoenvironmental samples from lowland areas of the southwest peninsula outside Cornwall have demonstrated the usefulness of being able to contrast landscape zones (e.g. Fyfe et al 2003). Further investigation of spring mires and river valleys across Cornwall would provide an important field of research to enhance our understanding of the wider landscape into which monuments were set.

the actions of people who cannot speak directly to us. Therefore better quality or more data can undoubtedly lead to richer narratives. This section is concerned with discussing those areas where I have identified gaps which, if filled, would advance the study of ceremonial landscapes in Cornwall. The order which these topics are discussed is not according to their importance, but in the sequence that they emerged from the foregoing study in chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5. 7.3.2

Towards the future

Six key areas have been identified which I believe would benefit from further study. They include the need for further dating of certain ceramics, the importance of undertaking further field studies, the need for targeted palaeoenvironmental information, the necessity for the dating of cremated human bone, the thorough analysis of the condition of pottery and other artefacts at the time of deposition and lastly the need for analysis of the source of mound materials.

The analysis undertaken in chapter 5 supported the findings of chapter 4, namely that Cornish barrows were complex areas in which there was a high degree of control over siting and of activities which took place within them. It was argued that human bone and artefacts were treated in particular ways. Indeed, a central finding of this study has been that human bone was not central to the role of barrow sites and that when it was deposited it was often one of the final acts to occur. Whilst the former assertion is largely demonstrable by the absence of human bone, the latter argument is more difficult to prove because most deposits of human bone in Cornwall are of cremated bone. Until recently it has not been possible to date this. However, recent advances suggest that cremated bone can be dated (Aerts et al 2001). This development is significant because it will mean that previously undated contexts can now be submitted for radiocarbon determinations. The ability to date cremated bone will be of particular significance for the study of barrows in Cornwall.

In chapter 2 (and above) I put forward the argument that Beakers were not directly associated with the spread of new ritual practices into the county. I also raised the possibility that, based on vessel shape and decoration, Trevisker Ware may have been more closely allied to Later Neolithic Grooved Ware than to other Bronze Age ceramic forms. These arguments require more radiocarbon dates, as there are currently around two centuries between the last date for Grooved Ware and the first date for Trevisker Ware. Therefore, all contexts which contain Grooved Ware or Beakers must be given primacy for radiocarbon dating. Likewise, Trevisker Ware which is found in isolated pits or the primary contexts of barrows should be a priority for dating. Chapters 3 and 4 highlighted the need to study cemetery layouts and their landscape settings. It was found that although the information which is generally stored in county SMR databases and in GIS mapping systems provided a general background from which to start, they do not have an appropriate level of information with which to construct interpretations concerning the way space was structured within cemeteries. An example of this was provided by the fact that GIS view-shed modelling which was carried out for Botrea predicted that other monuments would be visible (Jones forthcoming a). However, the undulating nature of the terrain coupled with areas of dense stoniness meant that it was not possible to pick out other cairns or standing stones from the surrounding topographical background. It is only by carrying out further field studies which specifically look at the topography of the cemetery from the level of the human that relationships between ceremonial monuments and other natural and cultural landscape components can be understood. Only then will be possible to identify possible differences in localised regional patterning within Cornwall, for example between Penwith and mid-Cornwall.

Another area for further study which arises out of chapter 5 and was touched upon in chapter 3 is the need for in-depth analysis of artefacts. A major finding of this study has been the recognition that very few ceramic vessels entered the archaeological record in a complete state and that there were differences in the way different ceramic forms were treated. I have suggested that there is evidence for the curation of ceramics and for the fragmentation of other artefacts, and suggested that the difference in the treatment of ceramics was associated with a desire to add emphasis to certain actions and make them memorable. If these arguments are correct then we must now ensure that in future analysis of all categories of object is carried out to establish their condition when they were deposited. We must make greater use of residue analyses which enable the study of the contents of vessels: were some vessels deposited whole because they were associated with particular substances?. Analysis of pottery in Neolithic contexts in other parts of Britain (e.g. A. Jones 1999) has produced significant results and offers an important avenue of research for greater understanding of Cornish barrows.

A related point which was raised in chapter 4 was the need to obtain palaeoenvironmental information. The vegetation conditions which surrounded monuments would have

The analysis in chapter 5 highlighted the frequent occurrence of particular inorganic materials, such as quartz 143

Andy M Jones

blocks and coloured clays. It has been argued in this study that materials used in barrows, such as the granite stones which are found in the kerbs of barrows may have represented an attempt to symbolically link individual monuments with the wider landscape in which they were set and may have been considered to have certain special properties. In addition, I have suggested that the colour of certain materials, such as yellow clay, played an important role in demarcating certain areas of the barrow and may have marked particular stages in the cycle of the barrow. At certain sites such as the Davidstow barrows the coloured clays which covered the banks were almost certainly derived from the excavation of the barrow ditches. However, at other sites the source of the clays is less certain. It has, for example long been speculated as to whether the yellow clay layers which covered the St.Austell barrows represented the deployment of locally obtainable clays or whether they were obtained from further afield (Borlase 1769; Miles 1975). New techniques are now becoming available to source the origins of inorganic geological material and these could be applied to see whether particular materials were being transported long distances for incorporation into the barrow site. Such information would enhance our awareness concerning how particular places in the landscape could have held significance to the barrow builders. 7.3.3

chapter 6) which are currently under-studied. The methods which were applied throughout this study of Cornish barrow cemeteries enabled patterns to be established. Similar techniques, if employed elsewhere, would produce information that could be used to establish regional patterns across Britain.

Final thoughts

This study started as an attempt to redress an imbalance in discussions of Early Bronze Age ritual practices which had arisen out of an over-familiarity with the archaeology of one area and a lack of familiarity with the archaeology of another. This study has been an exercise in arguing against generalisation and for a move towards a more contextualised understanding of the past. In attempting to achieve these aims, I have moved between a number of scales of analysis of Bronze Age ceremonial monuments in Cornwall. It is this variation of scales which I believe to be important in avoiding on the one hand, the pitfalls of too much generalisation and, on the other too little appreciation of the wider world. This study has found that by considering the monuments at a number of levels it was possible to identify underlying similarities between the different cemeteries studied. However, there were also differences which I have argued resulted from the localised interpretation of those traditions. In other words, although there are shared features, there was no overall pre-ordained plan or liturgy. The studied cemeteries were found to have developed along individual lines, variations on a number of themes which were related to local topography, the requirements of the societies who created them and their interpretation of ritual ideas and cosmologies. By undertaking this study it has been possible to demonstrate that a group of barrows which may now look much of a muchness to the modern eye, were originally as diverse as the components within a medieval ecclesiastical complex. This is significant because it means that the results are of relevance to the wider study of ceremonial landscapes and the monuments within them and the approach can be applied to other regions (see

144

Appendices Notes: 1. The information contained in appendices 1-8 is largely based on data held in the County SMR (Sites and Monuments Record). Some additional information has been added and identified erroneous information has been removed. 2. The names of barrows are as listed in the County SMR, except for cases where this differs from a well known published title, for example Denzell Down or Trelan 2. 3. PRN (Primary Record Number) is used as identifying reference number throughout, except for cases where none has been issued (denoted by 0), or where published barrow code (e.g. Davidstow) is so well established in the literature that the use of the PRN becomes a complicating factor.

Appendix 1: Excavated barrows NAME ANGROUSE ANGROUSE CLIFF BALLOWALL BALLOWALL BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BEARS DOWN BEARS DOWN BEARS DOWN BEARS DOWN BOLEIGH BORLASE BORSNEEVAS BOSAVERN BOSAVERN ROS BOSAVERN ROS BOSAVERN ROS BOSCAWEN-UN BOSCAWEN-UN BOSCAWEN-UN BOSCREGAN BOSCREGAN BOSENCE BOSENCE BOSILIACK BOSILIACK BOSKEDNAN BOSPORTHENNIS BOSPORTHENNIS BOSPORTHENNIS BOSPORTHENNNIS BOSTRAZE BOSVENNING COMMON BOSVENNING COMMON BOSVENNING COMMON BOSWEDNAN BOSWEDNAN BOSWENS COMMON BOTREA DOWNS BOTREA DOWNS BOTREA DOWNS

PRN 10542 10540 29786 29788 4666.01 4666.02 4666.06 4666.09 4666.1 4666.8 21954.1 21954.3 21954.4 26517 28210 26126 26113 29800 29799.02 29799.03 29799.04 16031.01 28808 16031.04 28441.1 28441.2 16254.01 16254.02 30467 30585 30683 30731 30761.1 30761 30735 29758 16171.01 16171.02 16171.03 30561 30563 16208.02 16252.01 16252.02 16252.04

Civil Parish Mullion Mullion St Just St Just Newquay Newquay Newquay Newquay Newquay Newquay St Ervan Mawgan-in-Pydar Mawgan-in-Pydar St Ervan St Buryan St Wenn Withiel St Just St Just St Just St Just St Buryan St Buryan St Buryan St Just St Just Sancreed Sancreed Madron Madron Madron Zennor Zennor Zennor Zennor St Just Sancreed Sancreed Sancreed Madron Madron Sancreed Sancreed Sancreed Sancreed 145

NGR SW66501910 SW66401944 SW35523125 SW35603130 SW82006220 SW82006220 SW82006220 SW82106220 SW82106220 SW82106220 SW89826790 SW89986767 SW89946726 SW90566781 SW43862485 SW95106640 SW99006700 SW37003000 SW37393020 SW37393020 SW37393020 SW41252733 SW41202740 SW41152733 SW35792982 SW35782982 SW40413097 SW40423095 SW43113421 SW43003300 SW43433511 SW43553653 SW44093672 SW44093673 SW43503597 SW38533210 SW41383130 SW41433128 SW41413129 SW44213060 SW44503051 SW41003262 SW40333107 SW40313133 SW40313121

Andy M Jones

BRADDOCK DOWN BRANE BUSVARGUS CAIRN CLOSE CAPE CORNWALL CAPE CORNWALL CARGURRA CARLOGGAS DOWNS CARLOGGAS DOWNS CARLOGGAS DOWNS CARN CARN CREIS CARN CREIS CARN ENTRAL CARN GLUZE CARN KIEF CARN MARTH CARN VRES CARNE CARNE BEACON CARNEWAS CARNEWAS CARNON DOWNS CARTHAMARTHA WOOD CARVINACK CASTLE AN DINAS CASTLE HILL CASTLE HILL CATACLEWS CATACLEWS CATACLEWS CATACLEWS CATACLEWS CATACLEWS CHAPEL CARN BREA CHAPEL CARN BREA CHAPEL CARN BREA CHARLESTOWN CHARLESTOWN CHEESEWRING CHYCARNE CHYCARNE CHYCARNE CHYSAUSTER CLAHAR GARDEN CLITTERS COCKSBARROW COLLIFORD CRII COLLIFORD CRIII COLLIFORD CRIVA COLLIFORD CRIVB COLLIFORD CRIVC COLROGER CONQUER DOWNS COTNA CREAN CREAN CREEG MEAR BARROW CRIG-A-MENNIS CROUSA DOWNS CROUSA DOWNS

6681.02 28663 29770 4594 29780 29780 639.1 20012.1 20012.11 20012.12 30604 28442 28443 35189 29812 19518 19314 29781 30818 22827 21981.1 21981.3 9029 6967 19211.1 21604 21256.04 21218 21710.11 21710.2 21710.4 21710.5 21710.6 21710.7 16073.01 16073.02 16073.03 20341.11 20341.9 1447 16080 16082 16083 36006 28030 1059 19828 1785 1802.1 1784.1 1784.2 1784.3 10660 31508 24136.1 28272 28273 19530 19540.4 10944 10944

Broadoak Sancreed St Just Newquay St Just St Just St Juliot Treverbyn Treverbyn Treverbyn Morvah St Just St Just Camborne St Just Perranzabuloe Lanner St Just Morvah Veryan St Eval St Eval Feock Lezant Kenwyn St Columb Major Luxulyan Luxulyan St Merryn St Merryn St Merryn St Merryn St Merryn St Merryn St Just St Just St Just St Austell St Austell Linkinhorne St Just St Just St Just Madron Muillion North Hill Treverbyn St Neot St Neot St Neot St Neot St Neot Mullion Towednack St Goran St Buryan St Buryan Perranzabuloe Perranzabuloe St Keverne St Keverne

146

SX13986338 SW40252905 SW37903160 SW81186100 SW35303180 SW35303180 SX13309170 SX01715659 SX01735657 SX01755656 SW41003400 SW35772969 SW35762966 SW66003900 SW35503120 SW78545286 SW71004000 SW38643222 SW40003500 SW91263863 SW85706900 SW85706900 SW79614039 SX37577844 SW77484865 SW94566233 SX02976288 SX03186269 SW87007600 SW87167611 SW87167611 SW87017605 SW86947605 SW87007600 SW38582802 SW38582802 SW38592807 SX03095227 SX03305224 SX26007100 SW38322812 SW38392842 SW38002800 SW47173538 SW69702010 SX24147821 SW98505630 SX17927131 SX17937147 SX17697109 SX17697108 SX17687107 SW68151821 SW46993611 SW99944280 SW38692447 SW38692447 SW77185174 SW75735281 SW76801901 SW76801900

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

CROWDY RESERVOIR DAVIDSTOW MOOR 1 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 11 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 14 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 16 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 17 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 2 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 22 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 3 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 3A DAVIDSTOW MOOR 4 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 4A DAVIDSTOW MOOR 7 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 8 DENZELL DOWN EAST TREVELGUE EMBLANCE DOWNS ESCALLS FORE DOWNS GILLAN COVE GLENDORGAL GOONLAZE DOWNS GOONORMAN DOWNS GOONORMAN DOWNS GWALLON DOWNS GWITHIAN TOWANS GWITHIAN, SITE GM/V GWITHIAN, SITE GM/X GWITHIAN, SITE GM/X HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARROWBARROW HAWKSTOR DOWNS HENSBARROW DOWNS HIGHER DRAYNES HIGHER PREDANNACK HIGHGATE HORSEPOOL HUDDER DOWNS HUDDER DOWNS HURLINGBARROW HUSTYN LADY DOWNS LAMBOURNE DOWNS LELLISSICK LIGGER POINT LIGGER POINT LIGGER POINT LITTLE GAVERIGAN LOUSEY LOWER CHYOON MAYON MAYON MAYON CLIFF MAYON CLIFF MOILES BARROW MULFRA HILL NANCEKUKE

3373 2245.1 2246.2 2356.1 2246.2 2246.1 3533 57077 2245.2 2245.2 2356.2 2356.3 3532 2245.3 21954.2 4654.1 1931 28466 1505 24499 4651 19410.1 18226.01 18226.02 20338.3 37005 37053 37055.26 37055.27 21703 21705 21749 32093 21769 0 1971 19844 1486 10563 0 29548.03 26580 26581 19073 26094 1747 19533 26378 19682.2 19682.3 19682.5 0 607 29776 28536 28576 16007 16008 6684.01 30896 25021

Advent SX14018342 Davidstow SX14388554 Davidstow SX14928462 Davidstow SX15038515 Davidstow SX14168604 Davidstow SX14168604 Davidstow SX15608480 Davidstow SX14208668 Davidstow SX14558547 Davidstow SX14558547 Davidstow SX15208509 Davidstow SX15348515 Davidstow SX15288496 Davidstow SX14638540 St Ervan SW89916782 Newquay SW83406374 St Breward SX13107699 Sennen SW36222722 St Cleer SX27966918 St Anthony-in-Meneage SW78742525 Newquay SW82496274 St Agnes SW73005000 Stithians SW74953569 Stithians SW74953569 St Austell SX03905230 Gwinear-Gwithian SW55704120 Camborne SW59004225 Camborne SW59004230 Camborne SW59004230 St Merryn SW87677542 St Merryn SW87377556 St Merryn SW87457550 St Merryn SW87707442 St Merryn SW87697543 Calstock SX39756982 Blisland SX14437521 Roche SW99135745 St Neot SX20966939 Mullion SW68661695 St Enoder SW92445915 Gwinear-Gwithian SW60183939 Camborne SW60654305 Camborne SW60824293 St Agnes SW72734870 St Breock SX00406830 Towednack SW47003600 Perranzabuloe SW76005100 Padstow SW90607750 Perranzabuloe SW75855805 Perranzabuloe SW75885805 Perranzabuloe SW75955801 St Enoder SW92485911 St Juliot SX13439320 St Just SW37803120 Sennen SW35202588 Sennen SW35002500 Sennen SW34872608 Sennen SW34992606 St Winnow SX12286162 Madron SW45183547 Portreath SW67654627

147

Andy M Jones

NEWTRAIN BAY NEWTRAIN BAY NUMPHRA OTTERHAM PELYNT PENGWINION PENNATILLIE POLHENDRA PORTHCURNO PORTHERAS COMMON REDGATE RESKAJEAGE DOWNS RIDGE BARROW RILLATON BARROW ROSCARROCK ROCHE ROSECARE VILLA ROSECLISTON ROSEMORRAN ROSEMULLION HEAD ROSMODRESS ROSMODRESS RUSHYFORD GATE RUSHYFORD GATE SANCREED SANCREED BEACON SANCREED BEACON SHEPHERDS SMALLACOOMBE DOWNS ST BREOCK DOWNS ST ENODOC ST EVAL AIRFIELD STANNON DOWN 1 STANNON DOWN 2 STANNON DOWN 3 TICHBARROW TICHBARROW BEACON TRANNACK TREDINNEY TREEN COMMON TREEN COMMON TREEN COMMON TREGAWNE MANOR TREGESEAL TREGIFFIAN TREGIFFIAN TREGIFFIAN TREGULLAND TRELAN 2 TRELIGGA 1 TRELIGGA 3 TRELIGGA 2 TRELIGGA 4 TRELIGGA 5 TRELIGGA 6 TRELIGGA 7 TRELISKE TRELISKE TRELISKE TRELISKE TRELISKE

21743 21744 28452.2 738.1 57404 28033 26573 22713 28298 29715 17289 26598.06 1037 1403 26305 19867 739.2 25066 31672 24484 28202 28218 1057.1 1057.2 0 16067.01 16067.03 26038 1060 26128 26385 21952.1 0 0 0 2230.1 2228.1 30587 28456 30691.3 30691.2 30691.1 26112 29757 28469 27194 43032442 2424 10720 23040.1 23040.2 23040.3 23040.4 23040.5 23040.6 23040.7 19231.1 19231.2 19231.3 19231.4 19231.5

Padstow Padstow St Just Otterham Pelynt Gunwalloe St Columb Major St Just-in-Roseland St Levan St Just St Cleer Camborne North Hill Linkinhorne St Endellion Roche Jacobstow Cubert Madron Mawnan St Buryan St Buryan Altarnun Altarnun Sancreed Sancreed Sancreed Lanivet St Cleer St Breock St Minver Lowlands St Eval St Breward St Breward St Breward Davidstow Lesnewth Madron St Buryan Zennor Zennor Zennor Withiel St Just St Just St Buryan St Buryan Treneglos St Keverne Tintagel Tintagel Tintagel Tintagel Tintagel Tintagel Tintagel Kenwyn Kenwyn Kenwyn Kenwyn Kenwyn

148

SW88747578 SW88747578 SW37962965 SX17369413 SX200500 SW65352115 SW91006700 SW86063617 SW38782260 SW39153327 SX22806860 SW62024241 SX24337785 SX26017191 SW98008000 SW98205980 SX17869477 SW81405930 SW47663260 SW79502790 SW43352458 SW43272469 SX22347634 SX22357633 SW41002900 SW41432949 SW41342931 SX02446708 SX22887570 SW96006800 SW93007650 SW86886857 SX13448101 SX14448102 SX13408095 SX14678811 SX14708850 SW41003000 SW39222846 SW44533633 SW44523638 SW44493647 SW99966713 SW38053214 SW37252773 SW43112433 SW43032442 SX20018674 SW73411928 SX0443’8573 SX04508559 SX04498557 SX04538556 SX04538552 SX04568537 SX04318537 SW79864507 SW79884506 SW79864509 SW79864511 SW79864513

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

TRELISKE TRELISKE TRELISKE TRELISKE TRELOWARREN TRELOWTHAS TRENANCE DOWNS TRENCREEK TRESVENNECK TRETHILL TREVEDRA TREVEDRA TREVEDRA TREVELGUE HEAD TREVELLAS DOWNS TREVELLOE TREVOSE TREWAVAS HEAD TREWEY TREWINNARD TREWORRICK TREWORTHA MARSH TREWRICKLE BEACON TRUTHWALL COMMON TRUTHWALL COMMON TRUTHWALL COMMON TRY WALLABARROW WATCH CROFT WATCH CROFT WATCH HILL WEST TREVELGUE WHITESAND BAY WOOLLEY

19231.6 19231.7 19231.8 19231.9 24695 55131 20638 24266.1 28706 6342.1 28472 28473 28476 4125 19401 28781 21740 29250 16223 29064 24157.1 1018 6329 16127.03 16127.04 16127.05 31514 1405 30668 30674 20637.3 4654 28578 56.02

Kenwyn SW79874516 Kenwyn SW79874518 Kenwyn SW79894519 Kenwyn SW79894519 Mawgan-in-Meneage SW71552391 Probus SW88654659 Treverbyn SW99985461 Grampound-with-Creed SW96244843 Paul SW44262793 Sheviock SX37605460 St Just SW37432734 St Just SW37442729 St Just SW37572732 Newquay SW82856309 St Agnes SW73415224 Paul SW44702616 St Merryn SW80007000 Breage SW59832646 Zennor SW46603708 St Erth SW54603400 St Ewe SW97504450 St Cleer SX22587617 Sheviock SX35185432 St Just SW38863253 St Just SW38823245 St Just SW38913258 Madron SW45973498 St Cleer SX25237103 Morvah SW41883549 Morvah SW42063572 St Stephen-in-Brannel SW97275424 West Trevelgue SW83366372 Sennen SW35002700 Morwenstow SS26191653

Appendix 2: Barrows containing pottery NAME ANGROUSE ANGROUSE CLIFF BALLOWALL BALLOWALL BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BEARS DOWN BOLEIGH BORSNEEVAS BOSAVERN BOSAVERN ROS BOSCAWEN-UN BOSCAWEN-UN BOSCREGAN

PRN 10542 10540 29786 29788 4666.01 4666.06 4666.09 4666.1 4666.8 21954.4 28210 26113 29800 29799.04 28808 16031.04 28441.1

BOSENCE BOSENCE

16254.01 16254.02

Pottery Fragments of a Trevisker urn Trevisker urn Pottery Pottery sherds were found within the mound A Bronze Age Food Vessel Fragments of an urn Five urns were discovered 2 urns were found Four urns were found. Three urns were broken, but the fourth is preserved A Collared urn was found An urn An urn An urn was recovered It contained three urns Finds of pottery were made Trevisker urn found together with a smaller complete urn Ten deposits of pottery were found including two Bronze Age Trevisker urns and a food Vessel An urn? An urn? 149

Andy M Jones

BOSILIACK 30467 BOSKEDNAN 30683 BOSPORTHENNIS 30761.1 BOSPORTHENNNIS 30735 BOSTRAZE 29758 BOSWEDNAN 30561 BOTREA DOWNS 16252.04 BRANE 28663 BUSVARGUS 29770 CAPE CORNWALL 29780 CAPE CORNWALL 29780 CARLIDNACK 24459.1 CARLIDNACK 24459.2 CARLIDNACK 24459.3 CARLOGGAS DOWNS 20012.1 CARN 30604 CARN CREIS 28442 CARN CREIS 28443 CARN ENTRAL 35189 CARN GLUZE 29812 CARN KIEF 19518 CARN MARTH 19314 CARN VRES 29781 CARNE 30818 CARNEWAS 21981.1 CARNON DOWNS 9029 CARVINACK

19211.1

CATACLEWS 21710.11 CATACLEWS 21710.5 CATACLEWS 21710.6 CATACLEWS 21710.7 CHAPEL CARN BREA 16073.01 CHAPEL CARN BREA 16073.03 CHARLESTOWN 20341.11 CHARLESTOWN 20341.9 CHEESEWRING 1447 CHYCARNE 16080 CHYCARNE 16082 CHYCARNE 16083 CHYSAUSTER 36006 CLAHAR GARDEN 28030 COLLIFORD CRIVC 1784.3 COLROGER 10660 CONQUER DOWNS 31508 COTNA 24136.1 CREAN 28273 CREEG MEAR BARROW 19530 CRIG-A-MENNIS 19540.4 CROUSA DOWNS 10944 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 1 2245.1 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 16 2246.2 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 2 3533 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 22 57077 DEAN QUARRY DENZELL DOWN ESCALLS FORE DOWNS

28005 21954.2 28466 1505

‘West Cornish Late Neolithic or co-Beaker coarse ware’? Fragments of an urn found Two Trevisker urns An urn was found An urn was found An urn was found An urn was found Collared urn was found An urn was found An urn was found; Trevisker ware? An urn was found. Pottery sherds found in field where it stood Pottery sherds found in field where it stood Pottery sherds found in field where it stood A single sherd of pottery was found. An urn was found. Sherds of two pottery vessels were found. Trevisker vessels were found. Pottery found here 1 small piece of pottery Pottery may have been recovered. Possible urn. An urn was found Fragment of an urn was found. A pottery vessel was found. One sherd of Bronze Age pottery was found. A small Bronze Age vessel was also found. Sherds of several urns were found, including Food Vessels a Beaker and Trevisker A Food Vessel A Food Vessel may have come from here. Sherds of Trevisker? and Food Vessels? were found A Collared urn and a Food Vessel An urn was found Pottery was recovered Urn possibly found here An urn was found Trevisker urn Said to contain 50 urns?. A Trevisker urn, formed the main deposit An urn was found? 3 Trevisker urns Trevisker ware It probably contained four Trevisker urns A ‘pygmy cup’ pottery vessel (of Collared urn tradition) 2 Food Vessels type and one Collared urn, were found A Trevisker urn 5 urns were excavated. Pottery (probably Trevisker) and a Beaker Nine urns ‘of very rough pottery’ A miniature vessel and two Trevisker urns Fragments of a large Trevisker urn, fragments of another, as well as smaller sherds of cord impressed wares and incised sherds. 2 Trevisker sherds from on top of the mound, plus 2 sherds of a plain pot A Trevisker urn was recovered A Collared urn Grooved Ware pottery, a Beaker from a central pit and sherds from two other plain pots Bronze Age urn A miniature handled Beaker was found A Trevisker urn and sherds of pottery A Trevisker urn

150

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

GILLAN COVE GLENDORGAL GOONLAZE DOWNS GOONORMAN DOWNS GOONORMAN DOWNS GWITHIAN TOWANS HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARROWBARROW HIGHER PREDANNACK HIGHGATE HORSEPOOL HUDDER DOWNS HUDDER DOWNS HURLINGBARROW HUSTYN

24499 4651 19410.1 18226.01 18226.02 37005 21703 21705 21749 32093 0 10563 0 29548.03 26580 26581 19073 26094

LADY DOWNS LAMBOURNE DOWNS

1747 19533

LELLISSICK LIGGER POINT LIGGER POINT LIGGER POINT LITTLE GAVERIGAN LOUSEY LOWER CHYOON

26378 19682.2 19682.3 19682.5 0 607 29776

MAYON MAYON CLIFF NANCEKUKE NEWTRAIN BAY NEWTRAIN BAY NUMPHRA PENDEEN PENGWINION PENNATILLIE POLHENDRA PORTHCURNO RILLATON BARROW ROSCARROCK ROSECLISTON ROSEMORRAN ROSEMULLION HEAD ROSMODRESS ROSMODRESS SANCREED SANCREED BEACON SHEPHERDS SKYBURRIOWE ST BREOCK DOWNS ST EVAL AIRFIELD STANNON DOWN 2 STANNON DOWN 3 TICHBARROW TRANNACK

28536 16008 25021 21743 21744 28452.2 29851 28033 26573 22713 28298 1403 26305 25066 31672 24484 28202 28218 0 16067.01 26038 24672 26128 21952.1 0 0 2230.1 30587

TREDINNEY TREEN COMMON

28456 30691.3

The probable find spot of an urn A Trevisker urn An urn was found An urn was probably found An urn was possibly found here A Food vessel Trevisker urn Trevisker urn Trevisker urn Trevisker urn Beaker was found A Trevisker urn A Collared urn Collared urn was found in the barrow An urn was found Associated with Bronze Age pottery An urn was found. The Trevisker? urn and a sherd of pottery harder than the urn were found. Several fragments of ‘rude pottery’. Urns made of ‘rough clay’. Also found at the site were two small drinking cups of similar clay, with several handles A Bronze Age urn was found. An urn was found? An urn was found? A Trevisker? urn was found here. Upper part of a Collared urn and an accessory vessel Sherds of two Beakers, were found In ‘the first barrow there were 5 sepulchral urns, 4 of which had been crushed’. The surviving urn Is Trevisker pottery A large urn was found An urn was found Pieces of pottery ‘of Bronze Age fabric’ were found Grooved Ware pottery sherds were found Quarter of a Grooved Ware pottery vessel was found An urn was found? Pottery was found in some of the mounds at Pendeen An urn was found? An urn was found A Food Vessel and a Trevisker urn were found An urn was found An urn was found Found to contain fragments of ‘coarse pottery’ Trevisker vessel 3 urns were found Pottery excavated from site? An urn was found A urn was found? A Beaker was found with burnt ashes Fragments of a pottery vessel were found A ribbon-handled Trevisker? urn A pottery sherd was found An urn was found Only two sherds of pottery two were found A single sherd of pottery A Trevisker urn containing cremated bone 41 sherds of pottery 2 Collared Urns, one inside the other. Found with two or three other urns? A Trevisker urn and flints. The urn had no base An urn was excavated from this barrow

151

Andy M Jones

TREGESEAL TREGIFFIAN TREGIFFIAN TREGIFFIAN TREGULLAND TRELAN 2 TRELIGGA 1 TRELIGGA 2 TRELIGGA 5 TRELIGGA 7 TRELOWTHAS TRENCREEK TRESVENNECK TREVEDRA TREVEDRA TREVEDRA TREVELLAS DOWNS TREVELLOE TREVOSE TREWINNARD TREWORRICK TREWORTHA MARSH TREWRICKLE BEACON TRUTHWALL COMMON TRUTHWALL COMMON TRUTHWALL COMMON TRY

29757 28469 27194 43032442 2424 10720 23040.1 23040.3 23040.5 23040.7 55131 24266.1 28706 28472 28473 28476 19401 28781 21740 29064 24157.1 1018 6329 16127.03 16127.04 16127.05 31514

WATCH CROFT WATCH CROFT WATCH HILL

30668 30674 20637.3

A Trevisker urn in the cist A Trevisker? urn A Beaker Collared urn and another vessel found in a pit Food Vessel was found A small biconical urn with lugs was found Base of an urn, flint, a holed stone A Trevisker urn A handled biconical cup. An undecorated Food Vessel Several small urns and groups of fragmentary Trevisker pottery An urn was found Two Collared urns were found Sherds of pottery were found An urn was found A Beaker was found Early Bronze Age pottery Two Trevisker urns An urn was found A Trevisker urn was found A Food Vessel Contained probable medieval ceramics, and ashes Two sherds of probable Bronze Age pottery Urns possibly came from this site Urns may have been out of this site Urns may have possibly come from this barrow Handled Beaker vessel and other sherds of Beaker and Trevisker Ware were found Trevisker? urn Fragments of pottery were discovered? An enlarged Food Vessel was also found

Appendix 3: Barrows containing copper alloy objects NAME ANGROUSE BOSCAWEN-UN CARLOGGAS DOWNS FORE DOWNS HARLYN BAY

PRN 10542 16031.01 20012.1 1505 21703

HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HIGHGATE PELYNT PENNATILLIE RILLATON BARROW

21705 21708 32093 0 57404 26573 1403

ROCHE

19867

ROSECLISTON TRELIGGA 1 TRELOWARREN WOOLLEY

25066 23040.1 24695 56.02

Copper Alloy Object A copper alloy dagger Rivets from a copper alloy dagger Parts of a copper alloy dagger of Camerton-Snowshill type A copper alloy Knife dagger and flints A copper alloy dagger of Camerton-Snowshill type and a copper alloy awl 3 copper alloy pins A flat copper alloy axe A small copper alloy tag A copper alloy awl Damaged copper alloy dagger of Camerton-Snowshill type A copper alloy dagger and ‘spearhead’ A copper alloy dagger of Camerton-Snowshill type, a bronze rivet was also found A number of copper alloy items were found, described as ‘pickaxes and spearheads’ A copper alloy Knife dagger with two widely spaced rivets A copper alloy awl/pin Three bits of thin copper alloy metal thought to be a dagger ‘Fine plaster like material possibly used as a backing for some flat metal object’ (copper alloy?)

152

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Appendix 4: Barrows containing gold NAME CARGURRA CARNE BEACON GWITHIAN HARLYN BAY RILLATON BARROW WOOLLEY

PRN 639.1 22827 37040 21708 1403 56.02

Gold Gold lunula ‘A piece of gold with figures on it’ Gold lunula Two gold lunulae A gold cup Tradition tells of ‘gold from the barrow’

Appendix 5: Barrows containing beads NAME PRN BALLOWALL 29786 CARLOGGAS DOWNS 20012.1 CARN CREIS 28443 CHYSAUSTER 36006 CRIG-A-MENNIS 19540.4 HARLYN BAY 21705 RILLATON BARROW 1403 TRELOWTHAS 55131

Bead A possible stone bead A stone bead 12 faience beads and cremated bone and ashes An amber bead 4 clay beads Some blue beads were found A few beads were found 2 faience beads

Appendix 6: Barrows containing amber (excluding beads) NAME CARLOGGAS DOWNS WOOLLEY

PRN 20012.1 56.02

Amber Amber object possibly a pendant An amber pin head

Appendix 7: Barrows containing inhumation deposits NAME BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BOSAVERN ROS BOTREA DOWNS

PRN 4666.02 4666.1 29799.03 16252.02

CARGURRA CARTHAMARTHA WOOD EAST TREVELGUE

639.1 6967 4654.1

GWITHIAN, SITE GM/V HIGHER DRAYNES LOUSEY POLHENDRA

37053 1486 607 22713

RILLATON BARROW

1403

STANNON DOWN 2 TICHBARROW BEACON TREGIFFIAN TRELOWTHAS

0 2228.1 27194 55131

TRETHILL WATCH HILL

6342.1 20637.3

Inhumation Human bone (inhumation burial) An inhumation burial, covered by a large flat stone Inhumation burial; an extended male skeleton in a cist Possible inhumation burial in a cist. Two barbed and tanged arrowheads were recovered but no bone Human bone from an inhumation burial was found A cist, within contained a crouched inhumation burial A burial, consisting of a deposit of cremated bones and an inhumation burial Inhumation? Empty elongated central pit may have held an inhumation Cremated bone and inhumation burials were found Four fragments of unburnt human bone (token inhumation) and cremated bone An extended inhumation burial was found in a secondary chamber in the barrow An Empty pit may have held an inhumation An inhumation burial Empty cist may have held an inhumation The cist contained cremated bone and an empty elongated central pit may have held an inhumation Inhumation burial? A central pit contained two wooden coffins cut from logs, and phosphate analysis confirmed inhumation burials

153

Andy M Jones

WEST TREVELGUE WHITESAND BAY

4654 28578

Probable contracted inhumation burial Human bones (inhumation burial?)

Appendix 8: Barrows containing cremated human bone NAME ANGROUSE ANGROUSE CLIFF BALLOWALL BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BARROWFIELDS BEARS DOWN BOLEIGH BORSNEEVAS BOSAVERN BOSAVERN ROS BOSAVERN ROS BOSCAWEN-UN BOSCAWEN-UN BOSCREGAN BOSILIACK

PRN 10542 10540 29786 4666.01 4666.09 4666.8 21954.4 28210 26113 29800 29799.02 29799.04 16031.01 16031.04 28441.1 30467

BOSPORTHENNIS CARN CREIS CARN ENTRAL CARNE BEACON

30761.1 28443 35189 22827

CARNON DOWNS CARVINACK CATACLEWS POINT

9029 19211.1 21710.2

CATACLEWS CATACLEWS CHAPEL CARN BREA CHAPEL CARN BREA CHAPEL CARN BREA CHARLESTOWN

21710.6 21710.7 16073.01 16073.02 16073.03 20341.11

CHEESEWRING CHYCARNE

1447 16080

CHYCARNE

16083

CHYSAUSTER

36006

COCKSBARROW COLLIFORD CRIVC CONQUER DOWNS CREAN CRIG-A-MENNIS DAVIDSTOW MOOR 11 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 16 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 22 DAVIDSTOW MOOR 8 DENZELL DOWN EAST TREVELGUE

19828 1784.3 31508 28273 19540.4 2246.2 2246.2 57077 2245.3 21954.2 4654.1

FORE DOWNS

1505

Object It contained cremated bone In the central pit was cremated bone and ashes Cremated human bone An urn containing cremated bone A cist containing cremated bone was found A cist containing cremated bone A Collared urn was found with cremated bone A cist containing a considerable quantity of cremated bone? Cremated bone was found within a cist An urn was recovered with cremated bone Human bones (cremated?) were found within it Cremated bone and ashes It contained cremated bone and ashes Cremated bone was found Within the inner wall cremated bone was found A partial burial of cremated bone with charcoal were found within the chamber Urns were filled with cremated bone Within the barrow was cremated bone and ashes Cremated? remains of a human body Cist contained cremated bone and charcoal. Several cremations were found around the centre of the mound Cremated bone recovered and burnt patches It contained three cremations, one of them inurned A Collared urn associated with cremated bone may be from this site Charcoal and cremated bone was found An urn was found inverted over cremated bone in a cist The cist contained cremated bone Cremated bone is recorded from this site The chamber held cremated bone Cist in which were found a number of badly degraded (cremated?) human bones Cremated bone was found A central stone-lined cist was reported around which had been deposited the pottery urns containing cremated bone Excavated cist containing 3 urns, as well as possible cremated bone A total of nine deposits of cremated bone not all accompanied with pots were found Cremated bone in a central pit with a horn ladle Cremated bone Possibly contained a Trevisker urn with cremated bone A cist a few (cremated?) bone fragments was found A tiny amount of cremated bone was found. Cremated bone Cremated human bone was recovered Cremated human bone was found in one of the central pits Some cremated bone including an adult tooth was found The barrow is said to have a central cremation burial A burial, consisting of a deposit of cremated bones and an inhumation burial was found Cremated bones of an adult

154

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

GLENDORGAL GOONLAZE DOWNS

4651 19410.1

GWITHIAN TOWANS GWITHIAN, SITE GM/X GWITHIAN, SITE GM/X HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HARLYN BAY HIGHER PREDANNACK HIGHGATE

37005 37055.26 37055.27 21703 21705 32093 21769 10563 0

HORSEPOOL HUSTYN LAMBOURNE DOWNS LANYON LANYON LELLISSICK

29548.03 26094 19533 30496 30497 26378

LOUSEY MAYON MAYON CLIFF OTTERHAM PELYNT PENGWINION

607 28536 16008 738.1 57404 28033

POLHENDRA

22713

RESKAJEAGE DOWNS RIDGE BARROW ROSECLISTON ROSEMORRAN SHEPHERDS ST ENODOC ST EVAL AIRFIELD STANNON DOWN 3 TRANNACK TREDINNEY TREGESEAL TREGIFFIAN TREGIFFIAN TREGULLAND

26598.06 1037 25066 31672 26038 26385 21952.1 0 30587 28456 29757 28469 43032442 2424

TRELIGGA 1 TRELIGGA 2 TRELIGGA 5 TRELOWARREN TRELOWTHAS

23040.1 23040.3 23040.5 24695 55131

TRENCREEK TRESVENNECK

24266.1 28706

TREVELGUE HEAD TREVELLAS DOWNS TREVOSE

4125 19401 21740

TREWINNARD TRY WOOLLEY

29064 31514 56.02

A Trevisker urn containing cremated bone was found Some charcoal and an urn containing cremated bone were found in a pit near the centre of the barrow A pottery urn was inverted over a cremated bone Cremated bone Cremated bone Cremated bone and charcoal Trevisker urn inverted over cremated bone Trevisker urn containing cremated bone and charcoal Cremated bone Trevisker urn associated with ashes and cremated bone. Central pit contained a Collared urn containing cremated bone and a copper alloy awl Cremated bone The Trevisker? urn contained small fragments of cremated bone Cremated bone It contained cremated? bone and charcoal Cremated? bone and charred wood was found An urn was excavated from a cist containing cremated human bone fragments Cremated bone and inhumation burials were found A large urn was found with pebbles, cremated bone and charcoal. Human bone (cremated?) and a pebble Fragments of cremated bone and charcoal Cremated bones were found Cist was found which contained excavated three cremated bone deposits Fragments of unburnt human bone (token inhumation) and cremated bone Cremated bone Cremated bone on the old ground surface A Trevisker urn contained a cremation deposit 3 urns containing cremated human bone were found Trevisker? urn containing a cremated bone was discovered. A small heap of cremated human bone was found with wood ash Only a small amount of cremated bone were found Trevisker urn containing cremated bone was found 2 Collared Urns contained cremated bone. A cist containing pottery; a Trevisker urn Cremated bone and a Trevisker urn in the cist Deposit of cremated bone Cremated bone was found associated with pottery A Food Vessel and cremated bone was found on the ground surface within the cairn-ring. The outer grave contained cremated bone with two arrowheads Deposit of cremated bone Deposit of cremated bone Fragments of possible cremated human bone found Cremated bone was found inside the cist The cist contained cremated bone and an empty elongated central pit may have held an inhumation An urn containing cremated? bone and ashes Two Collared urns were found upright in a pit with cremated human bone and charcoal A deposit of cremated bone was found Cremated bone A pottery vessel was in the pit, which was part filled with cremated bone A Trevisker urn containing cremated bone was found Cremated bone was found within a cist Cremated bone

155

Andy M Jones

Appendix 9: Barrows with radiocarbon dates (All dates calibrated Using OxCal 3.5 at 95% probability )

BP

CAL BC

Barrow

Sample No

Cataclews 21710.

HAR 8099

3510 ± 70

2030-1680

Chysauster 36006 Chysauster 36006 Chysauster 36006 Chysauster 36006 Chysauster 36006 Chysauster 36006 Chysauster 36006 Chysauster 36006 Chysauster 36006

OXA822 HAR6652 HAR6549 HAR6651 OXA821 HAR6654 HAR6927 HAR6926 HAR6548

3430± 80 3740± 90 3790± 120 3680± 80 3330± 80 3110± 70 3280± 120 3150± 90 3650± 80

1920-1520 2500-1900 2600-1850 2300-1750 1780-1430 1520-1210 1900-1250 1700-1100 2300-1750

Colliford CRII Colliford CRII Colliford CRIVA Colliford CRIVC Crig-a-Mennis 19540.4

HAR2624 HAR2617 HAR2994 HAR2991 NPL193

3610± 70 3500± 80 3610± 80 3580± 80 3515± 90

2150-1740 2040-1610 2040-1620 1720-1690 2150-1600

Davidstow 22 Davidstow 8 Davidstow 2 Davidstow 1 Davidstow 16

HAR 6643 HAR 6640 HAR 6635 HAR 6634 HAR 8098

4130 ± 70 3740 ± 90 3580 ± 70 3520 ± 70 3440 ± 100

2890-2550 2500-1900 2140-1740 2040-1680 2050-1500

Gwithian Site GM/X

NPL21

3070 ± 105

1600-1000

Harlyn Bay 21749

BM 2472

3460 ± 70

1950-1600

Nancecuke 25021

HAR 8097

3550 ± 80

2060-1680

Stannon 2

HAR5130

3440± 70

1880-1520

Tregiffian 43032442

BM935

3489 ± 59

1960-1680

Trelan 2 Trelan 2 Trelan 2

HAR 5280 HAR 4540 HAR 5510

3970 ± 120 3740 ± 110 3330 ± 120

2900-2100 2500-1750 1950-1300

Treligga 2

HAR 8100

3380 ± 80

1890-1490

Trelowthas Trelowthas Trelowthas Trelowthas

AA29735 AA29736 AA29733 AA29734

3665 ± 65 3530 ± 50 2895 ± 55 3435 ± 50

2210-1870 1980-1730 1260-910 1890-1610

3653 ± 45 3470 ± 70 3420 ± 80 3474 ± 45 3651 ± 43 3532 ± 48

2140-1880 1980-1600 1920-1620 1920-1680 2140-1880 1980-1730

Watch Hill 20637.3 Watch Hill 20637.3 Watch Hill 20637.3 Watch Hill 20637.3 Watch Hill 20637.3 Watch Hill 20637.3

WK12937 HAR 654 HAR 655 WK12936 WK12938 WK12940

156

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Appendix 10: Lists of terminology List of terms relating to fieldwork

TERM

USAGE

Barrow

Generic term used for earth, stone or composite monument, defined by a mound, platform, kerb or low bank. Includes simple barrow site and cairns as well as complex sites including ring-cairns, tor cairns, kerb cairns, platform barrows and boulder cairns.

Bowl Barrow

Simple earthen mound, which may cover earlier structural features including cairn-rings, post-rings and stake-circles, etc.

Enclosure Barrow

Earthen rings which enclose a circular space.

Cornish V ariant Pond Barrow

Circular, sunken sites which are found on Davidstow Moor (Sites 3a, 4a and 7).

Cairn

Term used for stony monuments including: ring-cairns, tor cairns, kerb cairns, platform barrows and boulder cairns.

Ring-cairn

Simple stony-rings, which occasionally encircle a central mound, or have had their centres filled in flush with the level of the ring-bank.

Platform Cairn

Large, low, flat platforms which sometimes demarcate a central open area.

K erbed Cairn

Low cairn with a substantial kerb around it.

Embanked Stone Circle

Low circular bank with orthostats embedded into it.

Cemetery

Groups of 'barrows' as distinct from stone circles, etc., which are distinguishable from other cemeteries and Groupings, by their topographical siting (e.g. on ridge), or their close proximity to one another.

G rouping*

Groups of various monuments, which can include barrows, stone circles, stone rows, standing stones and henges. A collection of Groupings which combine to form the broader 'ceremonial' landscape.

System*

Note * Denotes term created for this study

157

Andy M Jones

List of terms relating to burials

TERM

USAGE

Inhumation

Act of burial involving an articulated unburnt body. In the absence of surviving bone, evidence takes the form of coffins or pits/grave cuts which were large enough to hold a body.

Cremation burial

Act of burial involving the individual/s in the form of burnt bone. Includes deposits with a weight of 902gm to 2747gm which are likely to represent most of an individual Small deposit of burnt bone under 907gm which may not always directly relate to a formal act of burial.

Partial cremation deposit Secondary burial

Act involving the insertion of a burial into a site which contains a primary burial.

Satellite burial

Act involving the placing of a burial in a peripheral location to a central primary burial.

G rave good

Artefact accompanying deceased individual at the time of burial.

Ritual

Religious acts which occurred at barrow sites.

Ceremonial sites

Places of public gatherings, where ritual acts took place.

Funerary rites

Ritual acts at the barrow site associated with death.

Mourner

Person attending a funerary ritual.

A ncestor worship

Veneration of deceased actual and/or mythological kin.

Structured deposition

Intentional act of burying artefacts and other deposits within pits and ditches, etc.

158

Bibliography

monuments, Thames and Hudson, London, 111-124. Atkinson, R.J.C., Brailsford, J.W., and Wakefield, H.G., 1951. ‘A Pond Barrow at Winterbourne Steepleton, Dorset’, Archaeological Journal 58, 1-24. Bailey, C.J., 1980. ‘The Excavation of Three Round Barrows in the Parish of Kingston Russell’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 102, 1932. Balaam, N.D., Smith, K., and Wainwright, G., 1982. ‘The Shaugh Moor Project: Fourth Report environment, context and conclusion’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48, 203-278. Bamford, H., 1982. Beaker Domestic Sites in the Fen Edge and East Anglia, East Anglian Report No.16, Norfolk Archaeology Unit, Dereham. Barber, M., 2003. Bronze And the Bronze Age, Tempus, Stroud. Barclay, A., Gray, M., and Lambrick, G., 1995. Excavations at the Devil’s Quoits Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire 1972-3 and 1988, Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford. Barclay, A., and Halpin, C., 1999. Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford. Barclay, A., and Harding, J., 1999. Pathways and Ceremonies, The cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland, Oxbow Books, Oxford. Barclay, G., 1983. ‘Sites of the third millennium to first millennium AD at North Mains, Strathallen, Perthshire, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 113, 122281. Barclay, G., 2000. ‘Between Orkney and Wessex: the Search for the Regional Neolithic of Britain’, in Ritchie, A., (ed.), Orkney in its European Context, McDonald Institute, Oxford, 275-286. Barclay, G., 2001. ‘Metropolitan’ and ‘parochial’/‘Core’ and Periphery’: a Histography of the Neolithic of Scotland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 67, 1-18. Barclay, G., and Russell-White, C., 1993. ‘Excavations in the ceremonial complex of the fourth to second millennium BC at Balfarg/Balbirnie, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123, 43-210. Barker, C., 1992. The Chambered Tombs of South-West Wales, Oxbow, Oxford. Baring-Gould, S., 1900. A Book of Dartmoor, Methuen, London. Barnatt, J., 1980. ‘Lesser Known Stone Circles in Cornwall’, Cornish Archaeology 19, 18-30. Barnatt, J., 1982. Prehistoric Cornwall- The Ceremonial Monuments, Turnstone, Wellinborough. Barnatt, J., 1989. Stone Circles of Britain, BAR British Series 215, Oxford. Barnatt, J., 1990. The Henges, Stone Circles and Ring Cairns of the Peak District, University of Sheffield Press, Sheffield. Barnatt, J., 1998. ‘Monuments in the Landscape: Thoughts from the Peak’, in Gibson, A., and Simpson, D., (eds.), Prehistoric Religion and Ritual, Sutton, Stroud, 92-105. Barnatt, J., 1999. ‘Taming the Land: Peak District Farming and Ritual in the Bronze Age’, Derbyshire Archaeology Journal 119, 19-78.

Abercromby J., 1902. ‘The Oldest Bronze Age Ceramic Type in Britain; Its Closest Analogies on the Rhine; Its probable Origin in Central Europe’, Journal of the Anthropological Institute 32, 373-397. Abercromby J., 1912. Bronze Age Pottery of Britain and Ireland, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Aerts, A.T., Brindley, A.L., Lanting, J.N., and Van Der Plight, J., 2001. ‘Radiocarbon dates on cremated bone from Sanaigmhor Warren, Islay’, Antiquity 289, 485-486. Allcroft, A., 1908. Earthwork of England, Macmillan and Co, London. Allen, M., and Green, M., 1998. ‘Fir Tree Field Shaft: the Date and Archaeological and Palaeoenvironmental Potential of a Chalk Swallowhole Feature’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 120, 2538. Anon. 1998. ‘Stanton Drew Stone Circles’, Archaeology Southwest 1, 20-24. Annable, F., and Simpson, D., 1964. Guide Catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age Collections in Devizes Museum, The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Devizes. Appadurai, A., 1986. The social life of things, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ApSimon, A., 1973. ‘Tregiffian Barrow’, Archaeological Journal 130, 241-243. ApSimon, A, and Greenfield, E., 1972. ‘The excavation of the Bronze Age and Iron Age Settlement at Trevisker Round, St.Eval, Cornwall’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 302-381. Arango, M.E., and Andoque, F., 1999, ‘Managing the World: territorial negotiations among the Andoque people of the Colombian Amazon’, in Ucko, P., and Layton, R., (eds.), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, Routledge, London, 240-253. Ashbee, P., 1958. ‘The excavation of the Tregulland barrow, Treneglos parish, Cornwall’, Antiquaries Journal 38, 174-196. Ashbee, P., 1960. The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain, Phoenix House, London. Ashbee, P., 1970. The Earthen Long Barrow in Britain, Dent, London. Ashbee, P., 1974. Ancient Scilly, David and Charles, Newton Abbot. Ashbee, P., 1976. ‘Bants Carn, St.Mary’s, Isles of Scilly: An Entrance Grave Restored and Reconsidered’, Cornish Archaeology 15, 11-26. Ashbee, P., 1977. ‘The Gold Cups from Rillaton, Fritzdorf and Eschenz’, Cornish Archaeology 21, 157-159. Ashbee, P., 1981. ‘Amesbury Barrow 39: Excavations 1960’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 74/75, 3-34. Ashbee, P., 1984. ‘The Excavation of Amesbury Barrows 58, 61a, 61, and 71’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 79, 39-91. Atkinson, R.J.C., 1976. ‘Lukis, Dryden and the Carnac Megaliths’, in Megaw, J.V.S., (ed.), To illustrate the 159

Andy M Jones

Landscape’, European Journal of Archaeology, 3 (2), 188216, London. Boast, R., 1995. ‘Fine Pots, Pure Pots, Beaker Pots’, in Kinnes, I., and Varnell, G., (eds.), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’, Oxbow Monograph 55, Oxford, 69-80. Boast, R., 2002. ‘Pots as Categories: British Beakers’, in Woodward, A., and Hill, J.D., (eds.), Prehistoric Britain, The Ceramic Basis, Oxbow, Oxford, 96-105. Bonnington, P., 1999. Cemetery Mounds in Western Britain; with Particular Reference to Anglesey and West Penwith, Unpublished BA Dissertation, University of Exeter. Borlase, W., 1769. Antiquities Historical and Monumental of the County of Cornwall, EP edition 1973. Borlase, W.C., 1872. Naenia Cornubiae, London. Borlase, W.C., 1879. ‘Archaeological Discoveries made in the Parishes of St.Just in Penwith and Sennen’, Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall 6, 190-213. Borlase, W.C., 1885. ‘typical specimens of Cornish Barrows’, Archaeologia 49, 1-17. Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bousfield, P., and Bousfield, S., 1952. ‘Late Bronze Age Burial at St.Just in Roseland’, Journal of the Royal Institution Cornwall, 1 part 2, 130-140. Bradley, R., 1975. ‘Maumbury Rings, Dorchester: The Excavation of 1908-1913’, Archaeologia CV, 1-98. Bradley, R., 1984. The Social foundations of Prehistoric Britain, Longman, Harlow. Bradley, R., 1990. The Passage of Arms, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bradley, R., 1991a. ‘Ritual, time and history’, World Archaeology 23 part 2, 209-219. Bradley, R., 1991b. ‘Monuments and Places’, in Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., and Toms, J., (eds.), Sacred and Profane, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford, 135-140. Bradley, R., 1992. ‘Turning the World Rock carvings and the Archaeology of Death’, in Sharples, N., and Sheridan, A., (eds.), Vessels for the Ancestors, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, 168-176. Bradley, R., 1993. Altering the Earth, Edinburgh. Bradley, R., 1996. ‘Ancient landscapes and the modern public’, in Morgan Evans, D., Salway, P., and Thackray, D., (eds.), The Remains of Distant Things, Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 38-46. Bradley, R., 1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe, Routledge, London. Bradley, R., 1998a. The Significance of Monuments, Routledge, London. Bradley, R., 1998b. ‘Stone Circles and Passage Graves a Contested Relationship’, in Gibson, A., and Simpson, D., (eds.), Prehistoric Religion and Ritual, Sutton, Stroud, 213. Bradley, R., 1998c. ‘Ruined buildings, ruined stones: enclosures, tombs and natural places in the Neolithic of south-west England’, World Archaeology 30 part 1, 13-22. Bradley, R., 2000a. An Archaeology of Natural Places, Routledge, London. Bradley, R., 2000b. The Good Stones, Edinburgh. Bradley, R., 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies, Routledge, London.

Barrett, J., 1985. ‘Hoards and related metalwork’, in Clarke, D.V., Cowie, T.G., and Foxon, A., (eds.), Symbols of Power at the Time of Stonehenge, National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, Edinburgh, 95-106. Barrett, J., 1988. ‘The living, the dead, and the ancestors: Neolithic and early Bronze Age mortuary practices’, in Barrett, J., and Kinnes, I., (ed.), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends, University of Sheffield Press, Sheffield, 30-41. Barrett, J., 1990. ‘The Monumentality of death: the character of Early Bronze Age mortuary mounds in southern Britain’, World Archaeology 22, part 2179-189. Barrett, J., 1991. ‘Towards an Archaeology of Ritual’, in Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., and Toms, J., (eds.), Sacred and Profane, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford, 1-9. Barrett, J., 1994. Fragments From Antiquity, Blackwell, Oxford. Barrett, J., 1999. ‘The Mythical Landscapes of the British Iron Age’, in Ashmore, W., and Knapp, A.B., (eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape, Blackwell, Oxford, 253-268. Barrett, J., Bradley, R., and Green, M., 1991a. Landscape, Monuments and Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barrett, J., Bradley, R., and Hall, M., 1991b. Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranborne Chase, Oxbow, Oxford. Beck, H.C., and Stone, J.F.S., 1935. ‘Faience Beads of the British Bronze Age’, Archaeologia 85, 203-252. Beckensall, S., 1999. British Prehistoric Rock Art, Tempus, Stroud. Bell, C., 1992. Ritual; perspectives and dimensions. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bellamy, P., 1991. ‘Excavation of the Fordington Farm Round Barrow’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 113, 107-132. Bender, B., 1993. Landscape Politics and Perspectives, Berg, Oxford. Bender, B., 1998. Stonehenge, Berg, Oxford. Bender, B., Hamilton, S., and Tilley, C., 1997. ‘Leskernick: Stone Worlds; Alternative Narratives; Nested Landscapes’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 147178. Bergh, S., 2002. ‘Knocknarea: the ultimate monument: megaliths and monuments in Neolithic Cuil Irra, northwest Ireland’, in Scarre, C., (ed.), Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe, Routledge, London, 139151. Berridge, P., 1984. ‘A Flint Collection from Hedgemoor Farm, Bridford’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 42, 1-6. Berridge, P., and Simpson, S.J., 1992. ‘The Mesolithic, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Site at Bulleigh Meadow, Marldon’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 50, 1-18. Blight, J.T., 1866. ‘Notice of a Barrow with Kist-vaen on Trewavas Head, in the Parish of St.Breage’, Journal of the Royal Institution Cornwall 2 part 14, 306-313. Blight, J.T., 1886. ‘Barrows in Cornwall’, in Gomme, G.L., (ed.), The Gentleman’s Magazine Library, Archaeology 17311868, 90-94. Boado, C.F., and Vázquez, V.V., 2000. ‘Monumentalizing

160

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Burl, A., 1993. From Carnac to Callanish, Yale, Newhaven. Butler, J., 1994. Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities, Volume Three the South-West, Devon Books, Tiverton. Butler, J., 1997. Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities Volume 5, Devon Books, Tiverton. Carmichael, D., Hubert, J., Reeves, B., and Schande, A., 1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, Routledge, London. Case, H., 1977. ‘The Beaker Culture in Britain and Ireland’, in Mercer, R., (ed.), Beakers in Britain and Europe, BAR International Series 26, Oxford, 71-101. Case, H., 1993. ‘Beakers: Deconstruction and After’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 241-268. Case, H., 1995a. ‘Some Wiltshire Beakers and Their Contexts’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 88, 1-17. Case, H., 1995b. ‘Beakers: loosening a stereotype’, in Kinnes, I., and Varnell, G., (eds.), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’, Oxbow Monograph 55, Oxford, 55-68. Case, H., and Whittle, A., 1982. Settlement Patterns in the Oxford Region: Excavations at the Abingdon Causewayed Enclosure and Other Sites, Council for British Archaeology, London. Caseldine, C.J., 1980. ‘Environmental Change in Cornwall during the last 13,000 Years’, Cornish Archaeology 19, 316. Caseldine, C.J., and Hatton, J.M., 1994. ‘Into the Mists?, Thoughts on the Prehistoric and Historic Environmental History of Dartmoor’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 52, 35-49. Caseldine, C.J., Coles, B.J., Griffith, F.M., and Hatton, J.M., 2000. ‘Conservation or change? Human influence on the mid-Devon Landscape’, in Nicholson, R., and O’Connor, T., (eds.), People as an Agent of Environmental Change, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 60-70. Christie, P., 1960. ‘Crig-a-Mennis: A Bronze Age barrow at Liskey, Perranzabuloe, Cornwall’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26, 76-97. Christie, P., 1985. ‘Barrows on the North Cornish Coast: Wartime excavations by C.K. Croft Andrew’, Cornish Archaeology 24, 23-122. Christie, P., 1986. ‘Cornwall in the Bronze Age’, Cornish Archaeology 25, 81-110. Christie, P., 1988. ‘A barrow cemetery on Davidstow Moor, Cornwall: Wartime excavations by C.K. Croft Andrew’, Cornish Archaeology 27, 27-169. Christie, P., and Rose, P., 1987. ‘Davidstow Moor, Cornwall: the medieval and later sites. Wartime excavations by C.K. Croft Andrew’, Cornish Archaeology 26, 163-194. Clarke, D.L., 1970. Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and Ireland, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Clarke, D.V., Cowie, T.G., and Foxon, A., 1985. Symbols of Power at the Time of Stonehenge, National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, Edinburgh. Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E., and Montague, R., 1995. Stonehenge in its Landscape, English Heritage, London. Cleggett, S., 1999. ‘The River Avon; Real-time realm of the Ancestors’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 121, 49-52. Cole, R., 1999. Liskeard to Maudlin Pipeline, CAU, Cornwall

Bradley, R., 2003a. ‘A Life Less ordinary: the Ritualization of the Domestic Sphere in Later Prehistoric Europe’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13 part 1, 5-23. Bradley, R., 2003b. ‘Neolithic expectations’, in Armit, I., Murphy, E., Nelis, E., and Simpson, D., (eds.), Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain, Oxbow Press, Oxford, 218-222. Bradley, R., and Chapman, R., 1986. ‘The nature and development of long-distance relations in Later Neolithic Britain and Ireland’, in Renfrew, C., and Cherry, J., (eds.), Peer polity interaction and socio political change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 127136. Bradley, R, and Edmonds, M., 1993. Interpreting the axe trade, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bradley, R. and Gardiner, J., 1984. Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research, BAR British Series 133, Oxford. Bradley, R., Harding, J., Rippon, S., and Matthews, M., 1993. ‘A Field Method for Investigating the Distribution of Rock Art’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12, 2, 129-143. Braithwaite, M., 1984. ‘Ritual and prestige in the prehistory of Wessex c. 2,200-1,400 BC: a new dimension to the archaeological evidence’, in Miller, D., and Tilley, C., (eds.), Ideology, Power and Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 93-110. Brodie, N., 1994. The Neolithic - Bronze Age Transition in Britain, BAR British Series 238, Oxford. Brück, J., 1995. ‘A place for the dead: the role of human remains in Late Bronze Age Britain’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 245-278. Brück, J., 1999. ‘What’s in a settlement? Domestic practice and residential mobility in Early Bronze Age southern England’, in Brück, J., and Goodman, M., (eds.), Making Places in the Prehistoric World, UCL Press, London, 52-75. Brück, J., 2000a. ‘Settlement, landscape and social identity: the Early-Middle Bronze Age transition in Wessex, Sussex and the Thames Valley’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19, 3, 273-301. Brück, J., 2000b. ‘Ritual and rationality’, Journal of European Archaeology, 2, 3, 313-344. Buckley, D.G., 1972. ‘The Excavation of Two Slate Cairns at Trevone Padstow, 1972’, Cornish Archaeology 11, 9-18. Buckley, V., 1990. Burnt Offerings, Wordwell, Dublin. Budd, P., and Taylor, T., 1995. ‘The faerie smith meets the bronze industry: magic versus science in the interpretation of prehistoric metal working’, World Archaeology 27, 133-143. Budd, P., Chenery, C., Montgomery, J., and Evans, J., 2003. ‘You are where you ate: isotopic analysis in the reconstruction of prehistoric residency’, in Parker Pearson, M., (ed.), Food, Culture and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, BAR International Series 1117, Oxford, 69-78. Bullen, R., 1912. Harlyn Bay, Colonel Bellars, Harlyn Bay. Burgess, C., 1980. The Age of Stonehenge, Dent, London. Burl, A., 1972. ‘Stone Circles and Ring Cairns’, Scottish Archaeological Forum 4, 31-47. Burl, A., 1976. Stone Circles of the British Isles, Yale, Newhaven. Burl, A., 1979. Prehistoric Avebury, Yale, Newhaven.

161

Andy M Jones

County Council, Truro. Cole, R., 2000. Excavation of Killigrew Round, Trispen, Cornwall 1996, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Cooney., 1998. ‘Breaking Stones, Making Places: the Social Landscape of Axe Production’, in Gibson, A., and Simpson, D., (eds.), Prehistoric Ritual and Religion, Sutton Publishing, Stroud, 108-118. Cooney, G., 2000a. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland, Routledge, London. Cooney, G., 2000b. ‘Coping with Death, Changing the Landscape: People, Places and History in the Irish Neolithic’, in Ritchie, A., (ed.), Orkney in its European Context, McDonald Institute, Oxford, 247-258. Cooney, G., 2004. ‘Introduction: seeing land from the sea’, World Archaeology 35, 323-328. Cosgrove, D., and Daniels, S., 1988. The Iconography of Landscape, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cotton, W., 1827. Illustrations of Stone Circles, Cromlechs and other Remains of the Aboriginal Britons in West Cornwall, London. Crawford, O., 1921. ‘The Ancient Settlements of Harlyn Bay’, Antiquaries Journal 1, 283-299. Crofts, C.B., 1955. ‘Maen Castle Sennen: the excavation of an Early Iron Age Promontory Fort’, Proceedings of the West Cornwall Field Club 1(3), 98-115. Cummings, V., 2002. ‘All cultural things: actual and conceptual monuments in the Neolithic of western Britain’, in Scarre, C., (ed.), Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe, Routledge, London, 107-121. Cummings, V., and Whittle, A., 2003. ‘Tombs with a view: landscape, monuments and trees’, Antiquity 296, 255266. Cunliffe, B., 1987. Hengistbury Head, Dorset, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford. Cunliffe, B., 2001. Facing the Ocean, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Curwen, C., 1929. Prehistoric Sussex, The Homeland Association, London. Daniel, G., 1950. The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Darvill, T., 1982. The Megalithic Chambered Tombs of the Cotswold-Severn Region, Vorda, Highworth. Darvill, T., 1996. ‘Neolithic Buildings in England, Wales and the Isle of Man’, in Darvill, T., and Thomas, J., (eds.), Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond, Oxbow Monograph 57, Oxford, 77-112. Darvill, T., 1997. ‘Ever Increasing Circles: The Sacred Geographies of Stonehenge and its Landscape’, in Cunliffe, B., and Renfrew, C., (ed.), Science and Stonehenge, British Academy, Oxford, 167-202. Darvill, T., 1999. ‘The historic environment, historic landscapes, and the space-time-action models in archaeology’, in Ucko, P., and Layton, R., (eds.), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, Routledge, London, 104-118. Darvill, T., 2002. ‘White on Blonde: Quartz Pebbles and the use of quartz at Neolithic Monuments on the Isle of

Man and Beyond’, in Jones, A., and MacGregor, G., (eds.), Colouring the Past, Berg, Oxford, 73-92. Darvill, T., Barker, K., Bender, B., and Hutton, R., 1999. The Cerne Giant: An antiquity on trial, Oxbow, Oxford. Daryll Forde, C., 1946. Habitat, Economy and Society, Methuen, London. Demakopoulou, K., Eleurè, C., Jensen, J., Jockenhövel, A., and Mohen, J.P., 1999. Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, Thames and Hudson, London. Downes, J., 1999. ‘Cremation: a spectacle and a journey’, in Downes, J., and Pollard, T., (eds.), The Loved Body’s Corruption, Cruithne Press, Glasgow 19-29. Drew, C., and Piggott, S., 1936. ‘Two Bronze Age Barrows’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 58, 18-25. Dudley, D., 1960. ‘Treliske, Truro, Cornwall, Area Hospital Site Emergency Excavation ’, Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall Supplement, 14-26. Dudley, D., 1961. ‘The Excavation of the Otterham barrow, Cornwall’, Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall 4 part 1, 62-80. Dudley, D., 1962. ‘The Excavation of a barrow at Glendorgal, Newquay 1957’, Cornish Archaeology 1, 9-16. Dudley, D., 1964. ‘The Excavation of the Carvinack barrow, Tregavethan, near Truro, Cornwall’, Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall 4 part 4, 414-450. Dudley, D., 1968. ‘Woolley Barrow, Morwenstow’, Cornish Archaeology 7, 80. Dudley, D., and Thomas A.C., 1965. ‘An Early Bronze Age burial at Rosecliston, Newquay’, Cornish Archaeology 4, 916. Edmonds, M., 1995. Stone Tools and Society, Batsford, London. Edmonds, M., 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic, Routledge, London. Edmonds, M., 2001. Prehistory in the Peak, Tempus, Stroud. Edmonds, R., 1857. ‘The Celtic and Other Antiquities of the Lands End District of Cornwall’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 3 3rd series, 350-368. Emmett, D.D., 1979. ‘Stone Rows: the Traditional Role Reconsidered’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 37, 94-114. Eogan, G., 1994. The Accomplished Art, Oxbow Monograph 42, Oxford. Eogan, G., 1995. ‘Ideas, People and Things: Ireland and the External World during the Later Bronze Age’, in Waddell, J., and Shee Twohig, E., (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, Office of Public Works, Dublin, 128-135. Eogan, G., and Simmons, I.G., 1964. ‘The Excavation of a at Cholwichtown, Stone Alignment and Circle Devonshire’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30, 25-34. Exeter Archaeology., 1997. SWW Trevone Regional Sewage Scheme, Archaeological Excavation and Watching Brief 1997. Exon, S., Gaffney, V., Woodward, A.B., and Yorston, R., 2000. Stonehenge Landscapes, BAR Publishing, Oxford. Field, D., 1998. ‘Round Barrows and the Harmonious Landscape: Placing Early Bronze Age Burial Monuments in South-East England’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17, 309-326. Field, D., 2001. ‘Place and memory in Bronze Age Wessex’, in Brück, J.,(ed.), Bronze Age Landscapes Tradition and

162

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Stroud. Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gingell, C., 1987. ‘An Earthwork Near Badbury Rings, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 109, 65-78. Gonzalo., 1999, ‘The Perception of landscape amongst the Q’eqchi, a group of slash and burn farmers in the Alta Verpaz Quatemala’, in Ucko, P., and Layton, R., (eds.), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, Routledge, London, 254-263. Gosden, C., 1994. Social Being and Time, Blackwell, Oxford. Gossip, J., and Jones AM., forthcoming. Excavations at Tremough, Penryn, Cornwall, Cornish Archaeology. Gould, J. 1994. Lithic Scatters and Stray finds in Cornwall, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Gray, H. St.G., 1908a. ‘On the Stone Circles of East Cornwall’, Archaeologia 61, 1-60. Gray, H. St.G., 1908b. ‘Report on the Wick Barrow Excavations’, Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society Proceedings 54, 1-77. Green C., Lynch, F., and White., H., 1982. The Excavation of Two Round Barrows on Launceston Down, Dorset Long Crichel 5 and 7’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 104, 39-58. Green, C., and Rollo-Smith, S., 1984. ‘The excavation of eighteen round barrows near Shrewton, Wiltshire’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, 255-319. Green, H.S., 1974. ‘Early Bronze Age Burial, Territory, and Population in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, and the Great Ouse Valley’, Archaeological Journal 131, 75-139. Greenwell, W., 1877. British Barrows, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Griffith, F.M., 1984a. ‘Archaeological Investigations at Colliford Reservoir, Bodmin Moor 1977-78’, Cornish Archaeology 23, 47-140. Griffith, F.M., 1984b. ‘Trial Excavation of a Ring Cairn at Rixdale Mamhead’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 42, 106-108. Griffith, F.M., 1985. ‘Some Newly discovered Ritual Monuments in Mid Devon’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 310-315. Griffith, F.M., 1994. ‘Changing perceptions of the Context of Prehistoric Dartmoor’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 52, 85-100. Griffith, F.M., and Quinnell, H., 1999. ‘Barrows and Ceremonial Sites in the Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age’, in Kain, R., and Ravenhill, W., (eds.), Historical Atlas of Southwest Britain, University of Exeter Press, Exeter, 55-61. Grinsell, L., 1959. Dorset Barrows, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, Dorchester. Grinsell, L.V., 1969. ‘Somerset Barrows, Part 1 West and South’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History supplement 113, 1-43. Grinsell, L.V., 1970a. The Archaeology of Exmoor, David and Charles, Newton Abbot. Grinsell, L.V., 1970b. ‘The Barrows of North Devon’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 28, 95-129. Grinsell, L.V., 1971. ‘Somerset Barrows, Part 2 North and East’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History supplement

Transformation, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 57-64. Fitzpatrick, A., Butterworth, C.A., and Grove, J., 1999. Prehistoric and Roman Sites in East Devon: the A30 Honiton to Exeter Improvement DBFO Scheme, 1996-9, Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury. Fitzpatrick, A., 2003. ‘The Amesbury Archer’, Current Archaeology 184, 146-155. Fleming, A., 1971. ‘Territorial Patterns in Bronze Age Wessex’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37, 138-166. Fleming, A., 1983. ‘The Prehistoric Landscape of Dartmoor, Part 2: North and East Dartmoor’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49, 195-242. Fleming, A., 1988. The Dartmoor Reaves, Batsford, London. Fleming, A., 1999. ‘Phenomenology and the Megaliths of Wales: A Dreaming too Far?’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 119-124. Fox, A., 1948. ‘The Broad Down (Farway) Necropolis and the Wessex Culture in Devon’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Exploration Society 4.1, 1-19. Fox, A., 1964. South West England, Thames and Hudson, London. Fox, A., 1969. ‘Appendix. The Upton Pyne Cemetery’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 27, 75-78. Fox, A., 1973. South West England, David and Charles, Newton Abbot (2nd revised edition). Fox, A., and Stone, J.F.S., 1951. ‘A Necklace from a Barrow in North Molton Parish, North Devon’, Antiquaries Journal 31, 25-31. Fox, C., 1959. Life and Death in the Bronze Age, Routledge, London. French, C., 1994. Excavations of the Deeping St. Nicholas Complex, South Lincolnshire, Lincolnshire Archaeology and Heritage Report Series 1, Sleaford. Fyfe, R.M., Brown, A.G., and Coles, B.J., 2003. ‘Mesolithic to Bronze Age Change and Human Activity in the Exe Valley, Devon, UK’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 161-181. Garwood, P., 1991. ‘Ritual Tradition and the Reconstitution of Society’, in Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., and Toms, J., (eds.), Sacred and Profane, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford, 10-32. Garwood, P., 1999a. ‘The Chronology of Depositional Contexts and Monuments’, in Barclay, A., and Halpin, C., Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford, 275-293. Garwood, P., 1999b. ‘Grooved Ware in Southern Britain, Chronology and Interpretation’, in Cleal, R., and MacSween, A., (eds.), Neolithic Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 145-176. Gent, T.H., and Quinnell, H., 1999a. ‘Excavations of a Causewayed Enclosure and Hillfort on Raddon Hill, Stockleigh Pomeroy’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 57, 1-76. Gent, T.H., and Quinnell, H., 1999b. ‘Salvage Recording on the Neolithic site at Haldon Beldevere’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 57, 77-104. Gerloff, S., 1975. The Early Bronze Age Daggers in Great Britain, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Munich. Gibson, A., 1982. Beaker Domestic Sites, BAR British Series 107, Oxford. Gibson, A., 1998. Stonehenge and Timber Circles, Tempus,

163

Andy M Jones

County Council, Truro. Herring, P., forthcoming. ‘Cornwall Perceived; multiple identities’, in Peters, C., (ed.), Cornwall: A European Regional Case Study in Identity, BAR International Series. Herring, P., and Smith, J., 1991. The Archaeology of the St.Austell China Clay Area, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Hirsch, E., and O’Hanlon, M., 1997. The Anthropology of Landscape, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hoare, R.C., 1821. The Ancient Monuments of Wiltshire, EP edition 1975. Holst, M.K., Breuning-Madsen, K., and Rasmussen, M., 2001. ‘The South Scandinavian barrows with wellpreserved oak-log coffins’, Antiquity 287, 126-135. Holtorf, C., 1998. ‘The Life histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommen (Germany)’, World Archaeology 30 part 1, 23-38. Hooper, S., 1976. ‘The Excavation of a Ring Cairn at Castle Hill, Innis Downs, Luxulyan’, Cornish Archaeology 15, 8689. Houlder, C., 1963. ‘A Neolithic Settlement on Hazard Hill, Totnes’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 21, 2-31. Hughes, G., 2000. The Lockington Gold Hoard, Oxbow, Oxford. Humphrey, C., 1997. ‘Chiefly and Shamanist Landscapes in Mongolia’, in Hirsch, E., and O’Hanlon, M., (eds.), The Anthropology of Landscape, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 135-162. Humphrey, C., and Laidlaw, J., 1994. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Hutton, R., 1996. The Stations of the Sun, Oxford University Press, Oxford. James, S., 1999. The Atlantic Celts, Ancient People or Modern Invention, British Museum Press, London. Jarvis, K., 1976. ‘The M5 Motorway and the PeamorePocombe Link’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 34, 209-266. Jarvis, K., and Maxwell, V., 1975. ‘The excavation of a First century Roman Farmstead and a Late Neolithic Settlement, Topsham, Devon’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 33, 17-40. Jenkins, S., England’s Thousand Best Churches, Harmondsworth, London. Johns, C., 1994. ‘Littlejohns Barrow: the damage and reprofiling of the round barrow west of Hensbarrow, Roche’, Cornish Archaeology 33, 22-35. Johnson, N., 1979. ‘The Devils Coyt, St.Columb Major, and the Discovery of Two New Megalithic Tombs’, Cornish Archaeology 18, 3-12. Johnson, N., 1981. ‘The Location of Rural Settlement in Pre-Medieval Caernarvonshire’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies XXIX, 381-415. Johnson, N., and Rose, P., 1994. Bodmin Moor: An archaeological Survey, Volume 1, RCHME, London. Jones, A., 1999. ‘The world on a plate: ceramics, food technology and cosmology in Neolithic Orkney’, World Archaeology 31, part 2, 55-77. Jones, A., 2001. ‘Drawn from memory: the archaeology of aesthetics and the aesthetics of archaeology in Earlier Bronze Age Britain and the present’, World Archaeology

115, 44-132. Grinsell, L.V., 1978a. ‘Dartmoor Barrows’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 36, 85-180. Grinsell, L., 1978b. The Stonehenge Barrow Groups, Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, Salisbury. Grinsell, L., 1982. Dorset Barrows Supplement, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, Dorchester. Grinsell, L.V., 1983. ‘The Barrows of South and East Devon’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 41, 546. Grinsell, L., 1994. ‘Round barrows and burials of the ‘Wessex’ earlier Bronze Age in Cornwall’, Cornish Archaeology 33, 36-39. Hallenday, N., 2000. Inuksuit, Silent Messengers of the Arctic, British Museum Press, London. Hamilton, M., 1999. ‘Late Neolithic and Bronze Age’, in Whittle, A., Pollard, J., and Grigson, C., (eds.), A Harmony of Symbols, Oxbow, Oxford. Harding, A., 1981. ‘Excavations in the prehistoric ritual complex near Milfield, Northumberland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47, 87-136. Harding, A., 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Harding, J., 1991. ‘Using the unique as typical: monuments and the ritual landscape’, in Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., and Toms, J., (eds.), Sacred and Profane, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford, 141-151. Harding, J., and Johnston, R., 2000. Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland, BAR British Series 302, Oxford. Harris, D., 1979. ‘Poldowrian, St. Keverne: a Beaker mound on the Gabbro of the Lizard Peninsula’, Cornish Archaeology 18, 13-32. Harris, D., Hooper, S., and Trudgian, P., 1984. ‘Excavation of Three Cairns on Stannon Down, St.Breward’, Cornish Archaeology 23, 141-155. Harrison, R., 1980. The Beaker Folk, Thames and Hudson, London. Hawke-Smith, C.F., 1981. ‘Land use, burial practice and territories in the Peak District, c.2000-1000 b.c.’, in Barker, G., (ed.), Prehistoric Communities in Northern England, Sheffield University Press, Sheffield, 57-72. Helbaek, H., 1952. ‘Early Crops in Southern Britain’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 18, 194-233. Herity, M. and Eogan, G., 1989. Ireland in Prehistory, Routledge, London. Hencken, H.O’N., 1932. The Archaeology of Cornwall and Scilly, Methuen, London. Herring, P., 1994. Sancreed Beacon, CAU, Cornwall Council, Truro. Herring, P., 1995. Bartinney Hill, Tredinney Common and Carn Crean, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Herring, P., 1997a. ‘Early Prehistoric Sites at Leskernick, Altarnun’, Cornish Archaeology 36, 176-185. Herring, P., 1997b. ‘The prehistoric landscape of Cornwall and west Devon: economic and social contexts for metallurgy’, in Budd, P., and Gale, D., (eds.), Prehistoric Extractive Metallurgy in Cornwall, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro, 19-23. Herring, P., 2000. St.Michael’s Mount, CAU, Cornwall

164

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Ladle, L., 1998. ‘Bestwell Quarry Excavations 1998’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 120, 110. Ladle, L., 1999. ‘Bestwell Quarry Excavations 1999’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 121, 153. Ladle, L., Woodward, A., 2003. ‘The Bronze Age House and Burnt Mound at Bestwell, Wareham, Dorset: an Interim Report’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 265-277. Lawson, A.J., 1990. ‘The Prehistoric hinterland of Maiden Castle’, Antiquaries Journal 70, 271-287. Lawson, A.J., Martin, E.A., Priddy, D., 1981. The Barrows of East Anglia, East Anglian Report No.12, Norfolk Archaeology Unit, Dereham. Lawson-Jones, A., 2001a. St. Day to Redruth Gas Main Pipeline, An Archaeological Watching Brief, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Lawson-Jones, A., 2001b. Bear’s Down to Ruthvoes SWW Pipeline, An Archaeological Watching Brief, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Lawson-Jones, A, 2002. Tremough Campus, Penryn: Phase 1 Excavations and Landscaping works; Archaeological Recording, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Lawson-Jones, A., and Herring, P., 1997. Caer Bran, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Layton, R., and Ucko, P., 1999, ‘Introduction: gazing on the landscape and encountering the environment’, in Ucko, P., and Layton, R., (eds.), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, Routledge, London, 1-29. Lewis, B., and Green, M., 1980. ‘Excavation of a Ring Ditch at Down Farm, Gussage St.Michael’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 102, 85. Long, W., 1876. ‘Stonehenge and its Barrows’, Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 16, 1-244. Longworth, I., 1984. Collared urns of the Bronze Age, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Longworth, I., and Cleal, R., 1999. ‘Grooved Ware Gazetteer’, in Cleal, M., and MacSween, A., (eds.), Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland, Oxbow, Oxford, 177206. Loveday, R., 1998. ‘Double Entrance Henges, Routes to the Past?’, in Gibson, A., and Simpson, D., (eds.), Prehistoric Religion and Ritual, Sutton, Stroud, 14-31. Lynch, F., 1971. ‘Report on the re-excavation of two Bronze Age cairns in Anglesey: Bedd Branwen and Treiorweth’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 120, 11-83. Lynch, F., 1972. ‘Ring Cairns and Related Monuments in Wales’, Scottish Archaeological Forum 4, 61-80. Lynch, F., 1991. Prehistoric Anglesey (second edition), The Anglesey Antiquarian Society, Llangefni. Lynch, F., 1993. Excavations in the Brenig Valley: a Mesolithic and Bronze Age Landscape in North Wales, Cambrian Monographs 5, Bangor. Lynch, F., 1998. ‘Colour in prehistoric Architecture’, in Gibson, A., and Simpson, D., (eds.), Prehistoric Religion and Ritual, Sutton, Stroud, 62-67. Lynch, F., 2000. Prehistoric Wales, Alan Sutton, Stroud. Manby, T., 1970. ‘Long Barrows of Northern England; Structural and Dating Evidence’, Scottish Archaeological Forum 2, 1-28.

33, 333-356. Jones, A.M., 1997a. The Results of an Archaeological Watching Brief along the Engelly to Sevenmilestone Water Main, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Jones, A.M., 1997b. The Results of an Archaeological Watching Brief along the Sevenmilestone to North Country Water Main, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Jones, A.M., 1998/9. ‘The excavation of a Later Bronze Age Structure at Callestick’, Cornish Archaeology 37-8, 555. Jones, A.M., 2001. Stannon Down, Cornwall 1999, Stage 2 Archaeological Excavations CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Jones, A. M., 2004. Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Exeter. Jones, A.M., forthcoming a. ‘The Botrea Barrow Group: regional identity in Early Bronze Age Cornwall’, in Peters, C., (ed.), Cornwall: A European Regional Case Study in Identity, BAR International Series. Jones, A M., forthcoming b. ‘Settlement and Ceremony, archaeological investigations at Stannon Down’, Cornish Archaeology. Jones, A.M., Nowakowski, J., and Thorpe., C 1995. Archaeological Investigations at Viverdon Down, Cornwall, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Jones, A.M., and Nowakowski J., 1997. Archaeological investigations Along the Probus Bypass, Cornwall 1995, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Jones, A.M., and Quinnell, H., forthcoming. Redating the Watch Hill Barrow. Jones, A.M., and Taylor, S., 2002. Evaluations at Scarcewater, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Jones, A.M., and Taylor, S., 2004. What Lies Beneath; Investigation along the Mitchell Pipeline, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Keen, L., 1976. ‘Dorset Archaeology 1976’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 98, 60. Keene, B., 1999. A Gazetteer of Flint arrowheads from SouthWest Britain, Devon Archaeological Society, Exeter. Kendrick, T., and Hawkes, C., 1932. Archaeology in England and Wales 1914-1931, Methuen, London. Kinnes, I., 1979. Round Barrows and Ring-ditches in the British Neolithic, British Museum Occasional Paper 7, London. Kinnes, I., Gibson, A., Ambers, J., Bowman, S., Leese, M., and Boast, R., 1991. ‘Radiocarbon dating and British Beakers: The British Museum Programme’, Scottish Archaeological Review 8, 35-68. Kirk, T., and Williams, G., 2000. ‘Glandy Cross: A Later Prehistoric Monument Complex in Carmarthenshire, Wales’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 257-296. Kirwan, R., 1872. ‘Notes on the Prehistoric Archaeology of East Devon’, Archaeological Journal 29, 34-44. Knapp, B., and Ashmore, W., 1999. ‘Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualised Ideational’, in Ashmore, A., and Knapp, B., (eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape, Blackwell, Oxford, 1-32. Kristiansen, K., 1998. Europe Before History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ladle, L., 1997. ‘Bestwell Quarry Excavations 1997’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 119, 164.

165

Andy M Jones

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 11, 40-49. Montanari, M., 1994. The Culture of Food, Blackwell, Oxford. Moore, H., 1986. Space, Text and Gender, Cambridge University Press. Mortimer, J.R. 1905. Forty Years Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire, Brown and Sons, London. Mountford, C.P., 1965. Ayers Rock, Pacific Books, Sydney. Mulk, I.M.., 1994. ‘Sacrificial places and their meaning in Saami society’, in Carmichael, D., Hubert, J., Reeves, B., and Schande, A., (eds.), Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, Routledge, London, 121-131. Mullen, D., 2001. ‘Remembering, forgetting and the invention of tradition; burial and natural places in the English Early Bronze Age’, Antiquity 289, 533-588. Needham, S., 1980. ‘An Assemblage of Late Bronze Age Metalworking Debris from Dainton, Devon’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 177-215. Needham, S., 1993. ‘Displacement and exchange in archaeological methodology’, in Scarre, C., and Healy, F., (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, Oxbow Monograph, Oxford, 161-170. Needham, S., 1996. ‘Chronology and Periodisation in the British Age’, Acta Archaeologia 67, 121-140. Needham, S., 2000. ‘Power Pulses Across a cultural Divide: Cosmologically Driven Acquisition Between Armorica and Wessex ’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 151208. Newman, C., 1996. ‘Woods, metamorphosis and mazes...the ‘otherness’ of timber circles’, Archaeology Ireland 37, 18-21. Nowakowski, J.A., 1991. ‘Trethellan Farm, Newquay: the excavation of a lowland Bronze Age settlement and cemetery’, Cornish Archaeology 30, 5-242. Nowakowski, J., 2001. ‘Leaving home in the Cornish Bronze Age: insights into the planned abandonment process’, in Brück, J., (ed.), Bronze Age Landscapes Tradition and Transformation, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 139148. O’Brien, W., 1995. ‘Ross Island and the Origins of IrishBritish Metallurgy’, in Waddell, J., and Shee Twohig, E., (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age, Office of Public Works, Dublin, 38-48. O’Brien, W., 1999. Sacred Ground, Galway University Press, Galway. O’Neil, B.H.stJ., 1952. ‘The Excavation of Knackyboy Cairn, St.Martins Isles of Scilly’, Antiquaries Journal 32, 221-34. Olding, F., 2000. The Prehistoric Landscapes of the Eastern Black Mountains, BAR British Series 297, Oxford. Orme, B., 1981. Anthropology for Archaeologists, Cornell University Press, New York. Oswald, A., Dyer, C., and Barber, M., 2001. The Creation of Monuments, English Heritage, Swindon. Owoc, M., 2001a. ‘The times, they are a changin’: experiencing continuity and development in the Early Bronze Age funerary rituals of southwestern Britain’, in Brück, J., (ed.), Bronze Age Landscapes Tradition and Transformation, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 207-216. Owoc, M., 2001b. ‘Bronze Age Cosmologies: The Construction of Time and Space in South-Western

Marsden, B., 1974. The Early Barrow Diggers, Shire, Aylesbury. Marsden, J.G., 1923. ‘Some Unrecorded Prehistoric Sites in West Cornwall’, Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall XXI part 2, 169-174. Mauss, M., 1990. The Gift, Routledge, London. McKinley, J., 1997. ‘Bronze Age ‘barrows’ and Funerary Rites and Rituals of Cremation’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 129-145. McOmish, D., 1996. ‘East Chisenbury: ritual and rubbish at the British Bronze Age-Iron Age transition’, Antiquity 267, 68-76. McOmish, D., Field, D., and Brown, G., 2002. The Field Archaeology of the Salisbury Plain Training Area, English Heritage, Swindon. Megaw, J.V.S., 1976. ‘Gwithian, Cornwall: some notes on the evidence for Neolithic and Bronze Age Settlement’, in Burgess, C., and Miket, M., (eds.), Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC, BAR British Series 33, Oxford, 51-66. Mercer, R., 1980. Hambledon Hill- A Neolithic Landscape, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Mercer, R., 1981a. ‘Excavations at Carn Brea, Illogan Cornwall - a Neolithic Fortified Complex of the Third Millennium bc’, Cornish Archaeology 20, 1-204. Mercer, R., 1981b. ‘The excavation of a late Neolithic henge-type enclosure at Balfarg, Markinch, Fife, Scotland’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 111, 63-171. Mercer, R., 1986. ‘The Neolithic in Cornwall’, Cornish Archaeology 25, 35-80. Mercer, R., 1997. ‘The Excavation of a Neolithic Enclosure Complex at Helman Tor, Lostwithiel, Cornwall’, Cornish Archaeology 36, 5-63. Mercer, R., 2001. ‘Neolithic enclosed settlements in Cornwall: the past, the present and the future’, in Darvill, T., and Thomas, J., (eds.), Neolithic Enclosures in Northwest Europe, Oxbow, Oxford, 43-49. Mercer, R., 2003. ‘The early farming settlement of south western England in the Neolithic’, in Armit, I., Murphy, E., Nelis, E., and Simpson, D., (eds.), Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain, Oxbow Press, Oxford, 56-70. Miles, H., 1975. ‘Barrows on the St.Austell Granite’, Cornish Archaeology 14, 5-81. Miles, H., 1976. ‘Flint Scatters and Prehistoric Settlement in Devon’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 34, 209-266. Miles, H., and Miles, T., 1971. ‘Excavations on Longstone Downs, St.Austell, St.Stephen-in-Brannel and St.Mewan’, Cornish Archaeology 10, 5-28. Miles, H., and Trudgian, P., 1976. ‘An Excavation at Lesquite Quoit, Lanivet’, Cornish Archaeology 15, 7-10. Miller, D., 1985. Artefacts as Categories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Minnitt, S., 1982. ‘Farmers and Field Monuments 40002000 BC’, in Aston, M., and Burrow, I., (eds.), The Archaeology of Somerset, Somerset County Council, Bridgewater. Mizoguchi, K., 1992. ‘A historiography of a linear barrow cemetery: a structurationalist’s point of view’,

166

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Pierpoint, S.J., 1981. ‘Land, settlement and society in the Yorkshire Bronze Age’, in Barker, G., (ed.), Prehistoric Communities in Northern England, Sheffield University Press, Sheffield, 41-56. Piggott, S., 1938. ‘The Early Bronze Age in Wessex’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 52-106. Piggott, S., 1954. The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Piggott, S., 1962. The West Kennet Long Barrow, HM Stationery Office, London. Piggott, S., 1979. ‘Southwest England-Northwest Europe: Contrasts and Contacts in Prehistory’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 37, 181-190. Piggott, S., and Piggott, C., 1939. ‘Stone and Earth Circles in Dorset’, Antiquity 50, 138-19. Piggott, S., and Piggott, C., 1944. ‘Excavation of Barrows on Crichel and Launceston Downs, Dorset’, Archaeologia 90, 47-80. Pitts, M., 2000. Hengeworld, Century, London. Pollard, J., 1992. ‘The Sanctuary, Overton: a Reexamination’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 213226. Pollard, J., 1995. ‘Structured deposition at Woodhenge’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 137-156. Pollard, J., and Reynolds, A., 2002. Avebury: the Biography of a Landscape, Tempus, Stroud. Pollard, S., 1966. ‘Neolithic and Dark Age Settlements on High Peak, Sidmouth, Devon’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 23, 35-59. Pollard, S., 1967. ‘Seven Prehistoric Sites near Honiton, Devon Part I. A Beaker flint ring and three cairns’ Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 25, 19-39. Pollard, S., 1971. ‘Seven Prehistoric Sites near Honiton, Devon Part II. Three flint rings’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 29, 162-180. Pollard, S., and Russell, P., 1969. ‘Excavation of Round Barrow 248b, Upton Pyne’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 27, 49-74. Pollard, S., and Luxton S., 1978. ‘Neolithic and Bronze Age Occupation on Salcombe Hill, Sidmouth’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 36, 181-190. Pollard, T., 1999. ‘The drowned and the saved: archaeological perspectives on the sea as grave’, in Downes, J., and Pollard, T., (eds.), The Loved Body’s Corruption, Cruithne Press, Glasgow, 30-51. Powell, T.G.E., Corcoran, J.X.W.P., Lynch, F., and Scott, J.G., 1969. Megalithic Enquires in the West of Britain, University of Liverpool Press, Liverpool. Pryor, F., 2001. The Flag Fen Basin, English Heritage, London. Quinnell, H., 1988. ‘The Local Character of the Devon Bronze Age and its interpretation in the 1980’s’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 46, 1-12. Quinnell, H., 1994. ‘New perspectives on Upland Monuments- Dartmoor in Earlier Prehistory’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 51, 49-62. Quinnell, H., 1997. ‘Excavations of an Exmoor Barrow and Ring Cairn’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 55, 1-38. Quinnell, H., 2003. ‘Devon Beakers: New Finds, New Thoughts’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 61, 1-

Funerary/Ritual Monuments’, in Smith, A.T., and Brookes, A., (eds.), Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to the Landscape and Material Culture of Ritual Space, BAR International Series 956, Oxford, 27-38. Owoc, M., 2002. ‘Munselling the Mound: The Use of Soil Colour as Metaphor in British Bronze Age Funerary Ritual’, in Jones, A., and MacGregor, G., (eds.), Colouring the Past, Berg, Oxford, 127-140. Parfitt, K., and Needham, S., 2004. ‘Ringlemere: The nature of the Gold Monument’, Past 46, 1-2. Parker Pearson, M., 1981. ‘A Neolithic and Bronze Age Site at Churston, South Devon’ Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 26, 34-37. Parker Pearson, M., 1990. ‘The production and distribution of Bronze Age pottery in south-west Britain’ Cornish Archaeology 29, 5-32. Parker Pearson, M., 1995. ‘Southwestern Bronze Age Pottery’, in Kinnes, I., and Varnell, G., (eds.), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’, Oxbow Monograph 55, Oxford, 89-100. Parker Pearson, M., 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial, Sutton, Stroud. Parker Pearson, M., 2000. ‘Ancestors, Stones and Bones in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and Ireland’, in Ritchie, A., (ed.), Orkney in its European Context, McDonald Institute, Oxford, 203-214. Parker Pearson, M., 2003. ‘Food, Culture and Identity: an introduction and overview’, in Parker Pearson, M., (ed.), Food, Culture and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, BAR British Series 1117, Oxford, 1-30. Parker Pearson, M., and Ramilisonina, 1998. ‘Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message’, Antiquity 72 308-326. Parkin, M., 1992. ‘Ritual as spatial direction and bodily division’ in de Coppet, D., (ed.), Understanding Rituals, Routledge, London, 11-25. Patchett, F., 1944. ‘Cornish Bronze Age Pottery’, Archaeological Journal 101, 17-49. Patchett, F., 1950. ‘Cornish Bronze Age Pottery, Part II’, Archaeological Journal 107, 44-65. Patchett, F., 1953. ‘The Bronze Age Beaker From Tregiffian Farm, St. Buryan’, Proceedings of the West Cornwall Field Club 1.1., 23-24. Payne, R., and Lewsey, R., 1999. The Romance of the Stones, Alexander Associates, Fowey. Pearce, S., 1973. ‘Bronze Age Pottery from Barrows at Berrynarbor, Nymet Tracey and Lovehayne’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 31, 45-51. Pearce, S., 1983. The Bronze Age Metalwork of South Western Britain, BAR British Series 120, Oxford. Penhallurick, R., 1986. Tin in Antiquity, The Institute of Metals, London. Peters, F., 1999. ‘Farmers and their Ancestral Tombs: A Study of the Inconspicuous Barrows and their relationship with the secular landscape’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 121, 37-48. Peters, F., 2000. ‘Two traditions of Bronze Age Burial in the Stonehenge Landscape’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19, 4, 343-358. Petersen, F., 1981. The Excavation of a Bronze Age Cemetery on Knighton Heath, Dorset, BAR British Series 98, Oxford.

167

Andy M Jones

Rohl, B., and Needham, S., 1998. The Circulation of Metal in the British Bronze Age: The Application of lead Isotope Analysis, British Museum Occasional Paper 102, London. Rose, P., and Preston Jones, A., 1987. ‘Mrs Hurn’s Urn’, Cornish Archaeology 26, 85-96. Rowe, S., 1848. Perambulation of Dartmoor, Plymouth. Ruggles, C., 1999. Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland, Yale, Newhaven. Ruiz-Galvez Priego, M., 1999. ‘The Journey as Rite of Initiation’, in Demakopoulou, K., Eleurè, C., Jensen, J., Jockenhövel, A., and Mohen, J.P., (eds.), Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, Thames and Hudson, London, 46-7 Russell, V., and Patchett, F., 1954. ‘A Beaker from Trevedra Farm, St.Just in Penwith’, Proceedings of the West Cornwall Field Club 1.2, 41-42. Russell, V., and Pool, P.A.S., 1964. ‘Excavation of a Menhir at Try, Gulval’, Cornish Archaeology 3, 15-26. Sahlins, M., 1992. ‘The Economics of Develop-man in the Pacific’, RES 21, 12-25. Scarre, C., 2000. ‘Forms and Landforms: the Design and Setting of Neolithic Monuments in Western France’, in Ritchie, A., (ed.), Orkney in its European Context, McDonald Institute, Oxford, 309-322. Scarre, C., 2001. ‘Pilgrimage and Place in Neolithic Western Europe’, in Smith A.T., and Brookes, A., (eds.), Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to the landscape and Material Culture of Ritual Space, BAR International Series 956, Oxford, 9-20. Scarre, C., 2002. ‘Coast and Cosmos the Neolithic Monuments of northern Brittany’, in Scarre, C., (ed.), Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe, Routledge, London, 84-102. Schama, S., 1995. Landscape and Memory, Fontana, London. Sharpe, A., 1990. Ballowal Barrow, CAU, Cornwall County Council, Truro. Sharpe, A., 1992. ‘Treryn Dinas: cliff castles reconsidered’, Cornish Archaeology 31, 65-68. Sharples, N., 1991. Maiden Castle- Excavations and field survey 1985-6, English Heritage, London. Shennan, S., 1986. ‘Interaction and change in third millennium BC western and central Europe’, in Renfrew, C., and Cherry, J., (eds.), Peer polity interaction and socio-political change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 137-148. Sherratt, A., 1993. ‘Who are you calling peripheral?, Dependence and Independence in European Prehistory’, in Scarre, C., and Healy, F., (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, Oxbow Monograph 33, Oxford, 245-255. Silverman, H.,1994. ‘The archaeological identification of an ancient Peruvian pilgrimage centre’, World Archaeology 26 part 1, 1-18. Silvester, R., 1979. ‘The Relationship of First Millennium Settlement to the Upland Areas of the South-West’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 37, 176-190. Silvester, R., 1980. ‘The Prehistoric Open Settlement at Dainton’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 38, 1748. Silvester, R., Berridge, P., and Uglow, J., 1987. ‘A

20. Radford, C., 1938. ‘Notes on the excavations of the Hurlers near Liskeard’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 319. Radford, C.A.R., 1957/8. ‘The Chambered Tomb at Broadsands, Paignton’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 5.5 & 6, 147-168. Radford, C.A.R., and Rogers, E.H., 1947. ‘The Excavation of Two Barrows at East Putford’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 3.4, 156-163. Rahtz, P., and ApSimon, A., 1962. ‘Excavations at Shearplace Hill, Sydling St.Nicholas, Dorset, England’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28, 289-266. Ray, K., 2001. ‘Early enclosures in southeast Cornwall’, in Darvill, T., and Thomas J., (eds.), Neolithic Enclosures in Atlantic Northwest Europe, Oxbow Monograph, Oxford, 50-65. RCHME., 1970a. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset, Volume 2, South-East (part 3), RCHME, London. RCHME., 1970b. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset, Volume 3, Central (parts 1 and 2), RCHME, London. RCHME., 1972. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset, Volume 4, North, RCHME, London. RCHME., 1974. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset, Volume 1, West (second edition), RCHME, London. RCHME., 1975. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset, Volume 5, East, RCHME, London. RCHME., 1979. Stonehenge and its Environs, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Richards, C., and Thomas, J., 1984. ‘Ritual activity and structured deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex’, in Bradley, R., and Gardiner, J., (eds.), Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research, BAR British Series 133, Oxford, 189-218. Richards, J., 1990. The Stonehenge Environs Project, English Heritage, London. Riley, H., and Wilson-North, R., 2001. The Field Archaeology of Exmoor, English Heritage, London. Robertson-Mackay, M.E., 1980. ‘A ‘head and hoofs’ burial beneath a round barrow, with other Neolithic and Bronze Age sites, on Hemp Knoll, near Avebury, Wiltshire, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 123-176. Robinson, R., and Greeves, T.A.P., 1981. ‘Two Unrecorded Prehistoric Multiple Stone Rings, Glasscombe, Ugborough, South Dartmoor’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 39, 33-36. Roe, D., and Taki, J., 1999, ‘Living with stones: people and the landscape in Erromango, Vanuata’, in Ucko, P., and Layton, R., (eds.), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, Routledge, London, 411-422. Roe, F., 1966. ‘The Battle Axe Series in Britain’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, 199-245. Roe, F., 1979. ‘Typology of stone implements with shaftholes’, in McK Clough, T.H., and Cummins, W.W., (eds.), Stone Axe Studies, Council for British Archaeology, London, 23-48. Rogers, E.H., 1947. ‘The Excavation of a Barrow on Brownstone Farm, Kingswear’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 3.4, 164-166.

168

Cornish Bronze Age Ceremonial Landscapes c. 2500-1500 BC

Major’, Cornish Archaeology 30, 253-259. J.F.S. Stone., 1963. Wessex, Thames and Hudson, London. Taylor, J., 1970. ‘Lunulae Reconsidered’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 38-81. Taylor, J., 1980. Bronze Age Goldwork of the British Isles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Taylor, J., 1985. ‘Gold and Silver’, in Clarke, D.V., Cowie, T.G., and Foxon, A., (eds.), Symbols of Power at the Time of Stonehenge, National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, Edinburgh, 182-192. Taylor, T., 2002. The Buried Soul, Fourth Estate, London. Theodoratus, D.J., and LaPenna, F., 1994. ‘Wintu Sacred Geography of Northern California’, in Carmichael, D., Hubert, J., Reeves, B., and Schande, A., (eds.), Sacred Sites, Sacred Places, Routledge, London, 20-31. Thomas, A.C., 1958. Gwithian: Ten Years Work, 1949-1958, Camborne. Thomas, A.C., 1962. ‘The Society’s 1962 excavations: Interim report’, Cornish Archaeology 2, 48. Thomas, A.C., 1964. ‘The Society’s 1962 excavations: The Henge of Castilly at Lanivet’, Cornish Archaeology 3, 1-14. Thomas, A.C., 1984. ‘Preliminary Report on the Excavation of a Chambered Cairn, Huts, and Field system at Bosiliack, Madron, West Cornwall.’, Institute of Cornish Studies, Exeter. Thomas, A.C., 1985. Exploration of a Drowned Landscape, Batsford, London. Thomas, A.C., and Wailes, B., 1967. ‘Sperris Quoit; the Excavation of a New Penwith Chamber Tomb’, Cornish Archaeology 6, 9-22. Thomas, J., 1984. ‘A Tale of Two Polities: Kinship authority and Exchange in the Neolithic of south Dorset and North Wiltshire’, in Bradley, R., and Gardiner, J., (eds.), Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research, BAR British Series 133, Oxford, 177-188. Thomas, J., 1991a. ‘Reading the Body: Beaker Funerary practice in Britain’, in Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., and Toms, J., (eds.), Sacred and Profane, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford, 33-42. Thomas, J., 1991b. Rethinking the Neolithic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thomas, J., 1996a. Time, Culture and Identity, Routledge, London. Thomas, J., 1996b. ‘Neolithic houses in mainland Britain and Ireland’, in Darvill, T., and Thomas, J., (eds.), Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond, Oxbow Monograph 57, Oxford, 1-26. Thomas, J., 1999. Understanding the Neolithic, Routledge, London. Thomas, J., 2000. ‘‘The Identity of Place in Neolithic Britain: Examples from Southwest Scotland’, in Ritchie, A., (ed.), Orkney in its European Context, McDonald Institute, Oxford, 79-87. Thomas, N., and Hartgroves, S., 1990. ‘A Beaker Cist at Harrowbarrow’, Cornish Archaeology 29, 52-59. Thorpe, I.J., and Richards, C., 1984. ‘The Decline of Ritual Authority and the Introduction of Beakers into Britain’, in Bradley, R., and Gardiner, J., (eds.), Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research, BAR British Series 133, Oxford, 67-84.

Fieldwalking Exercise on Mesolithic and Neolithic sites at Nether Exe’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 45, 1-38. Simpson, D., 1971. ‘Beaker houses and settlements in Britain’, in Simpson, D., (ed.), Economy and Settlement in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and Europe, Leicester University Press, Leicester, 131-153. Smirke, E., 1867. ‘Some account of the discovery of a gold cup in a barrow in Cornwall’, Archaeological Journal 24, 189-195. Smith, A.T., and Brookes, A., 2001. ‘Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to the Landscape and Material Culture of Ritual Space’, in Smith A.T., and Brookes, A., (eds.), Holy Ground: Theoretical Issues Relating to the landscape and Material Culture of Ritual Space, BAR International Series 956, Oxford, 5-9. Smith, G., 1984. ‘Excavations on Goonhilly Down, The Lizard, 1981’, Cornish Archaeology 23, 3-46. Smith, G., 1987. ‘The Lizard Project: Landscape Survey 1978-1983’, Cornish Archaeology 26, 13-68. Smith, G., 1988. ‘Excavation of an Iron Age cliff promontory fort and of the Mesolithic and Neolithic flint-working areas at Penhale Point, Holywell Bay, near Newquay, 1983’, Cornish Archaeology 27, 171-200. Smith, G., 1990. ‘A Neolithic Long Barrow at Uplowman Road, Tiverton’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 48, 15-26. Smith, G., 1996. ‘Archaeology and Environment of a Bronze Age Cairn and Prehistoric and romano-british field system at Chysauster, Gulval, near Penzance, Cornwall’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 167-220. Smith, G., and Harris, D., 1982. ‘The Excavation of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements at Poldowrian, St Keverne, 1980’, Cornish Archaeology 21, 23-66. Smith, I.F., and Simpson D., 1966. ‘Excavation of a Round Barrow on Overton Hill, North Wiltshire’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, 122-155. Smith, M., 1994. Excavated Bronze Age Burial Mounds of Northeast Yorkshire, Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, Durham. Smith, R., Healy, F., Allen, M., Morris, E., Barnes, I., and Woodward, P., 1997. Excavations along the route of the Dorchester By-pass, Dorset, 1986-8, Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury. Smith, R., 2000. ‘Excavation of Neolithic and Bronze Age Features at Thomas Hardy School, Coberg Road, Dorchester’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 122, 73-82. Smith, S., 1956. ‘Notes on a Series of Flints from Woodbury Common’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 5, 4, 117-121. Stead, S., 1985. ‘Report on the Human Cremated Bone’, in Christie, P., ‘Barrows on the North Cornish Coast: Wartime excavations by C.K. Croft Andrew’, Cornish Archaeology 24, 87-92. Stead, S., 1988. ‘Cremation’, in Christie, P., ‘A barrow cemetery on Davidstow Moor, Cornwall: Wartime excavations by C.K. Croft Andrew’, Cornish Archaeology 27, 27-169. Steele, P., 1991. ‘Flint Scatters at Penatillie, St.Columb

169

Andy M Jones

Watson, A., 2001. ‘Round barrows in a circular world: monumentalising landscapes in Early Bronze Age Wessex’, in Brück, J., (ed.), Bronze Age Landscapes Tradition and Transformation, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 207-216. Watson, D., 1991. ‘Ring-Ditches of the Upper Severn Valley’, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society LXVII, 9-14. Watts, A., and Quinnell, H., 2001. ‘A Bronze Age Cemetery at Elburton, Plymouth’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 59, 11-43. Way, A., 1867. ‘Supplementary notices relating to a gold cup found in a sepulchral cist near the Cheesewring, and also some other gold relics in Cornwall’, Archaeological Journal 24, 195-202. Wheeler, R.E.M., 1943. Maiden Castle Dorset, Society of Antiquaries, London. White, D.A., 1972. ‘The Excavation of a bell barrow at Winterbourne Kingston, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 94, 37-43. White, D.A., 1982. The Bronze Age Cremation Cemeteries at Simons Ground, Dorset, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Monograph 3, Dorchester. Whitley. J., 2002. ‘Too Many Ancestors’, Antiquity 76, 119126. Whittle, A., 2003. The Archaeology of People, Routledge, London. Whittle, A., Atkinson, R., Chambers, R., and Thomas, N., 1992. ‘Excavations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age complex at Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire 194752 and 1982’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 143201. Whittle, A., Pollard, J., and Grigson, C., 1999. A Harmony of Symbols, Oxbow, Oxford. Williams, G., 1988. The Standing Stones of Wales and SouthWest England, BAR British Series 197, Oxford. Woodward, A., 2000a. British Barrows, A Matter of Life and Death, Tempus, Stroud. Woodward, A., 2000b. ‘The Prehistoric pottery’, in Hughes, G., (ed.), The Lockington Gold Hoard, Oxbow, Oxford, 48-61. Woodward, A., 2002. ‘Beads and Beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze Age’, Antiquity 294, 1040-1047. Woodward, A., and Woodward, P.J., 1996. ‘The Topography of some Barrow Cemeteries in Bronze Age Wessex’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 275-292. Woodward, P.J., 1980. ‘A Beaker Burial from Rimbury, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 102, 98-100. Woodward, P.J., 1991. The South Dorset Ridgeway - Survey and Excavations, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Monograph 8, Dorchester. Worth, R., 1967. Worth’s Dartmoor, David and Charles, Newton Abbot.

Thurnam, J., 1871. ‘On Ancient British Barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining counties’, Archaeologia 43, 285-552. Tilley, C., 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape, Berg, Oxford. Tilley, C., 1995. ‘Rocks as resources: landscapes and power’, Cornish Archaeology 34, 5-57. Tilley, C., 1996. ‘The powers of rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor’, World Archaeology 28 part 2, 161-176. Tilley, C., 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture, Blackwell, Oxford. Todd, M., 1984. ‘Excavations at Hembury, Devon, 1980-3: a summary report’, Antiquaries Journal 64, 251-268. Todd, M., 1987. The Southwest to AD 1000, Longmans, Harlow. Tomalin, D., 1988. ‘Armorican vases à anses and their occurrence in southern Britain’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 202-222. Trahair, J., 1978. ‘A survey of the cairns on Bodmin Moor’, Cornish Archaeology 17, 3-24. Trudgian, P., 1976a. ‘Observations and excavation at the Tichbarrow, Davidstow’, Cornish Archaeology 15, 31-45. Trudgian, P., 1976b. ‘Excavation of a Barrow at Tichbarrow Beacon, Lesnewth 1864’, Cornish Archaeology 15, 45-47. Trudgian, P., 1976c. ‘Cup-marked stones from a Barrow at Starapark near Camelford’, Cornish Archaeology 15, 48-49. Trudgian, P., 1977. ‘Excavation of a Cairn at Crowdy Marsh’, Cornish Archaeology 16, 17-20. Turner, J.R., 1980. ‘Chamber Cairns, Gidleigh’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 38, 117-119. Turner, J.R., 1984. ‘A Possible Henge at Teignhead’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 42, 103-106. Turner, J.R., 1990. ‘Ring cairns, Stone Circles and Related Monuments on Dartmoor’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 48, 27-86. Turner, J.R., 1991. ‘A Cairn Alignment on Sourton Common, Dartmoor’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 49, 143-144. Ucko, P., and Layton, R., 1999. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, Routledge, London. Van de Noort, R., 2004. ‘An ancient seascape: the social context of seafaring in the early Bronze Age’, World Archaeology 35, 404-415. Wailes, B., 1958. ‘The Bronze Age in Cornwall’, Proceedings of the West Cornwall Field Club 2 (2), 26-35. Wainwright, G., 1965. ‘The Excavation of a Cairn at St.Neots, Bodmin Moor’, Cornish Archaeology 4, 4-9. Wainwright, G., 1979. Mount Pleasant, Dorset: Excavations 1970-1971, Society of Antiquaries, London. Wainwright, G., 1980. ‘A Pit Burial at Lower Ashmore Farm, Rose Ash, Devon’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeology Society 38, 13-16. Wainwright, G, and Longworth, I., 1971. Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966-1968, Society of Antiquaries, London. Wainwright, G., Fleming, A., and Smith, K., 1979. ‘The Shaugh Moor Project: First Report’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 1-34. Wainwright, G., and Smith, K., 1980. ‘The Shaugh Moor Project: Second Report- The enclosure’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 65-122.

170