SITE AND SCENE: EVALUATING THE CONTEXT OF VISIBILITY IN MONUMENT PLACEMENT DURING THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE OF WEST PENWITH, CORNWALL ENGLAND.
A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science
TRENT UNIVERSITY
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
© Copyright by Chelsee Arbour 2011
Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program
May 2011 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-82179-4 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-82179-4
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
1*1 Canada ABSTRACT
Site and Scene: Evaluating the context of visibility in monument placement during the Neolithic and Bronze Age of West Penwith, Cornwall England
Chelsee Arbour
Landscape archaeology has often been divided into two seemingly opposing ways of assessing the use of space in the past; empirical analysis largely conducted using
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and experiential assessments of landscape derived from phenomenological frameworks of field survey. This study combines these two approaches in order to assess whether visibility from and/or to sites was a significant factor in monument location choice during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age of West
Penwith, England. Viewsheds from sites for both periods as well as for a sample of random points generated in GIS, supplemented with descriptive observations taken in the field, were used to assess various components of visibility in this area; such as visibility to the sea, to prominent topographic features, to certain landuse types (i.e. farmland), as well as between monument types. It is suggested that monuments in the Neolithic were built to reference, and be a part of, the sacred landscape, as well as to refer to and memorialized community relations both in West Penwith and across the Irish Sea.
Monuments in the Bronze Age appear to have a strong focus to land in West Penwith, as well as consistent views to other monuments. It was suggested that this shift represents an emphasis on communities and ancestors within West Penwith as opposed to earlier relations across the sea.
Keywords: Landscape archaeology, Geographical Information Systems (GIS), phenomenological framework, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Monuments, Viewsheds, Visibility, West Penwith, England.
II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are several individuals who contributed to the completion of this thesis. First
and foremost, thank you to my thesis supervisor, Dr. James Conolly. Your direction, patience and feedback were without a doubt instrumental in the completion of this thesis.
To my supervisory committee, Dr. Eugene Morin, Dr. Marit Munson and Dr. Susan
Jamison, thank you for all of your advice throughout the writing of this thesis. Your
feedback helped shape my project into what it has become. To Dr. Leigh Simmons, my
external examiner, thank you for agreeing to sit on my community at such short notice.
The comments and feedback I received from each of you has provided me with the
strength to write in a way that I thought was not allowed within academia.
Thank you to Kristine Williams for all of your help organizing my field survey, as
well as for your tireless patience and unfailing support throughout this process.
To Bryn Tapper, thank you for everything. Your willingness to read and provide
constructive criticism on multiple chapters and drafts helped me stay grounded
throughout the writing of this thesis. Your love and support is a gift, one that I treasure beyond anything else.
Thank you to the staff of the Cornwall Council Historic Environment Service for the welcoming and critical local perspective. Special thanks to Bryn Tapper, for all of your hard work and diligence, Jane Powning for your kindness and foresight, Andy Jones for your willingness to discuss many of the issues that are critical to this thesis and Steve
Hartgroves for encouraging to me come over in the first place.
Thank you to Cheryl Straffon-editor of mavmevron, Jim Woods, Mary Martin, John
Tobin, Neville Wherry, Tim Osborne, Bernard and Julian Ellis, Mr. Rodda, Neville
iii Noye, Bruce MacTurk and Elema Hathway, Gill Plumbley, Jesse Harasta, Paul
Kavanagh, Nuala Henderson, Chris Nelson, Katie Wonnacott, Richard Lord for all of your understanding and aid in the completion of my field survey.
Thanks to Peter Bikoulis for your tireless council and assistance, to Jeff Dillane,
Zack Knox and Chris Carleton for your guidance and recommendations on GIS, and
Celise Chilcote for your feedback on the final chapter of this thesis. Thank you to
Miranda Brunton for all of your guidance on how to format images and to Elspeth Ready for discussing statistical methods with me.
To Vicky Chalmers, Katie Valincourt, Jennifer Hawbolt, Mandy Till, Azar
Jazistani, Julie Carter, and of course the gaggle, thank you for your unwavering friendship and inexhaustible humor.
Thank you as well to all of my peers for your generous advice and support.
Special thanks to Catriona Robertson, Ian Lewis, Liz Thurston, Matt Mills, Celise
Chilcote, Melissa Wallace, Miranda Burton and Elspeth Ready. Without Sunday dinners, random Belly-Stone insanity and FireFly/movie nights, my ability to laugh in the face of adversity would never have manifest.
Last but not least, thank you to my father, Richard Arbour, and my family. You have always supported me and your love will always guide me through.
I left Canada in order to understand how people in the past organized and understood the landscape of West Penwith and their world at large. I came back to
Canada with less insight and more questions than before I left, but through journey I also discovered how to look at myself.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract / ii Acknowledgements / iii Table of contents / v List of Tables / vii List of figures / x
1 Introduction / 1 1.1 Objective/1 1.2 Region of study /1 1.3 Hypothesis / 9 1.4 Missing pieces / 10 1.5 Chapter breakdown / 10
2 Site and Seen: visibility in archaeology / 12 2.1 Landscape studies /12 2.1.2: Visibility in Landscape studies /15 2.2: Geographical Information Systems (GIS) /18 2.2.1: Visibility Studies and GIS / 20 2.2.2: Visibility maps: aka viewsheds / 23 2.2.3: Limitations and criticisms of GIS models of visibility / 25 2.3: Archaeology in the phenomenal world / 33 2.3.1: The philosophers of Phenomenology / 34 2.3.2: Phenomenological frameworks and visibility studies in archaeology / 38 2.3.3: Critiques of phenomenology in archaeology / 42 2.4: Landscape studies that merge computer-based models with humanistic approaches / 44 2.5: Concluding remarks on visibility studies / 46
3 The prehistory of West Penwith and its relationship to the Cornish tradition of monumentality / 49 3.1: Introduction/49 3.2: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Britain and Ireland / 49 3.2.1: Settlement and Subsistence / 50 3.3: A brief synopsis of monumentality in Britain and Ireland / 55 3.4: Topography and palaeo-environmental reconstruction of Cornwall in the Neolithic and Bronze Age / 61 3.4.1: Topography and Palaeo-environmental reconstruction of West Penwith in the Neolithic and Bronze Age / 67 3.5: Monumentality in Cornwall and West Penwith / 70 3.6: The history of monument destruction in West Penwith / 83 3.7: Concluding remarks / 85
v 4 The model, data and method / 87 4.1: The model: visibility and monumentality in West Penwith / 87 4.2: The dataset and method / 88 4.2.1: Preliminary work prior to the 2009 field season / 96 4.2.2: The phenomenological framework of the field survey and testing the viewsheds in the field / 97 4.2.3: Post-field season GIS work /101 4.3: Limitations and future work / 107
5 Results of the Topographic Analysis /112 5.1: The topographic context of sites during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in West Penwith/112 5.2: Elevation/112 5.3: Slope/121 5.4: Historic Landscape Characterisation Types / 128 5.5: Discussion/ 133
6 Results of the Visibility Analysis / 139 6.1: Introduction /139 6.2: Impressions of visibility: a comparison of GIS viewsheds to field observations /139 6.3: Visibility in West Penwith / 148 6.3.1: The context of visibility in West Penwith / 151 6.3.2: Size of visibility ranges /166 6.3.3: Visibility across land to the sea /172 6.3.4: Visibility of HLC types / 181 6.3.5: Visibility to higher elevations /191 6.3.6: Visibility between sites /198
7 Integration and Discussion of Results / 210
8 Conclusion/216 8.1: Summary of Research / 216 8.2: Problems/217 8.3: Contribution to knowledge and future research / 220 8.4: Brave last remarks / 221
References cited / 223 Appendix A / 243 Appendix B / 250
VI LIST OF TABLES
3.1: Chronology guideline for Britain and Ireland / 50 3.2: Brief description of monument types / 57 3.3: Number of monument site records in West Penwith / 72 5.1: Neolithic site elevation / 113 5.2: Bronze Age site elevation / 114 5.3: Random point elevation /114 5.4: Resulting/)-values from Mann-Whitney Tests on elevation between Neolithic and the control group / 115 5.5: Resulting/)-values from Mann-Whitney Tests on elevation between Neolithic monuments / 116 5.6: Resulting ^-values from Mann-Whitney Tests on elevation between the two periods / 118 5.7: Resulting ^-values from Mann-Whitney tests for elevation between the Bronze Age and the control group /118 5.8: Resulting/>-value from Mann-Whitney tests for elevation between Bronze Age monuments / 120 5.9: The degree of slope for Neolithic monuments / 122 5.10: The degree of slope for Bronze Age monuments /122 5.11: The degree of slope for random points /123 5.12: Resulting/^-values from Mann-Whitney tests of significance between the degree of slope of all Neolithic monuments and monument types compared to the control group / 123 5.13: Resulting/(-values from Mann-Whitney tests of significance on the degree of slope between Neolithic monument types./ 123 5.14: Resulting /rvalues from Mann-Whitney tests of significance on the degree of slope between Neolithic and Bronze Age monument types /124 5.15: Resulting/"-values from Mann-Whitney tests on the degree of slope between Bronze Age monuments and random points /126 5.16: Resulting/"-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing degree of slope between Bronze Age monument types /127 5.17: Percentage of HLC distribution in West Penwith, as well as the percentage of random points and monuments from both periods that are found on each HLC type/129 5.18: Percentages of Neolithic monuments located on HLC types /131 5.19: Percentages of Bronze Age monuments located on HLC types /132 6.1: X2 results for cumulative visibility values between Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments / 156 6.2: X2 results for cumulative visibility values between Neolithic and random points / 156 6.3: X2 results for cumulative visibility values between Bronze Age monuments and random points / 157 6.4: Viewshed sizes in Hectares /167 6.5: Resulting/i-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Neolithic monuments and Random Points /168
VII 6.6: Resulting/?-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Neolithic monument types / 168 6.7: Resulting/(-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments /169 6.8: Resulting/(-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Bronze Age monuments and random points / 170 6.9: Resulting/(-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Bronze Age monuments /171 6.10: Viewshed sizes of land in Hectares / 173 6.11: Viewshed sizes of the sea in Hectares /174 6.12: Resulting/(-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Neolithic monuments and random points /175 6.13: Resulting/>-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Neolithic monument types / 175 6.14: Resulting/(-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments / 176 6.15: Resulting/(-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Bronze Age monuments and random points / 176 6.16: Resulting/(-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Bronze Age monuments / 177 6.17: Resulting/(-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Neolithic monuments and random points / 178 6.18: Resulting />-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Neolithic monument types /178 6.19: Resulting/(-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Neolithic monument types /178 6.20: Resulting/(-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Bronze Age monuments and random points / 179 6.21: Resulting/(-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Bronze Age monuments and random points /180 6.22: Percentages of HLC types in West Penwith as well as percentages of HLC types visible from all Neolithic monuments, all Bronze Age monuments and random points / 182 6.23: Percentages of HLC types visible from Neolithic sites. Values in bold are the most abundant HLC types visible from monuments /183-184 6.24: Percentages of HLC types visible from Bronze Age monuments. Values in bold are the most abundant HLC types visible from monuments /185-86 6.25: Percentages of monuments and random points with views to higher elevations /192 6.26: Percentages of Neolithic monuments with views to higher elevations /193 6.27: Percentages of Bronze Age monuments with views to higher elevations /194 6.28: Raw counts of inter-visibility from Neolithic monuments to other monuments and to the control group /199 6.29: Raw counts of inter-visibility from Bronze Age monuments to other monuments and to the control group / 199 6.30: Resulting /^-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter-visibility counts between all Neolithic monuments and the control group / 200
VIM 6.31: Resulting/(-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter-visibility counts between all Neolithic monument types / 201 6.32: Resulting /(-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter-visibility counts between all Bronze Age monuments and the control group / 201 6.33: Resulting/(-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter-visibility counts between all Bronze Age monuments and the control group / 202 6.34: Resulting/(-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter-visibility counts between all Bronze Age monuments / 204 A.l: Status of verified monuments from the Neolithic in West Penwith / 243 A.2: Status of possible monuments from the Neolithic in West Penwith / 244 A.3: Status of verified monuments from the Bronze Age in West Penwith / 245 A.4: Status of possible monuments from the Bronze Age in West Penwith / 246 A.5: Field survey checklist / 247 A.6: Table summarizing the accuracy of viewshed maps in real life / 248-49
IX LIST OF FIGURES
1.1: Map of West Penwith in relation to Cornwall, Britain and Ireland / 3 1.2: An isolated granite rock outcrop protruding from the sea / 3 1.3: Carne Beacon, a barrow site in Carrick Cornwall / 5 1.4: A cairn on Watch Croft, West Penwith / 5 1.5: Chun Quoit, St. Just (West Penwith) / 6 1.6: A cist at Ballowall Barrow, St. Just (West Penwith) / 6 1.7: An entrance grave, Brane Farm, Sancreed (West Penwith) / 7 1.8: Men-an-Tol, Madron (West Penwith) / 7 1.9: Standing stone at Boscawenoon farm, St. Buryan (West Penwith) / 8 1.10: Aerial Photograph Merry Maidens stone circle, St. Buryan / 8 3.1: Areas and sites mentioned in the text / 62 3.2: Map of West Penwith / 68 4.1: Two inland transects and two coastal transects / 92 4.2: Topographic regions noted prior to and during the field survey that are mentioned in text / 93 4.3: Distribution of monuments randomly selected for survey in stratified survey transects of West Penwith / 95 4.4: Historic Landscape Character (HLC) Types in West Penwith /105 4.5: High Elevation areas in West Penwith /106 6.1: Penzance coastal site / 141 6.2: Close up of 6.1, with St. Michael's Mount visible in the distance / 142 6.3: Image of St. Michael's mount becoming invisible due to rain and haze /142 6.4: Panorama from a barrow site /145 6.5: Panorama from a cairn site /145 6.6: View to Sperris Quoit from Zennor Quoit in Zennor Hill, West Penwith / 146 6.7: View of Zennor quoit from Sperris quoit, Zennor Hill West Penwith /146 6.8: Viewsheds for Zennor and Sperris Quoit depicting the inter-visibility component of their placement in the landscape /147 6.9: Panorama from a cairn site (BA461) on Botrea Downs /149 6.10: Visibility from a cairn site (BA461) on Botrea Downs, Sancreed West Penwith/ 150 6.11: Cumulative viewshed map for visibility from all Neolithic sites /152 6.12: Cumulative viewshed map for visibility from all Bronze Age sites / 153 6.13: Cumulative viewshed map for visibility from all control group points /154 6.14: View from northern coastal site, eastern transect /159 6.15: View from northern coastal site, western transect / 159 6.16: Detail of rock outcrop to the SE in 6.14 /160 6.17: Detail of Gear's Common to NE in 6.15 /160 6.18: Detail of farmland to the E-NE in 6.16 /160 6.19: View from a barrow cemetery (BA42), St.Just West Penwith /163 6.20: Detail of Cape Cornwall /163 6.21: Detail of the Brisons / 163 6.22: Detail of Lands End/164 6.23: View from a barrow, St.Just West Penwith. Image was taken in a clockwise
x direction beginning in the north /164 6.24: Detail of southern coves /165 6.25: Detail of northern coves /165 6.26: Detail of natural rock outcrop / 165 6.27: Panorama from cairn at Zennor hill, Zennor / 187 6.28: Detail of Chun quoit from 50 meters to the east / 187 6.29: Panorama from a chambered tomb at Chun, St. Just / 189 6.30: Panorama from a Bronze Age barrow site, Zennor / 189 6.31: Panorama from a barrow at Trendrine Hill, Zennor / 189 6.32: Panorama from an entrance grave at Brane farm, Sancreed / 190 6.33: Panorama from a standing stone at Boscawen-noon farm, St.Buryan / 190 6.34: Detail of prominent features to the North of barrow site at Noon Billas, Towednack/ 197 6.35: Detail of increased visibility from thirty meters to the SW of the barrow site /197 6.36: Panorama from a chambered tomb at Chun, Sancreed / 206 6.37: Panorama from a standing stone at Chun, Sancreed / 206 6.38: Detail of Chun quoit / 207 6.39: Detail of standing stone / 207 6.40: Inter-visibility between Chun quoit and a standing stone / 208 6.41: Detail of area where standing stone is located / 208 6.42: Chun quoit visible in the distance / 209 B.l: Distribution of Neolithic Chambered Tombs in West Penwith / 250 B.2: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age Entrance Graves in West Penwith / 251 B.3: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age Stone Circles in West Penwith / 252 B.4: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age Standing Stones in West Penwith / 253 B.5: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age Barrows and long barrows in West Penwith / 254 B.6: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age Cists in West Penwith / 255 B.7: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age Cairns, clearance cairns and long cairns in West Penwith / 256 B.8: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age Stone Alignments in West Penwith / 257 B.9: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age Holed Stones in West Penwith / 258 B.10: Chun enclosure, West Penwith / 259 B.l 1: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age Enclosures and Tor Enclosures in West Penwith / 260 B.12: Distribution of Neolithic monuments in West Penwith / 261 B.13: Distribution of Bronze Age monuments in West Penwith / 262 B.14: Distribution of Random Points in West Penwith / 263 B.l5: Visibility from Neolithic barrows in West Penwith / 264 B.16: Visibility from Neolithic stone circles in West Penwith / 265 B. 17: Visibility from Neolithic entrance graves in West Penwith / 266 B.l8: Visibility from Bronze Age barrows in West Penwith / 267 B. 19: Visibility from Bronze Age entrance graves in West Penwith / 268 B.20: Visibility from Bronze Age cists in West Penwith / 269 B.21: Visibility from Bronze Age cairns in West Penwith / 270 B.22: Visibility from holed stones in West Penwith / 271
XI B.23: Visibility from Bronze Age enclosures in West Penwith / 272 B.24: Visibility from Bronze Age stone circles in West Penwith / 273 B.25: Visibility from Bronze Age standing stones in West Penwith / 274
XII 1
Chapter 1: Introduction to Site and Scene
1.1: Objective
This thesis examines the role of ceremonial monuments from the Neolithic and
Bronze Age (from the 5th-2nd millennium BC) in the landscape of West Penwith,
Cornwall, UK. The objective is to determine whether visibility is a contributing factor to monument location, and if so, in what ways. I focus specifically on determining the extent of visibility between monuments, as well as to a variety of topographic features such as open ocean, farmland, and prominent hills. A secondary objective of this thesis is to integrate a spatial analysis of visibility in GIS (Geographical Information System) with descriptive observations modelled after phenomenological frameworks of field survey in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. A GIS database, augmented by observations recorded during the 2009 field survey in West Penwith, form the basis of this investigation. This database was constructed with the assistance of the curatorial section of the Cornwall Council Historic Environment Service (HES), based in
Truro UK. If visibility was a critical aspect of monument location, then it may provide insights into the ritual practices and structures that contributed to the social foundations of prehistoric life in West Penwith and more widely throughout Cornwall. To date, no systematic GIS-based visibility study on the monuments of this region has been conducted.
1.2: Region of study
West Penwith is a peninsula located at the south-western tip of Cornwall (Figure
1.1). It is approximately 12km wide from coast to coast on its NW-SE axis and 20km 2 long from east to west (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 336). The district of Penwith is divided into 19 civil parishes. Rugged hills can be found throughout the area, especially to the north, and offshore granite rocky island outcrops dot the coastline (Figure 1.2). Roughly half of the coastline comprises these igneous granite outcrops, particularly the area from
St. Ives to Land's End. The rest of the coastline is made up of metamorphosed Devonian
Age greenstone, also known as killas (Russell 1971: 3; Tilley and Bennett 2001: 336).
West Penwith today is mostly treeless except in lower valleys that run north-west to south-east. This is due primarily to the strong Atlantic winds that sweep the landscape, which either inhibit tree growth or produce trees that have smaller and stunted forms
(Tilley and Bennett 2001: 336). Forest clearance from the Mesolithic onwards would also have contributed to the nearly treeless environment of West Penwith (Wilkinson and
Straker 2008: 66). Pollen analysis indicates that trees did grow in greater numbers and variety in the past (Gearey et al. 2000: 501; Cole and Jones 2002: 132), but it is probable that they never achieved full height due to the wind. In the north of West Penwith, a:
"series of moorland hills face the sea in a series of rock-strewn ridges, crowned by tors (fantastically weathered rock outcrops), and deeply dissected by numerous small streams. These hills are never more than a few kilometres from the coast" (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 336). Tors, rock stacks and solution basins of granite (roughly circular depressions in rock stacks and granite slabs that form from continuous water weathering) are also characteristic of the northern coastal region (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 338). A narrow band of "flatfish cultivated land" separates the treeless northern hills from the coast
(Tilley and Bennett 2001: 338). The southern area of West Penwith is markedly different where smaller, more rounded hills form the basis of the topography. *v A
0 5 10 20 5 Crown copyright Atl rights reserved Cornwall Council 100049047 2010
Figure 1.1: Map of West Penwith in relation to Cornwall, Britain and Ireland. Reproduced with permission © Cornwall Council 2010.
Figure 1.2: An isolated granite rock outcrop protruding from the sea. Along the southwest coast between Land's End and Pordenack Point. Taken during the field survey of 2009 by Chelsee Arbour. 4
The Neolithic in this area begins roughly around 5500 BP or 4000 calBC and
continues until 4000BP or 2500 calBC (Pollard et al. 2009: 75-76). The Bronze Age begins at 4000BP or 2500 calBC until roughly 2700BP or 800 calBC (Christie 1986: 82;
Pollard et al. 2009: 76-77).
Several monument types from both periods can be found in West Penwith. The most common and well known types from this area include barrows (Figure 1.3), cairns
(Figure 1.4), chambered tombs (Figure 1.5), cists (Figure 1.6), entrance graves (Figure
1.7), holed stones (Figure 1.8), standing stones (Figure 1.9), and stone circles (Figure
1.10). In Tilley and Bennett's (2001) assessment of a select number of monuments in
West Penwith, it was argued that the monuments were constructed with specific
locational and topographic requirements and at times with prominent inter-visibility cues,
although their interpretations have not been corroborated by additional investigations with the specific intent of analysing the entire peninsula.
Monuments from the Neolithic and the Bronze Age are often described in the
literature as ceremonial, associated with ritual activity, as part of a sacred landscape,
and/or structures that represent links to ancestors and therefore intentional acts of memorialisation (depending on the type of monument under discussion). These
interpretations are often based on evidence of human burial, depositional activity or votive offerings and the inability or unwillingness to explain these structures as solely utilitarian or economic (Bradley 1998, 2002; Edmonds 1999; Tilley and Bennett 2001;
Bergh 2002; Cummings 2002; Jones 2008; Pollard et al. 2009—to name but a few). The current study does not attempt to question this classification system, nor does it disagree with it. Therefore, this literary convention is maintained and monuments are referred to as ceremonial while understanding that certain monuments (if not all) are likely part 5
ipp.
Figure 1.3: Carne Beacon, a barrow site in Carrick, Cornwall. Reproduced with permission © Historic Environment Service, Cornwall Council 2010.
«
Figure 1.4: A cairn on Watch Croft, West Penwith. Taken by Chelsee Arbour during the 2009 field survey. 6
%L* J»S<5" r.W - Figure 1.5: Chun Quoit, a chambered tomb, St. Just (West Penwith). Also known as portal dolmens in other areas, sometimes associated with multiple chambers (Barnatt 1982: 42-43). Taken by Chelsee Arbour during the 2009 field survey.
ll^^SiSeil
Figure 1.6: A cist at Ballowall Barrow, St. Just (West Penwith). Taken by Chelsee Arbour during the 2009 field survey. 7
'^ff^;
.•' r'4=* ;• %
Figure 1.7: An entrance grave, Brane Farm, Sancreed ^West Penwith). Taken by Chelsee Arbour during the 2009 field survey.
Figure 1.8: Men-an-Tol, an example of a holed stone, Madron (West Penwith). Taken by Chelsee Arbour during the 2009 field survey. Figure 1.9: Standing stone at Boscawenoon farm, St. Buryan (West Penwith). Taken by Chelsee Arbour during the 2009 field survey.
Figure 1.10: Aerial Photograph of the Merry Maidens stone circle, St. Buryan (West Penwith). Reproduced with permission © Historic Environment Service, Cornwall Council 2010. ID # HES ADI F75-057. 9
of a ritualized, sacred landscape with links to ancestors and memory. It must also be
noted that there is a relatively serious dating issue associated with these structures.
Monuments cannot be dated directly and centuries of disturbance often result in the lack
of associated artifacts which could have provided a firmer chronological framework. This
is a serious issue that could potentially interfere with the proposed analysis and will be
taken up again in Chapter 4.
1.3: Hypothesis
The main hypothesis to be tested in this study is whether visibility was a crucial
factor of monument location in West Penwith. Four related questions will be
investigated:
1) Whether the same type of monuments are inter-visible (for example, barrows
visually refer to other barrows).
2) Whether a certain type of monument is inter-visible with another type of
monument (for example, barrows are inter-visible with cairns).
3) Whether monuments (of various types) visually refer to specific or prominent
topographic features (for example, barrows consistently referring visually to
prominent hills).
4) Whether the visibility scope of certain monument types consistently refers to
certain types of land (for example, 60% of the visibility range of cairns
consists of prehistoric farmland).
Attention will also be given to the topographic environment on which monument types
are located. This focus is concerned with whether certain types of monuments are found
in close proximity to tor outcrops, at certain elevations and on specific degrees of slope.
All of the above factors will be examined by integrating the HER site and monument 10 records for West Penwith with the observations recorded during the field survey and the published literature on the area. Tests will be conducted to establish the statistical significance of these relationships.
1.4: Missing pieces
This research views monumentality in West Penwith as a local version of broader regional traditions. What will be addressed within this study is the monument tradition of
West Penwith in the local context (i.e., of the entire peninsula) and not the small-scale variations at the level of the locale or an in-depth examination of Cornwall as a whole. It has been recognized elsewhere that there are variations in this local context based on clustering of monuments in specific locales within West Penwith (Jones 2011).
Unfortunately, the scope of the current research is not large enough to discuss the statistical significance of clustering within locales. Nor is it a large enough study to apply the current methodology to the whole of Cornwall.
1.5: Chapter breakdown
This thesis has eight chapters. Chapter 2 is a general discussion of landscape and visibility studies in archaeology. It also provides a detailed discussion of the use of GIS and phenomenology, their application in archaeology and landscape studies, and the strengths and weaknesses of these interpretative frameworks. The chapter concludes with a discussion of several studies that have attempted (often successfully) to integrate the two approaches. Chapter 3 provides a brief synopsis of monumentality in Britain and
Ireland during the Neolithic and Bronze Age, as well as a detailed overview of the history of monumentality in Cornwall and West Penwith. It also includes a description of the 11 topography and palaeo-environment (based on pollen data) of Cornwall, the study area and a discussion of the history of monument destruction in West Penwith. A detailed discussion of the model, the dataset, and the methods of the current research is provided in Chapter 4. It outlines the role of the Historic Environment Service in addition to the background and context of the Historic Environment Record (HER) database. It also identifies the inherent problems with the source data, their collection, curation and presentation. Chapter 5 and 6 discuss the analyses and results of the visibility assessments conducted in the current study. This includes a discussion of the spatial analysis in GIS, the descriptive observations taken in the field, which are modelled after phenomenological frameworks of field survey, and the similarities and differences between the two approaches. Chapter 7 provides a detailed discussion of the potential importance and implications of visibility for understanding West Penwith in prehistory.
The thesis concludes with a discussion of the limitations of the current study, as well as a number of potential future research directions. 12
Chapter 2: Site and seen: visibility in archaeology.
2.1: Landscape Studies
Landscape studies emerged as a sub-discipline of archaeology in Britain during the 1970s. It developed out of almost twenty years of inter-disciplinary exchange in
"geography, anthropology, local history, and place name studies" as well as from an
increased appreciation of "the aesthetics and perceptual dimensions of landscape"
frequently commented on by artists, writers and folk culture (Darvill 2008:60-61). During
the same period, there was a growing acknowledgment that the spatial dimensions of
archaeological remains—such as house structures, monuments and crop marks—were
still present in rural environments, unlike the lack of visible archaeological features in urban contexts due to building expansion and site destruction. After the Second World
War, urban areas began to expand in size in response to population increase. This growing urbanization subsequently threatened prominent archaeological features that were—for the most part—undiscovered in other landscape contexts (Anschuetz et al.
2001: 173; Darvill 2008: 61). In addition, the post-war period saw the increased use of technologically sophisticated farming methods, which had a direct impact on the preservation of archaeological material. Rescue archaeology rapidly developed in response to this increased risk to the cultural landscape (Darvill 2008: 61). The increased inter-disciplinary exchange, the appreciation of the aesthetic landscape, the endangered cultural environment and the development of rescue archaeology lead to the recognition that all human activity is framed by spatial dimensions. This subsequently increased interest in understanding how landscapes influenced and were influenced by people in the 13 past (Darvill 2008: 61-62; Anschuetz et al. 2001: 173-174).
Part of this new emphasis on landscape in archaeological research stemmed from the acknowledgment that the spaces between sites were just as important as the archaeological remains at sites themselves for understanding how people in the past organized their socio-cultural environment—a view that was significantly different from pre-1970s perspectives (Winterbottom and Long 2006: 1356). Landscape was no longer seen as a void filling the spaces between sites but instead as inhabited, with an emphasis placed on the relationship between sites and their environmental settings (Wheatley and
Gillings 2000: 3; Darvill 2008: 61). This also had a huge influence on the scale of investigations and changed the perception of human activity from being either "on-site" or "off-site" (Head 2008: 382). Instead, there was a growing recognition that understanding both spatial contexts as intimately linked could provide deeper insights into prehistoric settlement and land-use (Head 2008: 382). From the 1970s onwards, discussions on reconstructing the prehistoric environment became paramount and focused on understanding how people in the past may have thought about the landscape they inhabited (Tilley 2004: 77).
During the 1990s, a theoretical development arose in archaeology that acknowledged the artificiality of the divide between cultural and natural (Tilley 1994). It has been argued that this divide reflects a contemporary perception of landscapes that is generally unhelpful when studying prehistory, as it is unlikely that people in prehistory shared the same perceptual divisions (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 335-336). Natural features in the landscape have since been seen as having specific significance within the cosmology of prehistoric communities. This is based on evidence of rock art, votive 14 offerings, sources of raw material and monuments that are often associated with, for example, prominent topographic features or waterways (Tilley 1994: 27; Darvill 2008:
63).
The development of theoretical models in landscape studies mirrors the debate between processual and post-processual schools of thought within the broader archaeological discipline. This debate revolves around investigations that implement
"utilitarian logic of practicality and functionalist efficiency" (Tilley 2004: 78), and those that advocate "symbolic logic without any apparent constraint apart from, perhaps, its own internal coherence" (Tilley 2004: 78). Processual landscape archaeology is usually referred to as spatial archaeology, which focuses on utilizing digital methods to model large-scale spatial distributions of sites within their landscape context (Fisher et al. 1997;
Lake and Woodman 2003: 704; Jones 2006; Zubrow 2006: 17; Darvill 2008: 62). In contrast, post-processual landscape studies often revolve around humanistic approaches which focus on experiential field walking. This type of field survey is commonly interpretative, deconstructive and interested in producing narratives of prehistoric human engagement with the landscape (Tilley 1994; Bradley 1998; Lake and Woodman 2003:
704; Zubrow 2006: 17; Bender et al. 2007; Darvill 2008: 62;).
Both approaches in landscape studies recognize that while many of the temporally dependent aspects of a given landscape have changed since prehistory—such as trees, vegetation, small water ways, and the coastline—the skeleton or bare bones of the landscape have remained essentially the same since the Mesolithic—approximately 9700-
5000 cal BP in Britain (Berridge and Roberts 1986: 7; Tilley 1994: 74; Llobera 1996:
622; Schulting and Richards 2002: 1011, 2007: 54; Bender 2006: 303). These bare bones 15 include topographic and geological characteristics of a given area, and in some cases the larger and more extensive water ways. If we assume that these natural features have remained relatively unchanged across millennia, we are able to study the relationship between archaeological sites and the environment they occupy.
However, land clearance, progressively intensive farming practices, settlement and, eventually, urbanization has increased the likelihood that sites have been destroyed and any patterns between them and their landscape have been skewed. This situation also presents a sampling bias, in which the distribution of sites is not the same as it was in prehistory and models based on contemporary site distribution, and indeed, landscapes are inevitably subject to this bias. Both processual and post-processual approaches do, however, recognize that space cannot be rigidly defined by geography alone. Rather, it is continuous and what changes is the way in which people "differentially value, categorize, subdivide, and use the spaces available to them" (Darvill 2008: 63). Unlike other sub divisions of archaeology, landscape studies recognize that:
"(1) Landscapes for archaeologists are as much about spaces and gaps in the archaeological record defined in the traditional way as about defined sites and monuments. (2) Order, structure, and pattern may be perceived from many different directions according to the position of the observer. (3) Landscapes do not have defined physical limits either in time or space, except where imposed by analytical procedures and intellectual traditions" (Darvill 2008: 69).
What often remains unspoken, although acknowledged, is that an integration of empirical and experiential approaches is possible (Gearey and Chapman 2006: 171; Lake 2007: 1).
2.1.2: Visibility in Landscape studies
Visibility has been a concern for archaeological studies, and investigations of monumentality, since the antiquarian era (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 1). However, 16 before the 1980s visibility from sites was seen as an attribute of the environment instead of an aspect of human choice and visual perception (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 2-3;
Anschuetz 2001: 173-174). The history of these studies range from antiquarian observations of visibility from monuments to the more quantitative methodologies of the last few decades (Fisher 1996: 1297; Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 2). Construction of inter-visibility1 and viewshed2 maps were formalized techniques by the 1970s but because constructing these maps in the field was extremely time consuming, it was not until the 1980s with the technological advance of computational programs like GIS that these maps became a common feature in archaeological landscape studies (Ruggles and
Medyckyj-Scott 1996: 129; Wheatley and Gillings 2000:3; van Leusen 2002: 9).
Regardless of this technological advance, the power of human choice and individual perspective still remained in the background, present but not always acknowledged.
It was also during the 1980s that there was a growing recognition of agency as an active force in prehistoric social decision making. This was one of the main focuses of cognitive archaeology, which was primarily concerned with bodily experience. This emphasis on bodily experience continues to influence humanistic approaches of landscape studies (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 2). From this stance, visibility is seen as a "fundamentally experiential variable" that is part of a bodily centered perception, which is intimately tied to the cultural context of the individual experiencing and perceiving.
The distinction between visibility as an environmental variable or as a cognitive/perceptual act of the individual also exemplified the divide between spatial archaeology and humanistic approaches to landscape studies at the time (Wheatley and
1 Whether two points in a landscape can be viewed from each other.
2 The visible area of the surrounding landscape from a specific point, such as a site or monument. 17
Gillings 2000: 4). Use of terminology and scale also differed between the two
approaches. Generally speaking, spatial archaeology uses terms like viewshed and pattern
and investigated at a variety of different scales, whereas humanistic approaches
incorporate terms such as perception and meaning with a specific focus on the small-
scale or on individual sites (van Leusen 2002: 2-3).
Lake and Woodman (2003) identified three subsets of visibility studies in
landscape archaeology that are not associated solely with GIS and other computational
techniques. These are, first, informal visibility studies that have no specific focus and are
generally based on commonsense interpretations. These tend to be associated with studies
that comment on visibility from a specific site and do not address the larger context of
visibility within the surrounding landscape. An example of this would be commenting on
the visibility of a major river from a given site, which may or may not have been an
important factor in site placement (Lake and Woodman 2003: 690). Second, statistical
visibility studies explicitly concerned with inference from quantitative analysis. These are
usually larger in scale and compare visibility from a greater number of sites within a
specific region in order to statistically demonstrate whether visibility was a primary
factor in site placement (Lake and Woodman 2003: 691). The third subset reflects strong
ties to cognitive archaeology and is known as humanistic visibility studies, which are primarily interested in ideology and cognition. However, unlike cognitive archaeology,
there is more of an emphasis on "non-discursive knowledge" and questioning of
"scientific reasoning" (Lake and Woodman 2003: 691). These studies require the physical investigation of landscapes and the generation of narratives whereby the
experiential investigation forms the basis of interpretation. It was within this domain that 18 phenomenological frameworks were introduced and incorporated into landscape and visibility studies. Phenomenology in archaeological landscape studies has since been seen as in direct opposition to quantitative GIS-based investigations. However, some archaeologists have attempted to combine quantitative and humanistic approaches
(Symons 2004; Fitzjohn 2007; Hamilton et al. 2006).
The use of GIS falls into the first two categories. Early investigations of visibility did not use a control sample to verify that visibility from sites was significantly different from the visibility quality of the landscape and thus demonstrate that visibility was a significant and intentional component to site placement. Later GIS visibility studies developed out of criticisms of such inconsistencies and lead to a more statistically focused application of GIS (Lake and Woodman 2003: 693).
Nevertheless, the perceived opposition between GIS-based analyses and phenomenologically-oriented approaches to investigations of visibility has generated so much debate that most authors within landscape studies have now become "more sensitive to the intricacies of space" (Llobera 2001:1005).
2.2: Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
GIS is an extremely powerful computer-based tool that allows archaeologists to
"collect, manage, integrate, visualize and analyze" large quantities of spatial data
(Conolly 2008: 583). It is one of many spatial technologies used in archaeological investigations and much of its foundation can be traced back to processual concerns of patterning, quantification and statistical analysis (Tschan et al. 2000: 32; Conolly 2008:
583). Its use in archaeology developed in the 1980s after the publication of a series of 19
articles on predictive modelling (Kohler and Parker 1986; Kvamme 1989). Shortly after
these publications, it was argued that GIS represented a highly sophisticated way in
which to visualize settlement patterns and artifact distributions (Conolly 2008: 584;
Fisher et al. 1997; Lake et al. 1998). Its development also allowed for the increased
construction of visibility maps or viewsheds, although such maps were not popularized
until the following decade. Widespread use of this approach only occurred in the 1990s
despite the fact that it is an extremely efficient tool for organizing data. Use of GIS was
primarily within "settlement studies, predictive modelling, pattern analysis, movement
and visibility" (Conolly 2008: 584).
A basic GIS database requires a digital elevation model (DEM) which is a model
of a terrain prototype. This model is digitized from a contour map and is a crucial
component of any GIS database. However, it is only a model and any investigation using
an inaccurate DEM will inherently be subject to serious error. DEMs are stored in a GIS
database as raster maps, "in which the values of the individual cells represent regularly
spaced samples taken from the prototype terrain" (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 9). It is
important to recognize that:
"there are inherent limitations to digital maps. They are simplifications of reality—powerful simplifications—but simplifications nevertheless, created according to the rules of scale and projection. A perfect one-to-one map is second to reality and probably cannot exist" (Zubrow 2006:22).
One of the drawbacks with GIS is that its place as a tool and not a theoretical
framework is sometimes lost, which results in the same questions being asked and the
only change being an increased sophistication in the visual presentation of results
(Zubrow 2006: 22; Jones 2006). Consequently, it is imperative that archaeologists 20 recognize the place of GIS as a heuristic tool and consider this when forming methodologies that take advantage of its sophistication (Wheatley 1996: 76).
2.2.1: Visibility Studies and GIS
Visibility studies is one of the most common uses of GIS in landscape archaeology alongside cost surface analyses (Fitzjohn 2007: 37). The inherent assumption behind visibility studies is "based upon the assumed significance of vision in both the present and the past" (Fitzjohn 2007: 37). Cost surface analysis or least cost paths are not used within the current study and will therefore not be discussed. Studies on visibility have often focused on determining whether visibility is a dominant feature of site placement. Questions revolve around the "relationship of visibility and territories, inter-visibility among monuments and on whether sites were aligned towards distant topographic features with astronomical significance" (Llobera 2007: 51).
The term for visibility maps in GIS is viewshed, which means the complete portion of the landscape visible from a viewpoint. Inter-visibility, determining whether certain points on the landscape have views of each other, can also be determined by generating two or more viewsheds within the same geographical area and spatial sample
(Maschner 1996: 7; Fisher 1996: 1297; Winterbottom and Long 1996: 1357; Conolly and
Lake 2006: 226; Ogburn 2006: 405). In order to generate viewsheds in GIS, several parameters must first be set. The viewshed function allows the user to choose the height of the observer or the height above ground level for the set of coordinates that are used for the viewpoint. This is called an observer offset, which allows the user to model height as a proxy for a human individual or structure above the DEM values. A target offset, 21 which is the height of the target viewpoint, can also be chosen although this is rarely employed in visibility analyses (Conolly and Lake 2006: 232). Studies that use observer height as a proxy for a human individual also have to address the issue that people vary in height and, therefore, different individuals may have different perceptual or visual experiences of a landscape from the same viewpoint (Conolly and Lake 2006: 232). This is also an issue when calculating visibility from a variety of different structures, as height across a group of structures or between different types of structures usually varies
(Conolly and Lake 2006: 232).
Visibility analysis is extremely computationally demanding, which is dependent on a variety of factors including size of the region (particularly for cumulative viewshed analysis and total viewsheds), the resolution of the DEM and the maximum distance radius (Wheatley 1996: 95; Ruggles and Medyckyi-Scott 1996: 129; Lake et al. 1998: 29,
32-33; Llobera et al. 2004: 1). This often results in studies focusing either on a limited spatial area and/or on a specific aspect of visibility and not addressing others. In addition, early studies using GIS did not account for the inherent error associated with the basic viewshed function and, therefore, did not address the inconsistencies between the model and human visual perception. With its increased popularity, the viewshed function has been put under considerable scrutiny, which has resulted in many of the more easily solved problems being addressed and models becoming more accurate (Llobera 2003:
29).
There are many studies that demonstrate the applicability of visibility analyses and GIS modelling to archaeological research, as well as to the study of prehistoric monuments. Lake and Woodman's (2003) article on the history visibility studies and the applicability of GIS in archaeology provides a good example of the types of questions 22 that can be addressed with this technology. They attempt to model a phenomena described in humanistic studies of monumentality as the visual impression of circularity, in which stone circles are argued to be set in landscape contexts that echo the circularity of these features (Lake and Woodman 2003: 696). The motivation behind this objective is to "explore the feasibility of using GIS to measure a subjective property, the impression of circularity" (Lake and Woodman 2003: 689). They tentatively conclude that the impression of circularity is generated by:
"(1) low variability despite low perceived elevation (steep curves on the left-hand side of the envelope); (2) high perceived elevation despite high variability (shallow curves on the right-hand side of the envelope); and (3) high perceived elevation with low variability (steep curves on the right-hand side of the envelope)" (Lake and Woodman 2003: 703).
This conclusion, as noted by the authors, provides a tool which can help archaeologists begin to qualify what is meant by "impression of circularity" and which can be applied to other stone circles, as well as to other monument types (Lake and Woodman 2003: 704).
This information can then be used to assess whether monuments are preferentially located in specific settings to purposefully generate a specific type of visual perception (Lake and
Woodman 2003: 704). As can be seen, this study represents the potential contributions of visibility analyses and GIS models to the archaeological discipline as a whole.
Another thought-provoking visibility study which utilizes GIS is Wheatley's
(1996) analysis of the inter-visibility between two Neolithic long barrow groups in
Wessex, UK. He generated cumulative viewshed maps for these two groups and ran several Mann-Whitney statistical tests to compare the frequency of inter-visibility between barrows, as well as between barrows and non-barrows, in order to determine whether barrows are placed in the landscape to be inter-visible with other barrows 23
(Wheatley 1996: 88-92). This study takes into account the potential that the observed inter-visibility between barrows is a product of complete spatial randomness by incorporating a control group within his research parameters. Fisher et al. (1997) go one step further in their study of the visibility from Bronze Age cairns in Mull, Western
Scotland, by testing not only the frequency of visibility to the sea from cairns compared to non-cairn locations, but also by testing whether visibility to the sea occurs more frequently than would be expected by chance, regardless of proximity to the coast (Fisher
1997: 584-91). Thus, Fisher et al. assessed not only whether a particular phenomena was occurring, but also if that phenomena was an example of causation rather than association3.
2.2.2: Visibility maps and viewsheds
The calculation of viewsheds in GIS is a basic function provided by most software packages. Calculating viewsheds requires a DEM base map and a set of coordinates identifying the observer viewpoint (Winterbottom and Long 1996: 1357;
Lake et al. 1998: 27; van Leusen 2002: 1; Conolly and Lake: 2006: 226; Rod and van der
Meer 2007: 98). A line-of-sight is projected from the observer viewpoint to a target. This is repeated for "every potential target within a defined radius, providing a map that identifies the visible areas" in a region (Conolly 2008:589). Visibility from an observer viewpoint to a target is based on elevation values within the DEM. Therefore, if the elevation does not exceed the height of the observer and the target point at any time, the
3 See also Fisher (1992, 1994, 1996); Fitzjohn (2007); Gearey and Chapman (2006); Llobera (1996, 2003, 2007); Tschan et al. (2000) and Wheatley and Gillings (2000) for further research on the methodological applicability of GIS and visibility analyses in archaeology. 24 points are considered inter-visible. However, if "the elevation of one or more intervening cells falls above the line-of-sight, then the line-of-sight is interrupted and so the two points are not held to be inter-visible" (Conolly and Lake 2006: 226).
There are several different types of viewshed maps that provide a variety of information on the visibility of a landscape. A single viewshed is the result of a raster binary map from a single viewpoint (set of coordinates) where not visible areas are coded
0 and visible areas are coded 1 (Ruggles and Medyckyj-Scott 1996: 133; Lake et al.
1998: 29; Conolly and Lake 2006: 226; Rod and van der Meer 2007: 99). Multiple viewsheds merge two or more single viewsheds into one map and each map cell records whether a given area is visible from at least one viewpoint. However, the coding remains the same — 1 = visible, 0 = not visible (Conolly and Lake 2006: 227). This is useful when one wants to know the visible area between several points, such as between clusters of archaeological monuments. It does not, however, provide information on the number of times the visible area from a collection of sites overlap. This is potentially an issue when investigating whether the visibility occurs at both points.
A cumulative viewshed, on the other hand, addresses this issue. It also merges two or more binary viewshed maps, but unlike the multiple viewshed approach, the algebraic sums of binary viewsheds are calculated to provide an idea of how many times a particular view is visible from multiple points. In this case, each map cell values "are integers ranging from zero to a theoretical maximum of the number of viewpoints...
[where].. .each map cell in a cumulative viewshed map records the number of viewpoints from which it is visible" (Conolly and Lake 2006: 227-228). David Wheatley was the first archaeologist to use this method in his study of Neolithic long barrows in Wessex and it allowed him to discuss the strength of the visibility overlap between sites, as well as the areas that visibility was focused towards based on repeated inter-visibility from sites to said areas (Wheatley 1995; Lake et al. 1998: 28-29).
A total viewshed is a visibility map for an entire area. Unlike cumulative viewshed maps which sum the binary viewsheds of a sample of viewpoints in a landscape, a total viewshed calculates the total visibility of a designated region or area. In which case, "such a map is effectively the cumulative viewshed of every possible viewpoint, from which each map cell records the number of other map cells from which it is visible" (Conolly and Lake 2006: 228). This can be done in two ways. The first is by calculating the viewshed for every map cell and then summing them. The second is slightly more rigorous in that it "counts the number of cells in the viewshed and then records this at the viewpoint. Unlike the first method, this produces a map in which each cell records the number of other map cells which are visible from if (Conolly and Lake
2006: 228), and thus the visual characteristics of the landscape (Llobera 2003: 33).
2.2.3: Limitations and criticisms of GIS models of visibility
There are numerous limitations to the use of GIS models in visibility studies, some of which are specific to the type of analysis being conducted. The following will present the inherent limitations of the viewshed function and will focus primarily on those pertinent to the current study. A discussion of how these limitations were addressed will be presented in Chapter 4.
There are several factors that are not taken into account when applying the basic viewshed function. One of the major criticisms of viewshed analysis is that it does not account for the distortion or lack of clarity that occurs as distance increases from the 26
observer point. Tadahiko Higuchi's (1983) discussion of distance and perception
addressed this issue and resulted in his development of the distance index. This was one
of eight indices that he identified which address perception in landscape contexts. The
distance index refers to the qualitative differences of seeing trees over short, medium and
long distances. Short distances allow for the perception of individual trees. At medium
distances individual trees cannot be separated from each other and treetops are visible as
an outline. At far distances, the viewer only perceives topographic features and no longer
perceives the outlines of treetops (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 18-19; Ogburn 2006:
407-08). Wheatley and Gillings (2000) suggested adapting Higuchi's distance index in
order to apply it to binary viewsheds. This would create visibility ranges that identify
short, medium and long distances. This type of model could potentially clarify the visual
prominence of cultural features at varying distances that fall within a viewshed (Llobera
2003: 29-39). The issue of visual prominence directly relates to the fact that spatial data
in GIS is modelled in 2D from an aerial perspective. Thus, the difference between
something piercing the skyline or horizon line and something being hidden by the
landscape background is not accounted for (Fisher 1996: 1297). In addition to Wheatley
and Gillings suggestion, this issue can also be addressed by modelling visibility in virtual
reality (VR), although this requires a strong understanding of the technical aspects of programming that many archaeologists do not have or are hard pressed to acquire
(Winterbottom and Long 2006: 1356-1357). Neither of these potential solutions
addresses the issue of contrast, color, or trees (Ogburn 2006: 408).
Color and contrast are not taken into account in many standard viewshed and line-
of-sight functions. The color and brightness of an object at a distance significantly 27 contributes to the visibility of that object. For example, a structure that is white among green vegetation would stand out at a distance compared to an object that is blue against green vegetation (Ogburn 2006: 406). Atmospheric conditions and lighting can also affect the contrast of an object. It is easier, for example, to see an object at a far distance on a clear day at noon than it is to see the same object on a hazy, cloudy day. None of these factors are considered in the basic line-of-sight function. There is currently no way to model color and contrast of visual perception in GIS. Thus, studies of visibility must recognize these missing components as well as the inherently simplistic nature of viewsheds (Conolly and Lake 2006: 231; Ogburn 2006: 406).
The acuity of vision is also not taken into account in basic GIS visibility functions. There is currently no way in which to model for varying visual acuity between individuals (Ogburn 2006: 406). One way in which to address this issue is to calculate fuzzy viewsheds, which provides a proxy for visual decay over distance (Winterbottom and Long 1996: 1357; Conolly and Lake 2006: 232). This method, originally created by
Fisher (1992, 1994), specifically addresses the issue of atmospheric extinction and decaying clarity over distance, in which "the model assumes a zone of perfect clarity close to the viewer, a drop off in clarity in the middle ground and little object clarity in the background" (Ogburn 2006: 408).
Modelling palaeo-environmental and palaeo-vegetation also presents a challenge.
Neither of these aspects are accounted for in standard GIS packages, as most if not all packages use modern DEM models. The issue of modelling the terrains of palaeo- environments is a serious concern for early prehistoric studies or in areas where there has been significant topographic changes within the Holocene (Conolly and Lake 2006: 230). 28
Palaeo-vegetation on the other hand is a consistent problem. Modelling palaeo-vegetation is an important factor in visibility studies which model past environments given that denser vegetation or woodland coverage can significantly alter what is and is not seen in a landscape (Cummings and Whittle 2003: 255, 258-261). This requires a basic understanding of what the vegetation cover could have been like in the past as well as the relative heights of different plant and tree species (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 5;
Cummings and Whittle 2003: 258-261; Conolly and Lake 2006: 230; Rod and van der
Meer 2007: 102). An example of this is presented by Tschan et al. (2000) who modelled prehistoric vegetation as solid blocks of non-visible area which obstruct visibility in order to test how this could alter the results of viewshed models. They were able to demonstrate that visibility is significantly changed by varying levels of vegetation cover (Tschan et al.
2000: 39-42; Winterbottom and Long 2006: 1358-59). However, to model vegetation requires a significant time investment and a strong technical understanding of GIS, not to mention a detailed understanding of the palaeo-environmental evolution of an area based on numerous and securely dated environmental samples.
Two related computational concerns must also be addressed at the onset of any viewshed analysis. The first is the curvature of the earth. The basic line-of-sight function does not take the curvature of the earth into account, which is a significant issue for studies that have study regions larger than 10km. Generating viewsheds for distances larger than 10km without accounting for this change can produce results that do not represent the actual visibility from a given point. Thus, in order to account for the earth's curvature, the researcher must "reduce the elevation of a target by approximately 7.86m for every 10km from the viewpoint" (Conolly and Lake 2006: 229). Corrections can be 29 made for this issue by modifying the DEM to "curve gently downwards away from the viewpoint" (Conolly and Lake 2006: 229).
The edge effect is the second issue that must be taken into account, particularity if the aim of the visibility analysis is to compare the size and shape of visible areas between two or more viewsheds or between the sample population and the control group of random non-site points. The viewshed function requires that the user set a maximum distance radius (i.e., how far the viewshed should attempt to see based on elevation) before the viewshed is calculated. The edge effect occurs when the distance from the edge of the study region to a given viewpoint is less than the maximum distance radius, which "truncates the viewshed and invalidate^] comparison with the viewsheds of other viewpoints that were further from the edge of the map" (Conolly and Lake 2006: 229).
This is a problem of region sample size, in which sites and non-sites are located close to the edge of the sample region (Lake et al. 1998: 37; van Leusen 2002: 11). In order to avoid this type of error, it is necessary to set both the edge of the study area and the maximum distance radius the same distance away (e.g. 10km) from the most peripheral site.
Finally, the analytical capabilities and limitations of viewshed functions in GIS have also been critically assessed. GIS allows for the analysis of a large number of sites which can then be used to demonstrate statistical significance, provided that an appropriate research design has been made. This also allows testing of hypothetical site placement in the landscape (Conolly and Lake 2006: 232). Although GIS is an extremely versatile digital tool and allows the researcher to manipulate data in such a way that statistical tests of significance can be performed, statistical tests cannot be executed in a 30
GIS database (Lake et al. 1998: 27). Therefore, the archaeologist or GIS user has to go a step further in order to establish the statistical significance of their analyses. However, in order to establish the statistical significance of visibility in a given area and with a specific group of sites, there still needs to be a control group or random sample to compare with. This ensures that statistical significance is not generated by chance
(Llobera 2003: 34). This is necessary regardless of which method of viewshed construction is used.
There is also considerable variation between software platforms used to model spatial patterns in GIS. This becomes an issue as different types of GIS software may use different algorithms to calculate viewsheds, which in turn may produce different results for the same data (Fisher 1992: 345). This occurs because different programs can treat line-of-site analyses in different ways, for example, "they [can] vary in how they calculate the elevation of a map cell on the line-of-site, whether they treat the viewpoint and the targets as points or cells, and how they compare the elevation of a map cell with the elevation of the line-of-site" (Conolly and Lake 2006: 228). Conducting the same analysis of the same data in different GIS programs would mitigate this problem, yet would be a very expensive and extremely time-consuming solution. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut way to address this problem apart from recognizing that the use of GIS as a tool, an abstraction of reality that allows us to discuss large, often complicated sets of data. Therefore, the interpretations we present from the results of analyses conducted in
GIS are heuristic at best.
As can be seen, there are many issues that need to be addressed when conducting visibility analyses in GIS. These issues have generated considerable criticism for the use 31 of GIS in archaeology, both between GIS users and non-users. A principal criticism of
GIS is that it favours vision over the other four physical senses (touch, taste, sound, smell). This has the potential to create an artificial emphasis on visual perception which may not have been a part of landscape perception in the past:
"these studies represent, according to critics, another imposition of Western biases on the past, in this case by emphasizing vision as the most important source of knowledge (often referred to as occularism or visualism) or by simply reducing the value of the senses to their information-gathering capacity (as opposed to their role in inducing emotions and memories)" (Llobera 2007: 52).
The assumption of visual dominance again raises problems associated with the notion of the bones of the earth, in which topography and elevation are assumed to have remained relatively unchanged since later prehistory. A full discussion of this criticism is provided in the concluding remarks of this chapter. Another criticism of GIS is that viewsheds model a top-down aerial view of the landscape, which does not represent visual perception at ground level. This refers to the map-like character of GIS and the argument that such representations of past landscapes de-humanize the prehistoric environment, consequently abstracting space by representing the landscape as devoid of individuals and agency (Llobera 1996: 613; Llobera et al. 2004: 1; Conolly and Lake 2006: 233
Gearey and Chapman 2006: 186). Part of this criticism appears to result from a fear that using technology-led approaches and potentially misusing the standard GIS functions will
"reduce reality to an over-simplified and potentially misleading model" (Winterbottom and Long 2006: 1356). While this criticism is inherently logical, it is also unnecessarily dismissive. Any model, regardless of how it is constructed, runs the risk of being over simplified versions of reality—however, this is one of the objectives of modelling, which is to simplify a complex reality into fewer and more comprehensible variables. That does 32 not mean, as researchers, we should not engage with heuristic tools for fear of misusing them. A comprehensive list of GIS-based research that counters these assumptions about the map-like nature of GIS is provided by Conolly (2008: 591).
An additional and prevalent criticism is whether GIS users themselves actually fully understand the technological aspects of GIS. This is based on the concern that archaeologists will allow the software to influence and define the types of questions they ask of their data (Llobera 1996: 615; Lake et al. 1998: 27). This criticism revolves around the uncertainty that unwary users or the "naive use" of GIS allows for environmental determinism to dictate interpretation (van Leusen 2002: 2). It is true that the use of GIS requires significant assessment and analysis in order to avoid severe inconsistencies or further abstractions of reality. It is also true that at the beginning of its use in archaeology, the limitations and applicability of archaeological research using the basic functions in GIS were not well understood. However, developments in this area have increasingly identified and addressed many of these issues. Studies which do not take into account the limitations of the software or those that allow their research questions to be defined by the software are now easily spotted by established GIS users. The same can be said for studies that do not present alternative possibilities to interpretations that are obviously environmentally deterministic.
The fundamental question is whether viewsheds are comparable to the real world, which has various theoretical, technical and subjective notions of viewer and viewed attached to it (van Leusen 2002: 10-11). This uncertainty is often not addressed in studies of visibility and will be more thoroughly discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. The following section will provide an overview of phenomenology, its application in archaeology and 33
landscape studies, and the strengths and weaknesses of the framework.
2.3: Archaeology in the phenomenal world
Unlike processual approaches to landscape studies, post-processualist researchers
emphasize that the social landscape is grafted onto the surrounding environment by the
people who live in it (Renfrew 1983: 319). This perspective is largely a reaction against
history being a series of general processes that operate cross-culturally and against the
processual search for universal laws, while at the same time rejecting "the
methodological consensus of a scientific archaeology" (Barrett and Ko 2009:277). Under
the umbrella of humanistic approaches, the implementation of phenomenological
frameworks became a common tool for investigating landscape. Phenomenology is a
philosophical development designed to investigate "how the world is given to us"
(Barrett and Ko 2009: 276). It is:
"concerned with the human encounter, experience and understanding of worldly things, and with how these happenings come to be possible. While empiricism and positivism take the givenness of material objects as an unquestioned first principle, phenomenologists from Edmund Husserl onwards have argued that if science is to concern itself with the acquisition of information through the physical senses (in laboratory or field observations) then the character of experience needs to be problematized" (Thomas 2006: 43).
The reflexive dimension of phenomenological thinking is what attracted geographers and
architects in the 1960s who were dissatisfied with a "Cartesian conception of space, in which the relationships between objects could be discussed in purely geometrical terms"
and motivated the alternative geography school of thought (Thomas 2006: 48).
Alternative geography was geared towards humanizing geographical space and focused
on the question of place, in which "meaningless space is transformed into meaningful 34 place through human intervention" (Thomas 2006: 49). It also lead to the recognition that
"people discover their world in the process of understanding it" (Relph 1976: 8), which stresses the importance of the human body in the generation of meaning and interaction in space.
Space was no longer seen as empty of meaning and in need of filling but as "the necessary and significant contexts of all our actions and deeds" (Relph 1976: 11). The integration of a philosophical phenomenology and the principles of alternative geography with the more humanistic approaches to landscape studies in archaeology developed the phenomenological framework originally advocated by Christopher Tilley (1994). Tilley further introduced the importance of the human body in landscape studies and archaeology by describing landscape:
"(1) As a set of relationships between named locales; (2) To be experienced and known through the movement of the human body in space and through time; (3) As a primary medium of socialization; (4) Creating self-identity by controlling knowledge and thereby influencing power structures" (Tilley 1996: 161-162).
These precepts have since formed the basis of phenomenological discussions in archaeology.
2.3.1: The philosophers of Phenomenology
In order to discuss the use of phenomenological frameworks in archaeology, the development of phenomenological thought must first be presented. Phenomenological thought originated with Franz Brentano's (1995) development of descriptive psychology in the 1800s, which was concerned with "the significance and content of cognitive acts"
(Thomas 2006:44). He argued that mental phenomena was always directed at something 35 and was, therefore, an act of intentionality (Thomas 2006: 44). Every mental event was argued to be connected relationally to another one or to something else, so that perception of something is never just about physically seeing (Thomas 2006: 44). Thus
"consciousness is always consciousness-of-something" (Thomas 2006: 44).
Intentionality is one of the philosophical aspects that influenced Edmund
Husserl's (1983) work in the twentieth century. Husserl agreed with Brentano's assessment that consciousness is always consciousness-of-something and he wanted to create a science that could "identify the fundamental structures of consciousness, thereby unravelling the problem of perception" (Thomas 2006: 44). One of his main contributions was the concept of phenomenological reduction, which:
"is the detached attitude of consciousness by which objects are experienced... objects are constituted as correlates of consciousness. Husserl's phenomenological reduction supposedly enables the subject to free itself from prejudices and maintain intellectual detachment of an observer" (Barrett and Ko 2009: 285).
In short, Husserl wanted to "confront all of his assumptions and prejudices about the world in order to approach the purest essence of experience" (Thomas 2006: 43). In order to do this, he needed to bracket or isolate his own experiences of the world.
This is not the science of a positivist regime, in which knowledge is built up and method is modelled by the integration of true scientific knowledge. Rather this was a new science of philosophy, geared towards understanding how knowledge is created in the consciousness (Husserl 1999: 20). He therefore recognized that science is a product of humans interacting in a phenomenal world, and thus subject to the same assumptions and prejudices that occur in human perception. Thus, science knowledge also needed to be isolated or bracketed in order to understand the "fundamental structures of 36 consciousness" or recognize the transcendental nature of certain mental processes
(Thomas 2006: 45).
Martin Heidegger (1962; 1977; 1982), originally a student of Husserl, disagreed with the notion that transcendental consciousness can be achieved through detached engagement with the world. He also disagreed that it could explain the phenomena of cognition. He made the distinction between being and the historical state of being or being-in-the-world, in which knowledge of the world (historical state of being) is generated by a foundation of Being (Barrett and Ko 2009: 280). From this, Heidegger defined the distinction between present-at-hand and ready-to-hand. Present-at-hand occurs when a passive observer looks at something as an object of knowledge or contemplation and ready-to-hand is engagement with a thing put to use—like a bowl or tool (Thomas 2006: 46). He theorized that the way humans understand the world is by interacting with objects everyday as they "just exist" or are "just used" (Barrett and Ko
2009: 282). He further argued that engaging with things as they are ready-to-hand and not contemplating their existence as an object of knowledge allows experience with the world to be built up. This allows for the development of understanding the way things work. It is from this understanding of the world at the foundation that contemplating or the present-at-hand is possible (Barrett and Ko 2009:282). So unlike Husserl, Heidegger firmly argues that humans cannot be treated as if the generation of cognition occurs through transcendental consciousness of the world and therefore transcendental to history. Instead, subjects are defined by history itself and the accumulation of knowledge through ready-to-hand interaction which can be passed on generational through human social interaction (Barrett and Ko 2009: 286). He also argued that humans are born into 37 cultural tradition, constantly involved with social interaction and planning future endeavours (Thomas 2006:46). Therefore, the world cannot be bracketed as argued by
Husserl because humans exist in multiple social contexts and relationships and as such are constantly being-in-the-world (Thomas 2006: 47).
Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1962) also argued against transcendental, universal structures of consciousness and cognition, although he focused specifically on perception.
He wanted to understand how humans "conduct themselves under particular contingent conditions" and argued that perception was culturally formed (Thomas 2006: 47). In this case, perception is an experience that occurs before "reflection and theorizing" and, therefore, is culturally defined as cultural context is the foundation from which individuals learn to think about the world (Thomas 2006: 47). He also argued that perception was not confined to the mind, because the mind is never disengaged from the body. Therefore, all acts of perception occur within an embodied state (Thomas 2006:
48). This brings bodily experience into the foreground, in which "sight, touch and movement structure particular types of relationships with things that cannot be done with a disembodied mind" (Merleau-Ponty 1962: 203). So perception can only be understood through a wider understanding of peoples bodily interaction in the world as every experience and sensation "both draws from and contributes" to that understanding
(Thomas 2006: 48). Therefore, the subject and the object mutually constitute each other in a relationship that defines both of their existence within the world: "I touch a thing, it touches me back" (Merleau-Ponty 1962: 26).
As can be seen, there are several philosophers who contributed to the development of phenomenology. This skeletal history of phenomenological thought 38
provides the necessary foundation from which a discussion of its application in
archaeology can be presented.
2.3.2: Phenomenological frameworks and visibility studies in archaeology
The argument against a more scientifically-driven archaeology revolves around
the notion that such an approach to the past is not multi-vocal or subjective enough to
understand human experience. Therefore, attempts to define this phenomenon with
scientific methodologies reflect a politically charged authoritarian effort to maintain the
status quo or the control over the generation of knowledge (Barrett and Ko 2009: 277).
Christopher Tilley's Phenomenology of landscape (1994) paved the way for
archaeological interpretations of landscape based on phenomenological frameworks of
field walking (Barrett and Ko 2009: 276). He discussed the relevance of the ethnographic record for understanding how prominent landmarks are often identified as places of
special significance within contemporary ethnographic groups. These places functioned
as physical manifestations of cultural memory that: "stabilize contemporary identities and
social relationships" (Tilley 1994: 20). From this, Tilley argues for the plausibility of
landscapes in prehistory being imbued with cultural meaning and thus being viewed as ritually significant places by the people who inhabited them (Tilley 1994: 17-21, 27, 34,
67).
Tilley merged Husserl's, Heidegger's and Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological theory in order to create a method of humanistic field walking approach to archaeology:
"Being-in-the-world resides in a process of objectification in which people objectify the world by setting themselves apart from it. This results in the creation of a gap, a distance in space. To be human is both to create this distance between 39
the self and that which is beyond and to attempt to bridge this distance through a variety of means" (Tilley 1994: 12).
The being-in-the-world in Tilley's description is not the same as the being-in-the- world of Heidegger. Rather, it is akin to the bracketing or distancing from the world that
Husserl hypothesized as being the main method of transcendental consciousness. The emphasis on bodily experience ties it back to Heidegger's discussion of ready-to-hand and the development of understanding the world by interacting with it. The visual focus of the approach and the way in which landscapes are described as culturally imbued with meaning relates back to Merleau-Ponty's emphasis on visual perception and the observer/observed mutually constituting each other.
The basic methodology behind phenomenological frameworks in archaeology involves participant observation, in which the observer attempts to be part of what is being described. This means the researcher attempts to understand the significance of landscape by immersing themselves in the landscape they are studying. This immersion is in direct contrast to:
"outside experiences of landscapes, such as those that might be gained from texts, maps, photographs, paintings, or any computer-based technologies, simulations, or statistical analyses. The claim is that studying landscapes through such representations can provide only a relatively superficial and abstracted knowledge. There is no substitute for personal experience" (Tilley 2008a: 271).
By highlighting the limitations of Cartesian space and its spatially inert attributes
(Thomas 2006: 55), this perspective reflects the belief that sites are not the only locus of cultural action, but that the space between sites is also just as significant4. The emphasis here challenges ideas that perpetuate the culture versus nature dichotomy, one which may
It must be noted that processual archaeologists also investigate the landscape context surrounding sites. 40 not represent the way people in the past understood landscape and space (Tilley 1994: 9,
23; Tilley et al. 2000: 219-220; Tilley and Bennett 2001: 335-336; Tilley 2008b: 273).
Inherent in phenomenological frameworks is the importance of visibility and movement, highlighting elements of visibility and inter-visibility from different points along a route through personal narration as opposed to objective third-party observation.
The idea is that phenomenological frameworks provide a general narrative of past experience and these narratives are only an interpretation based on bodily experience. All interpretations, no matter how they are formed, are considered to be subjective (Chapman
2000: 49; Hamilton et al. 2006: 33; Bender et al. 2008: 26; Tilley 2008a: 272). The underlining theme in bodily experience of landscape is that as the same hominin species we share a common denominator with the people we study in the past5. Thus:
"we share biologically similar perspective bodies with others in both the past and the present. We also differ significantly in relation to the cross-cutting divisions of gender, age, class, ethnicity, culture, and knowledges. These together with the physicality of our bodies provide both essential resources and limitations for our understanding of landscapes" (Tilley 2008a: 272).
Based on this, it is argued that our embodied experiences of landscape, specifically what we see and how we move through it, must have some similarities with the way in which past people experienced and interacted with the places they inhabited (Chapman and
Gearey 2006: 172; Barrett and Ko 2009:279).
A good example of this argument, and one which is particularly relevant to the current study, can be seen in Tilley and Bennett's (2001) investigation of the relationship between Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments and the natural or supernatural environment of West Penwith. Tilley and Bennett attempted to place monument
5 This is assuming that the prehistoric individuals are Homo sapien sapien. 41 distribution in the context of the landscape as it may have been seen during prehistory
(2001: 336-337). Using non-empirical methods of experiential field walking, they visit some of the most well-preserved and prominent features (both monumental and topographic) in West Penwith and analyse a small number of sites from both periods.
From these observations, they conclude that Neolithic portal dolmens/chambered tombs
(box-like structures with large capstones known locally as quoits) were intimately tied to the landscape, and more specifically to tor outcrops and solution basins. Based on the potential relationship between dolmens and tors (material, form, visibility), Tilley and
Bennett argue that:
"dolmens, in effect, were the tors dismantled and put back together again to resemble their original form. Once constructed, they could themselves be tors, something emphasized by the landscape setting of some of them on hills that lacked tors" (2001: 346).
They also assess the visibility from several mid-late Neolithic stone circles and holed stones. They interpret the visibility of tor outcrops from these structures as indications of processional routes, which they take as suggesting a "sacred geometry" of monument type location within a broader "supernatural geometry" of the landscape (Tilley and
Bennett 2001: 352, 354). They then go on to observe that the mimicry seen in Neolithic monuments changes in character during in the Bronze Age, in which cairns are found
"on, among and around" tors and solution basins. Tilley and Bennett interpret this as evidence that prehistoric communities during this period were attempting to imbue monuments with ancestral and supernatural power (2001: 354-56). This is argued to demonstrate a level of control over the rocks and their associated importance not seen in the earlier period (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 360). 42
What can be seen in Tilley and Bennett's study is the development of a narrative based on sensory experience, and visual character, of the landscape. As a result, the unspoken but underlining assumption is that the modern physical experience of the landscape is roughly analogous with that of the past. This experiential narrative is then coupled with an understanding of the time-depth and potential social dynamics of prehistory. From this a possible scenario of the way in which past people interacted and imbued their landscape with meaning is developed.
2.3.3: Critiques of phenomenology in archaeology
While phenomenology has helped shape the way in which landscapes are viewed, by adding a more humanistic and experiential dimension to research, it has also received much criticism. It must be noted that the majority of studies that used phenomenology have been in Britain with a specific focus on monumentality. While the geographical extent of this framework has recently expanded to other parts of the globe, much of the criticism of a phenomenological archaeology stems from its use in a specifically British topographic environment. Studies employing a phenomenological framework have been accused of creating grand narratives of the underlining social structures behind the construction and location of monuments without taking into account or presenting alternative explanations (Fleming 1999: 121, 123; Llobera 2001: 1005). Thus, phenomenological narratives have been charged with generating abstractions or stories that are no more grounded in reality than fiction (Fleming 1999:125).
Tests are rarely, if ever, performed to confirm that extensive views or specific visibility contexts are found only at monument locations and not throughout the landscape nor is the motivation behind site placement ever explicitly discussed (Fleming 43
1999: 123). The same type of situation occurs in discussions of visibility from monuments to prominent natural features. Again, rarely if ever is there a discussion of the non-site locations in the landscape that have extensive views of the same prominent natural features (Llobera 1996: 614; Lake et al. 1998: 28). In short, the possibility of complete spatial randomness is often ignored.
Another issue concerns the survival and preservation of the archaeological record.
The history of monument destruction in various parts of Britain is extensive and general trends have been observed—with many sites surviving in high moorland or rough ground areas contrasting to lowland sites which tend to have been destroyed or ruined by intensive and intrusive farming methods, urban, and infrastructure expansion (Barnatt
1982: 50). This creates a bias in monument distribution and adds a level of abstraction to any discussion of visibility. This issue is also often unacknowledged in assessments of visibility and movement employing phenomenological frameworks (Fleming 1999: 120).
Only rarely is the influence of contemporary vegetation patterns on interpretations of past visibility ever addressed (Chapman and Gearey 2000: 316).
Phenomenological frameworks of field walking have also been recognized as irreproducible, preventing re-interpretation, qualification or confirmation (Fleming 1999,
2005; Chapman 2000: 49; Hamilton et al. 2006:34; Barrett and Ko 2009: 277). Many of these studies construct internally consistent and logical conclusions from broad observations derived in the field that take on an authoritative quality without much evidence to ground them (Llobera 2001: 1005-1006). Along the same lines, the concern of inter-observer variance and the subjective nature of interpretation have lead to increasing numbers of critiques which describe this approach as "story telling" (Bender et 44 al. 2007: 55). One way phenomenological studies have addressed these concerns is through large projects where many individuals participate in checking recordings and agreeing on results (Hamilton et al. 2006: 34; Bender et al. 2007: 55, 63).
From a theoretical point of view, the use of social history, sociology and philosophy (phenomenology) has lead to an acknowledgement of "the range and complexity of processes that occur in a landscape", but they have not made adequate progress in developing new methodologies in these areas and failed to fully address criticisms of the approach itself (Llobera 2001: 1005). This is partly due to the mixing of different philosophical arguments and theoretical principles which prevent the identification of whether the use of this philosophy is appropriate to archaeology (Barrett and Ko 2009: 279).
2.4: Landscape studies that merge computer-based models with humanistic approaches
As Gearey and Chapman (2000) point out, studies that employ both types of methodological approach do not often occur. This is partly because there is a general disagreement on whether these approaches are actually appropriate to archaeological investigations of landscape phenomena (as discussed above). It might also be a result of both approaches (computer and phenomenological) being extremely time-consuming, in which one would be chosen over the other. Finally, the types of questions that are being asked are generally very different.
Nevertheless it must be noted that both methodologies have changed the way in which archaeologists interact with and hypothesize about landscapes in the past. With all 45 of this debate and refinement, a growing number of researchers have recognized how joining these studies is complementary. The following briefly describes a number of these studies in order to demonstrate the compatibility of scientific methodologies with humanistic approaches.
Winterbottom and Long (2006) demonstrate the versatility of digital archaeological methods in their study of the visibility from two stone circles in the prehistoric landscape context of Kilmartin Glen, Scotland. They integrate GIS methods with virtual reality (VR) in order to model the prehistoric landscape of their study area.
They argue that the use of GIS for visibility studies by itself has the potential to over simplify past environments, whereas VR creates a rich and visually stimulating reconstruction of the past but does not have "the analytical capabilities which underpin
GIS" (Winterbottom and Long 2006: 1356). Such a merger creates a digital environment that remains truer to human perception (i.e. 3D and ground level as opposed to 2D and aerial) with the ability to model past vegetation, which is a consideration that is sorely lacking from current phenomenological frameworks (Winterbottom and Long 2006:
1357).
Hamilton and Whitehouse (2006) take a different route by merging a phenomenological framework of field walking with concepts of site catchment analysis
(SCA) developed by the British Academy Research Project in the Early History of
Agriculture in order to investigate Neolithic ditch enclosures in Tavoliere-Gargano, Italy
(Hamilton et al. 2006: 54). SCA was a quintessentially processual approach to studying economic ranges surrounding sites. Hamilton and Whitehouse tested the 1975 SCA of this region by using phenomenological frameworks of field walking conducted by 46 various individuals of both genders. They argue that the physiological differences between males and females would have affected the bodily experience of the landscape.
They conclude that the two types of discussions, economic and phenomenological, can be successfully merged but it requires a higher level of recording than the original SCA maps (Hamilton et al. 2006: 59-60). They conclude that the 1975 study did not take into account the physiologic differences between genders, resulting in a very rigid, gender- specific and linear representation of measuring time/distance. Hamilton and
Whitehouse's approach and the conclusions that were drawn by their study provide a more humanistic way of understanding human interaction and resource management in the past.
A final study under consideration is Andy Jones' (2011) integration of
GIS visibility analysis with phenomenological frameworks of field walking at the Botrea barrows in West Penwith, Cornwall UK. His study incorporated site records from the
Cornwall HER database with phenomenological interpretations of field walking compared against viewsheds of the barrow group constructed in GIS (Jones 2011: 6-8).
The results indicate that the inter-visibility of the barrow group suggests that these were meant to be experienced as a self-contained group (Jones 2011: 80-82). Viewsheds constructed in a GIS database were used to verify his interpretation that "views from the barrows become increasingly wide as one progresses along the main axis of the barrow group" (Jones 2011: 82).
2.5: Concluding remarks on visibility studies
Visibility studies in archaeology have the potential to provide insights on how 47 space was organized in the past. However, this type of analysis has met with considerable scepticism. One principal concern is whether visibility was an important component to landscape structuration in the past—by the people of the past. Part of this stems from the understanding that the memories and experiences of prehistoric communities who lived in the landscapes under investigation cannot be directly accessed by archaeologists.
While these experiences are likely to have structured how the landscape was organized, this may not have been dependent on visual stimuli (Fitzjohn 2007: 43). For example, it is possible that knowing where something is located may have been more important than being able to see it from a distance (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 6).
Recognizing patterns in visibility and inter-visibility also requires distinguishing between causation and correlation (Winterbottom and Long 2006: 1357).
There is no real way to avoid making this mistake beyond meticulous analysis and the explicit discussion of assumptions, hypotheses and methodology used in any given project. Landscape studies with a focus on visibility have to be conducted with the knowledge that:
"making sense of visibility patterns in the past is an ambitious endeavour. It requires a complex assembly of many parts: identifying how such patterns come to exist (what generates them), capturing their structural properties, and understanding the role that these may play in society and how they are transformed through time. So far the study of the visual structure of past landscapes has been very limited and compromising" (Llobera 2007: 66).
Regardless of which approach is taken, the reconstructions (either digital or narrative) will always be abstractions from reality—individual perception, computing errors, etc. (Winterbottom and Long 2006: 1364). Despite the potential pitfalls and interpretive difficulties, investigating the place of visibility in the past is still a worthwhile endeavour. There is real potential to provide us with a better understanding of 48 the socio-cultural structures that framed the way in which people in prehistory constructed and organized space, whether ceremonial, secular, domestic, or economic.
For non-impaired individuals and within most environmental conditions, vision is the sense that provides the most information to the brain about the structure of space over both short and long distances. The other four senses provide information to the brain in very different ways, in that:
"hearing is largely a sequential sense and offers limited spatial information. Touch can provide information only within arm's reach.. .and can collect data only sequentially. Taste and smell are immediate senses and have a much narrower range of information-gathering abilities. It is through vision that we can perceive shape, size, color, distance, and spatial location all at once. Sight is mostly responsible for providing us information about the spatial order" (Llobera 2007: 52).
The fact that some archaeological features, such as monuments, were built to be noticeable and/or permanent provides us with an "entry point into the past" which is not available to archaeologists through the other four senses at the present time (Llobera
2007: 53). That being said, soundscapes, touchscapes, smellscapes, and tastescapes have already begun to follow in the wake of visualscapes (Watson and Keating 1999) 49
Chapter 3: The prehistory of West Penwith and its relationship to the Cornish
tradition of monumentality.
3.1: Introduction
Cornwall is a distinctive region of Britain, partly due to its geology and topography, as well as its peripheral geographical location in the far south-west of mainland Britain. The prehistory of Cornwall and its history of monumentality differ from other parts of Britain and Ireland in several significant ways. These include monument location and visibility to the sea, the location of monuments at particular elevations and the abundance of certain monument types that are rare or non-existent in the rest of Britain.
This chapter provides a brief overview of the natural environment as well as a synopsis of the distribution of monuments in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Britain and
Ireland. It also provides an overview of the palaeo-environmental data during these periods and a detailed discussion of the history of monumentality in Cornwall and West
Penwith. The state of monument preservation in West Penwith is also presented.
3.2: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Britain and Ireland
The following is a simplified review and does not provide a site-specific reconstruction of monumentality in Britain and Ireland. It must be noted that the chronology for monuments in these periods is relatively imprecise. This is a result both of the difficulty of dating monuments and the lack of chronological precision in the literature. While some authors provide radiocarbon dates, few discuss whether these dates have been calibrated. Other authors refer only to the period, for example early Neolithic. 50
Still others describe the timeframe of sites based on millennia. In this review, calibrated radiocarbon dates will be provided when possible. A guideline for the relative chronology of Britain and Ireland is provided in Table 3.1.
Period Calibrated Date BC
early Neolithic early 5th to mid 4th millennium BC
middle Neolithic mid to late 4th mil. BC
late Neolithic late 4th to mid-early 3rd mil. BC
early Bronze Age late 3rd to early-mid 2nd mil. BC
late Bronze Age early to mid 1st mil. BC
early Iron Age mid to late 1st mil. BC Table 3.1: Chronology guideline for Britain and Ireland. After Pollard and Healy 2007: 75-77.
3.2.1: Settlement and Subsistence
At the onset of the early Neolithic, the average temperature was a few degrees warmer than today's climate but slightly cooler than the warm, wet climate of the late
Mesolithic (Malone 2001: 27). Three marine transgressions affected the British coasts from roughly 4000 (cal) to 2500 (cal) BC (Malone 2001: 27, 31). These changes in absolute sea level appear to correlate with climatic and ice budget fluctuations, affecting a variety of areas differently depending on the unique regional/local topography (Smith et al. 1981: 128-129; Malone 2001: 31). Tree cover in Britain during this period was much more extensive than today, although extremely dense woodland would not have occurred in this environment. This is largely due to the salt laden winds that roll off the Atlantic 51
Ocean, which would have increased the rate of soil degradation that started during the forest clearances of the late Mesolithic-early Neolithic (Roberts 1998: 194; Malone 2001:
30-37). The lowland areas of Britain would have been filled with "damp, heavy soils" that are not ideal for farming practices with traction technology, like the plough (Smith et al. 1981: 125). Alder forests at the beginning of the Neolithic would have dominated this region. Upland areas, particularly those which were not well suited to agricultural practices, had light and open forests of pine and birch (Roberts 1998: 195; Malone 2001:
35). Pine, sessile oak and birch forests on poor farming soils were also characteristic of the Scottish highlands (Roberts 1998: 195). Ireland's vegetation cover was primarily of pine woodland and grass species until roughly 2500 BC (calibration undeclared) when blanket peat bog dominated the landscape (Malone 2001: 37).
Elm would have been prominent in parts of Ireland, southwest Wales and
Cornwall, as well as certain parts of northern England and the Midlands (Bradley 1978:
6; Gearey 2008: 1481-82). The elm decline in these areas could possibly indicate a period of intensified forest clearance "for arable plots" or conversely an ecological disease that only affects elm (Malone 2001: 29). A definitive explanation for the elm decline has yet to be given. The Highlands appear to have sustained a considerable decline in tree cover earlier than the "main Neolithic clearance phases", being replaced by grass cover and/or dwarf shrubbery and peat by 4340-3960 (cal) BC (Malone 2001: 34).
The impact of human activity on the environment and its contribution to the environmental change associated with this period is difficult to assess given the sparse and fragmented nature of palaeo-environmental reconstructions. However, it has been suggested that anthropogenic stress on the prehistoric environment during the Neolithic 52 was relatively limited and represents localized, short-term clearance (Roberts 1998: 195).
Coastal areas just before and during the Neolithic would have been plentiful in fen and fen-wood vegetation. Settlement directly on the coast would have been relatively unstable due to continued fluctuation in sea levels. Nevertheless, these areas would also have been highly sought after for their rich flora and faunal resources, and for maritime transportation (Malone 2001: 31). Movement along waterways and coasts, particularly with goods, would have been the most time efficient way to travel and thus access to prime landing sites would have been highly beneficial (Whittle et al. 1999: 61; Malone
2001:31).
As opposed to the excellent record of LBK house structures in Continental
Europe, the archaeological record of domestic activity in Britain and Ireland is sparse and highly fragmented. Post holes (rectangular outlines of structures) do exist, and more are found each field season. However, these are relatively rare and generally are no longer than 10m (Whittle 1988: 63; Cooney 2000: 53-54). In the northern areas of Britain, stone walls forming rectangular or oval/circular shapes have been uncovered. However, few are preserved to the extent necessary to establish structure size (Whittle 1988: 63). When these scant remains of the domestic sphere are found, they are often singular and lacking any refuse scatters associated with domestic activity. This suggests that households were either used for shorter periods of time or irregularly (Whittle 1988: 63). Another alternative is that households were composed of skin tents or other light, perishable material which would leave little archaeological trace (Whittle 1988: 64). It appears probable that the combination of the two processes - short occupation time and perishable construction material - are responsible for the archaeological invisibility of 53 settlement patterns in the British Neolithic. Current research at the Salisbury plains area has uncovered good evidence for Neolithic settlement around the Stonehenge region, although this evidence has yet to be formally published. Based on the available evidence,
Edmonds argues that populations in the early Neolithic Britain would have been composed of relative small communities, with site location and limited sedentism regulated by the seasons (1999: 16-17, 24). As a result of this limited archaeological visibility, lithic scatters are often employed as proxies for Neolithic settlement patterns. A general trend in the early Neolithic is of small lithic scatters located on upland soils, while in the later Neolithic these scatters tend to be larger and located on a wider variety of soil types (Thomas 1991b: 15). Thomas interprets this shift as an indication that people began to live and exploit a wider range of the landscape than is seen earlier in the period
(1991b: 15). Ireland during the Neolithic, on the other hand, has striking evidence of both plank-built, rectangular houses and circular, post-framed structures (Cooney 2000: 54,
58). In this region, houses are found on both arable and marginal soils, are often built of wood and occasionally include internal divisions (Cooney 2000: 57-59).
Cultivated cereals appear in the archaeological record throughout the Neolithic, with a particular reliance on wheat and barley (Jones and Rowley-Conwy 2007: 399).
The domestication of cattle and pigs began during this period, with the influx of non- indigenous sheep and goat from the continent coming into the Atlantic Fringe sometime during the middle Neolithic (Whittle et al. 1999: 59). Forest clearance would have followed the semi-domestication of cattle and pigs, with larger areas being cleared for animal pasture and grazing, as well as cattle herding (Whittle et al. 1999: 64; Fyfe 2003:
22). 54
The environment during the Bronze Age was slightly different from the Neolithic.
The continuous, and in some areas renewed, forest clearance occurs throughout this period with an emphasis on lime, likely used as fodder for domesticated animals
(Simmons 1981: 287; Fyfe 2003: 228). Pastoralism appears to be predominant on higher ground (Jones 2004: 71), although increasingly difficult environmental changes forced many uplanders back into the lowlands (Roberts 1998: 198). Grassland and abandoned fields eventually turned to bog in the upland areas (Malone 2001: 34-35). In Scotland and the northern uplands of England, woodland cover is still present in the landscape, especially oak, hazel, and elm in the mainland and pine and birch in the mountainous area
(Ashmore 2001: 1-2). In Cornwall, this increased woodland clearance continued into the
Iron Age and resulted in the relatively open landscape of Cornwall's upland regions that can be seen today (Dudley 2010: 3). By this time in Ireland, the landscape had been almost completely opened up with bog as the dominating flora species (Malone 2001:
37).
Barley continued to be important during the Bronze Age, however, rye, oat, and spelt also become prevalent towards the end of this period. Climatic deterioration began by the late Bronze Age, with a trend toward cooler and wetter climates that in turn shortened the growing season for crops and resulted in agricultural systems becoming less and less stable (Champion 1999: 102-103). Rye and beans were introduced as a cultivated crop, while emmer wheat was replaced by spelt (Champion 1999: 103).
Emphasis on creating and maintaining boundaries around field systems also became increasingly common at this time, largely due to poor agricultural conditions and resource scarcity (Champion 1999: 103). 55
The development of field systems and settlement patterns revolving around pastoral cattle economies become common place in eastern Britain during the Bronze
Age (Champion 1999: 99). Settlement patterns in pre-existing field systems are also prevalent on the chalk downlands of southern Britain (Champion 1999: 100-101). It would appear that Dartmoor (Cornwall) during the late Bronze Age was largely abandoned, possibly due to over exploitation of the natural landscape that would have made it unsuitable to sustain dense population sizes. Settlement patterns and field systems in other parts of the southwest are still being occupied during this period, such as at Bodmin Moor, Cam Brea and on the Scilly Isles (Champion 1999: 101; Timberlake
2001: 186). In the lower and middle Thames valley, evidence of enclosed clusters of round houses/pits generally associated with a mixed farming economy have been uncovered (Champion 1999: 99). Almost no settlement patterns have been found in the midlands, Wales or northwest England, although cremations are prevalent in these areas
(Champion 1999: 102). In Scotland, roundhouses are distributed widely across marginal and arable land. Hut circles are found both singularly and in clusters of various sizes, with little to no patterning or preference for specific topographic affiliations (Ashmore
2001:4).
3.3: A brief synopsis of monumentality in Britain and Ireland
It must be noted that in Britain and Ireland there is no strict regional uniformity for the development of monumental structures. What exists is a bricolage of different practices occurring at a variety of places over time. That being said, farming communities in Britain and Ireland were firmly established by the mid-Neolithic, beginning with the appearance of early agricultural practices in southern Dorset which reached the northern and western Scottish Isles after a few hundred years (Wainwright 1989: 25). Whether the appearance of agricultural practices represents indigenous adoption, colonization or a mixture of both is still being debated today, although as a whole Britain demonstrates a considerable amount of regional variability (Hodder 1990:230-239; Thomas 2007: 426-
427). Monumentality in Britain and Ireland began in the early Neolithic with causewayed enclosures, chambered tombs - also known as portal dolmens and quoits depending on the region under discussion - and passage graves, stone circles of various sizes, and long mounds (Wainwright 1989: 28; Darvill 1996: 29). See Figure 3.2 for a brief description of monument types. Causewayed enclosures and stone circles are often associated with communal activity, such as feasting and ritual gathering. Enclosures are usually found near areas with agriculturally productive land, while stone circles do not appear to be consistently found in any one topographic or environmental setting (Whittle et al. 1999:
375-380; Malone 2001: 72-73, 80-91; Pollard 2001: 319-321; Jones and Rowley-Conwy
2007: 407). Long mounds, chambered tombs and entrance graves were used as communal burial sites, likely associated with ceremonial activity and formal single burials were extremely rare at this time (Whittle et al. 1999: 66). Communal burial structures often have disarticulated skeletal remains, which may have been intentional or may have been caused by continuous reuse (Hodder 1990: 246-248; Thomas 1991a: 34; Whittle et al.
1999: 67; Parker-Pearson 2001: 146). The building materials for these structures are largely derived from local contexts, in which readily available material, as opposed to specific rock types, were used (Barnatt 1982: 20). Monument Type Description
Barrow Artificial mound of earth, turf and'or stone, normally constructed to contain or conceal burials. Cairn A monument featuring a bank or mound constructed primarily of stone. Predominantly funerary or ritual. A megalithic tomb of Neolithic date comprising a chamber bounded by large upright orthostats. often only three or Chambered Tomb four in number, which support a large capstone (Also known as chambered tombs or 'quoits' locally. Rectangular structure normally used for burial purposes, and formed from stone slabs set on edge, and covered by Cist one or more horizontal slabs or capstones. An irregularly constructed, generally unstructured, mound of stones. Often, but not necessarily, circular. Normally a Clearance Cairn by-product of field clearance for agricultural purposes. Enclosure An area of land enclosed by a boundary ditch, bank, wall, palisade or other similar barrier. A form of Neolithic burial monument primarily found in Cornwall and the Sally Isles It comprises a round cairn, Entrance Grave usually with a retaining wall or kerb, and an entrance leading directly into a chamber. An upright, originally upright, stone featuring a hole which is often large enough in diameter for a person to pass Holed Stone through, e.g., Men an ToL Cornwall. Long Barrow A burial monument comprising a stone-built chamber within a circular or sub-circular earthen mound. A burial monument comprising a rectangular stony mound which contains eitlier a passage at one end with or without Long Cairn lateral chambers, or one or more smaller chambers entered from the side of the mound. Mound An artificial elevation of earth or stones, especially the earth heaped upon a grave. Standing Stone A stone which has been deliberately set upright in the ground. Generally used only for isolated stones. Stone Alignment A single line, or two or more roughly parallel lines, of standing stones set at intervals along a common axis. Stone Circle An approximately circular or oval setting of spaced, usually freestanding, upright stones. A large hifltop or hill slope enclosure in South West England, located close to rock outcrops, and surrounded by one Tor Enclosure or more circuits of stone built walls. All are prehistoric; some are definitely Neolithic.
Table 3.2' Brief description of monument types (after English Heritage NMR Monument Type Thesaurus). 58
Monuments during this period are often found near some source of running water.
Waterways and access to the ocean during this period would have been an efficient way to travel across great distances, and thus, markers of place such as monuments may have been an effective way to announce group affiliation and legitimize ties to the land
(Whittle et al. 1999: 61; Malone 2001: 31; Cooney 2003: 324). Whether visibility to and from the sea was contingent on the cosmological significance of water, or whether it was part of the pattern of construction for monuments during the Neolithic - i.e., visibility to and from important topographic features in the landscape - is open to question.
Towards the end of the middle and the beginning of the late Neolithic, huge henge monuments, earthworks, and cursuses began to appear which were related to various stone features (including stone circles, stone alignments, and standing stones of possibly earlier date). These large structures were often built in particular topographic areas, although the specific topographic context is dependent on the geographical region—like
Wessex on the chalk uplands (Richards 1996: 191; Harding 1991: 147). At this time, there was a decline in the construction of burial structures housing more than one disarticulated individual (Flemming 1973: 187; Renfrew 1973: 540; Wainwright 1989:
29; Whittle et al. 1999: 58; Malone 2001: 167-169). Instead, many burials occur either in round barrows associated with high social status or cemeteries of single graves with beaker pottery. Ireland and northern areas of Scotland are an exception to this pattern
(Thomas 1991a: 40; Brodie 1994: 22).
Nevertheless, the use and construction of round barrows is nowhere near the number of earlier tombs and a large amount of physical remains for the assumed population have not been recovered (Parker-Pearson 2001: 147). Enclosed cemeteries 59 also appear at the end of the late Neolithic, with "circular arrangements of segmented ditches [recalling] earlier causewayed enclosures" (Hodder 1990: 257). This type of burial limits the possibility of post-depositional manipulation of the body, therefore making burial a singular event (Thomas 1991a: 35, 40). The monumental tombs of the earlier Neolithic are filled or closed (Whittle 1988: 185; Hodder 1990: 252; Hingley
1996: 232, 236). Natural topographic features are also often incorporated into monumental structures, and at such a degree that it is frequently difficult to assess what is man-made and what is natural (Cummings 2002: 111). This form of individual burial and use of monumentality has largely been equated with the emergence of an elite or ruling class, differentiation given to age and sex, and the introduction of beaker pottery from continental Europe (Thomas 1991a: 34, 37; Brodie 1994: 21). It is believed that the general decline in monument construction is directly related to increased agricultural productivity and the establishment of agricultural landscapes (Roberts 1998: 198), the implications of which relate to territoriality and ownership. Fortified settlements on hilltops become common at this time as well, possibly chosen for their high ground and defensive potential (Wainwright 1989: 29).
In the early Bronze Age, burial practices consist of single inhumations or cremation burials, often as part of a larger cemetery context. Round barrows are still being constructed at this time, although to a much smaller degree. Long barrows are no longer constructed and very few are reused during this period. The plethora of monumental forms that was so prevalent throughout the Neolithic is not present during this period (Brodie 1994: 22; Parker-Pearson 1999: 81; Ashmore 2001: 2; Timberlake
2001: 181). Visibility and topographic context is not referred to in the literature as a 60 significant component of monument location during this period.
In the late Bronze Age, cremation cemeteries and small barrows become the most common burial context throughout southern and eastern England (Champion 1999: 99).
The reuse of closed-off portal dolmens and passage graves of the Neolithic also occurs at the end of the late Bronze Age, with secondary burials found dug into mound plateaus
(Hingley 1996: 240; Champion 1999: 108). If placing the dead within monumental tombs puts them within the context of the past, then secondary burials could be a way of identifying with the past of the landscape (Hingley 1996: 240). Burials would then be both social constructions in the past and the present, while at the same time being political statements about the geographical legitimacy of the later population (Vandkilde
2005: 13).
To conclude, sites in the Neolithic and Bronze Age are not indiscriminately located in the landscape. Instead, there are both broad and local trends in site location across Britain and Ireland. In the beginning of the late Neolithic, emulation and incorporation of topographic features in monumental construction is commonplace
(Tilley 1994: 142; Tilley and Bennett 2001: 346-359; Bergh 2002: 140). The late Bronze
Age saw the reintroduction of monumental construction, albeit the breadth of monumental forms being constructed in this period was not as varied as in the Neolithic
(Hingley 1996: 240; Champion 1999: 108). From this brief and relatively simplistic synopsis, we can now turn to a detailed discussion of the development of monumentality in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Cornwall and West Penwith. 61
3.4: Topography and palaeo-environmental reconstruction of Cornwall in the
Neolithic and Bronze Age
There are three geologically and topographically distinct areas in Cornwall (Figure 3.1):
(1) The granite batholiths that intrude the surrounding sedimentary formations and
which form a chain from the Scilly Isles (SW) to Dartmoor (NE). Poorly drained
and infertile moorlands have formed in these higher areas, which are
characterized by dramatically weathered tors and rocky outcrops. The highest and
largest of these moorlands are in the NE at Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor while the
lowest and smallest outcrops are found in the SW at Hensbarrow near St. Austell,
Carnmenellis and West Penwith (Barnatt 1982: 20-21).
(2) The majority of Cornwall's lowland geology is Devonian sedimentary rock
formations which have been metamorphosed by heat emanating from the igneous
granite, such as shales and slates - often referred to locally as killas or shillet. Due
to the relatively malleable nature of these formations, physical and chemical
weathering has shaped these rocks into the dramatic cliff line landscape that
Cornwall is known for (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 336-337).
Barnatt describes these formations as:
"rocks [that] form a shelf between granite and the sea, varying in height but everywhere composed of flat-topped ridges dissected by steep-sided stream and river valleys" (1982: 21).
(3) The third and final area is the Lizard Peninsula (approximately 10 by 16 km in
size), mostly formed by igneous and metamorphic rock but including unique
outcrops of serpentine (Barnatt 1982: 21). • ,„_#' >_"—-" -•^\ $ -J/ £ *" ";
'> '-'•'"x i'?' •'4-;- ',
• •" ^
" -"• "/ •*.
" r- , T*~ ' " ' ;?./ '•».' ,."
Garlrmxsf Bodmin Msor
V£ WftfiKti:MTiyA" V •4.-—. ^.
,---'•' / ., ±yjf V
/'-' • Canrcnwllis ^'^J
Wait r...f .»*•'
Islet; cjf Scilly Mounts Bay x Lizai d <* # Chysausier Ii ot;inmri Dawm ftreas ormoorrarid 20 iH.Tl
Figure 3.1: Areas and sites mentioned in the text. Reproduced with permission from the Cornwall HES © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Cornwall Council 100049047 2010. 63
Extensive dune systems can be found around coastal Cornwall, especially on the northern coast and west coast of the Lizard, and are an important element in the reconstruction of palaeo-environmental sequences in prehistory (Straker 2010: 55). Similarly many
Cornish coastal wetlands or valley bottom sequences produce samples of inorganic marine sedimentation from peats and silts, all of which are related to the history of sea level change (Straker 2010: 54). These areas also have an extremely rich preservation of pollen, which allows for multi-proxy studies that provide information on past environmental landscapes often lost in other contexts due to taphonomic processes
(Straker 2010: 54). For example, preservation of organic material like wood or unburnt bone is generally poor because of the high acidity of the soils (Jones 2004-5: 127).
It is generally understood that at the start of the Holocene - approximately 12,000
B.P. - sea level rise caused many rivers to cut into and flood valleys, which created the deep estuaries that reach far inland (Barnatt 1982: 21). As the climate warmed, forested areas, predominantly of pine and birch, grew and populated the whole of Cornwall, so that by 9000 B.P., clearings and open areas would have only been found directly along the coast and in higher moorland (Barnatt 1982:22; Gearey et al. 2000: 426-428).
Evidence of forest burning becomes evident at the onset of the Mesolithic as a method to ensure more productive hunting (Wilkinson and Straker 2008: 66). While the forests would have regenerated over time, soil degradation limited areas of expansion and peat began to grow in areas that would not sustain woodland (Barnatt 1982: 22; Gearey et al.
2000: 429; Wilkinson and Straker 2008: 66).
The Cornish environment in the Early Neolithic consisted primarily of moorland, with large areas of acidic bedrock (currently covered by moorland) and a damp climate. 64
Temperatures in the Neolithic were possibly 2-3 degrees higher than today, based on
Robinson's (2002) review of southern English insects at Neolithic sites (Wilkinson and
Straker 2008: 63). Increased forest clearance occurred in the Neolithic, leading to small clearings of permanent settlements in areas of arable soil (Barnatt 1982: 22; Wilkinson and Straker 2008: 66). Often burnt remains of oak are found in ceremonial contexts, which may attest to clearance events (Jones 2004-5: 127). Although there was some clearance during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, pollen analysis from Stannon
Down on Bodmin Moor indicates that woodland cover was still extensive until the
Middle Bronze Age (Jones 2004-5: 10). The tree cover in the early Neolithic appears to have been primarily oak, birch and hazel, with little to no presence of pine (Gearey et al.
2000: 501; Cole and Jones 2002: 132). However, areas located on exposed headlands or near to the sea would have had little to no tree cover, with the salt-laden winds being unfavourable for tree growth and reducing tree size if woodland areas did exist in these areas (Jones 2006: 16).
During the mid-late Neolithic, there is evidence of a gradual change in the environment, which combined with clearances, saw the further reduction in woodland coverage. Decrease in hazel, and increase in bracken, gorse, hawthorn and the introduction of cornflower have been interpreted as representing increasing cultivation
(Caselden 1980: 10-11; Johnson 1980: 3). Generally speaking, both birch and hawthorn colonise open or marginal woodland while alder is often found in water-logged or damp environments (Straker 2010: 59). Oak and hazel remain on the drier slopes of valleys, hill and plateau tops (Straker 2010: 59). This general pattern remains consistent until late
Bronze Age - early Iron Age, although woodland coverage significantly decreased due to 65 anthropogenic activity by the mid Bronze Age (Cole and Jones 2002: 132; Straker 2010:
57). Pollen analysis at Gunwalloe, on the Lizard Peninsula, supports this species distribution where: "the deciduous woodland in the pollen catchment during the prehistoric period comprised oak with alder, hazel, ash, elm and holly, with an understorey including honeysuckle, ferns and dogs mercury" (Straker 2010: 57).
There is limited evidence of crop husbandry during the Neolithic in Cornwall
(Jones 2006: 14-15). Often, indications of crop cultivation are only present in the Bronze
Age, and then to a limited degree. Evidence of foraging-gathering in the form of nuts and berries is more much prominent in the Neolithic than is evidence of agricultural or husbandry practices. The limited evidence for plant cultivation in Cornwall during the
Neolithic appears to be almost exclusively confined to causewayed enclosures and the rare isolated occupation sites (Gearey et al. 2000: 502-503; Jones 2006: 14-15). It is likely that this could mean crop cultivation was relatively small-scale and was only a very small part of the subsistence practices during this period (Jones 2006: 24).
By the Bronze Age in Cornwall, permanently cleared areas began to occur in the uplands on relatively unproductive soils (Barnatt 1982: 23; Gearey et al. 2000: 503).
Archaeological investigations and pollen analysis suggest increased woodland clearance during the Bronze Age through to the Iron Age, which resulted in the relatively open landscape of Cornwall's upland regions that can be seen today (Caselden 1980: 13).
However, palaeo-environmental evidence from Stannon Down on Bodmin Moor indicates, as noted above, that in the early Bronze Age woodland cover would have still formed a major part of the landscape (Jones 2004-5: 32). 66
It is during the middle Bronze Age that the substantial increase in woodland clearance occurred, which probably destabilized the soils resulting in colluvial deposits on the lower ground. Moorland vegetation from this period largely consists of grass, sedge, cinquefoil, heath-grass (usually found in acidic soils) and gorse, all of which would have been potential fuel sources (Jones 2004-5: 42). At this time, significant parts of the landscape were as open and grassy as today (Dudley 2010: 3). In order to maintain woodland clearance and open rough ground at the level that is demonstrated in the
Bronze Age, continuous animal grazing and repeated seasonal clearance had to take place
(Herring 2008: 81; Dudley 2010: 3; Edmonds 1999: 23).
Therefore, the landscape at this time was always occupied by either humans or animals or both (Wilkinson and Straker 2008: 66). Unlike much of the pollen evidence from inland Britain, pastoral activities rather than arable agriculture appears to have been the predominant subsistence practice in Cornwall, as indicated by evidence of upland acid grassland herbs and herb pollen taxa that are usually found in pastoral environments.
Nevertheless, it is likely that some small-scale cultivation did occur at this time (Gearey et al. 2000: 504; Jones 2004-5: 36, 42), although evidence of wheat grain in this area only becomes archaeologically visible during the Iron Age (Jones 2004-5: 42; Pollard et al.
2008: 78).
The modern-day climate is maritime because of the close proximity to the
Atlantic. The mild winters and cool summers can largely be attributed to the salinity in the air, which also would have inhibited plant growth and decreased soil fertility (Barnatt
1982: 22). The dominant woodland taxon in Cornwall is oak, which usually does not 67 reach the large stature associated with inland Britain because of the strong south- westerlies coming off the Atlantic and extremely acidic soils (Cole and Jones 2002: 132).
3.4.1: Topography and Palaeo-environmental reconstruction of West Penwith in the
Neolithic and Bronze Age
The earliest indisputable pollen evidence of the palaeo-environmental context in
West Penwith during the Holocene is from Marazion Marsh dating to the Late Mesolithic
(Robinson et al. 2007: 14; Straker 2010: 56). Marazion Marsh is a coastal wetland sequence and submerged forest, on the shores of Mount's Bay near Penzance, between the Lizard Peninsula and Land's End (Figure 3.1 and 3.2; Healy 1995: 237). The presence of the submerged forest at Marazion Marsh provides insight into the past sea level position, indicating that at least 5 m of sea along the coast of Marazion Marsh was part of the landmass of Cornwall at some point in prehistory and that the area had been forested prior to its submergence (Healy 1995: 239; Wilkinson and Straker 2008: 63). It appears that this occurs before the onset of the Neolithic, between 5500-4500 B.P., and therefore may not have affected the potential inter-visibility between sites along the coast and to Mount's Bay (Healy 1995: 247). Alder fen carr is the most prevalent plant remain from the submerged forest, with some evidence of willow, oak and hazel woodland in better drained valley areas (Straker 2010: 56). The oak and hazel woodland diminished as the ground around Marazion Marsh became increasingly wet and resulted in an alder- dominated fen carr and reed-marsh environment, although this appears to have occurred gradually and is interspersed by marine sediments indicating occasional marine transgression (Healy 1995: 244). ***
JT*"^ y^ \ 51, IVFJ CI* ^"*™™—"*"Hl
ZennwCP fawHnlnafck CP / \t \ ,!
V MotwhCP ^3™
\ UJdgvadCP \
1, StJUMCP ft \ Sumcrovd Cfi S
\ jt St- Mflt»tf ^ , * "- • .
V PaulClP ! /- ' '" S^nnrnCP \ \ St Buryan CP
0 2 1 4
10 (iniw n cnpyiHjM AH ngnte lswirvud. CixnwMCaun.-l 11X)fi4§047, 2 Figure 3.2: Map of West Penwith with regions mentioned in text circled in red. Base map reproduced with permission from the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010. 00 69 Much like the rest of west Cornwall, the landscape in the Neolithic of West Penwith was still strongly dominated by oak and hazel woodland (Dudley 2010: 2). This oak-hazel woodland may have persisted far longer than its distribution across the rest of Cornwall. This can be seen by the scanty evidence of clearance until the late Bronze Age- early Iron Age, with clearance being largely from pastoral activities and possible a limited amount of arable agriculture (Robinson et al. 2007: 14). In the wetland coastal areas, marine incursions upset the environmental balance sometime after 4500 B.P. Once it was re-established, the vegetation cover became mostly grass and sedge dominated with some willow and shrubs (Straker 2010: 56). It would appear that in West Penwith, heathland development would not have been significant before the historic period (Robinson et al. 2007: 14). Soils preserved under a barrow at Chysauster (West Penwith) indicate a typical Cornish acid brown-earth and prominence of various herbicous plants such as grasses, plantain, and cereals (Robinson et al. 2007: 14). This suggests that agriculture was being practiced in the area prior to the construction of the barrow, which is a different pattern from the pastoral activity suggested at Stannon Down (Bodmin Moor, Cornwall) during the same period. The early Bronze Age environment remained roughly the same as the Neolithic, with oak-hazel woodland being the predominant taxa and willow/poplar found on wet ground or close to water (Smith 1996: 209; Jones and Quinnell 2006: 50). Evidence of crop husbandry in West Penwith is often isolated to the Bronze Age or later, as is common in the rest of Cornwall (Smith 1996: 205). Unlike Bodmin Moor, however, evidence in West Penwith indicates that arable agriculture was the preferred cultivation practice as opposed to pastoral activities (Smith 1996: 209). The fertile acid brown soil present since the Neolithic and degraded acid soil detrimental to growth of many plant species are found across the area (Smith 1996: 205). Modern vegetation levels on the Penwith moorlands are extremely high, being predominantly gorse, bramble, bracken (Dudley 2010: 3), and minimal tree cover. West Penwith in general has always had fewer trees than the rest of Cornwall simply because of its close proximity to the sea (Barnatt 1982: 95), although remnants of the oak-hazel woodland cover still exist confined to stretches along valley bottoms (Smith 1996: 205). 3.5: Monumentality in Cornwall and West Penwith There is a general pattern in Cornwall of monuments in lowland environments being poorly preserved or completely destroyed (Jones 2006: 3). The comparatively good preservation of monuments in upland and moorland areas is a taphonomic issue largely reflecting the relative intensities of land use over the millennia. This issue will be returned to in Chapter 4 and 5. It must be noted that although the following provides a brief introduction to monumentality in southwest Britain, there are local variations of monument forms that are not discussed in this chapter (Jones 2008: 155). Like much of Britain and Ireland, monumentality in Cornwall and West Penwith began with the shifting social dynamics of the Neolithic (Jones 2006: 3). Many monuments in Cornwall are found on or near granite outcrops, possibly due to the limited available rock in lowland areas with which to build these features (Barnatt 1982: 103; Tilley and Bennett 2001: 345-346; Jones and Quinnell 2006: 51). Building in close proximity to tors appears to be a characteristic of Neolithic monuments, particularly the portal dolmens/chambered tombs of Cornwall (Herring 2008: 74). The importance of tors 71 is strongly associated with cairns and barrows in Cornwall and Devon, as many of these features enclose the tors within their structures (Bradley 1998: 19; Cole and Jones 2002: 109; Jones and Quinnell 2006: 53). In fact: "large tors such as Rough Tor [Bodmin Moor] and Cam Galver [West Penwith] became the focus for large monument groups and may have had wider communal significance than the smaller outcrops found beneath some Cornish barrows" (Jones and Quinnell 2006: 51). Unsurprisingly, the majority of monuments in Cornwall are made from the readily available granite and it is rare to find a stone circle or a chambered tomb that is not near to the outcrops or made of their material (Barnatt 1982: 103; Tilley and Bennett 2001: 346). This may suggest preference for local rock types or that it was simply the most abundant raw material. Eastern areas of Cornwall appear to have structural traits from several areas, including ties to inland Britain and the well known Wessex complex of monuments and burials (Jones 2008: 170). Many ceremonial monuments in Cornwall are also associated with the sea, either by being constructed in coastal zones or overlooking the coast. The sea can easily be seen as an extremely prominent feature of Cornwall, with the largest distance between anywhere in this region and the coast being no more than 29 km (Gearey et al. 2000: 504). The Cornwall and Scilly HER has records for 65 Neolithic and 773 Bronze Age monuments in West Penwith (Table 3.3), demonstrating that this small peninsula has one of the densest concentrations of prehistoric monuments anywhere in Britain and Ireland. It is also the only place in Cornwall outside of the Scilly Isles where entrance graves are found in any number (Barnatt 1982: 105). The Penwith area in general appears to be a region of significant monument variability, which could reflect the maritime communication network along the Atlantic facade to Brittany (France), Ireland, west 72 Type Neolithic NVNeo Total Bronze Age NVB. A Total Barrow 8 4 12 200 234 434 Cairn 2 1 3 56 26 82 Chambered Tomb* 7 6 13 Cist 2 2 47 19 66 Clearance Cairn 7 1 8 Enclosure 2 2 11 6 17 Entrance Grave 7 7 10 2 12 Holed Stone 20 20 Long Barrow 3 3 Long cairn 1 1 Mound 2 1 3 Round 2 2 Standing Stone 6 9 15 45 67 112 Stone alignment 1 2 3 Stone circle 2 3 5 7 7 14 Tor Enclosure 2 2 Total 35 30 65 406 367 773 Table 3.3: Number of monument site records in West Penwith. Data reproduced with permission from the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010. *Chambered tombs are also known as portal dolmen, Penwith tomb or Quoit. NV is an abbreviation of not verified and refers to sites that have either been described in archaeological surveys that later were unable to be located or to features that have been suggested as sites but have not been confirmed as such. Neo refers to the Neolithic and B. A refers to the Bronze Age. Please refer to Table 3.2 for a brief description of monument types. coast Wales, and west coast Scotland (Jones 2006: 26; Pollard et al. 2007: 91-92). In West Penwith, visibility to the sea is prominent at most mid-high elevations as it is surrounded on its western, northern and southern coasts by the ocean. The earliest monument form in Britain and Ireland during the earlier Neolithic is the chambered tomb, although in West Penwith and Cornwall the terms most commonly used is portal dolmen, Penwith tomb or Quoit (Table 3.3; Barnatt 1982: 42-43). For simplicity, the term chambered tomb will be used to refer to these Cornish tombs, bearing in mind that there are other titles in the published literature. The entrance grave is also a 73 common subdivision of the Cornish chambered tomb, although the scale and dimension of entrance graves differ from chambered tombs (Barnatt 1982: 42). The origins of the chambered tomb appear to come from either Ireland or Brittany where the earliest monuments have been dated to roughly 4000 (cal) B.C. and were introduced shortly after the characteristic practices of the Neolithic were established (Barnatt 1982: 38; Fowler and Cummings 2003:1-3). Chambered tombs in Cornwall are formed by a large horizontal capstone supported by large upright orthostats, often only three or four in number, with two forming a portal on one side. A single chamber is often found within the structure and usually is inaccessible after construction (Barnatt 1982: 43). The massive capstone set on top is often so large that multiple individuals would have been needed in order to put it in place. Many of these structures would have been set within a raised and kerbed platform made of a mound of earth or of stone (Bradley 1998: 16). This form of monumental architecture is often found along the coast throughout Britain and Ireland, suggesting a distribution based on communication via the sea (Barnatt 1982: 43; Pollard et al. 2007: 92). It can be no surprise that the peninsula of West Penwith has an extremely large number of these forms given the proximity to the Atlantic in three directions. Despite the title of chambered tomb, evidence of burial within these structures is virtually nonexistent in West Penwith and for much of Cornwall in general. This is largely an issue of taphonomy, in which skeletal material is no longer present because of the high level of acidity in Cornish soils (Pollard et al. 2007: 100). The raised element in the form of some chambered tombs suggests that they were meant to be conspicuous and their shape would appear to mimic natural tors nearby - indeed it has been suggested that the actual capstones may have been obtained and 74 removed from existing tors given their apparent lack of working and shaping (HES staff, personal communication). In addition, these structures are often located in such a way on the landscape that the capstone would be the only element visible from a far distance (Barnatt 1982: 47; Bradley 1998: 16; Tilley and Bennett 2001: 346). In West Penwith, these are often situated along the northern ridge area of rough ground and often have views to prominent hills (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 346). The largest concentration of chambered tombs in West Penwith during the Neolithic is in the Zennor and Madron areas (Figure 3.2 and B.l). It is possible that the tombs were reused in the Bronze Age, although it is unlikely that new ones were built during that period. Entrance graves also begin to be seen in the early Neolithic but, unlike chambered tombs, there is uniformity in the scale and dimension of these structures. Entrance graves are typified by a low passage leading into a mound, with no clear distinction between the passage and the chamber. The mounds themselves are also approximately circular with kerbed stones or slabs forming the walls (Barnatt 1982: 48). This type of monument is usually found in Ireland and on the Isle of Scilly, with no remains being found in Britain or Cornwall outside of West Penwith (Barnatt 1982: 48; Pollard et al. 2007: 96). Generally, entrance graves are 6-12meters in diameter, with a chamber height and width of 1 meter, and a corridor length from 3-6.5 meters (Barnatt 1982: 48-49). Multiphase entrance graves in West Penwith also occur, which span from the early Neolithic to the Bronze Age, but they are not the norm (to be discussed further in Chapter 5). Although this type of monument does not appear in the rest of Cornwall and is only found in West Penwith, it is still relatively rare in comparison to the rest of the monuments in the area. The parish of St. Just has the most entrance graves dating to 75 the Neolithic, which is unsurprising given the proximity to the sea and the likely communication occurring between communities in the Scilly Isles, Britanny, Ireland and the western coast of Wales and Scotland. Bronze Age entrance graves are plentiful in the St. Just area as well, but in slightly greater numbers, which may or may not be significant (Figure 3.2 and B.2). During the middle Neolithic, stone circles began to be built in the landscape (Figure 1.10). This form of monument is extremely difficult to date due to a scarcity of radiocarbon dates and limited number of artifacts associated with them. Despite this, it seems that most of these features were constructed between 2500-1600 (undeclared calibration) B.C. (Barnatt 1982: 53). Cornish circles are predominantly large with stones roughly a meter high and diameters between 16-27 meters. The only exception to this is on Bodmin Moor, where many of the circles have diameters of 14- 46 meters and a mean diameter of 30 meters for larger circles (Barnatt 1982: 61; Bender et all 2008: 36). Stone circles in West Penwith are relatively uniform and truly circular, with an average diameter of 21-24 meters. Some are associated with the menhirs (standing stones) in their immediate environs (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 350-352). Of the Neolithic stone circles in West Penwith, St. Buryan parish has the highest number of verified circles, although the value number (n=3) itself is not very high. St. Buryan in the Bronze Age continues to have the highest concentration of stone circles, although it shares this with the parish of Paul (Figure 3.2 and B.3). Standing stones in Britain and Ireland may have appeared in the landscape by the early-mid Neolithic (Figure 1.9; Darvill 1996: 187). West Penwith has the largest concentration of standing stones in Cornwall, indeed England as a whole, and these are 76 sometimes identified as a central feature in a stone circle, small henge or as individual features in the landscape (Russell 1971: 31-35; Barnatt 1982: 95; Peters 1990: 33; Darvill 1996: 196). It is unclear whether menhirs are associated with the stone circles in West Penwith. However, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of them relate chronologically to the presence of stone circles in these areas (Russell 1971: 31-36). Isolated standing stones that have been excavated reveal that they could have functioned as burial markers during the Bronze Age based on the artifact types that were found. However, there is not enough excavated evidence to indicate if this was their primary function (Barnatt 1982: 97; Peters 1990: 33). All of the stones are located either on or near granite outcrops and are generally made from the same material. If softer rock material was used, these would have eroded away prior to the period of investigation and the same caution must be given to the other features in the area (Barnatt 1982: 100). Standing stones in West Penwith appear to have an element of inter-visibility, often being visible at a far distance and may have functioned as indicators of land use boundaries (Peters 1990: 41). St. Ives, a parish well known for its beautiful coastline cliffs and sandy beaches, has the most standing stones during the Neolithic and St. Just, another beautiful coastal area, has the highest concentration of standing stones in the Bronze Age (Figure 3.2). Interestingly, the number of standing stones from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age increased fourfold (Figure B.4). Barrows, and round barrows in particular, are the most common monument type in West Penwith from the Bronze Age (Jones 2011: 75). Barrows were introduced to the landscape during the late Neolithic/beginning of the Bronze Age and are generally small, single box-like chambers with a single large capstone often covered by a mound of earth 77 and/or stones (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 346). Surprisingly, the building materials for these Cornish structures are not often found within the immediate vicinity of the site (Barnatt 1982: 82), although it is unclear if this occurs in West Penwith as well. There are two basic elements of the barrow form, "an open enclosure and a covering mound" (Barnatt 1982: 80). Cornish barrows do not appear to be used for the burial of elites, unlike the barrows of the chalk downlands in Wessex and elsewhere in Britain and Ireland (Barnatt 1982:80; Thomas 1991a: 40; Brodie 1994: 22; Roberts 1998: 198). Burial of skeletal remains does occur in barrows across Cornwall. However, the recovery of these remains is often problematic due to the highly acidic nature of the soil. When burial remains are recovered, it appears that the burial itself is one of the last phases of the monument's use prior to being mounded over and closed (Jones and Quinnell 2006: 58). To be more specific: "many cairns and barrows in the south-West did not contain burials at all, whilst at others only token amounts or multiple burials are found. Occasionally, whole bodies were inhumed but this appears to have occurred fairly infrequently throughout the course of the Early Bronze Age and does not seem to have primacy over cremation as a funerary rite. Likewise, 'rich' burials are relatively uncommon and metal objects are rarely found [...] Instead, greater emphasis was given to the marking of 'place' within the landscape and a great number of barrows are found in striking locations or incorporate in situ large boulders within them" (Jones 2008: 155). Unfortunately, almost a third of the barrows in Cornwall have been badly damaged or ploughed out, and it is hypothesized that at the end of the Bronze Age there would have been thousands of these features in the landscape across Cornwall (Barnatt 1982: 84). This issue of destruction in West Penwith will be further discussed later in this chapter. The main difference between the early/mid-Neolithic and the late Neolithic/early 78 Bronze age barrows in West Penwith is that the latter were built in close proximity to the natural topographic features but did not incorporate rock outcrops within their structure and the former were constructed in, around and among rock outcrops and solution basins (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 349, 351). Evidence from the Watch Hill barrow site in St. Stephen-in-Brannel, Hensbarrow Moor, indicates that high visibility across large distances was an important feature of the site. From Watch Hill on a clear day, it is possible to see as far as the hill fort (possible Neolithic causewayed enclosure) at Castle-an-Dinas on Goss Moor to the north, the barrow cemetery at Carland Cross to the west some 19 km away, and St. Stephen's Beacon to the immediate west where the location of a destroyed barrow and a possible Neolithic tor enclosure can be seen, among other features (Jones and Quinnell 2006: 43- 44). Today, it is necessary to know the location of these features beforehand, else they would not be recognizable from a distance, however, it is possible that at one time these monuments could have been seen from any of these high viewpoints. The extensive visibility range, and possible inter-visibility, of barrows in the landscape appears to suggest that they were strategically placed to take advantage of local topography to ensure such views to and from them. However, high topographic visibility may be restricted to specific sites or those sites deliberately located at higher elevations. For example, the barrows at the lower elevation of Botrea in West Penwith appear to refer to each other visually as opposed to any of the other barrows along the horizon line (Jones 2011: 80-81). There is also a low level of inter-visibility between the Botrea barrows and other monument types, and to prominent features in the landscape (Jones 2011:81-82), 79 which suggests that the context of visibility from this type of monument is locally dependant. Therefore, in Cornwall barrows tend to be found in locations where earlier monuments were built. They also tend to be located in places that have prominent views without necessarily being placed in the landscape in order to be seen (Jones 2011: 82). Like cairns, the end life of barrows included being mounded over and closed. Barrows are one of the most prevalent monumental structures in West Penwith. In the Neolithic, Zennor, St. Just and Madron parishes have the highest number of barrows in the region. This changes in the Bronze Age with the huge increase in barrow construction predominantly found in St. Just, Madron, Zennor and Sancreed parishes (Table 3.3, Figure 3.2 and B.5). Discrete groupings of barrow cemeteries also appear in the landscape during the Bronze Age, with the highest concentrations found in St. Just and Sancreed. These cemeteries indicate the establishment and longevity of this burial tradition. Cists - also known as stone lined pits - are less plentiful in West Penwith than barrows despite their frequent association with the larger, mound structures (Figure 1.6; Russell 1971: 6-7). The chronology of these features is unspecified in the literature; however their relationship to barrows indicates that at least some of them can be associated with the early/middle Neolithic or late Neolithic/early Bronze Age (Russell 1971: 7). Cists are practically nonexistent in the Neolithic, although there are a few cists in St. Just and Zennor that may have been built in the Neolithic. Cists are much more prevalent in the Bronze Age, with high concentrations in Madron, St. Buryan, St. Just and Zennor. It is interesting to note that the areas with many cists are also found in the 80 parishes with high numbers of barrows dated to the Bronze Age. This may be due to cists being an architectural feature of barrows and many barrows will actually cover or incorporate a stone lined box (Table 3.3, Figure 3.2 and B.6). Cairns are also quite prevalent in West Penwith during the Bronze Age, with only a small number associated with the Neolithic (Figure 1.4). Cairns are circular or sub- circular structures composed of various sized small granite stones, sometimes with a bounding kerb. Cairns—ring cairns, kerbed cairns, circular cairns, tailed cairns (circular head and linear tail), long cairns—are often associated with cremation burials or funerary deposits of human remains (Smith 1996: 209). Clearance cairns are a specific type of structure generated by the clearance of stone from plots of land in preparation for agricultural activities. Given the free standing structure of cairns across Britain, it has been postulated that these features were used in ceremonial contexts prior to the deposition of burials (Smith 1996: 209). However, whether this occurs homogenously across Cornwall and West Penwith remains unclear. Survey work on Bodmin Moor indicates that small cairns are often associated with nearby settlements of hut circles or fields6 (Smith 1996: 213; Jones and Quinnell 2004: 31). This is supported in West Penwith by the presence of pollen data found below a cairn that is indicative of clearance and cultivation (Smith 1996: 215). Deliberate infilling of ring cairns and barrows on upland areas occurs in the middle Bronze Age across Cornwall, as well as other upland areas of Britain (Jones and Quinnell 2004: 122). Cairns are virtually unknown in West Penwith in the Neolithic, with only confirmed cairns found in the Sennen and St. Just area. The presence of cairns in the Bronze Age increases considerably, with the highest 6 Although they are infrequently associated with other ceremonial monuments as well (Smith 1996: 213; Jones and Quinnell 2004: 31). 81 concentrations occurring in Madron, Zennor and St. Buryan (Table 3.3, Figure 3.2 and B.7). Stone alignments are also an interesting feature associated with the ceremonial or symbolic realm of the early Bronze Age. These features are often found in close proximity to other monuments from the same period (Barnatt 1982:84). Their function is still uncertain, but several possibilities behind their use have been suggested. One of these possibilities is the use of stone rows as processional routes, leading people to and from monuments. They may also represent "a symbolic barrier" alerting individuals that they are nearing a sacred site (Tilley 1996: 165). There is only one confirmed and one possible stone alignment in West Penwith, both found in the parish of Sancreed dating to the Bronze Age. None are known from the Neolithic (Table 3.3, Figure 3.2 and B.8). Another interesting Bronze Age monument is the holed stone. Holed stones are an extremely rare monument type (Preston-Jones 1993: 8-10). Fewer than 20 holed stones have been confirmed in Cornwall, all which have a hole diameter less then 45cm and the majority having a hole diameter of 15cm or less. Three examples of holed stones associated with stone circles occur in Scotland, however holed stones in Cornwall have also been related to stone rows (St. Just, West Penwith), with long barrows (Tolvan, Cornwall) and with portal dolmens—Trethevy Quoit in St. Cleer (Preston-Jones 1993: 9). One of the most famous examples of this type of feature is Men-An-Tol, in West Penwith (Figure 1.8). Men-An-Tol is a three part feature, with one circular, holed stone 1.1m high, 1.2 m wide and 28cm thick, and two 1.2m high standing stones 3m away—one to the NE and one to the SW (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 352). The straight line formed by the three stones is likely not its original orientation. The original drawing of the structure 82 from Borlase's 1769 study documents the orientation of the three features as forming a triangular arrangement (Preston-Jones 1993: 7). This difference lends weight to Blight's 1864 hypothesis that Men-An-Tol is a part of a ruined stone circle, which was tentatively confirmed by Preston-Jones (Preston-Jones 1993: 8). Men-An-Tol was originally thought to be a Bronze Age structure. However, its relationship to the ruined stone circle roughly 17-18 m in diameter has put this interpretation into question and it may actually have been constructed during the late Neolithic-early Bronze Age (Preston-Jones 1993: 8, 10). Both the size and the possible chronology fit well with the characteristics of stone circles in this area. Men-An-Tol in particular is unique because of its size. The hole is the largest documented thus far at 51cm in diameter (Preston-Jones 1993: 8-10). No holed stones are listed in West Penwith from the Neolithic and only 6 of the 19 parishes have evidence of the Bronze Age features, with the highest concentration being in St. Buryan (Table 3.3, Figure 3.2 and B.9). However, there are some issues with the authenticity of the age of these structures, as some may have been from the medieval era associated with farming practices (Preston-Jones 1993: 9). Tor enclosures appear to be the main communal gathering places as of the 4th millennium BC in Cornwall, areas where exchange and trade akin to the causewayed enclosures of the east and their associated ceremonial activities (Pollard et al. 2008: 78). Figure B.10 illustrates the distribution of these monuments in West Penwith. In this area, there are at least three significant tor enclosures sites at Trencrom, Cam Galva, and St. Michael's Mount (Dudley 2010: 1). In the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age, the tor enclosures were replaced as communal gathering areas by smaller hilltop enclosures, like 83 Castle-an-Dinas (Dudley 2010: 2). See Table 3.3 for the number of this monument type, Figure 3.2 for the description and B. 11 for the picture. 3.6: The history of monument destruction in West Penwith Urbanization, industrial works, overgrowth of vegetation and farming expansion have all contributed to monument destruction in West Penwith. Table A.1-A.4 defines the status of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in West Penwith. The major urban centers in this area are the coastal towns of St. Ives (north), Penzance (south) and St. Just (west). The level of monument preservation in the St. Just area is actually quite good considering its higher population levels compared to rural West Penwith. Of the three, St. Ives and Penzance are larger, more heavily populated, and very well-known tourist locations, all of which undoubtedly contributed to their relatively low monument density. Extensive and intensive 18* and 19th century tin, copper, and stone quarrying have also destroyed and damaged many monuments, especially in areas of marginal rough ground on the coast and moorland (Bamatt 1982: 100; Jones 1997: 10). St. Just is the principal mining district in West Penwith, yet despite the extensive metalliferous mining activity, the archaeological record of monumental structures is still quite rich (Sharpe 1996: 1). China clay working was another intensive industry in Cornwall, particularly around the granite massif of St. Austell but also in other pockets including Castle-an-Dinas quarry in West Penwith. This industry mined decomposing granite of upland areas and in the process often destroyed countless monuments during the height of its production (Bamatt 1982: 105). The waste dumping from this exploitation also often 84 obscures the visibility of monumental remains, which further abstracts the land use patterns of the past (Jones and Quinnell 2006: 43). Vegetation and overgrown areas, particularly on rough ground, also affect the preservation of monuments. Overgrowth of vegetation in and around monuments can lead to roots destabilizing the structure or wearing away the foundation of monuments. However, the annual maintenance and clearance of vegetation has drawbacks as well since clearance often allows invasive species of plants to replace the more common gorse and heather cover (Jones 1997: 19-20). The use of animal grazing to check and control vegetation growth also has its problems. Monuments in pastures with animal grazing, particularly cattle, tend to be destabilized over time by animals rubbing against the structure. An example of this is the entrance grave at Brane (Figure 1.7), which had to be partially reconstructed due to extensive animal erosion (Preston-Jones 1995: 6-7). Lowland areas in West Penwith are relatively devoid of upstanding monuments, as many have been ploughed down, removed or relocated over centuries of farming. Destruction of monuments due to farming practices increased after the Second World War, particularily during the 1970s when heavier and more efficient agricultural machinery began to be commonly used across West Penwith (Preston-Jones 1995: 8). Many monuments are recorded as crop marks that are only identified through aerial photography, as opposed to being upstanding and visually recognizable monuments in the landscape (Jones 2008: 163). Monuments tend to survive better along the coast, on rough ground or common ground7 and in areas of former downland - land traditionally used for pasture rather than 7 The public has free access to both rough ground and common ground, although both types of land are often privately owned. 85 arable land (Jones 2008: 163). However, measures have been taken over the past 50 years to improve this situation. Many monuments have been preserved and actively protected through statutory designation, making it illegal to deliberately damage or destroy them (i.e., English Heritage's Scheduled Monument programme). Targeted surveys and assessment undertaken during the 1980s in West Penwith have also identified large areas of prehistoric landscapes, allowing practical measures to be put in place for their better management at a landscape scale (HES staff: personal communication). More recently, proactive studies have been undertaken to better understand the evolution of heathland environments where sustainable management practices, based on traditional techniques, are advocated (Dudley 2010). As can be seen, there are several factors that fragment and distort the evidence for prehistoric sites and their location. Thus, it is necessary to keep in mind that the distribution of monuments today may be markedly different from that in prehistory. 3.7: Concluding remarks To conclude, much like inland Britain and Ireland, Cornish monuments do not appear to be randomly located in the landscape. Architectural influence from the Irish sea region can be seen in Neolithic monuments of West Penwith, which is suggested by the presence of entrance graves in this area as opposed to elsewhere in mainland Britain. The Cornish monument tradition of tor outcrop mimicry also occurs in West Penwith. During the late Neolithic-early Bronze Age, inter-visibility at higher elevations does occur but 8 The setup of the Environmentally Sensitive Area of West Penwith in the 1980s offered protection to many moorland areas as well as the monuments and the archaeological landscapes within them, although this has recently expired. 86 this is dependent on the monument type. It is also during this time period that monuments begin to be incorporated into tor outcrops instead of mimicking them from afar. Thus, monumentality in West Penwith appears to be an interesting blend of coastal cultural ties and mainland Cornish tradition. Chapter 5 and 6 will investigate whether these observations can be statistically supported. The following chapter presents the model and methodology of the current study. 87 Chapter 4: The model, dataset and method 4.1: The model: visibility and monumentality in West Penwith In order to investigate whether visibility was a factor in West Penwith monument location choice, I combined a GIS spatial analysis based on viewsheds or visibility ranges with descriptive observations taken during the 2009 field survey, which was modelled after a phenomenological framework. In order to establish the context of visibility from monuments in West Penwith, I investigated: (1) Whether certain types of monuments are found at certain elevations, at specific slopes and on specific types of land - what is termed the Historic Landscape Character (HLC) type by the Cornwall HES. This will provide a topographic context for monument location. A basic premise of HLC is that the whole of Cornwall is one continuous but multifarious historic landscape. (2) Whether there is a difference in the size of the average visibility ranges per monument from each period. The size of the average visibility range of land per monument will also be compared to the size of the average visibility range per monument to the ocean, in order to evaluate whether there was an emphasis on visibility to one or the other in each period. (3) Whether monuments (of various types) visually refer to unique or prominent topographic features (for example, barrows consistently referring visually to prominent hills). (4) Whether the visibility scope of certain monument types consistently refers to certain types of land (for example, 60% of the visibility range of cairns is to 88 prehistoric farmland). (5) Whether the same monument types are visible from their own monument class (for example, barrows visually refer to other barrows), as well as whether a particular type of monument is visible to another type of monument (for example, barrows consistently have views to cairns). All of the above questions will be examined by integrating the spatial analyses conducting using GIS with the qualitative observations recorded during the 2009 field survey and the published literature on the area. Statistical tests also will be conducted to establish the significance of relationships when appropriate. 4.2: The dataset and method My investigation can be broken down into three stages: (i) pre-field work data collection, (ii) field observations and (iii) the laboratory, computer-based analysis. The following section will address the types of data that are used in this study and where it was procured, provide a summary of the datasets and the criteria behind sample and subsample selection in all three stages, and conclude with a detailed discussion of the methods used to analyze these data. The Cornwall Council Historic Environment Service provided all of the site records and data on the Neolithic and Bronze Age of West Penwith used in this study, apart from the observations taken in the field. The Historic Environment Service (formerly known as the Cornwall Archaeological Unit) is dedicated to identifying, conserving and interpreting the archaeology, built heritage and historic landscapes of Cornwall. This includes recording, managing and maintaining sites that date from early 89 prehistory to World War II, providing advice and consultation on how best to conserve and present the archaeological resource (Historic Environment Information). The HER archive includes a database of over 50,000 site, monument, structure, building, artifact, findspots and place-name records throughout Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. The records: "comprise data that has been drawn from a large and varied number of sources. These might include comprehensive surveys of discrete areas, but they also include the more haphazard results of individual research interests and access. SMRs [now referred to as HERs] reflect the pattern of discovery more than the extent of the archaeological resource and the historic environment" (Clark et al. 2004: 36). Text in brackets has been inserted for clarity. The monument point data and HLC polygon data used in the current study are taken directly from the HER. Information from the HER site records include the civil parish where the monument is located, the time period, the GPS coordinate of that location, the artifacts or finds associated with that site or monument, notes on its original discovery and any activity that has occurred at the monument since its discovery. There are 337 site records from the Neolithic in the HER database, 65 of which are various types of monuments. There are 1260 site records for the Bronze Age, with 773 monument records. The accuracy of GPS coordinates for sites and monuments in the HER records vary between lm to 1000m. This occurs because the HER records synthesizes all known data on the region, including archaeological records from excavation and survey over the last century, as well as antiquarian reports from the 18th and 19th century. Thus, monuments listed with lm-lOm accuracy indicates that their location has recently been verified, whereas monuments with 100m or 1000m accuracy indicates that the structure has not been located in recent surveys but is likely to have been within a 100m or 1000m radius of the GPS coordinates. The computational methods I employed in GIS require a high level of locational 90 accuracy in order to minimize the error that occurs in computer-generated models of site location, visibility and elevation. I also required the same level of accuracy in order to physically locate monuments and record observations of their surroundings during the 2009 field survey. Therefore, samples of both periods were defined based on the accuracy of their GPS coordinates. The minimum criteria for the sample were monuments with GPS coordinates with accuracy within 10m. This is because the DEM base map used in the topographic and visibility analysis conducted in GIS has a raster cell size of 10m. Therefore, accuracy of monument coordinates which vary between lm and 10m will not effect the results of the analyses. This reduced the number of Neolithic monuments to be investigated from 65 to 42 monuments (Figure B.12), and the Bronze Age monuments from 773 to 452 (Figure B.l3). The three stages of analysis mentioned above can be further divided into two components. The first component is comprised of the pre-field survey GIS work and the 2009 field survey, which was largely defined under a phenomenological framework. This field survey had a two part goal. The first was to walk the West Penwith landscape between monument sites and record experiential observations. The second was to investigate whether viewshed maps are an accurate reflection of visibility in a real life context. Because of the numerous site records in the HER, it was obvious that I would not be able to investigate all of the Neolithic and Bronze Age sites in West Penwith. This realization lead to the development of a subsample, to be discussed below. Stratified transects of West Penwith were defined within the survey region and a random sampling method was employed in order to target monuments within those transects for field survey. It was recognized before going into the field that there were 91 three major topographic areas in West Penwith, described as: lowland, rough ground, and coastal. In order to account for the possibility that variation in monument location choice was a result of differing topographic constraints, the landscape was stratified to produce four transects which cut across all three topographic areas (Figure 4.1). Rough ground is largely found at higher elevations along the northern ridge (Figure 4.2), whereas inland and lowland are predominantly in the southern farmland area (Figure 4.2). Two of the four transects were inland, each 3km wide, cutting across all three of the topographic areas. The size of the inland transects was determined in order to insure that: 1) a representative sample of Neolithic sites would be included for analysis in the field, and 2) that all three topographic areas would be represented within the random sample of monuments, which will be further discussed later in this section. Although the northern coastline is included in the two inland transects, it represents a small portion of the coastline in West Penwith. Therefore, a third transect along the western coastline, 3km wide, was created to insure that the coast would be adequately represented. A fourth transect was created along the southern coastline of the Penzance and Mount's Bay area, 1.5km wide. As noted in Chapter 3, this area is predominantly urban and many of the monuments in this region have been destroyed or relocated over the course of its urban development. While one of the two transects inland cuts across this area, because the distribution of monuments is so sparse it was deemed pmdent to create an additional transect to insure that all three coastlines were represented in this study. Monuments within these four transects were then targeted for the field survey and were chosen using a random generator. As the two inland transects cut across all of the major topographic areas, a larger number of monuments were included in the sample. 30 monuments were 92 N Stmtified suive> tinnwcts o Neolithic sites • Bronze Age Elevation above sea level r ••26 51 | |102 126 | |127 151 • 152 176 •1202 226 • Meters 0 1000 ^ooo SjOCO 8,000 Figure 4.1: Two inland transects and two coastal transects. Point data supplied by the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/database right 2010. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service. Transect 1: E 139700-142700. Transect 2: E 146600-149600. Transect 3: E 134000- 137500. Transect 4: E > 145500 and E < 154000, N < 32800. 93 N r Western coast 0 1,000 2.000 4.0CO 4000 8.0CD Figure 4.2: Topographic regions noted prior to and during the field survey that are mentioned in text. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/database right 2010. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service. randomly chosen from each inland transect, 15 monuments from the Neolithic and 15 from the Bronze Age. In the western coastal transect, three Neolithic monuments were chosen opportunistically as there were only three in that transect and nine monuments from the Bronze Age were randomly chosen. A total of six monuments, three from the 94 Bronze Age and three from the Neolithic, were randomly selected in the Penzance coastal transect, the small number reflecting the sparse distribution of monuments in this area. The selected monuments are illustrated in Figure 4.3. Generating viewshed maps for this subsample of 78 monuments thus formed the core of the pre-field survey GIS work of stage one, to be discussed further in section 4.2.1. After the construction of the viewshed maps, these 78 monuments were surveyed using a phenomenological framework of field survey in the summer of 2009, which represents stage two (to be discussed in section 4.2.2). The second component of this research is the computational models of topography and visibility conducted in GIS, which forms the basis of the work in stage three. The sample used in this stage of the GIS work consisted of the 42 Neolithic and 452 Bronze Age monuments mentioned above and will be discussed in more detail in section 4.2.3. Five hundred and twenty five random points were generated using Hawth's Analysis tools in ArcMap 9.3.1 in order to assess the landscape and visibility context of non-sites in West Penwith and safe guard against falsely discounting complete spatial randomness (Figure B.l5). As noted in Chapter 2, it is necessary to test for complete spatial randomness (CSR) in order to ensure that random chance does not govern the location of monuments and their subsequent visibility (Wheatley 1996: 88). The random points were analyzed under the same parameters as the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples, albeit without the field component. Taken together, 78 monuments, 35 from the Neolithic and 43 from the Bronze Age, form the subsample analysed in stage one and two of this research, which encompasses: 1) the generation of viewshed maps for monuments to be visited during the 95 Monuments 1 nudomly chosen m Stratified Tiansects N o Neolithic sites • Bronze Age site Elevation above sea level _L [~~"1 102- 126 CHI l27" I5' ••177-201 Transect 2 • Meter; 0 1,000 2,000 6,000 8,000 Figure 4.3: Distribution of monuments randomly selected for survey in stratified survey transects of West Penwith. Point data provided by the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/database right 2010. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service. 96 field survey, 2) field observations, and 3) the comparison of the viewshed maps to real life contexts. Four hundred and ninety-four monuments, 42 from the Neolithic and 452 from the Bronze Age, and 525 random points were analyzed using GIS in stage three of this project, which focused solely on generating models of the topographic context and visibility for all monuments in the three datasets. 4.2.1: Preliminary work prior to the 2009 field season The monument records for the Neolithic and Bronze Age in West Penwith provided by the Cornwall HES were incorporated into a GRASS GIS database. Viewshed maps were generated for all of the monuments in the subsample, to be visited during the field survey. These viewsheds were constructed using a UK Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Landform Profile map of West Penwith (provided by Dr. James Conolly) with 10m resolution and a maximum distance radius of 10km, an observer offset of 1.75m and no target offset. The 10km maximum distance radius was chosen largely due to computing time. The time it takes to generate a viewshed increases as the distance radius of visibility increases. Because the maximum distance radius of the viewsheds is 10km, adjustment for the earth curvature was not necessary in this analysis. The observer offset of 1.75m was chosen as a standard for human height. Generally speaking, the height of the human adult9 varies between 1.6-1.75m (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 7). The height of monuments today is not always the height they were in the past and while height does vary between monument types as well as within monument types, an attempt to generate viewsheds based on group or individual 9 This refers to the height of a Western individual. 97 height would have been much more time consuming with potentially very little change. Thus, 1.75m was chosen to represent the average height of an individual standing at a monument looking outwards. A potential solution would be to create a modified DEM with the actual or inferred height of a monument built into the elevation data and then perform the visibility analysis. Due to the size of my sample and the variation within it, such a solution would have been impossible in a study of this scope. The study region is defined as the entire peninsula of West Penwith with a minimum of 10km buffer around the region in order to safe guard against edge effect - as discussed in Chapter 2 (Wheatley and Gillings 2000:12). Within GRASS, the r.los and the r.mapcalc functions were used to generate the viewsheds for the subsample. These viewsheds were then imported into ArcMap v. 9.3.1. A digitized version of the Ordinance Survey 1:25,000 map of West Penwith was also imported into ArcMap, putting the monument coordinates in context of the present day landscape of the region. A survey checklist was also developed for observations to be taken in the field (Table A.5). Both the viewshed maps and the checklist were used to verify the applicability of GIS visibility maps in real life contexts, which forms the basis of the second component of the field survey discussed in section 4.2.2 4.2.2: The phenomenological framework of the field survey and testing the viewsheds in the field In the summer of 2009,1 went to Cornwall to examine the archives at the Cornwall HES and to conduct a field survey of the monument subsample in West Penwith. It must be noted that the planned field survey of the southern coastal area 98 around Penzance (Figure 3.2) was not conducted due to several issues including poor weather conditions, time constraints, and the fact that many of the sites in the southern coastal transect were either difficult to access or likely no longer present in the urban environment. Therefore, the subsample was reduced from 78 to 72 monuments. Of the remaining 72 monuments in subsample, only 6 were not visited due to weather constraints, destruction of the feature, illness or minor injury. A key component to any phenomenological framework is the recognition that time is "measured in terms of human embodied experience of place and movement, of memory and expectation" (Bender 2002: 103). Tilley (2008) outlines several guidelines for conducting phenomenological field walking which include: (1) becoming familiar with the landscape by walking through it; (2) going to sites and recording sensory "affordances and constraints" at each; (3) revisiting the same places at different times, either in different seasons, different weather constraints or at different times of day; (4) coming to the site from different directions to record if and how perception alters; (5) walking around and between sites based on paths in the landscape that have been created naturally via topography or through repeated use by anthropogenic movement; (6) visiting places that are labelled natural i.e., do not have any anthropogenic or archaeological history; (7) drawing all observations together to produce a narrative or imaging of the possible prehistoric life i.e., "how people in the past made sense of, lived in, and understood their landscapes" (Tilley 2008a: 274). The descriptive observations from the field survey are modelled after this phenomenological framework on all of the above points except (4) approaching monuments from different directions and (7) constmcting a narrative. Approaching sites 99 from various directions was impossible due to time constraints. There was only a month in which to investigate 72 sites, thus the daily field walking schedule had to be very rigid. This schedule was maintained and achieved by arbitrarily clustering sites based on proximity to each other and visiting them on the same day. At each site, detailed observations of their visual expanse as well as their topographic context were recorded. Walking was the main source of transport between sites. However, at times the distance from base to the first site scheduled for survey was too far to traverse and still maintain the survey schedule. Thus, public transport was used to get from base to a drop off point. Each drop off point was, at minimum, an hour walk from the first site of the day. All travel from the drop off point was conducted on foot, maintaining the minimum requirements for this type of survey (outlined in Chapter 2). While walking between and around the monuments, observations on the bodily experience of being in the landscape were recorded and photographic images were taken as visual documentation of the landscape that motivated the experience. Annotations to two separate Ordinate Survey maps of the region, both with a scale of 1:25,000, were also used to record sensory experiences. Once I had completed the notes on the bodily experience of walking to and around the monument, I then conducted the comparison between the viewshed maps and real life visibility. Detailed observations were recorded and the survey checklist was completed. This documentation was supplemented with 360° photographic panoramas, recording the visibility from each monument, which in rum also recorded the differing levels of visibility that occurs with various atmospheric constraints - such as fog, haze, rain, overcast, sun, etc. (Wheatley 1996: 97; Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 7). Observations in this context were focused on the topographic setting of monuments as well as vegetation cover of the surrounding landscape. The motivation for performing both types of analyses, experiential and verification of the computational models, in the field is directly linked to the acknowledgement that both offer differing but equally important types of information to an assessment of visibility. The experiential field survey allowed me to become physically immersed in the landscape context, so much so that by the end I could discuss any of the major topographic features and all of the monuments at length from memory. At first, walking between monuments in an unfamiliar landscape was difficult (to say the least!) and I found myself more than once completely and hopelessly lost. Gradually, as I continued to traverse the same landscape over days of survey, I became more and more comfortable as well as more knowledgeable about where monuments were located. I also began to be able to visualize landscape surroundings on a map in my mind's eye, a phenomenon that has been noted by others using this framework (Bender 2002: 107; Fitzjohn 2007: 39). My memory of the West Penwith landscape began to colour the way in which I viewed the context of monuments, comparing and contrasting various monuments and their settings on call. It also became increasingly clear that the distinction between culturally-made structures and naturally formed topographic features was not as clear cut as I had first imagined. Conducting the preliminary GIS visibility analyses provided me with the room to assess not only whether the GIS model of visibility reflected the expanse of the visibility ranges in West Penwith, but also allowed me to assess whether these models accurately represented the visual relationship between monuments as well as between monuments and the landscape. In addition, it allowed me to add qualitative detail to the results of the viewsheds which would otherwise have been lacking had the field component not been undertaken - an example would be vegetation cover. 4.2.3: Post-field season GIS work Upon returning from the field, I conducted several spatial analyses on each of the 42 Neolithic monuments and 452 Bronze Age monuments of my sample as well as the 525 random points. This includes assessments of elevation, slope, location of monuments on HLC types, average viewshed size per monument/point (in hectares) between periods and random points, and between monument types in each period. The area of visibility per monument/point overlooking land, sea, to different HLC types, and to higher elevations was also assessed. Finally, whether monuments in each period were more inter-visible with each other than with random points in the landscape was tested. All viewsheds were generated under the same constraints and using the same functions as viewsheds generated for the field survey. The elevation and slope of monument locations were compared between periods, types and to the random control sample to assess whether there was a preferential selection for either. Mann-Whitney tests were performed to assess whether differences were statistical significance, at a critical value of 0.05. This is the most appropriate test for the current study given that spatial data are not often normal distributed, the samples are not the same size and these data is ordinal (Wheatley 1996: 88). This test can be used to establish the significance of difference when comparing the scores of two independent populations or datasets that share the same variable (such as elevation) by ranking the 102 order of scores (Blaikie 2003: 197-199). The null hypothesis (that the two populations or datasets are not statistically different from one another) is accepted when values are > 0.05. HLC types were also used to assess the topographic context of sites. The HLC is an interpretative tool for understanding how traces of the historic landscape are visible in the present landscape context (Clark et al. 2004: 9). One of the main goals of the HLC is to "[identify] traces of the past within the modem landscape, and recognizing that essentially the landscape has its present character because of the changes it has undergone over the past millennia" (Clark et al. 2004: 12). The use of the HLC has become widespread in many aspects of land management, building proposals and heritage conservation in Britain (Clark et al. 2004: 7). This is largely due to its "underlying philosophy that particular patterns and groupings of landscape attributes can be shown to be determined by their similar land-use history" (Clark et al. 2004: 7). It is important to recognize that the HLC does not provide information on vegetation. What it does is "explain landscape's cultural, historic and archaeological attributes and the importance of change" (Clark et al. 2004: 11). It can be used to provide a context for existing archaeological data, in which individual sites can be placed into "their surroundings and the wider landscape" (Clark et al. 2004: 12). Unlike the HER site and monument point data: "the HLC [...] offers an understanding of the potential archaeological and historical attributes of each HLC Type, regardless of an absence of SMR information... One way of looking at this information is by considering HLC Types as the 'habitats' of particular attributes (sites, features and patterns), analogous to the varying natural habitats that are likely to be home to certain flora and fauna" (Clark et al. 2004: 36). In ArcMap, the location of monuments and random points, as well as monument types on different HLC types, was established. Chi-squared tests for independence were 103 attempted as these data are nominal and irregularly distributed. This test assesses the difference between observed and expected frequencies in a contingency table. The observed frequencies represent the actual data, while the expected frequencies are estimates of what each value should be if the data was equally distributed (Blaikie 2003: 96-97). If the observed and expected values are sufficiently different from one another, than they are also held to be statistically different (Blaikie 2003: 97). Unfortunately, several categories of the data in the current study have zero values, as well as values less than 5, which made using this test inappropriate. There are no other non-parametric tests for nominal data that could have been performed. Thus, no claims for statistical significance are made in the assessment of the relationship between monuments and HLC types. The focuses of the rest of the analyses are on the visibility context of monuments. The size (in hectares) of the visibility radius for each viewshed was calculated using the r. stats function in GRASS for the Neolithic, the Bronze Age and the random points, as well as for each monument type. This was done in order to compare and assess whether there was a difference in size of visible area between monuments from each period and random points, as well as between monument types. Mann-Whitney tests were then performed to assess the statistical significance between the different values, at a critical value of 0.05. Using the same method, area of viewsheds overlooking land in each period, between monument types and for random points were calculated and compared using Mann- Whitney tests at a critical value of 0.05. This was repeated for area of viewsheds overlooking the ocean. Cumulative viewshed maps were also generated to examine the character of monument inter-visibility during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age as well as the random points. As noted in Chapter 2, cumulative viewsheds combine two or more binary viewshed maps to generate a new map that provides an idea of how many times a particular view is visible from multiple locations (Ruggles and Medyckyi-Scott 1996; Conolly and Lake 2006: 227-228). Using the r.mapcalc function in GRASS 6.4, all the viewsheds for a particular dataset were cumulated (i.e., all Bronze Age viewsheds were added together) to produce a map depicting the number of times a particular location could be seen from all monuments within a 10km distance. X2 tests for independence at a critical value of 0.05 were conducted to assess whether the difference illustrated in the results of the cumulative viewsheds were sufficiently pronounced to be statistically different. Visibility overlooking land was then further divided by HLC types in order to assess whether there was a relationship between what environmental contexts were visible in each period compared to the random points as well as between each monument type (i.e., prehistoric farmland). To do this, each viewshed was clipped to the DEM and joined to the HLC layer provided by the Cornwall HES (Figure 4.4). Chi square tests were again considered. However, they were inappropriate for the same reason as before. The percentage of HLC types visible between periods, between types and random points were used as an approximate way in which to identify difference, although whether that difference is statistically significant is unknown. Visibility to mid-high elevations was assessed by creating a DEM displaying only elevations that are 140msl and higher (Figure 4.5). These heights were arbitrarily chosen as representations of the relatively isolated mid-high elevations in West Penwith. Low 105 HLC tYpes m West Penvudi N*» N ^J U 1 625 3,250 6,500 9750 13,000 ^•Meters Figure 4.4: Historic Landscape Character (HLC) Types in West Penwith. HLC map provided by the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010. 106 High Elev ations in West Penvwth Elevation above sea level 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 a,ooo Figure 4.5: High Elevation areas in West Penwith. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/database right 2010. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service. elevation is considered to be 139msl and lower, mid elevation is considered 140msl- 159msl and higher elevations are considered as anything above 160msl. Each viewshed was then clipped to this new DEM in order to assess whether visibility to higher elevations was a component of monument location. This assessment was performed on a 107 presence/absence basis and then converted into percentages. In this case, statistical tests were not appropriate. Due to the size, scope and time required during the analysis stage of the current project, it was not possible to do an in-depth analysis of inter-visibility between monuments. In order to test whether inter-visibility of monuments was greater than random points, the count of monuments and random points visible from each monument in both periods was tallied and compared using Mann-Whitney tests of significance at a 0.05 critical value. After testing to calculate whether visibility to monuments occurs more often than to random points, assessing the nature of that difference was then attempted. The procedure for this analysis consisted of creating an attribute table for each viewshed that included the number of monument types that fell within that visibility area. The number of monuments visible in each viewshed was then tallied. This was performed for both periods, the random points and each monument type. The tallied counts were converted into percentages in order to assess whether there were any noticeable differences, and in what abundance, of visibility to monument types. Statistical tests were again inappropriate as these data are non-parametric, nominal and had multiple values of either zero or less than five. These results were not included in the current study because of the relatively imprecise nature of this qualification. Thus, assessing whether inter- visibility occurs more frequently than chance would dictate is the only assessment of inter-visibility to be addressed. 4.3: Limitations and future work Scale, destruction of monuments, chronology, and time constraints have all contributed to the limitations of this study. The scale of the current project can be defined as regional, as the analysis is focused on discrete differences across a relatively large geographical expanse. This is always an issue as there is a variety of activity that occurs at different levels of scale (Head 2008: 380). Therefore, the current analysis does not assess whether there are small-scale, local clustering of monuments with a specific type of visibility pattern, such as has been presented by Jones (2011). The likelihood that this was occurring across West Penwith is very high, and unfortunately the scale of analysis in the current study would do little more than demonstrate that this is occurring. It does not provide the context of those occurrences. The history of monument destruction has created a situation in which we are aware that the distribution of monuments today is different from their distribution in the past. It is recognized that many of the lowland monuments have not survived to modem times and are therefore not included in the current assessment. This automatically creates a sampling bias that cannot be adjusted for. That being said, it is unknown how many monuments are missing from the current distribution and what the exact topographic context of those missing monuments was. This is always the nature of the archaeological record, in which we know without a doubt that we do not have the whole picture. That does not automatically indicate that a study is unworthy of attempt, although it does present boundaries that must be acknowledged and made explicit. This relates to another issue, which is the chronological classification of monuments. Monuments and archaeological features "are often associated with time periods that span several centuries (and human generations). In the end, even if detailed information about the chronological sequence of monuments is available, it is still questionable whether archaeologists would be able to 'switch off from their minds (and bodies) those features that were not contemporaneous during their field examinations. All of these limitations severely undermine the validity of many of these studies and ultimately their acceptance into wider archaeological community" (Llobera 2007: 54). Because the current study makes broad interpretations of the character and context of monumentality in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, it was deemed prudent to work under the assumption that all monuments of a period would be present on the landscape by the end of that period (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 8). Therefore, all discussion that makes reference to trends in the archaeological data is made under the assumption that the distribution of monuments could have potentially been very different from the beginning compared to the end of the period. Modelling the environment of West Penwith in prehistory was also an issue. No alterations were made for the change in sea level height - which was roughly 5m lower than present day - although it was recognized that sea-level rise destroyed or severely altered the preservation of coastal sites as well as the distribution of palaeo-vegetation (Healy 1995: 239; Robinson et al. 2007:14; Wilkinson and Straker 2008: 63; Straker 2010: 56-57). This was not attempted as lower sea levels during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age would have opened up more land and potentially altered the level of visibility to monuments from the sea, but would not have altered the nature of visibility from monuments relative to other monuments on land. The most serious impact on the accuracy of the viewsheds generated during this study is the nature of the treed environment in prehistoric West Penwith. In order to correct for woodland and vegetation impact on visibility, the analyst must "determine the extent and height of vegetation cover in antiquity" which includes a detailed analysis of the palaeo-environmental evidence of the area as well as research on the basic attributes 110 of different types of vegetation species (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 5). It must also be kept in mind that vegetation cover often affects visibility on a seasonal basis (Cummings and Whittle 2003: 255-261). While it is known that there were trees in West Penwith during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, the exact location of these trees, though inferred, is not certain. There is evidence that small amounts of clearance occurred in the Mesolithic and Neolithic and which increased during the Bronze Age in the area. Therefore, while we do know what species would have been present and where those species usually grow (in terms of environmental constraints), it is not clear exactly where clearance would have occurred in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age and vice versa. Thus, modelling the palaeo-vegetation at the regional scale would not add much information to the context of the current study simply because choosing where trees were during these periods would be largely arbitrary (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 5). Thus, in the interest of time, such an analysis was not performed. This is not to say that modelling the palaeo-vegetation is not a worthwhile and informative practice, simply that: "it is very difficult to locate vegetation 'patchiness' temporally and spatially.. .even when specific vegetation units can be accurately mapped spatially and temporally, the precise physical character of this environment cannot be easily established" (Gearey and Chapman 2006: 174) Finally, time constraints were a huge factor limiting what was and was not investigated. Ideally, various observer offset heights would have been used in repeated viewshed tests in order to investigate the potential of different visibility maps being generated by different monument types. The same can be said for vegetation height, in which various DEMs would have been constmcted modelling different vegetation heights to represent different seasons. It might also have been prudent to test various distance radius thresholds to assess whether visibility could have extended beyond the 10km threshold that was defined for the current study. Finally, time constraints also made it impossible to generate fuzzy viewsheds as proxies of visibility distance decay (Fisher 1992; Wheatley and Gillings 2000:11). Ideally, these could have been generated and analyzed for all three of the samples (i.e., Neolithic, Bronze Age and Random points) to provide a contextualized understanding of the visibility range at each monument or point. Again, due to the size and scope of the current project it was impossible to go further with the fuzzy viewsheds. Chapter 5: Results of the Topographic Analysis 5.1: The topographic context of sites during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in West Penwith The underlying assumption in this assessment of monument location choice is that people in the past had a specific physical relationship with the landscape that can be identified by considering the locational characteristics of a monument in that landscape. Thus, if visibility was a factor influencing the choice of monument location, there would be a specific set of topographic requirements for where monuments would be built. In addition, particular elevations, slopes, or land use types may have been preferentially selected for monument location. If the choice of location for monument constmction was influenced by visibility and/or topographic factors, then we would expect to find a difference between topographic characteristics of monuments compared to random locations in the landscape. The following discussion will present the results of the spatial analyses conducted in GIS as well as the results of the Mann-Whitney statistical tests of significant difference. As stated in Chapter 4, the null hypothesis is that the two datasets under investigation are not significantly different. If the critical value is greater than 0.05, then the null hypothesis will be rejected. This applies to all the statistical tests to be discussed in the next two chapters. 5.2: Elevation The northern inland areas of West Penwith are characterized by significantly higher elevations than elsewhere in the peninsula and many monuments are distributed across this area (Figure 4.2). Mann-Whitney tests were conducted to assess whether monuments in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age were located at significantly different elevations from each other as well as when compared to the control group of random points. Elevation differences between monument types in both periods were also examined. Several monument types had fewer than 5 sites and were not tested because the sample size was deemed too small to be meaningful. These include cairns, cists, enclosures, long barrows, long caims, stone circles and tor enclosures in the Neolithic and mounds and stone alignments in the Bronze Age. The distribution of these types will be discussed in relation to the other monument types of the period. Elevation values for each period and each monument type, as well as the control group are presented in table 5.1-5.3. Standard Elevation above sea'. evel Mean Median deviation All Neolithic sites (n==42 ) 159 154 49 Barrow (n=6) 172 154 41 Caim (n=2) 131 136 64 Chambered Tomb (n==8 ) 192 203 31 Cist (n=2) 178 178 38 Enclosure (n=2) 176 176 78 Entrance Grave (n=6) 131 140 45 Long Barrow (n=2) 126 126 2 Long Caim (n=l)* 192 Standing Stone (n=7) 147 133 49 Stone Circle (n=3) 115 103 65 Tor Enclosure (n=2) 207 207 47 Table 5.1: Neolithic site elevation. * This value is not the mean as is only one long caim. 114 Standard Elevation above sea level Mean Median deviation All Bronze Age sites (n=452) 153 164 55 Barrow (n=241) 151 162 56 Caim (n=72) 193 207 45 Cist (n=26) 127 111 59 Clearance Caim (n=9) 162 177 45 Enclosure (n=14) 169 185 45 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 135 145 52 Holed Stone (n=13) 118 108 33 Mound (n=2) 100 100 8 Standing Stone (n=54) 131 116 42 Stone Alignment (n=2) 104 104 8 Stone Circle (n=7) 162 164 40 Table 5.2: Bronze Age site elevation. Elevation above sea ,. -.„ ,. Standard Mean Median . . . level deviation Random Points (n=525) 110 106 53 Table 5.3: Random Point elevation. West Penwith can be divided into two broad categories, low elevations (0-139 meters above sea level10 = 59% of the landscape) and mid-high elevations ( > 140 msl = 41% of the landscape). The comparison between all Neolithic monuments to random points using Mann-Whitney tests indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the two samples (Table 5.4). The elevation values in Table 5.1 and 5.3 show that the average elevation for all Neolithic monuments (159msl) as a group is higher than the average elevation of the control group (1 lOmsl). The same can be said when comparing the average elevation values and the results of the statistical tests of all Bronze Age monuments (153msl) to the control group (Table 5.2-5.3, 5.5). For the rest of the Chapter, meters above sea level will be abbreviated to msl. 115 In order to assess whether all Neolithic monuments are, in actuality, found at significantly higher elevations than the control group, the average elevation of monument types in the Neolithic were compared to the average elevation of the control group (Table 5.4). Random Points All (n=42) <0.01 Barrow (n=6) 0.01 Neolithic Chambered Tomb (n=8) <0.01 Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.3 Standing Stone (n=7) <0.01 Table 5.4: Resultingp-values from Mann-Whitney tests for elevation between the Neolithic and the control group. Numbers in bold indicate statistical significance. As indicated in Table 5.4, only the average elevation of Neolithic entrance graves (131msl) is not statistically different from the random points. Table 5.1 illustrates that this lack of significant difference reflects the low elevation value for the mean of Neolithic entrance graves (131msl). It is possible that the location choice of entrance graves from this period either focused on lower elevations in conjunction with some other factor, or that high elevation was not a prime motivation behind entrance grave location choice during the Neolithic. The average elevation for Neolithic barrows (172msl), chambered tombs (192msl) and standing stones (147msl) were all statistically different from the control group (Table 5.4). Based on the average elevation values in Table 5.1 and 5.3, it appears that these Neolithic monuments were consistently built at higher elevations than the random sample. Average elevation of monument types in the Neolithic were then compared against each other to assess whether there is a statistically significant difference between monument types (Table 5.5). These results indicate that only entrance graves and chambered tombs have average elevation values that are statistically different from one another. Neolithic Chambered Entrance Barrow tomb Grave All (n=42) Barrow (n=6) Neolithic Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.25 Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.18 0.03 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.49 0.12 0.82 Table 5.5: Resulting/?-values from Mann-Whitney tests for elevation between Neolithic monuments. Numbers in bold indicate statistical significance. Based on the data in Table 5.1, this difference reflects chambered tombs being located at very high elevations, whereas entrance graves are generally located at low elevations. Looking at the distribution of these two monument types, several trends can be seen. Entrance graves are located along the western coast, in southern farmland and along the northern ridge, while chambered tombs are located solely at higher elevations along the northern ridge (Figure 4.2 illustrates the areas and Figure B.l and B.2 illustrate the monument distributions). I also noticed this pattern while conducting the field survey. Surveyed inland entrance graves were all located within lowland farming areas and along the western coast at lower elevations. Entrance graves in the southern farmland area were rather insular, being lower down in dips flanked by farmland and small hills. While walking through this area, I saw these entrance graves as possibly tied to people who lived in the immediate vicinity. In this way, entrance graves may have served as a daily reminder of 117 ancestral ties to the land. This feeling of isolation was completely different from the experience of entrance graves along the western coast, which were often located directly along the cliff line and which had expanse views over open ocean. This lower coastal elevation may have been important in terms of social geographic locale. As has been previously noted in Chapter 3, the presence of entrance graves in West Penwith potentially points towards a more "south-westerly focus" and orientation towards the Irish Sea. This orientation may reflect ties rooted in the Mesolithic to communities along the Atlantic coast (Pollard et al. 2008: 92), which may have been directed more so towards a larger network of relations than entrance graves found in the southern farmlands. The difference in elevation and the context of visibility between entrance graves and chambered tombs was also striking, particularity because the form and structure of chambered tombs appears to change based on what types of topographic features are around them (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 352). In this regard, chambered tombs may have been structures that referenced the sacredness of the West Penwith topography. Mann-Whitney tests were also conducted to assess whether there is a statistically significant difference between the average elevation values from all Neolithic monuments compared to the average of elevations values from all Bronze Age monuments, as well as between monument types present in both periods (Table 5.6). The results from these tests indicate that there is no statistical difference between the average elevation values for all monuments from both periods, as well as between monument types present in both periods. Thus, it is possible to infer that in both periods, monuments were being built consistently within the same areas of elevation. This is supported by the results of the Mann-Whitney tests comparing barrows, entrance graves and standing stones to the 118 Neolithic All Barrow Entrance Standing (n=42) (n=6) Grave Stone (n=6) (n=7) All (n=452) 0.58 Bronze Barrow (n=241) 0.98 Age Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.47 Standing Stone (n=54) 0.42 Table 5.6: Resulting /^-values from Mann-Whitney tests for elevation between the two periods. control group (Table 5.4 and 5.7). Statistical significance, or the lack thereof, remained constant across periods for these monuments. Random Points All (n=452) <0.01 Barrow (n=241) <0.01 Caim (n=72) <0.01 Cist (n=26) 0.37 Clearance Caim (n=9) <0.01 Bronze Age Enclosure (n=14) <0.01 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.14 Holed Stone (n=13) 0.49 Standing Stone (n=54) <0.01 Stone Circle (n=7) <0.01 Table 5.7: Resulting jc-values from Mann-Whitney tests for elevation between the Bronze Age and the control group. Numbers in bold indicate statistical significance An assessment of average elevation values between monument types in the Bronze Age and the control group was also conducted using Mann-Whitney tests (Table 5.7). As indicated in Table 5.7, Bronze Age cists (127msl), entrance graves (135msl), and holed stones (118msl) are not statistically different from the control group. Table 5.2 illustrates that these monuments are also often found at low elevations in West Penwith. Bronze Age barrows (151msl), caims (193msl), clearance caims (162msl), enclosures (169rnsl), standing stones (131msl) and stone circles (162msl) all have average elevation values that were statistically different from that of the control group. Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.7 illustrates that all of these monuments, except for standing stones, are found on average at higher elevations than the control groups. Standing stones, on the other hand, have average elevations in the low elevation range. Within the range of elevation values for Bronze Age standing stones, there are several outlier values at very high elevations ( > 185 msl), which likely distorts these results. It is therefore concluded that the elevation values for standing stones have a large range of variation, with some located in more common areas of low elevation, while others are located at very high elevations. Average elevation values between Bronze Age monument types were also statistically compared (Table 5.2 and 5.8) u. Barrows (153msl) are found at statistically higher elevation than cists (127msl), holed stones (118msl) and standing stones (132msl). Caims (193msl) are located at statistically higher elevations than all other monuments. Clearance caims (162msl) are found at statistically higher elevations than holed stones (118msl). Enclosures (169) are found at statistically higher elevations than holed stones (118msl) and standing stones (131msl). Finally, stone circles (162msl) are found at statistically higher elevations than standing stones (131msl) and holed stones (118msl). " The discussion to follow refers exclusively to Table 5.2 and 5.8. Bronze Age Clearance Holed Standing Cairn Cist Enclosure Entrance Grave s arrow Caim Stone Stone All (n=452) Barrow fn=241) Caim (n="2) < 0.01 Cist (n=26) 0.04 <0.01 Clearance Catra (n=9) 0.60 0.02 0.10 Bronze Age Enclosure (n=14) 0.36 0.01 0.06 0.85 Entrance Grave (n-11) 0.30 0.00 0.78 0.18 0.11 Holed Stone (n=13) 0.04 0.00 0.94 0.05 < 0.01 0.19 Standing Stone (n=54) 0.01 0.00 0.58 0.67 0.01 0.38 0.56 Stone Circle (n=7) 0."2 0.03 0.15 0.91 0.55 0.09 0.03 0.04 Table 5 8: Resulting/)-values from Mann-Whitney tests for elevation between Bronze Age monuments, as well as between Bronze Age monuments and Random Points. 121 All of the potential relationships discussed above are based on the results of the statistical tests presented in Tables 5.4-5.8, the elevation/distribution data presented in Tables 5.1-5.3 and the various Figures in appendix B. While in the field, I did notice that many of the visited monuments, from both the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, were found at higher elevations, which in turn had a considerable effect on the visibility range of those monuments. That being said, I also recognized that the preservation of monuments, and thus their distribution, may have been biased towards these upland areas, which has been discussed in Chapter 3 and 4. Nevertheless, I felt that particular types of monuments were deliberately located at these higher elevations. A full discussion of this will be presented in the following chapter. 5.3: Slope In order to assess whether topographic variables were a part of the motivation behind monument location choice, further analysis of the topographic contexts of monuments in both the Neolithic and Bronze Age of West Penwith are required. In this regard, degree of slope may have been one of the factors that influenced monument location choice. The analysis of monument location and degree of slope was conducted in ArcGIS, the results of which were statistically evaluated using Mann-Whitney tests of significance. During the field survey, I did notice a difference in the degree of slope while I walked between monuments, however, whether the degree of slope was pronounced at monument locations was not an observation that I made except in cases where monuments were located at very obvious slope degrees—like, for example, the 122 caim on the side of a hill at Trewey downs and even then this observation was focused on the visibility context at this site. The degree of slope for monuments in both periods, for the control group as well as between monument types is presented in Tables 5.9-5.11. Standard Slope Mean Median deviation All Neolithic sites (n=42) 5.0 4.3 3.2 Barrow (n=6) 5.6 5.1 3.0 Caim (n=2) 7.7 6.1 3.0 Chambered Tomb (n=8) 4.6 3.5 3.6 Cist (n=2) 3.6 3.6 0.6 Enclosure (n=2) 2.3 2.3 1.2 Entrance Grave (n=6) 4.1 3.6 1.4 Long Barrow (n=2) 1.4 1.4 2.0 Long Cairn (n=l)* 11.0 Standing Stone (n=7) 3.7 3.2 3.2 Stone Circle (n=3) 7.1 5.7 2.4 Tor Enclosure (n=2) 9.0 9.0 0.1 Table 5.9: The degree of slope for Neolithic monuments. * This value is not the mean as there is only one long cairn. Standard Slope Mean Median deviation All Bronze Age sites (n=452) 4.2 3.2 4.7 Barrow (n=241) 4.0 3.2 3.5 Cairn (n=72) 3.9 3.2 4.1 Cist (n=26) 6.2 4.5 7.9 Clearance Caim (n=9) 6.0 5.7 5.1 Enclosure (n=14) 5.5 5.2 2.9 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 4.4 4.1 2.0 Holed Stone (n=13) 3.3 2.9 2.9 Mound (n=2) 3.2 3.2 0.0 Standing Stone (n=54) 3.4 3.2 2.8 Stone Alignment (n=2) 6.8 6.8 1.9 Stone Circle (n=7) 2.0 2.9 1.6 Table 5.10: The degree of slope for Bronze Age monuments. 123 ,. Standard Slope Mean wMedian , . . deviation Random Points (n=525) 5.9 4.2 6.3 Table 5.11: The degree of slope for random points. No statistical difference was observed in the average degree of slope between the Neolithic (5.0) and the control group (5.9), as well as between Neolithic monument types and the control group (Table 5.12). Random Points All (n=42) 0.96 Barrow (n=6) 0.55 Neolithic Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.48 Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.72 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.38 Table 5.12: Resulting ;?-values from Mann-Whitney tests of significance between the degree of slope of all Neolithic monuments and monument types compared to the control group. In addition, no statistical difference was observed in average degree of slope between Neolithic monument types (Table 5.13). This implies that the degree of slope for barrows (5.6), chambered tombs (4.6), entrance graves (4.1) and standing stones (3.7) in the Neolithic „ Chambered Entrance Barrow „ , _ Tomb Grave Barrow (n=6) Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.48 Neolithic Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.34 0.79 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.28 0.75 0.77 Table 5.13: Resulting/^-values from Mann-Whitney tests of significance on the degree of slope between Neolithic monument types. Neolithic was less of a constmction factor and more of a by-product of monument location choice. However, there is a considerable amount of variation in degree of slope values between monument types in this period that were not statistically tested (Table 5.9) 2. Thus, it remains possible that the high average degree of slope for caims (7.7) and stone circles (7.1) may indicate that these features were meant to be seen in the immediate vicinity regardless of their location at low elevations (Table 5.1 and 5.9). The low values of slope degree for cists (3.6) and enclosures (2.3) coupled with their high elevation may indicate that these types tend to be located on flatter land or hilltops/plateaus (Table 5.1 and 5.9). The high elevation and high degree of slope values for the long caim (11) and tor enclosures (9) suggest that these types were located on steep hill sides on the northern ridge (Table 5.1 and 5.9), although these interpretations were not demonstrated statistically. Statistical tests were also conducted to assess whether the degree of slope for all monument types remained constant between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, the results of which indicate that there is a significant difference between the two periods (Table 5.14). Neolithic Standing All Barrow Entrance Stone (n=42) (n=6) Grave (n=6) (n=7) All (n=452) 0.02 Bronze Barrow (n=241) 0.13 Age Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.80 Standing Stone (n=54) 0.84 Table 5.14: Resulting/^-values from Mann-Whitney tests of significance on the degree of slope between Neolithic and Bronze Age monument types. 12 These types had a sample size that was deemed too small to produce meaningful statistical results. 125 Tables 5.9 and 5.10 indicate that this difference reflects an overall reduction in the degree of slope for monument location choice between the two periods. Tests were then conducted to identify where this difference occurs. No significant difference in slope degree between the monument types of the two periods was found (Table 5.14), which coupled with the elevation data (Table 5.6), suggests that the three monument types present in both periods are found within the same topographic locational constraints (Table 5.9-5.10). A general observation on these data is that slope degree of monument location for barrows, caims, standing stones and stone circles decreased between periods, while cists, enclosures, and entrance graves had an increase in slope degree between periods (Table 5.9-5.10). This may indicate a shift in how and where monuments were meant to be accessed or viewed between periods, a concept that will be returned to later in this chapter. Unlike the Neolithic, Bronze Age monuments tend not to be found at slope degrees that are higher than 7 and lower than 2 (Table 5.9-5.10). The degree of slope between all Bronze Age monuments (4.2) and the control group (5.9) was also statistically assessed, the results of which indicated that there was a significant difference between the two (Table 5.15). Comparing the degree of slope for Bronze Age monuments types to the control group illustrate that this observed difference reflects that five types— barrows (4.0), caims (3.9), holed stones (3.3), standing stones (3.4) and stone circles (2.0)—are found at shallower slopes than the control group, which may indicate that instead of being located on hillsides these monuments were located on flatter land, on peaks or on the plateaus of hills (Table 5.10-5.11, 5.15). 126 Difference in the degree of slope between monument types in the Bronze Age was also assessed using Mann-Whitney tests (Table 5.16). Barrows (4.0) and caims (3.9) are significantly different from enclosures—5.5 (Table 5.16) and appear to be located at shallower slopes than enclosures (Table 5.10). Random Points All (n=452) <0.01 Barrow (n=241) <0.01 Caim (n=72) <0.01 Cist (n=26) 0.79 Clearance Caim (n=9) 0.48 Bronze Age Enclosure (n=14) 0.38 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.87 Holed Stone (n= 13) 0.02 Standing Stone (n=54) <0.01 Stone Circle (n=7) 0.01 Table 5.15: Resulting/^-values from Mann-Whitney tests on the degree of slope between Bronze Age monuments and random points. This is an interesting result because both cists (6.2) and clearance caims (6.0) have larger average degree of slope values than barrows (4.0), caims (3.9) and enclosures (5.5), but the two are not significantly different from any of the three (Table 5.10 and 5.16). Therefore, the statistical difference between barrows and caims to enclosures may reflect the high variation of the former two's standard deviation compared to the latter (Table 5.10). Cists (6.2), clearance caims (6.0), enclosures (5.5) and entrance graves (4.4) are all statistically different from stone circles (Table 5.16), which appears to reflect the fact that stone circles (2.0) are found on very small degrees of slope on average (Table 5.10). This may reflect a preferential selection towards flat or level land for stone circle location, which agrees with the assessment that this monument type were likely communal Bronze Age „, Clearance Entrance Holed Standing Barrow Caim Cist , Enclosure *" Cami Grave Stone Stone All (n=452) Barrow (n=241) Caim (n=72) 0.68 Cist (o=26) 0.14 0.11 Clearance Caim (n=9) 0.09 0.07 0.58 Bronze Age Enclosure (n=14) 0.03 0.02 0.52 0.87 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.24 0.18 0.90 0.67 0.50 Holed Stone (n=13) 0.36 0.56 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.12 Standing Stone (n=54) 0.54 0.89 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.67 Stone Circle (n=7) 0.13 0.19 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.48 0.21 Table 5.16: Resulting p -values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing degree if slope between Bronze Age Monument types. NJ ^1 gathering areas. Steep slopes would have hindered such activity, while also taking away from the sense of enclosed space (Bamatt 1982: 94; Bender et al. 2007: 35). Enclosures (5.5) and clearance caims (6.0) are significantly different from holed stones (3.3) and standing stones—3.4 (Table 5.16). Table 5.10 indicates that this difference reflects the high average degree of slope of enclosures and clearance cairns, suggesting that they are found on hillsides instead of flat land, peaks or plateaus. The two stone alignments (6.8) in the Bronze Age are both found on high degrees of slope, which may indicate that while they are not located at high elevations, they were perhaps visible in their immediate surroundings (Table 5.2 and 5.10). This agrees with the traditional interpretation of these structures as marking processional routes (Bamatt 1982: 94; Bender et al. 2007: 35), in which case they would be made to be seen in the immediate environment. However, due to its small sample size this monument type was not included in the statistical tests. Patterns in the degree of slope in both the Neolithic and the Bronze Age suggest that there may have been a preferential selection for certain topographic characteristics in relation to the function or use of the monument type. This was also observed in the elevation data discussed at the beginning of this chapter (see discussion of Neolithic entrance graves and chambered tombs). The following section will evaluate whether monument location choice is linked to the land class type that it is located on. 5.4: Historic Landscape Characterisation Types As discussed in Chapter 4, the Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) provides an indication of the different historic characters of landscape throughout Cornwall. Monuments in each period, the control group and monument types were evaluated based on the percentage of monuments and points located on different HLC types. Table 5.17-5.19 summarizes monument and point distribution by HLC type in percentages. When I was walking through the landscape during the field survey, the major topographic differences that I noticed were between the northern ridge, the southern farmland and the western coast (figure 4.2). All All Bronze Random West Neolithic Age Points Penwith monuments Monuments (n=525) (n=42) (n=452) Ancient Woodland 0.07 Coastal Rough Ground 5.70 6.7 7.1 10.0 Communications 0.79 0.4 Farmland C20 10.59 14.3 12.1 Farmland Medieval 6.38 6.7 1.9 Farmland Post medieval 10.98 6.7 7.1 6.1 Farmland Prehistoric 40.99 40.0 23.8 24.0 Industrial: Disused 0.66 Industrial: Working 0.18 Ornamental 0.81 0.2 Plantation and Scmb 1.85 Recreational 0.65 Settlement C20 3.46 2.4 0.4 Settlement older core (pre- 1907) 0.80 Upland Rough Ground 14.10 40.0 45.2 44.8 Water: Natural 1.83 Water: Reservoirs 0.15 Total 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 5.17: Percentage of HLC distribution in West Penwith, as well as the percentage of random points and monuments from both periods that are found on each HLC type. Percentages discussed in text are underlined. To my untrained eye, the subtleties between HLC types were completely invisible and I was not able to record any descriptive observations on the changes between them. If monuments in both periods were randomly distributed in the landscape, then we 130 would expect to find little difference between the percentages of sites located on HLC types in the two periods, the control group, as well as between monument types. The most extensive HLC type in West Penwith is Prehistoric Farmland, followed by Upland Rough Ground—which is often unenclosed heathland used for summer pasture—Post Medieval Farmland and C20 Farmland13 (Table 5.17).The latter two HLC types are likely to have been either the re-enclosure of existing Prehistoric Farmland or the wholly new intake of open rough ground14. The percentages of random points found on HLC types across West Penwith suggests that a random distribution of sites would be found predominantly on Prehistoric Farmland and Upland Rough Ground, which are also the two most prevalent HLC types in West Penwith (Table 5.17). Monument distribution on HLC types during the Neolithic is slightly different from the control group. While Prehistoric Farmland is one of the top two HLC types that monuments are commonly found on, Upland Rough Ground has a much higher percentage of monuments distributed across it. Coastal Rough Ground and C20 Farmland also have a higher percentage of monuments from this period than would be expected of a random distribution of sites (Table 5.18). Bronze Age monuments appear to maintain the distribution on HLC types from the earlier period with Upland Rough Ground, Prehistoric Farmland, Coastal Rough Ground and C20 Farmland being the most abundant areas of monument distribution—in that order (Table 5.17). It must be borne in mind that the percentages presented above were not statistically evaluated15 and, therefore, reflect observations of the information 13 C20 refers to 20th century farmland. 14 For a full description of HLC types, see Cornwall County Council 1996. It must also be noted that HLC types are capitalized because they are titles. 15 For a full discussion, please see Chapter 4. Neolithic Chambered Entrance Long Long Standing Stone Tor Barrow Cairn Cist Enclosures Tomb Graves Barrow Caim Stone Circle Enclosures (n=6) (n=3) (n=2) fn=2) (n=S) (n=6) (n=2) (n=l) (n=7) (n=3) (n=2) Ancient Woodland Coastal Rough Ground 33.3 16.7 33.3 Communications Farmland C20 33.3 12.5 16.7 50.0 14.3 Farmland Medieval Farmland Post medieval 12.5 16.7 33.3 Farmland Prehistoric 33.3 25.0 50.0 50.0 16.7 50.0 28.6 Industrial: Disused Industrial: Working Ornamental Plantation and Scrub Recreational Settlement C20 14.3 Settlement older core (pre- 1907) Upland Rough Ground 33.3 66.7 50.0 50.0 50.0 33.3 100.0 42 9 33.3 100.0 Water: Natural Water: Reservoirs Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 5.18: Percentages of Neolithic monuments located on HLC types Bronze Age Entrance Holed Standing Stone Stone Barrow Caim Cist Clearance Enclosure . . Mound " rGrav e cStone Stone Alignment Circle (n=241) (n="2) [n=26) Caim (n=9) (n=14) n=2) / (n=ll) (n=13) lji=54) (n-~) (n='J Ancient Woodland Coastal Rough Ground 10.1 5.6 30.8 T> "> 6.7 2".3 S.3 C ommunic ations 1.4 8.3 Farmland C20 13.1 2.8 19.2 11.1 18.2 16.7 11.1 14.3 Farmland Medieval 1.3 6.7 Farmland Post medieval 5.9 7 7 6.7 9.1 8.3 9.3 14.3 Farmland Prehistoric 23.6 2.8 11.5 11.1 40.0 9.1 41.7 100.0 59.3 100.0 Industrial: Disused Industrial: Working Ornamental 0.4 Plantation and Scrub Recreational Settlement C20 0.4 1.9 Settlement older core (pre- 190") Upland Rough Ground 45.1 S".5 30.8 55.6 40.0 36.4 16.7 18.5 "1.4 Water: Natural Water: Reservoirs Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 5.19: Percentages of Bronze Age monuments located on HLC types presented in Table 5.17. Tables 5.18 and 5.19 illustrate the variation in monument type distribution on HLC types in both periods. These generally correspond to the information presented in sections 5.2 and 5.3. For example, in Table 5.18, chambered tombs in the Neolithic are predominantly found on Upland Rough Ground, which corresponds to the distribution of chambered tombs being predominantly located at higher elevations along the northern ridge. To highlight one more element, caims in the Bronze Age are also predominantly found on upland rough ground, an observation that will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter (Table 5.19). The information provided in this section may indicate that monuments were placed in the landscape based on landscape types, but it may also be that this correlation is a product of other factors—such as elevation, slope, visibility, etc.—which are linked to the distribution of HLC types. This note of caution is particularly relevant when discussing HLC types as many of the categories are modem-day classifications which are not equivalent to land classes present in prehistory. A further caveat is necessary given that monument survival and distribution today is likely to be different from that in prehistory. For example, it is possible that many monuments were once located on ancient farmland but have been destroyed through agricultural intensification long before the recording of monuments became common practice. For this reason, the above discussion may be more appropriate for predictive modelling than in the current study and thus will not be relied on heavily in the interpretation. 5.5: Discussion Throughout this chapter, several general observations were made on the variation of average elevation values between monument types m the Neolithic and the variation among both average elevation and slope values between monument types in the Bronze Age16. A fuller discussion of the distribution context of types in both periods may help to explain some of this variation. Neolithic monuments, apart from entrance graves and chambered tombs which have already been discussed, are distributed across the same three general areas: the western coast, the southern farmland area and the higher elevations of the northern ridge (Figure 4.2 illustrates these areas, Figure B.12 shows the distribution of Neolithic monuments in West Penwith). Barrows and cists are all distributed along the northern ridge, with only two of the six barrows located along the fringe of that region towards the southern farmland area (Figure B.5-B.6). All of these types also have high average elevation values, although cists were not statistically compared to the control group (Table 5.1-5.2). The two long barrows and two of the three stone circles are found in the southern farmland region (Figure B.5 and B.3). Both types tend to be found in low elevation areas, although this was not statistically verified due to sample size (Table 5.1). The long caim associated with Chapel Cam Brea is set at a distinctively high elevation and has been interpreted as functioning within the hypothesized ceremonial activity occurring at that location (SMR record No.16087—MCOl 1014; Tilley and Bennett 2001: 352). Again, due to the small sample size no statistical test was conducted for this type. Stone circles and long barrows appear to be confined to the southern farmland area and have low elevation values. Caims are predominantly found along the western coast and on average are located at low elevations. 16 This is demonstrated in Tables 5.1 and 5.3, as well as 5.10. 135 In the Bronze Age, barrows are predominantly concentrated along the northern ridge, with a smaller portion being distributed along the western and south-western coast, and fewer still being scattered across the lowland farming areas (Figure B.5). This pattern of distribution is constant with the earlier period, and is in agreement with the statistical test which indicates no obvious change in barrow elevation occurred between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. It also helps to explain the statistical difference in degrees of slope between barrows and enclosures. In addition to being located along the northern ridge, barrows are also found in areas of predominantly flatter land, which is quite different from the topographic context of enclosures. Caims, however, are distinctly located at higher elevations, with a small number found along the coast and along the edges of the southern farmland (Figure B.7). Their consistent location and statistical difference from all other monuments implies that their constmction at higher elevations was deliberate. These monuments are also found at much higher elevations than in the Neolithic, although this was not statistically confirmed due to the small sample size in the later period. An intriguing shift can also be seen in the topographic context of caims in the Neolithic (low elevation and high slope degree) and the Bronze Age (high elevation and low slope degree). This may indicate a change in where, and potentially by whom, these monuments were meant to be seen—which will be returned to in the discussion about the caim at Trewey downs. Bronze Age caims and enclosures also have statistically different degrees of slope, regardless of both being found at high elevations. This suggests that cairns are found on flatter land, plateaus or hilltops, while enclosures are found on steeper hill sides. Cists in the Bronze Age are sporadically located across the three topographic zones and are often found in close proximity to barrows, which may indicate that they were loosely related to this monumental form. Further tests would be needed to confirm this observation. However, this does appear to agree with Russell's (1971: 6-7) survey of the area. They are also found on high degrees of slope and are statistically different from stone circles, which appear to be found on more level ground. Clearance caims are generally located at higher elevations and are the only monument type of this period to be found directly along the northern coast, apart from a single stone alignment found not far to the south (Figure B.7 and B.8). In general, clearance caims are found at significantly higher elevations than holed stones (Table 5.3 and 5.8). Clearance caims are known as by-products of agricultural clearance, and in West Penwith are not associated with any artifacts or deposits that would suggest ceremonial/ritual activity. Instead, these monuments can be used to highlight areas that were cleared for farming or domestic purposes in prehistory—although it can be fairly difficult to establish whether these monuments are contemporaneous with other prehistoric monuments (HES staff: personal communication). Holed stones, on the other hand, are predominantly found on Prehistoric Farmland, with few at high elevation and only two along the coast. It is also interesting given that clearance caims are found at significantly higher degrees of slope than holed stones, standing stones and stone circles (Table 5.10). This may indicate that although all four types are often found in and around farmland area, the ceremonial monuments—holed stones, standing stones and stone circles—are located in specific topographic contexts, which again may reflect a selection for specific types of perceptual experiences. Unlike the Neolithic, enclosures in the Bronze Age cluster along the northern ridge, with few found at lower elevations or along the coast (Figure B.l 1). Their slope values suggest that they are found on steeper hillsides than barrows, caims, holed stones, standing stones and stone circles. This suggests that enclosures were being built in a specific type of landscape context. The entrance graves in this period are also primarily along the western coast, with few sparsely distributed in the southern farmland area and on the northern ridge (Figure B.2). This distribution appears to maintain the same geographical setting observed in the Neolithic, albeit in slightly higher numbers17. This may indicate that the reuse of entrance graves occurred in the Bronze Age, and potentially reflects earlier entrance graves functioning as models for monument locations later on. This appears to lend strength to the argument that entrance graves represent a distinct cultural tradition linking West Penwith to the Irish Sea. Alternatively, entrance graves may be a transitional form between the late Neolithic and the early Bronze Age. Generally, the distribution of standing stones is across the northern ridge and scattered throughout the southern farmland area, with few in the east and only one found on the west coast (Figure B.4). Finally, stone circles as a group are often associated with higher elevations (Figure B.3). Three of the seven circles are concentrated in a tight cluster at Tresegeal, forming what would appear to be a ritual complex (SMR record No.16152- MC018468; Figure B.3). The two circles in the south also appear to be associated with a ritual complex, in which each is found in close proximity to a variety of standing stones and holed stones. The possible relationship between the three monument 17 Five of the six entrance graves from the Neolithic are also associated with the Bronze Age in the HER records, hinting at some uncertainty to their exact date. 138 types—standing stones, holed stones and stone circles—is more strongly defined in the distribution that includes the Merry Maidens circle (Figure B.3). The two circles along the northern ridge are located in the rough center of a cluster of enclosures. This may indicate that they were the central focus for ceremonial gatherings, perhaps serving the enclosed farmland and the communities that lived on them. However, this remains purely speculative and would require further research to confirm. At the beginning of the chapter, it was noted that if visibility was a factor in monument location choice we would expect to find patterns in the topographic setting of monuments. It has been demonstrated that there are several topographic factors at work in the distribution of monuments during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in West Penwith, but whether these factors are related to visibility is not yet clear. The following chapter will assess whether these factors reflect a preferential selection for visibility, in a variety of contexts. Chapter 6: Results of the Visibility Analysis 6.1: Introduction In order to test the hypothesis that visibility was a significant factor in monument location choice, several components of visibility from monuments in both periods were analyzed. The following discussion provides the results from the visibility analyses of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments and will integrate the descriptive observations taken during the field survey with the spatial analyses conducted in GIS, as well as the statistical tests. A brief discussion of the applicability of viewsheds in real life will begin the chapter. It is important to note here that the descriptive observations of monument location to follow are based on cumulative observations walking through a given area or transect. Therefore, although only one or two panoramas were chosen as exemplars of the descriptive observations, these observations represent contexts that occur at various locations throughout the landscape. 6.2: Impressions of visibility: a comparison of GIS viewsheds to field observations. As previously discussed, part of the field survey objective was to assess whether the visibility range identified by viewsheds accurately reflect actual visibility in the landscape. Table A.6 summarizes observations taken during the field survey on the accuracy of the viewshed maps in real life. Overall, the accuracy of viewshed maps was fairly high, with few inconsistencies between what could actually be seen and what was identified in the viewsheds as visible. Deviations from the GIS models and first-hand observation can largely be attributed to a combination of vegetation height, modem buildings and imperfect visual acuity. It was also noted that topographic features modelled as visible in the GIS viewsheds—such as prominent hills, valleys, the ocean, etc.—were often not well defined as discrete objects in the landscape. This lack of clarity occurred for a variety of reasons, the principal one being changing atmospheric conditions. Time of day and weather conditions were cmcial factors determining what was visible in the landscape as opposed to what was indicated as visible in the viewshed. Figure 6.1 is very good example of how visibility can be significantly reduced due to changing weather conditions. The center of the photo indicates good visibility to the sea. A close up of one of the central images shows St. Michael's Mount in the distance (Figure 6.2), a distinctive island tor which can generally be seen from almost every mid- high elevation in West Penwith. Within five minutes of the picture being taken, the overcast and mist conditions became so thick that the island was rendered completely invisible (Figure 6.3). This type of weather is not something that can be accurately modelled in a computer-based environment without considerable time expense and expert knowledge of various modelling techniques and systems. While the change in visibility demonstrated by this event may not have had an effect on monument location choice, it does illustrate that viewsheds and visibility models are by their very nature static. These environments do not adequately represent the fluid and variable character of the real world, a concept that has been well rehearsed in the criticism of GIS discussed in Chapter 2. What it also illustrates is that while factors of visibility—such as visibility to prominent features from monuments—can be shown to be statistically significant, it may be that visibility itself as an independent variable of monument placement may not have Figure 6.1: Penzance coastal site Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009. *» 142 :8$ •:-*t?, Figure 6.2: Close up of Figure 6.1, with St. Michael's Mount visible in the distance. •"•ill ??£- . i 1 s> ' .5W»i-.l **H.-.*^if/*iivB-.*W'if?1'+ * ;hwu Figure 6.3: Image of St. Michael's mount becoming obscured due to rain and haze. been the primary motivation for constmction in an environment where change in the visibility range can occur rapidly without much notice. This is unlikely to be the case in West Penwith, but it provides a strong argument for coupling GIS or computer-based spatial analyses with field survey. As has been noted elsewhere, prehistoric vegetation cover in a study region of this size is another factor that is difficult, although not impossible, to model in visibility analyses. This is primarily due to the variation in accurate palaeo-environmental data across the area, as well as the current technological challenges of modelling such environments and their likely habitats—such as woodland cover, leaves on trees and the spaces between trees. This is not to say that it cannot be achieved, but the effort is time consuming and because palaeo-environmental data is often inconsistent across large areas, it does not provide the required level of detail necessary to model the environment in the past—except in a very generic manner (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 5). Whilst walking through the present-day landscape of West Penwith is not the definitive solution to this problem, it does provide the starting point from which to think about how vegetation may have limited visibility in an immediate and tangible way. Researching vegetation cover in a landscape and attempting to model it provides, at best, only broad trends as to its character. Actually experiencing it at high summer, with chest high or taller vegetation and attempting to locate a monument that is completely overgrown and obscured by gorse and bramble, readily exposes the limitations of such computer models. In the case of West Penwith, the current landscape may have been quite different from that in prehistory, at which time it is likely there would have been more woodland cover; much of which is now confined to the slopes of steep-sided, narrow valleys. The heathland scmb and undergrowth, however, of bramble, gorse, hawthorn, etc. remains much the same in unpopulated areas —such as on Upland Rough Ground— and walking through that vegetation did provide an understanding of how visibility can be reduced during seasons of dense vegetation growth. That being said, pastoral activities during the Neolithic and Bronze Age, particularly in upland areas, may have restricted vegetation levels to lower levels than today (HES staff, personal communication). Figure 6.4 and 6.5 provide an example of the potential difference between GIS models of visibility and actual visibility in the summer months. The grazed pasture area of 6.4 is analogous to a viewshed, in which visibility is based solely on bare-earth elevation values devoid of any surface features akin to the smooth, bare expanse of the pasture area in this image. The overgrown state of the flora in Figure 6.5 is a representation of vegetation height in treeless open ground during the summer months. Note how the vegetation almost entirely engulfs the person in the foreground, which is not taken into account using the basic visibility function in GIS. The field survey also identified another significant problem caused by vegetation height. Vegetation height distorts visibility of sites in the landscape, making their identification and any potential inter-visibility between sites difficult to record. For example, Figure 6.6 indicates that the Neolithic chambered tombs of Zennor Quoit and Sperris Quoit should be inter-visible with one another. Looking at Figure 6.7—the view from Zennor to Sperris—the remains of Sperris Quoit are hidden behind chest high vegetation. Zennor Quoit, on the other hand, is visible from Sperris Quoit (Figure 6.8), largely due to Zennor Quoits greater height and degree of conservation. Figure 6 4 Panorama from a barrow site Photographs taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 wr Figure 6 5 Panorama from a cairn site Photographs taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 en 146 Figure 6.6: View to Sperris Quoit from Zennor Quoit on Zennor Hill, West Penwith. Red circle indicates the rough location of Sperris quoit, which cannot be seen from Zennor Quoit because of the height of vegetation. Taken by Chelsee Arbour during the 2009 field survey. SMS w«"4: r- $<#•? i^& Figure 6.7: View of Zennor Quoit from Sperris Quoit on Zennor Hill, West Penwith. Red circle highlights Zennor Quoit. Taken by Chelsee Arbour during the 2009 field survey. N Msibility between Zennor Quoit and Sperris Quoit _l I 1 Visibility from only one site | | Overlapping visibility from both sites emedda Common 0 ES 170 340 510 Figure 6.8: Viewsheds for Zennor and Sperris Quoit depicting the inter-visibility component of their placement in the landscape. Point data and base map provided by the Cornwall HES © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Cornwall Council 100049047 2010. It is likely that Sperris Quoit in its complete form would have been visible from Zennor Quoit during the Neolithic, despite summer vegetation. However, had I not known that the remains of Sperris Quoit were so close to Zennor Quoit before going into the field, identifying the inter-visible component of the two monuments would not have occurred. Thus, there is a danger of misreading the landscape context of monuments and the potential relationship between them in the landscape due to vegetation overgrowth and variable levels of monument survival and completeness. A final observation concerning the two approaches is the difference between prominent topographic features identified in a viewshed and the visibility range at an actual monument. For example, distant areas of higher elevation were not easy to distinguish from less distant prominent hills. This lead to confusion over whether what was visible to the human eye in the landscape was the same feature identified in the viewshed. A good example of this can be seen in Figure 6.9, where the left-hand side of the image shows what appears to be a single topographic feature that is actually two prominent hills blending together along the horizon line which is only noticeable when looking at a graphical reference (Figure 6.10). This observation confirms the claim that the GIS viewsheds created in this study do not adequately model human perception. It also demonstrates the ease in which it is possible to underestimate the visibility range from a particular monument based on field observations alone. Thus, the most suitable conclusion is to integrate the two approaches to provide a more rounded dataset which emphasizes the strengths and undermines the weaknesses of both. 6.3: Visibility in West Penwith Monument constmction has an inherent visual component. By being built in the landscape, the physical presence of monuments means that to some extent they were meant to be seen (Phillips 2003: 373). In general, monuments are a very interesting blend of physical properties (stone, timber, earth) and manifestations of social knowledge. No single structure provides knowledge and meaning simply by existing, as any symbol needs a foundation of social knowledge in order to be interpreted (Thomas 2008). The way in which monuments are placed in the landscape, what is visible from m Figure 6.9: Panorama from a cairn site (BA461) on Botrea Downs. Images were taken in a clockwise rotation beginning in the North. The red circle indicates several prominent hills in the distance. Taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009. ID 150 Caim at Botiea Downs N • BA461 [3] Visibility from BA461 Elevation above sea level _L Mi 26-51 M| 51-76 r—i io2 -126 [-"J 127 -151 •J 132 -176 I Meters 650 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200 Figure 6.10: Visibility from a cairn site (BA461) on Botrea Downs, Sancreed West Penwith. Bracketed visibility range indentifies the two prominent hills discussed above. Point data provided the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/database right 2010. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service. them, how much of the landscape is visible, what types of topographic features are commonly seen from them and when they become visible in the landscape are all potentially important elements which could provide information on the social context of monument location choice. So how do physicality, visibility and landscape intertwine in the monument distribution of West Penwith? 6.3.1: The context of visibility in West Penwith One way to assess if visibility was a component of monument location choice is to compare visibility ranges for all monuments in each period to the control group. The cumulative viewshed maps18 were used to identify consistent views from Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in order to assess whether there was an observable difference between what is visible from all monuments in those periods and what we would expect to occur if monuments were randomly distributed across the landscape with no emphasis on visibility (Figure 6.11-6.13). To reiterate, cumulative viewshed maps sum all viewshed maps in a dataset and produce a single map which specifies how many times a particular area in the landscape may be seen from every origin point in that dataset, monument locations and random points in this case. All three maps indicate similar cumulative views of broken visibility across the areas of Towednack, Zennor, Penzance, Paul, St. Buryan and Sancreed parishes (see Figure 3.2 for parish locations). They also indicate that all three datasets share consistently high visibility values to the northern coast near Zennor. Visibility to this area occurs from 11 of the 42 Neolithic monuments (26%), 63 of the 452 18 For a full discussion, please see section 4.2.3. 152 f 'umul«iti\ e View sheds ft om Neolithic Monuments _t • 0 no 1 ni 2 [~~|2 4 H14 5 •15 7 •17 9 Mi 9 10 •110 11 . •J 11 14 ^ 0 t"0 1* Figure 6 11 Cumulative viewshed map for visibility from all Neolithic monuments Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/database right 2010 An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service Cumulative Mew sheds ft om Bi onze Age Monuments + I 10-2 • 2-9 I 19 18 LI] 18 - 29 I 29 - 39 I 39 48 148 - 55 I 55 - 62 I 62 - 72 I 72- 141 seo "no Figure 6.12: Cumulative viewshed map for visibility from all Bronze Age monuments. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/database right 2010. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service. 154 0 SCO 1M0 _V*)0 7*00 Figure 6 13 Cumulative viewshed map for visibility from all random points Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/database right 2010 An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service. (14%) monuments in the Bronze Age and 61 of the 525 (12%) random points. Monuments from the Neolithic and Bronze Age share a strong cumulative focus for visibility to the western coast between St. Just and Land's End, although this is more distinct in the Bronze Age. In this area, 7 of the 42 monuments (17%) during the Neolithic and 66 of the 452 (15%) monuments from the Bronze Age share a similar visibility range to the sea on the west coast (e.g., 17% and 15% of all monuments respectively). Thirty six of the 525 (7%) random points have visibility to this area. Unlike the two periods, the control group has a strong cumulative focus towards the Penzance/Marazion Marsh (Mount's Bay) area with 62 of the 525 (12%) of the random points sharing visibility to this area. Three of 42 (7%) Neolithic monuments and 21 of 452 (5%) Bronze Age monuments share views to this area. X2 tests were conducted on these data to assess whether there are significant differences between the two periods, as well as between the two periods and the control group (Table 6.1-6.3). The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between datasets, which is indicated by a j^-value of 0.05 or less. There is no statistical difference in cumulative visibility values between the two periods (p = 0.62; Table 6.1). This suggests that there is a level of consistency between the visibility ranges of all Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. The difference between the cumulative visibility values in the Neolithic and the control group (p = 0.08) suggests that while statistically significant at a low level19, the cumulative visibility of the three coastal areas, from Neolithic monuments, tends to be less of a random occurrence than would be expected (p = 0.08; Table 6.2). Cumulative 19 Low significance is indicated by a critical value =/< 0.1, instead of 0.05. 156 Bronze Neolithic Age Total Monuments Monuments Western 7 66 73 Coast (9) (64) Northern 11 63 74 Coast (9) (64) Southern 3 21 24 Coast (3) (21) Total 21 150 171 Table 6.1: X2 tests of significance comparing the cumulative visibility ranges of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. X result = 0.95 with 2 degrees of freedom and a resulting p-value of 0.62. Neolithic Random Total Monuments Points Western 7 36 43 Coast (5) (38) Northern 11 61 72 Coast (8) (64) Southern 3 62 65 Coast (8) (57) Total 21 159 180 Table 6.2: X2 tests of significance comparing the cumulative visibility ranges of Neolithic monuments and random points. X2 result = 4.93 with 2 degrees of freedom and a resulting /7-value of 0.08. visibility from Bronze Age monuments is significantly different from the random points (p < 0.01), which indicates that the visibility ranges from monuments in this period are unlikely to be a product of a random distribution in the West Penwith landscape (Table 6.3 for results). Bronze Age Random Total Monuments Points Western 66 36 102 Coast (50) (52) Northern 63 61 124 Coast (60) (64) Southern 21 62 83 Coast (40) (43) Total 150 159 309 Table 6.3: X tests of significance comparing the cumulative visibility ranges of Bronze Age monuments and random points. X2 result = 28.87 with 2 degrees of freedom and a resulting/?-value of < 0.01. Taken together, the control group cumulative viewshed maps and X results suggest that visibility towards the sea along the south-east and northern coast has the strong probability of occurring from any random location in West Penwith (Figure 6.13). Both the cumulative visibility maps from the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in conjunction with the X2 results in Table 6.2 and 6.3 suggest that the visibility to the sea along west coast is unlikely to be a chance occurrence. A marked difference between the character of visibility to the sea along the north and west coast was also observed during the field survey. None of the northern coastal monuments in the random sample of monuments from the stratified inland transects were located directly on the coast. This is a consequence of both the random sample, as well as the fact that no Neolithic monuments and very few Bronze Age monuments are actually located directly on the northern coast. Rather, they were roughly 500 meters from the coastline, unlike the western coastal monuments which were located directly on the cliff line. The northern region of West Penwith generally consists of higher elevations, and 500 meters inland often represents the base of this higher ground and the fringes of farmland. The visual experience from monuments located along this northern region was markedly different from the expansive views a short distances away to the south on higher elevation—like, for example, the view from the top of Cam Galver, which is one of the most stunning views I have ever seen. I did not attempt to opportunistically survey the northern cliff line, largely because of scheduling constraints, but I would expect that views from the monuments in this northern region at the base of the northern upland ridge would be different from the topographic context of the few monuments located directly along the cliff line. Surveyed monuments in this area tend to be at an interesting elevation interval (Figure 6.14 and 6.15). To the immediate north is coastal farmland ending at the cliff line. I could not see the coastal path from this area, although the beginning of lower elevations leading to the path is just visible from the edge of the farmland. The surveyed monuments were located at the bottom of the northern most tip of land—higher elevations or upland rough ground. Southern views from these monuments were effectively reduced due to the higher elevation. Being at the base of these higher areas, which also have large tor outcrops of weathered stone atop them, monuments are enclosed between the vastness of the ocean to the north and prominent hills to the south. I found that visibility to the west-northwest was also reduced due to a combination of higher ground and tall vegetation cover, although visibility to the east-northeast is fairly open, with good views to the rolling farmland, and for monuments located in the eastern transects, of prominent hills in the distance (Figure 6.16- 6.18). While visibility to the sea was a common feature of the visibility radius at Figure 6 14 View from northern coastal site, eastern transect Red circle indentifies rock outcrop to the SE Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 Figure 6 15 View from northern coastal site, western transect Red circle indentifies Gear Common to the SE Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 en ID Figure 6.16: D etail of rock outcrop to the SE in 6.14. 6.17: Detail of Gear's Common to NE in 6.15. Figure 6.18: Detail of farmland to the E-NE in 6.15. en o 161 northern coastal sites, the very visually prominent rock outcrops in the south and the beautiful rolling hills to the north appeared to lessen the visual prominence of the sea as a primary visual focus. To briefly unpack this statement, the visibility ranges from the monuments that I visited in this region had views to a variety of visually prominent features, as can be seen in figures 6.14-6.16. Because of this, the observed relationship between monuments and their surroundings in this context was interpreted as visually referencing to the particular landscape they are a part of. This landscape context includes what would have amounted to coastal farmland in prehistory to the north—and the relationship between farmland/farmers and the sea—and the possible sacred area of the northern ridge . At the same time, I also found that the horizon between the sea and the sky often lacked clarity, which created a visual effect that blurred the division between the two. This visual effect may have been created by a combination of atmospheric conditions and distance from the coast, as well as personal perception. However, it was distinctively different from the visibility to the ocean that was observed along the western coast. The west coast is a notably different environment. Unlike the northern coast which has no beaches, the western coast beaches are evenly interspersed along the rocky cliff, with huge visibility ranges of the sea along the SW-W-NW axis. More northerly monuments located between Cape Cornwall and Land's End (Figure 6.19) often have full or partial view of the Cape Cornwall headland (Figure 6.20), as well as very distinctive views of the Brisons, a group of offshore rocks (Figure 6.21). Coastal farmland and gently rolling hills are often visible along the eastern axis, while the Land's 20 The northern ridge may have been an area used for ceremonial or sacred practices, suggested by the number of monuments found along its expanse. End cliff line is visible to the south (Figure 6.22). I found that the more southerly monuments between Land's End and Gwennap Head (Figure 6.23) often had less visibility along the coastline to the north, which was largely due to the curving and undulating nature of the coastline and indented coves. I generally had good views from these southerly monuments to the cliff heads in the immediate vicinity in both directions, but not much beyond that (Figure 6.24 and 6.25). Dramatically weathered rock formations are also visible along the coastline and monuments are often found a short distance from these features (Figure 6.26). In all cases, visibility to the sea along the western coast is predominant and the vastness of the ocean is clearly distinguished from the expanse of the sky, which I interpreted as a reflection of monument location directly on the coastline. This may indicate that unlike northern coastal sites, visibility to the ocean was the prime motivation behind monument location choice. In both the north and west coast contexts, visibility between monument sites was not recognized as a significant factor of monument location. Also in both areas, visibility to interesting rock formations in the near vicinity often occurs. What can be extrapolated from this discussion of cumulative visibility maps and my observations from the field survey is that a random selection of views throughout West Penwith are likely to have the northern coast as a major focal point, although I would argue that visibility to the sea in this context is unlikely to have been the primary visual cue being focused on. The cumulative visibility maps and the X2 results for the Neolithic and Bronze Age, as well as the observations I made in the field on the context of visibility to the sea along the west coast, suggests that visibility to the ocean along the V' Eg*2, w w Figure 6 19 View from a barrow cemetery (BA42), St Just West Penwith Image was taken in a clockwise direction beginning in the north Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour dunng the field survey of 2009 Figure 6 20 Detail of Cape Cornwall Figure 6 21 Detail of the Bnsons CD Figure 6 22 Detail of Land's End ««#*•* *tjtm** •r~. r-HT JS^F*™" d i^mw*^ "^y**%§* Figure 6.23. View from a barrow, St Just West Penwith. Image was taken in a clockwise direction beginning in the north Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 • '5W.*' Figure 6 24 Detail of southern coves Figure 6 25 Detail of northern coves en Figure 6 26 Detail of natural rock outcrop en 166 western coast was likely to be the main visual stimulus. This interpretation would support the argument that there was a westerly focus derived from cultural communication via the Irish Sea (Pollard et al. 2008: 92). 6.3.2: Size of visibility ranges Another way by which to assess whether visibility was a factor in monument location choice during the Neolithic and Bronze Age is to compare the average size of visibility ranges between each dataset21 (Table 6.4). If visibility from monuments was a component of monument location choice, then the visibility ranges should be significantly higher than that of the control group. Mann-Whitney tests were conducted for the two periods, the control group, as well as the monument types. The results of these tests are summarized in Tables 6.5-6.10. The average size of individual viewsheds in the Neolithic is statistically different from the random points (Table 6.5). However, there is no statistically difference between the average viewshed size of Neolithic monument types and the random points (Table 6.5), nor are there any statistical differences when comparing average viewshed size between Neolithic monument types (Table 6.6). What can be assessed from the statistical difference between all Neolithic monuments and the control group is that the monuments that were not included in the statistical tests due to small sample size have artificially inflated the value of average viewshed size for all Neolithic monuments. Neolithic monuments, Bronze Age monuments and random points. Total Standard Viewshed sizes viewshed size Mean Median deviation in HA All Bronze Age sites 1501828.92 3344.83 1824.83 3429.96 Barrow 774269.07 3425.97 1855.34 3628.67 Caim 227970.09 3352.50 2194.14 3098.23 Cist 124482.89 4292.51 2717.32 3648.58 Clearance Cairn 38079.35 4231.04 2421.84 4670.86 Enclosure 50182.48 3584.46 3291.50 3042.34 Entrance Grave 59325.92 4943.83 6293.29 3342.75 Holed Stone 19732.00 1517.85 832.35 1822.47 Mound 9368.70 4684.35 4684.35 6165.39 Standing Stone 133342.19 2424.40 1259.42 2730.13 Stone Alignment 11590.13 5795.07 5795.07 7169.70 Stone Circle 4412.59 630.37 587.11 356.13 Random Points 1571347.31 2993.04 1420.47 3454.91 All Neolithic sites 170498.24 4059.48 3837.50 3505.71 Barrow 26516.89 4419.48 3898.20 4541.82 Caim 22848.02 7616.01 13102.34 1910.54 Chambered Tomb 25336.39 3226.69 815.35 3881.51 Cist 12964.78 6482.39 6482.39 2047.65 Enclosure 10852.40 5426.20 5426.20 1377.18 Entrance Grave 15989.21 2664.87 753.47 3296.33 Long Barrow 254.91 127.45 127.45 32.99 Long Caim 6641.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 Standing Stone 24443.93 3491.99 1857.16 2957.97 Stone Circle 15400.57 5133.52 4204.07 4988.31 Tor Enclosure 8772.20 4386.10 4386.10 3219.97 Table 6.4: Viewshed sizes in Hectares Random Points All (n=42) 0.02 Barrow (n=6) 0.31 Neolithic Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.79 Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.94 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.21 Table 6.5: Resulting/^-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Neolithic monuments and Random Points. Neolithic Chambered Entrance Barrow tomb Grave Barrow (n=6) Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.60 Neolithic Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.58 0.95 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.94 0.17 0.17 Table 6.6: Resulting p-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Neolithic monument types. General observations on Neolithic monuments not statistically tested indicate that caims have the largest average visibility range per monument, although the visibility range of cists and the single long cairn is also quite large 2 (Table 6.4). Of the enclosures, long barrows, the long caim, stone circles and tor enclosures, only the two long barrows do not have large average viewsheds. This may indicate that visibility across large distances was not a factor in location choice for long barrows in general. I visited both 22 There is no definitive line for what constitutes a large visibility range. In this thesis, it is held that the size of visibility ranges are context-dependant, thus classifications of large or small are used in regards to comparisons between sites/point in West Penwith For example, the average viewshed size from Neolithic cairns (7616 01) is considered quite large in comparison to the average viewshed size of Neolithic long barrows (127 45) However, the average viewshed size from Neolithic cairns may be quite small in comparison to visibility ranges of monuments outside of West Penwith long barrows during the field survey and noted that visibility between the two monuments was the only prominent visual relationship—both being in same immediate area—with neither having distinctive views to any major topographic feature or to other monuments regardless of there being several in the area. This visual experience was actually striking in how insular it was, where the only strong visual relationship was the inter-visibility between the two long barrows. All Neolithic and all Bronze Age average viewshed size per monument was then statistically compared. No statistically significant difference was found between the two periods, nor was a statistical difference found between monument types present in both periods (Table 6.7). This suggests that the difference in average visibility range size between periods and across types is not pronounced and could reflect similar visibility constraints associated with monument location choice. Neolithic R Chambered Entrance Standing tomb Grave Stone All (n=452) 0.27 Bronze Barrow (n=241) 0.67 Age Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.19 Standing Stone (n=54) 0.66 Table 6.7: Resulting^-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. The average sizes of individual viewsheds from all Bronze Age monuments were also statistically compared to the control group (Table 6.8). These results indicate all Bronze Age monuments are statistically different from the control group (Table 6.8), which reflects the statistical difference between barrows, caims, cists and entrance graves and the control group (Table 6.8). This difference appears to refer to the larger average viewshed and median size of each type when compared to the control group (Table 6.4). Random Points All (n=452) <0.01 Barrow (n=241) <0.01 Cairn (n=72) 0.03 Cist (n=26) 0.03 Bronze Clearance Cairn (n=9) 0.30 Age Enclosure (n=14) 0.19 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.04 Holed Stone (n= 13) 0.32 Standing Stone (n=54) 0.82 Stone Circle (n=7) 0.13 Table 6.8: Resulting jc-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Bronze Age monuments and random points. There is, however, quite a bit of statistical difference between the average viewshed sizes of Bronze Age monument types (Table 6.4 for the raw values, Table 6.9 for the results of tests). As can be seen in Table 6.9, barrows, caims, cists, enclosures and entrance graves are statistically different from holed stones and stone circles, which reflects the relatively small average viewshed size of the latter two (Table 6.4). Standing stones were also found to be statistically different from stone circles (Table 6.9), which appears to be a reflection of their larger average viewshed size compared to the latter. It is generally expected that barrows, caims, and enclosures would have larger visible expanses than holed stones as the former are often found at higher elevations23, which usually provide larger visibility ranges simply because there are less topographic obstacles to obscure visibility. What is interesting is that the average visibility range of stone circles is significantly lower than barrows, enclosures, entrance graves and standing stones despite being located at high elevations (section 5.2). Please refer to Chapter 5, section 5.5. Bronze Age _ ~ -, Clearance _ , Entrance Holed Standing Barrow Cairn Cist ~ Enclosure „ ~ ^ Cairn Grave Stone Stone All (n=452) Barrow (n=241) Cairn (n=72) 0 70 Cist (n=26) 0 26 0 37 Bronze Clearance Cairn (n=9) 061 0 80 0 87 Age Enclosure (n=14) 0 64 0 69 0 76 0 93 Entrance Grave (n=ll) 0 16 0 14 0 73 0 50 0 25 Holed Stone (n=13) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 12 0.04 0.02 Standing Stone (n=54) 0 11 0 08 0 07 0 25 0 15 0 06 0 18 Stone Circle (n=7) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 06 0.01 0.01 0 30 0.03 Table 6 9 Resulting ^-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewsheds between Bronze Age monument type 172 This may suggest that visibility from stone circles was geared towards a particular type of visual experience. This type of phenomenon has been noted at Bodmin Moor, where stone circles visually refer to significant topographic features in the immediate environment (Bender et al. 2007). Lake and Woodman's (2003) study of stone circles and the impression of circularity discussed in Chapter 2 also refers to stone circles having particular visual expanses. Unfortunately, no stone circles were visited during the field survey which could verify whether such a phenomenon occurs in West Penwith. 6.3.3: Visibility across land and to the sea The geographical context of West Penwith as a peninsula was taken into account by distinguishing the average visibility range per monument across land and to the sea. Tables 6.10 and 6.11 provide a detailed synopsis of both land and sea visibility ranges. The results of the Mann-Whitney tests are summarized in Table 6.12-6.21. Average visibility ranges of land per monument in the Neolithic are statistically different from the control group (Table 6.12-6.13), which reflects the larger average visibility range overlooking land from Neolithic standing stones compared to the control group (Table 6.10, 6.12). The results comparing all Neolithic monuments to the control group may also be conflated by the addition of average viewshed size overlooking land from monuments that were not statistically tested individually due to small sample size. No statistical difference is observed between Neolithic monument types (Table 6.13), nor are there any statistical differences between monuments in both periods (Table 6.14). The statistical difference between all Bronze Age monuments and the control group reflects the statistical difference in average viewshed size overlooking land Terrestrial viewshed Total Standard Mean Median sizes viewshed size deviation in HA All Bronze Age sites 433802.13 966.15 404.63 2051.59 Barrow 283614.09 1254.93 402.43 2767.40 Cairn 54678.96 804.10 389.77 998.69 Cist 10725.89 369.86 202.39 342.43 Clearance Caim 4428.77 492.09 281.21 575.06 Enclosure 10437.39 745.53 386.96 844.28 Entrance Grave 5812.67 484.39 332.67 429.40 Holed Stone 12565.53 966.58 531.20 1616.98 Mound 579.08 289.54 289.54 47.71 Standing Stone 41366.81 752.12 512.29 735.56 Stone Alignment 829.78 414.89 414.89 439.02 Stone Circle 3107.63 443.95 179.78 467.10 Random Points 331028.13 630.53 274.74 1187.05 All Neolithic sites 29721.89 707.66 425.91 677.34 Barrow 4022.45 670.41 715.83 459.70 Caim 2737.00 912.33 1691.97 1081.44 Chambered Tomb 2812.98 405.22 389.12 224.87 Cist 404.97 202.49 202.49 138.90 Enclosure 4408.02 2204.01 2204.01 679.99 Entrance Grave 2334.70 389.12 332.67 328.10 Long Barrow 254.91 127.45 127.45 32.99 Long Caim 2154.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 Standing Stone 5969.17 852.74 870.10 484.57 Stone Circle 815.93 271.98 118.18 352.56 Tor Enclosure 3378.08 1689.04 1689.04 712.75 Table 6.10: Viewshed sizes of land in Hectares. Ocean viewshed Total viewshed Mean Median Standard sizes size in HA deviation All Bronze Age sites 1068026.79 2378.68 668.55 3150.17 Barrow 490654.97 2171.04 642.48 3005.36 Caim 173291.13 2548.40 1208.02 2970.63 Cist 113756.99 3922.65 2537.59 3831.69 Clearance Cairn 33650.58 3738.95 1722.32 4727.03 Enclosure 39745.09 2838.93 1821.87 3169.04 Entrance Grave 53513.25 4459.44 5296.49 3465.62 Holed Stone 7166.47 551.27 1.14 1207.96 Mound 8789.62 4394.81 4394.81 6213.10 Standing Stone 91975.38 1672.28 0.00 2732.78 Stone Alignment 10760.35 5380.18 5380.18 7608.72 Stone Circle 1304.96 186.42 0.00 236.17 Random Points 1240319.18 2362.51 344.22 3389.75 All Neolithic sites 140776.34 3351.82 2332.36 3483.62 Barrow 22494.43 3749.07 3083.40 4225.06 Caim 20111.02 6703.67 11410.37 2646.26 Chambered Tomb 22523.41 2821.47 258.63 3971.40 Cist 12559.81 6279.90 6279.90 1908.75 Enclosure 6444.38 3222.19 3222.19 2057.17 Entrance Grave 13654.52 2275.75 189.05 3420.32 Long Barrow 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Long Caim 4486.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 Standing Stone 18474.75 2639.25 1525.37 3140.82 Stone Circle 14584.64 4861.55 4085.89 5292.18 Tor Enclosure 5394.12 2697.06 2697.06 2507.22 Table 6.11: Viewshed sizes of the sea in Hectares. 175 Random Points All (n=42) 0.02 Barrow (n=6) 0.22 Neolithic Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.26 Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.97 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.03 Table 6.12: Resulting/^-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Neolithic monuments and random points. Neolithic Chambered Entrance Barrow tomb Grave Barrow (n=6) Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.52 Neolithic Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.23 0.44 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.43 0.17 0.10 Table 6.13: Resulting/^-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Neolithic monument types. between specific Bronze Age monuments and the control group (Table 6.15). Table 6.10 indicates that this difference refers to the larger average viewshed size with views of land from Bronze Age barrows, caims and standing stones. Statistical difference between Bronze Age monument types also occurs. Barrows and caims were both found to be significantly different from cists (Table 6.16), which appears to reflect the larger average viewshed size with views of land of the two former compared to cists (Table 6.10). Cists are also statistically different from standing stones (Table 6.16), resulting from the much larger average viewshed size of land from standing stones (Table 6.10). Visibility of the sea in both periods is not significantly different from the control 176 Neolithic Entrance Standing All Barrow Grave Stone All (452) 0.78 Bronze Barrow (n=241) 0.88 Age Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.71 Standing Stone (n=54) 0.42 Table 6.14: Resulting p-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. Random Points All (n=452) <0.01 Barrow (n=241) <0.01 Caim (n=72) <0.01 Cist (n=26) 0.72 Bronze Clearance Caim (n=9) 0.78 Age Enclosure (n=14) 0.57 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.54 Holed Stone (n=13) 0.29 Standing Stone (n=54) <0.01 Stone Circle (n=7) 0.86 Table 6.15: Resulting/"-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of land between Bronze Age monuments and random points. group, nor was there a statistical difference between Neolithic monument types compared to the control group, to other Neolithic monuments and to the Bronze Age (Table 6.17- 6.19). The results of the statistical tests comparing all Bronze Age monuments average viewshed size of the sea to the random points indicates that they are not significantly different from one another (Table 6.20). Bronze Age entrance graves and standing stones are both statistically different from the control group (Table 6.20), which appears to represent the larger average viewshed size of entrance graves and the smaller average Bronze Age Clearance Entrance Holed Standing Barrow Caim Cist Enclosure Cairn Grave Stone Stone Barrow (n=241) Cairn (n=72) 0 76 Cist(n=26) * 0 01 0.02 Clearance Cairn (n=9) 0 25 0 26 0 29 Bronze Enclosure (n=14) 0 52 0 48 0 60 0 78 Age Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0 32 0 42 0 23 0 65 0 98 Holed Stone (n=l 3) 0 87 0 77 0 09 0 55 0 94 0 77 Standing Stone (n=54) 0 48 0 75 - 0.01 0 18 0 59 0 40 0 66 Stone Circle (n=7) 0 22 021 0 10 1 00 0 58 0 65 0 48 0 21 Table 6 16 Resulting ^-values of Mann-Whitney tests cornpanng viewshed sizes of land between Bronze Age monument typ 178 Random Points All (n=42) 0.07 Barrow (n=6) 0.50 Neolithic Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.56 Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.83 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.43 Table 6.17: Resulting ^-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of the sea between Neolithic monuments and random points. Neolithic Chambered Entrance Barrow tomb Grave Barrow (n=6) Chambered Tomb (n=8) 1.00 Neolithic Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.80 0.68 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.83 0.96 0.43 Table 6.18: Resulting p-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of the sea between Neolithic monument types. Neolithic Entrance Standing All Barrow Grave Stone All (n=452) 0.08 Bronze Barrow (n=241) 0.42 Age Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.24 Standing Stone (n=54) 0.15 Table 6.19: Resulting /^-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of the sea between Neolithic monument types. viewshed size of standing stones compared to control points (Table 6.11). Average viewshed size with views to the sea does appear to vary statistically between Bronze Age monument types as well (Table 6.21). On average, entrance graves have statistically larger visibility ranges to the sea than barrows, holed stones, standing Random Points All (n=452) 0.88 Barrow (n=241) 0.62 Caim (n=72) 0.11 Cist (n=26) 0.08 Bronze Clearance Caim (n=9) 0.28 Age Enclosure (n=14) 0.29 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.03 Holed Stone (n= 13) 0.07 Standing Stone (n=54) 0.02 Stone Circle (n=7) 0.07 Table 6.20: Resulting/?-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of the sea between Bronze Age monuments and random points. stones, and stone circles (Table 6.11 and 6.21). This adds weight to the observation that entrance graves are coastally distributed—which would afford larger visibility ranges because of unobstructed views across open ocean—with exceptions found in areas of higher elevation along the northern ridge. Caims and cists also have statistically larger visibility ranges to the sea than holed stones, standing stones and stone circles (Table 6.11 and 6.21). Both holed stones and stone circles have smaller visibility ranges to the sea than enclosures, and stone circles also have smaller visibility ranges of the sea than clearance caims (Table 6.11 and 6.21). What this may indicate is that these three types— stone circles, standing stones and holed stones—often share the same type of visibility expanse, which is located predominantly away from coastal ranges and geared towards a different type of visual experience24. Interestingly, visibility ranges of the sea from Neolithic monuments—while not For a full discussion, please see section 5.5. Bronze Age _ „ „ Clearance _ , Entrance Holed Standing Barrow Cairn Cist „ Enclosure ~ ~ ^ Cairn urave btone btone All (n^!52) Barrow (n=241) Cairn (n=72) 0 10 Cist (n=26) 0 54 0 27 Clearance Caim (n=9) 0 25 0 54 0 92 Bronze Age Enclosure (n=14) 0 53 0 70 0 76 0 87 Entrance Grave (n=ll) 0.01 0 16 091 0 65 0 22 Holed Stone (n=13) 0 08 0.01 0.02 0 98 0.03 0.01 Standing Stone (n=54) 0 08 0.01 0.01 0 10 0 07 - 0.01 0 62 Stone Circle (n=7) 0 08 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 081 041 Table 6 21 Re suiting^-values of Mann-Whitney tests comparing viewshed sizes of sea between Bronze Age monument types 181 statistically significant—tend to be larger than both the control group and Bronze Age monuments (Table 6.11). Inspired by this observation, the size of visibility ranges of land and of sea per Neolithic monument were compared. The results indicate that a low level of statistical significance (p=0.Q6) occurs between the two types of visibility ranges. No significant difference was found comparing Bronze Age visibility of land and sea (p=0.S3) nor when comparing the same variables for the control group (p=0.75). While not definitive, there seems to be a closer relationship between monuments and visibility of the sea during the Neolithic than later in the Bronze Age or than is expected from random locations in West Penwith. 6.3.4: Visibility of HLC types The previous section demonstrated that there is a significant difference in average visibility range to land per site in both periods compared to the control group, as well as a difference between the average visibility ranges of certain monuments in the Bronze Age. In order to assess whether these differences were geared towards particular land types, visibility of land for both periods, the control group and monument types were further divided by visibility of HLC types. Table 6.22-6.24 illustrates the difference in percentages of visibility to different HLC types. Both periods and the control group share a high value in views to Prehistoric Farmland, which is unsurprising given that it is the highest HLC percentage in West Penwith. The second highest value between the Neolithic and Bronze Age is Upland Rough Ground, which is also the second most extensive HLC type in the area. 182 Bronze Random West Penwith Neolithic Age Points (area per type) (n=42) (n=452) (n=525) Ancient Woodland 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Coastal Rough Ground 5.70 1.54 2.87 1.43 Communications 0.79 0.54 2.78 2.31 Dunes 0.00 0.34 0.89 Farmland C20 10.59 14.11 10.51 8.83 Farmland Medieval 6.38 7.68 6.23 21.38 Farmland Post medieval 10.98 13.42 10.15 13.80 Farmland Prehistoric 41.00 37.36 42.25 30.75 Industrial: Disused 0.66 0.50 0.39 0.43 Industrial: Working 0.18 0.39 0.23 0.45 Ornamental 0.81 0.70 0.53 0.77 Plantation and Scmb 1.85 0.68 0.52 0.88 Recreational 0.65 0.14 0.20 0.48 Rough Ground/Industrial 0.08 0.30 Settlement C20 3.46 1.54 1.66 3.43 Settlement older core (pre- 0.80 0.19 0.23 0.66 1907) Upland Rough Ground 14.10 20.74 20.39 11.36 Water: Natural 1.83 0.42 0.56 1.75 Water: Reservoirs 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.06 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Table 6.22: Percentages of HLC types in West Penwith, as well as percentages of HLC types visible from all Neolithic monuments, all Bronze Age monuments and random points. Values in bold are discussed in the text. Interestingly, the control group's second highest value is Medieval Farmland (often farmed in earlier periods but exhibiting the patterning and morphology of medieval farming practices). This category is not a consistent HLC type percentage of visibility in both periods—apart from the Neolithic tor enclosures—nor is it in the top four of HLC area for West Penwith (Table 6.22-6.24). The percentage of visibility to HLC types is fairly consistent between monuments in both periods, with Prehistoric Farmland and Neolithic Chambered Barrow Cairn Cist Enclosures Tomb (n=6) (n=3) (n=2) (n=2) (n=8) Ancient Woodland 0.01 0.06 0.01 Coastal Rough Ground 0.58 4.26 1.36 0.73 1.05 Communications 1.16 0.79 0.06 0.23 0.41 Dunes Farmland C20 15.22 20.42 12.46 17.86 10.97 Farmland Medieval 6.93 1.05 5.41 7.05 Farmland Post medieval 14.62 11.77 20.00 10.57 13.02 Farmland Prehistoric 38.08 48.26 23.77 17.20 44.26 Industrial: Disused 0.45 0.54 0.63 0.26 0.44 Industrial: Working 0.10 0.80 0.76 Ornamental 0.11 0.08 0.27 1.53 Plantation and Scmb 0.53 0.68 0.21 0.13 Recreational 0.05 0.07 Rough Ground/Industrial Settlement C20 0.97 1.06 0.52 0.93 3.53 Settlement older core 0.03 0.79 (pre- 1907) Upland Rough Ground 21.12 10.62 34.48 52.23 15.49 Water: Natural 0.36 0.46 Water: Reservoirs 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.03 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Table 6.23: Percentages of HLC types visible from Neolithic sites. Values in bold are the most abundant HLC types visible from monuments. Upland Rough Ground having the highest values followed by C20 and Post-Medieval Farmland. Cumulatively, this information suggests that visibility to specific HLC types does occur. However, whether this was a by-product of monument location or actively selected for is unclear, particularly as the HLC represents modem categories of land types. Monument location on these types, however, may have been a consideration (section 5.3). Descriptive observations taken during the field survey may help to illuminate the context of visibility from different monuments overlooking land. 184 Neolithic Entrance Long Long Standing Stone Tor Graves Barrow Caim Stone Circle Enclosures (n=6) (n=2) (n=l) (n=7) (n=3) (n=2) Ancient Woodland 0.01 0.08 0.03 Coastal Rough 3.98 0.01 1.30 0.26 1.76 1.62 Ground Communications 0.69 0.81 0.48 0.44 0.11 0.58 Dunes Farmland C20 17.04 33.52 21.93 11.39 15.94 7.02 Farmland Medieval 0.67 1.32 12.01 26.82 Farmland Post 12.49 9.16 13.16 13.89 10.39 10.84 medieval Farmland Prehistoric 40.01 29.19 52.85 34.61 37.37 29.06 Industrial: Disused 0.81 0.31 0.15 0.28 0.30 1.12 Industrial: Working 0.47 0.96 Ornamental 1.28 0.10 1.05 2.52 0.22 Plantation and Scmb 0.16 0.86 1.31 0.11 1.72 Recreational 0.50 0.23 Rough Ground/Industrial Settlement C20 0.40 1.31 1.79 0.53 2.34 Settlement older core 0.18 0.11 0.38 (pre- 1907) Upland Rough 21.80 27.00 6.46 20.85 30.92 16.07 Ground Water: Natural 0.43 0.98 0.05 0.96 Water: Reservoirs 0.06 0.01 0.06 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 6.23 Cont': Percentages of HLC types visible from Neolithic monuments. Values in bold are the most abundant HLC types visible from monuments. Sites located in the Upland Rough Ground area are often found at higher elevations along the north inland regions of West Penwith—although there are patches of this HLC type distributed across the peninsula. On Upland Rough Ground in the eastern transect, Neolithic monuments did not have very large visibility ranges and were relatively 185 Bronze Age „ „ . _. Clearance _ , Entrance Barrow Caim Cist „ . Enclosure „ (n=241) (n=72) (n=26) ^ (n=14) ^ Ancient Woodland 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.01 Coastal Rough 3.45 1.23 4.89 2.45 1.06 6.42 Ground Communications 3.45 2.23 0.46 0.25 0.28 1.21 Dunes 0.42 0.11 Farmland C20 8.97 14.02 14.90 11.61 10.74 15.75 Farmland Medieval 7.07 1.93 0.51 2.51 13.82 0.55 Farmland Post 9.33 10.89 9.86 8.27 12.52 11.43 medieval Farmland 44.54 36.31 38.55 44.95 38.90 36.72 Prehistoric Industrial: Disused 0.37 0.52 0.70 0.19 0.35 0.90 Industrial: Working 0.21 0.31 0.06 0.66 0.28 0.05 Ornamental 0.47 0.38 0.42 0.60 0.50 0.77 Plantation and 0.55 0.34 0.16 0.43 0.73 0.11 Scmb Recreational 0.21 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 Rough 0.08 0.06 Ground/Industrial Settlement C20 1.88 1.05 0.91 1.89 1.91 1.11 Settlement older 0.27 0.08 0.02 0.17 0.08 0.12 core (pre- 1907) Upland Rough 18.08 30.21 28.18 25.46 18.37 24.12 Ground Water: Natural 0.61 0.16 0.21 0.38 0.30 0.54 Water: Reservoirs 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.08 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 6.24: Percentages of HLC types visible from Bronze Age monuments. Values in bold are the most abundant HLC types visible from monuments. insular in so far as they only became visible in the immediate vicinity. Visibility to prominent tor outcrops in the immediate vicinity from Neolithic monuments, however, does occurred frequently (Figure 6.27). Bronze Age Holed M , Standing Stone Stone Stone , __, Stone Alignment Circle (n=13) ( ' (n=54) (n=2) (n=7) Ancient Woodland 0.02 0.05 Coastal Rough Ground 0.28 5.50 0.61 0.89 0.03 Communications 7.57 0.28 0.40 0.17 Dunes 0.61 Farmland C20 10.56 6.18 12.12 12.67 15.94 Farmland Medieval 1.14 3.40 10.27 Farmland Post 7.71 13.63 14.27 8.07 9.33 medieval Farmland Prehistoric 46.91 44.64 37.81 43.18 38.49 Industrial: Disused 0.26 0.33 0.31 0.22 Industrial: Working 0.06 0.30 0.09 Ornamental 0.83 0.93 1.34 0.72 Plantation and Scmb 0.40 0.02 0.75 0.15 0.52 Recreational 0.06 0.37 Rough 0.20 Ground/Industrial Settlement C20 0.60 0.67 1.73 0.47 0.93 Settlement older core 0.10 0.35 0.36 (pre- 1907) 22.80 25.66 17.53 32.92 33.20 Upland Rough Ground Water: Natural 0.57 0.01 1.22 Water: Reservoirs 0.12 0.13 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Table 6.24 Cont': Percentages of HLC types visible from Bronze Age monuments. Values in bold are the most abundant HLC types visible from monuments. This environment is also where I first observed the strong similarity between the granite chambered tombs and the rocky outcrops (mentioned in chapter 4). Without the GPS coordinates as a guide, it is unlikely that I would have been able to distinguish them from the natural environment. This observation has also been made by Tilley and Bennett (2001: 360). Neolithic monuments in the western transect on Upland Rough Ground, on Figure 6.27: Panorama from cairn at Zennor hill, Zennor Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009. Figure 6.28. Detail of Chun quoit from 50meters to the east. Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009. oo 188 the other hand, were often visible from a distance (Figure 6.28) and had expansive views to prominent topographic locations (Figure 6.29). Tilley and Bennett also made the astute observation that, in this area, Neolithic monuments possibly replicate the formation of tor outcrops, which are themselves absent from the environment (2001: 360). Having gone to both areas, I have to agree with this assessment, as the shape and form of Neolithic monuments are quite different from the monuments present in close proximity to tor outcrops (See figure 6.7 of Zennor Quoit in the eastern transect and figure 6.38 of Chun Quoit in the western transect). Bronze Age monuments in both the east and west transects, on the other hand, often had good visibility of prominent topographic features in the distant and in the immediate vicinity. Monuments from this period are also fairly visible from a distance, such as the barrow site in figure 6.30. Monuments along the southern and western edges of the Upland Rough Ground area had extremely good visibility of the lowland farmland (Figure 6.30), while visibility from the north and east tend to have prominent views of the peak elevations and the rock outcrops that top them (Figure 6.31). It must be kept in mind that this area is quite large and I was not able to traverse it in its entirety during the field survey. Lowland farm areas, on the other hand, were quite unlike the upland areas of higher elevation. This may in part be caused by the change in monument distribution associated with the modem enclosure of farmland. Monuments located in this area were often found on farmland with hedges or gates and without substantial views. At times, prominent topographic features in the immediate vicinity were visible from these sites, although the majority of views were to other plots of land (Figure 6.32). Figure 6.29 Panorama from a chambered tomb at Chun, St Just. Photograph take by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009. Figure 6 30 Panorama from a Bronze Age barrow site, Zennor. Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 Figure 6 31. Panorama from a barrow atTrendrine Hill, Zennor Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 Figure 6.32: panorama from an entrance grave at Brane farm, Sancreed. Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009. Figure 6.33: Panorama from a standing stone atBoscawen-noon farm, St.Buryan. Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009. ID o At other times, visibility from these monuments was completely obscured by hedge boundaries and had little to no resemblance of the visibility modelled in the viewsheds (Figure 6.33). While it is tme that the modem enclosure of farmland was not taken into account in the GIS-based visibility analysis, the important distinction is that visibility in these areas tends to be of other fields or rolling hills and not of Upland Rough Ground regions or higher elevation. From this, it can be inferred that monuments located at higher elevations tend to have views to a higher percentage of HLC types, while views from monuments located in lowland farming areas are more rigidly confined to the specific HLC types in their own area. 6.3.5: Visibility to higher elevations Visibility to prominent topographic features is a consistent theme in the literature of monument distribution in Cornwall (Bamatt 1982; Tilley and Bennett 2001; Bender et al. 2007). In order to assess whether visibility from monuments in both periods, from the control group as well as between monument types in West Penwith also share this variable, visibility to various elevations was assessed. This assessment is based on the absence/presence of visibility to a range of mid-high elevations, in which absent was scored 0 and present was scored 1. This absence/presence was then converted to percentages for each dataset. The results of this analysis are provided in Table 6.25-6.27. While not statistically significant and not overwhelming in its own right, table 6.25 suggests that the location choice for some monuments in both periods may have been influenced by visibility to mid-high elevations. A detailed comparison of the differences between monument types was deemed inappropriate due to the nature of the variation in Bronze Random Neolithic Age Points 140m 94.2 90.5 74.9 160m 93.3 90.5 71.0 180m 88.0 88.1 61.1 200m 77.8 83.3 42.7 220m 55.8 45.2 23.4 240m 37.3 38.1 20.8 Table 6.25: Percentages of monuments and random points with views to higher elevations. sample size across monuments types. However, unexpected visibility to mid-high elevations will be touched upon. Barrows in the Neolithic are located along the fringe of higher elevations, which are not quite on summits, and tend to have visibility ranges that point outwards to the coast instead of inland (Figure B.l 5). It is, therefore, unsurprising that visibility to higher elevation occurs infrequently from these monuments (Table 6.26). The same general pattern occurs with stone circles (Figure B.16 and Table 6.26), except that in this case one of the three features (Merry Maidens stone circle) has a visibility range that points inland as opposed to seaward. In which case, Merry Maidens may in fact be directed at the higher ground in the immediate vicinity, as well as to the more distant northern ridge—a finding for many circles on Bodmin Moor (Figure B.5; HES staff, personal communication). As previously discussed, entrance graves in this period are found along the western coast, at higher elevations along the northern ridge and in lowland farm regions. Exactly half of these features have visibility outward to the sea and the other half inward across land. Chambered Entrance Barrow Caim Cist End osures Elevation Tomb Graves (n=6) (n=3) (n=2) (n =2) (n=8) (n=6) 140m 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 160m 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 130m 83 3 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 200m 66 ^ 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 33 3 220m 33 3 0 0 55 6 50 0 50 0 167 240m 33 3 0 0 44 4 50 0 50 0 16 7 Table 6 26 Percentages of Neolithic sites with views to higher elevations Long L :>ng Standing Stone Tor Elevation Barrow Cairn Ston e Circle Enclosures (n=2) (n =1) (n=7) (n=3) (n=2) 140m 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 160m 100 0 0 0 100 0 66 7 100 0 180rn 100 0 0 0 100 0 66 7 100 0 200m 100 0 0 0 100 0 66 7 100 0 220m 0 0 00 85 7 33 3 100 0 240m 00 00 714 33 3 50 0 Table 6 26 Cont' Percentages of Neolithic sites with views to higher elevations This may suggest that the location of entrance graves and their subsequent visibility is directly related to their topographic setting, in which case inland sites would have views of significant inland features, whereas coastal sites would overlook the ocean (Figure B.17). This explains the variation in percentages to higher elevations from entrance graves (Table 6.26). Chambered tombs, cists, enclosures, tor enclosures and, to a certain extent standing stones, are all found at higher elevations, and it is thus relatively unsurprising that they also tend to have views to higher elevations (Table 6.26). Barrows in the Bronze Age are also distributed across a fair range of topographic zones, a number of which are located along the coast (Figure B.l 8). Thus, a proportion of barrows would have views solely of the sea and may explain the lower percentage of 194 Clearance Entrance Barrow Cairn Cist End osure Elevation Cairn Grave (n=241) (n=72; (n=26) (n==14 ) (n=9) (n=l 1) 140m 90 7 93 1 88 5 100 0 100 0 100 0 160m 89 9 93 1 88 5 100 0 100 0 100 0 130m 84 3 93 1 84 6 100 0 100 0 31 8 200m 75 1 88 9 69 2 38 9 85 7 31 8 220m 60 8 70 3 23 1 77 8 57 1 27 3 240rn 35 0 53 3 19 2 66 7 42 9 27 3 Table 6 27 Percentages of Bronze Age sites with views to higher elevations Holed Standing St ^ne Stone Mound Round Elevation Stone Stone Ah sii m ent Circle (n=2j (n=l) (n=13) Table 6 27 Cont' Percentages of Bronze Age sites with views to higher elevations visibility to higher elevations reported in table 6.27. The same can be said for cists (Figure B.l9), while entrance graves appear to follow the same general pattern as the previous period (Figure B. 20 and Table 6.27). Caims are not predominantly distributed along the coast. However, the five monuments in that area account for the discrepancy in views to higher elevations seen in Table 6.27 (See also Figure B.21). Visibility ranges from holed stones tends to be geared towards lowland visibility (Figure B.22), with visibility to higher elevations, as well as to the sea, occurring infrequently (illustrated in Table 6.27). Based on the values presented in Table 6.27 and the distribution pattern 195 illustrated in Figure B.l 1, visibility from enclosures appears to be more generalized and not focused on any one topographic area (also see Figure B.23). Like entrance graves, the relationship between standing stones and visibility to higher elevations appears to be dependent on their topographic setting, which is also reflected in table 6.27, as well as in figure B.24. Visibility to higher elevations from lowland standing stones occurs less frequently than from standing stones at higher elevations. Some stone circles can have fair visibility to higher elevations if they are located in close proximity to those features. However, the majority of stone circles appear to have a visibility range which is not directed towards high elevation areas (Figure B.25). This result is consistent with results from table 6.27. This continues to support the interpretation that visibility from stone circles in this period may have been geared towards specific kinds of views which are context-dependent, although again this remains to be tested. Thus, visibility to prominent topographic features and higher elevation is suggested by the data presented above, although it does appear to be dependent on the topographic setting of monuments. Another significant and related component for assessing monument location choice and visibility is purposefully truncated views. Had I not performed the field survey, I am doubtful that I would have been able to recognize this, much less frequent but nonetheless distinct, feature of the West Penwith prehistoric landscape. At the Bronze Age caim site of Trewey in Zennor (Figure 6.5), visibility was very clearly oriented to the farmland immediately east of the site, although there was limited visibility to the ocean, as well as to the two semi-prominent hills that flanked the structure. I interpreted this orientation based on the caims location on a hill that sloped downwards toward the farmland, which was flanked by another hill with no features on the opposite side. This effectively truncated the visibility range from the caim to being narrowly focus on the farmland running along the junction between both hills. This interpretation was further supported by the presence of another caim on the opposite side of the same hill facing a different farming area which I could not see from the caim at Trewey downs. Unlike cairns located at higher elevations, which potentially are meant to be seen from far distances, this cairn appeared to be intimately tied to the immediate area, and possibly the people who lived there. To go further, this caim is also located at the edge of the farmland it over looks, which effectively forces people to pass a monument that houses human/familial remains, as they enter or exit the settlement. There is also the possibility that the presence of ancestors along this boundary announces the transition from one type of place to another (Bryn Tapper; personal combination). This type of spatial organization was also seen at the Bronze Age barrow site at Noon Billas, Towednack (Figure 6.4). I approached this site, which is at the bottom of gently sloping land, from open rough ground. In the distance towards the N-NE of the site were several prominent hills, which also happen to be the only prominent features in the visible landscape (Figure 6.34). Moving a short distance south from the monument towards where I had first approached from expands the visibility range to include distant topographic features, which suggests that the specific location of the site was purposefully tmncated in order to only include prominent visual features in the immediate environment to the N-NE and the farmland that surrounds it. This can be seen in Figure 6.3525. Like the caim at Trewey, this barrow site is situated at the boundary A panorama taken roughly fifteen meters away to the SW of the barrow. Figure 6 34 Detail of prominent features to the North of barrow site, now destroyed, at Noon Billas, Towednack Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 Hr* Figure 6 35 detail of increased visibility from thirty meters to the SW of the barrow site Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the Field survey of 2009 U3 between open rough ground and farmland, which again may represent both ties to the specific genealogy of the people who lived there in prehistory, as well as an indication that there is a transition between two different types of place. The location of both monuments suggests that these monuments were deliberately referencing the surrounding landscape in the immediate vicinity. The caim may have functioned as a local reminder of some cosmological or memorial significance to the people associated with the farmland it overlooked. The barrow appears to reference the local environment and was perhaps meant to reflect relationships to a specific topographic context; a function of barrow visibility that has been interpreted elsewhere (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 350-352; Jones 2011: 82). What can be deduced from the above discussion is that visibility from monuments to higher elevations often occurs in both the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. However, whether this is a component of monument location choice remains unclear. It is possible that views to higher elevation was a specific type of visibility that was selected for within discrete groupings of monument types but it does not appear to be occurring at all times. 6.3.6: Visibility between sites The final factor to be assessed is visibility between sites. Each monument type from both periods was analyzed and raw counts of the number of monuments and random points visible in each viewshed were tabulated. Table 6.28-6.29 provides the raw counts and table 6.30-31 provides the/?-values from the Mann-Whitney tests of significance. It must be noted that this is not an assessment of inter-visibility in which two points can be seen from each other, but rather an evaluation of whether visibility between monuments 199 All Neolithic Random monuments Points All Neolithic monuments(n=42) 140 547 Barrow (n=6) 16 61 Caim (n=3) 9 58 Chambered Tomb (n=8) 30 59 Cist (n=2) 8 11 Enclosure (n=2) 11 83 Entrance Grave (n=6) 18 44 Long Barrow (n=2) 3 6 Long Caim (n=l) 4 4 Standing Stone (n=7) 19 111 Stone Circle (n=3) 8 13 Tor Enclosure (n=2) 6 58 Table 6.28: Raw counts of inter-visibility from Neolithic monuments to other monuments and to the control group. All Bronze Age Random monuments Points All Bronze Age monuments (n=452) 10716 5094 Barrow (n=241) 5080 2643 Caim (n=72) 2858 1044 Cist (n=26) 494 150 Clearance Caim (n=9) 161 87 Enclosure (n=14) 310 170 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 251 128 Holed Stone (n= 13) 195 124 Mound (n=2) 16 31 Standing Stone (n=54) 1054 653 Stone Alignment (n=2) 30 10 Stone Circle (n=7) 159 51 Table 6.29: Raw counts of inter-visibility from Bronze Age monuments to other monuments and to the control group. occurs more often than chance would dictate. Thus, it represents the first stage in an inter-visibility analysis. The term inter-visibility will be used throughout the following discussion for the sake of simplicity. The results of the statistical tests indicate that the All (n=42) <0.01 Barrow (n=6) <0.01 Neolithic Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.02 Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.02 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.01 Table 6.30: Resultingp-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter-visibility counts from all Neolithic monuments and monument types to Neolithic monuments and to the control group. counts of inter-visibility to monuments and random points from all monuments in the Neolithic are significantly different (Table 6.30). This difference appears to reflect the higher occurrence of visibility to the random points than to monuments, which suggests that visibility ranges per monument tend to have views to other monuments in the landscape by chance (Table 6.28). Results from the Mann-Whitney tests between the counts of inter-visibility to monuments and to random points from each Neolithic monument type indicates a statistical difference (Table 6.30), which shows that monuments from this period have a lower number of views to other monuments than to random locations in the landscape (Table 6.28). This may also reflect in both cases—all Neolithic monuments and monument types—a preferential selection for visibility specifically not geared towards other monument types. To go further, we would except no statistical difference between the counts of inter-visibility to monuments and to random points if inter-visibility was completely a chance occurrence. The statistical difference between inter-visibility of monuments and random points in this case suggests that outward visibility directed away from monuments was either actively being selected for or was a by-product of another selection variable, such as visibility to the sea, which also points away from monuments. This is also supported by the lack of statistical difference between inter-visibility to monuments from Neolithic monument Neolithic Chambered Entrance Barrow tomb Grave Barrow (n=6) Chambered Tomb (n=8) 0.44 Neolithic Entrance Grave (n=6) 0.87 0.68 Standing Stone (n=7) 0.72 0.29 0.94 Table 6.31: Resulting/^-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter-visibility counts between all Neolithic monument types. types in Table 6.31. The inter-visibility counts to monuments and to random points in the Bronze Age are also statistically different (Table 6.32), which in this case appears to reflect a high inter-visibility to monuments and suggests that inter-visibility occurs more often than would be expected if monuments were placed randomly in the landscape (Table 6.29). All (n=452) <0.01 Barrow (n=241) <0.01 Cairn (n=72) <0.01 Cist (n=26) 0.03 Bronze Clearance Caim (n=9) 0.09 Age Enclosure (n=14) 0.07 Entrance Grave (n=l 1) 0.04 Holed Stone (n= 13) 0.11 Standing Stone (n=54) <0.01 Stone Circle (n=7) 0.15 Table 6.32: Resulting p-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter-visibility counts between all Bronze Age monuments and the control group. Bronze Age barrows, caims, cists, entrance graves, and standing stones are all have statistically different counts of inter-visibility between monuments and random points (Table 6.31). In all cases, this difference appears to reflect the higher counts of inter- visibility to monuments as opposed to random points, which suggests that inter-visibility is not a chance occurrence. It also highlights an intriguing difference between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, in which Neolithic monuments appear to be purposefully avoiding inter-visibility and Bronze Age monuments appear to be purposefully referencing other monuments visually. This may reflect that Bronze Age monuments and their referencing to other monuments may have linked these features to a remembered past. This is supported by the results of the Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter- visibility counts to monuments in each period, as well as between monument types in each period (Table 6.33), which indicates a statistical difference in all cases. Neolithic ... „ Entrance Standing All Barrow ~ ^ & Grave stones All (n=452) <0.01 Bronze Barrow (n=241) <0.01 Age Entrance Grave (n=l 1) <0.01 Standing Stone (n=54) <0.01 Table 6.33: Resulting p-values from Mann-Whitney tests comparing inter-visibility counts between all Bronze Age monuments and the control group. There are also statistical differences between inter-visibility counts to monuments from different Bronze Age monument types. Clearance caims, enclosures, holed stones and stone circles do not appear to have visibility ranges with higher than expected views to other monuments (Table 6.34). Thus, it must be tentatively concluded that visibility to other monuments from these types was not an important component of monument location choice. Enclosures are statistically different from holed stones, which likely reflect the higher inter-visibility counts from enclosures (Table 6.34). This also agrees 203 with the assessment of elevation, slope and distribution for both types (see section 5.5). A statistical difference was also indicated when comparing the views from caims to monuments and to the control group 26(Table 6.31). Interestingly, views from caims to monuments is also significantly different from all other monument types in this period, with the exception of stone circles which is only statistically different at a low degree—-/(-value = 0.06 (Table 6.34). These results suggest that the inter-visibility from caims is slightly different from the other monument types discussed above. One the one hand, caims do appear to have a higher degree of inter- visibility to other monuments than would be expected. However, on the other hand, caim inter-visibility is significantly different from all other monument types. Coupled with the very high average elevation values, what appears to be occurring is that cairns are being placed at high elevations with generalized visibility to areas with other monuments instead of purposefully visibility directed at other monuments. Whether caims are being built to both be visible from other monuments, as well as having a generalized visibility of dense monument areas or if caims are being built first and monument types at lower elevations are being built to have visibility to them, is unclear. Regardless, it is likely that caims were located in the landscape to be seen but not necessarily to see from. A final observation on inter-visibility is the occurrence of discrete groupings of monuments which are located in order to maximize their inter-visibility with other monuments. While these discrete groups have been noted elsewhere, such as grouping of barrows at Botrea downs in West Penwith (Jones 2011), it was observed during the field This appears to reflect the higher inter-visibility counts to monuments than to random points. Bronze Age _ ~ _ Clearance -^ . Entrance Holed Standing Barrow Caim Cist „ Enclosure ~ ,_ ^ Cairn Crave Stone btone Barrow (n=241) Caim (n=72) < 0.01 Cist (n=26) 0 81 * 0 01 Qearance Cairn (n=9) 0 28 0.02 0 74 Bronze Age Enclosure (n=14) 0 51 0.01 0 96 0 85 Entrance Grave (n=ll) 0 96 0.04 0 58 0 18 0 34 Holed Stone (n=l3) 0 47 < 0 01 0 82 0.05 0 77 0 84 Standing Stone (n=54) 0 62 < 0.01 0 60 0 50 0 76 0 87 0 62 Stone Circle (n=7) 0 83 0 06 0 88 0 96 0 94 0 93 0 97 0 50 Table 6 34 Resulting/) -values from Mann-Whitney tests cornpanng inter-visibility counts between Bronze Age monument type 205 survey that proximity between monuments does not automatically indicate intentional inter-visibility. For example, the panoramas of two monuments, a chambered tomb and a standing stone, in close proximity (1 mile) from each other do not appear to indicate inter-visibility (Figure 6.36 and 6.37 are the panoramas and 6.38 and 6.39 are the close- up images of the monuments). Looking at the GIS viewsheds for these monuments, however, illustrates that the simulation of visibility from their coordinates illustrates they are meant to be inter-visible (Figure 6.40 shows a close up of their viewsheds). The area highlighted by the red circle in 6.36 shows where the standing stone is supposed to be located. A close-up of that area indicates that there is no visibility to that site (Figure 6.41). The quoit, on the other hand, is visible from the standing stone (Figure 6.42). This example illustrates two things: 1) that proximity does not always equate with inter-visibility and 2) going into the field and physically walking the landscape provides a good safety net for verifying computer-based models. As can be seen, there are several interesting trends in the visibility patterns of monuments from both periods. The following chapter will integrate the observed patterns in visibility and topographic placement, and discuss their implications for monument location choice. Figure 6 36 Panorama from a chambered tomb at Chun, Sancreed Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 Figure 6 37 Panorama from a standing stone at Chun, Sancreed Photograph taken by Chelsee Arbour during the field survey of 2009 o 207 Figure 6.38: Detail of Chun quoit. Figure 6.39: Detail of standing stone. 208 N ^m—^m—^^M^^—— —^B^—— Meters 0 155 31 u 620 910 1 240 Figure 6.40: Inter-visibility between Chun quoit and a standing stone. Point data provided by the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Cornwall Council 100049047 2010. Figure 6.41: Detail of area where standing stone is located, viewed from Chun Quoit the standing stone. 209 Figure 6.42: Chun quoit visible in the distance from standing stone. Chapter 7: Integration and Discussion of Results There are several significant factors at work in monument location choice and its relationship to visibility in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age of West Penwith. Monuments in the Neolithic are often located at higher elevations, although statistical differences between the elevation values of monument types was only recognized for entrance graves and chambered tombs. Having visited these monument types in the field, I noted that the entrance graves in the lowland areas of southern farmland may have been specifically related to the individuals who lived in that area—although the transitional boundary discussed for the caim at Trewey and the barrow at Noon Billas was not observed in these contexts. I also noted that, unlike the southern farmland, the distribution of entrance graves along the western coast may have been reflecting the importance of the sea, as well as a relationship to the communities along the coasts of the Irish Sea (Fowler and Cummings 2003: 1). The loose relationship identified in the cumulative viewshed maps between monument location and visibility to the sea during this period also lends weight to this argument. Unlike entrance graves, the chambered tombs visited during the field survey appeared to reflect the prominent topographic features, or lack thereof, in their immediate environment. For example, monuments located in and around the Zennor and Trendrine Hill area in the eastern transect tend to be visible only in the immediate vicinity of rock outcrops, with visibility ranges that are rather short. In the western transect, an area devoid of rock outcrops, views from monuments are to both near and distant areas of West Penwith, which was observed at Chun Quoit (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 346- 348; Pollard et al. 2008: 79). I interpret this difference as an indication that chambered tombs are monuments that were meant to integrate and contribute to the landscape of West Penwith, in which prominent topographic features are considered an intimate part of the sacred landscape (Cummings 2002). There is a possibility that visibility from Neolithic monuments is at least partially directed towards higher elevations or to particular natural features, although further analysis and statistical testing would be needed to confirm this interpretation. That being said, the overall visibility range per monument have a lower number of views to other monuments than to the random points, which suggests that inter-visibility between monuments was not a factor in monument location choice. Thus, it is possible that monuments in the Neolithic are visually referring to different topographic contexts which may revolve around ideas of community, identity, memory and the sacredness of various places in West Penwith. Monuments in the Bronze Age have much more variation in their topographic and visibility contexts. Several monument types are located at mid to high elevations including barrows, caims, clearance caims, enclosures, and stone circles, while cists, entrance graves, holed stones and standing stones tend to be found at lower elevations. Chambered tombs appear to be replaced by barrows as the most abundant monument group during the Bronze Age. Cists, a monumental form associated with chambered tombs in the previous period, are often found in close proximity to barrows in the Bronze Age, although the elevation of these sites is variable due to their distribution across the three topographic contexts—the northern ridge, the southern lowland farm areas and the coast, specifically the west coast (Figure B.6 and Figure 4.2). Clearance caims are also introduced in this period, which correlates with the assessment that they are typically associated with farming practices (Smith 1996: 209). The degree of slope for Bronze Age monuments undergoes a general shift from the Neolithic, in which barrows, caims, standing stands and stone circles are found in locations with less of an incline than in the Neolithic, while cists, enclosures, and entrance graves are found at steeper degrees of slope than the pervious period. That being said, there is not a significant difference in slope values of monument types between periods. Almost all monument types in the Bronze Age are found at steeper slopes than stone circles and holed stones, as well as in some cases standing stones, which suggest that these monuments are consistently being built on flatter ground. The location of these monuments on flatter ground may be linked to specific types of perceptual experiences, such as the impression of circularity noted by Lake and Woodman (2003). This is also supported by the difference between visibility ranges across monument types, in which barrows, caims, cists, enclosures and entrance graves have larger visibility ranges than holed stones and stone circles. Standing stones also have significantly larger visibility ranges than stone circles. This may indicate that although standing stones are often associated with stone circles, the function of the former was not entirely linked to the ritual context of the latter (Darvill 1995: 196). Caims, cists, clearance caims, enclosures and entrance graves all have significantly larger visibility ranges to land than stone circles, which could also support the interpretation that stone circles have specific visual focuses. Expansive views in this case would not necessarily provide a specific type of visual experience, which may be a reason behind the reduced visibility ranges from this monument type. Finally, holed stones and stone circles have consistently lower views to other monuments than to the control group, which suggests that inter-visibility was not an 213 important component in the location choice of these monuments. Taken together, this information provides a strong argument that stone circles, and the holed stones that are often associated with them, during the Bronze Age are places of significant ritual meaning intimately linked to particular types of visibility. These structures may have been used for communal gatherings at specific times of the year, much like the recumbent stone circles in Scotland or at Bodmin Moor (Bradley 2002; Bender et al. 2007). This would indicate that the people of the Bronze Age were just as intimately tied to the landscape as in the Neolithic, in which the sacredness associated with the passage of the sun, moon, and various astronomical events (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 335-337) would have framed and influenced their choice of monument location. In contrast to this assessment of stone circles, the potential depositional burial activity and the subsequent infilling of the entrances or openings at barrows, cairns, cists and entrance graves can be seen as representative of discontinuous use at a specific point in their life cycle. Once they are closed, they're function may have changed from a space in which activity is occurring (i.e. burial, votive deposits, etc.) to functioning as significant focal points of communal memory (Hodder 1990: 246-248; Thomas 1991: 34; Parker-Pearson 2001: 146). Inter-visibility between monuments in the Bronze Age occurs more frequently than to the control group, which is a marked shift from the Neolithic, when inter-visibility seems to be almost purposefully directed away from monuments. However, clearance caims, enclosures, holed stones and stone circles do not appear to have a strong inter- visibility focus. Given the nature of each of these monuments, this is relatively unsurprising. For example, clearance caims are associated with agricultural clearance, and thus, would be located in the landscape opportunistically as opposed to placed within specific preferential constraints. The function of enclosures, both as domestic/defensible sites and as centers of communal, ceremonial activity (Darvill 1996: 29; Pollard 2001: 319-321; Whittle 2003: 1-3), would imply views across a community instead of to specific monuments—a concept that would make an interesting research project in the future. Another interesting finding is that despite being located at higher elevations, views from caims do not appear to include strong visibility to other monuments, which suggests that these monuments were meant to be looked at but not looked from. This could potentially indicate a social restriction on direct access to this monument form at higher elevations. It may be that caims are located at higher elevations as "markers of place", potentially signifying the symbolic importance of expansive views across the landscape (Smith 1996: 209). However, the visibility to and from the caim site at Trewey downs seems to be in direct contrast to the above assessment. It may be that caims at higher elevations are meant to reference a much larger community. Caims at lower elevations may have functioned as a memorial to the ancestors of a much smaller community or group of familial relations, much like the difference observed between Neolithic entrance graves in the southern farmland and the western coast. Another significant change, which has been consistently alluded to but never explicitly expressed, is the drastic increase in the number of monuments across the landscape from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. This increase likely reflects the increased sedentism associated with the development of a complex social hierarchy, intensification of agricultural practices and the beginning of land ownership (Thomas 215 1991a: 34; Brodie 1994: 21). This is potentially reinforced by the difference in visibility to the sea between the Neolithic—when it was loosely directed outward—and the Bronze Age—when it was loosely directed inward. Strong ties to an identity that revolves around large communities of individuals are also reflected in the communal burials of disarticulated skeletons during the Neolithic, which subsequently changes to an increased emphasis on more individually focused burial practices during the Bronze Age (Parker- Pearson 2001: 146; Hodder 1990: 246-248; Thomas 1991: 34). This shift may also reflect a difference in the way that land and community were understood during the Bronze Age, although further research would be needed to confirm this. Based on the above assessment, the hypothesis that visibility was a crucial factor in monument constmction in West Penwith during the Neolithic, and the Bronze Age, is far too rigidly defined to be accepted as tme for all monument types and locations. As has been demonstrated in this thesis, there are instances where visibility to prominent topographic features, or to the ocean, does appear to be the primary motivation for monument location choice. However, there are also instances where topographic visibility to the immediate surrounding area is given more emphasis than visibility across a greater distance, for example at the Noon Billas barrow site discussed in Chapter 6. Correspondingly, visibility between monument types does not appear to be the sole reason for monument location in this area either. What can be distilled from this discussion is that topographic environment, site type, and visibility are all factors in the distribution and location of monuments in West Penwith. Thus, visibility as a constmction factor is context-dependent at the local level. Chapter 8: Conclusion 8.1: Summary of research This thesis examines the context of visibility in monument location choice during the Neolithic and Bronze Age of West Penwith, Cornwall England. The question of whether, and if so, how visibility was a factor in the selection of monument location was assessed by combining a visibility analysis conducted in GIS with descriptive observations modelled after phenomenological frameworks of field survey. Chapter 2 provided the theoretical background behind both approaches. It was demonstrated that these two approaches are often held to be mutually exclusive, despite the fact that the limitations in both are lessened by a merger of the two. The history of monumentality in Britain and Ireland, as well as in Cornwall and West Penwith was presented in Chapter 3 in order to provide the context of how monumentality has been assessed in these regions. Chapter 4 provided a detailed discussion of the methods employed and analyses conducted in the current study. This was followed by two chapters, one which focused on the topographic context of monument location and the other which focused on various aspects of visibility from monuments. Each chapter presented the statistical results, as well as a detailed description of my experiences and perceptions of West Penwith during the field survey. In the final chapter, these were integrated into a discussion of the potential implications of visibility for understanding monumentality in West Penwith. This study has demonstrated that the topographic context of monuments from the Neolithic and the Bronze Age (such as elevation, slope, and location on HLC types, as well as the location of monuments in relation to the coast) at times had a dramatic impact on monument location choice, as well as on the extent of the visibility range from sites. The visibility analyses indicated that there is a potential relationship during the Neolithic between choice of monument location and visibility of the sea, which is unlike the visibility context of Bronze Age monuments and their inclination towards visibility across land. I also observed that monuments in the Neolithic seem to continually reference important features of the surrounding landscape—including prominent hills, rock outcrops and the sea—while monuments in the Bronze Age appear to be more oriented towards other monuments. It was concluded that while certain trends were identified which support the hypothesis that visibility was a main component of monument location choice in West Penwith, it is an element which is context-dependent. The context varies according to monument type (including variability within monument type), topographic characteristics—elevation, slope and general proximity to the ocean— potential association to different sizes and context of community relations, and characteristics of visibility—views to, views from, and inter-visibility between monuments. 8.2: Issues Several issues may limit the interpretations presented in this study. First, in both Neolithic and the Bronze Age samples, there was a bias towards sites located in higher elevations. As discussed in Chapter 4, this is a result of differential survival and preservation in different topographic environments. Thus, it is likely that a significant number of sites located in lowland and farming areas, as well as in urbanized areas have been destroyed or relocated, which would have a significant effect on the results of this 218 study. Unfortunately, there was no way to account for this issue apart from explicitly recognizing its potential impact on the conclusions drawn in this thesis. Second, due to the time-consuming nature of this project, it was not possible to conduct a detailed fleid analysis of visibility on a site by site basis. Had such an analysis been conducted to supplement the information presented in this thesis, it is possible that a fuller understanding of site placement and the potential importance of visibility in monument location choice could have been presented. Also, due to the numerous, lengthy analyses conducted in this research, it was not possible to provide an in-depth study on each of the research components examined in Chapter 5. Another issue was the use of computational viewsheds, as these models often have several inherent problems associated with them. These issues have been discussed earlier in the thesis and will only briefly be summarized here. There is always a potential of abstraction and digitizing error whenever digital models are constmcted. These potential errors are compounded by the possibility for further abstraction in the results because of the use of multiple GIS platforms. These issues were bome in mind throughout the analysis process and no indication of the further abstraction was recognized. A number of possible safe guards were put into place during the spatial analysis stage of this project, which minimized the effect of these potential sources of error as much as was possible. Following this, the use of descriptive observations within the analysis can largely be seen as subjective, with the potential of inter-observer variation and error. There is no solution for this subjectivity apart from providing detailed information on the context of those observations, which researchers in future studies may be able to verify. A fourth issue related to the methodology employed in this thesis is my fairly personal interpretations of monumentality in West Penwith based on my experiential survey during the summer of 2009. My reading of the landscape and my interpretations of bodily experience in the landscape are unquestionably influenced by my personal background and physiological constraints. My post-secondary education, as well as my chosen discipline, my interactions with others in that discipline and outside of it, my bad knee, my poor vision, as well as many other variables, all contributes to the work that I have produced here. This subjectivity has often been criticized, and heralded as the greatest weakness of archaeological phenomenology, in other assessments of landscape. The only way I could have undercut this issue would have been to include as many people as I could, from a variety of backgrounds, within this study and highlight patterns or trends that were observed despite the variability between individual perception (such as has been demonstrated by Hamilton et al. 2006 and Bender et al. 2007). However, had I not gone into West Penwith, this thesis would have been very different from what it is now and not, I would argue, for the better. The heavy reliance on visibility as a main sense of the human body remains a major undertone of this research. A simple truth of any analysis of prehistory and monumentality is that modelling visibility in the past is the only sense that can be simulated at present. Research on the other senses is currently being conducted. However, this research is not yet at the stage where it can be modelled in a computational environment nor can be assessed using a phenomenological framework at the regional scale without considerable time investment. Thus, it can only be said that the current study focuses on the potential importance of visibility in the past. The future work on the other four senses may be combined with this information to provide an assessment of whether, and if so, how the bodily senses was a factor in monument location choice. 8.3: Contribution to knowledge and future research The information in this thesis represents another stage in understanding the distribution of monuments in West Penwith. To date, no GIS-based assessment of visibility coupled with descriptive observations modelled after phenomenological frameworks of field survey have been performed for this area as a whole. As such, this work represents a foundation or an overview of the context of visibility and monument location choice in West Penwith on which future studies can build. Future research on the variation exhibited within each monument type, including topographic location, visibility and site context, may provide a better indication of the chronology of monuments in this region. Along the same lines, a tme assessment of inter- visibility between monuments would benefit our understanding of monument location choice during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. As noted, the results of this thesis suggest that the importance of visibility appears to be largely context-dependent. Thus, assessments of inter-visibility between monuments may be more fruitful at a local level than at the regional level. If discrete groupings of monuments can be defined in West Penwith, another potential direction for future research would be to examine the link, if any, between monument location and hut circle distribution, particularly for the Bronze Age when hut circles are abundant in the landscape. This may provide insights into whether there was a significant spatial distinction between the two types of sites, which could provide insight into how people in the past organized their landscape and in turn organized their cosmology. Finally, perhaps one of the most intriguing directions for future research would be to assess if monuments along the coast of West Penwith are visible from the sea. Research in this area could potentially add strength to the interpretation of the Irish Sea ties represented in West Penwith. It would also provide the stepping stone from which assessments of coastal communication between the communities that reside in those environments could be conducted. 8.4: Brave last remarks The Neolithic in Britain is an extremely rich and archaeologically diverse period in prehistory, characterised by the introduction of agricultural domesticates, archaeologically visible, albeit rare, house structures and the development of monumentality. In the last twenty-five years or so, archaeologists have theorized that the Neolithic people lived in a world filled with ancestor spirits that live in rocks, prominent hills and waterways, where important astronomical events related to the sun and moon at various times of the year are studiously marked by ceremonial structures and ritual gatherings, and where every monument that is built contributes to the physical presence of the past and memory in the landscape (Tilley 1994; Bradley 1998b, 2005; Edmond 1999; Tilley and Bennett 2001; Cummings 2002; Bender et al. 2007). Many of these undertones can be seen in the visibility from monuments during this period in West Penwith. The views from these monuments do not appear to refer to each other, but rather to the landscape and all it represents. In this ritualized landscape, differentiation between what is naturally formed and what is cultural made is not rigid and clear cut (Tilley and Bennett 2001: 345-346; Cummings 2002: 108). Chambered tombs along the northern ridge either mimic nearby rock outcrops or take their form if there are no outcrops in the area (Tilley and Bennett 2001). Entrance graves along the west coast seem to announce the importance of the ocean, as well as the potential ties between communities connected by that same sea (also noted in Fowler and Cummings 2003). Thus, monuments in this period can be seen as becoming part of this ritual landscape and contributing to its sacred nature. As time went on and the Neolithic faded into the Bronze Age, the context of visibility from monuments began to shift. Views from Bronze Age monuments in West Penwith begin to be focused across the land (although not necessarily referencing prominent topographic features), and potentially to the Neolithic monuments that have been there for years and years of generational memory (which also were potentially built to invoke and contribute to the sacredness of the landscape). Bronze Age monuments seem to be oriented towards other monuments, perhaps reflecting an attempt to acknowledge a remembered past and to be included within a landscape filled with ancestors. Whether or not the interpretations, and the importance placed on visibility, presented in this thesis are an accurate reflection of how people in the past created meaning that was embedded in their everyday lives, it is clear that the people of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in West Penwith were intimately tied to their landscape. One thing that this thesis does provide is an indication that the stories of the people who have lived in West Penwith are still being told, and walking through that landscape, you can almost hear them being whispered. REFERENCES CITED Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richard H. Wilshusen and Cherie L. Scheick 2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9 (2): 157-211. Ashbee, Paul 1982 Mesolithic Megaliths? The Scillonian Entrance-Graves: A New View. Cornish Archaeology'No. 21: 3-22. Bamatt, John 1982 Prehistoric Cornwall: The Ceremonial Monuments. Turnstone Press Limited, Northamptonshire. Barrett, John, and Ilhong Ko 2009 A Phenomenology of Landscape: A Crisis in British Landscape Archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology 9: 275-294. Bender, Barbara 2002 Time and Landscape. Current Anthropology 43: 103-112. 2006 Place and Landscape. In Handbook of Material Culture (eds) Christopher Tilley, Webb Keane, Susanne Kiichler, Michael Rowlands and Patricia Spyer. Pp 303-314. Sage Publications, London. Bender, Barbara, Sue Hamilton and Christopher Tilley 2001 Stone Worlds: Narrative and Refiexivity. In Landscape Archaeology. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California. Bergh, Stephan 2002 Knocknarea: The Ultimate Monument: Megaliths and Mountains in Neolithic Cuil Irra, North-West Ireland. In Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: Perception And Society During The Neolithic And Early Bronze Age. Chris Scarre (eds). Pp 139-151. Routledge, London. Berridge, Peter and Allison Roberts 1983 The Mesolithic Period in Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology 25: 7-34. Blaikie, Norman 2003 Analyzing Quantitative Data. SAGE Publications, London. Bradley, Richard 1998 The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. Routledge, London. 1998b Ruined Buildings, Ruined Stones: Enclosures, Tombs and Natural Places in the Neolithic of South-West England. World Archaeology 30 (1): 13-22. 2002 The Land, the Sky, and the Scottish Stone Circle. In Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: Perception and Society During the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Chris Scarre (eds). Ppl22-138. Routledge, London. Brentano, Franz 1995 Descriptive Psychology. Benito Muller (eds. and translator). Routledge, London. Castleden, Rodney 1992 Neolithic Britain; New Stone Age Sites of England, Scotland and Wales. Routledge, London. 225 Caseldine, C 1980 Environmental Change in Cornwall During the Last 13,000 Years. Cornish Archaeology No. 19: 3-16. Champion, Timothy 1999 The Later Bronze Age. In The Archaeology of Britain: An Introduction from the Upper Paleolithic to the Industrial Revolution (eds) John Hunter and Ian Ralston. Pg 95-112. Routledge, London. Chapman, Henry and Benjamin Gearey 2000 Palaeoecology and the Perception of Prehistoric Landscapes: Some Comments on Visual Approaches to Phenomenology. Antiquity 74: 316-319. Chapman, Henry 2000 Understanding Wetland Archaeological Landscapes: GIS, Environmental Analysis and Landscape Reconstraction: Pathways and Narratives. In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies (eds) Gary Lock. Pp 49-58. IOS Press, Oxford. Christie, Patricia M. 1986 Cornwall in the Bronze Age. Cornish Archaeology 25: 81-110. Clark, Jo, John Darlington and Graham Fairclough 2004 Using Historic Landscape Characterisation: English Heritage Review of HLC Applications 2002-2003. English Heritage and Lancashire County Council, England. Cole, Dick and Andy Jones 2002 Journeys to the Rock: Archaeological Investigations at Tregarrick Farm, 226 Roche, Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology 41-42: 107-143. Cooney, Gabriel 2000 Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. Routledge, London. 2003 Introduction: Seeing Land from the Sea. World Archaeology 35 (3): 323- 328. Conolly, James 2008 Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology. In The Handbook of Landscape Archaeology (eds) Bmno David and Julian Thomas. Pg 583-595. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California. Conolly, James and Mark Lake 2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cornwall County Council 1996. Cornwall Landscape Assessment 1994, Landscape Design Associates in Association with Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Cornwall County Council, Tmro. Electronic archive Sites, Monuments and Buildings Database (SMR). http://www. Cornwall, gov, uk/default. aspx?page=8531. Last accessed 13/09/2009 Electronic archive Historic Environment: mission statement. http://www. comwall. gov, uk/default. aspx?page=2986. Last Accessed 01/10/2009 Electronic archive Historic Environment Information. http://www. comwall. gov, uk/default. aspx?page=8528. Last Accessed 25/02/2010 Cummings, Vicki and Alasdair Whittle 2003 Tombs with a View: Landscape, Monuments and Trees. Antiquity 11: 255- 266. Cummings, Vicki 2002 All Cultural Things: Actual and Conceptual Monuments in the Neolithic of Western Britain. In Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: Perception and Society During the Neolithic And Early Bronze Age. Chris Scarre (eds). Pp 107-121. Routledge, London. Darvil, Timothy 1996 Prehistoric Britain from the Air; A Study of Space, Time and Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2008 Pathways to a Panoramic Past: A Brief History of Landscape Archaeology in Europe. In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology (eds) Bmno David and Julian Thomas. Pp 60-76. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California. With contributions from Peter, Peter Herring, Graeme Kirkham, Oliver Padel and Vanessa Straker 2010 Goon, Hal, Cliff and Croft: West Cornwall's Rough Ground. Report to English Heritage. Historic Environment Service, Cornwall Council. Tmro. Dyer, James 1990 Ancient Britain. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Edmonds, Mark 1999 Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and Memory. Routledge, London. 228 English Heritage Electronic archive NMR Monument Type Thesaurus. http://thesaurus.english- heritage. org, uk/thesaurus. Last accessed 17/03/2010. Fisher, Peter 1992 First Experiments in Viewshed Uncertainty: Simulating Fuzzy Viewsheds. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58(3): 345-352. 1994 Probable and Fuzzy Models the Viewshed Operation. In Innovations in GIS 1 (eds) M. F Warboys. Pp 161-175. Taylor and Francis, London. 1996 Extending the Applicability of Viewsheds in Landscape Planning. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 62(11): 1297-1302. Fisher, Peter and Chris Farrelly 1997 Spatial Analysis of Visible Areas from the Bronze Age Caims of Mull. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 581-592 Fitzjohn, Matthew 2007 Viewing places: GIS Applications for Examining the Perception of Space in the Mountains of Sicily. World Archaeology 39(1): 36-50. Fleming, Andrew 1999 Phenomenology and the Megaliths of Wales: A Dreaming Too Far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(2): 119-125. 1973 Tombs for the Living. Man 8 (2): 177-193. Fontijn, David 2007 The Significance of'Invisible' Places. World Archaeology 39(1): 70-83. 229 Fowler, Chris and Vicki Cummings 2003 Places of Transformation: Building Monuments from Water and Stone in the Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9 (1): 1-20. Fraser, David 1983 Land and Society in Neolithic Orkney. British Archaeological reports (British Series 117), Oxford. Fyfe, R. M, A. G. Brown and S. J. Rippon 2003 Mid to Late Holocene Vegetation History of Greater Exmoor, UK: Estimating the Spatial Extent of Human-Induced Vegetation Change Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 12:215-232. Gearey, Benjamin and Henry Chapman 2006 'Digital Gardening' An Approach to Simulating Elements of Palaeo- Vegetation and Some Implications for the Interpretation of Prehistoric Sites and Landscapes. In Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory (eds) Thomas L. Evans and Patrick Daly. Pp 171-190. Routledge, London. Gearey, Benjamin, Peter Marshall and Derek Hamilton 2009 Correlating Archaeological and Palaeoenvironmental Records Using a Bayesian Approach: A Case Study from Sutton Common, South Yorkshire, England. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1477-1487. Gearey, Benjamin, D Charman and M. Kent 2000 Palaeoecological Evidence for the Prehistoric Settlement of Bodmin Moor, Cornwall, Southwest England. Part I: The Status of Woodland and Early Human Impacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 423-438. 2000 Palaeoecological Evidence for the Prehistoric Settlement of Bodmin Moor, Cornwall, Southwest England. Part II: Land Use Change from the Neolithic to Present. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 493-508. Hamilton, Sue and Ruth Whitehouse with Keri Brown, Pamela Combes, Edward Herring and Mike Seager Thomas. 2006 Phenomenology in Practice: Towards a Methodology for a 'Subjective' Approach. European Journal of Archaeology 9(1): 31-72. Head, Lesley 2008 Geographical Scale in Understanding Human Landscapes. In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology (eds) Bruno David and Julian Thomas. Pp 379-385. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California. Healy, Michael 1995. The Lithostratigraphy and Biostratigraphy of a Holocene Coastal Sediment Sequence in Marazion Marsh, West Cornwall, UK with Reference to Relative Sea-level Movements. Marine Geology 124: 237-252. Heidegger, Martin 1962 Being and Time. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson (translators). Blackwell, Oxford. 1977 Building Dwelling Thinking. In Martin Heideggar: Basic Writings. D.F.Krell (eds). Pp 319-340. Routledge, London. 231 1982 The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 2001 Introduction to Metaphysics. Yale University Press, New Haven. Herring, Peter 1998 Historic Landscape Assessment, Presenting a Method of Historic Landscape Character Assessment. Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Cornwall Council and English Heritage. 2008 Commons, Fields and Communities in Prehistoric Cornwall. In Recent Approaches to the Archaeology of Land Allotment (eds) Adrian M. Chadwick. BAR International Series 1875. Pg 70-110. Archaeopress, Oxford. Herring, Peter and Jacky Nowakowski 1986 A National Trust Archaeological Survey ofTreveglos, Zennor West Penwith Cornwall. Cornwall County Council Produced by the Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Report 1986 R005. Higuchi, Tadahiko 1983 The Visual and Spatial Structure of Landscapes. MIT Press, Cambridge. Hingley, Richard 1996 Ancestors and Identity in the Later Prehistory of Atlantic Scotland: The Reuse and Reinvention of Neolithic Monuments and Material Culture. World Archaeology 28 (2): 231-243. Hodder, Ian 1990 The Domestication of Europe. Basil Blackwood LTD, Oxford. Husserl, Edmund 232 1983 Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, First Book. Dordrecht, Kluwer. 1991 Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Translated by Dorion Caims. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 1999 The Idea of Phenomenology: A Translation of Die Idee der Phdnomenologie Husserliana II Translation by Lee Hardy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrechrt. Johnson, Nicholas and Peter Rose 1981 Bodmin Moor; An Archaeological Survey, Volume 1: The Human Landscape to c 1800 (eds) Desmond Bonney, with Contributions from Ann Carter, John Hampton, Peter Herring, Rob lies, Jacqueline Nowakowski, R. W Smith and Cyril Wardale. Cornwall Archaeological Unit, England. Jones, Andy 2004-5 Settlement and Ceremony: Investigations at Stannon Down, St. Breward. Cornish Archaeology 43-44: 1-140. 2006 By Land, Sea and Air: An Early Neolithic Pit Group at Portscatho, Cornwall, and Consideration of Coastal Activity During the Neolithic. Cornish Archaeology 45: 1-30. 2008 Houses for the Dead and Caims for the Living: A Reconsideration of the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition in South-West England. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27:153-74. 233 2011 The Botrea Barrow Group: Regional Identity in Early Bronze Age Cornwall. In Beyond the Core: Regionality in British Prehistory. A.M. Jones and G. Kirkham (eds). Pp 75-86. Oxbow, Oxford. Jones, Andy and Henrietta Quinnell 2006 Comish Beakers: New Discoveries and Perspectives. Cornish Archaeology 45: 31-69. Jones, Anna Lawson with Peter Herring 1997 A Report to the Penwith District Council: Cam Bran, an Archaeological Assessment. Cornwall County Council Produced by the Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Report 1997 R002. Jones, Eric 2006 Using Viewshed Analysis to Explore Settlement Choice: A Case Study of the Onondaga Iroquois. American Antiquity 71(3): 523-538. Jones, Glynis and Peter Rowley-Conwy 2007 On the Importance of Cereal Cultivation in the British Neolithic. In The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe (eds) Sue Colledge and James Conolly. Pg 391-419. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California. Lake, Mark 2007 Viewing Space. World Archaeology 39(1): 1-3. Lake, Mark and Patricia Woodman 2003 Visibility Studies in Archaeology: a Review and Case Study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30: 689-707. Lake, Mark, Patricia Woodman and Steven Mithen 1998 Tailoring GIS Software for Archaeological Applications: An Example Concerning Viewshed Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 27-38. Llobera, Marcos 1996 Exploring the Topography of Mind: GIS, Social Space and Archaeology. Antiquity 70: 612-22. 2001 Building Past Landscape Perception with GIS: Understanding Topographic Prominence. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 1005-1014. 2003 Extending GIS-Based Visual Analysis: The Concept of Visualscapes. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17(1): 25-48. 2007 Reconstructing Visual Landscapes. World Archaeology 39(1): 51-69. Llobera, Marcos, David Wheatley, James Steele, Simon Cox and Oz Parchment. 2004 Calculating the Inherent Visual Stracture of a Landscape ('Total Viewshed") Using High-Throughput Computing. CAA 2004: 1-8. Longworth, Ian, Nick Aston and Valerie Rigby 1986 Prehistoric Britain. In Archaeology in Britain Since 1945 (eds) Ian Longworth and John Cherry. Pg 13-72. British Museum Publications, London. Malone, Caroline 2001 Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Tempus Publishing Ltd, Glouceshire. Maschner, H. D. G 1996 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. In New Methods, Old Problems. Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research (eds) H. D. G Maschner. Pp 1-21. Southern Illinois University Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 23. Merleau-Ponty, Marcel 1962 Phenomenology of Perception. London, Routledge. Ogbum, Dennis 2006 Assessing the Level of Visibility of Cultural Objects in Past Landscapes. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 405-413. Parker Pearson, Mike 2001 Placing the Physical and the Incorporeal Dead: Stonehenge and the Changing Concepts of Ancestral Space in Neolithic Britain. In The Space and Place of Death. Helaine Silverman and David B. Smalls (eds). Pp.145-160. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, N0.11. Arlington, Virginia. Peters, Frances 1990 The Possible Use of West Penwith Menhirs as Boundary Markers. Cornish Archaeology (29): 33-42. Phillips, Tim 2003 Seascapes and Landscapes in Orkney and Northern Scotland. World Archaeology 35 (3): 371-384. Pollard, Joshua 2001 The Aesthetics of Depositional Practice. World Archaeology 33 (2): 315-333. 236 Pollard, Joshua and Frances Healy with Contributions by Frances Griffith, Frances Healy, Andy Jones, Andrew Lawson, Jodie Lewis, Roger Mercer, David Mullin, Jacqueline Nowakowski, Joshua Pollard, Helen Wickstead and Peter Woodward. 2009 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. In The Archaeology of the South West England: South West Archaeological Research Framework; Resource Assessment and Research Agenda (eds) C. J Webster. Pg 75-102. Somerset County Council. Preston-Jones, Anne 1993 The Men an Tol. Cornwall County Council produced by the Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Management and Survey. 1995 Repairs to the Entrance Grave at Brane Sancreed, Cornwall: Scheduled Monument No.99. Cornwall County Council Produced by the Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Report 1995R031. Relph, E. C 1976 77ze Phenomenological Foundations of Geography. University of Toronto Department of Geography Discussion Paper Series no.21. Renfrew, Colin 1973 Monuments, Mobilization and Social Organization in Neolithic Wessex. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory (ed) Colin Renfrew. Pg 539-59. Gerald Duckworth and Co, Gloucester. 1979 Investigations in Orkney. Society of Antiquaries, London. 1983 Geography, Archaeology and Environment. The Geographical Journal 149 (3): 316-323. Richards, Colin 237 1993 Monumental Choreography: Architecture and Spatial Representation in Late Neolithic Orkney. In Interpretive Archaeology (ed) Christopher Tilley. Pg 143-78. BERG, Providence. 1996 Monuments as Landscape: Creating the Center of the World in Late Neolithic Orkney. World Archaeology 28 (2): 190-208. Roberts, Neil 1998 The Holocene: An Environmental History (2" Edition). Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford. Robinson, David Earle, Vanessa Straker, Derek Hamilton and Zoe Hazell 2007 The HEATH Project: Unraveling the Heathland History of West Cornwall. English Heritage 6: 12-15. Rod, Jan Ketil and Diana van der Meer 2007 Visibility and Dominance Analysis: Assessing a High Building Project in Trondheim. Proceedings of the 11th Scandinavian Research Conference on Geographical Information Science, Norway. Ruggles, C. L. N and D. Medyckyj-Scott 1996 Site Location, Landscape Visibility and Symbolic Astronomy: A Scottish Case Study. In New Methods, Old Problems. Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research (eds) H. D. G Maschner. Pp 127-146. Southern Illinois University Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 23. Russell, Vivien 1971 West Penwith Survey. Tmro, Cornwall Schulting, Rick and Michael Richards 238 2002 Finding the Coastal Mesolithic in Southwest Britain: AMS Dates and Stable Isotope Results on Human Remains from Caldey Island, South Wales. Antiquity 76(294): 1011-1025 Sharpe, Adam 1996 An Archaeological Assessment ofNanjulian Farm, St. Just in Penwith Cornwall. Cornwall County Council Produced by the Cornwall Archaeological Unit for the National Trust, Report 1996 R051. Smith, A. G, Caroline Grigson, G. Hillman and M. J Tooley 1981 The Neolithic. In The Environment in British Prehistory (eds) I. G Simmons and M. J Tooley. Pg 125-209. Cornell University Press, New York. Smith, George 1996. Archaeology and Environment of a Bronze Age Caim and Prehistoric and Romano-British Field System at Chysauster, Gulval, Near Penzance, Cornwall. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62: 167-219. Straker, Vanessa 2009 Past Environments in West Cornwall: A Review of the Palaeoenvironmental Literature. In Goon, Hal, Cliff and Croft: West Cornwall's Rough Ground. Pp 54- 60. A Report to English Heritage. Historic Environment Service, Cornwall Council, Truro. Symons, Leigh 2004 Moving Through a Vision: Thoughts on Contextual GIS. Making the Connection to the Past CAA 99. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA, Leiden. 239 Thomas, Julian 1990 Monuments from the Inside: The Case of the Irish Megalithic Tombs. World Archaeology 22 (2): 168-178. 1991a Reading the Body: Beaker Funerary Practice in Britain. In Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion. Oxford 1989 (eds) Paul Garwood, David Jennings, Robin Skeates and Judith Toms. Pg 33-42. Oxford Committee for Archaeology, Oxford. 1991b Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2006 Phenomenology and Material Culture. In Handbook of Material Culture (eds) Christopher Tilley, Webb Keane, Susanne Kiichler, Michael Rowlands and Patricia Spyer. Pp 43-59. Sage Publications, London. 2007 Mesolithic-Neolithic Transitions in Britain: From Essence to Inhabitation, Proceedings of the British Academy 144: 423-439. Tilley, Christopher 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg Publishers, Oxford. 1995 Rocks as Resources: Landscapes and Power. Cornish Archaeology 34: 5-57. 1996 The Powers of Rocks: Topography and Monuments Construction on Bodmin Moor. World Archaeology 28: 161-176. 2004 Mind and Body in Landscape Research. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1): 77-80. 240 2008a Phenomenological Approaches to Landscape Archaeology. In The Handbook of Landscape Archaeology (eds) Bmno David and-Julian Thomas. Pg 271-276. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California. 2008b Body and Image: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 2. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek California. Tilley, Christopher and Wayne Bennett 2001 An Archaeology of Supernatural Places: The Case of West Penwith. Royal Anthropological Institute 1: 335-362. Tilley, Christopher, Sue Hamilton, Stephen Harrison and Ed Anderson 2000 Nature, Culture, Clitter: Distinguishing Between Cultural and Geomorphological Landscapes; The Case of Hilltop Tors in South-West England. Journal of Material Culture 5(2): 197-224. Timberlake, Simon 2001 Mining and Prospection for Metals in Early Bronze Age Britain-Making Claims Within the Archaeological Landscape. In Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation (eds) Joanna Brack. Pg 179-192. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Tschan, A. P, W. Raczkowski and M. Latalowa 2000 Perception and Viewsheds: Are They Mutually Inclusive? In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies (eds) G. Lock. Pp 28-48. IOS Press, Oxford. Van Leusen, Pieter Martijn 241 2002 Chapter 6: Line-of-sight and Cost Surface Analysis Using GIS. In Pattern to Process: Methodological Investigations into the Formation and Interpretation of Spatial Patterns in Archaeological Landscapes. Pp 1-14. PhD Dissertation Presented to the University of Groningen, Groningen Netherlands. Wainwright, Geoffrey 1989 The Henge Monuments: Ceremony and Society in Prehistoric Britain. Thames and Hudson, London. Watson, A. and Keating, D. 1999. Architecture and Sound: An Acoustic Analysis of Megalithic Monuments in Prehistoric Britain. Antiquity 73: 325-36. Wheatley, David and Mark Gillings 2000 Vision, Perception and GIS: Developing Enriched Approaches to the Study of Archaeological Visibility. In Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial technologies (eds) G. Lock. Pp 1-29. IOS Press, Oxford. Wheatley, David 1995 Cumulative Viewshed analysis: A GIS-based Method for Investigating Inter-visibility and its Archaeological Application. In Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective (eds) G. Lock and Z. Stancic. Pp 171-186. Taylor and Francis, London. 1996 The Use of GIS to Understand Regional Variation in Earlier Neolithic Wessex. In New Methods, Old Problems: Geographical Information Systems in 242 Modern Archaeological Research (eds) Herbet D. G Maschner. Pg.75-103. Southern Illinois University, Illinois. Whittle, Alasdair 1988 Problems in Neolithic Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2003 The Archaeology of People; Dimensions of Neolithic Life. Routledge Press, London. Whittle, Alasdair, Joshua Pollard and Caroline Grigson 1999 The Harmony of Symbols: The Windhill Hill Causewayed Enclosure. Oxford Books, Oxford. Wilkinson, Keith and Vanessa Straker 2008 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Environmental Background. In The Archaeology of the South West England: South West Archaeological Research Framework; Resources and Research Agenda (eds) C. J Webster. Pg 63-74. Somerset County Council. Winterbottom, S. J and D. Long 2006 From Abstract Digital Models to Rich Virtual Environments: Landscape Contexts in Kilmartin Glen, Scotland. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1356-1367. Zubrow, Ezra B. W 2006 Digital Archaeology: A Historical Context. In Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory (eds) Thomas L. Evans and Patrick Daly. Pp 10-31. Routledge, London. Type (verified structures) Cropmark Demolished structure Documentary evidence Extant structure Total Barrow 2 6 8 Cairn 2 2 Chambered tomb 1 6 7 Cist 0 Clearance Cairn 0 Enclosure 0 Entrance Grave 1 6 7 Holed Stone 0 Long Barrow 0 Long Caim 1 Mound 0 Round 0 Standing Stone 1 5 6 Stone Alignment 0 Stone Circle 1 1 2 Tor Enclosure 1 1 2 Total 0 1 6 27 35 A 1 Status of verified monuments from the Neolithic in West Penwith Data provided by the Comwall HES© Cornwall Council 2010 Type (possible structures) Cropmark Demolished structure Documentary evidence Extant structure Total Barrow 2 1 1 4 Cairn 1 1 Chambered tomb 3 2 1 6 Cist 2 2 Clearance Caim 0 Enclosure 2 2 Entrance Grave 0 Holed Stone 0 Long Barrow 1 2 3 Long Cairn 0 Mound 0 Round 0 Standing Stone 8 1 9 Stone Alignment 0 Stone Circle 1 2 3 Total 0 6" 12 12 30 A 2 Status of possible monuments from the Neolithic in West Penwith Data provided by the Data provided by the Cornwall HES© Cornwall Council 2010 Type (verified structures) Cropm ark Demolished stracture Documentary evidence Extant structure Total Barrow 3 18 46 133 200 Caim 3 2 51 56 Cist 13 15 19 47 Clearance Cairn 7 7 Enclosure 1 10 11 Entrance Grave 1 9 10 Holed Stone 2 5 13 20 Long Barrow Long Caim Mound 2 2 Round Standing Stone 7 1 37 45 Stone Alignment 1 1 Stone Circle 1 6 7 Total 4 44 70 288 406 A 3 Status of verified monuments from the Bronze Age in West Penwith Data provided by the Data provided by the Cornwall HES© Cornwall Council 2010 Type (possible structures) Cropm ark Demohshf id stracture Documentary evidence Extant structure Total Barrow 29 8 106 91 234 Cairn 1 4 21 26 Cist 2 2 8 7 19 Clearance Caim 1 1 Enclosure 1 1 4 6 Entrance Grave 2 2 Holed Stone Long Barrow Long Caim Mound 1 1 Round 1 1 2 Standing Stone 7 40 20 67 Stone Alignment 1 1 2 Stone Circle 1 5 1 7 Total 32 19 166 150 367 A 4 Status of possible monuments from the Bronze Age in West Penwith Data provided by the Data provided by the Comwall HES© Comwall Council 2010 Feature # Date Is the monument visible from a distance? How far away does it become recognizable? Are other monumental features visible on the horizon? What direction? Impressions? Are there any topographic features that stand outm the immediate surrounding lands cape? Direction? Impressions? Are there any topographic features visible long the horizon? Direction? Impressions? Are there any waterways visible (streams, rivers, coastal ocean, open ocean)? Direction? Impressions? What is the orientation of the entrance (if applicable)? From this point, what of the surrounding landscape is visible? Is there urban infrastructure that is visible along the horizon line? Direction? Impressions? Is the GIS visibility radius accurate? If not, how does it differ? Is the GIS derived pathway traversable? If not, what are the adjustments that were made? Describe the surrounding landscape A 5 Field survey checklist Accuracy of Reason for discrepancy between viewsheds and Cat viewsheds in real real life life N24 good N28 good larger visible area than expected N31 good larger visible area than expected N34 fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation N35 fair small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation N36 fair-good modem farming boundary N37 fair-good modern farming boundary N38 fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation N39 good larger visible area than expected N42 good N43 fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation N46 fair-poor modem farming boundary N47 fair modern farming boundary N52 good larger visible area than expected N54 fair obscured by vegetation N174 fair small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation N305 fair-poor modem farming boundary N314 fair-poor modem farming boundary N315 poor obscured by vegetation N316 good N333 good BA17 fair-poor small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation BA33 poor urban infrastructure BA66 poor urban infrastructure BA81 good larger visible area than expected BA110 good BA141 good BA213 poor urban infrastructure BA257 fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation BA257 good BA314 fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation BA390 fair-poor modem farming boundary BA396 fair-poor obscured by vegetation BA400 good larger visible area than expected BA425 good larger visible area than expected BA425 good larger visible area than expected BA439 good larger visible area than expected BA461 fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation BA462 good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation BA469 fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation BA476 good larger visible area than expected BA483 good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation BA509 good larger visible area than expected BA524 good BA526 good larger visible area than expected BA546 good larger visible area than expected BA563 good BA565 good larger visible area than expected BA568 good larger visible area than expected BA642 good BA663 fair-poor modem farming boundary BA719. good larger visible area than expected BA734 poor modem farming boundary BA788 good larger visible area than expected good larger visible area than expected fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation fair-good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation good larger visible area than expected fair-poor small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation fair-poor small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation poor obscured by vegetation good small discrepancy in visibility due to vegetation good good A.6: Table summarizing the accuracy of viewshed maps in real life. Site Di Mlilllll Kill :> ! I'JII- .!.«• ^er-t; r H-v. ile-.-i-l r -1 • 1 itl .'*. Li! ~—\S > o X td .1 l/i': ;.i"wri B.l: Distribution of Neolithic chambered tombs in West Penwith. Point data provided by the Comwall HES © Comwall Council 2010. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/database nght 2010. An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service. M O SHt-nhEiiliiilion "7 tr« htJa: cn.ii.nri;? grj'.e; _l B.2: Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age entrance graves in West Penwith Point data provided by the Comwall HES Cornwall Council 2010. Base map reproduced with permission ©Crown Copynght/ database right 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service. NJ Kit* DIYU filii Hon *D.rese$e*jdlai#6e ctrdte N- l. si -* -• ah. r. a!" *a !£«•«•! 5^-! • • >• w": SH'-_ : i 1 !• Man * " B 3 Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age stone circles in West Penwith Red circle indicates Merry Maidens Point data provided M by the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database nght 2010 An Ln Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service SiteDivtiilHitioii E,f -dk n d'" ^ «*J k.r| r 111 J' !"' - ! B 4 Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age standing stones in West Penwith Point data provided by the Cornwall HES © Comwall M Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA (J! supplied service Site Distribution 0 Neolithic long, barrows r Q Neolithic barrows 0 Brouse Age barrows SB * Io: Shmik * '-• ' ' ' B.5: Distnbution of Neolithic and Bronze Age barrows and long barrows in West Penwith. Point data provided by the Cornwall HES © Comwall Council 2010. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/ database right 2010. An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service. M SjIrWstiilMH icm W liftt x f| El ii£*"A** 1 r £1**, ib. r .be;* • al*.ri r •i -1 •! • '1' '* as1' -' r 1 i' E3 -1 l f B 6 Distnbution of Neolithic and Bronze Age cists in West Penwith Point data provided by the Cornwall HES © Comwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service Me.'Dun iti iiiior i w a «i* M< "El* B 7 Distnbution of Neolithic and Bronze Age caims, clearance cairns and long caims in West Penwith Point data provided by the Cornwall HES © Comwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service. to en MtcDiUtiibiiUoii -J 0 fcr ni-A*— ; •!- jUi^r.zd^ft: r 1-1 v 1 1 V ..'"^Si B 8 Distnbution of Bronze Age stone alignments in West Penwith Point data provided by the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service Site Dhti ibiilioii -J E3ei?ji2. a1-"- ri iff. i G>" B 9 Distnbution of Bronze Age holed stones in West Penwith Point data provided by the Comwall HES © Comwall Council Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service BIO Chun enclosure from the air, West Penwith Reproduced with permission © Historic Environment Service, Cornwall Council 2010 M ID Site DivEiibiriion ^1 . t it r ib ii* eji * c (M5 B 11 Distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age enclosures and tor endosures in West Penwith Point data provided by the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service O rsVolJtlik utinLItininl tltvliibuttun ill WW Prunitli .1 !.•:(• 21T10 B.12: Distribution of Neolithic monuments in West Penwith. Point dataprovidedby the Comwall HES © Comwall Council 2010. Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/database right 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service. cn Blcaizt \se monument rtisftihution in >\e\l Peinvith 0 cr nze Ag* n HUT.**!!" El" aS 11 at ^* ealfjffj -i ! 1 n'flil 4'IL i B 13 Distribution of Bronze Age monuments in West Penwith Point dataprovided by the Cornwall HES © Comwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/ database right 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service en DMiibntion »rRn!nliiin Pwititv • ?», i- rr, J trie a*-.-jt-i 1 J^OV" rs J Level 2t- r -51 SX' EH2 r>: VI . - 126 \ '•. "'-LI• ] 1 - i '6 eui :'-!~2)1 LJC^OUD Vl\i a 0m "*/fi!< B.14 Distnbution of random points in West Penwith. Point dataprovidedby the Cornwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010 B reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database right 2010. An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service. Visibility 5 uei Ke&l.th.t BaiKiws O Kculithtc t arrnw MuuJIU «vt3 | VriKd.ty R^n.g*1 E.rv-m^n 7aJ 155 in Mfsrr Bigk 255 Low 0 Figure B 15 Visibility from Neolithic barrows in WestPenwith Point dataprovidedby the Comwall HES © Comwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service _* Ifc 1 th «?rvr t V es i h^tv F trif r Be/ah i i^e ir Mkr*ea * i M J& ^ n *. \ *Jft *A Figure B 16 Visibility from Neolithic stone circles in West Penwith Point dataprovidedby the Comwall HES © Comwall Council <7) 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database right 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service rri"}y ity from M* JLLI ^rtrarc* 3*a^- ^ Ne^1 thic E itane* Grw J_ | | 'Issbilil. Fans" HI Ef p ill JI /fiiues ir M^1*!! H^j i 25" :*• Jt^; c 0*«S: H Figure B 17 Visibility from Neolithic entrance graves in West Penwith Point data provided by the Comwall HES © Comwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database right 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplie s ervic e Msiljlli(\ Ringr\ flolil Bi onie A se B M i «\\ % • t»n*zn *oe Urns (J itiL l t. -van/in.. E3 ey all jn / b>-. e jaLe.e E14.1 "ii Figure B 18 Visibility from Bronze Age barrows in WestPenwith Point dataprovidedby the Comwall HES © Comwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service Msibilit> Rfliige*,'fioiii BKHMC.VE? Enhance Gnnes .J • & :nze Ags En" -ar cs >3 -at ©= r M=|-i| If,' "' arje-^ ?l*va& .-ft jXb*v* S*a I *¥*v H.^1 151 o iceo:tm ^ws tarn a^m Figure B 19 Visibility from Bronze Age entrance graves in West Penwith Point data provided by the Comwall HES © Cornwall M Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/ database right 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied en oo s ervic e Mobility Rims*", fioin Bronze A2<-CM* • Urn:-, &,;. u:u -L VlSLlI t, Karg« Be.-at3r.Above lea Level Hiab .5'. Figure B 20 Visibility from Bronze Age cists in West Penwith Point dataprovidedby the Comwall HES ©Comwall Council 2010 M Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service en ID 270 O CM ID o >t-t a il_i 3 *Sl o 73 O ID *-< *3 OH t* OH 3 > CI} 6 o P4 >•c, -t-i OH VI o o a £ o w^ J* a CJ a © o ID a tJO o to <; to c o ID In a. pq TS a TsJ / iD > t-i i—i *&3> CM a PQ ID W ID KJ t-i PQ 3 M«iliili(\ Rnng«< fnna Bi tit\jv Aec Nolfil Sttjiifv | 1 V i"il IT, J ms* Pf^^tion 4> .-* #a ]*-.*! ' HISD -'1 Low 1 Figure B 22 Visibility from Bronze Age holed stones in West Penwith Point data provided by the Comwall HES © Comwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service Visibility R.HI£«"* flora Bi uwe \s.e Enrlumn os • ^ cm- Aye- Fn 1 n^uri== , V alDllft ht-figtb Elevator H^- -^i Lev*] ! Hgh 2'1 Figure B 23 Visibility from Bronze Age enclosures in WestPenwith Point dataprovidedby the Cornwall HES © Comwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service Viability Ranges Bom Bi wnv Aitf fijinniins ?>!«»<". J • a Ji^t Aj« S"di anc iloies ',fc t ilrv P ancft= H*7^n jii A' yi i < a Le *jsl Figure B 24 Visibility from Bronze Age standing stones in WestPenwith Point dataprovidedby the Comwall HES © Cornwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copynght/ database right 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied •vl W s ervic e Visibility Ranges ft oin \ Bi oime X«t Stone Circle.s i » Btf.riie Age ilorif Urrlts i~ ZZJ wimlilv Rancj«=. " High 251 Lew 1 I Figure B 25 Visibility from Bronze Age stone circles in West Penwith Point data provided by the Cornwall HES © Comwall Council 2010 Base map reproduced with permission © Crown Copyright/ database nght 2010 An Ordnance survey/EDINA supplied service