The date and context of a stone row: Cut Hill, Dartmoor, south-west England.

The date and context of a stone row: Cut Hill, Dartmoor, south-west England. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Introduction The development of monumental landscapes in many parts of WesternEurope in the third millennium BC, characterised by the construction ofstructures in earth, stone and timber, is argued to represent thephysical manifestation of significant social change within prehistory(Bradley 1998; Thomas 1999; Tilley 2004). The construction of monumentsrepresents either a change, or formalisation, in the relationshipsbetween place, space and society, and establishes locations for keysocial practices and performances (Cummings 2008; Gillings et al. 2008).Stone rows and settings are amongst the least understood monument typesto be found in north-west Europe. Their form and scale can be visuallyimpressive, and a number of examples appear to be part of largerceremonial complexes; however, despite their ubiquity in parts ofwestern Britain, Ireland and Brittany (Burl 1993), some of the basicunderstandings and premises concerning these monuments (e.g. functionand chronology) are currently unclear. Dense concentrations of stone rows and settings can be found on theuplands of south-west England, and the various rows and settings onDartmoor, Bodmin Moor and Exmoor have been the subject of surveys andgazetteers which have detailed the shape and topographic positioning ofmonuments (e.g. Emmett 1979; Johnson & Rose 1994; Butler 1997; Riley& Wilson-North 2001). Although various functional hypotheses havebeen proposed, there is little consensus as to their chronology or therole they played within prehistoric society. It has been argued thatrows may have provided guides to astronomical alignment (Lockyer 1906;Ruggles 1985), played a mnemonic function to confirm or establish thelocation of an individual within their known world (Tilley 1995), markeddifferent land use zones (Barnatt 1982; Johnston 2005), or acted asrevelatory monuments, leading the individual to key visual locationsthat reference or reveal other parts of the landscape (Herring 2008). Itis not the purpose of this paper to review or critique thesesuggestions; rather, it is to consider one of the more fundamentaluncertainties pertaining to stone rows; the question of chronology. Theage of these monuments is currently unclear. None have been directlydated, and chronological assumptions typically rely on association withother monument types. In 2004 a new stone row was discovered on Cut Hillon central northern Dartmoor that has potential to shed crucial light onthe dating of stone rows. This paper presents the results of survey andtrial excavation at Cut Hill designed expressly to recover datingsamples, and considers the significance of the results for the widerunderstanding of stone rows on Dartmoor and the wider region. Stone rows: form and assumed chronologies In his comprehensive survey of stone rows from Western Europe, Burlprovides a model for the chronology of this type of archaeological site(1993), dividing them into three main groups. Long single rows, withmore than seven stones, are broadly assigned to the period 2100-1600 calBC. Multiple rows, with parallel or fan-shaped arrangements, are thoughtto date to the period 3000-1500 cal BC. Short rows, with six or fewerstones, are broadly assigned to the period 1800-1000 cal BC. The basisfor this proposed chronology of stone rows is, however, poor, withlittle or no secure, independent, scientific dating control.Chronologies are dependent upon one or more of: (a) astronomical dating,tied to interpretative frameworks of monuments' functions (e.g.Ruggles 1985), where rows are assumed to relate to particular stellaralignments whose position in prehistory can be calculated; (b)stratigraphic or (more usually) spatial associations with other datablearchaeological features, including artefacts and structures; or (c)general typological analogy across regions, which inevitably becomescircular in the absence of secure, independent dating. The majority of stone rows in south-west England fall into thefirst of Burl's groupings-long stone rows--although there are alsoa number of multiple rows. There are three such rows on the Isles ofScilly (English Heritage Archaeological Item Database nos. 147091,139488 and 130489), at least nine in mainland Cornwall (Johnson &Rose 1994; Herring 2008), eight on Exmoor (Riley & Wilson-North2001) and, although the precise number is contested, about 80 onDartmoor (Figure 1). None of these stone rows has had, until now,reliable dates on any of the component elements. Probably the mostsecurely dated row in Cornwall is that described by Herring (2008) onSearle's Down, Bodmin Moor. The row itself is not dated directly;in 1977-78 three cairns were excavated in advance of the construction ofa reservoir (Griffith 1984). One of the elements of the stone row wassealed by the outer ring of one of the excavated cairns. Therelationship between the inner ring of the cairn and the orthostat ofthe row was such that the excavator believed there was no break inactivity at the site. A radiocarbon date from under the inner ring ofthe cairn made on oak charcoal calibrates to 2040-1620 cal BC (Griffith1984; Jones 2005), providing a best-estimate date for the row at aroundthe early second millennium BC. Relationships between stone rows and Bronze Age enclosure onDartmoor are enigmatic, although Butler (1997) has argued that relativedating between rows and the extensive field systems may be possible. Thechronology of enclosure on Dartmoor has been widely explored by AndrewFleming (see for example 2008). He argues that the construction ofBronze Age field systems and territorial boundaries (reaves) dates toaround 1700-1600 cal BC. Although there is still debate around theprocess and chronology for the construction of the boundaries (seeJohnston 2005), this broad date seems likely and is supported bypalaeoecological work (Fyfe et al. 2008). Whilst some rows undoubtedlydo predate territorial boundaries, where rows and boundaries do runparallel to each other it is practically impossible to determinerelative age relationships. If stone rows were markers to subdividedifferent land use zones in the later Neolithic (Barnatt 1982; Johnston2005), then it should come as no surprise that later boundaries are inbroadly the same place, assuming continuity of land use. To date, attempts to resolve the question of chronology haveassumed a single event horizon for stone rows, where it has been tacitlyaccepted, though not proven, that rows were erected at broadly the sametime and that all the orthostats in any given row were positioned aspart of a single episode of construction, rather than monumentsdeveloping by accretion. This may have significant implications forunderstanding the age of the monuments when their chronology is relianton the association of a particular stone with other structures. Theirsurvival implies that they were rarely robbed or slighted as a result ofthe construction of field systems in the middle Bronze Age, suggestingthat they may have had considerable longevity as monuments, albeitexperienced and used differently by subsequent generations and groups(Bradley 2002). The Cut Hill stone row In April 2004 an alignment of stones was recognised on Cut Hill,northern Dartmoor (Figure 1), at National Grid Reference SX 59928275 ata height of approximately 600m OD (Greeves 2004a & b). It wasadjacent to a previously unrecognised barrow. The Cut Hill row consistsof nine granite slabs so far recorded, with a length of about 215m(Figures 2 and 3). The axis of the row is approximately ENE/WSW, whichis an orientation followed by the majority of Dartmoor rows (Butler1997: Figure 171). It is located in an area of spatially extensiveblanket peat, up to 1.8m thick in places, which overlies the granitethat forms the whole of the upland area. There is considerable erosionof the peat around Cut Hill. Of particular interest is that all of thenine stones so far recorded at Cut Hill are lying flat, with seven ofthem lying on a similar orientation, approximately ESE/WNW. Thenorthernmost stone lies NE/SW and the southernmost approximately N/S.This raises the question as to whether the stones were purposely laidout, and indeed whether they were ever erected. Stone 1 appears to havea cluster of packing stones around its WNW end (Figure 4), though theseare slowly being dislodged and dispersed through peat erosion. Ifinterpretation of the packing stones is correct, this stone at least wasonce upright and set in peat, and we can infer that perhaps the otherswere too. Four of the stones lie within a 100m-wide strip of groundwhere the peat has been totally removed, probably largely by humanagency since medieval times when peat was cut for charcoal production(Fox 1994), exposing an old, presumably prehistoric, land surface. Themost south-westerly visible stone lies on eroding peat and this was thesubject of the first sampling for radiocarbon dates (see below). In 2007a previously unrecorded stone was located some 25m further to thesouth-west through probing within the extant peat, and was the subjectof the second sampling programme (see below). It is not unreasonable toexpect the discovery of further stones of the row buried in the peat, orindeed other stone features associated with it. However, the orientationof the stones at the south-west and north-east ends of the row isdifferent from that of the other stones discovered so far and this maysuggest that the two ends of the row have possibly now been determined.The barrow sits on top of one of the peat hags on Cut Hill rather thanthe exposed, prehistoric land surface, suggesting considerable temporaldiscontinuity with the stone row. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] Dartmoor rows are diverse in terms of design, length, size ofstones, spacing and location; however, there are several unusual aspectsof the Cut Hill row. It is located on one of the highest hills ofDartmoor, in the heart of the northern moor, and lies 100m above thepreviously recorded highest row (at Conies Down), in an area otherwisedevoid of known prehistoric structures (within 2.6km of the site), withthe exception of the newly-recognised barrow. This dearth in prehistoricactivity most likely reflects the generally extensive covering ofblanket peat across this part of the upland and is thus ah artefact ofvisibility rather than a genuine absence of activity. The spacing of thestones on Cut Hill is much greater than elsewhere on Dartmoor, beingbetween 19m and 34.5m apart. The relatively large size of the stones,too, is unusual, being between 1.53m and 2.6m in length, and between0.5m and 1.2m in width (Table 1), with an approximate thickness of0.20m, giving a thin slab-like appearance. Only two other rows onDartmoor have a significant number of stones of comparablelength/height. There are six large stones at the northern end of theStalldown row on southern Dartmoor which stand 1.9-2.6m above the groundsurface, and the Piles Hill row, also on southern Dartmoor, has fallenstones averaging 1.6m in length (Butler 1997). Three sections were opened within the peat on Cut Hill with theprimary aim of recovering peat samples for dating andpalaeoenvironmental analysis (Figures 2 and 4). Section 1 (0.52m ofwell-humified peat) was excavated from underneath stone 1 in 2005 torecover material for dating the stone and to provide apalaeoenvironmental context for the monument. Section 2 (1.84m deep) wasexcavated from an exposed section of eroding peat hag 5m west of section1 in 2005, to provide a long, undisturbed record of vegetation andclimatic change in the region (analysis in progress). Section 3 wastaken from the face of a 1.0 x 0.7m slot trench that exposed the end ofthe buried stone, which was located by probing 25m to the SW. Theintention of this excavation was to recover dating material for thestone without exposing any more of the sealed part of the stone than wasnecessary, and hence packing stones were neither sought nor identified.Sections 1 and 3 were undercut below the stones (and in the case ofsection 3, overcut above) to ensure that samples had a directstratigraphic relationships with the stones; all sampling was undertakenusing overlapping monolith tins from cleaned faces. [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] Radiocarbon dating results Two samples for AMS radiocarbon dating were taken from section 1and both the humin and humic acid fractions of these samples were datedat the SUERC radiocarbon facility. These were positioned between a point2cm below the stone at the top of the section, and the base of thesection. Two samples for AMS radiocarbon dating were taken from section3 positioned immediately above and below the stone within the section,with both the humin and humic acid fractions dated at the [sup.14]CChrono laboratory at Queen's University Belfast. Ali AMS samplescomprised 1cm slices of peat. The results of the analyses are presentedin Table 2, with dates presented as calibrated ages BC/AD using theCALIB5.0.2 program (Stuiver & Reimer 1993). The dates from section 1 indicate that peat development on Cut Hillbegan during the early to mid-sixth millennium BC, although there is adisparity between the humic and humin acid fractions. Shore et al.(1995) present various scenarios under which both the humic and thehumin fractions of a sample can be affected by post-depositionalprocesses resulting in a poor age estimate, including intrusion of finerootlets from younger plants (leading to a 'young' humindate), decay of fine rootlets (leading to a 'young' humicdate), net transport of water-soluble organics down profile (leading toa 'young' humic date), and incorporation of older, reworked,carbon (leading to an 'old' humin date). The position of thesection on a plateau high on top of Dartmoor makes inwash of oldercarbon unlikely, and as a result, the humin fraction in this instance isconsidered a more reliable estimate of the true age of the peat. Itremains possible, though, that the younger dates are correct. The date from under stone 1 implies that it was in its finalposition no earlier than 3700-3540 cal BC. There is a 2cm gap betweenthe underside of the stone and the radiocarbon sample from under thestone. The accumulation rate between the radiocarbon dates is between 34and 50 years [cm.sup.-1] (the wide range given by the difference betweenthe humic and humin acid fractions from the basal date). This means thatthe stone may have reached its final position between the thirty-seventhand thirty-fifth centuries BC, assuming that no peat was removed ordisturbed during this process. The dates from above and below the stonein section 3 show a similar disparity to the basal date from section 1.The date from the humin fraction from the sample immediately below thestone demonstrates that the stone was in its final resting position noearlier than the 3347-3100 cal BC, that is, between the thirty-fourthand thirty-second centuries BC. The date for the sample from above thestone indicates that this element of the row was sealed within the peatunit by 2476-2245 cal BC, that is, the twenty-fifth to twenty-thirdcenturies BC. Palaeoenvironmental context of the Cut Hill row Eight 1.0[cm.sup.3] sub-samples were taken from section 1 forpollen analytical work to provide a landscape context for the monument(Figure 5) and in addition spot macrofossil analysis was undertaken.Pollen samples were prepared using standard procedures (see Moore et al.1991). A minimum of 300 land pollen grains (including Cyperaceae) wereidentified flora each level, and charcoal fragments were counted fromeach level in two size classes (10-50 microns, 50-100 microns). Fourpollen zones were differentiated visually, and are described in Table 3. The pollen assemblage from the base of the section 1 (CH1-lpaz1 :Figure 5) shows that the local environment was dominated byheather-dominated heath (Calluna). This is supported by macrofossilanalysis which recovered a heathland community assemblage dominated byhare's-tail cottongrass (Eriophorum vaginatum), at least sevendifferent sedges (Carex sp.), bell heather (Erica cinerea), heather(Calluna vulgaris), bugle (Ajuga reptans) and tormentil (Potentillaerecta). Although the levels of arboreal pollen within the sequence arelow, other pollen sites on Dartmoor at lower elevations show a higherlevel of pollen of trees and shrubs. Pinswell, at 460m OD, lay withinthe tree line at around 5000 cal BC (Caseldine & Hatton 1993). Thearboreal taxa in the pollen record at Cut Hill will represent pollensourced from within the tree line on lower slopes, and although it isnot possible to determine the precise location of this tree line, it ispossible to imagine 'islands' of open heath above a mostlywooded landscape. [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] The changes between zones CH1-lpaz-1 and CH1-lpaz2 (Table 3, Figure5) suggest a local shift from heather-dominated heath to a mosaic ofgrass, sedge and heather heath. Although arboreal types increase, thisis likely to be an artefact of the percentage method used to present thedata rather than any real expansion of woodland taxa. Calluna produces agreater amount of pollen than either grasses or sedges (Brostrom et al.2008), thus if Calluna declines, there will be a decline in the absolutelevels of pollen being deposited at the site. In relative terms, thiswill increase the proportions of arboreal pollen (Fyfe 2006). Thehighest sample in the sequence (CH1-lpaz4) is broadly similar topreceding levels (Figure 5), although it contains elevated levels ofarboreal taxa. It is possible that this level, on an eroding peatsurface, includes elements of contamination from either modern pollen,or pollen eroded from within the peat system in recent times. As aconsequence, interpretation of this single sample is neither simple, norreliable. Discussion The chronology of the monument The dates obtained from underneath and above the two stones withinthe Cut Hill row are open to two interpretations which are notresolvable from the evidence presented here. These interpretations hingeon resolving the original form of the site itself, and crucially centreon: (i) whether the stones were laid out in a recumbent position, orwere originally upright and have toppled (or been placed) into theircurrent positions; and (ii) whether the stones themselves arecontemporary elements placed as a single constructional event. It isassumed that the peat is intact around the stones, i.e. there was noremoval of peat, or preparation of the surface which would have damagedthe integrity of the peat stratigraphy; there was no evidence fordisturbance in either of the sections which were cleaned and recordedmeticulously. If the stones were originally upright, then the dates fromunderneath the stones represent the date at which they fell into theirfinal positions, i.e. they represent a terminus ante quem and the stoneswere erected at a time before the thirty-seventh and thirty-fifthcenturies BC (stone 1) and thirty-fourth and thirty-second centuries BC(stone 9). If the stones were laid out in a recumbent form then thesedates become a terminus post quem, although given the supposed integrityof the peat, these dates should be very close to the 'true'date of the placement of the stones. The difference in the dates betweenthe two stones does little to help to resolve the two possible models.The hypothesis that the stones were placed upright could be supported bydifferent 'toppling' dates, several hundred years apart; thehypothesis that the stones were placed recumbent could be supported by amodel of incremental or piecemeal positioning of stones over centuries,rather than construction as a single event. Only one of the exposedstones has anything which may resemble packing stones around it (stone1). The answer to this conundrum may lie within the extant peat aroundthe submerged stone. The date from above the buried stone is simpler tointerpret than those from below. This stone, at least, became submergedin the peat by the twenty-fifth to twenty-third centuries BC, and it isprobable that the others were sealed within peat at the same time. This latter date is around the period of time to which most authorsattribute the start of construction of linear monuments on the uplandsof the south-west and elsewhere (Burl 1993; Butler 1997; Jones 2005).But it here seems irrefutable that this particular row is offourth-millennium BC date (even if the humic dates from under stone 9are preferred) and hence Neolithic rather than early Bronze Age, andwhichever form model is preferred (upright or recumbent), most likely tobelong to the earlier, rather than later, Neolithic. Further datingcontrol from future excavation may allow for formal modelling of theseinformal date estimates to refine the chronology of the site further. Establishing a chronology for an unusual stone row on the top ofDartmoor does not demand the wholesale rejection of a body of literatureand ideas concerning the dating and function of the more'typical' linear stone monuments (if there is such a thing asa typical stone row) within the wider region, and these may still dateto the late Neolithic/earlier Bronze Age as argued elsewhere (Burl 1993;Fleming 2008; Herring 2008). It is clear, however, that there is now anearlier Neolithic precedent to the linear stone monument. This may fitwell within a tradition of linear monuments in the early Neolithic, withmonuments such as the Avenue at Raunds (dated to 3860-3620 cal BC:Harding & Healy 2008), early fourth-millennium BC split timbersettings in Scotland (e.g. Lochhill and Pitnacree: Noble 2006) and latefifth-millennium BC linear monuments in northern France (Kinnes 1999),followed by the construction of cursus monuments from about 3500 cal BC(Barclay & Harding 1999). Refinement of the chronology of earlierNeolithic monuments is ongoing, but a general model has been produced byWhittle et al. (2008). They describe an initial Neolithic with no orlittle monument construction (with deposition in pits, e.g. Jones 2005);increasing emphasis on marking the dead in local social groups(reflected in long barrow construction) around 3800 cal BC; and largercongregation and construction of enclosures within southern Britainaround 3700 cal BC (Oswald et al. 2001). The dating presented heresuggests that the stone row on Cut Hill is most likely to fall into thelatter period described by Whittle et al. (2008). The dating of thismonument may also in turn lend support to evidence for an earlierNeolithic standing stone and row tradition in Brittany, where somestones carry early Neolithic carvings (e.g. Kermarquer at Moustoirac,Morbihan) and decorated standing stones have been incorporated intochambered tombs, as at Mane Rutual, La Table des Marchand andMane-er-Hroek (L'Helgouach 1983; Patton 1993). Local landscape contexts of the row The location of the monument on Cut Hill is remarkable in a modernsense, as it lies in the most remote and inaccessible location withinthe region. It should be remembered, though, that this sense ofremoteness and inaccessibility is a modern cultural construct and almostcertainly does not reflect the views or approach to the landscape heldby earlier Neolithic groups. It has become clear that later Mesolithicgroups had the ability to manipulate their environment through the useof fire to support resource exploitation strategies, on Dartmoor andelsewhere (Caseldine & Hatton 1993; Bell 2007). Locally, this willhave resulted in the mosaic landscape described within the Cut Hillpollen sequence (Figure 5), with earlier Neolithic clearance of lowlandriver valleys (Fyfe et al. 2003); whilst fern-rich woodland persisted onthe fringes of the upland (Fyfe et al. 2008). The picture that emerges from palaeoecological sequences across theregion is an earlier Neolithic during which there is unlikely to havebeen any clearly definable upland moorland; rather, there would havebeen patches of open heath or bog within a generally wooded landscape.The Cut Hill row was constructed on one such open heath, and the peopleor groups who came to Cut Hill are likely to have travelled on pathswithin broadly wooded country. Emerging into open areas free from treesmay have contributed in part to a feeling, or recognition, of place,different from other locales in the region, as has been argued forearlier periods (e.g. Davies et al. 2005; Fyfe 2007). This may in turnhave contributed to the selection of this particular location for theconstruction of this monument. Although the form of the monument isunparalleled on Dartmoor, the marking of these types of locations, andin the wider landscape, is not. Bender et al. (1997) have argued for theimportance of tors and distinctive hill tops within the routines ofNeolithic life and this is most clearly reflected in the earlierNeolithic by the certain tor enclosures at Carn Brea (Mercer 1981) andHelman Tor (Mercer 1997), and the location of other possible,unconfirmed, enclosures in the south-west (Oswald et al. 2001). Cut Hillitself is a very striking, massive and gently rounded hill, without anysignificant rock outcrops to break its skyline silhouette. It lies atthe heart of upland, at the head of the watersheds of the East Dart andthe River Tavy. The choice of Cut Hill to locate this row seemssignificant, although it is not apparent why, without a clearunderstanding of the original purpose or function of the stones. [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] An isolated monument? The stone row at Cut Hill is at present unusual in both form andgeographic location. There may be no other comparable stone rows onDartmoor, bur there are rows on Bodmin, to the west, that are more likeCut Hill in form (Figure 6). These Cornish rows are divided into twomain types: short rows, with closely-spaced small stones; and long rowswith larger stones with longer spacing (Johnson & Rose 1994). Forexample, the Nine Maidens row at St. Columb has stones averaging 1.6m inheight above ground level, at Cardinham Moor 1.3m, and at East Moor1.0m. These three mainland Cornish rows have relatively wide spacingbetween the stones, averaging between 10m and 14m (Johnson & Rose1994), although these distances are rarely uniform (Figure 6). If theCut Hill row conforms to this Cornish long row typology, it is possibleto suggest that these Cornish rows may also be significantly earlier indate than current thinking suggests. Conclusions Radiocarbon dating of peat underneath two elements of the stone rowon Cut Hill, and a date from above one of the elements, has provided thefirst secure, independent, date for a stone row within the wider region.The dates imply the laying out of the row during the second half of thefourth millennium BC. This age for a stone row on Dartmoor issignificantly older than the assumed age of such monuments, which areusually argued to date to a period from the late third to the middle ofthe second millennium BC. The row on Cut Hill is a typological outlierwithin the stone row tradition identified on Dartmoor, and as such, theage of this row may not be a reflection of that of the more typical rowson Dartmoor. There are, however, morphological parallels with (undated)rows found to the west in Cornwall. An earlier Neolithic date for somestone rows in the south-west adds an additional monument type to theearlier Neolithic 'package' of long barrows, cursus,causewayed and for enclosures that are known from across southernEngland, and lends support to early dates for a number of standingstones within Brittany. Acknowledgements This research was funded by Dartmoor National Park Authority andEnglish Heritage (RF). The authors are grateful to the Exeter EnglishHeritage office for permission to use their plan of the row, and toChris Chapman for the use of Figure 3. The authors would like to thankDerek Collins, Katie Head, Richard Hartley, Bill Radcliffe and VanessaStraker for assistance during fieldwork. The authors are grateful toAndrew Fleming, Peter Herring and Jane Marchand for valuable discussion,to Mark Gillings and Heather Adams for comments which improved anearlier draft on this paper, and the referees (Emmanuel Mens andAlasdair Whittle) for their constructive comments. Received: 13 March 2009; Accepted: 5 May 2009; Revised: 12 June2009 References BARCLAY, A. & J. HARDING. 1999. Pathways and ceremonies. Thecursus monuments of Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow. BARNATT, J. 1982. Prehistoric Cornwall: the ceremonial monuments.Wellinborough: Turnstone Press. BELL, M. 2007. Prehistoric coastal communities: the Mesolithic inwestern Britain (Council for British Archaeology Research Report 149).York: Council for British Archaeology. BENDER, B., S. HAMILTON & C. TILLEY. 1997. Leskernick: stoneworlds; alternative narratives; nested landscapes. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 63: 147-78. BRADLEY, R. 1998. An archaeology of natural places. London:Routledge. --2002. The past in prehistoric societies. London: Routledge. BROSTROM, A., A.B. NIELSEN, M.-J. GAILLARD, K. HJELLE, F. MAZIER, H. BINNEY, M.-J. BUNTING, R.M. FYFE, V. MELTSOV,A. POSKA, S. RASANEN, W. SOEPBOER, H. STEDINGK, H. SUUTARI & S. SUGITA. 2008. Pollenproductivity estimates--the key to landscape reconstructions. VegetationHistory and Archaeabotany 17: 461-78. BURL, A. 1993. From Carnac to Callanish: the prehistoric stone rowsand avenues of Britain, Ireland and Brittany. New Haven (CT): YaleUniversity Press. BUTLER, J. 1997. Dartmoor atlas of antiquities. Volume 5, thesecond millennium BC. Tiverton: Devon Books. CASELDINE, C.J. & J. HATTON. 1993. The development of highmoorland on Dartmoor: fire and the influence of Mesolithic activity onvegetation change, in F.M. Chamber (ed.) Climate change and human impacton the landscape: 119-31. London: Chapman & Hall. CUMMINGS, V. 2008. The architecture of monuments, in J. Pollard(ed.) Prehistoric Britain: 135-59. Oxford: Blackwell. DAVIES, P., J.G. ROBB & D. LADBROOK. 2005. Woodland clearancein the Mesolithic: the social aspects. Antiquity 79: 280-8. EMMETT, D.D. 1979. Stone rows: the traditional view reconsidered.Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 37:94-114. FLEMING, A. 2008. The Dartmoor Reaves: investigating prehistoricland division. Oxford: Windgather. Fox, H.S.A. 1994. Medieval Dartmoor as seen through its accountrolls. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 52:149-71. FYFE, R.M. 2006. GIS and the application of a model of pollendeposition and dispersal: a new approach to testing landscape hypothesesusing the POLLANDCAL models. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:483-93. --2007. The importance of local-scale openness within regionsdominated by closed woodland. Journal of Quaternary Science 22: 571-8. FYFE, R.M., A.G. BROWN & B.J. COLES. 2003. Mesolithic to BronzeAge vegetation change and human activity in the Exe Valley, Devon, UK.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69: 161-81. FYFE, R.M., J. BROCK, R. JOHNSTON, H. LEWIS, T. ROLAND & H.WICKSTEAD. 2008. Historical context and chronology of Bronze Ageenclosure on Dartmoor, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2250-61. GILLINGS, M., J. POLLARD, D. WHEATLEY & R. PETERSON. 2008.Landscape of the Megaliths: excavation and fieldwork on the Aveburymonuments, 1997-2003. Oxford: Oxbow. GREEVES, T. 2004a. Major prehistoric find on Cut Hill. DartmoorMagazine 75: 4. --2004b. Megalithic stone row discovered on Dartmoor'sremotest hill. PAST 47: 10-2. GRIFFITH, F.M. 1984. Archaeological investigations at CollifordReservoir, Bodmin Moor, 1977-1978. Cornish Archaeology 23: 49-140. HARDING, J. & F. HEALY. 2008. The Raunds Area Project: aNeolithic and Bronze Age landscape in Northamptonshire. Swindon: EnglishHeritage. HERRING, P. 2008. Stepping onto the commons: south-western stonerows, in P. Rainbird (ed.) Monuments in the landscape: 79-88. Stroud:Tempus. JOHNSON, N. & P. ROSE. 1994. Bodmin Moor, an archaeologicalsurvey. Volume 1, the human landscape to c. 1800. London: RCHME. JOHNSTON, R. 2005. Pattern without a plan: rethinking the BronzeAge coaxial field systems on Dartmoor, south-west England. OxfordJournal of Archaeology 24: 1-21. JONES, A.M. 2005. Cornish Bronze Age ceremonial landscapes c.2500-1500 BC (British Archaeological Reports British Series 394).Oxford: Archaeopress. KINNES, I. 1999. Longtemps ignores: Passy-Rots, linear monuments innorthern France, in A. Barclay & J. Harding (ed.) Pathways andceremonies. The cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland: 148-54. Oxford:Oxbow. L'HELGOUACH, J. 1983. Les Idoles qu'on abat. Bulletin dela Societe Polymathique du Morbihan 1983: 57-68. LOCKYER, N. 1906. Stonehenge and other British stone monumentsastronomically considered. London: Macmillan. MERCER, R. 1981. Excavations at Carn Brea, Illogan, Cornwall,1970-1973; a Neolithic fortified complex of the third millennium BC.Cornish Archaeology 20: 1-204. --1997. The excavation of a Neolithic enclosure complex at HelmanTor, Lostwithiel, Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology 36: 5-61. MOORE, P.D., J.A. WEBB & M.E. COLLINSON. 1991. Pollen analysis.Oxford: Blackwell. NOBLE, G. 2006. Neolithic Scotland: timber, stone, earth and fire.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. OSWALD A., C. DYER & M. BARBER. 2001. The creation ofmonuments. Neolithic causewayed enclosures in the British Isles.Swindon: English Heritage. PATTON, M. 1993. Statements in stone: monuments and society inNeolithic Brittany. London: Routledge. RILEY, H. & R. WILSON-NORTH.2001. The field archaeology of Exmoor. Swindon: English Heritage. RUGGLES, C.L.N. 1985. The linear settings of Argyll and Mull.Archaeoastronomy 9:105-32. SHORE, J.D., D.D. BARTLEY & D.D. HARKNESS. 1995. Problemsencountered with the [sup.14]C dating of peat. Quaternary ScienceReviews 14: 373-83. STUIVER, M. & P.J. REIMER. 1993. Extended [sup.14]C databaseand revised CALIB radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon35:215-30. THOMAS, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge. TILLEY, C. 1995. Rocks as resources: landscapes and power. CornishArchaeology 34: 5-57. --2004. The materiality of stone: explorations in landscapephenomenology Oxford: Berg. WHITTLE A., A. BAYLISS & F. HEALY. 2008. The timing and tempoof change: examples from the fourth millennium cal BC in southernEngland. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18: 65-70. Ralph M. Fyfe (1) & Tom Greeves (2) (1) School of Geography, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus,Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK (Email: ralph.fyfe@plymouth.ac.uk) (2) 39 Bannawell Street, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 ODN, UKTable 1. Size and spacing of elements within the CutHill stone row (numbering of stones is shown onFigure 2). Sizes of stones 7 and 9 have beenestablished through probing.Stone number Long axis (m) Short axis (m)1 2.3 0.92 2.4 0.83 1.85 0.74 1.9 1.25 2.6 0.7G 2.1 1.057 (partially buried) 1.8 1.18 1.53 0.59 (buried) 2.0 0.7Table 2. Results of radiocarbon dating.Depth (cm) [sup.14]C age lab code fractionSection 12-3 4835 [+ or-] 35 SUERC-10211 humic2-3 4850 [+ or-] 35 SUERC-10212 humin2-3 (comb.) 4858 [+ or-] 2550-51 6475 [+ or-] 35 SUERC-10209 humic50-51 6960 [+ or-] 35 SUERC-10210 huminSection 3104-105 3814 [+ or-] 21 UBA-8856 humic104-105 3903 [+ or-] 35 UBA-8855 humin120-121 4402 [+ or-] 26 UBA-8854 humic120-121 4505 [+ or-] 24 UBA-8853 humin [[delta].sup.13]Depth (cm) C cal range BCSection 12-3 -28.4 3710-35302-3 -28.2 3710-35302-3 (comb.) 3700-354050-51 -27.8 5510-536050-51 -27.3 5980-5740Section 3104-105 -30.3 2338-2150104-105 -31.3 2476-2245120-121 -39.7 3095-2922120-121 -33.6 3347-3100Table 3. Description of pollen zones, Cut Hill section 1.CH1-lpaz1 52-48cm c. 5900-5700 cal BC CallunaThe lowest pollen level is dominated by Calluna (80%). Low levelsof arboreal taxa are also present at around 5% TLP, notably Quercus,Corylus and Pinus. Charcoal is abundant within the sample.CH1-lpaz2 48-23cm c. 5700-4550 cal BC Calluna-Quercus-CorylusCalluna continues to be the dominant pollen type with the zone, butis reduced to between 40% and 50% TLP Poaceae and Cyperaceaerise to levels of around 10% TLP Within the arboreal taxa Quercus(15% TLP) and Corylus (12% TLP) increase. Charcoal levels arereduced, but increase again in the upper most level in the zone.CH1-lpaz3 23-2cm c. 4550-3550 cal BC CallunaCalluna remains dominant in the diagram into zone CH1-lpaz3, withlevels similar to zone CH1-lpaz1. Arboreal taxa, and those of Poaceaeand Cyperaceae, decline to similar levels as those recoded in thelowest pollen zone.CH1-lpaz4 2-0cm c. 3550-3450 cal BC Calluna-Corylus-QuercusThe upper-most level in the diagram is different from preceding levelsowing to an increase in Corylus (to 25% TLP) and Quercus (to 12%TLP), and a decline in Calluna (to 51% TLP).