by Sandy Gerrard
[See Part One here]
The Double Row
The double row leads downslope and westward from a cairn which is itself surrounded by a ring of stones. The row consists of two parallel lines of stones which have been destroyed or damaged by activities relating to tinworking. Detailed survey and measurements of each stone allow a number of observations concerning the character of this row to be presented. Whilst accepting that some of this information may be of little or no interest or immediate use it is possible that as our understanding of stone rows develops that this data could be of considerable value in the future. Full details of the information collected during the course of fieldwork are not presented here, but some general statements derived from this information are considered. The double row includes a total of 93 stones, with 46 in the northern row and 47 in the southern one. The row measures 122m long and is aligned at 259º. The maximum distance separating the rows is 2.2m, whilst the minimum is 0.97m and the average is 1.35m. The maximum height of the stones is 0.85m, the minimum is 0.01m and the average is 0.32m. The stones within the northern row are on average slightly shorter than those in the south. The alignment of the individual stones in the northern row varies between 160º and 282º with the average being 252º. The stones in the southern row vary between 190º and 320º with an average of 261º degrees. The maximum distance between stones within the northern row is 7.98m, the minimum is 0.8m and the average 2.17m. The maximum distance between stones within the southern row is 7.1m, the minimum is 0.5m and the average 1.97m. The largest gaps are the result of interference from tinworking activities, otherwise the row is remarkably intact. There is no evidence to suggest that the row was ever restored or excavated and therefore it is very likely that important clues to its function and purpose may survive to be revealed by excavation.
The double row from another angle
The cairn at the eastern end of the double row, has over the years received considerable attention. The cairn itself survives as an 8.8m diameter and 0.85m high mound with a large irregular shaped hollow cut into it’s centre. Spoil from this robbing activity has been thrown out southward where it forms a roughly crescent shaped bank. Surrounding the cairn is a ring of upright stones of which ten are standing and four have fallen. The upright stones stand between 0.93m and 0.42m high. It is not clear from surface indications alone whether the cairn was placed in an already extant stone circle or the circle added to an existing cairn or even whether they were erected at the same time. Likewise it is not possible to ascertain the precise sequence of events relative to the adjacent row. It does however seem very likely that in its final functioning form the row, cairn and circle would have been present and been integral to the ritual activity being practiced.
Plans of the double and single stone rows and cairns at Hart Tor. The plan on the left shows only the prehistoric archaeology, whilst the one on the right shows all the visible archaeology.
The Single Row This row is much less spectacular, but none the less forms an integral part of the site and must have considerably enhanced the sites importance both to its builders, antiquarians, visitors and archaeologists. The row itself now includes at least 16 stones extending at 243º for 56.4m from a cairn. Originally this row was probably much longer, but without excavation its full extent is likely to remain a mystery. The maximum height of the stones is 0.86m, the minimum is 0.08m and the average is 0.29m. The alignment of the individual stones in the row varies between 195º and 347º with the average being 255º. The maximum distance between the stones is 13.75m, the minimum is 0.5m and the average 3.25m.
The cairn at the eastern end of the row like so many on Dartmoor has been robbed. Material from this activity was thrown out northwards. The surviving mound measures 7.4m in diameter and up to 0.75m high and there is no trace of the internal structure described by Wilkinson.
Plan of the cairns at the upper end of the stone rows
Cross sectional profile across the cairns at the upper end of the stone rows
The Southern Cairn This cairn has a substantial hollow leading into the mound from its southern side. Material upcast from this robbing activity has distorted the profile of the mound, which may have originally been flat topped. The cairn measures 8.8m in diameter and stands up to 0.7m high. A small number of apparently edge set stones around the eastern edge of the mound may represent an outer kerb, although it is equally possible that they simply form exposed parts of the cairn’s core.
Plan of the southern cairn
Cross sectional profile across the southern cairn
The Western Cairn On the western bank of the River Meavy below Black Tor is a 4m diameter mound standing up to 0.8m high and most significantly there is no sign of the central hollow so indicative of robbing. Cairns which have not been investigated, form a particularly important part of the archaeological resource because they are sadly relatively rare on the moor. This cairn lies only 45m from the surviving end of the double stone row at Hart Tor on the other side of the river, and should perhaps be considered as belonging to that important group of monuments. It would therefore appear that the Hart Tor ritual complex was more extensive than previously believed and it is likely that other structures associated with it were destroyed when the rich alluvial tin deposits within this area were exploited during the medieval period.
Plan and cross sectional profile of the western cairn
-
Map showing the relative position of the stone rows in the upper part of the Meavy Valley
Conclusion
The stone rows and cairns at Hart Tor survive amazingly well when one considers the intensity of later activity within their vicinity. The detailed survey and characterisation of the stones within the rows highlights the value of this approach and will hopefully provide material for comparative analysis.
Further Reading
Bate, C. Spence, 1871, “On the Prehistoric Antiquities of Dartmoor”, Trans. Devonshire Assoc., 4, 505.
Butler, J., 1994, Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities, Volume Three – The South-West, Devon Books
Chudleigh, J., 1987, An Exploration of Dartmoor’s Antiquities, John Pegg Publishing. Originally published in 1892.
Emmett, D.D., 1979 “Stone Rows: the traditional view reconsidered”, Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings, 37, 94-114.
Grinsell, L.V., 1978, “Dartmoor Barrows”, Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings, 36, 85-180.
Page, J.Ll.,W., 1889, An Exploration of Dartmoor and its Antiquities, with some Account of its Borders, 148.
Pettit, P., 1995, Prehistoric Dartmoor, Republished version of 1974 edition, Forest Publishing.
Rowe, S., 1896, A Perambulation of the Antient and Royal Forest of Dartmoor, 190-91. Third edition, original edition was published in 1848.
Turner, J.R., 1990, “Ring cairns, stone circles and related monuments on Dartmoor”, Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings, 48, 27-86.
Wilkinson, Sir J.G., 1862, “British remains on Dartmoor”, Journal British Archaeological Association, 18, 36-37 and Figure 8.
Worth, R.N., 1892, “The Stone Rows of Dartmoor part 1”, Trans. Devonshire Assoc.,24, 396-8.
The Heritage Journal 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
04/04/2013 at 22:05
Jan
Excellent (although the phrase “ritual complex” makes my scalp itch..). The stone rows could have just been a “one shot” pathway down to water for the spirit of the occupant(s) of the cairn… like the corridors in the Egyptian pyramids… ony down to the water, and on to the sea, to travel back to the warm ancestral southlands beyond the horizon….
Getting back to reality…. the variance in the width of the avenue is intriguing. Is this attributable to substrate creep (is there such a thing?). If I recall correctly, the ones at Merrivale are more consistent.
05/04/2013 at 20:52
Sandy Gerrard
Thank you Jan. I am sorry you feel uncomfortable with the term “ritual complex”. Out of interest what term would you prefer? Terminology is important and there are many that are inappropriate or even misleading. Solifluction could be responsible for stones creeping, but it would appear that many rows are not as clinical as is often assumed.
06/04/2013 at 21:40
Jan
Hi Sandy,
I guess my problem is the whole shift towards this “ritual” mindset. Ritual tends to be used by sects and faiths as an expression of (or a reminder to) the collective will, and I’n not sure that we can make these inferrences about the people that built these graves.
Is burying a family member a ritual? Perhaps I’m lacking understanding as to what the phrase “ritual complex” (or “ritua landscape”)” infers in this context… After all, I don’t think the bearings of these rows have any solar/lunar significance (although I could be wrong; archaeoastronomy is not my strongpoint.. 🙂 ) I think the clue to many structures – be it a small river like the Meavy, or the flooded field around Silbury – is in the relationship to the water. As I tried to point out in my first post, this could have been something like the Albert Memorial; a one-off for a someone, and then left to be remembered, rather than a place in which (by inference) organised ceremonies took place… which is my interpretation of “ritual complex”.
Thanks for the info about solifluction – there’s a new word in my vocabulary! I think (and I’m sad to say) that the lack of precision in placing these stones could suggest that they were laid with a purpose, but that the purpose was not linked to any requirement for ritual.
Peace
07/04/2013 at 17:46
Sandy Gerrard
Thanks again for your thoughts Jan. Very helpful.I see where you are coming from and essentially it boils down to interpretation. I have always believed that the stone rows, circles and even individual cairns represent a whole lot more than a burial place. There is strong evidence to support this point of view although I am also very aware of the old adage if in doubt it must be ritual. This is a fascinating subject and whilst I am sure we will learn a lot more in the future it is also very certain that we will never understand them completely. The rows vary so very much in character and form that it may even be unwise to think of them as having identical purposes. Most of the Dartmoor stone rows meander to a greater or lesser extent and therefore an astronomical purpose seems very unlikely.
08/04/2013 at 08:08
meika
Ellen Dissanayake writes on art from an anthropological background, and proposes that a lot of human behaviour can be usefully interpreted in terms of ethology (animal behaviour studies); where a behaviour must have some evolutionary adaptive advantage.
One aspect of animal behaviour research studies “ritualising behaviour” of animals, particularly in regard to territorial and mating behaviours. This “ritualising behaviour” is named after human rituals but describes an prior stage. (For Dissanayake the most obvious and important human ritualising behaviour is how we play with babies, particularly small babies. From this example she draws an important line between attachement learning and art/ritual/sport etc.)
If we accept this is part of a spectrum, and think broadly about or use loosely the term ritual to include any convention behaviour and not just those aimed at transitions (birth, death, puberty, marriage) then it is not so scary. Ritual does not then mean magical or holy, necessarily, merely human behaviour as we take everyday life and make it special on some occasion.
Particularly where ritual’s more recent (post-neolithic) iterations (seperated via economic and political divisions) fight among themselves for the coveted title of society’s most worthy in ritual, i.e. religion, art, sport, literature, cinema, stock markets, banking….
[ On reading What is Art For? by Ellen Dissanayake at #Formats & #genres are #rituals ]
This view would also allowed us to begin putting forward more testable hypothesis on ‘ritual’ remains.
08/04/2013 at 08:27
Jan
Me again.. Sorry! But if we think it unwise to think of them as having identical purposes, why do we bracket them all together as ritual complexes? Is a graveyard a ritual complex? |Are the Winterbourne Stoke Neolithic/Bronze Age barrows a ritual complex? They’re all in a straight line..
As you say, it’s a fascinating subject. And thanks for taking the time and effort to share your investigations. Keep it coming 🙂
09/04/2013 at 20:30
Sandy Gerrard
Meika, Thank you very much for your contribution. You have clearly thought about this issue and I agree with your all inclusive definition of ritual.
09/04/2013 at 20:38
Sandy Gerrard
Jan please don’t apologise. I was really talking about stone rows rather than ritual complexes. They vary so much in character that their purpose is unlikely to be identical although clearly because they do share certain characteristics they may also share purposes over which we can only speculate. It is all very interesting, perhaps made more exciting by the fact that no single interpretation fits all the rows. Hopefully more coming in the near future.