On high ground between the valleys of the Newleycombe Lake and Narrator Brook at SX 58690 69273 is the impressive Hingston Hill stone alignment.
The alignment is far from straight and in common with many others on Dartmoor it has clearly defined, restricted and contrived views to the sea. At a single point along the alignment the sea disappears or appears depending on your direction of travel. This phenomenon is a recurring feature of many rows and very strongly supports the hypothesis that there is a direct visual relationship between the rows and the sea and that therefore the alignment builders were seeking at the very least to denote this. Many of the rows appear to have been specifically positioned and orientated to achieve this special form of inter-visibility and indeed in some instances the siting of the rows is so precise that if they had been positioned just a few metres from their present position or aligned a few degrees differently no sea views would be visible from them. At Hingston Hill if the alignment had been sited 20m north or south the tantalising sea view would not be visible. Even more interestingly if the row had been extended a few more metres further to the west the kerbed cairn at the end which currently lies within an area without sea views would have fallen within an area with a view to the sea.
The Hingston Hill alignment in common with many rows falls into two discrete areas – a length with views to the sea and a length with no such views. The eastern part of the alignment travels through an area from which a sea triangle is visible. Under certain lighting conditions this will appear as a small triangular white light until as you get to 80m from the western end it suddenly disappears. I can accept that if this happened at one or two sites this could be a coincidence, but this phenomenon is repeated time and time again as we shall see during the coming months. The evidence that many alignments were specifically built to denote the routes along which this happens is cumulatively compelling and I hope to present a convincing case to support an explanation for why many alignments are positioned where they are. Acceptance of this argument may in turn provide an insight into the character or perhaps the mind-set of those who built and used these monuments.
The computer generated images presented below were generated using the “ground level-view” available within Google Earth. Fieldwork elsewhere has confirmed that this is a reliable though not infallible tool.
This sinuous stone alignment measures 351m long and includes a line of at least 174 stones leading eastward from a kerbed cairn at SX 58690 69273.
The view from the eastern end of the stone alignment shows a sea triangle formed between Trowlesworthy on the left and Gutter Tor.
As one walks westward along the row the sea triangle remains visible after 100m:
After 200m the sea triangle retains its form. If the row had been placed a short distance to the north or south, this view would not exist.
80m from the end of the row the sea triangle starts to rapidly vanish behind rising ground on Hingston Hill:
At the top of the row the view to the sea is blocked by the rising ground of Hingston Hill and the kerbed cairn is hidden from the sea:
Profile Analysis
An examination of cross-sectional profiles from the row to the sea allows the arc of inter-visibility to be plotted onto a map. The juxtaposition of the nearby hills block other views to the sea and thereby create the small clearly defined triangle of visible sea.
A cross-section along the centre of the arc illustrates the character of the topography within the arc of inter-visibility and shows why much of the land between the alignment and sea cannot be seen.
This article is the latest in a series by Dr Sandy Gerard, lookng at the commonality of features in a variety of stones rows in the southwest.
Previous articles in the series:
The Heritage Journal 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
05/12/2014 at 17:52
Siggers
But at the time of history that you are suggesting, the sea level would have been very much different.
# If the row had been placed a short distance to the north or south, this view would not exist #
As you point out, the minisculity of the sea view is such that, short movement in either direction renders the view obsolete, therefore any variation in sea level would also render this sea view obsolete.
That said, the Bristol Channel in the time in question would have been more of an expanse of plain so is it possible that instead of a sea view, one would have seen a land based view instead? A view of importance?
06/12/2014 at 10:11
Sandy Gerrard
The sea level would have been different. Reference is made to this issue in the Shaugh Moor stone alignment article. For the type of sea views described at Hingston Hill to be invalid sea level would need to be more than 45m lower than today. Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age levels were considerably higher than this and the sea view observations therefore remain valid. This period is marked by episodes of oscillating sea-level but current evidence indicates that it was never more than 5m lower than at present. Regarding your second point much of the Bristol Channel would not have been an expanse of plain at this time but more importantly the views from Hingston Hill are towards the English Channel and not the Bristol Channel.
07/12/2014 at 03:10
owlwoman
You say bronze age levels were much higher. By how much? Where is the evidence? Why are these small stones still above ground if levels change over time ?
07/12/2014 at 08:49
Sandy Gerrard
Thank you for following this article. I think you must be referring to the comment that the Bronze Age levels would have been considerably higher than the 45m below current sea level figure which would have rendered the sea view invalid. Studies of historic sea levels are fraught with problems but there is at least consensus that sea levels were at most about 5m lower than today’s figure. A figure of 45m implies an existing land bridge with mainland Europe. I am not sure I understand your second point about the stones still being above the ground because the discussion to date has revolved around sea level changes. I will try and answer your question as best as I can. The surface of the earth is constantly being weathered. This process results in erosion in some places and deposition in others. The speed of weathering varies a great deal but the end result is that some areas become buried, some are lowered and others remain pretty much the same within an historic framework. Some of the Dartmoor stone alignments stones are largely buried beneath peat deposits but most survive in areas where the ground level is pretty much the same. Many of the larger stones have fallen over the years and some of these have been re-erected. I hope this answers your questions.
07/12/2014 at 18:38
Claire Meads
Using Google Earth ground level view to ascertain such ‘supposedly’ precise viewpoints of small areas of sea within a context of alignments and to then draw a conclusion is a very poorly disciplined piece of field archaeology I am sorry to say.
08/12/2014 at 09:30
Sandy Gerrard
Thank you for taking an interest in this article. This would indeed be a poor piece of field archaeology if that is what it was. This is a form of remote sensing carried out by archaeologists every day to assess areas or issues. The literature is full of sites discovered on aerial photographs which have been interpreted sometimes accurately and sometimes not. Fieldwork at six sites has demonstrated that the ground level Google Earth image methodology is valid and you will note that the follow up profile analysis has confirmed this. Clearly both techniques rely solely on digital data and the next stage will be to confirm or refute this data in the field. For this reason I am not aware that any conclusions have yet been drawn. Much archaeological work is conducted behind closed doors with the results being published sometime after the work has been completed. There are few opportunities for people to get involved in the exciting process of discovery. The idea of publishing this enfolding story is to try and share at least some of the journey of discovery. Hopefully this also will provide opportunities for people to have a look for themselves and report back on what they find. Indeed there is nothing stopping readers using Google Earth themselves to check out the landscape context of their local archaeological sites and then checking them out in the field. I trust you will agree that it would be unwise to ignore the wonderful digital tools at our disposal in our quest to enhance our understanding and appreciation of the past.