Interpretations come and go…

Archaeological site identification is not an exact science. Differences in opinion are common and often consensus can be elusive. As our understanding improves some earlier interpretations are seen as ridiculous whilst others are enhanced. The Ordnance Survey surveyors working on Dartmoor towards the end of the 19th century were well aware of the presence of stone rows and duly recorded and labelled them on their maps as stone rows or avenues. However when they reached the Erme Valley and  encountered the 3.3km line of stones leading from SX 63512 64443 to SX 63662 67797 they concluded that it could not be a stone row – because, well it was a whole lot longer than any of the others they had seen. So despite the fact that it terminated in a fine kerbed cairn they chose instead to describe it as a “stone trackway”. It’s funny how history repeats itself. Cadw consider the great length of the Bancbryn stone alignment to be a major reason for doubting its prehistoric credentials. Perhaps one day they too will concede that a line of stones (no matter how long) leading from a cairn is very likely to be a prehistoric stone alignment. Time will tell.

Although originally considered to be a trackway by Victorian surveyors this line of stones in the Upper Erme Valley is now accepted as a stone alignment.