This article was downloaded by [David Shepherd]On 17 September 2014 At 0447Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registeredoffice Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

Time and Mind The Journal ofArchaeology Consciousness andCulturePublication details including instructions for authors andsubscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloirtam20

Variations on a Theme An Account ofSome Possible Kerbed Boulders in theSouth Pennines and CumbriaDavid Shepherda

a South Pennine Archaeology Network UKPublished online 05 Sep 2014

To cite this article David Shepherd (2014) Variations on a Theme An Account of Some PossibleKerbed Boulders in the South Pennines and Cumbria Time and Mind The Journal of ArchaeologyConsciousness and Culture

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg1010801751696X2014956011

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theldquoContentrdquo) contained in the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francisour agents and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authorsand are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses actions claimsproceedings demands costs expenses damages and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensingsystematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms ampConditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

NOTE

Variations on a ThemeAn Account of Some PossibleKerbed Boulders in the SouthPennines and Cumbria

David Shepherd

South Pennine Archaeology Network UK

(Received 10 January 2014 accepted 3 July 2014)

This Note describes a number of features comprising sub-circular stonepatterns arguably deliberate settings relating to much larger rockslocated in the upland of Calderdale West Yorkshire and in centralCumbria and in Ireland Parallels in south-west England are outlinedand suggestions made regarding interpretation Connections are madewith other forms of the appropriation of natural features and with theway that archaeologists come to notice things

Keywords kerbed boulder South Pennines social constructionmateriality

Landscape Context andTerminologyThe South Pennines form a dissected pla-teau rising to over 400m underlain byNamurian rocks of the Millstone Grit seriesin a gentle anticlinal form the area ofCalderdale with three features describedbelow did not bear moving ice during theLate Devensian The geology of the LakeDistrict is rather better known comprisinglargely igneous and metamorphic rocks

glaciated in a radial fashion A number offeatures have been identified here and oneis described in detail

The term ldquokerbed boulderrdquo has forsome time been applied to a small num-ber of features in the south-west ofEngland (English Heritage 2001)Typically the feature consists of a largenatural rock either erratic earthfast oroutcropping that has been made distinc-tive by the addition of a penannular arc

Email shepherdbtinternetcom

Time amp Mind 2014httpdxdoiorg1010801751696X2014956011

copy 2014 Taylor amp Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

or bank of stones forming a kerb aroundand adjoining the stone Over the last 10years or so it has become increasinglyclear that this type of feature is not con-fined to the south-west of England

Features1 Turvin Clough (SD9877520946)Two re-entrants Blake Clough and onewith no name define a spur on the north-west side of Turvin Clough which bears anumber of apparent funerary cairns Abovethese is a small outcrop of LowerKinderscout Grit On the downslope sideof the outcrop is a ring of boulders of thesame rock placed such that the outcropcompletes the circle (Figure 1) A pre-sumed funerary cairn has been insertedbetween the curve of the circle and theoutcrop itself (Figure 2)

2 Higher Moor ndash Stoodley Pike(SD9743223401)A large block of Lower Kinderscout Gritis set vertically on the extreme edge of alevel expanse of bedrock The block is

just sufficiently supported and rocks pon-derously from end to end The levelexpanse of bedrock shows differentialerosion suggesting that the block mayhave been levered up into its presentposition On the opposite side of theblock is a semi-circular setting of stonesdeep in the turf (Figures 3 and 4)

3 North ofWinny Stones ndash LeaningGrooves Flat (SE0127532024)A substantial earthfast whaleback ofGuiseley Grit is surrounded by peat upto 40 cm deep On the northern side is asemi-circular setting of stones in this casewith a small turf-level cairn inside it(Figures 5 and 6)

5 Rydal Head ndash Rydal valleybelow Fairfield (NY3625410777)The Rydal Head feature is within the corrieat the top end of the valley on a smallterrace above the stream A large erraticof Lincombe Tarns Tuff has a continuouscurving arc of locally-derived boulders andcobbles on the northern up-valley side

Figure 1 Turvin Clough Boulder ring adjoining outcrop (beneath the camera position) Photoauthor

2 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

The erratic is some 35 m long and one endof the arc joins the end of the erratic whilstthe other terminates 07 m short of theopposite end The furthest outward extentof the arc provides an internal measure-ment of 18 m (Figure 7)

Further Cumbrian ExamplesPeter Rodgers and Aaron Watsonlocated a number of features especiallyin and around Langdale (Rodgers perso-nal communications 2000 2005 2006)some of which bear a striking

Figure 2 Turvin Clough plan

Figure 3 Higher Moor Rocking stone with boulder arc indicated by 25cm scales Photo author

Time amp Mind 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

resemblance to those outlined above(Figure 8) Rodgers drew parallels withfeatures in Cornwall and suggested a pos-sible link with established Bronze Agefunerary practice and archaeologistsfrom the Lake District National Park

Authority concurred with this viewSeveral of the features were included ina survey made prior to footpath refurb-ishment in an area on the north side ofLangdale close to Stickle Tarn (OxfordArchaeology North 2005)

Figure 5 Winny Stones Large earthfast with turf-level arc containing cairn Photo author

Figure 4 Higher Moor plan

4 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Figure 6 Winny Stones plan

Figure 7 Rydal Head Photo author

Time amp Mind 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

The OA North interpretation leavesopen the possibility of a prehistoricdate but inclines toward an early his-toric origin making a connection withnearby Norse enclosures and stockmanagement structures (Quartermaineand Leech 2012) Similar features inother areas of the Lake District how-ever do not have an immediate associa-tion with historic agriculturalpastoralfeatures (Rodgers 2005) The Castle

Hows example lies just outside theOxford North survey area (Figure 9)

Irish ExamplesThe Cavan Burren is a less well-knownupland area (about 250 m OD) some 3km to the south of Blacklion in CountyCavan Ireland and much of it is givenover to commercial forestry Essentiallythe area consists of glaciated

Figure 8 Stickle Tarn Large boulder on a knoll with an obvious penannular surround PhotoP Rodgers

Figure 9 Castle Hows On rising ground with a clear turf-level arc Photo author

6 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Carboniferous limestone with numeroussandstone erratics Meticulous fieldworkand recording by Gaby Burns and JimNolan (2012) has so far produced anaccount of a complex relict landscape ofextensive walling prehistoric stone-work-ing dwelling sites ldquomodified monumentalbouldersrdquo including propped stones androck art (Burns and Nolan 2012 2 andpersonal communications) There is a com-plex suite of interventions and modifica-tions including examples of stones that

have been deliberately split and movedafter the manner of some stones inBrittany (Kytmannow 2008 Kytmannowet al 2008) and erratics where the bed-rock pedestals have been reduced to cre-ate spaces and the impression of elevationPresently it is the boulders with ldquokerbstonewallsrdquo that have greatest relevance Severalfeatures serve to demonstrate the similaritybetween the English and Irish examplesFor clarity the Burns and Nolan numberinghas been retained (Figures 10ndash12)

Figure 11 Feature H14 Boulder bears rock art the penannular surround is moss-coveredPhoto G Burns

Figure 10 Feature 701 The turf-level arc of stones is highlighted Photo G Burns

Time amp Mind 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Possible DatesTurner (1990) provides an arguablyoverly-categorical account of the widevariety of circular features noted onDartmoor which includes four examplesof a ldquosegment from tor or natural rockrdquo(1990 37) He notes features at ChinkwellTor Corn Ridge Rock and two at HighWillhays Three appear to be stony banksdescribing arcs depending on central out-crop features whilst one is termed a ldquoseg-ment stone settingrdquo (Turner 1990 69) andtakes a similar curving line Each defines anarea adjoining an easily-seen landscape fea-ture ndash a prominent rock (Figure 13) TheEnglish Heritage database records twokerbed boulders at White Tor in Devonand near Goldiggings Quarry in CornwallThe entry for the latter notes

Kerbed boulders are one of a diverserange of ceremonial monuments datingto the Bronze Age (c2000 ndash 700BC) hellipKerbed boulders are a recently-recognisedmonument type which combine elementsknown from other classes of contempor-ary ceremonial monument These includethe reverence of a natural outcrop evidentin tor cairns and the construction of small

orthostatic settings around funerary monu-ments a common feature of cairns insouth-west England Only two examplesare known nationally both from south-eastern Bodmin Moor associated with alarge dispersed grouping of Bronze Ageceremonial and funerary monuments Asa very rare monument type which pro-vides an important insight into the natureof Prehistoric ritual activity and beliefs allsurviving examples are considered worthyof preservation (English Heritage 1992Entry 1010362)

The database records a further exampleat Horse Point near St Agnes on Scillyand the commentary is expanded toinclude the possibility of a Neolithic date

There are obvious difficulties in infer-ring any date from these accounts some ofthe Cumbrian examples may just have apossible association with early historicalagricultural activity though there areBronze Age features at Rydal Head in thesouth-east of England there is the proxi-mity of Bronze Age reaves also on Bodminthere are older features and finds whilstthe Stickle Tarn area also has sites ofNeolithic axe production The CavanBurren and Rydal lie in confined and

Figure 12 Feature 718 Erratic possibly moved from its pedestal Surround of large stonesPhoto G Burns

8 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

complex Bronze and Iron Age landscapesand the South Pennine examples are closeto both Mesolithic flintchert scatters andalso later (early Bronze Age) cup-marks

CommentaryAs will be clear from the descriptionsnone of these features is a soaring mega-lithic structure there is an intimacy ofscale deriving from the practical consid-erations of physically moving the stonesThe largest blocks at Turvin Clough maybe 200 kilos and have been moved atmost some 15 m from the parent out-crop At Higher Moor the large poisedblock approaches one ton and has prob-ably simply been pried upright Thereand at Winny Stones and Rydal thestones defining the curved enclosuresare smaller 10 to 15 kilos at mostNone of the features would have

required more than (say) four or fivepeople to be involved in their construc-tion possibly over a very short period oftime One obvious conclusion is thatthese are local monuments for localpeople

The South Pennine examples andthose from the Cavan Burren are com-posed of stones placed singly with delib-erate gaps between This is also the casewith the Castle Hows example aboveLangdale The feature at Rydal Head incommon with H14 in the Cavan Burrenand the Cornish examples has a morecontinuous stony bank Whilst there aredifferences in the centralnatural ele-ments the addition of a penannular pla-cement can be seen to express acommon conception of the appropriateascription of significance of the correctway to establish or memorialize theimportance of a place A reasonable

Figure 13 High Willhays Tor Plan shows the attached arc (Turner 1990 37)

Time amp Mind 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

or bank of stones forming a kerb aroundand adjoining the stone Over the last 10years or so it has become increasinglyclear that this type of feature is not con-fined to the south-west of England

Features1 Turvin Clough (SD9877520946)Two re-entrants Blake Clough and onewith no name define a spur on the north-west side of Turvin Clough which bears anumber of apparent funerary cairns Abovethese is a small outcrop of LowerKinderscout Grit On the downslope sideof the outcrop is a ring of boulders of thesame rock placed such that the outcropcompletes the circle (Figure 1) A pre-sumed funerary cairn has been insertedbetween the curve of the circle and theoutcrop itself (Figure 2)

2 Higher Moor ndash Stoodley Pike(SD9743223401)A large block of Lower Kinderscout Gritis set vertically on the extreme edge of alevel expanse of bedrock The block is

just sufficiently supported and rocks pon-derously from end to end The levelexpanse of bedrock shows differentialerosion suggesting that the block mayhave been levered up into its presentposition On the opposite side of theblock is a semi-circular setting of stonesdeep in the turf (Figures 3 and 4)

3 North ofWinny Stones ndash LeaningGrooves Flat (SE0127532024)A substantial earthfast whaleback ofGuiseley Grit is surrounded by peat upto 40 cm deep On the northern side is asemi-circular setting of stones in this casewith a small turf-level cairn inside it(Figures 5 and 6)

5 Rydal Head ndash Rydal valleybelow Fairfield (NY3625410777)The Rydal Head feature is within the corrieat the top end of the valley on a smallterrace above the stream A large erraticof Lincombe Tarns Tuff has a continuouscurving arc of locally-derived boulders andcobbles on the northern up-valley side

Figure 1 Turvin Clough Boulder ring adjoining outcrop (beneath the camera position) Photoauthor

2 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

The erratic is some 35 m long and one endof the arc joins the end of the erratic whilstthe other terminates 07 m short of theopposite end The furthest outward extentof the arc provides an internal measure-ment of 18 m (Figure 7)

Further Cumbrian ExamplesPeter Rodgers and Aaron Watsonlocated a number of features especiallyin and around Langdale (Rodgers perso-nal communications 2000 2005 2006)some of which bear a striking

Figure 2 Turvin Clough plan

Figure 3 Higher Moor Rocking stone with boulder arc indicated by 25cm scales Photo author

Time amp Mind 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

resemblance to those outlined above(Figure 8) Rodgers drew parallels withfeatures in Cornwall and suggested a pos-sible link with established Bronze Agefunerary practice and archaeologistsfrom the Lake District National Park

Authority concurred with this viewSeveral of the features were included ina survey made prior to footpath refurb-ishment in an area on the north side ofLangdale close to Stickle Tarn (OxfordArchaeology North 2005)

Figure 5 Winny Stones Large earthfast with turf-level arc containing cairn Photo author

Figure 4 Higher Moor plan

4 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Figure 6 Winny Stones plan

Figure 7 Rydal Head Photo author

Time amp Mind 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

The OA North interpretation leavesopen the possibility of a prehistoricdate but inclines toward an early his-toric origin making a connection withnearby Norse enclosures and stockmanagement structures (Quartermaineand Leech 2012) Similar features inother areas of the Lake District how-ever do not have an immediate associa-tion with historic agriculturalpastoralfeatures (Rodgers 2005) The Castle

Hows example lies just outside theOxford North survey area (Figure 9)

Irish ExamplesThe Cavan Burren is a less well-knownupland area (about 250 m OD) some 3km to the south of Blacklion in CountyCavan Ireland and much of it is givenover to commercial forestry Essentiallythe area consists of glaciated

Figure 8 Stickle Tarn Large boulder on a knoll with an obvious penannular surround PhotoP Rodgers

Figure 9 Castle Hows On rising ground with a clear turf-level arc Photo author

6 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Carboniferous limestone with numeroussandstone erratics Meticulous fieldworkand recording by Gaby Burns and JimNolan (2012) has so far produced anaccount of a complex relict landscape ofextensive walling prehistoric stone-work-ing dwelling sites ldquomodified monumentalbouldersrdquo including propped stones androck art (Burns and Nolan 2012 2 andpersonal communications) There is a com-plex suite of interventions and modifica-tions including examples of stones that

have been deliberately split and movedafter the manner of some stones inBrittany (Kytmannow 2008 Kytmannowet al 2008) and erratics where the bed-rock pedestals have been reduced to cre-ate spaces and the impression of elevationPresently it is the boulders with ldquokerbstonewallsrdquo that have greatest relevance Severalfeatures serve to demonstrate the similaritybetween the English and Irish examplesFor clarity the Burns and Nolan numberinghas been retained (Figures 10ndash12)

Figure 11 Feature H14 Boulder bears rock art the penannular surround is moss-coveredPhoto G Burns

Figure 10 Feature 701 The turf-level arc of stones is highlighted Photo G Burns

Time amp Mind 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Possible DatesTurner (1990) provides an arguablyoverly-categorical account of the widevariety of circular features noted onDartmoor which includes four examplesof a ldquosegment from tor or natural rockrdquo(1990 37) He notes features at ChinkwellTor Corn Ridge Rock and two at HighWillhays Three appear to be stony banksdescribing arcs depending on central out-crop features whilst one is termed a ldquoseg-ment stone settingrdquo (Turner 1990 69) andtakes a similar curving line Each defines anarea adjoining an easily-seen landscape fea-ture ndash a prominent rock (Figure 13) TheEnglish Heritage database records twokerbed boulders at White Tor in Devonand near Goldiggings Quarry in CornwallThe entry for the latter notes

Kerbed boulders are one of a diverserange of ceremonial monuments datingto the Bronze Age (c2000 ndash 700BC) hellipKerbed boulders are a recently-recognisedmonument type which combine elementsknown from other classes of contempor-ary ceremonial monument These includethe reverence of a natural outcrop evidentin tor cairns and the construction of small

orthostatic settings around funerary monu-ments a common feature of cairns insouth-west England Only two examplesare known nationally both from south-eastern Bodmin Moor associated with alarge dispersed grouping of Bronze Ageceremonial and funerary monuments Asa very rare monument type which pro-vides an important insight into the natureof Prehistoric ritual activity and beliefs allsurviving examples are considered worthyof preservation (English Heritage 1992Entry 1010362)

The database records a further exampleat Horse Point near St Agnes on Scillyand the commentary is expanded toinclude the possibility of a Neolithic date

There are obvious difficulties in infer-ring any date from these accounts some ofthe Cumbrian examples may just have apossible association with early historicalagricultural activity though there areBronze Age features at Rydal Head in thesouth-east of England there is the proxi-mity of Bronze Age reaves also on Bodminthere are older features and finds whilstthe Stickle Tarn area also has sites ofNeolithic axe production The CavanBurren and Rydal lie in confined and

Figure 12 Feature 718 Erratic possibly moved from its pedestal Surround of large stonesPhoto G Burns

8 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

complex Bronze and Iron Age landscapesand the South Pennine examples are closeto both Mesolithic flintchert scatters andalso later (early Bronze Age) cup-marks

CommentaryAs will be clear from the descriptionsnone of these features is a soaring mega-lithic structure there is an intimacy ofscale deriving from the practical consid-erations of physically moving the stonesThe largest blocks at Turvin Clough maybe 200 kilos and have been moved atmost some 15 m from the parent out-crop At Higher Moor the large poisedblock approaches one ton and has prob-ably simply been pried upright Thereand at Winny Stones and Rydal thestones defining the curved enclosuresare smaller 10 to 15 kilos at mostNone of the features would have

required more than (say) four or fivepeople to be involved in their construc-tion possibly over a very short period oftime One obvious conclusion is thatthese are local monuments for localpeople

The South Pennine examples andthose from the Cavan Burren are com-posed of stones placed singly with delib-erate gaps between This is also the casewith the Castle Hows example aboveLangdale The feature at Rydal Head incommon with H14 in the Cavan Burrenand the Cornish examples has a morecontinuous stony bank Whilst there aredifferences in the centralnatural ele-ments the addition of a penannular pla-cement can be seen to express acommon conception of the appropriateascription of significance of the correctway to establish or memorialize theimportance of a place A reasonable

Figure 13 High Willhays Tor Plan shows the attached arc (Turner 1990 37)

Time amp Mind 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

The erratic is some 35 m long and one endof the arc joins the end of the erratic whilstthe other terminates 07 m short of theopposite end The furthest outward extentof the arc provides an internal measure-ment of 18 m (Figure 7)

Further Cumbrian ExamplesPeter Rodgers and Aaron Watsonlocated a number of features especiallyin and around Langdale (Rodgers perso-nal communications 2000 2005 2006)some of which bear a striking

Figure 2 Turvin Clough plan

Figure 3 Higher Moor Rocking stone with boulder arc indicated by 25cm scales Photo author

Time amp Mind 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

resemblance to those outlined above(Figure 8) Rodgers drew parallels withfeatures in Cornwall and suggested a pos-sible link with established Bronze Agefunerary practice and archaeologistsfrom the Lake District National Park

Authority concurred with this viewSeveral of the features were included ina survey made prior to footpath refurb-ishment in an area on the north side ofLangdale close to Stickle Tarn (OxfordArchaeology North 2005)

Figure 5 Winny Stones Large earthfast with turf-level arc containing cairn Photo author

Figure 4 Higher Moor plan

4 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Figure 6 Winny Stones plan

Figure 7 Rydal Head Photo author

Time amp Mind 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

The OA North interpretation leavesopen the possibility of a prehistoricdate but inclines toward an early his-toric origin making a connection withnearby Norse enclosures and stockmanagement structures (Quartermaineand Leech 2012) Similar features inother areas of the Lake District how-ever do not have an immediate associa-tion with historic agriculturalpastoralfeatures (Rodgers 2005) The Castle

Hows example lies just outside theOxford North survey area (Figure 9)

Irish ExamplesThe Cavan Burren is a less well-knownupland area (about 250 m OD) some 3km to the south of Blacklion in CountyCavan Ireland and much of it is givenover to commercial forestry Essentiallythe area consists of glaciated

Figure 8 Stickle Tarn Large boulder on a knoll with an obvious penannular surround PhotoP Rodgers

Figure 9 Castle Hows On rising ground with a clear turf-level arc Photo author

6 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Carboniferous limestone with numeroussandstone erratics Meticulous fieldworkand recording by Gaby Burns and JimNolan (2012) has so far produced anaccount of a complex relict landscape ofextensive walling prehistoric stone-work-ing dwelling sites ldquomodified monumentalbouldersrdquo including propped stones androck art (Burns and Nolan 2012 2 andpersonal communications) There is a com-plex suite of interventions and modifica-tions including examples of stones that

have been deliberately split and movedafter the manner of some stones inBrittany (Kytmannow 2008 Kytmannowet al 2008) and erratics where the bed-rock pedestals have been reduced to cre-ate spaces and the impression of elevationPresently it is the boulders with ldquokerbstonewallsrdquo that have greatest relevance Severalfeatures serve to demonstrate the similaritybetween the English and Irish examplesFor clarity the Burns and Nolan numberinghas been retained (Figures 10ndash12)

Figure 11 Feature H14 Boulder bears rock art the penannular surround is moss-coveredPhoto G Burns

Figure 10 Feature 701 The turf-level arc of stones is highlighted Photo G Burns

Time amp Mind 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Possible DatesTurner (1990) provides an arguablyoverly-categorical account of the widevariety of circular features noted onDartmoor which includes four examplesof a ldquosegment from tor or natural rockrdquo(1990 37) He notes features at ChinkwellTor Corn Ridge Rock and two at HighWillhays Three appear to be stony banksdescribing arcs depending on central out-crop features whilst one is termed a ldquoseg-ment stone settingrdquo (Turner 1990 69) andtakes a similar curving line Each defines anarea adjoining an easily-seen landscape fea-ture ndash a prominent rock (Figure 13) TheEnglish Heritage database records twokerbed boulders at White Tor in Devonand near Goldiggings Quarry in CornwallThe entry for the latter notes

Kerbed boulders are one of a diverserange of ceremonial monuments datingto the Bronze Age (c2000 ndash 700BC) hellipKerbed boulders are a recently-recognisedmonument type which combine elementsknown from other classes of contempor-ary ceremonial monument These includethe reverence of a natural outcrop evidentin tor cairns and the construction of small

orthostatic settings around funerary monu-ments a common feature of cairns insouth-west England Only two examplesare known nationally both from south-eastern Bodmin Moor associated with alarge dispersed grouping of Bronze Ageceremonial and funerary monuments Asa very rare monument type which pro-vides an important insight into the natureof Prehistoric ritual activity and beliefs allsurviving examples are considered worthyof preservation (English Heritage 1992Entry 1010362)

The database records a further exampleat Horse Point near St Agnes on Scillyand the commentary is expanded toinclude the possibility of a Neolithic date

There are obvious difficulties in infer-ring any date from these accounts some ofthe Cumbrian examples may just have apossible association with early historicalagricultural activity though there areBronze Age features at Rydal Head in thesouth-east of England there is the proxi-mity of Bronze Age reaves also on Bodminthere are older features and finds whilstthe Stickle Tarn area also has sites ofNeolithic axe production The CavanBurren and Rydal lie in confined and

Figure 12 Feature 718 Erratic possibly moved from its pedestal Surround of large stonesPhoto G Burns

8 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

complex Bronze and Iron Age landscapesand the South Pennine examples are closeto both Mesolithic flintchert scatters andalso later (early Bronze Age) cup-marks

CommentaryAs will be clear from the descriptionsnone of these features is a soaring mega-lithic structure there is an intimacy ofscale deriving from the practical consid-erations of physically moving the stonesThe largest blocks at Turvin Clough maybe 200 kilos and have been moved atmost some 15 m from the parent out-crop At Higher Moor the large poisedblock approaches one ton and has prob-ably simply been pried upright Thereand at Winny Stones and Rydal thestones defining the curved enclosuresare smaller 10 to 15 kilos at mostNone of the features would have

required more than (say) four or fivepeople to be involved in their construc-tion possibly over a very short period oftime One obvious conclusion is thatthese are local monuments for localpeople

The South Pennine examples andthose from the Cavan Burren are com-posed of stones placed singly with delib-erate gaps between This is also the casewith the Castle Hows example aboveLangdale The feature at Rydal Head incommon with H14 in the Cavan Burrenand the Cornish examples has a morecontinuous stony bank Whilst there aredifferences in the centralnatural ele-ments the addition of a penannular pla-cement can be seen to express acommon conception of the appropriateascription of significance of the correctway to establish or memorialize theimportance of a place A reasonable

Figure 13 High Willhays Tor Plan shows the attached arc (Turner 1990 37)

Time amp Mind 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

resemblance to those outlined above(Figure 8) Rodgers drew parallels withfeatures in Cornwall and suggested a pos-sible link with established Bronze Agefunerary practice and archaeologistsfrom the Lake District National Park

Authority concurred with this viewSeveral of the features were included ina survey made prior to footpath refurb-ishment in an area on the north side ofLangdale close to Stickle Tarn (OxfordArchaeology North 2005)

Figure 5 Winny Stones Large earthfast with turf-level arc containing cairn Photo author

Figure 4 Higher Moor plan

4 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Figure 6 Winny Stones plan

Figure 7 Rydal Head Photo author

Time amp Mind 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

The OA North interpretation leavesopen the possibility of a prehistoricdate but inclines toward an early his-toric origin making a connection withnearby Norse enclosures and stockmanagement structures (Quartermaineand Leech 2012) Similar features inother areas of the Lake District how-ever do not have an immediate associa-tion with historic agriculturalpastoralfeatures (Rodgers 2005) The Castle

Hows example lies just outside theOxford North survey area (Figure 9)

Irish ExamplesThe Cavan Burren is a less well-knownupland area (about 250 m OD) some 3km to the south of Blacklion in CountyCavan Ireland and much of it is givenover to commercial forestry Essentiallythe area consists of glaciated

Figure 8 Stickle Tarn Large boulder on a knoll with an obvious penannular surround PhotoP Rodgers

Figure 9 Castle Hows On rising ground with a clear turf-level arc Photo author

6 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Carboniferous limestone with numeroussandstone erratics Meticulous fieldworkand recording by Gaby Burns and JimNolan (2012) has so far produced anaccount of a complex relict landscape ofextensive walling prehistoric stone-work-ing dwelling sites ldquomodified monumentalbouldersrdquo including propped stones androck art (Burns and Nolan 2012 2 andpersonal communications) There is a com-plex suite of interventions and modifica-tions including examples of stones that

have been deliberately split and movedafter the manner of some stones inBrittany (Kytmannow 2008 Kytmannowet al 2008) and erratics where the bed-rock pedestals have been reduced to cre-ate spaces and the impression of elevationPresently it is the boulders with ldquokerbstonewallsrdquo that have greatest relevance Severalfeatures serve to demonstrate the similaritybetween the English and Irish examplesFor clarity the Burns and Nolan numberinghas been retained (Figures 10ndash12)

Figure 11 Feature H14 Boulder bears rock art the penannular surround is moss-coveredPhoto G Burns

Figure 10 Feature 701 The turf-level arc of stones is highlighted Photo G Burns

Time amp Mind 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Possible DatesTurner (1990) provides an arguablyoverly-categorical account of the widevariety of circular features noted onDartmoor which includes four examplesof a ldquosegment from tor or natural rockrdquo(1990 37) He notes features at ChinkwellTor Corn Ridge Rock and two at HighWillhays Three appear to be stony banksdescribing arcs depending on central out-crop features whilst one is termed a ldquoseg-ment stone settingrdquo (Turner 1990 69) andtakes a similar curving line Each defines anarea adjoining an easily-seen landscape fea-ture ndash a prominent rock (Figure 13) TheEnglish Heritage database records twokerbed boulders at White Tor in Devonand near Goldiggings Quarry in CornwallThe entry for the latter notes

Kerbed boulders are one of a diverserange of ceremonial monuments datingto the Bronze Age (c2000 ndash 700BC) hellipKerbed boulders are a recently-recognisedmonument type which combine elementsknown from other classes of contempor-ary ceremonial monument These includethe reverence of a natural outcrop evidentin tor cairns and the construction of small

orthostatic settings around funerary monu-ments a common feature of cairns insouth-west England Only two examplesare known nationally both from south-eastern Bodmin Moor associated with alarge dispersed grouping of Bronze Ageceremonial and funerary monuments Asa very rare monument type which pro-vides an important insight into the natureof Prehistoric ritual activity and beliefs allsurviving examples are considered worthyof preservation (English Heritage 1992Entry 1010362)

The database records a further exampleat Horse Point near St Agnes on Scillyand the commentary is expanded toinclude the possibility of a Neolithic date

There are obvious difficulties in infer-ring any date from these accounts some ofthe Cumbrian examples may just have apossible association with early historicalagricultural activity though there areBronze Age features at Rydal Head in thesouth-east of England there is the proxi-mity of Bronze Age reaves also on Bodminthere are older features and finds whilstthe Stickle Tarn area also has sites ofNeolithic axe production The CavanBurren and Rydal lie in confined and

Figure 12 Feature 718 Erratic possibly moved from its pedestal Surround of large stonesPhoto G Burns

8 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

complex Bronze and Iron Age landscapesand the South Pennine examples are closeto both Mesolithic flintchert scatters andalso later (early Bronze Age) cup-marks

CommentaryAs will be clear from the descriptionsnone of these features is a soaring mega-lithic structure there is an intimacy ofscale deriving from the practical consid-erations of physically moving the stonesThe largest blocks at Turvin Clough maybe 200 kilos and have been moved atmost some 15 m from the parent out-crop At Higher Moor the large poisedblock approaches one ton and has prob-ably simply been pried upright Thereand at Winny Stones and Rydal thestones defining the curved enclosuresare smaller 10 to 15 kilos at mostNone of the features would have

required more than (say) four or fivepeople to be involved in their construc-tion possibly over a very short period oftime One obvious conclusion is thatthese are local monuments for localpeople

The South Pennine examples andthose from the Cavan Burren are com-posed of stones placed singly with delib-erate gaps between This is also the casewith the Castle Hows example aboveLangdale The feature at Rydal Head incommon with H14 in the Cavan Burrenand the Cornish examples has a morecontinuous stony bank Whilst there aredifferences in the centralnatural ele-ments the addition of a penannular pla-cement can be seen to express acommon conception of the appropriateascription of significance of the correctway to establish or memorialize theimportance of a place A reasonable

Figure 13 High Willhays Tor Plan shows the attached arc (Turner 1990 37)

Time amp Mind 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Figure 6 Winny Stones plan

Figure 7 Rydal Head Photo author

Time amp Mind 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

The OA North interpretation leavesopen the possibility of a prehistoricdate but inclines toward an early his-toric origin making a connection withnearby Norse enclosures and stockmanagement structures (Quartermaineand Leech 2012) Similar features inother areas of the Lake District how-ever do not have an immediate associa-tion with historic agriculturalpastoralfeatures (Rodgers 2005) The Castle

Hows example lies just outside theOxford North survey area (Figure 9)

Irish ExamplesThe Cavan Burren is a less well-knownupland area (about 250 m OD) some 3km to the south of Blacklion in CountyCavan Ireland and much of it is givenover to commercial forestry Essentiallythe area consists of glaciated

Figure 8 Stickle Tarn Large boulder on a knoll with an obvious penannular surround PhotoP Rodgers

Figure 9 Castle Hows On rising ground with a clear turf-level arc Photo author

6 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Carboniferous limestone with numeroussandstone erratics Meticulous fieldworkand recording by Gaby Burns and JimNolan (2012) has so far produced anaccount of a complex relict landscape ofextensive walling prehistoric stone-work-ing dwelling sites ldquomodified monumentalbouldersrdquo including propped stones androck art (Burns and Nolan 2012 2 andpersonal communications) There is a com-plex suite of interventions and modifica-tions including examples of stones that

have been deliberately split and movedafter the manner of some stones inBrittany (Kytmannow 2008 Kytmannowet al 2008) and erratics where the bed-rock pedestals have been reduced to cre-ate spaces and the impression of elevationPresently it is the boulders with ldquokerbstonewallsrdquo that have greatest relevance Severalfeatures serve to demonstrate the similaritybetween the English and Irish examplesFor clarity the Burns and Nolan numberinghas been retained (Figures 10ndash12)

Figure 11 Feature H14 Boulder bears rock art the penannular surround is moss-coveredPhoto G Burns

Figure 10 Feature 701 The turf-level arc of stones is highlighted Photo G Burns

Time amp Mind 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Possible DatesTurner (1990) provides an arguablyoverly-categorical account of the widevariety of circular features noted onDartmoor which includes four examplesof a ldquosegment from tor or natural rockrdquo(1990 37) He notes features at ChinkwellTor Corn Ridge Rock and two at HighWillhays Three appear to be stony banksdescribing arcs depending on central out-crop features whilst one is termed a ldquoseg-ment stone settingrdquo (Turner 1990 69) andtakes a similar curving line Each defines anarea adjoining an easily-seen landscape fea-ture ndash a prominent rock (Figure 13) TheEnglish Heritage database records twokerbed boulders at White Tor in Devonand near Goldiggings Quarry in CornwallThe entry for the latter notes

Kerbed boulders are one of a diverserange of ceremonial monuments datingto the Bronze Age (c2000 ndash 700BC) hellipKerbed boulders are a recently-recognisedmonument type which combine elementsknown from other classes of contempor-ary ceremonial monument These includethe reverence of a natural outcrop evidentin tor cairns and the construction of small

orthostatic settings around funerary monu-ments a common feature of cairns insouth-west England Only two examplesare known nationally both from south-eastern Bodmin Moor associated with alarge dispersed grouping of Bronze Ageceremonial and funerary monuments Asa very rare monument type which pro-vides an important insight into the natureof Prehistoric ritual activity and beliefs allsurviving examples are considered worthyof preservation (English Heritage 1992Entry 1010362)

The database records a further exampleat Horse Point near St Agnes on Scillyand the commentary is expanded toinclude the possibility of a Neolithic date

There are obvious difficulties in infer-ring any date from these accounts some ofthe Cumbrian examples may just have apossible association with early historicalagricultural activity though there areBronze Age features at Rydal Head in thesouth-east of England there is the proxi-mity of Bronze Age reaves also on Bodminthere are older features and finds whilstthe Stickle Tarn area also has sites ofNeolithic axe production The CavanBurren and Rydal lie in confined and

Figure 12 Feature 718 Erratic possibly moved from its pedestal Surround of large stonesPhoto G Burns

8 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

complex Bronze and Iron Age landscapesand the South Pennine examples are closeto both Mesolithic flintchert scatters andalso later (early Bronze Age) cup-marks

CommentaryAs will be clear from the descriptionsnone of these features is a soaring mega-lithic structure there is an intimacy ofscale deriving from the practical consid-erations of physically moving the stonesThe largest blocks at Turvin Clough maybe 200 kilos and have been moved atmost some 15 m from the parent out-crop At Higher Moor the large poisedblock approaches one ton and has prob-ably simply been pried upright Thereand at Winny Stones and Rydal thestones defining the curved enclosuresare smaller 10 to 15 kilos at mostNone of the features would have

required more than (say) four or fivepeople to be involved in their construc-tion possibly over a very short period oftime One obvious conclusion is thatthese are local monuments for localpeople

The South Pennine examples andthose from the Cavan Burren are com-posed of stones placed singly with delib-erate gaps between This is also the casewith the Castle Hows example aboveLangdale The feature at Rydal Head incommon with H14 in the Cavan Burrenand the Cornish examples has a morecontinuous stony bank Whilst there aredifferences in the centralnatural ele-ments the addition of a penannular pla-cement can be seen to express acommon conception of the appropriateascription of significance of the correctway to establish or memorialize theimportance of a place A reasonable

Figure 13 High Willhays Tor Plan shows the attached arc (Turner 1990 37)

Time amp Mind 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

The OA North interpretation leavesopen the possibility of a prehistoricdate but inclines toward an early his-toric origin making a connection withnearby Norse enclosures and stockmanagement structures (Quartermaineand Leech 2012) Similar features inother areas of the Lake District how-ever do not have an immediate associa-tion with historic agriculturalpastoralfeatures (Rodgers 2005) The Castle

Hows example lies just outside theOxford North survey area (Figure 9)

Irish ExamplesThe Cavan Burren is a less well-knownupland area (about 250 m OD) some 3km to the south of Blacklion in CountyCavan Ireland and much of it is givenover to commercial forestry Essentiallythe area consists of glaciated

Figure 8 Stickle Tarn Large boulder on a knoll with an obvious penannular surround PhotoP Rodgers

Figure 9 Castle Hows On rising ground with a clear turf-level arc Photo author

6 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Carboniferous limestone with numeroussandstone erratics Meticulous fieldworkand recording by Gaby Burns and JimNolan (2012) has so far produced anaccount of a complex relict landscape ofextensive walling prehistoric stone-work-ing dwelling sites ldquomodified monumentalbouldersrdquo including propped stones androck art (Burns and Nolan 2012 2 andpersonal communications) There is a com-plex suite of interventions and modifica-tions including examples of stones that

have been deliberately split and movedafter the manner of some stones inBrittany (Kytmannow 2008 Kytmannowet al 2008) and erratics where the bed-rock pedestals have been reduced to cre-ate spaces and the impression of elevationPresently it is the boulders with ldquokerbstonewallsrdquo that have greatest relevance Severalfeatures serve to demonstrate the similaritybetween the English and Irish examplesFor clarity the Burns and Nolan numberinghas been retained (Figures 10ndash12)

Figure 11 Feature H14 Boulder bears rock art the penannular surround is moss-coveredPhoto G Burns

Figure 10 Feature 701 The turf-level arc of stones is highlighted Photo G Burns

Time amp Mind 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Possible DatesTurner (1990) provides an arguablyoverly-categorical account of the widevariety of circular features noted onDartmoor which includes four examplesof a ldquosegment from tor or natural rockrdquo(1990 37) He notes features at ChinkwellTor Corn Ridge Rock and two at HighWillhays Three appear to be stony banksdescribing arcs depending on central out-crop features whilst one is termed a ldquoseg-ment stone settingrdquo (Turner 1990 69) andtakes a similar curving line Each defines anarea adjoining an easily-seen landscape fea-ture ndash a prominent rock (Figure 13) TheEnglish Heritage database records twokerbed boulders at White Tor in Devonand near Goldiggings Quarry in CornwallThe entry for the latter notes

Kerbed boulders are one of a diverserange of ceremonial monuments datingto the Bronze Age (c2000 ndash 700BC) hellipKerbed boulders are a recently-recognisedmonument type which combine elementsknown from other classes of contempor-ary ceremonial monument These includethe reverence of a natural outcrop evidentin tor cairns and the construction of small

orthostatic settings around funerary monu-ments a common feature of cairns insouth-west England Only two examplesare known nationally both from south-eastern Bodmin Moor associated with alarge dispersed grouping of Bronze Ageceremonial and funerary monuments Asa very rare monument type which pro-vides an important insight into the natureof Prehistoric ritual activity and beliefs allsurviving examples are considered worthyof preservation (English Heritage 1992Entry 1010362)

The database records a further exampleat Horse Point near St Agnes on Scillyand the commentary is expanded toinclude the possibility of a Neolithic date

There are obvious difficulties in infer-ring any date from these accounts some ofthe Cumbrian examples may just have apossible association with early historicalagricultural activity though there areBronze Age features at Rydal Head in thesouth-east of England there is the proxi-mity of Bronze Age reaves also on Bodminthere are older features and finds whilstthe Stickle Tarn area also has sites ofNeolithic axe production The CavanBurren and Rydal lie in confined and

Figure 12 Feature 718 Erratic possibly moved from its pedestal Surround of large stonesPhoto G Burns

8 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

complex Bronze and Iron Age landscapesand the South Pennine examples are closeto both Mesolithic flintchert scatters andalso later (early Bronze Age) cup-marks

CommentaryAs will be clear from the descriptionsnone of these features is a soaring mega-lithic structure there is an intimacy ofscale deriving from the practical consid-erations of physically moving the stonesThe largest blocks at Turvin Clough maybe 200 kilos and have been moved atmost some 15 m from the parent out-crop At Higher Moor the large poisedblock approaches one ton and has prob-ably simply been pried upright Thereand at Winny Stones and Rydal thestones defining the curved enclosuresare smaller 10 to 15 kilos at mostNone of the features would have

required more than (say) four or fivepeople to be involved in their construc-tion possibly over a very short period oftime One obvious conclusion is thatthese are local monuments for localpeople

The South Pennine examples andthose from the Cavan Burren are com-posed of stones placed singly with delib-erate gaps between This is also the casewith the Castle Hows example aboveLangdale The feature at Rydal Head incommon with H14 in the Cavan Burrenand the Cornish examples has a morecontinuous stony bank Whilst there aredifferences in the centralnatural ele-ments the addition of a penannular pla-cement can be seen to express acommon conception of the appropriateascription of significance of the correctway to establish or memorialize theimportance of a place A reasonable

Figure 13 High Willhays Tor Plan shows the attached arc (Turner 1990 37)

Time amp Mind 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Carboniferous limestone with numeroussandstone erratics Meticulous fieldworkand recording by Gaby Burns and JimNolan (2012) has so far produced anaccount of a complex relict landscape ofextensive walling prehistoric stone-work-ing dwelling sites ldquomodified monumentalbouldersrdquo including propped stones androck art (Burns and Nolan 2012 2 andpersonal communications) There is a com-plex suite of interventions and modifica-tions including examples of stones that

have been deliberately split and movedafter the manner of some stones inBrittany (Kytmannow 2008 Kytmannowet al 2008) and erratics where the bed-rock pedestals have been reduced to cre-ate spaces and the impression of elevationPresently it is the boulders with ldquokerbstonewallsrdquo that have greatest relevance Severalfeatures serve to demonstrate the similaritybetween the English and Irish examplesFor clarity the Burns and Nolan numberinghas been retained (Figures 10ndash12)

Figure 11 Feature H14 Boulder bears rock art the penannular surround is moss-coveredPhoto G Burns

Figure 10 Feature 701 The turf-level arc of stones is highlighted Photo G Burns

Time amp Mind 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Possible DatesTurner (1990) provides an arguablyoverly-categorical account of the widevariety of circular features noted onDartmoor which includes four examplesof a ldquosegment from tor or natural rockrdquo(1990 37) He notes features at ChinkwellTor Corn Ridge Rock and two at HighWillhays Three appear to be stony banksdescribing arcs depending on central out-crop features whilst one is termed a ldquoseg-ment stone settingrdquo (Turner 1990 69) andtakes a similar curving line Each defines anarea adjoining an easily-seen landscape fea-ture ndash a prominent rock (Figure 13) TheEnglish Heritage database records twokerbed boulders at White Tor in Devonand near Goldiggings Quarry in CornwallThe entry for the latter notes

Kerbed boulders are one of a diverserange of ceremonial monuments datingto the Bronze Age (c2000 ndash 700BC) hellipKerbed boulders are a recently-recognisedmonument type which combine elementsknown from other classes of contempor-ary ceremonial monument These includethe reverence of a natural outcrop evidentin tor cairns and the construction of small

orthostatic settings around funerary monu-ments a common feature of cairns insouth-west England Only two examplesare known nationally both from south-eastern Bodmin Moor associated with alarge dispersed grouping of Bronze Ageceremonial and funerary monuments Asa very rare monument type which pro-vides an important insight into the natureof Prehistoric ritual activity and beliefs allsurviving examples are considered worthyof preservation (English Heritage 1992Entry 1010362)

The database records a further exampleat Horse Point near St Agnes on Scillyand the commentary is expanded toinclude the possibility of a Neolithic date

There are obvious difficulties in infer-ring any date from these accounts some ofthe Cumbrian examples may just have apossible association with early historicalagricultural activity though there areBronze Age features at Rydal Head in thesouth-east of England there is the proxi-mity of Bronze Age reaves also on Bodminthere are older features and finds whilstthe Stickle Tarn area also has sites ofNeolithic axe production The CavanBurren and Rydal lie in confined and

Figure 12 Feature 718 Erratic possibly moved from its pedestal Surround of large stonesPhoto G Burns

8 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

complex Bronze and Iron Age landscapesand the South Pennine examples are closeto both Mesolithic flintchert scatters andalso later (early Bronze Age) cup-marks

CommentaryAs will be clear from the descriptionsnone of these features is a soaring mega-lithic structure there is an intimacy ofscale deriving from the practical consid-erations of physically moving the stonesThe largest blocks at Turvin Clough maybe 200 kilos and have been moved atmost some 15 m from the parent out-crop At Higher Moor the large poisedblock approaches one ton and has prob-ably simply been pried upright Thereand at Winny Stones and Rydal thestones defining the curved enclosuresare smaller 10 to 15 kilos at mostNone of the features would have

required more than (say) four or fivepeople to be involved in their construc-tion possibly over a very short period oftime One obvious conclusion is thatthese are local monuments for localpeople

The South Pennine examples andthose from the Cavan Burren are com-posed of stones placed singly with delib-erate gaps between This is also the casewith the Castle Hows example aboveLangdale The feature at Rydal Head incommon with H14 in the Cavan Burrenand the Cornish examples has a morecontinuous stony bank Whilst there aredifferences in the centralnatural ele-ments the addition of a penannular pla-cement can be seen to express acommon conception of the appropriateascription of significance of the correctway to establish or memorialize theimportance of a place A reasonable

Figure 13 High Willhays Tor Plan shows the attached arc (Turner 1990 37)

Time amp Mind 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Possible DatesTurner (1990) provides an arguablyoverly-categorical account of the widevariety of circular features noted onDartmoor which includes four examplesof a ldquosegment from tor or natural rockrdquo(1990 37) He notes features at ChinkwellTor Corn Ridge Rock and two at HighWillhays Three appear to be stony banksdescribing arcs depending on central out-crop features whilst one is termed a ldquoseg-ment stone settingrdquo (Turner 1990 69) andtakes a similar curving line Each defines anarea adjoining an easily-seen landscape fea-ture ndash a prominent rock (Figure 13) TheEnglish Heritage database records twokerbed boulders at White Tor in Devonand near Goldiggings Quarry in CornwallThe entry for the latter notes

Kerbed boulders are one of a diverserange of ceremonial monuments datingto the Bronze Age (c2000 ndash 700BC) hellipKerbed boulders are a recently-recognisedmonument type which combine elementsknown from other classes of contempor-ary ceremonial monument These includethe reverence of a natural outcrop evidentin tor cairns and the construction of small

orthostatic settings around funerary monu-ments a common feature of cairns insouth-west England Only two examplesare known nationally both from south-eastern Bodmin Moor associated with alarge dispersed grouping of Bronze Ageceremonial and funerary monuments Asa very rare monument type which pro-vides an important insight into the natureof Prehistoric ritual activity and beliefs allsurviving examples are considered worthyof preservation (English Heritage 1992Entry 1010362)

The database records a further exampleat Horse Point near St Agnes on Scillyand the commentary is expanded toinclude the possibility of a Neolithic date

There are obvious difficulties in infer-ring any date from these accounts some ofthe Cumbrian examples may just have apossible association with early historicalagricultural activity though there areBronze Age features at Rydal Head in thesouth-east of England there is the proxi-mity of Bronze Age reaves also on Bodminthere are older features and finds whilstthe Stickle Tarn area also has sites ofNeolithic axe production The CavanBurren and Rydal lie in confined and

Figure 12 Feature 718 Erratic possibly moved from its pedestal Surround of large stonesPhoto G Burns

8 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

complex Bronze and Iron Age landscapesand the South Pennine examples are closeto both Mesolithic flintchert scatters andalso later (early Bronze Age) cup-marks

CommentaryAs will be clear from the descriptionsnone of these features is a soaring mega-lithic structure there is an intimacy ofscale deriving from the practical consid-erations of physically moving the stonesThe largest blocks at Turvin Clough maybe 200 kilos and have been moved atmost some 15 m from the parent out-crop At Higher Moor the large poisedblock approaches one ton and has prob-ably simply been pried upright Thereand at Winny Stones and Rydal thestones defining the curved enclosuresare smaller 10 to 15 kilos at mostNone of the features would have

required more than (say) four or fivepeople to be involved in their construc-tion possibly over a very short period oftime One obvious conclusion is thatthese are local monuments for localpeople

The South Pennine examples andthose from the Cavan Burren are com-posed of stones placed singly with delib-erate gaps between This is also the casewith the Castle Hows example aboveLangdale The feature at Rydal Head incommon with H14 in the Cavan Burrenand the Cornish examples has a morecontinuous stony bank Whilst there aredifferences in the centralnatural ele-ments the addition of a penannular pla-cement can be seen to express acommon conception of the appropriateascription of significance of the correctway to establish or memorialize theimportance of a place A reasonable

Figure 13 High Willhays Tor Plan shows the attached arc (Turner 1990 37)

Time amp Mind 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

complex Bronze and Iron Age landscapesand the South Pennine examples are closeto both Mesolithic flintchert scatters andalso later (early Bronze Age) cup-marks

CommentaryAs will be clear from the descriptionsnone of these features is a soaring mega-lithic structure there is an intimacy ofscale deriving from the practical consid-erations of physically moving the stonesThe largest blocks at Turvin Clough maybe 200 kilos and have been moved atmost some 15 m from the parent out-crop At Higher Moor the large poisedblock approaches one ton and has prob-ably simply been pried upright Thereand at Winny Stones and Rydal thestones defining the curved enclosuresare smaller 10 to 15 kilos at mostNone of the features would have

required more than (say) four or fivepeople to be involved in their construc-tion possibly over a very short period oftime One obvious conclusion is thatthese are local monuments for localpeople

The South Pennine examples andthose from the Cavan Burren are com-posed of stones placed singly with delib-erate gaps between This is also the casewith the Castle Hows example aboveLangdale The feature at Rydal Head incommon with H14 in the Cavan Burrenand the Cornish examples has a morecontinuous stony bank Whilst there aredifferences in the centralnatural ele-ments the addition of a penannular pla-cement can be seen to express acommon conception of the appropriateascription of significance of the correctway to establish or memorialize theimportance of a place A reasonable

Figure 13 High Willhays Tor Plan shows the attached arc (Turner 1990 37)

Time amp Mind 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

inference from this is that people mightbe expected to encounter and recognizemore than one ndash an expression of beliefextending beyond the immediately localto neighbors to a shared conception ofnecessary distinction Clearly there is animmediate performative element con-cerned with the process of constructionbut subsequent activity related to thecommemorative aspect is much lessaccessible to modern observationEssentially this is where interpretationends and excavation begins the socialconstruction of these features is evidenttheir purpose is not (Cooney andChapman 2010 inter alia)

Whilst the features described abovehave sufficient similarities to be consid-ered together the authorrsquos fieldworkregarding such small-scale interventionsin the natural landscape is still continuingso there can be no reliable inferencesabout overall distribution at presentSimilarly there is little to be gained fromexamining the contrasting viewsheds ofsuch a small sample of features beyondthe observations that there are expansiveviews in varying directions except to thenorth and the orientation of compo-nents of the features do not seem torespect any particular solar or lunar hor-izon events there may perhaps be morelocal references or relationships Thepossible funerary cairns included in twoare not necessarily contemporary andmay mark a continued recognition ofthe significance of the places over time1

Our ndash modern archaeologistsrsquo ndash

sense-making of the prehistoric featuresand structures we encounter is inevitablypredicated on our modern conceptionsand categorizations of the world Wedivide secular and sacred natural andanthropogenic and so on such that weconstruct a commonality of discourse As

Bradley (2000 103) pointed out this isnot necessarily the way that prehistoricpeople made sense of their world thereare other ways of regarding the physicalcontext and the import or symbolic con-tent of actions within it Topping (19973) stresses that lsquowhat is being experi-enced is in the present and is basedupon a perceptual framework that isentirely the product of our own socializa-tion and backgroundrsquo

More plainly what does a monumentneed to do to get recognized Preferablyit should resemble one of the acknowl-edged types of monument already havingcurrency but penannular additions tolarge boulders though remarked upondo not yet form a part of the prehistoriccanon The difficulty lies with the concep-tual palette of the observers There arelarge boulders that have anthropogenicadditions only the age and purpose ofthe kerbs are as yet unclear

Mizin (2012a 2012b) outlined essen-tially natural features in north-west Russiathat have legends or folkloric traditionsattached to them The mythologizing ofnatural elements within the prehistoriclandscape is a helpful construct andMizin has also worked extensively onseids ndash anthropogenically-propped stonesin Karelia northern Russia and thecorresponding parts of Finland andSweden (Mizin personal communicationSeptember 2013) The present authordiscussed very similar features in the UKand Ireland (Shepherd 2013) instanceswhere again active structural interven-tions have discernibly modified naturalfeatures possessed of a prior biography

In discussing the materiality ofstones constituting megalithic structuresScarre (2004 141) points out that peo-ple confer significance on ldquonaturalrdquoobjects through their encounters and

10 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

interpretations and that ldquolsquocreatedrsquoobjects are inevitably made from lsquonat-uralrsquo materials and it is often unclearwhat is natural and what is notrdquo Theprocess of materialization or socialconstruction (Berger and Luckmann1966) the active accomplishment ofthe attribution of meaning

need make no distinction between mate-rials that owe their form and appearanceto human intervention and those that donot It may include living things hellip orobjects that might today be consideredinanimate such as mountains orboulders (Scarre 2004 141)

Similarly Bradley (2000 11) observes

for the people who used them (particularnatural features) would have been onlythe outward embodiment of a wider sys-tem of belief that had profound conse-quences for the way in which thelandscape was perceived These sacredsites also played a part in peoplersquos under-standing of how the world was formedand of their place within it

There is an understandable attraction in thesecurity offered by empirical proof suchthat any feature is natural until provedanthropogenic However there is a phaseof objective hypothesizing or prospectionthat forms an essential component ofarchaeological endeavor and the presentpaper should be read in this light Thesegeographically and geologically diverse fea-tures cannot be readily accounted for byany natural or historic purpose and it fol-lows that there is a compelling likelihood ofa prehistoric origin somewhat beyond aframe of reference predicated on antiquar-ian typologies a more productive investi-gative strategy might need to include anawareness of situated possibly contrastingmaterialities ndash our (modern) and their (pre-historic) social constructions of reality

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Frank Jolley for his expertise inproducing digital versions of my plans PeterRodgers has most patiently provided me witha great deal of unpublished information andimages Gaby Burns and Jim Nolan have sup-plied essential data images and advice for whichI am most grateful Thanks are also extended toChris Scarre who commented favorably andconstructively on an earlier version of this paper

Note1 These features are not unknown to profes-

sional archaeologists and dating is the key tofurther interpretation Following a site visitLouise Brown Community Archaeologistwith Pennine Prospects a LEADER-fundedheritage body will advise on an excavationstrategy for one of the South Pennine sitesThis is projected for autumn 2015

Notes on contributorThe author has been involved in archaeology forover fourteen years and his fieldwork has led tothe location and recording of numerous prehis-toric features in the South Pennines With anacademic background in social psychology hispreoccupation is with the ways that peoplecome to express their relationships with places

ReferencesBerger P and T Luckmann 1966 The Social

Construction of Reality New York DoubledayBurns G and J Nolan 2012 Report on a

Prehistoric Landscape in Burren Cavan andMarlbank Fermanagh (Unpublished)

Bradley R 2000 The Archaeology of NaturalPlaces London Routledge

English Heritage 1992 Pastscapes GoldiggingsQuarry Item entry Accessed August6 2012 httplistenglish-heritageorgukresultsingleaspxuid=1010362

English Heritage 2001 ldquoNational MonumentTypes Thesaurusrdquo Accessed August 5 2013httpthesaurusenglish- heritageorguk

Kytmannow T 2008 Portal Tombs in theLandscape The Chronology Morphology andLandscape Setting of the Portal Tombs of

Time amp Mind 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

Ireland Wales and Cornwall Oxford BAR455Archaeopress

Kytmannow T E Mens G Kerdivel and JGunn 2008 ldquoCreating Sacred and SecularSpaces A Study of the Glacial Erratics andEarly Human Settlement in the CavanBurren Landscaperdquo A report for CavanCounty Council

Mizin V G 2012a ldquoSelected Sacred Stones andStone Lore in Northwestern Russiardquo Timeand Mind 5 (2) 175ndash184

Mizin V G 2012b ldquoThe Role of PerchedBoulders in the Mythological Developmentof Spacerdquo Historicaland Cultural Landscapeof the North-West-2 Fifth Sjoumlgren ReadingsCollected articles 5ndash15 St PetersburgEvropejskyDom

OrsquoConnor B G Cooney and J Chapman2010 Materialitas Working Stone CarvingIdentity Prehistoric Society Research Paper3 Oxbow Books Oxford

Oxford Archaeology North 2005 ldquoStickle TarnGreat Langdale Cumbria HistoricLandscape Survey Reportrdquo (Unpublishedreport)

Quartermaine J and R H Leech 2012 CairnsFields and Cultivation ArchaeologicalLandscapes of the Lake District UplandsLancaster Oxford Archaeology North

Rodgers P 2000 Rings and boulder cairns on theLangdale and Grasmere Fells Lake District

National Park Archaeology North No 17Winter pp16ndash18

Rodgers P 2005 ldquoRing and BoulderMonuments on the Lake District FellsrdquoUnpublished

Rodgers P 2006 ldquoA Gazeteer of RingMonuments on the Lake District FellsrdquoUnpublished

Scarre C 2004 ldquoDisplaying the Stones TheMateriality Of lsquoMegalithicrsquo Monumentsrdquo InRethinking Materiality The Engagement ofMind With The Material World edited by EDeMarrais C Godsen and C Renfrew141ndash152 Cambridge McDonald InstituteMonographs

Scarre C 2010 ldquoStones with Character AnimismAgency And Megalithic MonumentsrdquoMaterialitas Working Stone Carving Identityedited by G Cooney and J ChapmanPrehistoric Society Research Paper 3Oxford Oxbow Books

Shepherd D 2013 ldquoPropped Stones TheModification of Natural Features and theConstruction of Placerdquo Time and Mind6 (3) 263ndash286

Topping P ed 1997 Neolithic LandscapesNeolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2Oxbow Monograph 86 Oxford Oxbow

Turner J R 1990 Ring Cairns Stone Circles andRelated Monuments on Dartmoor DevonArchaeological Society Proceedings No 48

12 D Shepherd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

avid

She

pher

d] a

t 04

47 1

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

014

• Abstract
• Landscape Context and Terminology
• Features
• • 1 Turvin Clough (SD9877520946)
  • 2 Higher Moor ndash Stoodley Pike (SD9743223401)
  • 3 North of Winny Stones ndash Leaning Grooves Flat (SE0127532024)
  • 5 Rydal Head ndash Rydal valley below Fairfield (NY3625410777)
  • • Further Cumbrian Examples
    • Irish Examples
    • Possible Dates
    • Commentary
    • Acknowledgements
    • Note
    • Notes on Contributor
    • References