Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites in Pembrokeshire by Nikki Cook

The Journal of the Pembrokeshire Historical Society
Cylchgr awn Cymdeithas Hanesyddol Sir Benfro

Number 15
2006

Editor
Roger Turvey, B.A., Ph.D., PGCE, FSA, FRHist.S

© Pembrokeshire Historical Society 2006

ISBN 0-903771-06-3

Printed by
Gwasg Dinefwr Press, Llandybie, Carrus.

 

 

PREHISTORIC FUNERARY AND RITUAL SITES
IN PEMBROKESHIRE
By Nikki Cook
INTRODUCTION

Recent fieldwork in Pembrokeshire has focussed on visiting all known Neolithic  and  Bronze Age  ritual  and funerary  monuments  within  the county. During this fieldwork a number of new sites were discovered and additional information recorded for the previously known sites.

Between January  2003 and February  2004 Cambria Archaeology  undertook a  rapid  assessment  of  the  form  and  condition  of  all  known  pre­historic funerary and ritual monuments dating from the Neolithic and llrnn1.c Ages throughout Pembrokeshire, as part of a pan-Wales project funded by Cadw involving  all  four  Welsh  Archaeological  Trusts.’  The pri nci pal objectives of this survey  were  the enrichment  of the Regional Sit es and Monuments Record (the SMR) and to contribute to Cadw’s Scheduled Ancient  Monument  (SAM) enhancement programme.

One of the ways in which these principal objectives was achieved was by conducting an examination of the surviving physical evidence for all the different monument types which fell within the remit of the proposed project. During the Neolithic and Bronze Age (which dates from approxi­ mately 4400BC for the early Neolithic through to c.1300BC.for the end or the middle Bronze Age, a variety of different monument types were  built, which were either used for the burial of the dead or were connected with the rituals that took place  surrounding  death  at this time. The  earliest of these monuments were megalithic chambered tombs (a well­ known example being that of Pentre Ifan, near Newport). At the time when these monuments were built the trend was towards collective burial of individuals , although it is clear that not all members of society were treated in this way. The processes and rituals which surrounded death and burial in the Neolithic and Bronze Age were highly complex and changed gradually during this period, and the developments in monu­mental architecture would seem also to reflect these trends.

In simplified terms, at the start of the Neolithic dead bodies were gener­ ally placed into the chambers of megalithic tombs once they had been defleshed, i.e. the cleaned bones of individuals were gathered together  and interred, with the dead body believed to have gone through a variety  of different rites before most (but not all)  of  the  disarticulated  bones were finally (and often selectively) deposited. This has led archaeologists to suggest that early Neolithic society was  perhaps  largely  egalitarian (the bones of men, women, children and foetuses all included in burial rites, though not necessarily together), where there was the denial of individuality in death which reflected a belief instead in a communal set  of ‘ancestors’. Evidence from anthropological contexts suggests that these ancestors were believed to ‘govern’ the fortunes of  the  living, control­ ling, for example, their ability to procure food or be healthy, and as such these ancestors needed constantly to be appeased and venerated through successive rituals at the same  locations.

Although the Neolithic is generally thought to be the time of the first farmers, it is highly likely that to start with people still lived a fairly nomadic lifestyle, moving between upland and lowland pastures herding animals. As a result the evidence we have for actual settlements is quite scanty2 when compared with that for ritual/funerary monuments . It is clear that people in the Neolithic possessed the. ability to build lasting architectural forms, as evidenced by the numerous chambered tombs seen within Pembrokeshire, but their lifestyle meant they had no need to build lasting domestic dwellings. However, chambered tombs were  able to act as fixed places in the landscape where people could periodically gather together, reaffirming their ‘collectivity’ through the performance of rituals involving the bones of the communal ancestors and this in turn would serve to reunite the group. Therefore it is important to see these monuments as much as places for the living as they were for the dead, and they fulfilled a role far greater than just a place where dead bodies were placed. Also, as places of collective burial these megalithic tombs were used time and time again, sometimes for hundreds of years, before they went out of use and were sealed up, or deliberately emptied of their contents and abandoned. There were successive phases of activity at chambered tombs, which often saw previous internments moved and rearranged as new  additions  were made.  Excavations  have provided evidence for a variety of rituals  which  accompanied  the deposition  of  bodies within the tombs, including the lighting of fires, feasting, and the structured  placement of grave goods such as pieces  of pottery  and items of flint. This strengthens the interpretation of the tombs as foci for the living, where they could gather together for the reaffirmation of social  and religious bonds as much as to celebrate their omnipotent ancestors.

Later in the megalithic tomb sequence towards the middle-late Neolithic  ( c.3000BC), as chambered tombs  were  falling  out  of  fashion,  dead  bodies began to be placed into the monuments whilst still intact, suggest­ ing that there was a move away from previous expressions of collectivity towards the celebration of the individual.  However,  it wasn’t  until  the beginning of the Bronze Age (c.2300BC) that individual burials were more commonplace, and by then monumental architecture had changed completely. Round barrows were now the dominant form  of  funerary  monument, and certainly to begin with these monuments appeared to be constructed for the sole internment of an individual,  inhumed  intact, often in a crouched position and accompanied by a very specific type of pottery. At the same time, life for the living was becoming largely more sedentary than nomadic, and it is during the Bronze Age that we see the  shift towards structured settlement and more permanent domestic struc­tures. Even so, the archaeological evidence for such domesticity in west Wales remains largely elusive, due to its ephemeral nature and is gener­ally encountered by chance. Again, there is no such impermanence with the funerary and  ritual  monuments  of  the  period,  which  were  clearly built to last. At the same time as monumental architecture was changing, which perhaps reflected changing trends in perceptions of life and death, so too were ways of dealing with dead bodies. During the late Neolithic we  see the  start of  the  first cremated  remains,  with  some cremations   included for burial within chambered tombs, before these sites were abandoned completely as the new monument forms took their  place. Many round barrows, for instance, contained a central (primary) crema­tion burial interred within (often inverted) pottery vessels, with other ‘satellite’ cremation burials included around the outside of the mound. However, other round barrow sites initially covered the articulated inhumed remains of an individual, buried in a shallow pit or within a stone-lined cist, with secondary  cremated  deposits then added  into the body  of the cairn at a later date. As was the case with the chambered tomb tradition, round barrows too acted as foci for repeated acts of ritual and deposition: they were not one-off events, despite their more ‘closed’ architecture. However, with round barrows, regardless of the funerary rite, it seems that at the outset these monuments were clearly intended to mark certain individuals, often with grave goods accompanying these burials. This has led to the assumption that these mounds were the tombs of important people, such as ‘chieftains’, and that this indicates a shift in social structure as groups settled down into a more sedentary farming lifestyle, requiring a more hierarchical form of social order.

Between the advent of chambered tombs and their supersedence  by  round barrows there lies a whole host of other ritual/funerary monument forms, such as henge monuments, standing stones, stone circles, and ring cairns, all of which are discussed later in this paper.3 In the absence of comparable amounts and quality of settlement evidence, the changing nature of ritual and funerary monumental architecture remains the sole indicator of social activity in the prehistoric past, and forms the basis on which our interpretations about the lifestyles and beliefs of our ancestors are founded. During the Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites (PFRS) survey a full review of all available evidence including artefacts and previous excavations and fieldwork was beyond the scope of the project. However, for the purposes of this paper, and in order to place the various types of monuments in a wider context, an indication is provided in the text of the more important excavations and discoveries from the Pem­brokeshire region, and other parts of southwest Wales. In visiting and recording all the known Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ritual sites it is hoped that we can reach a greater understanding of these enig­matic monuments, as well as preserve them for the enjoyment of future generations.
SURVEY RESULTS
A total of 612 sites were assessed during the fieldwork phase of  the  PFRS project, 36 of which were newly discovered sites, including 15 standing stones, 6 ring barrows, 3 round barrows and two chambered tombs.

Individual site types, definitions and numbers
Chambered tomb (Fig. 1 – 82 sites, Plate  1) – a monument  with evidence of a burial chamber, and occasionally  a passage,  comprised  of  upright stones and considered to be a funerary and ritual monument of the early- middle Neolithic period (c.4400-3200BC). The burial chamber may be covered by a capstone or roof stones and may be  enclosed  within  a  round or long  mound  or cairn. The burial  chamber  is generally  larger than, and distinct from, a cist.

There are 82 chambered tomb sites known in Pembrokeshire, of which 45 are definite examples. With no extant chambered tomb sites recorded in Ceredigion, and  only  15 definite  examples  known  for  Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire was clearly  an  important  focus  of  funerary  and ritual  activity in the Neolithic, which can perhaps  partially  be explained by its coastal  zone  offering  abundant  resources,  which  had  been populated  during   the   preceding   Mesolithic  period   and  continued   to  be exploited during the new stone age. Many chambered tombs  in  south­ west  Wales have been  investigated  at some time in their history, amongst the most  recent  being  Carreg  Coetan  Arthur, Newport ,4 Carreg Samson, Abercastle,5 and  prior  to  that,  Pentre  lfan.6   At  Carreg  Samson funerary material included  part of  an  unburnt  leg bone beneath  a fallen orthostat lying on  top of a stone pavement,  whilst beneath  the paving lay an earlier  layer of unburnt bones pressed into the natural clay floor.7 Other finds recovered included burnt bone and pottery from the chamber floor, and flint  artefacts  from  the  chamber  fill, passage  area  and  amongst  stones  close  to the  chamber. Two  radiocarbon  dates from  the monument  in  the  region of  3700BC places  the  site firmly  within  the later part of the early Neolithic. At Carreg Coetan Arthur, cremated bone was found amidst pottery apparently laid on a stone pavement outside the chamber, which was discovered under a surviving section of mound  material.  A  stone  kerb  enclosing  the  tomb  also  covered  scatters  of  cremated  bone  and pottery, whilst a  small  number  of  flint  artefacts  were  found  at  various parts of  the  site.8  Four  radiocarbon  dates  were  obtained  Carreg  Coetan Arthur which indicated a range of  c.3700-3000BC for various phases  of activity  at the site, the earliest  date coming  from  charcoal  sealed  by  the stone  kerb, with  the  old  ground  surface  sealed  by  the  mound  dated to c.3250BC,   placing  this  site  more  firmly  within  the  middle Neolithic

 

Fig. I/Plate I- Chambered tombs.
Solid symbols = probable sites. Open symbols = possible sites. Land over 100 m and 250m js represented by shaded areas.

period.  Barker has recently  reviewed  the evidence  for chambered  tombs in southwest Wales,9 whilst Cummings and Whittle have discussed Pembrokeshire chambered tombs and their landscape setting within the wider context of their study of the Welsh Neolithic. 10 However, the ‘phenomenological’  approach taken by Cummings and Whittle has been   recently critiqued in an excellent article by Andrew Fleming. 11

Standing stone (Fig. 2 – 159 sites, Plate 2) – defined as a singular up­ right monolith or boulder set in the ground and assumed to be a ritual monument of prehistoric date. Recumbent stones are included as a sub­ type within this monument class.

Fig. 2 – Standing stones.
Solid symbols = probable  sites. Open symbols = possible sites. Land over 100 m and 250m  is represented  by shaded  areas.

Plate 2 –Standing  stone.

Standing stones are often, though not always, associated with other ritual and funerary monuments of Neolithic and Bronze Age date and may also be the focus of ceremonial activities including the use of pits and timber structures, the lighting of fires and also acts of  structured  deposition.  Such features are not visible above ground, and are only recorded as the result of excavation. Twelve new sites were discovered during fieldwork, bringing the total to 97 certain and 62 possible sites.  Several standing stone sites have been excavated in southwest  Wales,  with  particularly good results at Stackpole Warren in south Pembrokeshire. 12 Excavations here demonstrated the complex and extensive below ground remains that can survive around standing stones, and included an alignment of water­ worn boulders, a stone setting, a cremation pit, and numerous other features,’3 as well as a wealth  of  finds including  pottery  from  a number of different vessel types, and items of worked flint and stone. The cremation was securely dated to the Bronze Age with a radiocarbon date of c.1540BC. The site also continued to be the focus of ritual/funerary  practice into the Iron Age, with a burial pit containing a crouched inhumation located within an arc of stakeholes lm north-east of the stone setting. The burial dated to middle Iron Age (c.260BC), a time at which there was renewed interest in standing stones and inhumations, with existing Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments being re-used in  preference to constructing  new ones.
Henge (Fig.3 – 4 sites)  a circular earthwork or cropmark monument normally comprising  a ditch  with an external  or  internal  bank  and  on or more entrances, associated  with ritual or funerary  activity of   later Neolithic date and normally also found with other funerary and/or ritual monuments of the Neolithic or Bronze Age. Internal settings may include timber, stone or pit circles, stone settings, central mounds, cremation pits and  generally  the henge  itself  exceeds  a diameter  of  20m. A sub-type of this  category,  hengiform  monuments,  displays  the  same  characteristics as a henge,  but have  an  internal  diameter  of  less than 20m.

Fig. 3 -Henges, stone circles and stone rows.
Henge (diamond), stone circle (circle),stone row (triangle).
Solid symbols = probable sites.. Open symbols = possible sites. Land over 100m and 250m is represented by shaded areas.

Plate 3 -Standing stone pair.

Plate 4 -Stone circle

None of the henge monuments in Pembrokeshire have been excavated, and all four sites are only possible examples of this particular  monument form.

Standing stone pair (13 sites, Plate 3) – quite specifically a pair of stand­ing stones located immediately adjacent  or within close proximity  to one another no  more  than  15m  apart.  Often,  though  not  always characterised by  a so-called  ‘male’ stone  (a tall and  tapering  monolith) and a ‘female’ stone  (shorter  and  more  squat).  These stones  appear  to have been purposefully chosen and sited  together, and are distinct from  a stone row.

Williams has  reviewed  the evidence  for standing  stones and  standing stone pairs in southwest Wales, 14 although none of the Pembrokeshire examples have so far been excavated. However, given the complexity of features associated with single standing stones (as evidenced by archaeological work at Rhos-y-Clegyrn, St Nicholas 15  and Stackpole Warren),16 it could be reasonably predicted that similar settings, pits, post-holes and areas of charcoal  would  be  discovered  if  any  of  these  pairs  of  stones were investigated. In terms of distribution within Pembrokeshire this site type showed the most marked and distinctive distribution  pattern, with 10 of the 11 probable  sites  located  exclusively  across  the  Preseli hills, and often in close association  with  other  contemporary  ritual  monuments.

Stone circle (Fig. 3 – 15 sites, Plate 4) -an approximately  circular or oval of setting of  spaced,  usually free-standing,   upright  (or originally  upright) stones. More than one circle may be present, arranged concentrically.  Stone circles may be found in association with other prehistoric monuments such as round barrows, and may  themselves be a constituent part  of henge monuments. Other features  may  also  be present  within  stone circles, such as cists or pits, and these monuments are assumed to have had a  ritual and possibly  funerary  function   during  the  late  Neolithic and into the middle Bronze Age.

In Pembrokeshire there  are  eight  probable  and  seven  possible  sites.  The only site recently excavated is the embanked stone circle at Letterston 17 where  investigations  revealed  an  inner  cairn  ring  within  which  there was a circle of stones 12m in diameter, with an entrance and external ritual pit on its east side. Savory interpreted this as an embanked stone circle, to which was later added a turf mound with a kerb 32m in diameter, covering a cremated burial placed in the entrance. 18 This effectively transformed the site from a late Neolithic ‘open’ ritual site to a ‘closed’ early Bronze Age funerary round barrow. Nothing of the stone circle now remains.

Stone row (Fig. 3 – 6 sites) – one or more roughly parallel rows of three or more upright stones set at intervals along a common axis and presumed to have been used for ritual activity during the late Neolithic and Bronze Age.

Two probable and four possible sites are known within the Pembroke­ shire area. So few examples of this monument type can partially be explained by their overall rarity within southwest Wales in general, although it is likely that more sites once existed. Often, though not always, stone rows were constructed using stones which were much smaller than their standing stone counterparts, thus adding to their vulnerability particularly in areas of intensive agricultural activity. None have been excavated in Pembrokeshire, nor indeed have any in Wales as a whole, so their precise role is uncertain, although many seem to occur in upland locations, in similar landscape settings to stone circles, with which they often seem to be associated.

Round barrow (Fig. 4 – 215 sites, Plates 5 and 6) – a round mound of earth and/or stone with a rounded or flattened top presumed to be for burial and other ritual activity during the later Neolithic or Bronze Age. The mound may be enclosed by a circular or intermittent outer ditch and may have a complex structure including stone kerbs, stone settings or burial cists. Such internal and external features are rarely recorded unless excavated.

This site type is the most commonly found prehistoric funerary and ritual monument, with 162 probable barrows and 53 possible sites now recorded in Pembrokeshire alone. In addition to the 215 sites visited during the PFRS project, a further 79 round barrows are recorded from place-name and documentary sources. Despite their abundance, very few

Fig. 4 – Round barrows.
Solid symbols = probable sites. Open symbols = possible sites. Land over  100m and 250m is represented by shaded areas.
of these Pembrokeshire round barrows have been fully excavated, and Parc Maen,  Llangolman  is  the  only  one  to  have  been  investigated  recently using   modem   scientific   techniques. 19    The  site  was  found  to consist  of a cairn,  18m in diameter,  with  evidence for some kerbing   on its northeast side, with various associated features including charcoal­ filled pits,   post-holes,   seven  small  standing  stones,  various  pottery vessels and lithic artefacts.20 Radiocarbon  determinations  produced  a date range of c.2100BC  to  1610BC from a number  of charcoal deposits, suggesting that the site may well have been in use for some 500 years. There was also palaeoenvironmental  evidence  gathered  from  the  site, suggesting the selective use of oak over other species. Evidence from the body of the cairn and the features associated with it suggested that there was a  primary  inhumation  burial  in  a shallow  pit,  with  a number of

Plates 5 and 6- Round barrows.

secondary cremations inserted later into the cairn as indicated by the remains of some fragmentary pottery vessels.  Unfortunately the  acid nature of  the soil  meant  that  no  burial  remains  survived  for analysis. An earlier watching brief at the site prior to the rescue excavation  revealed an  inverted  Beaker  in  a pit  1OOm  to  the  north  of  the  site,  which  would a l most   certainly have   originally contained    a   cremation burial.21    In general  round  barrows   were  no  longer   built   or  used   for  ritual/funerary activity after the middle  Bronze  Age,  although  the  later  Bronze  Age  in Britain  (from  c.1100-700BC)   saw  a  trend   towards   the  re-use  of  round barrows, with  many  sites  becoming  the  focus  for fresh  secondary  burials, although so far there  is  no evidence  for this in  south-west  Wales.

Ring barrow (24 sites) – a monument comprised of a ring of earth and/or stones, ranging in Pembrokeshire between 5 and 30m in diameter, surrounding a hollow central area that is (or was initially) free of cairn material, and which is presumed to have been the focus of various prehistoric ritual ceremonies during  the later Neolithic and Bronze  Age.22

There are 5 probable and 19 possible ring barrow sites in Pembrokeshire,  with a marked clustering over the Preseli hills between Crymmych and Fishguard . Unfortunately none of the sites in Pembrokeshire have been excavated. However, in north Wales several have been investigated, with Brenig 44 a particularly good example.2′ Ring barrows, although linked with the  burial  of  the  dead,  also  demonstrate  a  wider  range  of  other rituals  taking  place  within   their  confines,  suggesting  that  they  were perhaps more orientated  towards  other kinds of ceremonial  activity,  with actual burial deposits a later development. The radiocarbon sequence for Brenig 44 suggests that the site was in use for between 500 and 600 years (between c.2170-1447BC), with repeated pits dug against the inner edge of the ring and filled with pure charcoal.24 It is possible that rituals involving the burial of charcoal were making symbolic references to the funeral pyre used for cremating the dead, which negated the need for actual cremation burials to be made. Three burials were eventually made at the Brenig ring cairn, however, suggesting  a change in  its emphasis,  but not until  much  later on in its ritual  usage.  Similar results  were  also obtained from Moel Goedog25 where repeated episodes of burying charcoal occurred throughout the 200-year history of the site, but with a ‘standard’ burial only occurring much later.

Cist (3 sites) – an isolated stone pit  assumed to have held a human burial of prehistoric  or later date.  Generally  cists take the form  of  rectangular structures built from stone slabs set on edge and  covered by one or more horizontal  slabs  or capstones.

The small number of sites recorded in Pembrokeshire is likely to result from the fact that such features represent ‘flat ‘ burials  with little or no surface indication of their presence, and thus tend to be only encountered by chance.

Cremation burial (3 sites) – a single cremation burial, in which the human body is burnt leaving fragmentary charred or completely combusted remains, possibly contained within a pit and/or pottery vessel. Such burials  may  be  accompanied  by  grave  goods, but generally   have  no associated surface features . They are distinct from cremation burials associated with round barrows, henges or other funerary and ritual monuments. They occur during the later Neolithic to middle Bronze Age, and again in the later Iron Age and Romano/British  period.

As with cist burials, such a small  number  of’ known  cremation  burial sites in Pembrokeshire is likely to be the result of’ the little or no surface indications of their presence, with the recorded examples known having been found by chance. Once found, these burials are usually  removed from their location and housed in museums or other collections, and are recorded on the SMR  as  ‘finds’ with no further archaeological presence in the landscape. None of these sites were therefore visited during fieldwork.

Stone setting (2 sites) – an imprecise term referring to an arrangement of upright stones that is not readily identifiable as either a stone circle, stone row or any other well-defined type of megalithic monument.

 There are two such sites in Pembrokeshire: one known as ‘The Ketch’ and described by Fenton in 1811, 26 which refers to an arrangement of stones possibly enclosed within the henge at Letterston; and, secondly, the five standing stones and one recumbent surrounding the ruined chapel at St. Non’s, near St. David’s.

Cursus (1 site) – a markedly long and narrow ditched enclosure with parallel sides associated with ritual activity of Neolithic date and often associated with other funerary monuments of Neolithic or Early Bronze Age date. The only examples currently falling within the monument type definition in Wales are known from cropmark evidence, although earth­ works defined by a bank and external ditch are known elsewhere in the British Isles.

 Only one possible cursus monument has been identified in the county at Llandissilio, on the border between Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire. The site was identified from aerial photographs, but there were no above surface indication s of the site when visited in the field. However, the site lies close to the well-known monument complex at Glandy Cross just over the county boundary, which comprises the Meini Gwyr embanked stone circle, possible round, ring barrows and standing stone, as well as a rhyolite axe factory.27 So far, this cursus at Llandissilio is the only known monument of its type in southwest Wales.

Pit circle ( 1 site) – one or more concentric circular settings of pits identi­fied from cropmarks or excavation, and considered to be associated with funerary or ritual activity of later Neolithic or early Bronze Age date. Excavation may show that a site should be re-classed as a timber circle or stone circle, but might otherwise represent a circle of cremation or votive pits.

There is one example of this site type in Pembrokeshire, known from cropmark evidence, at Cottesmore, Rudbaxton, The site looks very im­pressive on aerial photographs and is protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. No excavation has taken place here, however.

Group monument types

The following groups of monuments are recorded in the SMR as site type s in themselves, but act as hierarchical terms for a closely associated set of individual monuments. Each individual monument already has its own record number, but the group monument record number allows inter-related monuments to be recognised as a cluster which would not otherwise be possible when searching the SMR database. In addition to the pre-existing ‘Chambered tomb cemetery’ and ‘Round barrow cemetery’ terms, two new group monument types were created (Prehistoric Monu ­ment Complex’ and ‘ Round Burrow Pair) and added to the SMR as a result of this project. A number of previously unrecorded round barrow cemeteries were also recognised from both the desk-based assessment and fieldwork and also added to the database.

Chambered tomb cemetery(Fig 5 – 4 sites) – as the name suggests, a group of chambered tombs located within close proximity to one another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are three probable sites and one possible cemetery in Pembrokeshire. Unfortunately the three (and possibly four) chambered tombs at Eithbed West, Maenclochog, were largely destroyed in 1911 and all that remains or the tombs now are some large stones cleared to the field boundary.  The tombs at Pen-lan, Lampeter Velfrey, are equally in a state of disrepair. However, the best preserved example of a chambered tomb cemetery are three excellent chambered tombs and possible fourth at Garn Wen, Goodwick, which are located on the eastern side of a rock outcrop on land accessed by public footpath. 28

Prehistoric monument complex (Fig. 5 – 9 sites) a pair or group of different types of  prehistoric funerary and/or ritual monuments, which are perceived as having some association. An example would be a round barrow and standing stone in close proximity, or a group i1nclud­ing a wider range of monuments (e.g. a long barrow and chambered tomb cemetery, or a standing stone, ring barrow and two round barrows, etc.). This recognition of grouping makes an important contribution to our understandings of the inter-relationships and patterns of association between different monument types throughout the Neolitltic and Bronze Age.

 Within Pembrokeshire there are a number of well-known complexes, including Stackpole Warren in the south of the region, and Letterston in the northwest. There is also a cluster of complexes within the Preselis. Unfortunately access to the Glyn-y-Fran complex was not possible during the PFRS project, but it is believed that the complex consists of four ring barrows or ring ditches with flaked stone artefacts found in association with the sites when the area was fieldwalked in 1989. Of the remaining eight prehistoric monument complexes recognised during the fieldwork phase of the project, all contain a varying range and number of different prehistoric monuments within their spectrum. At Newhouse, there are four round barrows, one ring barrow and a standing stone. Both the Stackpole Warren complexes in south Pembrokeshire and the complex at Carn Menyn , located in the Preseli hills in the north of the county, each comprise two round barrows and a standing stone, with the complex at Ty-Newydd, Mathry, recording the association between one round barrow and standing stone. At Parc Maen, Llangolman, the com­plex consists of two standing stones, a round barrow and a whole series of post-holes, charcoal- filled pits and stone settings, which were excavated under salvage conditions by Cambria Archaeology (Dyfed Archaeological Trust) in 1981-2. 21 However, the complexes at Letterston and Prisk are perhaps the most interesting and multi-phase prehistoric sites recorded within the SMR for Pembrokeshire. At Letterston the complex com­prised three round barrows, one of which was originally an embanked stone circle, a single standing stone, and a ‘trilithon’ triangular arrange­ment of stones (perhaps the remains of a stone circle) which was once possibly located within a circular earthwork, itself a potential henge. All of the monuments were built on a NE-SW alignment, and suggest that the area was a focus for continuous ritual activity during the later Neo­lithic and early Bronze Age. 30 At Prisk, Maenclochog, the monument complex consisted of a huge earthwork (henge?) which enclosed the remains of one, and possibly two, chambered tombs, and up to four standing stones, with the henge covering an area some 400m x 250m. With the exception of the complexes at Stackpole and Ty Newydd , all the remaining prehistoric monument complexes were located on land above 100m, with that at Carn Menyn the highest at 335 m. Both the complexes at Stackpole were intervisible with each other and all the sites within them overlooked the sea.

Round barrow cemetery (Fig. 5 – 19 sites) – for this survey a group of three or more round barrows were classed as a cemetery, on the basis that they exist within close proximity to one another: few will be more than 150m from their nearest neighbour and most will be less than 100m apart.31

 In total, there are 13 probable barrow cemeteries and six possible ceme­teries in Pembrokeshire, the possible sites being those which are largely destroyed or known only from documentary sources. Nine sites were located within the Preseli hills, six of which were located on land above 250m. There were fantastic views achievable from these sites, and they were also located in prominent locations, which often dominated the viewshed from a number of other PPR sites. Another band of round barrow cemeteries form an east-west alignment in the far south of the county, roughly between Tenby and Angle, seemingly following the line of ‘The Ridgeway’, which was possibly an ancient trackway through the landscape around which these barrow cemeteries were focussed. Good examples of this site type can be visited at Foel Drygarn and Frenni Fawr.

Round barrow pair (12 sites) – a clear pairing of two round barrows sited within close proximity of each other, usually within 100m, and distinct from individual round barrows and barrow cemeteries. Often, though not always, the two barrows will be of similar size and construc­tion, suggesting they were deliberately paired together and were not simply the result of an unfinished cemetery or intended larger grouping. This twinning of round barrows may reflect a regional tradition, which is also represented by ‘standing stone pairs’.

 In Pembrokeshire there are 9 probable and 3 possible pairs of round barrows, mostly located in very prominent locations in the landscape, notable examples including the pairs at Crugiau Dwy and Mynydd Castlebythe. On Plumstone mountain there are two pairs of barrows located 400m apart from each other on an east-west alignment. Of the remaining sites, many are located on local summits and ‘high’ places within the more lower-lying land of the county, suggesting that as with round barrow cemeteries, prominent landscape locations were a key factor in the siting of these monuments.

DISCUSSION

The overall distribution of all monument types within Pembrokeshire shows a relatively even spread of prehistoric funerary and ritual monu­ments across the county, suggesting that during the Neolithic and Bronze Age the landscape was both populated and popular with monument builders and users. However, there seem to be two bands across the county where monuments are slightly more dense in distribution: one band occupies the northern third of Pembrokeshire from the Preseli hills across to St David’s with the majority of sites located on land 100m and above; the second band is located in the most southerly part of the region below a line between Tenby and Angle Buy. In south Pembrokeshire, whilst the land lies below 100m, there are a number or gentle spines running roughly east-west across this area, and it is upon these spines that the majority of monuments are focussed. The Ridgeway is a well – known example of this, and is likely to have been a prehistoric trackway across this part of the county, which may account for the clustering of monu­ments along its length. The ‘banding’ of   monuments noted above is particularly noticeable in the distribution of group monument types (see figure 5). It is possible that the bias in the record could be explained by a partiality in preservation, although it must also be considered that certain prehistoric funerary and ritual monuments were deliberately not built in some areas. Analysis of the topographical siting recorded for both indi­vidual and group monument types during field work suggested that hill slopes were by far the most preferred locations for the majority of sites, particularly in the case of chambered tombs and standing stones, with 242 sites in total recorded as having hill slope locations. However, some variations between different monument types are suggested by the data. For example, 68 round barrows are located in ‘ hilltop’ locations (defined as either summits, local summits, ridges or high plateaux) compared to only 11 standing stones recorded in such locations. 73 % of standing stones are, however, located on hill slopes, compared to 29% of round barrows. 76% of chambered tombs are recorded on hill slopes, with only 2 sites having ‘hilltop’ locations. It has been suggested that standing stones in southwest Wales are generally sited within the lower one-third of the altitudinal range of a given area. 32 However, the topographic location of sites in Pembrokeshire suggests a rather more variable location. Nonetheless, there does appear to be different locational criteria for the siting of the three largest groups of monuments, which is no doubt linked to their different symbolic meanings and their reflection of different traditions of monument construction and usage from the early Neolithic through to the middle Bronze Age.

When comparing and contrasting the locational patterns of individual monument types in more detail, a number of interesting trends emerge. For example, with the exception of the three most well-represented types of monuments (chambered tombs, standing stones, and round barrows) the majority of the remaining site types are almost exclusively found within the northern half of Pembrokeshire, and for the most part favoured locations on land above 100m. Apart from the one possible cremation cemetery at South Hills (known only from antiquarian documentary sources), located just north of the Ridgeway in south Pembrokeshire, the other remaining cist and cremation sites are all located in an east-west band across the Preseli hills from Pantgwyn in the east across to Tre­mynydd, near St Davids, in the west. The four possible henge monu­ments are all located in the northern portion of the county, with potential sites near Letterston, Clarbeston, Maenclochog and Pentre Galar. With the exception of the possible stone row near Dale (which is more likely to be the result of glacial deposition), the remaining stone row sites near Abercastle, Manorowen, Llanychaer, Puncheston, and Eisteddfa, are, too, concentrated in the north of the region, and again form a band across the Preseli hills. However, whilst the majority of stone circles in Pembrokeshire are indeed located in the north of the region, with a concen­tration of well-known extant examples on the Preseli hills such as Gors Fawr and Bedd Arthur, there is a generally wider spread of this monu­ ment type in Pembrokeshire compared with what has been seen for cists, cremations, henges and stone rows. For example, there are probable stone circle sites to the southwest of the Preselis at Plumstone and Treffgarne, and also towards the coast at Druidston and Haroldston West, with other possible stone circles occurring near Hundleton, and also at Brunt Farm near Dale, where two Neolithic stone axes were found (now housed in Tenby Museum). Both sites are located in the south of the county, but unfortunately no traces of these monuments survive today.

In Pembrokeshire, as noted earlier, the three most commonly found monument types are chambered tombs, standing stone and round bar­ rows. Chambered tombs are the earliest known prehistoric funerary and ritual monuments found in the county, and have been extensively studied and interpreted, their sheer density comparable only to Anglesey and the Cotswolds.33 Their interpretation and classification has been debated and contested for many years, 34 and these enigmatic monuments continue to be a source of fascination. Links along the Irish seaboard have been suggested, with external influences of monument building perhaps being fused with local landscapes and mythologies, resulting in their problematic typological analysis and classification today. The unique nature of some of the Pembrokeshire sites (e.g. Cerrig y Gof and other ‘earthfast ‘ examples such as Carn Wnda) compares with the more widely recognised portal-dolmen type, as demonstrated by Pentre lfan and Carreg Coetan Arthur, known else where in parts of northwest and south east Wales.35 The majority of probable chambered tombs in Pembrokeshire lie within the northern half of the county although none are sited on land above 250m. More clearly noticeable, however, is that all chambered tomb sites seem to be specifically located near sources of water, being sited on the coast and following the major rivers. They often either overlook the sea, or are sited close to springs, streams, or with glimpses of the sea as dictated by the surrounding topography. No other monu­ment type in Pembrokeshire so clearly demonstrates this particular relationship between water and site location.

Standing stones are the second largest group of prehistoric funerary/ ritual monuments represented in Pembrokeshire. In terms or distribution, two bands of probable sites are visible which show a greater density of stones located above a line running from the coast at St Davids across to the Carmarthenshire border at Llanwinio in the north , and secondly below a line running from Tavernspite to Marloes in the south of the region. However, it is interesting to note the relative paucity of standing stone sites in the middle band of the county, where so far only possible stand­ing stone sites have largely been recorded. 36 Such stones are recorded only as possible stones because of a lack of certainty about their authen­ticity : some of the stones are no longer extant, others have bee n moved or re-used, whilst others are possible rubbing stones. Only excavation of these sites would be likely to solve the puzzle. The distribution of stand­ing stone pairs, however , a seemingly regional variation in monument building within southwest Wales, is considerably more distinct. The re are 11 probable sites in Pembrokeshire and all are clustered on Mynydd Preseli (with the exception of the pair near Moylgrove, which had originally been recorded as a possible chambered tomb) and most are intervisible with other prehistoric monuments, in particular with other standing stones. In addition there is a stone pair associated with the stone circle as Gors Fawr, whilst at Cerrig Lladron the stone pair there is inter­visible with the round barrow on Foel Eryr.

The most common prehistoric funerary and ritual monument type in Pembrokeshire, and indeed for the whole of the former Dyfed region, are ’round barrows’. The term ’round barrow’ covers a wide variety of dif­ferent monument sizes and composition, with some barrows composed purely of stone, although they are more usually are an admixture of both stone and earth in varying proportions. Round barrows are equally varied in size and height, but hold in common a usually clearly defined circular shape. Sometimes, where preserved, a rounded profile is also evident, although these monuments assumed a variety of different forms (rounded, flat-topped, low, small, high, large, kerbed, capped), which would undoubtedly have played a role in their ritual usage and their ‘monu­mentality’. These differing types of round barrow form may potentially reflect localised traditions, but equally may be deliberate variations on a symbolic, social and cultural level, especially where these different forms are closely associated in the landscape. In terms of topographic siting, extant round barrows favour upland locations, for the most part in prominent positions with commanding views out over the wider land­ scape. Intervisibility between other sites, and in particular between other round barrows, seems also to play a large part in determining their exact positioning. Unlike the other monument types, which are less well­ represented in the middle band of the county, a greater number of individual round barrows are known from the more lowland contexts in this middle portion, but their preservation is varied. Many have been plough-levelled, but have traces still visible, whereas others are now known only from documentary sources. It is possible that round barrows have survived better in the more intensively farmed middle band of the county as they are less easy to remove than, for example, standing stones. Despite a more even distribution of round barrows within the county, there is still a greater concentration of these monuments in the north across the Preseli hills, although a degree of clustering is also visible in the south. There is a distinct band of round barrow sites seem­ingly focussed along the line of the Ridgeway in south Pembrokeshire, with a further clustering of sites at Castlemartin/Brownslade and Stack­pole/Bosherston. A second band of barrows follows another ‘spine’ of land from Dry Burrows in the east to below Angle Bay to the west. As groups of sites, round barrows in cemeteries are almost exclusively located on high ground, and often dominate the skyline for miles around. Particularly good examples of this include the round barrow cemeteries on top of Foel Drygarn and Foel Cwmcerwyn, located on the highest points of the Preselis. There are also four separate round harrow ceme­teries in the south of the region, at Bier Hill, Hodgestone Hill, Orielton and Wallaston, with another possible cemetery at Kilpaison. Together these form an east-west band focussed again on the Ridgeway and from Dry Burrows to south of Angle. The extensive views that were achievable from these sites, despite their seemingly more low- lying location on the distribution maps, suggests that panorama over the surrounding land­scape was a crucial factor in deciding their precise location.

The nine prehistoric monument complexes so far recorded also demon­strates that the grouping together of more than one type or prehistoric monument was not an entirely uncommon practice in Pembrokeshire, and suggests the deliberate creation of more localised ritual landscapes which were in use for many hundreds or years. From many of these groups of sites it was not only possible to see the othe r monuments within the immediate group but it was also possible to look out over to other prominent locations in the landscape where other groups of sites were also present.

A clear pattern which emerges from the above discussion is the appar­ently careful choosing of quite specific locations for the siting of different individual monument types. This was especially seen within the loca­tional analysis of chambered tombs. Intervisibility between sites was a pattern also clearly observed during the fieldwork phase: even if the actual monuments themselves were not directly visible, their locations certainly were. It is hoped that these observations can be further tested in order to see if they are statistically valid by applying techniques used within Geographic Information Systems (GIS) such as digital terrain modelling and visualisation studies (e.g. such as those applied at Stone­henge).73 As a result of the PFRS project in Carmarthenshire, a preliminary examination of topographic location, cost surface analysis and viewshed using GIS was recently applied to a small selection of monu­ments within the Upper Tywy valley 38 with very promising results. The Preseli hills in particular appear to be a magnet for prehistoric activity, but although the area of the Preselis is undeniably a significant ritual landscape in the Neolithic and Bronze Age, (and as a result tends to receive greater attention in archaeological discussion (see, for example, the SPACES project), 39 the south of the county should not be forgotten as being a significant area in its own right.

There is no escaping the fundamental relationships which seem to have existed between the natural and cultural worlds in the prehistoric past, and a variety of literature has been produced offering various interpre­tations as to what these monuments might ‘mean’.40 Many of the monu­ments looked out over huge swathes of undulating landscape dominated inland by the major valleys of the Cleddau and by the upland blocks in the north of the region across the Preselis, whilst not forgetting that the greater proportion of the county is dominated by its coastline. As we have seen, the location of sites appeared to make specific reference to significant natural elements such as water. Monuments were often located close to natural springs or small streams, or were actually directly overlooking rivers or the sea. A number of monuments were also located in waterlogged and boggy areas in the landscape as if to further re-affirm a connection between ritual practice and natural elements. Such sites offer the chance for palaeoenvironmental research, which informs our understanding of what the landscape might have looked like through analyses of pollen cores and samples, and can tell us what species flourished at that time.

As this project develops it will be interesting to compare these patterns with those already seen in Carmarthenshire 41   and Ceredigion,42   where fieldwork is currently being undertaken . It is hoped that the work undertaken during the course of the PFRS project will contribute to a wider understanding and interpretation of the nature and significance of ritual and funerary monuments in the prehistoric past, and in association with the other Welsh Archaeological Trusts and Cadw, will enable the development of a regional and national perspective on Neolithic and Bronze Age monumentality in Wales.

Acknowledgements

 The project and this paper were undertaken with the assistance of Richard Ramsey (fieldwork) , Marion Page (SMR), and Ken Murphy, with thanks also to Gwilym Hughes, Sian Rees and Kate Robets. The fieldwork aspect was facilitated by the co-operation and kindness or the numerous landowners and farmers who gave permission to access the monuments on their land, and also by those who contributed their local knowledge, which was often enlightening. The project was funded by a grant from Cadw. Illustrative maps were kindly pro­duced by Ken Murphy.

 Published with the aid of a grant from Cadw.

 

Notes

 

1. A pilot project was undertaken by Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) in 1997 to examine Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ritual monuments in the Upper Severn Valley. During this project a preliminary working methodology and glossary of terminology were developed (A.M. Gibson, Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites: Upper Severn Valley, (unpub­lished CPAT Report 277, 1998)). Similar surveys by CPAT followed for sites in Denbigh & East Conwy during 1998-9 (N. W. Jones, Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites: Denbighshire & East Conwy (unpublished CPAT Report 314, 1999)) and Flintshire & Wrexham during I 999-2000 (N. W. Jones, Pre­ historic Funerary and Ritual Sites: Flintshire and Wrexham (unpublished CPAT Report 351, 2000)). The funding for this Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites project was extended during 2000-2001 to facilitate the first of a series of surveys undertaken by the three other Welsh Archaeological Trusts, with all the work having been funded by Cadw.
2. There is, however, in Pembrokeshire a number of key Neolithic/Bronze Age settlement sites such as Clegyr Boia (A. Williams, ‘Clegyr Boia, St David’s (Pembs): Excavation in 1943’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 52, (1952), 20-47), Stackpole Warren (D. G. Benson, J. G. Evans, G. H. Williams, T. Darvill, and A. David, ‘Excavations at Stackpole Warren, Dyfed’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 56, (1990), 179-246) and possibly the complex on Skomer Island (J. G. Evans, ‘An archaeological survey of Skomer, Dyfed’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 56, (1990), 247-269). Recent work by Cambria at Redberth has also revealed stake-built structures supported by radiocarbon dates from charcoal deposits within post-holes fills, which gave a date range of c.3700-2200BC for the site.
3. There were no recorded examples of the following site types in Pembroke­shire, although they are recorded as Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and/or ritual monuments elsewhere within Wales:

Long barrow – earthwork or cropmark indications of a long and roughly rectangular or trapezoidal mound of earth and/or stones, presumed to have been built and used as a funerary and/or ritual monument during the early to middle Neolithic.

Palisaded enclosure – one or more rows of pits identified from crop­ marks or excavation, forming the perimeter of an enclosure which may be associated with Neolithic funerary or ritual activity.

Pit – a pit or pits of unknown function, usually associated with funerary and ritual monuments of the Neolithic and Bronze Age and identified from cropmark evidence or excavation.

Pit avenue – two parallel rows of pits, possibly originally for upright timbers, forming an avenue. So far, the only known example in Wales is in the Walton Basin in association with a palisaded enclosure (see A. M. Gibson, The Walton Basin Project: Excavation and Survey in a Pre­ historic Landscape 1993-7 (Research Report 118, York: CBA, 1999)).

Timber circle – sites which have been shown by excavation to have con­ sisted of one or more concentric settings of upright posts set in individual post-holes associated with funerary and/or ritual activity of later Neolithic or early Bronze Age date. The definition also includes timber circles which may form part of a henge (A. M. Gibson, ‘Excavations at the Sam-y-Bryn-Caled cursus complex, Welshpool, Powys, and the timber circles of Great Britain and Ireland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 60, (1994),143-223))

4.  S. Rees, ‘Excavations at Carreg Coetan Arthur chambered tomb, Newport, Pembs.’ (Cadw, forthcoming).

5.  F. Lynch, ‘Excavations at Carreg Samson Megalithic Tomb, Mathry, Pem­ brokeshire’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 124, (1975), 15-35.

6. W. F. Grimes, Pentre–lfan burial chamber, Nevern, Pembrokeshire, (Ministry of Works, HMSO: London, 1960)

7.  F. Lynch (1975), 27.

8.  Sian:Rees, pers. comm., 16th January 2006

9.  C. T. Barker, The Chambered Tombs of South West Wales, (Oxbow Mono­ graph 14: Oxford, 1992)

10.  V. Cummings and A. Whittle, Places of Special Virtue: Megaliths in the Neolithic Landscapes of Wales, (Oxbow Books: Oxford, 2004).

11.  A. Fleming, ‘ Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales’, Antiquity, 79 (205), 921-932.

12.  D. G. Benson, J. G. Evans, G. H. Williams, T. Darvill, and A. David, ‘Excavations at Stackpole Warren, Dyfed’ , Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 56, (1990), 179-24.

Ibid., 190-5.

14.  G. H. Williams, The Standing   Stones of Wales and South-West England, (BAR British Series l97, Oxford, J988).

15. J. M. Lewis, ‘Excavations at Rhos-y-Clegyrn Prehistoric Site, St Nicholas, Pembs’ , Archaeologia Cambrensis, 1 23, (1974), 13-42.

16. D. G. Benson etal (1990).

17. H. N. Savory, ‘Two middle Bronze Age palisade barrow s at Letterston, Pembrokeshire’, ArchaeologiaCambrensis, I 00, (l948), 67-89 .

18. H. N. Savory, ‘Excavations at a third round barrow at Pen-dre, Letterston (Pembs.) 1961’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 20, (1 963 ), 309-25.

19 E. C. Marshall and K. Murphy, ‘The excavation of two Bronze Age cairns with associated standing stones in Dyfed, Pare Maen and Aber Camddwr II’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 140, (1991), 28-76.

20. Ibid., 29-40.

21. It is important to note that at most, if not all, prehistoric funerary and ritual monuments, there would have been depositional activity not just at the sites themselves but also in the areas surrounding the sites, although evidence for such activity generally lies below the surface and is encountered only by chance or through excavation..

22. This site type is included by CPAT as a sub-type under the category of round barrow, but it is strongly felt that ring barrows are a distinct monument form in their own right, and have thus remained in the Cambria Archaeology SMR as ring barrows.

23. F. Lynch, Excavations in the Brenig Valley: A Mesolithic and Bronze Age La,ndscape in North Wales (Cambrian Archaeological Association Mono­ graph 5, Cardiff, 1993).

24. F. Lynch, ‘The Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age’ in F. Lynch, S. Aldhouse-Green and J. Davies Prehistoric Wales, (Sutton Publishing: Thrupp, 2000), 135.

25. F. Lynch, ‘Moel Goedog Circle I, A complex ring cairn near Harlech’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 133, (1984), 8-50.

26. R. Fenton, Historical Tour Through Pembrokeshire (London, 1811).

27. T. Kirk and G.H. Williams, ‘ Glandy Cross: a later prehistoric monumental complex in Carmarthenshire, Wales’ , Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 66, (2000), 275-95; P. A. Ward, G. H. Williams, E. C. Marshall and I. M. Darke ‘The Glandy Cross Complex’, Archaeology in Wales 27, (1987), 9-12.

28. S. Rees, Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales, Dyfed (Cadw, HMSO, 1992) .

29. E. C. Marshall and K. Murphy (1991).

30. H. N. Savory (1948); H. N. Savory (1963).

31. The English Heritage Thesaurus of Monument Class Descriptions defines a round barrow cemetery as five or more barrows, whilst CPAT define a ceme­ tery as 2 or more barrows. Cambria Archaeology uses the term ‘ Round barrow pair’ to distinguish pairs of barrows from suggested ‘cemeteries’ of sites, believing that the pairing of sites was a deliberate arrangement, as was also the case with pairs of standing stones (‘Standing stone pairs’), which are distinct from a stone row.

32. Roese: cited in G. H. Williams (1988), 5-6.

33. V. Cummings, ‘The monuments of south-west Wales and their landscape settings’ in V. Cummings and A. Whittle (2004), 24-41.

34. In particular see W. F. Grimes, ‘The Megalithic Monuments of Wales’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 2 (1936), 106-139; G.E. Daniel, ‘ The Prehistori c Chambered Tombs of England and Wales’ (Cambridge, 1950 ); F. Lynch, ‘Portal dolmens in the Nevern Valley, Pembrokeshire’, in F. Lynch and C. Burgess (eds.), Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West (Adams & Dart: Bath, 1972), 67-84; C. T. Barker (1992); C. Tilley, A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, (Berg: London, 1994); A. Fleming, ‘Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: a dreaming too far?’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, (1999), 119-25; V. Cummings (2004).

35. F. Lynch, ‘The Earlier Neolithic’ in F. Lynch, S. Aldhouse-Green and J. Davies (2000), 42-79.

36. Standing stones as a site type tend to be particularly vulnerable to clearance and land improvement measures, and this may go some way towards account­ ing for the paucity of sites in more intensively farmed areas.

37. S. Exon, V. Gaffney, A. Woodward, and R. Yorston, Stonehenge Landsca pes: Journeys through real–and-imagined worlds (Archaeopress, Oxford , 2000).

38. A. Davey, ‘ Approaching the determinants of site location: a study of the pre­ historic funerary and ritual monuments of the upper Tywi valley’, (unpub­ lished MA project Birmingham: BUFAU, 2002).

39. G. Wainwright and T. Darvill, ‘Strumble-Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment Study (SPACES): First Report 2002’, Archaeology in Wales, 42 (2002); G. Wainwright, D. Morgan Evan, and T. Darvill, ‘Strumble-Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment Study (SPACES): Second Report 2003’ , Archaeology in Wales 43 (2003).

40. Some of the key texts which reflect current interpretive trends and have indirectly informed- this article include: R. Bradley, The Significance of Monum ents: on the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe, (Routledge, London, 1998); M. Edmonds, Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: landsca pes, monuments and memory, (Routledge, London, 1999); C. Richards, ‘Henges and water: towards an elemental understanding of monumentality and landscape in late Neolithic Britain’ , Journal of Material Culture l, (1996), 313-336; J. S. Thomas, Understanding the Neolithic, (Routledge, London, 1999); C. Tilley (1994); A. Fleming (1999, 2005).

41. N. J. Bestley, Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites Project: west Carmar­ thenshire (unpublished Cambria Archaeology Re port 2001/25, 2001); N. J. Cook, E. G. Hughes, N. Page, and R. Ramsey, Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites Project: east Carmarthenshire (unpublished Cambria Archaeology Report 2002/94, 2003); NJ. Cook ‘ Prehis to ric funerary and ritual sites in Carmarthenshire,’ Carmarthenshire Antiquary 39, (2004), 5-21.

42. N. J. Cook, ‘Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites Project: Ceredigion’ (unpublished Cambria Archaeology Report, 2006/32, 2006).