Time and Mind:
The Journal of
Archaeology,
Consciousness
and Culture
Volume I—Issue III
November 2008
pp. 345–362
DOI
10.2752/175169708X329381
Reprints available directly
from the publishers
Photocopying permitted by
licence only
© Berg 2008
Encoding a Neolithic
Landscape
The Linearity of
Burial Monuments
along Strumble Head,
South-west Wales
George Nash
George Nash is a visiting fellow at the Department of
Archaeology and Anthropology and co-organizes the final
two years of the part-time degree in Archaeology. He is
also principal archaeologist at SLR Consulting in Shrewsbury
and writes and presents for radio and television. George is
currently co-directing rock-art projects in Italy and Wales
and is co-director of the Vadastra Project in Romania and
involved in field schools in Malaysia and Northern Italy.
[email protected]
Abstract
In terms of geography, the distribution of Welsh Neolithic
burial monuments and their setting has recently been
discussed by Tilley (1994), Children and Nash (2002),
Cummings and Whittle (2004), Burrows (2006) and
Nash (2006). Tilley has applied an ancestral geography,
its roots embedded in the Mesolithic, to a number of
Neolithic ritual/burial monuments occupying the core
areas of south-west and central Wales. Cummings and
Whittle have approached monument location using the
concept of view sheds. (i.e., the landscape features that can
be seen from each monument). Children and Nash, and
recently Nash, have explored similar approaches, focusing
on intervisibility between neighboring monuments and
monument, chamber, and passage orientation. Although
some of these approaches have been seen as flawed (e.g.
Fleming 2005), the interaction between burial, monument
construction, and landscape must be considered as
being important to a monument’s builders and users.
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
346 Encoding a Neolithic Landscape
Steve Burrows has provided a good
introduction to the construction and
use of Neolithic burial-ritual monuments
using the excellent archive recourses of
the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff.
Children and Nash (2002) identify a
number of clusters within south-west
Wales that appear to conform to a
number of architectural and landscape
rules; one of these groups, the Fishguard
Group, is located on Strumble Head (Nash
2006). Nash has recognized that elements
of this group form a linear distribution
comprising up to ten monuments.
This paper discusses in detail the
architecture of each of the Strumble Head
monuments and explores the concept
of linearity, a trait that is common in the
siting of European Bronze Age barrows
and cairns but limited in respect of
Neolithic ritual/burial monuments. It
is clear that there is intentionality in
the distribution of the Strumble Head
monuments, which utilize a series of jagged
peaks along the uplands.
Keywords: linearity, monument, landscape
grammar, uplands, visibility
Introduction
The counties of Cardiganshire,
Carmarthenshire, and Pembrokeshire, in
south-west Wales, contain at least sixtyfive surviving monuments, which are
described generically as Neolithic burialritual chambered monuments (Children and
Nash 2002). However, the Neolithic spans
some 2,000 years, and a number of different
burial chamber forms—including earth-fast
monuments, gallery graves, long barrows,
chambered round mounds, and portal
George Nash
dolmens—are recorded within the Neolithic
from this part of Britain (Barker 1992; Daniel
1950). In terms of distribution, Children and
Nash (2002) and later Nash (2006) have
arranged the monuments into nine clusters,
one of which comprises the Fishguard
Group. This cluster includes a cemetery
group from Gar n Wen (PEM 7–9)1and single
monuments at Carn Wnda (PEM 13), Parcy-Cromlech (PEM 14), Garn Gilfach (PEM
15), Ffyst Samson (PEM 16), Carreg Samson
(PEM 18) and Ffynnondruidion (PEM 28).
Nearly all appear to conform to the same
architectural rules and landscape positioning,
each monument embracing the fertile
lowlands north and south of an east-west
upland ridge, which straddles Strumble Head
(Figure 1). Excluded from the list, but forming
part of the discussion, is the destroyed
monument of Y Garn, which once stood
between Garn Gilfach and Carn Wnda.
Problems with Morphology and
Setting
The uplands along Strumble Head contain
a number of small and unobtrusive submegalithic rectangular chambers, which
usually exhibit little or no evidence of a
covering mound and which are almost all
located close to or within rock outcropping
(Nash 2006). Glyn Daniel (1950) has
classified several of these as being “earthfast,” having one end of the chamber
capstone deliberately buried rather than
being supported by upright stones. However,
more than 5,000 years of natural denudation
and antiquarian damage may have created
monuments that appear to be earth-fast but
which in fact represent a different type and it
is likely that there is only one true earth-fast
monument—Carn Wnda—within this group
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
Encoding a Neolithic Landscape 347
George Nash
Fig 1 Distribution of Neolithic monuments on Strumble Head
(Figure 2). Daniel (1950) believes a shallow
cairn wall may have been built against the
side of this monument’s chamber to conceal
any burial/mortuary ritual activity. This being
the case, the monument would have merged
with the surrounding rocky landscape, its
users relying on memory and geography
to locate it. Several monuments, such as
Garn Gilfach and Garn Wen, are sited on
intermediate slopes, among extensive rock
outcropping, and they probably behaved in a
similar way.
Monuments located east of the Fishguard
Group take the sea as their main visual
focus, even though each is locally oriented or
physically associated with natural terrestrial
features within the immediate landscape.
The Garn Wen cemetery, for example,
would have had, during its use, uninterrupted
views across the sea to Dinas Head to
the east2 but, immediately west, a large
glacially smooth rock outcrop impedes the
view, what Cummings and Whittle refers
to as a closed landscape (2004). At Carn
Wnda, the fertile plain to the north of the
uplands would have been in view, but rock
outcropping would have obscured views
to the south. The dramatic landscape of St
David’s Head to the west is an important
focal point for Garn Gilfach but the peaks of
Garn Gilfach block the view to the north.
In landscape terms, the exposed peaks
of Garn Fawr, Garn Gilfach and Garnwnda
appear to form a natural barrier dividing the
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
348 Encoding a Neolithic Landscape
George Nash
Fig 2 The earth-fast
monument of Carn Wnda,
hidden within a rocky landscape
northern coastal plain of Strumble Head
from the rest of northern Pembrokeshire.
It is along this ridge that the Neolithic
monuments are located, all of which probably
date to the Late Neolithic (c.2,600 to 2,000
cal. BC). Three of these monuments, including
the Garn Wen cemetery, appear to be
located at regularly spaced intervals, forming
an E–W line either side of the upland that
runs along the southern extent of Strumble
Head (Figure 1). Two other monuments,
Carn Wnda and Parc-y-Cromlech, occupy
similar landscape positions. Oriented on
the same east-west line but located on the
western side of Strumble Head is Garn
Gilfach, although this monument, unlike the
other three, is located on the southern side
of the upland, facing St David’s Head and the
monuments of nearby Carrig Samson and
Ffyst Samson. The Garn Gilfach monument is
intervisible with Ffyst Samson itself, standing
close to the summit of an exposed rock
outcrop to the south.
Encoding Grammar Architecture
Primarily, the location of each monument
is known and reasonable descriptions have
been produced (e.g. Daniel 1950; Barker
1992, Nash 2006). These accounts are
based in part on early antiquarian narratives
by Thomas Fenton (1810) and the
Reverend E.L. Barnwell (1872). Both
Fenton and Barnwell were also concerned
with the “excavation” of a number of
monuments within this area, including
Garn Gilfach.
As stated earlier, I have listed up to ten
monuments occupying various landscape
settings in and around Strumble Head.
Their state of preservation generally is such
that they are difficult to classify generically;
however, all of the monuments occupying
the jagged uplands are similar architecturally,
comprising a simple east-west polygonal or
rectangular chamber. The uniform chamber
size, the absence of a mound, and the
practice of cremation3 together suggest
that this group dates to the Late Neolithic.
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
Encoding a Neolithic Landscape 349
George Nash
Monuments such as Carreg Samson and
Ffyst Samson, each occupying different
landscape locations away from the linearity
of the Strumble Head upland monuments,
possibly date to the earlier Neolithic (e.g.
Lynch 1976).
According to Barker (1992), the Garn
Wen cemetery, located north of Fishguard
and the village of Goodwick, comprises three
monuments, which stand in a north–south
line, between 90 and 95m AOD. The
monuments are architecturally similar;
each has a partially rock-cut chamber and,
according to Daniel, this is incorporated into
a round mound (1950: 200), although Barker
(1992: 27) argues that there is no evidence
of mound material around the monuments.
The chambers are delineated by a series of
short uprights supporting a large capstone
(Figure 3). The best-preserved of the three
is the southernmost monument, Carrig
Samson (not to be confused with Carreg
Samson above), which has five uprights
delineating a polygonal chamber supporting
a large dislodged capstone. The antiquarian
Thomas Fenton visited the site in the early
nineteenth century and commented that
all three monuments had been disturbed.
Interestingly, Fenton (1810: 11) recognized
the proximity of the rock outcropping and
states that “[i]t appears as if they had in
project here a much greater establishment,
as the above monuments are close to a
rock of the green serpentine of that county.”
Several recent visits by the author have
confirmed that there are at least two other
similarly constructed monuments within this
group, further extending the linearity of this
cemetery.
The damaged monument of Parc-yCromlech stands approximately 500m to
Fig 3 Simple chambered monument belonging to
the Garn Wen cemetery
the west of the Garn Wen cemetery. This
simple chambered monument, also known
as Penrhiw, probably once stood within a
cairn mound. The RCAM inventory of 1925
reports the chamber as being infilled with
“field gathered stones.” In the same report,
it is recorded that the capstone had been
removed. This was subsequently reerected
by W.F. Grimes, who made a plan of the
site in the mid-1930s (Grimes 1936). The
monument comprises a rectangular chamber
delineated by three large rectangular uprights,
which now support the once dislodged
capstone. Several large stones outside the
chamber may once have formed part of
the architecture. The chamber size and
orientation are similar to others within the
group, but its position on undulating terrain
between substantial outcrops to the east
and west is not. Approximately 900m to the
west of this monument, on a rocky northwest-facing slope, is the earth-fast monument
of Carn Wnda.
Carn Wnda comprises a small rockcut (sub-megalithic) rectangular chamber
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
350 Encoding a Neolithic Landscape
covered by a rectangular capstone supported
by a single upright at the northern end
and by a bed of rubble and earth at the
opposite end. The monument was probably
not covered by a mound. Grimes (1936:
31) noted that the chamber walls were
originally constructed of drystone walling.
The strategic use of stone suggests that the
monument’s builders were concerned with
concealment, as Carn Wnda, even from a
short distance, merges with the surrounding
rock outcrops, what Fenton (1810: 12) refers
to as “a mass of stone of a most grotesque
appearance.” In terms of excavation, the
antiquarian account for Carn Wnda is
reasonable. The site was investigated by
Fenton, who unearthed a small urn made
from a coarse crumbly fabric (1810: 284),
which contained cremated human bone.
Fenton records the discovery of more
cremated bone within a red and black ash
deposit from the chamber area (ibid.: 284).
The Garn Gilfach monument is located
west of a destroyed site known as Y Garn
and is known by a number of different
names. The monument occupies an identical
landscape position to that of Carn Wnda
and the chamber morphology, consisting
of a rectangular rock-cut pit, is similar.
The chamber is delineated by four short
uprights supporting a low capstone (Figure
4). The monument was first investigated
by Fenton in 1810, and Barker (1992: 33)
remarks, correctly, that Fenton’s Tour gives “an
unusually full account” (1810: 22–3). Fenton
notes that charcoal and pottery had been
found at the site in 1800 (cf. Peterson 2003),
and goes on to describe the monument in
some detail:
George Nash
There is one more remarkable than
the rest; a large unshapen mass of
serpentine [capstone], fifteen feet
by eight and a half average thickness;
under the edges of it are placed nine
or ten small pointed upright stones,
embedded in a strong [stone] pavement,
extending some way round. These small
supporters are fixed without any regard
to their height as only two or three
bear the whole weight of the incumbent
stone, one of which is so pressed by it,
as to have become almost incorporated
with it. On the upper surface of the
Cromlech are three considerable
excavations [carved indentations] near
the centre, probably intended to have
received the blood of the victim, or
waters for purification, if (as is the most
general opinion) they were used as
altars ... This stone has a small inclination
to the north-east. Its height from the
ground is very inconsiderable, being
scarce one foot high in the lowest side;
and on the other only high enough
to admit of a person creeping under
it, though once entered, the space
enlarges from the upper stones having a
considerable concavity. The earth below
is rich and black . . . I have since learned
that the blackness I refer to, appears to
have been chiefly the effect of fire, as
many bits of charcoal and rude pottery
have been picked up there.
It is argued that other possible uprights
are, in fact, the collapsed remnants of a
drystone wall (Barker 1992: 33). There is
no evidence of a mound; the plateau on
which the monument stands appears too
narrow and its construction and landscape
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
Encoding a Neolithic Landscape 351
George Nash
Fig 4 Garn Gilfach capstone and the landscape
view, looking south
setting are similar to others on the Strumble
Head peninsula. An entrance into the main
chamber appears to be situated at the
eastern end, facing away from the views to
the south and St David’s Head (Figure 5).
A later attempt to investigate the
chamber of this monument was undertaken
by a Mr Blight, a local antiquarian, who
unearthed a piece of flint that Barnwell
regards as being deliberately placed
(Barnwell 1872: 137).
Located to the south and west of this
line of monuments, and probably dating to
the Early or Middle Neolithic, are Carreg
Samson, Ffynnondruidion and Ffyst Samson.
Carreg Samson and Ffyst Samson are very
different architecturally from monuments
occupying the Strumble Head uplands,
suggesting that these monument groups
were in use at different times during the
Neolithic (Figures 6 and 7). The limited
assemblage of grave goods from Carreg
Samson, which included a hemispherical
bowl, suggests an Early Neolithic date (Lynch
1976: 75). The architectural traits evident
at Carreg Samson and Ffyst Samson are
indicative of the portal dolmen tradition,
which arguably has its roots in the Early
Neolithic, and Barker’s plans suggest
they possessed oval and round mounds,
respectively. Although Ffynnondruidion was
destroyed before 1830, laborers did uncover
a number of artifacts, including a polished
(gabbro) stone axe, again indicative of burial
deposition during the Early and Middle
Neolithic. Alas, very little is known about
the architecture of this monument: it can
only be assumed, based on the grave goods
assemblage, that the monument was a portal
dolmen and similar in design to Carreg
Samson and Ffyst Samson.
Fig 5 Views to the south-west of St David’s
Head from Garn Gilfach
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
352 Encoding a Neolithic Landscape
George Nash
Fig 6 The large portal dolmen
of Carreg Samson, located west
of Strumble Head
Fig 7 The remnants of the chamber of Ffyst
Samson, located south-west of Strumble Head
A missing link?
One definitely missing, presumed destroyed,
monument is located some 550m east of
Garn Gilfach and is referred to as Y Garn,
named after the rock outcrop close to
where it possibly stood.4 The site was first
mentioned by Barnwell, who found difficulty
locating it, in 1865 (1872: 138). However,
the monument is shown on the 1st Edition
Ordnance Survey map of 1888 (Figure
8), and was probably incorporated into a
stone field boundary, oriented NE–SW,
although Barker (1992: 54) suggests that it
was unlikely that a monument existed on
this site. Accounts of this monument are
few and the morphology is thus unknown,
although Daniel states that a single upright
was still in place in the early part of the last
century (1950: 204).5 The author visited
site in July 2007 and found within the
vicinity a concentration of large rounded
stones (NGR SM 91430 39131) (Nash
and Waite forthcoming). The position of
this monument, close to rock outcropping
located to the south-east, is similar to that
of Parc-y-Cromlech. Views of the sea and
the fertile northern plain of Strumble
Head can be seen to the north, while
to the south-west are the jagged peaks
of Garn Gilfach; interestingly, however,
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
Encoding a Neolithic Landscape 353
George Nash
Y Garn, the landscape appears to be visually
drawn from the north, while Garn Gilfach
embraced a landscape to the south and west,
toward St David’s Head.
Toward a Grammar of Landscape
Fig 8 Ordnance Survey map of 1888 showing
the existence of a former Neolithic cromlech
Fig 9 Western views from the destroyed Y Garn
monument
there is no intervisibility with the Garn
Gilfach monument (Figure 9). The act of
concealment may have been intentional, and
each monument may have been ascribed a
unique personalized landscape. In the case of
Fundamental to this paper is the potential
intervisibility between monuments, the
distance between neighboring monuments,
the distance between monuments and
the sea and the landscape position of
each monument. In terms of architecture,
monument, and chamber orientation,
materials used and type/morphology should
also be considered. I suggest that these
architectural and landscape traits establish
an encoded grammar that was known
to the builders and users of neighboring
monuments.
Attempts have been made to promote
the idea that monuments form part of
an ancestral landscape that has a past in
the preceding Mesolithic (Tilley 1994). In
an earlier thought-provoking paper, Tilley
suggests that Neolithic monuments, in
particular the passage-grave tradition of
central Sweden, conform to a strict set of
architectural rules (1991). Nash (1997)
developed this hypothesis in relation
to monuments surrounding the Black
Mountains in central Wales. From these
and other texts, it is clear that an ancestral
geography may have existed and that
this was implicit in the choice of tombbuilding sites. However, the Neolithic spans
more than 2,000 years, equivalent to the
Christian era, and it is thus not surprising
to find considerable architectural change
over such a lengthy period. The ten or so
monuments occupying the intermediate
slopes and fertile hinterlands of Strumble
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
354 Encoding a Neolithic Landscape
George Nash
Table 1 Architectual grammar
Monument
Monument
morphology/
type
Possible Chamber Orientation Size of
date
shape
of chamber chamber
Covering Orientation Interment
mound? Of mound method?
Garn Wen
Cemetery
Sub-meg
LN
R/P
E-W
Various
No?
-
-
Carn Wnda
Earth-fast
LN
R
E-W?
2.7 x 1.9m No
-
Cremation
Parc-y-Cromlech Simple
chamber
LN
R
E-W
3.1 x 2.1m Yes
E-W?
-
Garn Gilfach
Sub-meg
LN
R
E-W
3.5 x 2.5m No
-
Cremation?
Ffyst Samson
Portal Dolmen? MN
R
N-S?
2.0 x 1.7m Yes
E-W
-
Carreg Samson Portal Dolmen
E/MN
O
E-W
3.4 x 1.7m Yes
E-W
Cremation
Ffynnondruidion Unknown
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Y Garn
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Unknown
Head clearly represent several architectural
traditions. The polygonal chamber of Carrig
Samson, standing in slightly undulating terrain,
occupies quite a different landscape from
that of the Garn Wen cemetery group or
Carn Wnda (see Table 1). Not surprisingly,
the architecture of Carn Wnda and the
monuments from Garn Wen are very
different from that of Carrig Samson.
Tilley’s work on passage graves in
Västergötland, in central Sweden, clearly
shows the strategic importance and
intentionality of particular architectural
features (i.e., the nature of the materials
and how they are used). This group of
monuments, consisting of more than 265
passage graves within an area of 38km
by 25km, is the most northerly Neolithic
group in Europe. According to Tilley,
tombs become “socialized” through their
construction and use, thus allowing sites
to become socially-politically manipulated
when in use (1991: 68). This process
is reflected in architectural change or
innovation in burial practice. Tilley’s
analysis shows that monuments conform
to a standardized design, comprising a
passage oriented east–west leading to a
north–south aligned chamber, the entire
structure being incorporated into a round
mound delineated by stone kerbing, for
example the Ekornavallen monument (Figure
10). Furthermore, the capstone overlying
the chamber would probably have been
exposed when the monument was in use.
The resulting interplay of color and texture,
the arrangement of passage and chamber
uprights, and the experience of moving
through different spaces would have been
of great significance to the people who
used the monument. Unsurprisingly, many
architectural traits are replicated in passage
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
Encoding a Neolithic Landscape 355
George Nash
Fig 10 The large passage grave of Ekornavallen, Västergötland
graves elsewhere within the Atlantic Zone
of Europe (Nash 2007) and similar features
are evident in the monument architecture of
Strumble Head.
The passage graves of central Sweden
are regularly spaced across the landscape,
sometimes in rows of up to twelve, and—like
the monuments comprising the Garn Wen
cemetery—are highly visible. Tilley has
identified a set of intriguing architectural
traits, which are replicated in most of the
Västergötland monuments and which
further suggest a recognized design blueprint
associated with their ritual use. Almost all of
the uprights used to construct the passage
and chamber walls are of sedimentary rock,
while the capstones (or roofing stones) are
of igneous rock (Tilley 1991: 70). Entrances
are uniformly narrow, between 0.5m and
0.8m wide, and low, and people would thus
have had to crawl into the passage. Beyond
the entrance, the passage opens out to the
point at which passage and chamber meet.
Here a keystone, or threshold, provides a
clear separation between the space of the
passage and that of the chamber and at
this transition point a deliberately placed
capstone, set lower than the other capstones,
forces one to crouch when entering the
chamber. Like other thresholds, the keystone
is designed to deny visual access to those
looking into the passage from the façade
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
356 Encoding a Neolithic Landscape
area. It may also signify the point at which the
body (or body parts) finally enters the realm
of the ancestors.
To reach the chamber entrance, the
body has to travel the length of the passage,
through what Tilley and others term “liminal
space” (ibid.: 74–5). This physical journey,
albeit short, becomes, in the ritual setting
of the monument, a rite of passage, during
which the body is neither of this world nor
the next. This simplistic hypothesis can be
further elaborated to incorporate a series of
journeys, thereby adding further complexity
to the act of ritually depositing the dead.
Do the monuments of the Strumble Head
uplands exhibit a similar set of landscape and
architectural traits? The Västergötland passage
graves are much larger and earlier that those
on Strumble Head; however, considerable
physical and mental effort would have been
required to access certain areas of the
landscape that may have been regarded as
strictly taboo.
Two Variables of Encoded
Grammar
It was suggested earlier that the builders
and users of the Neolithic monuments of
Strumble Head constructed each monument
to a recognized blueprint, in particular the
concept of defining and enclosing a ritual
landscape. Two clear categories of linearity
are identifiable within the Strumble Head
group. The first is localized and restricted to
the Garn Wen cemetery. Although Barker
recognizes only three monuments in this
group, the author has identified a further two,
and several more probably existed, although
their location is unknown (Pughe 1855: 274;
Laws and Owen 1897–1906). Outside the
area, a similar linear group lies to the west
George Nash
of Pendine Sands in Carmarthenshire. The
Morfa Bychan cemetery, comprising four
(or more) sub-megalithic and freestanding
chambers, extends along a 210m stretch
of exposed rock (Figure 11). Several of
the freestanding chambers were originally
incorporated into round or oval mounds
(Barker 1992: 10–13). The manner in
which these monuments interact with the
landscape points to similarities with the Garn
Wen cemetery (Figure 12). Both are sited
next to exposed rock on small flat parcels of
land overlooking the sea and the views from
both are extensive. A vista incorporating
nearby Gilman Point and the western extent
of Pendine Sands opens out from the Morfa
Bychan cemetery (Figure 13), although
immediately to the west a 4–5m cliff extends
along the cemetery area and restricts the
view. Similarly, the Garn Wen monuments
are oriented roughly N–S and are sited
immediately beneath an extensive rock
outcrop. Although the outlook to the west is
thus obscured by rock, views extend to the
east over the coastline toward Dinas Head.
Both groups of builders appear to have
been concerned with concealment (that
is, with hiding monuments next to or amid
rock outcrops) and also with the concept
of ritualizing a landscape (that is, with
delineating the extent of a natural feature,
such as a rock outcrop), while at the same
time not encroaching upon these features.
The second linearity category (or rule)
involves all of the monuments occupying
the highland ridge along Strumble Head
(see Figure 1). Based on the distribution of
monuments, including the destroyed Y Garn
site, a clear line can be established between
the Garn Wen cemetery in the east and
the westernmost monument, Garn Gilfach.
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
Encoding a Neolithic Landscape 357
George Nash
Fig 11 Morfa Bycham capstone
among rock-fall with 4–5m cliff
immediately west
Located between these are three further
monuments, including Parc-y-Cromlech,
Garn Wnda and Y Garn, each occupying
an intermediate slope next to a high point
within the Strumble Head upland range. In
addition to the occupation of these high
points within the landscape it appears that,
on average, monuments are 550m apart and
stand between 90m and 160m AOD (Table
2). The distribution is, arguably, intentional
with distance and strategic location being
important considerations to the builders and
users.
Based on the landscape position of
surviving monuments and the distance
between each, it can be suggested that at
least two other monuments stood along this
range. The distance between the Garn Wen
cemetery and its western neighbor Parc-yCromlech is 580m, it is 920m between Parcy-Cromlech and Garn Wnda and, further
west, between Y Garn and Garn Gilfach
Fig 12 Linearity of the Garn Wen Cemetery,
looking west
the distance is 550m. The upland range in
which these sites are distributed comprises
five jagged peaks, and burial monuments
occupy four of the five peaks. The two peaks
without a Neolithic mortuary monument
are Garn Fechan and neighboring Garn
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
358 Encoding a Neolithic Landscape
Fig 13 The Morfa Bychan A, looking east toward
Gilman Point and Pendine Sands
Fawr, located 580m and 750m west of Garn
Gilfach, respectively. These two upland peaks
have, nonetheless, a prehistoric presence in
the form of two Iron Age hill enclosures. I
suggest that Garn Fechan may have had a
Neolithic mortuary presence, and another
possible Neolithic burial site may have
existed between Garn Wnda and Y Garn;
the distance between the two is 1,880m.
Between these two monuments are no
peaks or extensive rock-outcrops; however,
in terms of distance between burial sites, a
mortuary site may have existed c.900m west
of Garn Wnda, c.150m north of Pontiago
Farm. From a most useful antiquarian source,
George Nash
Revd E.L. Barnwell, comes mention that a
monument might have existed within this
area but that the area was covered with a
blanket of heathland vegetation at the time
of his reconnoitre (Barnwell 1872: 138).
Although Barnwell did not find the site,
there was reliable information relating to
its whereabouts supplied by a local farmer.
Irrespective of whether or not the two
areas of Garn Fechan and Pontiago Farm
were occupied by Neolithic monuments, a
landscape grammar is still clearly encoded
within the surviving monuments, as nearly all
are located on or near the jagged peaks and
rock outcrops of the Strumble Head upland
range.
Based on the author’s fieldwork, the
monuments straddling the Strumble Head
uplands possess little intervisibility while
monuments to the south and west do (e.g.
monuments on the St David’s peninsula). As
stated earlier, specific sites were probably
chosen to control a section of the landscape
while at the same time acknowledging
group and intergroup cohesion through
the replication of monument design. I
have already discussed, albeit briefly, the
localized linearity of the Morfa Bychan
group in Carmarthenshire. Monuments
conforming to my second rule of linearity,
such as those occupying the uplands of
Strumble Head, are relatively infrequent.
However, I have previously discussed
the distribution of monuments which lie
around the intermediate slopes and valley
floors of the Black Mountains, a large old
red sandstone massif in Powys, central
Wales (Nash 1997). According to Tilley
(1994), the thirteen surviving monuments
from this group are all locally oriented to
various dramatic visual features forming the
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
Encoding a Neolithic Landscape 359
George Nash
Table 2 Landscape grammar
Monument
Daniel Ref Intervisibility
Intervisible Distance View of Landscape position
with neighbour with which from
the sea
monument the sea
Metres
AOD
Garn Wen
Cemetery
PEM 7-9
90–95
No
N/A
370m
Yes
Intermediate slope,
east of rock
outcropping
Parc-y-Cromlech PEM 14
No
N/A
830m
No
Undulating and located 140
within cultivated
ground.
Carn Wnda
PEM 13
No
N/A
970m
Yes
Located on
intermediate slope of
rock outcropping
Y Garn
No ref.
No
N/A
1600m
Yes
Intermediate slope,
160
north-west rock
outcropping known as
Y Garn
Garn Gilfach
PEM 15
No
N/A
1800m
No
Intermediate slope,
within south-facing
rock outcropping
175
Ffyst Samson
PEM 16
Yes
PEM 18
2250m
Yes
On top of localised
rock outcropping
135
Carreg Samson
PEM 18
Yes
PEM 16
360m
Yes
Undulating ground with 47
views of Strumble Head
Ffynnondruidion PEM 28
Yes?
PEM 18
2980m
No
Intermediate slope,
close to rock
outcropping
ridges and spurs of the Black Mountains.
For example, the two Cotswold-Severn
monuments of Ffostyll North and South
appeared to be aligned to Y Das, a large
visually striking spur that dominates the
north-western extent of the mountains
and its hinterlands. The monument group
forms an arc that encompasses this large
sandstone massif within the fertile valleys of
the rivers Dore, Usk, and Wye. In terms of
landscape grammar, each monument appears
to be strategically placed and, similar to
135
118
the Strumble Head monument group, lack
intervisibility.
Outside Wales, linearity appears to play
a similarly important role, usually where
upland mountain or hill ranges are present.
A linear group of up to eight monuments
is located along the intermediate slopes of
the Sierra de Cantabria, north of Laguardia,
in Northern Spain (Nash, Swann, and Waite
forthcoming). The eight monuments appear
to be constructed according to an identical
blueprint, comprising a narrow passage and
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
360 Encoding a Neolithic Landscape
George Nash
Fig 14 The dolmen of Chabola
de la Hechicera, forming one
of eight burial monuments
occupying the hinterlands of
the Sierra de Cantabria
chamber of stone uprights incorporated into
a round cairn mound (Figure 14). The Sierra
de Cantabria group, like the Strumble Head
group, comprises equally spaced monuments
located along the intermediate slopes and
foothills of the Sierra de Cantabria, Álava.
Reference Points
The Strumble Head group, comprising ten
small architecturally similar chambered
monuments, were probably all in use around
the same time. Each monument occupies
a similar location along the highland ridge
of Strumble Head. To the north, beyond
the highlands, were small communities who
would have supplemented their farming
economy with hunting, gathering, and
probably fishing. Each community, bound
together by common ancestry, would have
occupied a small territory possessing a
communal burial place. The cemetery of
Garn Wen, possibly once comprising nine
or more monuments, may have served a
much larger community. Other monuments
along the central and western locales of
Strumble Head would have served smaller
communities. The construction of larger
monuments, such Garn Gilfach and Parc-yCromlech, would have required inter-group
cohesion.
Monuments along the Strumble Head
uplands follow a similar construction
methodology and occupy identical sites
close to rock outcrops. As well as being
strategically spaced along the uplands, all
possess simple chambers, probably with no
covering mound. The monuments were
themselves hidden within the local and
wider landscapes, what I have termed in
the past as being incognito (Nash 1997).
Similarly, Cummings and Whittle suggests
that many “rocky forms” resemble the built
structures (2004: 37). The concealment
of the architecture through, say, incognito
would have established a hierarchy within
society—people who knew and people who
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
Encoding a Neolithic Landscape 361
George Nash
did not. This being said, Edmonds (1999)
takes a slightly different stance when he
suggests that monuments are multipurpose
buildings possibly used for events other
than burial, echoing an idea originally put
forward by Renfrew (1976, 1979) and
later by Bradley (1993). While I support
the concept of multipurpose monuments,
maybe over consecutive periods, the
Strumble Head group conform to a rigid set
of architectural and landscape rules—i.e.,
they are constructed similarly and occupy
similar upland locations—that suggest
single-purpose monuments. The landscape
in which each is located is concealed, hidden
away from the outside world; a landscape
devoted to the dead, a world that linked the
dead with the spirits, and their repositories
reaching into the heavens: what Cummings
and Whittle refers to as Stones that float to
the sky (2004: 67–91, italics in original). Here,
altitude and concealment is as important as
landscape setting and vistas.
Outside the physical sphere of Strumble
Head, other monuments, such as Carreg
Samson, Ffyst Samson, and the destroyed
Ffynnondruidion monument, occupy a
different landscape and differ in terms of
construction, which probably reflects a
different Neolithic mindset relating to burial,
ritual, and social organization; an ancestral
world where landscape concepts other than
linearity formed part of the grammar of
location.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dear friends Abby
George, John Swann, and Laurie Waite
for commenting on the text and making
the usual comments concerning grammar.
I would also like to thank Christopher
Chippindale and Paul Devereux for providing
invaluable comments and the referees who
made essential comments and suggestions
to the final draft. Thanks also to Richard
Jones of Cambria Archaeology (Dyfed
Archaeological Trust) for providing the
necessary site information. All mistakes are
of course my own responsibility.
Notes
1 The author has recognized a further two possible
monuments within this cemetery group.
2 Alas, housing currently obscures views to the
north of this monument cemetery.
3 Based on antiquarian accounts there is also a
limited record of the grave goods found in some
(see Barker 1992).
4 Several other possible monuments are listed
within the Strumble Head area and are
commented upon by Barnwell (1872) and later
by Barker (1992). Missing or lost monuments
recognized by both authors include Glynymel
(NGR SM 966 369), Man y Gromlech (NGR SM
909 389) and Pencwm (NGR SM 9438 3847).
5 Information held in RCAM, Pembrokeshire (1925).
References
Barker, C.T., 1992. The Chambered Tombs of SouthWest Wales: A Re-assessment of the Neolithic Burial
Monuments of Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire.
Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 14.
Barnwell, E.L., 1872. “Notes on some South Wales
Cromlechs.” Archaeologica Cambremsis (4th Series)
3: 81–143.
Barnwell, E.L., 1884. “On some South Wales
Cromlechs.” Archaeologica Cambremsis (5th Series)
1: 129–44.
Bradley, R., 1993. Altering the Earth: Origins of
Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland. Monograph Series No. 8.
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362
362 Encoding a Neolithic Landscape
George Nash
Burrows, S., 2006. The Tomb Builders in Wales
4000–3000 BC . National Museum of Wales.
J. Davis (eds), Prehistoric Wales. Stroud: Sutton, pp.
79–138.
Children, G.C. and Nash, G.H., 2002. The Neolithic
Sites of Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire and
Pembrokeshire, Vol. V. Hereford: Logaston Press.
Nash, G.H., 1997. “Monumentality and the
Landscape: the Possible Symbolic and Political
Distribution of Long Chambered Tombs around the
Black Mountains, Central Wales,” in G.H. Nash (ed.),
Semiotics of Landscape: Archaeology of Mind. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports, International Series
661, pp 17–30.
Cummings, V. and Whittle, A., 2004. Places of Special
Virtue: Megaliths in the Neolithic Landscapes of Wales.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Daniel, G.E., 1950. The Prehistoric Chambered Tombs
of England and Wales. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Edmonds, M., 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the
Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and Memory.
London: Routledge.
Fenton, J., 1848. “Cromlech at Llanwnda,
Pembrokeshire.” Archaeologica Cambremsis (1st
Series) 3: 283–5.
Fenton, T., 1810. A Historical Tour through
Pembrokeshire (London).
Fleming, A. 2005. “Megaliths and Post-modernism: the
Case of Wales.” Antiquity 79(306): 921–32.
Grimes, W.F. 1936. “The Megalithic Monuments of
Wales.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol.
2: 106–39.
Laws, E. and Owen, H. 1897–1906. Pembrokeshire
Archaeological Survey.
Lévi-Strauss, C., 1964. Mythologies, in 4 vols published
1969–1981. Trans J. Weightman and D. Weightman.
New York: Harper and Row.
Lynch, F.M., 1972. “Portal Dolmens in the Nevern
Valley, Pembrokeshire,” in F. Lynch and C. Burgess
(eds.), 1972. Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West.
Bath: Adams & Dart, pp. 67–84.
Lynch, F.M., 1976. “Towards a Chronology of
Megalithic Tombs in Wales,” in G.C. Boon and
J.M. Lewis (eds), Welsh Antiquity (Essays Mainly on
Prehistoric Topics. Presented to H.N. Savory upon his
Retirement as Keeper of Archaeology). Cardiff: National
Museum of Wales, pp. 63–79.
Lynch, F., 2000a. “The Early Neolithic,” in F. Lynch, S.
Aldhouse-Green, and J. Davis (eds), Prehistoric Wales.
Stroud: Sutton, pp. 42–78.
Lynch, F., 2000b. “The Later Neolithic and Earlier
Bronze Age,” in F. Lynch, S. Aldhouse-Green and
Nash, G.H., 2006. The Architecture of Death: The
Chambered Monuments of Wales. Herefordshire:
Logaston Press.
Nash, G.H., Swann, J. and Waite, L. (forthcoming).
“Negotiating Linearity and Intervisibility: A Case for
the Neolithic Burial-ritual Monuments of the Sierra
de Cantabria, Laguardia, Northern Spain.
Nash, G.H. and Waite, L. (forthcoming). “Notes on the
Lost Neolithic Chambered Monument of Y Garn,
Strumble Head, Pembrokeshire.”
Peterson, R., 2003. Neolithic Pottery from Wales:
Traditions and Constructions of Use. Oxford: BAR
British Series 344.
Pughe, O., 1855. “Antiquaries of Northern
Pembrokeshire.” Archaeologica Cambrensis (3rd
Series) 1: 271–4.
RCAM (Wales), 1925. An Inventory of the Ancient
Monuments in the County of Pembrokeshire. London.
HMSO.
Renfrew, C., 1976. “Megaliths, Territories and
Populations,” in S. de Laet (ed.), Accumulation and
Continuity in Atlantic Europe. Bruges: de Tempel, pp.
98–220.
Renfrew, C., 1979. Investigations into Orkney. London:
Society of Antiquities.
Tilley, C., 1991. “Constructing a Ritual Landscape,” in
K. Jennbert, L. Larsson, R. Petre and B. WyszomirskaWerbart (eds), Regions and Reflections (in Honour
of Marta Stromberg). Acta Archaeologica Lundensia
Series 8, No. 20, pp 67–79.
Tilley, C., 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape.
London: Berg.
Tilley, C., 1999. “The Dolmens and Passage Graves of
Sweden: An Introduction and Guide.” London: UCL
Press.
Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 345–362