Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales.

Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales. 'Our work here is open ... to new interpretations ... sinceanyone can visit these stones and experience these places themselves,make new observations and check old ones: (Tilley 2004:219) Eleven years ago, Christopher Tilley Christopher Y. Tilley is a British archaeologist and a well-known proponent of post-processual archaeology.Tilley's major works on theoretical archaeology were written with his colleague Michael Shanks, and include ReConstructing Archaeology and published A phenomenology phenomenology,modern school of philosophy founded by Edmund Husserl. Its influence extended throughout Europe and was particularly important to the early development of existentialism. oflandscape: places, paths and monuments (1994). It has become amuch-cited book. Tilley took the archaeology of landscape in a newdirection, presenting a mode of field observation designed to explorehis ethnographically based, persuasive characterisation of Neolithicsacred geography. He presented three case studies, two of whichconcerned the megalithic meg��a��lith?n.A very large stone used in various prehistoric architectures or monumental styles, notably in western Europe during the second millennium b.c. chamber tombs of south-west and south-eastWales. He suggested that significant numbers of these monuments weredesigned to refer to prominent hills, rock outcrops and watercourses,thus apparently offering evidence-based insights into Neolithiccosmological perceptions. Five years later, I argued that Tilley'sfindings could not be regarded as sustainable contributions to WelshNeolithic studies (Fleming 1999). More recently, in Places of Special Virtue (2004), written withAlasdair Whittle Alasdair Whittle is Professor of Archaeology at Cardiff University, specialising in the Neolithic period.His publications include Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds and Sacred Mound, Holy Ring. , Vicki Cummings has adopted Tilley'sapproach--with equally problematic consequences. I feel that I must nowexpound ex��pound?v. ex��pound��ed, ex��pound��ing, ex��poundsv.tr.1. To give a detailed statement of; set forth: expounded the intricacies of the new tax law.2. my critique at greater length. I will deal mostly withsouth-west Wales, and will use the abbreviation 'TC' to referto the Tilley--Cummings approach where appropriate, abbreviating'Cummings and Whittle' to CW. South-west Wales In south-west Wales, the TC approach mainly involves chiming thatmegalithic tombs deliberately 'referenced' rock outcropslocated at various distances; a significant outcrop may have beenimmediately beside a tomb, a few hundred metres away, or on the summitof a distant hill. Occasionally links are claimed with springs or watercourses. TC also discuss relationships between tombs and the sea.Cummings considers 33 sites in total, comprising a minimum of 40monuments. In cases where tombs are immediately adjacent to rock outcrops (24per cent of the total, or 8 sites out of 33; Cummings & Whittle2004: 29), it is hard to deny some kind of deliberate association.Whether this has to do with Neolithic cosmological beliefs is anotherissue; I will deal with these tombs later. In the case of linkages withmore distant outcrops, however--and much of the TC thesis is based onthese--the arguments are lacking in rigour rig��our?n. Chiefly BritishVariant of rigor.rigouror US rigorNoun1. . For reasons mostly to dowith the tombs' state of preservation, the positions ofentrances--or the directions which the tombs 'faced'--arefrequently unclear. So TC cannot work with indicated'alignments' or directions. But instead of regarding this as agood reason for using better quality data, in another research area,they have chosen instead to argue that a rocky outcrop or hill may besignificantly associated with a tomb if it is simply visible from thesite (although significance is also claimed when a target is invisiblefrom a site, as in the case of the outcrop to the west-north-west ofCarreg Samson; pace both Tilley 1994:99 and Cummings & Whittle 2004:56). At Garn Turne (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 148), the invisibilityof the Preselis is claimed to be deliberately contrived. TC have chosento do their fieldwork in an area where the location of many tombs onhillsides (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 37, 87) virtually guaranteeswide vistas of striking hills, rock outcrops and sometimes dramaticcoastlines. It comes as no surprise that rock outcrops may be seen onthe skyline from 12 sites, that is 36 per cent of them, or that 61 percent of the sites, 20 in total, have a view of outcrops (Cummings &Whittle 2004: 88). (But 13 tombs out of the 33 are not related tooutcrops at all; 2004: 29.) Tilley writes for the most part as if it isunnecessary to demonstrate that the claimed associations with distantoutcrops are more than coincidental, whilst Cummings makes little morethan gestures in this direction. As we shall see, TC's selectionsof the phenomena they think significant on any particular site oftenseem arbitrary and sometimes overambitious o��ver��am��bi��tious?adj.Ambitious to an excessive degree.over��am��bi , and the link betweenethnographically derived insights and demonstrable patterning in thefield is never successfully made. Standards of fieldwork I find it impossible to square some of Cummings' fieldobservations with my own. Looking out from what was probably the'portal' at Llech y Dribedd, one faces the fairly prominent ifdistant outline of Frenni Fawr, a distinctive outlier of the Preselis;it is some 13km from the site. Yet despite apparently being a rare caseof an indicated 'target', Frenni Fawr is omitted from bothhorizon diagram and descriptive text (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 139).The tomb at Colston is claimed to be 'close to the start' ofthe Western Cleddau (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 147). However, thesource of the Western Cleddau lies some 14 kilometres away. Llech yDribedd is said to be in a similar location to its neighbour,Trelyffaint; yet the former is visibly in a local 'roof of theworld' situation, well back from the southern edge of a smallcoastal plateau, whilst the latter is on a gently sloping hillside.Colston and Garn Turne are said to be in similar landscape settings(Cummings & Whittle 2004: 147); yet the latter is on a localeminence offering panoramic views in most directions, whilst the formeris on a relatively steep north-facing slope. Cerrig Llwydion is said tobe 'on the summit' of a 'domed hill' (Cummings &Whittle 2004: 171), but in fact the crown of the 'hill' is c.100m to the south-east. It is not clear what rules govern the inclusion of features onCummings' diagrams. The tomb at Ffyst Samson presents perhaps themost target-rich view of all the sites in Pembrokeshire. Yet itsvisibility diagram (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 155) does not includethe island of North Bishop (c. 24km distant) despite Cummings'regard for the potential significance of islands (Cummings & Whittle2004: 35). Nor does the Ffyst Samson panorama indicate Poll Carn, aspectacular rock pillar which stands out on the distant horizon some11.5km to the south-south-east. The panorama for Carn Gilfach (Cummings& Whittle 2004: 153) omits the islands of North Bishop and CarregRhoson, which are nearly 27km distant; more disconcertingly dis��con��cert?tr.v. dis��con��cert��ed, dis��con��cert��ing, dis��con��certs1. To upset the self-possession of; ruffle. See Synonyms at embarrass.2. , given theview from the site, it also disregards the prominent rocky outcrop onCarn Gelli, less than 2km away. At Carreg Samson, Cummings' diagramincludes the outcrop some 400m to the west-north-west, although thiscannot actually be seen from the monument. Coetan Arthur is said to be'placed up against a rocky outcrop', although it is actuallyon a saddle between two outcrops; the sea is said to be'distant' when it is barely 200m from the tomb (whilst atWhite House an outcrop described as 'nearby' is 1km away).Coetan Arthur is said to be 'difficult to find ... only approachedfrom Whitesands Bay or Corn Llidi is the characteristic propped stonevisible' (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 162). But these arevirtually the only approaches, given that Coetan Arthur is on therock-girt promontory promontory/prom��on��to��ry/ (prom��on-tor?e) a projecting process or eminence. prom��on��to��ryn.A projecting part.promontorya projecting process or eminence. of St David's This page is about the city. For the patron saint of Wales, see Saint David. St David's (Welsh: Tyddewi) is the smallest city in the United Kingdom, with a population of under 2,000 people. Head. Cummings finds thelandscape setting of St Elvis unspectacular and is ambivalent about thefactors which may have influenced the tomb's siting (Cummings &Whittle 2004: 160); unaccountably un��ac��count��a��ble?adj.1. Impossible to account for; inexplicable: unaccountable absences.2. she fails to mention the spring justbelow it, quite possibly once the site of a holy well and in any caseevidently the focus of a probable early Christian site and also themedieval church of St Teilo (Ludlow 2003). Standards of argument Cummings frequently uses the word 'seems' in relation tomonument--landscape relationships, and she mentions numerous potentialtargets without further advocacy of them. Thus by including thepossibles as well as the probables (from her standpoint), the'evidence' for these relationships is made to seem quitevoluminous. In fact, the evidence for 'long-distance'relationships with rock outcrops is effectively non-existent. The megaliths are mostly in three kinds of situation. A few are on'hilltop' sites, on local (but not regionally striking)eminences, slightly removed from the very highest spots, which may beoccupied by rock outcrops. A larger number of tombs are beside outcrops,on the coast or further inland. Rather more are located at variouspoints on hillsides--mostly on fairly gentle slopes, a few on rathersteeper terrain. Although Cummings likes to suggest or imply (notably inCummings et al. 2002) that the simultaneous presence at most tombs of'open' and 'restricted' views was by design,hillside siting usually secures this result in any case, as CWeffectively admit (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 37, 65). Pace Cummings(Cummings & Whittle 2004: 37), the fact that tombs which are notlocated on hillsides tend to avoid 'maximum visibility' neednot imply intentionality intentionalityProperty of being directed toward an object. Intentionality is exhibited in various mental phenomena. Thus, if a person experiences an emotion toward an object, he has an intentional attitude toward it. . It is hard to achieve 360[degrees] long-rangepanoramas, since many local hills of medium altitude have broad, ratherflat tops Flat Tops may refer to: Flat Tops, a summit in Imperial County, California in the United States The Flat Tops, a summit in Emery County, Utah in the United States Flat Tops, an area and summit in Garfield and Mesa counties in Colorado in the United States and/or rock outcrops which impede part of the view--as atFfyst Samson. It is hard to see why Tilley concludes (1994: 94) thattombs apparently not sited for 'maximum' visibility were meantto be approached only from certain directions. TC have made use of highly contentious lines of argument. Oneconcerns the relationship between tombs and the sea: 54 per cent of thesites are within 1km of the sea, and 72 per cent have a view of it(Cummings & Whittle 2004: 33). Carreg Samson, it seems, may havebeen focused on the local harbour and/or a large nearby sea-cave(Cummings & Whittle 2004: 156). Otherwise, the tombs are seenvariously as (a) built to command wide sea views, or to'reference' the sea (e.g. Coetan Arthur, Carn Wnda, CarnLlidi; Cummings & Whittle 2004: 33, 82), (b) ignoring or unconcernedwith it (e.g. St Elvis and Llech y Dribedd; Tilley 1994, 93; Cummings& Whittle 2004: 139) or (c) carefully positioned to have a'glimpse' or restricted view of the sea (e.g. White House andTreffynnon; Cummings & Whittle 2004: 33). As well as implyingdisconcertingly diverse Neolithic approaches to the cosmos within asmall region, this catholic approach, of course, allows phenomenologiststo say something apparently meaningful about any coastal site. Cummings' treatment of Carreg Samson illustrates hercontention that, on a few sites, the coincidence of several possiblesighting factors, rather than illustrating the archaeologist'sdilemma, actually lends greater weight to her advocacy of Neolithicintentionality. Here Cummings implies that the builders, wanting torefer to the harbour and/or the cave, also cleverly managed to find asite on a line between two rock outcrops (one of them admittedly out ofsight from the tomb) and saw significance in the fact that they werere-using a Mesolithic site. The entrance passage (which has a knownlength of only 2m and is evidenced by three stone holes revealed by anexcavation) was allegedly aligned on both outcrops (Cummings &Whittle 2004: 29, 83). But neither alignment would be visible or obviousto anyone moving along it in either direction--one because it cannot beseen from the site in any case, and the other because it would beobscured by the bulk of the monument. The CW view of Pentre Ifan Pentre Ifan is the name of an ancient manor in the parish of Nevern, North Pembrokeshire, Wales. It contains the largest and best preserved neolithic dolmen in Wales. HistoryThe dolmen dates from approximately 3500 B.C. and was used as a communal burial. (seebelow) involves a comparable argument. Why is Carreg Samson an instanceof 'careful orchestration' (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 29)rather than coincidence, and why are such 'multiple target'cases not noted more frequently? Another case of 'orchestration' is claimed for GarnTurne, where the monument is said (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 148) tohave been placed 'very precisely' and 'fitted into thelandscape' so that 'all of [the] landscape features are eithervisible or invisible' (!) But a site visit strongly suggests thatthis massive, heavy 'capstone' has been moved preciselynowhere. The tomb constructors have managed to lever it up at one end,but that is as far as it goes; how can one believe in the precise'choice' of location in these circumstances? It is much morelikely that the stone was venerated in situ In place. When something is "in situ," it is in its original location. before eventually beinglevered into something like its present position. Following Tilley (1994: 105), Cummings claims that a particularlocational choice must be deliberate because, if the monument had beenlocated n metres away (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 20), its supposed'target' would not have been visible. But exactly the samething might be said of any other features of the local landscape fromwhich outcrops can be seen--farmhouses, football pitches, road signs,trees, grazing cows, etc. These phenomena have clearly not been put intothe landscape to reference distant rocks! Tilley (1994: 96, 99, Figure 3.14) and then Cummings (Cummings& Whittle 2004: 37) claim that at places like Carn Gilfach and MorfaBychan, outcrops immediately above the sites 'draw attention'to the monuments' location. Having approached Carn Gilfach on abeautiful sunny day, I can only comment 'only if one already knowsit's there'. A Neolithic outsider, arriving from a distance,would have had difficulty in spotting the tomb (especially in woodyterrain or on a gloomy day). And the idea of outcrops 'keyingin' monuments or 'drawing attention' to them would berather problematic at sites like Garn Gilfach, where the area is'covered with natural features which resemble monuments'(Cummings & Whittle 2004: 153). At Cam Llidi, only observers in therestricted area of St David's Head would be in a position to havetheir attention drawn to the position of tombs below the outcrop. Ifthis was such an important general idea, why do so many outcrops,including the most spectacular ones, have no megalithic chamber tombsbuilt anywhere near them, whilst conversely a not very prominentoutcrop, such as Carn Wen, may spawn three or more tombs? According to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. Tilley (1994: 96, 99) 'the rock outcrops simultaneously make themonuments visible and invisible' (but not literally, since thetombs 'cannot be seen'). But this appeal to ananthropologically grounded prehistoric taste for ambivalence isessentially argument by mystification mys��ti��fi��ca��tion?n.1. The act or an instance of mystifying.2. The fact or condition of being mystified.3. Something intended to mystify.Noun 1. . In rough country, one eitherknows where a tomb is to be found, having been told that it is beside acertain outcrop, or one does not. Tilley (1994: 94-6) argues that the four monuments on the shelfbelow a linear rock outcrop at Morfa Bychan would have 'madesense' in terms of bodily movement from south to north, with thetombs getting progressively closer to the outcrop; the northernmostsite, D, is actually built close to the rock face, symbolicallyfacilitating entry to the parent rock or implying'integration' with it. But the situation is notstraightforward. As Tilley's own sketch shows (1994: Figure 3.10),the shelf is much narrower in the vicinity of Morfa Bychan C; on thisspacing, monument C had to be closer to the outcrop than A and B were,irrespective of irrespective ofprep.Without consideration of; regardless of.irrespective ofpreposition despiteits builders' choreographic tastes. And Site A israther obviously beside its own quarry--a clear, seemingly unambiguousbreak in the face of the outcrop to the west; the same effect is visibleat site B, but here only the top layer of rock seems to have beenremoved. At Morfa Bychan it seems that regular spacing of tombs in the'cemetery' is in evidence--but not a choreographed sequence.No similar 'entering the rock' sequence has been proposed forthe comparable 'cemetery' at Carn Wen. Cummings and Whittle, effectively following Tilley (1994: 94),suggest that Carn Ingli was 'a highly significant and symbolichill' (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 82). Only five local tombs areavailable to document this proposition; of these, Cerrig y Gof is toomorphologically aberrant to be included here. Of the others, Llech yDribedd and Trelyffaint are 5.5km from Cam Ingli. Pentre Ifan is about3.6km away, and Carreg Coetan is 2km distant. These monuments werehardly 'built around [Cam Ingli's] base' (Cummings &Whittle 2004: 82) Three of them have 'portals' (although atCarreg Coetan, the excavator ex��ca��va��torn.An instrument, such as a sharp spoon or curette, used in scraping out pathological tissue.excavator (eks´k failed to find evidence for the'missing' portal upright; Rees 1992: 15-6). As mentionedabove, the Llech y Dribedd portal 'points' not at Cam Inglibut rather at Frenni Fawr. Carreg Coetan faces an unassuming distanthillside. And Pentre Ifan faces uphill, towards what Cummings wouldnormally describe as the 'restricted visibility' zone. Yethere she develops an unwonted interest in the view of the Preseli Hills The Preseli Hills or Preseli Mountains (Welsh: Mynyddoedd Y Preseli / Y Preselau) are a range of hills in north Pembrokeshire, Wales. They form part of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. as seen from the forecourt. They are unimpressive, but can indeed beglimpsed beyond the slightly 'domed' near horizon. Cummingsimplies that their phenomenological significance may be that they startto come into view when an observer, walking uphill, reaches the tail ofthe long cairn cairn,pile of stones, usually conical in shape, raised as a landmark or a memorial. In prehistoric times it was usually erected over a burial. A barrow is sometimes called a cairn. . However, if Lynch and Barker's suggestion (Cummings& Whittle 2004: 143) is correct, and the fully developed cairn is alate addition to the monument, this would probably not be relevant tothe choice of location for the site. It may be more significant thatPentre Ifan stands on a deliberately dug hollow (Grimes 1949: 13-14,Figures 3 and 4), partially filled by the stones of the forecourtblocking. If this hollow was the borrow pit Noun 1. borrow pit - a pit created to provide earth that can be used as fill at another sitecavity, pit - a sizeable hole (usually in the ground); "they dug a pit to bury the body" for the capstone, as Hoggoriginally suggested--an idea which CW apparently like (Cummings &Whittle 2004: 73)--the location may not have been chosen for itsrelationship to distant hills at all. I accept Cummings' argument (Cummings & Whittle 2004:69-72) that the blocking of sight-lines by vegetation is not necessarilya problem for megalithic phenomenology, given the deciduous deciduous/de��cid��u��ous/ (de-sid��u-us) falling off or shed at maturity, as the teeth of the first dentition. de��cid��u��ousadj.1. nature ofalmost all British trees. However, this notion is harder to sustain foruphill views like the one under consideration here. If there waswoodland to the south of Pentre Ifan, the observer looking uphill, outof the forecourt, would see the massed trunks of the trees, not the viewthrough their upper branches, and the distant hills would be obscured inany season. The charcoal from Pentre Ifan was almost entirely of gorse gorse:see furze. gorseAny of several related plants of the genera Ulex and Genista. Common gorse (U. europaeus) is a spiny, yellow-flowered leguminous shrub native to Europe and naturalized in the Middle Atlantic states and on Vancouver Island. (admittedly of the smaller variety; Hyde in Grimes 1949). If the skylineseen from the Pentre Ifan forecourt was dominated by gorse, which iscommon around here (and it is not deciduous), the Preselis would havebeen virtually invisible. In fact, other considerations probably governed the choice of thislocation. As already noted, a suitable capstone, half below ground, maywell have been present here. Construction of the cairn was certainlypreceded by the digging of pits A and B, and probably by the erection ofstone IX (Grimes 1949: 15, 17)--a possibility which Cummings and Whittleare certainly prepared to countenance (2004: 73). These features mayhave been intended to anticipate the monument as eventually'completed'; but it is just as likely that the latter wasbuilt here because the site was already significant. Tilley (1994: 105)suggested that the incline of capstone and long cairn'duplicate' the outline of Carn Ingli. But this is the onlycomparison of this direct kind which has been made in the region (unlessone counts the evidently contagious practice of photographing Llech yDribedd from the north [without comment] so that a resemblance betweenthe tip of its capstone and the distant summit of Carn Ingli seemsapparent; e.g. Tilley 1994: Figure 3.20; Children & Nash 1997: 54;Cummings & Whittle 2004: Figure 4.7). We should remember thatvirtually by definition, portal dolmen dolmen(dŏl`mĕn, dōl–)[Breton,=stone table], burial chamber consisting of two or more upright stone slabs supporting a capstone or table, typical of the Neolithic period in Europe. See megalithic monuments. capstones are usually tilted, andlong cairns tend to slope from large end to smaller end. At Pentre Ifanthere is no demonstrable homology homology(hōmŏl`əjē), in biology, the correspondence between structures of different species that is attributable to their evolutionary descent from a common ancestor. with Carn Ingli, since the buildershave not gone out of their way to create anything unusual. The fact that several possibilities have been put forward for thephenomenological significance of this site does not strengthen theargument. If that were so, one would be stunned by the ingenuity ofthose who constructed the monument at Ffyst Samson, which might refer toone or all of the following features: the island of North Bishop (at c.24km); Carn Llidi/St David's Head (c. 18-20km); the bay and beach(where the ancestors landed?) at Abet Mawr (2.5km); the several rockoutcrops south of Strumble Head Strumble Head (Welsh: Pen Strwmbl) is a rocky headland of Pen Caer in north Pembrokeshire, Wales. It is home to Strumble Head Lighthouse and gives its name to Strumble VOR, a way point in many trans-atlantic flights. (c. 4km); the nearby outcrop, from whichthe monument's stones were almost certainly derived (c. 50m); andPoll Carn, 11.5km to the south--which, as already mentioned, does notfeature on Cummings' diagram despite its prominence on the distantskyline; by contrast, for the Garn Turne tomb, Penberry and Carn Llidiare deemed significant features, despite being 21 and 25km distantrespectively (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 148). Poll Carn is one of the most striking outcrops in Pembrokeshire.From some angles it looks like the local answer to Le Pinnacle in Jersey(Bradley 1993: 27); one could easily imagine it being a sacred rock, aplace of pilgrimage in prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to . But only two nearby monuments mightbe said to 'refer' to it--Garn Turne and Parc y Llyn, whichlie at a distance of 3-4km. From Parc y Llyn, Poll Carn looks striking(if distant), but it is also at the edge of the zone of distant views;the monument would have had a much better prospect of the GreatTreffgarne Mountain outcrops, including Poll Carn, if its builders hadput it some 300m to the south-west. As Cummings' photograph shows(Cummings & Whittle 2004: Figure 4.5), to obtain the distant view ofthe Carn Poll and Maiden Castle Maiden Castle,prehistoric fortress, Dorset, S England, near Dorchester. The finest earthwork in the British Isles, c.120 acres (50 hectares) in area, is there. outcrops, observers are expected to looknot outwards from the forecourt, as at Pentre Ifan, but in the oppositedirection, from the outer part of the forecourt, some 8m from thetomb's entrance, over the top of the monument and its capstone--aprocedure not suggested for any other site. Is it not rather more likelythat the builders ofGarn Turne focused rather on the nearby rockoutcrops to the north-east, which stand imposingly in front of theforecourt? It is easy to make assertions about phenomenological significanceif one works in an area where sites are elevated enough to'see' a multiplicity of targets at all sorts of distances,uses monuments which rarely have indicated sightlines, and is preparedto believe that individual designers essentially 'did their ownthing'. Thus, sometimes they focused on nearby rocks, sometimesthey were interested in very distant outcrops. Viewing targets ofsignificance might involve looking outwards from a forecourt (PentreIfan), looking inwards from a forecourt (Garn Turne), looking out of apassage towards an outcrop not actually visible (Carreg Samson), turningright after leaving a forecourt (Pentre Ifan) or a passage (CarregSamson)--or looking out from a putative 'original entrance' atthe side of a chamber (Tilley's suggestion for Pentre Ifan; 1994:105). Occasionally, megaliths are claimed to have been located inrelation to watercourses, although the position of the tomb at Mountainmight as easily relate to a pass through the hills as mark the source ofthe Eastern Cleddau, as Cummings claims (Cummings & Whittle 2004:34). If those who chose the locations of tombs did make highlyidiosyncratic id��i��o��syn��cra��sy?n. pl. id��i��o��syn��cra��sies1. A structural or behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or group.2. A physiological or temperamental peculiarity.3. choices, the resultant heterogeneous pattern wouldprobably make it impossible to do any serious work on these questions,or to develop archaeological arguments beyond speculative assertion.However, as CW point out, there are morphological similarities betweenmany of the tombs of south-west Wales. Furthermore, the limited numberof types of chosen location implies a good measure of regional agreementon appropriate settings for megalithic monuments. This existing degreeof patterning might well make one question the sort of heterogeneity,not to say incoherence incoherenceNot understandable; disordered; without logical connection. See Schizophrenia. , accepted by Tilley and Cummings in respect oftargeted features--which, it must be repeated, are almost never directlyindicated by the monuments themselves. There is, then, virtually no evidence for the targeting of distantoutcrops by megalithic tomb builders in south-west Wales. OnCummings' figures (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 29), after settingaside the 39 per cent of sites not related to outcrops, and the 36 percent which allegedly relate to rocky outcrops on the skyline, one isleft with 24 per cent of the sites--8 out of 33--which are'positioned right up against outcrops'. What of these tombs? Ido not particularly want to dissuade prehistorians from believing thatprominent rocks close to megalithic tombs may have been regarded as theabodes of supernatural powers. But there are other ways of interpretingthe patterns observed. Some megalith megalithHuge, often undressed stone used in various types of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments. The most ancient form of megalithic construction is probably the dolmen, a type of burial chamber consisting of several upright supports and a flat roofing slab. builders may actually have chosento construct their sites very close to stone sources and quarries. It isobvious, for instance, that the capstone of the monument at Garn Gilfachwas quarried from the outcrop immediately above the site; the Carn Llidimonuments are clearly very close to their stone sources. It is the more'morphologically correct' tombs, identifiable as monumentswithin the portal dolmen tradition, which tend to be found away fromoutcrops (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 37-9). There may be something tobe said for going back to Glyn Daniel's 'sub-megalithic'designation (1950: 46-51) for monuments built beside outcrops, such asCarn Wnda or Carn Wen, to underline that such tombs may well be lateand/or the creations of people who cannot or will not construct tombs ofmainstream type. (Daniel argued that such tombs incorporated up to four'makeshift' labour-saving devices.) Cummings and Whittle put forward the rather persuasive idea thatthe point about the capstones, especially those 'primarilyinfluenced by the portal dolmen tradition', was their size andweight and the achievement of making a very large stone 'float inthe sky' (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 72-6). Such a need to findand use massive stones must have constrained locational choice to somedegree. It may well have determined the location of those monumentsbuilt close to outcrops. This consideration affects the model favouredby Cummings and Whittle, who suggest that in general the Neolithicsettlement zone was probably below the typical hillside megalith(Cummings & Whittle 2004: 28). In a few cases, they note that if atomb had been positioned any further down a hillslope, a view of targetx would have been impossible (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 29). (Onewould be more impressed with this kind of argument if one did notsuspect that had the tomb been placed lower down, it would have beensaid to make a point of to attach special importance to.See also: Point avoiding a view of the feature in question.) Theimplication is that such a tomb was built just high enough to'see' its 'target', presumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. by people livinglower down, who did not wish to move stones any further than necessary. However, this 'bottom up' view may be questioned. Themajority of potential capstones are most likely to have been foundrelatively high on the slopes; if they were to be moved anywhere, itwould have been sensible to drag them downhill--especially the moremassive ones. If our usual models of vegetation history in the Britishuplands have any validity, woodland--which would have been a nuisancefor Neolithic stone haulers even if not a problem forphenomenologists--might reasonably be expected to be thinner on theupper slopes, perhaps to the point of non-existence in places, makingstone haulage easier. Thus the constructors are more likely to have hada 'top down' approach. It was a relatively straightforwardmatter to build a tomb with an impressive capstone on fairly high groundwith good views; it would be surprising if Neolithic people took thetrouble to drag a heavy stone downhill merely in order to stop at thepoint where their target was about to disappear from sight. And giventhe considerable weight of some of the stones chosen (and perhaps thesupernatural significance attached to the locations in which they wereoriginally found?), one wonders how much locational flexibility the tombbuilders really had. Is it reasonable to assume, with Tilley (1994:105), that the builders of Llech y Dribedd were intentionally shunningthe coast? Or did they simply build at the place where they found itsmassive capstone, perhaps already venerated, like the Milking Stone onSt Kilda St Kilda may mean: St Kilda, Scotland, an archipelago in the north Atlantic off the west coast of Scotland St Kilda, Victoria, a suburb of Melbourne, Australia (Fleming 2001: Figure 3)? The Black Mountains Black Mountains:see Appalachian Mountains; Mitchell, Mount. Tilley suggested that around the Black Mountains, in south-eastWales, the lower-lying long cairns are oriented roughly parallel to thecourses of rivers, whilst those located on spurs and foothills tend to'point' to the prominent hills on the skyline (1994: 122,124). Cummings concedes that the monuments 'are rather variablypositioned in relation to rivers and river valleys' (Cummings &Whittle 2004: 64) and thus apparently shares my scepticism about thefirst component of Tilley's argument. As to the second, she alsoadmits that the long cairns do not actually 'point' directlyat the targets nominated by Tilley (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 61) andpublishes a photograph of Pen y Wyrlod (Talgarth) which illustrates this(2004: Figure 6.3). But then she not only moves the goalposts butmassively expands the goalmouth goal��mouth?n.The area directly in front of the goal, as in soccer or hockey.Noun 1. goalmouth - (sports) the area immediately in front of the goal , arguing that it was actually theescarpment escarpmentor scarp,long cliff, bluff, or steep slope, caused usually by geologic faulting (see fault) or by erosion of tilted rock layers. An example of a fault scarp is the north face of the San Jacinto Mts. in California. edges which were significant. However, none of her threephotographs (Cummings & Whittle 2004: Figures 6.2-6.4) illustratesanything more than general views of distant hills. And Cummings'suggestions in relation to Pen y Wyrlod (Talgarth)--which may befollowed on her Figure 6.3--are ambivalent. The cairn is said to point'to one side of the mountain' (Cummings & Whittle 2004:61), and to be 'aligned on the edge of Mynydd Troed' (2004:caption to Figure 6.3). At the same time, what Cummings calls the'facade' of the long cairn (it is actually a horned forecourt)'seems to be aligned on the gap between ... Y Grib and MynyddTroed' (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 196). A gap between hills isalso suggested as the target for the first phase of Ty Isaf (Cummings& Whittle 2004: 61). The target offered by the escarpment is rather hard to miss. Thenorth-west edge of the Black Mountains, which is relevant for most ofthe monuments (see Tilley 1994: Figure 4.7) is about 17km long (fromCusop Hill/Cefn Hill to Mynydd Llangorse). But despite the breadth ofthe target, Cummings puts forward tortuous arguments in support of themountain edge hypothesis. At Pipton, she claims that the largeasymmetrical chamber 'changes its axis a number of times, yet eachtime the axis changes it is pointing towards the edge of theescarpment' (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 61). Cummings uses thisas the starting point Noun 1. starting point - earliest limiting pointterminus a quocommencement, get-go, offset, outset, showtime, starting time, beginning, start, kickoff, first - the time at which something is supposed to begin; "they got an early start"; "she knew from the of a claim that, in the case of probable orpossible 'multi-phase' sites such as Ty Isaf and Pipton,'the significant landscape features may have changed over time andbe marked in the changing alignments of the chambers'. Thus we areasked to believe that these Neolithic communities revered the edge of agroup of mountains in general, and at the same time attachedsignificance to various parts of that edge--sometimes more prominenthills, sometimes gaps between them, sometimes the middle of theescarpment (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 61, in relation to the lateralchambers at Ty Isaf)--and that they changed the significance of thesemore detailed 'targets' within the sort of time-span usuallyenvisaged for the completion of a multi-phase long cairn, and at Pipton,apparently, in the period required to complete one chamber! Surely thewhole point of 'sacred mountains' is that however complex,elusive and fragmentary the myths become, their significanceendures--their physical identity not being a matter for confusion.Allegedly the 'pointing'--rough as it is now claimed tobe--was done sometimes by the axis of a long cairn, sometimes by lateralchambers and occasionally by a central chamber. Another odd argument isthe claim that the right-angled turn in the passage at Arthur'sStone also effectively represents a change of plan in both senses: thoseleaving the chamber, instead of facing the 'restricted view',encountered the edge of the Black Mountains (Cummings & Whittle2004: 67). (On other sites, facing the restricted view was perfectlyacceptable.) And if they wished to face Hay Bluff, what was to stop theArthur's Stone builders designing a straight passage? As insouth-west Wales, the more complex the claims made for a site, the moreone's credulity cre��du��li��ty?n.A disposition to believe too readily.[Middle English credulite, from Old French, from Latin cr is strained. In conclusion Of course, prehistorians are free to believe in Neolithic ritualspecialists noted for the idiosyncracies and heterogeneity of theirlocational and architectural decision making within small (and no doubtquite endogamous en��dog��a��my?n.1. Anthropology Marriage within a particular group in accordance with custom or law.2. Botany Fertilization resulting from pollination among flowers of the same plant.3. ) neighbourhoods--people who were incapable of reachingmuch agreement about cosmologically significant targets and changedtheir minds over short (sometimes very short) periods of time, and whowere capable of both architectural perversity per��ver��si��ty?n. pl. per��ver��si��ties1. The quality or state of being perverse.2. An instance of being perverse.Noun 1. and 'carefulorchestration' (as at Ffostyll; Cummings & Whittle 2004: 62).Such a vision might 'make sense' of the claims and suggestionsmade by Tilley and Cummings. After all, human life and thought areusually untidy. But has this Neolithic incoherence been revealed, or isit a by-product of the investigators' wishful thinking wishful thinkingPsychology Dereitic thought that a thing or event should have a specified outcome ? It is not my intention to question the idea that prehistoric peoplesought the supernatural in the landscape; Richard Bradley, starting fromEuropean archaeological evidence rather than the ethnography of distantparts of the planet, has already made progress in this field of enquiry,for example in An Archaeology of Natural Places (2000). It would besurprising if Neolithic concepts of the cosmos were not deeply rooted inlandscape. Nor is this article intended as a proxy for a general attackon phenomenological approaches in archaeology; I started thisinvestigation mostly because I found it difficult to look students inthe eye, keep a straight face, and explain, on site, how the ideas ofTilley (and now Cummings) are supposed to 'work'. What has 'gone wrong' in the case of southern Welshmegaliths is akin to what went wrong with the ley line theory putforward by Alfred Watkins in the 1920s (Watkins 1925; Williamson &Bellamy 1983) and the claims made by Alexander Thom about the geometryand mensuration mensuration/men��su��ra��tion/ (men?ser-a��shun) the act or process of measuring. applied to the construction of British stone circles,and their 'astronomical' alignments (Thom 1967; Burl 1976:50-2). Watkins and Thom, working in positivist pos��i��tiv��ism?n.1. Philosophya. A doctrine contending that sense perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought.b. frameworks, documentedtheir views in considerable detail. But the rules of argument which theyset up were simply not rigorous enough to satisfy archaeologists'normal requirements for the validation of claims for patterns andrelationships in archaeological data. Eventually, Watkins and Thorn werevulnerable to archaeological common sense; credulity was strained by thenotion that prehistoric people travelled in straight lines, or employed,over a considerable area, a unit of measurement standardised withtolerances best expressed by citing the thickness of a wasp's leg. Archaeological fieldwork has been well served over the years by acombination of empiricism empiricism(ĕmpĭr`ĭsĭzəm)[Gr.,=experience], philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience. For most empiricists, experience includes inner experience—reflection upon the mind and its , logical positivism and critical scepticism,supported by careful observation and recording. It comes as something ofa shock to encounter a version of 'landscape archaeology'(Cummings & Whittle 2004: 17, 22) which is much more dependent onrhetoric, speculation, argument by assertion, and observations notalways replicable when checked. It is perhaps just possible to persuadeoneself that Tilley's 1994 studies were intended mostly as anexperimental, pioneer demonstration, rather than a defensiblecontribution to Neolithic studies; but the same can hardly be said ofCummings' work, which is presented as 'normal science',following Tilley's paradigm. In any event, the study of ceremonialmonuments has been virtually taken back to pre-Enlightenment times; forone has to ask, in what sense does this kind of'phenomenology' represent a conceptual advance on the approachof William Stukeley? And on what basis, if any, would'phenomenologists' part company from a writer like Peterson(1998: 25-32 and passim PASSIM - A simulation language based on Pascal.["PASSIM: A Discrete-Event Simulation Package for Pascal", D.H Uyeno et al, Simulation 35(6):183-190 (Dec 1980)]. ), who claims that the stones at Pentre Ifan(seen from the east) represent 'a whale/seal being carried aloft bythree seal/whale orthostats' and that 'a great many seal headdesigns' can be seen in the profiles and surface relief of severalstones on this site, not to mention numerous other well-known Britishand Irish megaliths? What has 'gone wrong' in a wider sense? A short answer tothis question seems to be that Tilley, and then Cummings and Whittle,have transferred the style of writing and argument used for post-moderncritique and interpretive writing--a highly performative per��for��ma��tive?adj.Relating to or being an utterance that peforms an act or creates a state of affairs by the fact of its being uttered under appropriate or conventional circumstances, as a justice of the peace uttering area--to aproject which is essentially and necessarily investigative. The practiceof fieldwork has been treated as a continuation of rhetoric by othermeans. With reference to his most recent phenomenological essays, Tilleyhas claimed that 'a thin and sensorily impoverished"analytical" account' has been replaced by 'a richlytextured carnal carnaladjectiveReferring to the flesh, to baser instincts, often referring to sexual “knowledge” phenomenological "thick" description'(2004: 28). Apparently the 'thin technicist Tech´ni`cistn. 1. One skilled in technics or in one or more of the practical arts. archaeologicaldescription', which he eschews, makes the past 'remote andsterile' (Tilley 2004: 221). Ironically, however, sterility is anall too evident outcome of these Welsh case studies; in my judgement,virtually nothing new has been revealed or discovered in the areastargeted by 'phenomenology', and fresh interpretive insightsare largely confined to ethnographically based rhetoric. Nor is'thick description' particularly evident here, although Iaccept that 'contextualising' these megalithic tombs is notparticularly easy, given the range of evidence available for the WelshNeolithic. (Arguably Breton menhirs are even more challenging in thisregard; Tilley 2004: Chapter 2.) Tilley has characterised writing the past in the present as aconceptual dreamwork Dreamwork differs from classical dream interpretation in that the aim of dreamwork is to explore the various images and emotions that a dream presents and evokes, while not attempting to come up with a single, unique dream meaning. (2004: 225). This may be so. But field archaeologyis nothing like 'dreamwork'; it is simply unrealistic toproblematise it in terms of a simple polarisation between an approachdubbed analytical, Cartesian and 'sterile', and a polemicallyconstructed 'alternative' which claims to be experiential,thickly descriptive and 'human'. 'Stones that float tothe sky' (Cummings & Whittle 2004: 72-6) are one thing;landscape archaeology that floats to the sky is quite another. Acknowledgements I thank colleagues in the Department of Archaeology andAnthropology, University of Wales, Lampeter HistoryWhen Thomas Burgess was appointed Bishop of St David's in 1803 he almost immediately identified the need to establish a College in which Welsh ordinands could receive a higher education. , for illuminating commentson a seminar which covered some of the ground with which this article isconcerned. Received: 20 January 2005; Accepted: 11 July 2005; Revised: 9August 2005 References BRADLEY, R. 1993. Altering the Earth. Edinburgh: Society ofAntiquaries of Scotland The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland is the senior antiquarian body in Scotland, with its headquarters, collections, archive, and lecture theatre in the Royal Museum, Chambers Street, Edinburgh. The Society plays an important role in the cultural life and heritage of Scotland. . --2000. An archaeology of natural places. London: Routledge. BURL, A. 1976. The stone circles of the British Isles. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press. CHILDREN, G. & G. NASH. 1997. Neolithic sites of Cardiganshire,Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. Woonton Almeley: Logaston. CUMMINGS, V. & A. WHITTLE. 2004. Places of special virtue:megaliths in the Neolithic landscapes of Wales. Oxford: Oxbow. CUMMINGS, V., A. JONES & A. WATSON Wat��son, James Dewey Born 1928.American biologist who with Francis Crick proposed a spiral model, the double helix, for the molecular structure of DNA. He shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for advances in the study of genetics. . 2002. Divided places:phenomenology and asymmetry in the monuments of the Black Mountains,Southeast Wales. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12: 59-70. DANIEL, G.E. 1950. The prehistoric chamber tombs of England andWales England and Wales are both constituent countries of the United Kingdom, that together share a single legal system: English law. Legislatively, England and Wales are treated as a single unit (see State (law)) for the conflict of laws. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . FLEMING, A. 1999. Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: adreaming too far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18: 119-25. --2001. Dangerous islands: fate, faith and cosmology. Landscapes 2:4-21. GRIMES, W. 1949. Pentre Ifan burial chamber, Pembrokeshire.Archaeologia Cambrensis 100: 3-23. LUDLOW, N. 2003. The Cadw early medieval ecclesiastical sitesproject part 2, fieldwork: Pembrokeshire. Ms. report by CambriaArchaeology for Cadw. PETERSON, E. 1998. Stone Age Alpha. Aberuthven: P. C. D. Ruthven. REES, S. 1992. A guide to ancient and historic Wales: Dyfed.London: HMSO HMSO(in Britain) Her (or His) Majesty's Stationery OfficeHMSOn abbr (BRIT) (= His (or Her) Majesty's Stationery Office) → distribuidor oficial de las publicaciones del gobierno del Reino Unido . THOM, A. 1967. Megalithic sites in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon. TILLEY, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths andmonuments. Oxford: Berg. --2004. The materiality of stone. Oxford: Berg. WATKINS, A. 1925. The old straight track. London: Methuen. WILLIAMSON, T. & L. BELLAMY. 1983. Ley-lines in question.Tadworth: World's Work. Andrew Fleming, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology,University of Wales, Lampeter, Ceredigion SA48 7ED, UK (Email:a.fleming@lamp.ac.uk)