in which he chose which monuments to record in his catalogue is a manifestation of his own subjective and personal concerns about Carter. Any information gained from him was clearly deemed as potentially toxic.

It is curious how often Carter seemed to have been right, at least in some of his interpretative positions, when he was deemed to be so wrong by his contemporaries. In 1969 Carter wrote a letter to the BBC, who were then sponsoring an archaeological excavation to drive a tunnel into Silbury Hill in Wiltshire, the largest artificial mound in Europe. He writes: 'I investigated the meaning and purpose of the hill thirty years ago and am prepared to offer you a talk for broadcasting, now, for demonstrating why the work *will be a failure*. He was not invited to talk and the excavation did indeed prove to be a failure, in that no artefacts were found. Carter's 30-year-old interpretation first put forward in on *The Flank of Archaeology* was that the hill was a viewing platform, or observatory: 'It is only when one climbs to the summit that one realizes what a noble platform it is, overtopping (but only just so) all the neighbouring low-rolling downs. From its summit a clear view is obtained in all directions and its ample platform must have rendered it a grand view-point.' Carter goes on to write that: 'Silbury Hill was raised until its height exceeded that of Waden Hill to the NE and then the builders stopped work'. Its construction and use had to be understood in relation to the surrounding landscape. These ideas are very much current and living in contemporary archaeological research (e.g. Barrett's discussion of Silbury Hill as a viewing platform (Barrett 1994: 31)).

For Carter the conventional archaeology of his day was far too materialistic and desperately limited in its aspirations to interpret the past. Archaeologists always failed to go beyond the things that they excavated or surveyed to discover what was really important: the underlying immaterial religious and social principles that they objectified.

Naturally Carter's work cannot be uncritically accepted today. His use of direct ethnographic analogies between Vedic rites in India and the material he was finding in East Devon may appear somewhat dubious in the direct manner in which it was undertaken, but there has been a recent and renewed interest in Indo-European influences in the emergence and development of the European Early Bronze Age by a number of Scandinavian prehistorians, in particular, works by Kristiansen and Larsson (2005) and Kaliff (2007). Furthermore, some of Carter's general ideas – that pebbles were things of spiritual power, that colour symbolism was important, that rituals at the mounds involved fire and notions of purification, that the blue stones were important, that pebbles might be carefully chosen and selected and patterned in various ways, that many
cairns may never have been intended for burial – are extremely important insights informing this book. Like Carter we need to imaginatively engage with the past to produce an interpretative account, relevant to the present and not produce a dry-as-dust inventory of factual information. Ultimately Carter could not prove his case and we will not do so either. Anyone who thinks they can should not be engaged in archaeology, since it is always an interpretative exercise, fragile, provisional and open to change.

Carter’s work did not occur in a vacuum. It is obviously a product of his own personal experiences and his times, as indeed is this book. We need to situate the reactions to the work of Carter in relation to the dominant ethos of both archaeology and anthropology in the period 1920–40. Here we need to remember that field anthropology was limited and very much in its infancy and that archaeology was trying to establish its credentials as a form of academic research to be taken seriously, which meant in practice eschewing anything that might be deemed to be ‘speculative’ or going beyond the ‘facts’. The major concern of archaeologists was, lacking radiocarbon dating, to establish a reliable chronology for the past based primarily on the typological analysis of artefacts. Carter directly attacked this holy grail and suffered the inevitable consequences in his determination to prove his case that the sites he had excavated were of Iron Age date. He never changed this view throughout his lifetime. But he shared the main explanatory basis put forward by prehistorians to understand cultural change: the movement of people and the diffusion of ideas across Europe to Britain from the East and from the Mediterranean civilizations.

Grimp, as Carter was affectionately known in his family (Figure 2.22), undoubtedly had a somewhat prickly personality at times, but he was absolutely driven and dedicated to his personal research. He was a man who was extremely well read, with an extraordinary depth and breadth of interests, and who was working outside and was excluded from an academic institutional framework. He was a dogged and determined man who seems to have had an absolute belief in the veracity of his own ideas that changed little throughout his lifetime. As far as his archaeological research is concerned, he simply applied the same kind of geometrical analyses to more and more sites from East Devon to Cornwall, from Exmoor to Wiltshire and Dorset to Yorkshire and Scotland, often using large-scale plans from 6-inch Ordnance Survey maps. It is obvious that at least in the 1930s he kept up with current archaeological research and ideas that influenced him, such as the discovery of Neolithic causewayed enclosures and the origins of the bluestones of Stonehenge. The title of one of his manuscripts, *The Flank of Archaeology*, perhaps says it all: there were the dominant, institutionally accredited prehistorians and there was
<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.22** Carter in later life: photograph taken about 1970
(Source: Carter archive)</figcaption></figure>

Carter, representing the flank, an alternative vision of the past decried by those in the academy and consequently not to be taken seriously. He desperately wanted to make sense of the East Devon landscape in which he was born and grew up. In his retirement in Devon, just as in India before, he had a huge variety of other research interests, from local geology to folklore studies to history to archaeology to numismatics, reflected in some of his other publications (Carter 1927, 1928, 1932a, 1932b, 1933). His daughter, Priscilla Hull, remarks of him 'He never stopped reading, writing, studying .... He could be confrontational but that rather ran in the family .... But my father was quite willing to be reasonable so long as you agreed with him!', she chuckles (interview, 31 March 2008).

Material from Carter's collections (archaeological and geological) partly formed the basis of the collections of Fairlynch Museum in Budleigh Salterton, founded by a group of women including Priscilla Hull. Carter wrote a pamphlet for the museum on the local archaeology and history of the area. Carter's papers on the history, archaeology and folklore of Pakistan are in Cambridge University Library. His unpublished papers and photographs and records on the archaeology, history and folklore of Devon are in the Devon Record Office, Exeter.
3

Early Bronze Age pebble cairns

Christopher Tilley, Andrew Meirion Jones and
Karolína Pauknerová

This chapter discusses the results of the excavation of three pebble
cairns on Colaton Raleigh Common: Tor Cairn, Little Tor Cairn and Twin
Cairn A.

Early investigations: George Carter's excavation
of a pebble cairn

In October 1930 and during the summers of 1936 and 1937, George Carter partially excavated a pebble cairn on Woodbury Common that he named Woodbury ε (SY 05088 87380). This was one of a series of excavations of 'pebbled mounds' that he undertook in the area known as Woodbury Common during the early 1930s (Carter 1936). Carter's investigations provide us with the first and only published work on these structures. Since then and prior to the excavations undertaken by the East Devon Pebblebeds Project in 2008–11 discussed here, there has been no subsequent work. Thus Carter's report formed the evidential background for undertaking the current excavations.

Carter described Woodbury ε as a flat-topped circular mound covered
by a thin turf layer. Underneath this layer he found a ring of large pebbles
forming the top edge of a circular cairn made up of alternating layers of
turfs, pebbles and sand. The cairn was about 3.6 m in diameter at the top
and 0.6 m high. The diameter at the base was about 7 m (Figure 3.1). The
top ring of large pebbles contained at least two 'blue stones'. These are dis-
tinctive and comparatively rare bluish-grey pebbles. Carter dug a central
trench and at the approximate ground surface discovered another large
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.1** Woodbury ε (Source: Carter archive)</figcaption></figure>

blue stone overlying a much smaller one forming a smaller central ‘cairn’ or accumulation of pebbles about 0.6 m in diameter. Below this was ashy yellow clay about 20 cm thick (ISCA: 30). Below this level he discovered sherds of Beaker pottery (see Taylor, Appendix 1) and a barbed and tanged arrowhead deposited in relation to another small ‘cairn’ or collection of pebbles, beneath the old ground surface in what was presumably a central pit. Below this he discovered another ‘cairn’ of pebbles with a blue stone on the top and another at the bottom ‘sunk deep into the ground’ (Carter 1936: 9) (Figure 3.2). What Carter appears to have discovered was a pebble cairn with a central pit beneath it, packed with pebbles and with comb-decorated Beaker sherds and an arrowhead deposited at the top (Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3). There was no charcoal or ash in this deposit. Excavation around this cairn in 1936–7 revealed what Carter referred to as a pebble ‘skirt’ or ‘carpet’ around it about 15 m wide (Carter 1936: 10). Here he found a flint axe hammer on the southeast side beneath the ‘base of a small cairn’ (possibly another pit with a pebble packing). He suggests that the cairn itself appeared to be slightly enlarged on the southeast side (Carter 1936: 10). He noted that the pebbles used to construct the cairn itself were ‘large and carefully selected and imply a careful ritual’ (11). Besides the arrowhead, only one small flint flake was recovered from the cairn.

Woodbury ε (Figure 1.10: 17) is one of seven pebble cairns in Colaton Raleigh parish (Figure 1.10: 13–17 and 20). All but number 20 are situated in similar locations on the fringe of the Pebblebed heathlands overlooking arable land with distant views to the sea to the south.
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.2** Carter's section through the centre of Woodbury ε (Source: Carter archive)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.3** Woodbury ε: the comb-decorated Beaker sherds and the barbed and tanged arrowhead (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

They occur on southeastern sloping spurs of the heathlands bounded by streams to the west and the east and 0.75 km or less distant from each other. The locations of all but Carter's Woodbury ε are intervisible. This chapter discusses the excavation of three of these pebble cairns, named Tor Cairn, Little Tor Cairn and Twin Cairn A (Figure 3.4).

Tor Cairn is situated 4.6 m to the north of a smaller pebble cairn, Little Tor Cairn, and rises to a present height of 0.5 m and has a total diameter of 6 m. Little Tor Cairn is 0.25 m in height and has an approximate diameter of 4 m. Both are situated on the side of a southeast sloping spur at a height of 90 m overlooking a valley to the west. Prior to
<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.4** The location of pebble cairns on Colaton Raleigh Common
(Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

machine cutting of the thick gorse and heather vegetation covering the
site it proved impossible to locate the smaller cairn and the larger one was
invisible, its presence only discernible through movements of the feet.
Situated about 120 m to the north and in the centre of the same spur is a
much larger cairn c. 12 m in diameter and 1.5 m high (Great Tor Cairn).
This is a prominent landmark, sky-lined from the east; the others cairns
are not (Figure 1.11d). All three of these pebble cairns on the same spur
overlook an enclosure (cropmark site) of prehistoric date with finds of
Early Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery (Tilley et al. n.d.). From all three
cairns the sun is visible on the midwinter solstice rising out of the sea to
the west of High Peak. The rays of the rising midwinter sun run across
Little Tor Cairn and Tor Cairn in dramatic fashion (Figure 1.15c).

**Excavation and research methodology**

Initial experiments were conducted to build a pebble cairn in order to
gain some insights into the techniques required. These showed that it was
quite impossible to build a stable structure from rounded pebbles alone. They require embedding in a stable matrix of earth or sand to remain in position because their smooth, rounded forms lack edges. In this respect a pebble cairn is a most unusual structure when compared with Bronze Age cairns elsewhere built from broken stones, or earthen barrows. They *require* the layering of different kinds of materials: a distinctively regional architectural tradition peculiar to the Pebblebed heathlands.

As a result of the assumed (and real) instability of the structure the excavation of Tor Cairn and Twin Cairn A was undertaken by the quadrant method. Little Tor Cairn was totally excavated, while parts of the other two cairns were left unexcavated so that they might be further examined in the future. The overall aim was to obtain as much information as possible while minimizing disturbance to the cairns. Excavation of the three cairns proceeded with the successive removal of pebbles followed by the turf/earth layer into which the pebbles were embedded. One of the motivating factors in the excavation of the cairns was to examine the nature of prehistoric perceptions of the Pebblebed environment, and in particular the potential for the systematic use of pebbles in the construction of prehistoric monuments.

## Tor Cairn

The SE quadrant was excavated in 2008, while the NW quadrant was excavated in 2009. In each case the excavation began by removing the overburden of heathland vegetation in order to expose the cairn surface. Following discovery of a central pit a further 2 m square area was excavated at the centre of the cairn. The remainder was left intact (see Figure 3.5). After excavation the cairn was restored to its original form.

In order to provide spatial control during excavation and facilitate systematic recording, each layer of pebbles at Tor Cairn was recorded by using a grid of 1 m squares across the excavated quadrant. In 2008 each layer of pebbles was photographically documented and colour coded *in situ* prior to removal during excavation. On removal the excavation layer was recorded and the individual pebbles were measured, weighed and described in terms of their shape and colour. In 2009 each pebble layer was photographed *in situ* and then all pebbles from the layer were extracted, sorted according to their colour, 'special' pebbles (see below) were set aside, the broken pebbles were separated and the whole pebbles weighed and their longest length measured. In this manner all pebbles from the quadrant were recorded by metre square and level from the top to the bottom of the cairn. Three categories were used to record
<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.5** Tor Cairn, foreground, and Little Tor Cairn, background, showing the extent of the excavated area with the trench extending between the two cairns. The central pit is visible. Note High Peak visible on the horizon to the south, situated on the coast (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

pebble shapes: round, oval and irregular. The colours of the pebbles were recorded in terms of the following seven basic categories: white/quartz, red, brown, grey, yellow, black and what we termed CBS (Carter Blue Stone: see Chapters 2, 4 and 5). The latter colour category was recorded in recognition of Carter's work, in which he singled it out as an especially important type of pebble and of great possible symbolic significance in cairn construction (Figure 3.6f). He wrote nothing about other types of pebbles and their qualities. Our category of 'special' pebbles was designed to take account of pebbles with striking characteristics: those with distinctive multi-coloured patterning on their surfaces or striking quartz veins and inclusions of various kinds (Figure 3.6 and Figures 5.5 to 5.13).

Geologists have long recognized another special category of pebbles on the heathlands: ventifacts (Leonard *et al.* 1982; Edwards and Scrivener 1999: 88). These are wind-polished pebbles that originally lay on the surface of the red sandy Triassic desert across which the great river flowed. They have one rough surface that originally lay on the floor of the desert sand and two, three or more finely polished surfaces produced by wind and sand with a distinctive sharp ridge between them (see Figure 3.18). Ventifacts
<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.6** Examples of ‘special’ pebbles: (a–e): ‘special’ pebbles; (f): Carter Blue Stone (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

are rare and usually highly localized in their distribution on the heathlands. The nearest location to Tor Cairn where they are known to occur is to the west of Uphams Plantation, 2 km to the southwest (Leonard *et al.* 1982: 334). Might there be some of these included in the cairn construction?

In order to establish the immediate nature of the natural deposits on which the cairn was constructed, four adjacent 1 m squares were excavated in the natural having removed the topsoil, 42 m away to the NNW of the excavated site, and all pebbles in the top layer were recorded. In addition to this 11 further random test samples of pebbles from the natural were recorded from a variety of different locations across the entire heathland area (see discussion in Chapter 4). Recording the pebbles in both the excavation and the test samples in this manner was an extremely time-consuming and laborious process and in fact took three times longer
than the excavation itself. And we were well aware that we were recording
material that archaeologists would usually regard as natural and ready-
to-hand building material and of little or no other significance.

The test squares excavated in 2008 to the northwest of the cairn
immediately indicated that the natural Pebblebed deposits here were very
mixed, with lots of small pebbles and small quartz chips. There were far
fewer pebbles than in the pebble layers of the cairn, they were smaller and
their spatial distribution was random or unstructured in comparison with
the careful placement of those in the cairn. There were very few 'special'
pebbles compared with their frequency in the cairn itself. It is unlikely then
that the pebbles used for the construction of Tor Cairn simply come from
the immediate locality. Many must have been selected and brought to the
site from at least some distance away. This is discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

Tor Cairn: the excavated features

Cairn composition

Excavation of the cairn indicated that the cairn was constructed of sev-
eral distinct components, an inner core cairn, context 019, around 1.5
m diameter, comprising around three layers of turf and pebbles, and an
outer cairn composed of a basal layer of sand, context 006, followed by
layers of turf and pebbles, context 005 (see Figure 3.7). The cairn compo-
sition, consisting of layers of turf and pebbles, was evident during excava-
tion, although this was difficult to depict during section recording as the
looseness of the fabric of the pebble cairn made the delineation of distinct
layers of turf and pebbles difficult (Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9). Dates were
obtained from charcoal from context 022, a dark sandy layer beneath the
core cairn on the southeastern side of the cairn. This produced an AMS
date of 3460±40 BP; 1890 to 1680 cal. BC (BETA 257340). This and all
the other 22 calibrated dates discussed in the rest of the text use INTCAL04
Radiocarbon Age Calibration. All dates given are 2 Sigma calibration at 95
per cent probability. A date from the basal sandy layer, context 006, of
3350±40BP; 1740 to 1520 cal. BC (BETA 280834), from *Corylus* sp., was
also obtained. These two overlapping dates confirm that the core cairn
is older than context 6. The earlier date corresponds with another date
obtained from the base of the cairn in the southern quadrant which may
pre-date the construction of the cairn (AMS radiocarbon date of 3490
±40BP; 2130 to 2090 cal. BC and 2050 to 1890 cal. BC (BETA 257339)).

The outer perimeter of the cairn was marked with a formal arrange-
ment of laid pebbles with gaps about 0.3 m apart inserted with their long
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.7** Tor Cairn sections and their locations (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.8** Tor Cairn simplified scheme showing the different contexts and their relationships (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

* 005 pebbles and turfs (secondary cairn) (white)

* 006 sandy base for secondary cairn (grey)

* 019 pebbles and turfs (primary cairn) (red)

* 008 charcoal rich soil, possible evidence for fires on the perimeter (purple)

* 022 compact dark sandy material with rich deposits of charcoal (green)

* 030 charcoal (yellow)

* 029 yellow clay (pit cap) (black)

* 037 pit filled with pebbles (light blue)

axis upright. This was clearly evident in the southern quadrant, though less definite in the northern quadrant.

Pebbles are used in a variety of ways in the construction of the rest of the cairn. For the most part pebbles are laid horizontally, however occasionally pebbles are propped vertically to revet components of the
<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.9** Tor Cairn sections: southwest quadrant; (a): N–S section; (b): detail of N–S section: centre of cairn; (c): W–E section. Note basal layer of primary cairn in foreground; (d): W–E section showing sandy layer under pebbles; (e): northwest quadrant: W–E section; (f): N–S section, detail (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

cairn. This was apparent in the centre of the southern quadrant, where a large rounded quartz pebble was propped in the basal layers. It was also evident in the southern perimeter of the cairn, where small pebble-shaped pits were noted which evidently once held vertically positioned pebbles that were positioned at the edge of the cairn. While there were no discernible colour patterns evident in the use of pebbles to construct the various levels of the cairn (see discussion in Chapters 4 and 5), at certain points in the construction of the cairn patterns begin to emerge. For example, during the excavation of the central structure of the cairn in
the southern half, the distinctive positioning of a blue stone in the layer
making up the turf and pebble layer was noted. This was recorded in each
layer excavated. The blue stones effectively formed a linear feature run-
ning vertically through the bottom layers of the cairn. These findings rep-
licate those made by Carter in the Woodbury ε cairn discussed above. Blue
stones were not distributed evenly in the cairn construction. Most were
found in the central part of the cairn, however this fact is partly the result
of the greater number of pebble layers at the cairn centre. Nevertheless
they are concentrated around the centre, going down through the whole
pebble structure. They were found in the northern excavated quadrant;
however there were only very few in the southern one (Figure 3.10).

The composition of the mound accords with that of other exca-
vated cairns in the southwest. At Tor Cairn we observed a central core
cairn, with occasional large propped pebbles used to ground or centre
the middle of the cairn. This kind of feature has also been noted in other
excavated cairns. Jones (2005) notes a similar feature at Colliford and
Treligga 7, Cornwall. Meanwhile the two-phase construction of Tor Cairn

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.10** The distribution of the blue stones in Tor Cairn (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
has parallels with a number of southwestern cairns, such as Colliford,
Davidstow, Treligga 7 and Cockscairn (Jones 2005: 81–5; 78).

The base and edge of the cairn

Soil micromorphological analysis by Richard Macphail of the soil below
the cairn showed that the surface where the cairn was built was care-
fully prepared. A 14-cm-long section sample from the soil below Tor
Cairn had three layers: '1) the basal subsoil and pebble make-up of the
cairn, 2) an inverted turf base to this cairn, over 3) a truncated subsoil'
(Macphail Appendix 5). The layer of turf contained much very fine char-
coal. According to the report this testifies to management by fire.

There was no ditch running around the perimeter of the cairn, as
is commonly the case in earthen barrows. The absence of a ditch pre-
sumably relates to the fact that no materials were utilized *in situ* for the
construction of the cairn. Instead, it seems more likely that the pebbles
that make up the core cairn and overlying cairn had been selected and
brought to the site. The site therefore sits on the natural geology of the
Pebblebeds, rather than being composed out of it.

As noted above, the perimeter of the cairn to the south is well
defined by upright pebbles. This was less evident to the north. The differ-
ences in the appearance of the perimeter of the cairn to south and north,
with a defined edge and propped pebbles at its edge to the south, with
little apparent edge to the north, can perhaps be explained by the slight
slope on which the cairn is located. The perimeter and propped pebbles
may be considered as a mechanism for revetting the overburden of the
mound on its southern edge.

However, the perimeter is also defined in other ways, as during exca-
vation a marked layer of charcoal-rich soil, context 008, was revealed at the
perimeter of the cairn. It was surmised that this represented the deliberate
burning of the edge of the cairn at some stage during the construction pro-
cess. From this it is possible to surmise that the primary core cairn was built,
followed by the deposition of sand, context 006, for the secondary cairn. It
was evident that at the time the perimeter of the cairn was constructed the
layer of burning, context 008, respects the perimeter. The upper layers of
turf and pebbles that form the upper components of the cairn, context 005,
would then have followed this phase of building (Figure 3.11).

While the firing of the vegetation layer prior to cairn construction is
well attested at other Early Bronze Age cairns, and recorded in Tor Cairn,
too, firing during the construction process is less well known. We can per-
haps think of the firing process as one of demarcation, defining the edge
<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.11** Tor Cairn: plan showing burnt areas, pebble-filled pit and central features (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

or border of activities associated with cairn construction, and effectively
punctuating the construction of the two phases of the cairn.

## Features beneath the cairn base

One small pit (context 021), with dimensions of 0.8 m × 1 m and with a depth of 9 cm, was located in the centre of the southern excavated quadrant, under the base layer of sand, context 006 (see Figure 3.12 and Figure 3.19). It was filled with charcoal which produced an AMS radio-carbon date of 3490±40 BP; 2130 to 2090 cal. and 2050 to 1890 cal. BC (BETA 257339). It is significantly earlier than a date for charcoal
<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.12** The top of the pebble-filled pit (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

embedded in context 006, which produced an AMS date of 3330±40 BP; 1920 to 1730 cal. BC and 1720 to 1690 cal. BC (BETA 257339).

**Central features**

The centre of the cairn, beneath the core cairn, was marked by a series of features (Figure 3.7). Excavation of the centre of the core cairn revealed a mound of compact yellow clay, context 029. A fragment of charcoal from *Betula* sp. from this context produced an AMS date of 3520±40 BP; 1950 to 1740 cal. BC (BETA 280836).

This context was overlain by a dark charcoal-rich layer, context 030. On excavation context 030 appeared to consist of mixed layers of thick greasy charcoal and thin lenses of bright red sand. It also included large *in situ* planks and chunks of wood (see Challinor, Appendix 2 for discussion). An AMS radiocarbon date was derived from *Corylus* sp. from context 030 which produced a date of 3550±40 BP; 2110 to 2100 cal. BC and 2040 to 1880 cal. BC (BETA 280835). Bulk samples of this material were wet sieved and examined for traces of calcined bone: there were none. Excavation indicated that context 029 is a hard clay-rich deposit. A sample of this material was examined by Simon Hillson (UCL, Institute of Archaeology) to see if there were any traces of bone. Again the results were negative. This clay is not found in the vicinity of Tor Cairn. Its nearest probable source is along the streambeds bounding the spur on which the cairn sits. Context 029 sealed the mouth of a pit under the
cairn, context 037. The pit had an oval mouth and a rounded bottom. It was 0.4 m deep and 0.45 m wide at the mouth and 0.32 m at the bottom, the shape was slightly convex. The excavation of the pit produced a succession of tightly packed pebbles and a large chip of a brown pebble with retouched edges that was laid cortex upwards (see Figure 3.16). Neither the bottom nor the walls of the pit showed any traces of burning. No charred wood in this feature was found and there were no artefacts.

Context 22 in the central structure is a dark charcoal-rich sandy layer beneath the primary core cairn overlying the central pebble-filled pit. We interpret this as material that was raked up from the area in the vicinity of the cairn and represents deposits below the humic A horizon of the former soil. The pollen from it relates to a pre-cairn environment clearance phase. Context 22 was tested for the presence of P₂O₅ phosphate by Antoním Majer and Petr Pokorný (see Appendix 3). The sample from the centre was compared with a control sample taken from the soil from one of the upper excavation units in the centre of the secondary cairn. The concentration of phosphate was very low in both the archaeological sample and in the reference sample. According to the report: 'this finding excludes possibility of presence of bone materials (animal bones or human burial) and of organic waste rich in phosphates'. The results of physical properties measurements exclude, according to the same report: 'influence of high temperatures (i.e. fire) in the genesis of both layers and in their post-depositional history'. The results of the previous analysis were verified also by the palynological analysis of context 22 carried out by Pokorný, (Appendix 4), where he argues that the sample 'contains some microscopic charcoal particles, but their concentration is very low. This finding does not allow reconstruction of local fires at the time of sedimentation, nor post-depositional burning of sediment.' A pollen analysis of the same sample differs from that undertaken from the podzolized soil beneath the cairn, indicating that the area in the vicinity was an open oak woodland with an understorey of hazel, grasses and ferns. There is limited heath in the vicinity (Appendix 4). This is discussed further in Chapter 8.

The interpretation of the features discussed above is equivocal. During the excavation we interpreted the central structure as a residue of a fire *in situ*, context 30, that was overlain with compact dark sandy material rich in deposits of charcoal, context 22. After analyses were undertaken, we can conclude that the charcoal was raked up from a wider area, and that is why it was mixed up with red lenses of sand which we documented during the excavation and why the samples we had analysed were mixed with sediment. Another support for this interpretation
is the presence of planks and chunks of wood (see Challinor, Appendix 2), which would probably not be present in an *in situ* fire. In addition the evidence from the charcoal analysis suggests that the dominance of a single species, oak, amongst the charcoal is a broader characteristic of Early Bronze Age pyre construction. However, the absence of cremated bone from the features in this area should be noted.

One possible interpretation of the site is as a residue of a cremation pyre but there were no fragments or traces of bone. The absence of cremated bone is not unusual after cremations, as bone is often carefully removed from pyres and cleaned and curated after cremations, before final burial; and notably the body is cremated well above, and not on the ground surface (McKinley 1997, 134). However, we think that it is unlikely that this is a relatively rare example of a cremation pyre, dated to the Early Bronze Age, which has been sealed beneath a cairn composed of pebbles and turfs. The cairn therefore marks a whole series of significant fire-burning events at a significant place but a cremation pyre may never have been present. Notably the radiocarbon dates derived from the charred remains, context 030, and from the fired clay, context 029, are distinct and may suggest a number of episodes of burning before the final sealing of these remains beneath the inner core cairn.

Evidence of burning has been noted at other southwestern sites, such as Davidstow 1 and 16 and Treligga 1 and 2, Cornwall (Jones 2005, 103–4), while pits beneath cairns are found at Cockscairn, Colliford (CRIVC), Davidstow 1, 7, 16 and 17, Trenance and Treligga 7 (Jones 2005, 73–116). More generally, Jones (2005, 33) observes that of the excavated cairns in Cornwall the majority (57.6 per cent) are without bone, and of those that contain bone, the majority are cremation deposits (as opposed to inhumations). This would seem to compare well with the excavated results from Tor Cairn.

## The constructional sequence of Tor Cairn

Tor Cairn was constructed on a layer of inverted turfs. This surface was uneven and this unevenness was evident from the discrepancy in the number of pebble and turf layers making up the cairn, which varies from 8 to 14 layers, with the greater number of layers on the southern side of the cairn, suggesting that the old ground surface sloped slightly to the south.
Potential pre-cairn activity, in the form of the deposition of charcoal in a small pit below the base of the cairn, to the southeast from the centre, was noted beneath the sandy layer, context 006. This was radio-carbon dated to 3490±40 BP; 2130 to 2090 cal. BC and 2050 to 1890 cal. BC (BETA 257339).

Probably the first event on the site was inversion of turves. The second step was either burning of the area or the construction of the pit, context 37, and its filling. We found the mouth of the pit covered or sealed with a thick layer of yellow clay, context 029. As noted above, dates of 3520±40 BP; 1950 to 1740 cal. BC (BETA 280836) and 3550±40 BP; 2110 to 2100 cal. BC and 2040 to 1880 cal. BC (BETA 280835) were obtained from these activities.

The cairn is then constructed over these features in two distinct phases. There is evidence for a primary cairn in the approximate centre of the cairn, context 019, which measures some 1.5 m in diameter. The largest pebble in the cairn, 5.5 kg in weight, was found in the basal layer at the centre of the cairn. This primary cairn was most evident in the NW quadrant, and consisted of three layers of laid pebbles. Around the top and sides of this small central cairn was then dumped a deposit of sand, context 006, this is then followed by successive layers of turf and pebbles making up the body of the pebble cairn, context 005.

The primary cairn consists of three distinct contexts. The clay cap of the pit was overlaid with raked-up charcoal and compact dark sandy material, context 022, and then by layers of pebbles and turfs, context 019. After that the area around the core cairn was covered with a sandy base for the final cairn, context 006. On the southeastern side we recorded that the perimeter of the final cairn was marked by pebbles. Around the perimeter of the stones, and on the sandy layer, a series of fires were lit. And after this, construction of a larger cairn began, with successive layers of turf and pebbles.

Several dates were obtained from the sandy layer, context 006, that immediately stratigraphically postdates the construction of the inner core cairn, context 019. A single radiocarbon date was obtained from this context, 3390±40 BP; 1740 to 1520 cal. BC (BETA 280834). This date is substantially later than that obtained from the centre of the cairn, indicative of a fairly gradual process of cairn construction.

Excavation around the southern and northern edges of Tor Cairn revealed an arc of charcoal-rich soil, context 008, presumably the result of burning. This underlies the cairn, but overlies the sandy infill, context 006. It would appear, then, that episodes of burning to the north and south occurred during cairn construction, between the event of
constructing the central cairn and the dumping of sandy material to con-
solidate and expand the size of the cairn with additional layers of turf
and pebbles. The date obtained from context 022, arguably contiguous
with the charcoal-rich context 008, is 3440±40 BP; 1890 to 1680 cal. BC
(BETA 257340).

Pebbles are carefully laid throughout the construction of the cairn,
making up the mass of cairn material. The cairn was around 6 m in diam-
eter and 0.5 m in height. The perimeter of the cairn had a distinctive edge
of pebbles. On the southern side of the cairn there was an occasional use of
pebbles set vertically as revetments, whereas the northern side had none.

The construction of Tor Cairn was not a rapid process; rather, it
seems to have involved a series of gradual unfolding and punctuated
events. The radiocarbon dates from Tor Cairn accord well with those
obtained from other cairn excavations in the southwest, and Tor Cairn
would be situated in what Jones (2005: 36–7), following Needham
(1996), describes as period 2 or 3 of the southwestern Bronze Age, that
is, the periods between 2300–2050 BC and 2050–1700 BC.

Excavation outside the cairn

Following the excavation of the cairn itself we excavated an area 4.5 m
long and 6 m wide between Tor Cairn and Little Tor Cairn to the south
down to the natural. In this area there were no artefacts or features
cut into the ground nor was there any laid pebble layer or ‘skirt’, either
around or between the two cairns.

Comparison with Carter’s excavations

Woodbury ε and Tor Cairn are both of Beaker date, one dated by char-
coal finds, the other by artefacts, sherds of a comb-decorated beaker and
a barbed and tanged arrowhead (see Figure 3.3). They are of similar
size, and in similar locations on south-facing sloping spurs bounded by
streams with views across the heathlands to the south as far as the sea.
From both views to the north are more limited by rising ground.

Both cairns were constructed of alternating layers of pebbles and
earth and sand. They both covered a central pit dug into the old ground
surface and packed with pebbles, or possibly two pits in the case of
Carter's Woodbury ε – the detail is unclear. There were rich charcoal
deposits over the pit at Tor Cairn but none at Woodbury ε. Neither
appears to have been a place of burial or a cremation pyre, or at the
very least there are no traces of a burial or a cremation having taken
place. The capping of the pits in both cases was of yellow clay. Both had
linear arrangements of blue stones running down through the structure
of the cairn and/or in the pit(s) beneath it. Following the excavation
of Tor Cairn and the area to the south of it and re-evaluating Carter's
photograph of Woodbury ε, we think that the pebble 'skirt' was not
constructed. What he recorded as such is probably simply pebbles lying
on the old ground surface around the cairn. Both had no surrounding
ditch from which pebbles might have been extracted to build the cairns.
Woodbury ε differs from Tor Cairn in that it has a definite ring of larger
pebbles marking the top.

The find materials

The find material from Tor Cairn was meagre, consisting of the following:

Flint

Sixteen flint flakes, unretouched. Fifteen of these were of local grey chert material and one of the much higher-quality black Beer flint. Three of the flakes were fire-cracked. Four of the flakes were from the northern quadrant, the remainder from the southern quadrant. Ten were found amongst the pebbles on the upper surface of the secondary cairn, the remainder 30 cm or less beneath the upper surface of the cairn (Figure 3.13). These flakes are from the northern part of the cairn perimeter and scattered around its centre (Figure 3.14). The fire cracking on some of them may be explicable in terms of the multiple fires that took place prior to and during cairn construction discussed above. A flint core of local material came from the southern side of the cairn 60 cm in from the edge and a flaked pebble 'core' from the central area of the basal level of the primary cairn (Figure 3.13: 30 and 71).

Flaked pebbles and other stones

A flaked pebble 'ard' (Figure 3.15) was found at the centre of the cairn resting on the primary cairn, and forming part of the basal level of the secondary cairn. In other words, it was incorporated at an initial stage of the building of the secondary cairn. Near to it and in the same level was an exceptionally large pebble 23 cm long and weighing 5.5 kg (Figure 3.16).
<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.13** Tor Cairn: flint finds and the cemented sandstone fragment from the central pit resembling a rim sherd (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.14** Tor Cairn: the distribution of artefacts and other finds
(Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

We interpret this pebble as a foundation stone placed at the centre of the secondary cairn while the process of its construction was beginning. Such large pebbles do not occur in the centre of the ridge in the vicinity of the cairn. The nearest source is likely to have been the stream bed to the northwest over 100 m distant (see discussion in Chapter 4).

The flaked pebble is similar to another flaked pebble that George Carter recovered from a peat layer underlying a burnt mound at Jacob's Well at the base of the western escarpment of the Pebblebed ridge 4 km to the southwest (Figure 6.6). It was associated with the remains of a wooden structure and a spring with an Early Bronze Age date covered by a Middle Bronze Age burnt mound (Tilley 2009 and see Chapter 6 below). Quartzite is an extremely hard and intractable material and the manufacture of these flaked pebbles would have required considerable technological skill and knowledge of this material.
<figure><img src="image_62.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.15** Tor Cairn: the flaked pebble from the centre of the cairn found in the basal level of the secondary cairn (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.16** Tor Cairn: the largest pebble in the cairn placed at its centre (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

From the pebble filled pit beneath the cairn, mentioned above, we recovered a piece of flaked pebble, bearing an uncanny resemblance to a human skull bone (Figure 3.17) and a piece of hard iron-cemented sand concretion that resembles the rim of a pot sherd, so much so that it was mistaken for such on discovery. This sandstone material could not have been incorporated into the pit by chance since it does not occur locally in
<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.17** Tor Cairn: the pebble flake from the central pit (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

the immediate vicinity of the cairn. It was a deliberate deposition (Figure 3.13: 70).

## Ventifacts

Two ventifacts were found (Figure 3.18). One was from the central part of the cairn above the pebble-filled pit, the other in the adjoining excavation unit to the northwest (see Figure 3.14). These were from the secondary cairn at level 4 of the cairn construction from the top down. Both pebbles are irregular in shape with a distinctive central ridge and two very smooth sloping faces on either side of it with a rough base. One is a grey pebble with weakly developed bedding planes visible and fine white quartz veins running across part of its surface with an oval quartz ring at one end. The other is brown with white and pink quartz veins. The extreme rarity of ventifacts exposed at the surface of the Pebblebed heathlands strongly suggests that these unusual and very distinctive
<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.18** Tor Cairn: the ventifact finds from the basal levels of the centre of the secondary cairn (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

pebbles were deliberately curated and placed in the cairn during its construction.

**The contents of the pebble-filled pit beneath the
centre of the cairn (Figure 3.19)**

Since this pit is the central feature beneath the cairn, its contents are interesting to discuss in more detail. The pit contained in total 125 pebbles. One functional possibility that might be proposed is that these pebbles simply acted as packing for a wooden post at the cairn centre, but there was no room for anything else, other than perhaps a slender stick. The majority of the pebbles weighed between 250 and 750 g (62 per cent). Fifteen per cent of the pebbles weighed over 750 g and six (5 per cent) more than 1 kg. The rest were light, weighing less than 250 g. All but four of the unbroken pebbles were between 5 and 15 cm long. These results are very interesting, compared with the pebble layers in the cairn
<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.19** Tor Cairn: the contents of the pebble-filled pit (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

above: there are many more large and heavy pebbles that quite literally *weighed the pit down*. The majority were irregular in shape, matching those found in the rest of the cairn. Twenty-eight or 22 per cent were specials and six were blue stones (5 per cent). The pit contained a higher proportion of specials than any other layer and excavation unit in the cairn. Grey pebbles predominated (40 or 32 per cent), followed by yellow pebbles (18 or 14 per cent) and brown pebbles (15 or 12 per cent). There were 9 (7 per cent) quartz pebbles, 7 red pebbles (6 per cent) and 2 black pebbles (2 per cent). All these were mixed in the very tightly packed pit contents.

A central pit beneath a cairn is of itself of great significance. It also contained a large retouched pebble chip, with the cortex turned upwards. It might not be without interest that this chip when positioned *in situ* had a size and appearance of a human skull bone. Besides this there was a piece of hardened sandstone resembling a rim sherd of red Beaker pottery: both 'fake,' representations of human bone and a very significant cultural artefact. Beyond these finds it only contained pebbles. One possibility is that the pit and its contents signifies a symbolic burial as indicated by its pebble and mineral contents.
Little Tor Cairn

This pebble cairn is situated 4.6 m to the south of the much larger cairn, Tor Cairn. Little Tor Cairn was completely excavated. In the 2009 season the entire surface of the cairn was deturfed and cleaned. Excavation of the southwestern half revealed a typical pebble cairn consisting of alternating layers of pebbles with soil. There was no charcoal that might have provided a means to date it, nor any other finds. In view of this, although our original intention had been to excavate only half the cairn, leaving the rest intact, we decided to excavate the other half in 2010. Following the excavations the cairn was restored to its original form. As at Tor Cairn, excavation proceeded by the successive removal of pebbles followed by the turf/earth layer into which the pebbles were embedded. In order to provide spatial control during excavation and facilitate systematic recording, each layer of pebbles was recorded by using a grid of squares across the cairn divided into four quadrants (Figure 3.20). We excavated the pebbles layer by layer from the top to the bottom of the cairn with our recording and excavation units being the four quarters of the cairn: N1, N4 and S2 and S3 (Figure 3.20). The methodology used for recording the pebbles was the same as that described above for Tor Cairn.

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.20** Little Tor Cairn: excavation quadrants (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
The excavations revealed that the cairn consisted of a maximum of seven layers of pebbles embedded in a soil matrix (Figure 3.21). Since the old ground surface slopes to the east as well as to the south, there were a greater number of pebble layers in the eastern half of the cairn. The section through the middle of the cairn shows the uneven ground surface on which the cairn was constructed, that there are a greater number of pebble layers in the cairn centre, as should be expected, and that the inner core of the cairn was composed of significantly smaller pebbles than those found in the top layers and on the cairn periphery. The edge of the cairn was not marked out by a pebble kerb. The pebbles were carefully laid next to each other horizontally across the cairn surface and in the individual layers. In contrast to the larger Tor Cairn to the north, pebbles were not inserted vertically to revet the cairn on its down-slope periphery nor did this occur within the pebble layers. Such support was unnecessary since this is a substantially smaller structure.

The last of the pebble layers rested on the old ground surface of the Triassic Pebblebeds geological formation. Field and subsequent

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.21** North–south section through Little Tor Cairn (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
laboratory microscopic examination by Michael Allen (at 10–180 magnification of a sample of the basal sandy matrix) indicated that it is probably a combination of sand washed through the pebble matrix and relict, highly disturbed and truncated elements of the former buried soil together with residual sandy elements from the weathered Triassic parent material.

There were no features under the cairn and unlike Tor Cairn it was not constructed on a layer of inverted turfs and podzolized soils. Thirty-six samples of charcoal were recovered from the old ground surface beneath the cairn and analysed by Dana Challinor (Appendix 8). All but one were of oak, some of heartwood, the rest of round wood. One sample was of alder/hazel sp. It provided an AMS date of 3330±40 BP; 1730 to 1720 BC and 1690 to 1510 cal. BC (BETA 292816).

The dominance of oak charcoal replicates that found at Tor Cairn and similarly indicates burning at the site prior to cairn construction. The only find materials from the 2009 and 2010 excavations were three unreleased flint flakes of local grey material, one from the topmost surface of the cairn, the other two among the third layer of pebbles from the top. They were all found on the eastern side of the cairn. This general absence of find materials throughout the pebble layers replicates the situation at Tor Cairn just to the north and Twin Cairn A discussed below.

## Constructional history

Little Tor Cairn was constructed on a spur of the heathlands that had already been cleared by burning of the oak/hazel forest. The core cairn of small pebbles was probably constructed by collecting materials from the immediate vicinity. The overlying layers of larger pebbles may have come from further afield, with the blue stones and some of the special pebbles especially selected and curated (see Chapters 4 and 5). These were carefully laid next to each other over the cairn surface at an important locale in the landscape. The cairn did not mark a burial and it was only a discrete marker of place. The flint flakes, and most of the special pebbles and blue stones, were deposited in the northeast half of the cairn.

## Twin Cairn A

Excavations were undertaken at this small pebble cairn (hereafter TCA) (SY 05356 87759) in 2011. The location in the landscape replicates that of Tor Cairn and Little Tor Cairn 750 m distant to the southeast (Figure 3.4).
The cairn is located in the middle of a southeast sloping spur bounded by valleys to the west and east. Just 7 m from it, down-slope to the southeast, is another pebble cairn of similar dimensions (TCB). From the cairns the sun may be observed at the midwinter solstice rising from the sea to the west of High Peak, an important celestial relationship shared with Tor Cairn and Little Tor Cairn (hereafter TC and LTC). The spur is broader than that on which TC and LTC sit, but the cairns are located higher up in the landscape at 115 m OD so that it is possible to look down on TC and LTC. The cairns are located near to the edge of the Pebblebed heathlands overlooking a prehistoric enclosure (cropmark site) just beyond the heathland boundary (see Chapter 9). There are expansive views from the site to High Peak and across the sea to the southeast. To the northwest views are limited by the rising ground. Another pebble cairn with finds of Beaker pottery excavated by Carter in the 1930s and discussed above (Carter 1936), some 700 m to the southwest, similarly located on another southeast sloping spur bounded by valleys and at the same height in the landscape, is not visible. The landscape locations, distances between them and the pairing of cairns close to each other are repetitive and consistent (Figure 1.10 and Figure 3.4).

Prior to excavation, TCA and its twin were scarcely visible in the
dense heathland vegetation (Figure 3.22). Following removal of the

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.22** Twin Cairn A and Twin Cairn B prior to excavation looking east. Tor Cairn and Little Tor Cairn are located in the light area of the heathland vegetation (to the left of the TCA sign) across the valley in the middle distance. Note the line of the Peak Hill ridge and High Peak, the triangular-shaped hill, on the skyline (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
vegetation cover the detectable part of TCA measured only 2.5 m in diameter and its twin (TCB) 4.8 m. In the process of excavation the actual size of the cairn proved to be 3.5 m in diameter and 0.65 m high in the centre. It was thus slightly wider and higher than LTC but the relationship with its twin cairn was different, with the larger cairn being located down-slope in this case.

## Excavation methodology

Having cleared surface vegetation we adopted the quadrant method and excavated two opposite NW and SE quadrants as they appeared to be the best preserved. Both were excavated simultaneously. The structure of the cairn consisted of successive pebble layers embedded in soil. Each layer of pebbles in the two quadrants was removed. Those from the NE quadrant were washed, weighed and measured and their shapes, colours and surface physical characteristics recorded in the same manner as in the excavation of TC and LTC. Following the discovery of central features a further central section connecting the two quadrants was opened (Figure 3.23). The remainder of the cairn was left intact. After excavation, the intact areas were covered by plastic sheets, and the cairn was restored to its original dimensions.

## The excavated features

The overall cairn construction proved to be typical for the area. Five numbered contexts were distinguished and there were two distinct charcoal accumulations interpreted as fires that had taken place *in situ* at the centre. The inner central construction consisted of inverted turfs and buried soils covered by the layers of pebbles. This had the shape of a bowl with a charcoal accumulation on the bottom. Below the topsoil (context 1) there were successive layers of carefully laid pebbles set into a soft, sandy soil orange-brown matrix (context 3). But there was also a smaller patch of yellow cemented clay (context 2) around the top of the cairn and in the unexcavated NW quadrant (Figure 3.24). This was a layer about 10 cm thick and under and around it there were the pebble layers of context 3. There were 12 layers of pebbles in the NE quadrant and a further 3 in the centre of the cairn.

At a depth of 0.4 m from the top of context 3 there was a layer of yellow clay (context 4). In the central excavated section it was apparent
<figure><img src="image_70.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.23** Twin Cairn A: excavated areas (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

that context 4 formed a thick layer of clay in the centre of the cairn in a
bowl-shaped depression filled with pebbles. At the bottom of this was a c.
0.04 cm thick accumulation of charcoal. In the middle of this there was
a substantial amount of fibrous material comprising about half the vol-
ume that had been deliberately deposited. A sample of this was analysed
by Petr Pokorný, who reports that this contained an ‘enormous quantity
of fungal filaments (hyphae) and roundish fungal spores. The identifi-
cation of such fungal remains is practically impossible. They could be
‘either local growth of fungal mycelium on some organic matter (wood,
litter, soil humus, etc.), or … the content of collected fungi (their fruit
bodies, *respectively*)’ (Pokorný, Appendix 10). The stratigraphic position
of the sample supports the latter interpretation: that this is a deposition
<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

B

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

C

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

D

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.24** Twin Cairn A section drawings: (A): N–S section; (B): W–E section; (C): location of sections; (D): N–S profile of the central section (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

of mushrooms collected from a local woodland habitat. This deposition covered with a layer of fine silvery sand occurs in the context of what we refer to as an upper fire. This sand was most probably washed down from upper layers and accumulated there after the structure was completed (Lenka Lisá, personal communication). The sides of the central depression in which this deposition occurs were either repaired or covered with a layer of clay after the fire had been extinguished or charcoal raked into
it. This interpretation is based on the fact that the pebbles in both the sides and the bottom of the depression were partly sunk into the clay.

The mushrooms deposited at TCA are of great interest. From various archaeological sites mushrooms are known both as depictions and as physical mushrooms or their residues. The oldest depiction of a mushroom in Europe comes from the cave of Selva Pascuala near a Spanish village, Villar del Humo, where the murals are dated to the sixth to the fourth millennium, and most probably represents neurotropic Psilocybe mushrooms (Akers et al. 2011). There are also representations of hal-lucinogenic mushrooms in Scandinavian rock art (Kaplan 1975) and at Mont Bégo, France (Samorini 1998). Archaeological evidence exists also for the use of poisonous *Amanita muscaria* (Merlin 2003). Of other kinds of mushrooms, puffballs have been identified (Watling and Seaward 1976) and polypore are also known, with the most famous being the piece of *Fomes fomentarius* and two pieces of *Piptoporus betulinus* carried by the 'iceman' Ötzi in the Alps during the Bronze Age (Pöder et al. 1995 and Peintner et al. 1998), possibly used as an antiseptic agent and for tender.

Under the bowl-shaped depression lined with clay (context 4) there was another accumulation of charcoal that we interpreted as the remains of another fire. This was covered by another thin silvery layer not recognized during the excavation but identified in the soil micromorphology analysis (Lisá, Appendix 11). The final layer (context 5) was the old ground surface upon which the cairn was built. In the entire structure there were neither artefacts nor any remains of bone material.

A sample of soil for micromorphological analysis was taken in a kubiena tin from the N-S profile of the cairn (Figure 3.24a) in order to investigate the conjunction of contexts 4 and 5, the yellow clay and the old ground surface, at the southern edge of the charcoal accumulation at a place that was clearly visible in the section profile. This was analysed by Lenka Lisá (Lisá, Appendix 11). According to her analysis, context 5 is an 'anthropogenically influenced type of luvisol, that is, an horizon of luvisol with partly preserved turf' and most of the organic horizon is missing. From this we conclude that the area was roughly cleaned from turf before the fire was lit. The charcoal accumulation on context 5 that we have interpreted as a lower fire beneath the cairn has a weathered uppermost layer, which means that 'the site was at the time of charcoal deposition left for a while uncovered'. The charcoal accumulation does not show any signs of redeposition and therefore we can conclude that this is a residue of fire in situ. Its silvery top, even more visible in the case of the upper fire, might according to the report 'be the result of natural processes after burial'. The lower level of context 4 was an inverted,
<figure><img src="image_75.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.25** Twin Cairn A: plans. Excavated area (white) and extent of the final cairn (grey circle): (A): bottom fire; (B): bottom fire covered with clay (context 4a), upper fire with fungi in the middle and clay forming the central depression (context 4) and large pebbles – kerbstones around the central area; (C): clay patch over NW quadrant and central area (context 2), darker grey circle shows the possible extent of the original cairn, the area is approximated from its extent documented in E-W section. Next to the clay the blue oval shows the column of blue stones going through the whole pebble structure (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

non-burnt turf, whereas the upper part is the so called Ahe horizon (Lisá, Appendix 11), that is, a mineral horizon near the soil surface, enriched by organic matter but partly weathered.

In the basal areas of the cairn several very large pebbles were exca-
vated. In the SW and NE section they were concentrated in the floor
area around context 4. Other accumulations of large pebbles were dis-
covered in the SW section, and are visible in the E–W and N–S profiles
(Figure 3.24a, b) and in plans (Figure 3.25b). We interpret them as
kerbstones that were delimiting the area in two phases of construction of
the pebble layers making up the cairn.

The constructional sequence at TCA

In the construction of the cairn there are three archaeologically distin-
guishable phases. The first activity was preparation of the area, clean-
ing it roughly of turf and then lighting the first (bottom) fire. From soil
micromorphology analysis we know that the bottom fire is not just an
accumulation of charcoal but a fire *in situ*. After the fire had gone out,
the site was abandoned for some time, because the top layer of the fire
was partly weathered and the turf forming the next layer was not burnt.
The bottom fire was partly covered by clay; this is visible in the N-S pro-
file of the central section (Figure 3.24d) and in plans (Figure 3.25b).

In the second phase the bowl or the central depression surrounded by
a thick layer of clay (context 4) was constructed. The construction started
by covering the bottom fire with inverted turfs and starting the second
(upper) fire, and then the remainder of the structure was built from local
clay, probably from a stream bed. In the upper fire we found an accumu-
lation of charcoal and a substantial amount of fibrous material, analysed
as residue of fungi. As a result of its shape and position in the construction
of the central features, we suppose that it is another fire in situ. Residues
of fungi were placed in the middle of the charcoal deposits and the vol-
umes of both were roughly equal. The walls of the central depression were
repaired or refined, and this is (Figure 3.24d) where we recorded the thin
layer of upper context 4 partly washed over the upper fire. The other pos-
sibility is that the walls of the bowl were built and filled by pebbles at the
same time. In any case the pebbles laid into the bowl were put inside when
the walls were wet. This was visible on the imprints in the bottom as well as
sides of the bowl. Inside the bowl there were three layers of pebbles (cen-
tral depression levels 1–3, where 1 is the uppermost). When this process
was completed, a small pebble cairn was built covering context 4 and the
depression was filled. The edge of the small cairn was delimited by very
large pebbles forming a kerb, and then the site was left.

The third phase consists of two features – context 2 covering asym-
metrically mostly the NW quadrant and new levels of pebbles covering
the original small cairn. Context 2 could be either material washed over
the cairn or intentionally deposited in the NW quarter. The final layer of
pebbles interlaid with sandy soil was built in the same way as the small
cairn and again was delimited by kerbstones set vertically to revet the
cairn edge position. Construction of the outer pebble layer was the last
event in the construction. Nearby to the southwest there is a military
trench that fortunately did not disturb the cairn.

The sample taken for soil micromorphological analysis unfor-
tunately contained too little pollen to permit analysis. The charcoal
fragments recovered from the basal *in situ* fire and the upper fire were
analysed by Dana Challinor (Challinor, Appendix 9). All but one were of
oak and that many were of heartwood indicates that mature trees were
burnt in both contexts. The trees grew in a heavily wooded environment
that appears to have been the original virgin forest in the vicinity of the
cairn. Apart from this, hazel was present in the understorey. The pollen
analysis of buried soil under TC confirms a picture of oak/hazel forest
prior to cairn construction (see Appendix 6 and discussion in Chapter 8).

One charcoal sample that proved to be of hazel and suitable for dating was taken from SW quadrant from the upper fire and gave an AMS date of 3380±30 BP; 1740 to 1610 cal. BC (BETA 315464). This Early Bronze Age date (Needham (1996; period 3/4) compares well to the C14 date from the basal level 5 of the NE half of LTC of 3330±40 BP; 1730 to 1720 and 1690 to 1520 cal. BC, showing that the two cairns were built at approximately the same time.

Although LTC and TCA are of approximately the same date they dif-
fer markedly in terms of their structure and the activities that took place
at them. TCA is 1 m wider in diameter and almost twice as high as LTC
at the centre. LTC has a core of small pebbles over which up to five peb-
ble layers were constructed. There were no features underneath it and
it did not cover inverted turfs on the old ground surface. Its perimeter
was unmarked by a kerb. By contrast TCA had between 11 and 12 pebble
layers bounded on the periphery by a kerb of large vertically set pebbles
and was constructed on weathered inverted turfs. The absence of turfs at
LTC suggests it was constructed immediately after clearance of woodland
cover, whereas at TCA there was an interval between the clearance of the
trees and the beginning of cairn construction. Above the upper fire, TCA
covered a bowl-shaped depression lined with clay that was subsequently
filled with three layers of pebbles, many of which were of an unusual
and striking character. Half of the remains of the upper fire consisted of
fungi, which were probably collected from the forest and deposited in
the depression. The subsequent layers of pebbles (layers 1–5) were sepa-
rated by a layer of yellow clay that was collected from a local stream bed
as at TC and placed above pebble layers 6–12. This suggests that the con-
struction of the upper part of the cairn took place in two distinct phases,
whereas at LTC the pebble layers covering the inner core may have been
constructed at the same time, one after the other.
## Comparisons with other recently excavated East Devon cairns

After ploughing and in advance of afforestation of the East Hill ridge situated just to the east of the Pebblebed ridge and the river Otter in the mid-1960s, Palmer excavated four ring cairns and three cairns. One was of Beaker date, the others of probable earlier Bronze Age date. Four of them formed part of the mutilated line of monuments running along the western edge of the ridge situated just above its steep western scarp. The other three were situated at the far northern end of the Farway barrow and cairn cemetery, a short distance to their east (see Chapter 7) (Pollard 1967b, 1971).

The cairn at Daggers Piece was oval in shape, 4.5 m long and 3.6 m wide and was originally a low, discrete structure built of small angular flints. It covered two pits on the eastern side. One was covered with a large chert slab. The fill was dark black soil with few flints and much charcoal. It contained a struck flint flake. The other was covered with a flat flint, with charcoal lumps comprising 50 per cent of the fill and contained three struck flint flakes and a natural flake. There were no traces of cremated bone in either. Charcoal was also found on the old ground surface under the southeast side of the cairn in a shallow depression (Pollard 1967b: 34–6).

White Cross Ring was an oval enclosure 12 m × 10 m formed by a wall of small flints surrounding a small cairn 3.6 m × 2.7 m covering a slightly smaller oval-shaped gravel pit covered with a band of non-local red clay. The only finds were six flint flakes in the fill and a fossil sea urchin at the base. Ten other smaller pits, circular or oval in form, were found within the flint ring surrounding the central cairn and three underneath the ring itself on the northwest side. The fills were of small flints mixed with a sticky light grey clay. These were dug into the yellow clay of the old ground surface and deliberately filled with this material. They antedated the surrounding flint ring and contained no artefacts (Pollard 1971: 166). The structural sequence here consisted of three main phases: (1) the digging and infilling of the pits with contrasting coloured material; (2) the digging of the central pit of a size that according to Palmer might have covered an inhumation burial; (3) the construction of the external flint ring around the central cairn.

The sea urchin as a deliberate deposition demonstrates the acute attention to and awareness of stones to the cairn builders. Oakley (1965) mentions a rich body of folklore associated with sea urchins where they are variously regarded as talismans or lucky stones. In the Five Knolls barrow cemetery on the Dunstable Downs nearly 100 of
them surrounded the inhumation burial of a woman and a child (117; Dyer 1991).

At Burnt Common situated at the northern end of the East Hill scarp Pollard excavated a flint and chert cairn ring of Beaker date. It was roughly circular, 11 m in diameter (Pollard 1967b: 23). It may originally have been at least 1 m high and was constructed over stripped topsoil with areas of burning inside the flint ring, remains of a fire that took place soon after topsoil stripping and before the flint ring was built (27). In the centre of this ring there was a sunken stone-lined rectangular pit with its long axis aligned northeast measuring 1.5 m × 1 m and about 0.5 m deep. The pit, which had been disturbed by digging, contained sherds of a beaker with chevron decoration in its lower part with most of the vessel present. It appears to have been deliberately broken before deposition (Quinnell 2003: 15; Jones and Quinnell 2008: 41). The fabric with crushed feldspar indicates a distant source close to granite, probably Dartmoor. This is unusual given that Beaker pottery was usually locally produced and that the vessel was not of fine quality (Parker Pearson 1990: 11; Case 1995: 64).

The fill also contained two fossil sea urchins. Another was found beneath the flint ring and a fourth in the plough soil. Two small pits also occurred in the western part of the flint ring. Their fill contained charcoal. There was an area of extensive burning under the flint ring.

Excavation of a partially destroyed small flint cairn at Farway, 6 m in diameter and 0.3 m high, at the far northern end of the distribution by Pollard (1967b) revealed a central oval platform of flints surrounded by an oval flint setting 0.9 m × 0.2 m. This contained a scattering of charcoal but no other finds. A small pit on the south side of the cairn contained a fill that included many charcoal lumps. Another to the northwest contained more charcoal. Both appear to have had cover stones. A further three small pits on the north and east edges of the cairn also contained charcoal. These five pits formed an irregular ring around the cairn edge. Within them was another ring of seven post holes with a diameter of 3.6 m. A further post hole was sited just to the east of the central platform. A burnt area occurred on the northwest side of the cairn adjacent to one of the pits. This area of burning again appears to have preceded cairn construction (Pollard 1967b: 33–4). A date on *Betula* charcoal from pit 2 gave a date of 2210–2010 cal. BC (Jones and Quinnell 2008: 39).

Two flint rings on Farway Hill, only 3.6 m apart, were 14 m and 9 m in diameter. In their original state, before ploughing, the rings were about 1.2–1.5 m in width and less than 1 m high. Neither enclosed a central pit
but these rings were associated with 141 small pits, some within them,
others underneath them and others between them. These timber rings
preceded the construction of the surrounding flint rings. One pit con-
tained a fossil sea urchin. The only other finds were a few flint artefacts
and flakes (Pollard 1971: 167ff.). Dates obtained on oak sapwood and
hazel from pits 38, 39 and 40 were 1880-1660 cal. BC and 1960-1750
cal. BC and 1980-1740 cal. BC (39).

There are a number of important points of similarity and differ-
ences between the constructional sequences and the materials used to
construct these cairns and those found on the Pebblebeds. The first and
most obvious contrast is the jagged, angular and relatively uniform mate-
rial used to construct the cairns along the East Hill ridge. There was no
careful layering of materials with soil layers in between and there is no
reason to suppose that all the materials used to construct them were not
derived from the immediate vicinity. The paucity of artefact finds mirrors
the situation on the Pebblebeds.

The presence of contrasting coloured materials at White Cross ring
cairn – the yellow clay with flints into which the pits were dug, their infill
with grey clay, the red clay capping over the central oval shaped pit and
the grey-white of the flint cairn and ring – is of great interest, underlin-
ing the significance of different coloured materials in cairn construction
also found on the Pebblebeds. The presence of fossil sea urchin deposi-
tions similarly underlines an acute interest and knowledge of local stones
and their characteristics. Some of the cairns covered pits as at Tor Cairn.
Evidence for either inhumation or cremation burial under the cairns is
similarly equivocal. The flint cairns are similarly associated with evidence
for fire and burning probably connected with clearance prior to cairn con-
struction. Post holes are absent under the excavated Pebblebed cairns.

Conclusions: embodiment and bodily experience at the cairns

Ingold has recently argued that we are best conceiving of mounds not as
materials placed upon the surface of the earth, but as outgrowths from
that surface (Ingold 2010). For Ingold the mound is on, and of the earth.
These questions resonate with some of the issues that concerned us dur-
ing the excavation of Tor Cairn. However, detailed investigation of the
cairn composition and the local pebble bed geology suggests that in fact
Tor Cairn was indeed positioned on the Pebblebeds, while it was made
from materials that are of the Pebblebeds and by means of the pit it is
rooted in the Pebblebeds. More intriguingly Ingold (2010: 254) argues that it is problematic to conceive of mounds as being architecturally designed, in fact, he argues ‘in every case, the roundness of the form emerges spontaneously, due to the way in which the pressure of material added from above displaces material already deposited, equally in all directions. One could say that the mound builds up precisely because the material of which it is made is continually falling down.’ Ingold’s argument here certainly accords with many of the observed results of the Tor Cairn excavations.

We argue that we should not simply think of the cairns as structures or monuments, but as a series of events marked by materials. Many of these events are fugitive, and their traces are relatively ephemeral. However, these traces are read and worked into future projects. In this sense Tor Cairn is a continuous interrelated material project rather than a design-made material. This is surely the reason why we find no real evidence of preconceived colour patterning, although the polychrome contrasts of colour are essential components of the materials from which the cairn is composed.

As discussed above, the cairns were constructed and altered over a considerable period of time. The digging of the pit at Tor Cairn and the subsequent deposition of charcoal above it constitute a significant event that promotes the construction process – a small cairn of pebbles, placed above it. This cairn of pebbles marked the place of a significant event, a place of memory, which should be preserved for the future and should not be forgotten. The presence of the small pebble cairn acted as a visual prompt or reminder or a speaking place (*lieu parlant*). Sometime later the event was remembered by bringing in a dump of sandy material that ringed the edge of the small cairn. On the edges of this sandy material a series of small fires were lit; some of these marked the perimeter or limits of this sandy deposit. This perimeter was to form the edge of a larger pebble and turf cairn. This larger pebble cairn effectively mirrored and referenced the inner cairn of pebbles immediately beneath it. Pebbles of a suitable size were selected from further afield, and quantities of turf were cut. These were brought to the site, and cairn construction began; this was a methodical process involving the interleaving of turf and pebbles. Constructing this mound was a delicate business, as the materials out of which it was composed were fragile and obdurate. Tor Cairn was in a continuous state of collapse; it was for this reason that the southeastern edge of the cairn required revetting with propped pebbles and a defined edge as did the perimeter at Twin Cairn A. The construction of Tor Cairn was a compromise, then; it marked an earlier place of significance – the central
pit and remains of a fire – but it did so on a sloping ground surface, and utilized difficult materials, rounded pebbles, that required quite remarkable uses and solutions to this problem.

The construction of the cairns were performances in which differing colour contrasts emerged as the performance proceeded, with contrasts between blackened charcoal and bright yellow/orange clay at the outset being concealed beneath a contrasting cairn of polychrome pebbles. The distinctions in the colour of these pebbles were noticeably drawn on, as during the construction, pebbles of certain colours were used to mark specific positions in each pebble layer. This polychrome layer was then partially concealed beneath a uniform layer of yellow sand, which in turn received alternate layers of dark turf and polychrome pebbles.

Just as the performance involved changing contrasts of colour, so the performance also involved a contrasting choreography of movement. This involved a movement from the central structure above the pit and central cairn to the periphery with the spread of sand. The periphery on the southeastern side was clearly marked by a perimeter of pebbles; the periphery may have also been fired. Movement then began back towards the centre as successive layers of turf and pebbles were incorporated to make up the cairn mound. Gradually as the mound was built movement shifted back towards the edge of the site, producing a movement from outside to inside, inside to outside. This was a choreography of movement in which the properties of materials, the slippery rounded pebbles, and the people involved in arranging them around the site were interwoven. Through this choreography of movement people came to understand their relationship to the activities that made this place significant.

We have been striving throughout the above account to find a phenomenological way into understanding these pebble cairns and what they might signify. They are discreet structures in the landscape, visible only from a short distance away.

They did not stand out, punctuate the landscape and draw attention to themselves. They did not cover a burial and there appears to have been no cremation. The pit below Tor Cairn may have been a symbolic burial but its primary contents were simply pebbles in a landscape of pebbles. The Early (period 2/3) Bronze Age pebble cairns on the heathlands marked place but they did not do so in a monumental way.

Fire is an important element in the construction and significance of these cairns. They were constructed soon after the virgin oak/hazel forests had been removed by burning. The significance of fire and fire rituals has been extensively documented in traditional folk customs in both Britain and continental Europe. All over Europe the peasants kindled
bonfires on particular days of the year. Some of these rites are claimed to date back into prehistory. The earliest proof of their existence are the attempts of the Christian synods in the eighth century AD to extinguish them as pagan rituals. The kindling of bonfires and the dancing and fes-tivities and processions associated with them have consistently linked these events with the solar cycle and seasons of the year, punctuating the annual calendar and acts of purification warding off witches and evil spirits. Thus they have been alternatively explained as solar rites or rites of purification (Fraser 1993; Hutton 1996).

Hallowe'en, it has been claimed, has its origins in the Celtic feast of Samhain on 31 October. This was the beginning of the year and marked the end of summer and the beginning of winter and the ongoing cycle of the seasons. This was the time of year when the trees lost their leaves, and the feast was linked to the onset of winter and death. It was also a time of feasting and celebration, when animals put out to pasture over the summer months were taken in and confined to their winter byres, weaker and older animals would be culled, offered as sacrifices, and stocks of food were put aside for the winter. It was a time for divination and remembrance and communication with the ancestors and the spirits of the dead, a pagan feast of the dead according to Fraser (1993: 632ff. and see critical discussion by Hutton 1996: 360ff.). Samhain has been consistently linked with pastoralism in northern Europe. It has its seasonal equivalent in Beltane, taking place on 1 May. This is another reput-edly 'Celtic' fire festival marking the beginning of summer. This was the time when animals would leave their winter byres and be put out to pas-ture and the leaves would open on the trees.

Recorded details of Samhain and Beltane rites, mainly of rela-tively recent origin, are interesting in the manner in which they link the fire rituals with seasonal animal transhumance. Hutton comments that 'there seems to be little doubt that the opening of November was the time of a major pagan festival which was celebrated, at the very least, in all those parts of the British Isles that had a pastoral economy' (Hutton 1996: 369-70). At Samhain people assembled in some local high place and lit the fire at dusk. The smoke from the fires was held to be both protective and purifying, keeping witches and fairies away. Rites involved dancing around and across the bonfires, it being lucky to pass over the embers. In a Scottish version the fire was encircled with stones, one marking each family that participated in the rites (Hutton 1996: 366-7). At Beltane, the festival involved fire rituals again tak-ing place on high points. In northeast Scotland in the latter half of the eighteenth century herdsmen from several farms gathered wood,
kindled it and danced three times southwards around the flames
(Fraser 1993: 620). The rites protected cattle before they were driven
out into the pastures. They were known as bone-fires since bones were
burnt on them to prevent witches casting spells on cattle and steal-
ing milk. In some variants cattle were made to leap over lit straw or
driven around the fire in order to protect their milk. On Dartmoor cat-
tle were driven over the embers of the fires in order to protect them
(Hutton 1996: 223). The flames blessed and protected both animals
and people against misfortune. Dancing around the fires sometimes
processed clockwise in accordance with the passage of the sun across
the heavens. This was linked to more general beliefs that leaping three
times through the flames or running three times between multiple fires
would ensure a plentiful harvest, the heat of the fire being thought to
fertilize the fields, and that the crops would grow well as far as the
bonfire was visible (Fraser 1993: 621 and 645).

Throughout Europe from Italy to Sweden and from Britain to
Serbia, the most important fire rituals were the midsummer fires taking
place at the solstice, when the sun had climbed to its highest point in
the sky before sinking lower once more. The main features of these rites
across Europe were the lighting of bonfires on prominent points, dan-
cing around and leaping across them, processing with torches around the
fields and the custom of rolling a sun wheel (Fraser 1993: 622). In France
in the middle of the nineteenth century the custom of lighting fires was
ubiquitous. There was hardly a town or village that did not do so.

Evidence for midwinter bonfires associated with the winter solstice
amongst the European peasantry is slight, apart from the interiorized
domestic tradition of the Yule log that was similarly widespread across
Europe and associated with a desire to rekindle the expiring light of the
sun. In France the Yule log steeped in water would help cows to calve.
Fire festivals taking place in Lent, the Lenten fires, or at Easter are associ-
ated with the spring equinox. The fires on earth in a general way mimic
the powers of the sun and so the widespread custom of rolling a burning
wheel down a hill mimics the course of the sun in the sky.

For all the various fire festivals the joint themes are of purification
and protection – the warding off of evil powers – are consistently present.
Sometimes these are linked to the burning of human sacrificial effigies or
those of witches. Another persistent theme is the promotion of the fer-
tility of animals and crops and linked to this is the fecundity of humans.
Childless couples could achieve fecundity by leaping the fires. In an Irish
belief a woman who jumps thrice over the fire will soon marry and have
many children (Fraser 1993: 646). Finally, it is interesting to note that
the preferential fuel for the ritual fires was the oak considered in various Greek, Roman, Indo-European and Celtic mythologies to be the pre-eminently sacred tree (159–60, n. 665).

The various individual details of the European fire festivals are of little significance to this account but they exemplify the significance of the longue durée perfectly. Although the details of the rituals differ across European folklore and cosmology, the following generalizations may be drawn out of them to provide a general framework for the understanding of the fire rituals that were taking place at the pebble cairns:

* that fire rituals were a ubiquitous part of the sacred and ritual seasonal calendar;

* that the fires were lit in high places visible from farms and fields below, their light and heat spreading across the land;

* that they, or rites associated with them, such as that of the burning wheel, mimicked the passage of the sun in the sky and they were related to the solstices and equinoxes;

* that they were associated with the seasonal movements of cattle in pastoral economies;

* that they involved rites of dancing around or over the flames, sometimes associated with stones, linked to the well-being and fecundity of animals, crops and people and the warding off of evil spirits;

* that the preferential fuel was oak wood.

Fire has always been a fundamental elementary force in the creation and maintenance of this heathland landscape for at least 4,000 years from the Early Bronze Age to the present day. Indeed it might be described as a landscape of fire. At the cairn sites the land was both cleared by fire, prior to their construction, and successive fires took place while they were being built. We have seen that the mushroom depositions found in relation to the upper fire at Twin Cairn A indicate ritual activities taking place, possibly in the autumn during the period of its construction. Virtually all the identified charcoal at the three excavated cairns was of oak.

The very nature of these circular cairns suggests movement around them, and perhaps over them as part of the rites. Both the putting out of animals to summer pasture and the need to bring them back in the autumn were certainly important events in the usage of the heathlands for seasonal grazing by communities living in their vicinity in the Bronze Age, just as it was in medieval times and long into the twentieth century.
The removal of the trees prior to cairn construction allowed the landscape itself to be seen in a new way. It was, quite literally, opened out, exposing its topographic forms, the valleys and spurs and ridges. Places within this landscape of pebbles became revealed in the process, areas with contrasting soils and heathland vegetation. Tor Cairn was constructed on a sandy lense within the stony Pebblebed deposits and this may have been why this specific location was chosen for its construc- tion. By contrast, cairns constructed later in the Earlier Bronze Age (peri- ods 3–4) on the basis of presumed parallels with the situation around Stonehenge and in southwest England, are found in higher and much more prominent positions. They move up in the landscape, are much more prominent and meant to be highly visible, often skylined so they can be seen from far away. These may cover inhumations or cremations (none have been excavated).

It is clear that the small Beaker cairns represent places where materi- als from the Pebblebed landscape were gathered together: primarily the pebbles used to construct them. At Tor Cairn these include a very large foundation stone from a stream bed, ventifacts from some distance away, blue stones and special pebbles that were curated and brought here, some perhaps from a considerable distance. Yellow clay from stream beds was brought to the cairn and charcoal from fires in its vicinity. These materi- als were assembled at the cairn in multiple acts. The primary work was multiple acts of gathering pebbles. These social acts of gathering materi- als and placing them to build the cairn we regard as indicating a way to interpret and understand it. The significance of the cairn is the work that took place to create it, the act of gathering and assembling materials at this place: process rather than product or the end result. The cairn is in effect a *concentration* of the multicoloured and special pebbles found in the landscape: the cairns mass them together and concentrate them in a particular place associated with the rising midwinter sun. In so doing a potent and powerful structure is created in the landscape, producing ‘symbolic heat’ in association with the sun’s rays. If the pebbles were conceived as powerful and magical stones, as we have argued, gathering these pebbles together would be an act that would enhance and increase their symbolic potency and power at a sacred place in the landscape.
# Analysis of the pebbles

*Christopher Tilley and Clarissa Sanfelice Rahmeier*

As discussed in Chapter 3, the methodology of the excavation was conducted in order to record the pebbles in a very detailed way. As a result, pebbles from a great number of excavated squares were measured, weighed and described in terms of colour and unique features, which provided a comprehensive account of the raw material used to build Tor Cairn (TC), Little Tor Cairn (LTC) and Twin Cairn A (TCA). The methodology also allowed for a comparison between the pebbles selected to build the cairns and the pebbles found in natural test samples.

## Test samples

In order to provide a systematic comparison between the cairn pebbles and those occurring naturally in the Pebblebed heathlands, all the pebbles on the surface were excavated and systematically analysed in the same manner from 15-m-square test samples using a 1-m-square measuring frame. These were taken at different locations and from different contexts across the entire heathlands from Aylesbeare Common in the north to Budleigh Salterton beach in the south (Figure 4.1; Figure 4.2).

Two samples of beach pebbles at the western and eastern ends of the beach were taken, four samples from adjacent metre-square excavation units 42 m to the NNW of Tor Cairn, one sample from a footpath north of Black Hill, one from a ploughed field bordering Colaton Raleigh Common, three samples from stream bed locations and four samples from locations where machine topsoil scraping had taken place exposing pebbles in different parts of the heathlands (Table 4.1).
<figure><img src="image_76.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.1** The location of pebble sampling locations from the natural across the heathlands showing sample locations for large pebbles in topsoil-scraped areas and along stretches of stream beds and the 15 excavated 1-m-square samples (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_77.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.2** Examples of excavated test samples from the natural. (a): Aylesbeare Common (see Fig. 4.1: 1); (b): Stowford stream (see Fig. 4.1: 10); (c) Black Hill footpath (see Fig. 4.1: 10); (d): Budleigh Salterton Beach: eastern end (see Fig. 4.1: 15) (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

Topsoil scraping was a practice introduced in the mid-1990s to produce bare areas of heathland to increase biodiversity and produce a variety of habitat types as part of their environmental management. These test samples provide a full range of different contexts and locations with which to compare and contrast the pebbles from TC, LTC and TCA.

We were also interested in where very large pebbles occur and are easily found across the Pebblebed heathlands since these are used as kerbs and revetments in cairn construction. We knew that this was usually in the streambeds but we needed to verify this in a systematic fashion so we counted all large pebbles (defined as pebbles over 15 cm long – that is in fact rather small for a large pebble) in ten different areas where the topsoil had been scraped off and along seven 10–15-m-long stretches of streambeds in different places across the heathlands (see Table 4.2 and Figure 4.1). The results of this analysis confirm the fact that large pebbles are rare in dry and high exposures found right across the heathlands but are very common in the streambeds. The numbers of large pebbles in the streambeds varies markedly from one location to another. In the
<table><caption>Table 4.1 Pebble sampling locations across the heathlands.</caption><thead><tr><td>Map no.</td><td>Locality and sample type</td><td>Grid reference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Aylesbeare Common topsoil scrape 1</td><td>SY0560390278</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Aylesbeare Common topsoil scrape 2</td><td>SY0601989823</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Hawkerland stream bed</td><td>SY0601188667</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Colaton Raleigh ploughed field</td><td>SY0582488526</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Colaton Raleigh topsoil scrape</td><td>SY0537887954</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Colaton Raleigh NE of Tor Cairn test trench 1</td><td>SY0564287922</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Colaton Raleigh NE of Tor Cairn test trench 2</td><td>SY0564287922</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Colaton Raleigh NE of Tor Cairn test trench 3</td><td>SY0564287922</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Colaton Raleigh NE of Tor Cairn test trench 4</td><td>SY0564287922</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Colaton Raleigh stream bed S of Tor Cairn</td><td>SY0576087976</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Stowford stream bed</td><td>SY0556286970</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Bicton Common footpath near Black Hill</td><td>SY0350785842</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Withycombe Raleigh Common topsoil Scrape</td><td>SY0367583807</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Budleigh Salterton Beach: western end</td><td>SY0631481730</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Budleigh Salterton Beach: eastern end</td><td>SY0742881962</td></tr></tbody></table>

samples we took there were very high numbers of large pebbles in the streambeds at Hawkerland and Stowford and far fewer in the Budleigh and Dalditch brooks. The frequency of large pebbles may alter markedly along the course of the same stream. They tend to cluster towards the bottom of steeper slopes and on bends. These are the most likely places where prehistoric populations would collect larger pebbles to build their cairns from nearby streams (see Table 4.2).

In what follows we provide a general statistical analysis of the forms and aspects of the pebbles in each cairn and also a comparison of all excavated areas, natural or built. In order to perform this analysis we considered the three cairns individually, so the statistics for them are considered separately from one another (a more comprehensive description of the structure of the cairns is presented in Chapter 3). The two beach test samples were grouped together in order to form a single unit of analysis, as were the other 13 natural test squares dug across the heathland area. In this way, our analysis is based on five excavated samples: Tor Cairn (TC: five 1-m-square quadrants at the centre of the cairn), Little
<table><caption>**Table 4.2** Test samples of large pebbles over 15 cm in length/diameter from ten topsoil-scraped areas (top 1–10) and seven stream beds (bottom 1–7) across the East Devon Pebblebed heathlands (see Fig. 5.1). The size of the topsoil-scraped area surveyed is given in square metres, along with the number of large pebbles counted and the ratio of large pebbles/square metre. The stretches of stream beds sampled were between 10 and 15 m long and their width was between 1.5 m and 2 m.</caption><thead><tr><th>Map no.</th><th>Locality</th><th>Grid reference</th><th>Size (m²)</th><th>Pebbles</th><th>Ratio</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Venn Ottery Hill</td><td>SY0675991748</td><td>918</td><td>2</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Venn Ottery Hill</td><td>SY0674191455</td><td>832</td><td>42</td><td>0.050</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Venn Ottery Hill</td><td>SY0672891429</td><td>888</td><td>41</td><td>0.046</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Aylesbeare Common</td><td>SY0604990331</td><td>20</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Aylesbeare Common</td><td>SY0604890351</td><td>960</td><td>24</td><td>0.025</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Aylesbeare Common</td><td>SY0601789844</td><td>880</td><td>76</td><td>0.086</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Aylesbeare Common</td><td>SY0560390273</td><td>750</td><td>81</td><td>0.108</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Bystock</td><td>SY0341484247</td><td>504</td><td>59</td><td>0.117</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Withycombe Raleigh</td><td>SY0367683805</td><td>720</td><td>46</td><td>0.063</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Withycombe Raleigh</td><td>SY0366683860</td><td>546</td><td>19</td><td>0.035</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Harpford Common</td><td>SY0669390107</td><td>20</td><td>41</td><td>2.05</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Harpford Common</td><td>SY0674090040</td><td>20</td><td>156</td><td>7.80</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Aylesbeare Common</td><td>SY0631489763</td><td>40</td><td>140</td><td>3.50</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Hawkerland</td><td>SY0538889144</td><td>22</td><td>325</td><td>14.80</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Stowford</td><td>SY0555886976</td><td>20</td><td>143</td><td>7.15</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Black Hill: Budleigh Brook</td><td>SY0440585796</td><td>22</td><td>84</td><td>3.80</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Dalditch Brook</td><td>SY0415683817</td><td>15</td><td>78</td><td>5.20</td></tr></tbody></table>

Tor Cairn (LTC: whole cairn), Twin Cairn A (TCA: NE quadrant), natural test squares (natural) and beach test squares (beach).

## General statistics on the cairn pebbles

### Tor Cairn

All the pebbles used for the construction of the excavated SE quadrant of Tor Cairn were counted. They numbered 7,705. Pebble frequency
in the individual layers of the 1 m excavation units varied between c. 100 and 200 pebbles. We estimate on the basis of these figures that the total number of pebbles used to construct the cairn was around 31,000. This number of pebbles could easily have been collected and used to build the cairn by a small kin group in a matter of two to three weeks. The amount of labour time expended would have been relatively small if they were collected from the ground surface in the vicinity of the cairn up to 100 m or so away or quarried from shallow scoops made in the valley slope to its west nearest to the cairn. This would have been far simpler than digging vertical pits or trenches and was the modern quarrying method for obtaining pebbles used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in the area (see Chapter 13). However, this account assumes that the building of the cairn was a single and continuous event, which it was not, as discussed in Chapter 3.

## Little Tor Cairn

In total 4,560 pebbles were recorded from the entire cairn. In the western half excavated in 2009 there were four distinct pebble layers; on the eastern side, excavated in 2010, five; and in the centre an additional two layers covering an area of approximately 0.5 m in diameter with a total of 452 pebbles (10 per cent of the total). These made up the inner core of the cairn. The total weight of these pebbles is 723 kg. If all the pebbles were laid in a row it would stretch for 85 m. But this is a very modest structure that could have been constructed by a small group of people in a matter of days.

## Twin Cairn A

Since the pebbles at TC and LTC had been studied in great detail prior to the Twin Cairn excavations and no evidence was found of deliberate spatial patterning of different pebble shapes or colours in the various pebble layers or different areas of these cairns, a decision was made to document in detail only the pebbles in the NE quadrant of TCA. In all there were 11 distinct levels of pebbles in the SW quadrant and 12 in the NE quadrant. In addition there were three pebble layers in the central depression (Tables 4.3–4.8). The total number of pebbles in the NE quadrant excluding those from the depression was 947, so we can estimate that the cairn itself was made up of around 4,000 pebbles. This is roughly the same number as those counted for the entirety of LTC: 4,560.
## Statistical pebble analysis: length, weight, shape, colours and specials

One characteristic of the geology of the Pebblebeds is that the pebbles are ungraded or only crudely sorted by natural processes, contrasting with beach pebbles that are graded by the tides. The pebble strata in the cliffs, which in places reach a maximum thickness of 30 m, are characteristically interleaved with silty sand and grit lenses formed by the great Triassic river. Pebbles of markedly different sizes and shapes, 3 cm or less in size to a maximum diameter of 45 cm, can occur together where they can be observed in the vertical cliffs along the coast at Budleigh Salterton or inland in quarry exposures (Edwards and Scrivener 1999: 91 and see the discussion in Chapter 1).

### 1. Pebble length

After sorting out the broken pebbles, the unbroken ones had their longest length measured and recorded. Statistics for each cairn and a comparison between them and the natural test samples are presented below.

According to a geological definition repeated in some excavation manuals the definition of a pebble is that it is a water-rounded stone up to 6.4 cm maximum dimension. The term cobble is used for water-rounded stones larger than that. We do not find this arbitrary distinction useful and indeed reject it as having any descriptive or analytical value in discussing the cultural use and value of pebbles.

#### Tor Cairn

We recorded pebble size of unbroken pebbles in terms of their maximum length. The vast majority of them in Tor Cairn, c. 90–100 per cent (the precise figure varying a little between the different levels of the cairn and from one 1-m-square excavation unit to another), measure between 5 cm and 15 cm, or about the same size as a baking potato. Very few pebbles are more than 15 cm long and between 5 and 10 per cent are less than 5 cm in length (or diameter in the case of round pebbles). Larger or smaller pebbles are not clustered in different areas of the cairn. However, smaller pebbles less than 5 cm long are more frequent in the three pebble layers of the primary cairn (up to 9 per cent) and none here are over 15 cm long. So the secondary cairn differs from the primary cairn in that there is a higher proportion of larger pebbles and only a few very large pebbles are present: a slight change in the selection criteria for the appropriate
size of pebble (for the structure of the cairn see Chapter 3). As a matter
of comparison, the mean length of pebbles in the excavated test sample
trenches near to the cairn was only 5 cm, while in the 11 more distant test
samples the mean length varied between 7 cm and 8 cm.

*Little Tor Cairn*

There is a consistent patterning of the pebbles in terms of size in Little
Tor Cairn. Disregarding the inner core consisting of small pebbles 5 cm or
less in size, the largest pebbles are found in the top and the bottom levels
of the cairn on the western side: levels 1 and 4. About 92 per cent of the
pebbles in the top and basal levels measure between 5.1 cm and 20 cm.
In the middle levels this figure drops to around 75 per cent. The presence
of small pebbles (up to 5 cm long) in the middle levels is around 25 per
cent. Thus the cairn has the structure of a sandwich, with smaller pebbles
being more frequent in the middle layers.

*Twin Cairn A*

Most of the pebbles used to construct the Twin Cairn A were between 5 cm
and 15 cm long with only minor variations from level to level. The largest
pebbles were those used to construct the kerb (Table 4.3 and Table 4.4).

Figure 4.3 compares the length of the recorded pebbles from the five units of analysis and demonstrates that in all analysed squares the majority of pebbles measured between 5.1 cm and 15 cm. Although some similarities can be noticed between the pebbles from the cairns and the test sample squares, chi-square test results support the idea that there was a positive selection of pebbles in the construction of the three cairns, since the frequency pattern found in the cairns differs substantially from that observed in the natural and beach test squares at the highest significance level.

2. Pebble weight

All unbroken pebbles from natural samples and the cairns were weighed.
The results of the analysis of the weight of the cairn pebbles are
discussed below.

*Tor Cairn*

The weights of the individual pebbles in Tor Cairn may be up to 1 kg or more
but most weigh between 100 g and 300 g and it is clear that these smaller
<table><caption>Table 4.3 The weights of the recorded pebbles in the NE quarter and centre of Twin Cairn A according to pebble levels. Frequencies, percentages and mean weights given.</caption><thead><tr><th>Level</th><th>0-250 g</th><th>Percentage</th><th>251-500 g</th><th>Percentage</th><th>501-750 g</th><th>Percentage</th><th>751-1 kg</th><th>Percentage</th><th>&gt;1 kg</th><th>Percentage</th><th>Total</th><th>Mean g</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>17</td><td>11</td><td>33</td><td>50</td><td>12</td><td>18</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>66</td><td>401</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>13</td><td>33</td><td>22</td><td>56</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>39</td><td>297</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>30</td><td>48</td><td>21</td><td>34</td><td>5</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>62</td><td>350</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>17</td><td>35</td><td>22</td><td>45</td><td>6</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>49</td><td>360</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>20</td><td>38</td><td>13</td><td>25</td><td>9</td><td>17</td><td>8</td><td>15</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>53</td><td>474</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>18</td><td>23</td><td>28</td><td>35</td><td>23</td><td>29</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>80</td><td>484</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>43</td><td>14</td><td>35</td><td>6</td><td>15</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>40</td><td>364</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>11</td><td>24</td><td>20</td><td>44</td><td>7</td><td>16</td><td>5</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>45</td><td>441</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>27</td><td>55</td><td>12</td><td>24</td><td>5</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>49</td><td>323</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>25</td><td>17</td><td>43</td><td>9</td><td>23</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>40</td><td>428</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>12</td><td>44</td><td>7</td><td>26</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>11</td><td>27</td><td>659</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>36</td><td>4</td><td>36</td><td>3</td><td>27</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>11</td><td>347</td></tr><tr><td>C1</td><td>13</td><td>32</td><td>16</td><td>39</td><td>5</td><td>12</td><td>6</td><td>15</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>41</td><td>414</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>11</td><td>42</td><td>11</td><td>42</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>26</td><td>335</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>4</td><td>33</td><td>8</td><td>62</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>12</td><td>314</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 4.4** The lengths of the pebbles recorded from the different levels in the NE quadrant and centre of Twin Cairn A. Total numbers, percentages and mean length given.</caption><thead><tr><th>Level</th><th>0-5cm</th><th>Percentage</th><th>5.1-15 cm</th><th>Percentage</th><th>15.1-20 cm</th><th>Percentage</th><th>Total</th><th>Mean cm</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>49</td><td>74</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>66</td><td>8.8</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>37</td><td>95</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>39</td><td>8.6</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>8</td><td>57</td><td>92</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>62</td><td>8.4</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>45</td><td>92</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>49</td><td>8.6</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>10</td><td>19</td><td>40</td><td>75</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>53</td><td>6.8</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>75</td><td>94</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>80</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>38</td><td>95</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>40</td><td>8.9</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>43</td><td>96</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>45</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>14</td><td>42</td><td>86</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>49</td><td>9.8</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>40</td><td>100</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>40</td><td>9.5</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>24</td><td>89</td><td>3</td><td>11</td><td>27</td><td>10.9</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>3</td><td>27</td><td>8</td><td>73</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>11</td><td>8.3</td></tr><tr><td>C1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>39</td><td>95</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>41</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>25</td><td>96</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>26</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>12</td><td>100</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>12</td><td>8.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.3** The relative frequencies of pebbles according to maximum length at Tor Cairn, Little Tor Cairn, Twin Cairn A, thirteen test samples from the natural and the two beach samples (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 4.5** The percentages of broken pebbles and the total number of pebbles in the different pebble levels in the NE quadrant and central area of Twin Cairn A.</caption><thead><tr><td>Level</td><td>Broken (percentage)</td><td>Pebble total</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>44</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>29</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>35</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>42</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>49</td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>33</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>26</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>42</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>38</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>44</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>39</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>42</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>C1</td><td>32</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>38</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>33</td><td>12</td></tr></tbody></table>

and lighter pebbles were chosen for preference. The heaviest pebble in TC, weighing 5.5 kg, was found in the basal layer at the centre of the cairn. One way to understand the choice of smaller and lighter pebbles for the construction of the primary cairn in the approximate centre of the cairn (context 019 – see Chapter 3) may be that they were picked up in the immediate vicinity. The secondary cairn seems to have been built with pebbles from further afield, as the excavated test trenches near TC are composed only of lighter pebbles weighing around 100 g. The average weight of the pebbles from the 11 more distant test samples was between 250 g and 450 g.

## Little Tor Cairn

The proportion of pebbles weighing over 1 kg remains constant throughout levels 1–4 of quadrant N1 (10–11 per cent). The highest frequency of small pebbles weighing less than 250 g occurs in levels 2 and 4, replicating the sandwich effect of smaller and larger pebbles in relation to pebble size noted above. In S2 the picture is markedly different, with the proportion of pebbles gradually decreasing in weight down the cairn from only
29 per cent weighing less than 250 g in layer 1 to 60 per cent in layer 4. In N4 between 10 and 15 per cent of the pebbles weigh over 1 kg in layers 1–3. This falls to 5 per cent in layer 4 with only around 0.5 per cent in the basal layers L5 and L6. In L1 42 per cent of pebbles weigh less than 250 g, declining to between 27 per cent and 33 per cent in levels 2 and 3 and then successively rising from 60 per cent in layer 4 to 96 per cent in layer 6. In S3 the frequency of heavy pebbles weighing over 1 kg is much lower in all levels and overall there is a significant decrease in pebble weight with depth from 55 per cent weighing less than 250 g in L1 to 77 to 82 per cent in basal levels L6 and L7. In all levels the majority of the pebbles, 62–97 per cent, weigh less than 500 g.

## Twin Cairn A

As is the case for LTC, the vast majority of the pebbles in all the layers of Twin Cairn weighed between c. 100 g and 500 g, with comparatively little variation from level to level. In each level there were just a few heavy pebbles weighing over 1 kg and the number of pebbles weighing more than 750 g is small in all cases. The cairn is thus fairly uniform in construction in terms of pebble weight.

Figure 4.4 provides a comparison of all excavated units in relation to the frequency of pebble weight. Again the statistics do not point to any substantial differences in the choice of pebbles used to build the three

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.4** The relative frequencies of the pebbles for weight at the excavated cairns and in the natural samples (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
cairns. However, chi-square tests strongly support the idea that pebbles
were positively selected to build the three cairns because their weight
differs from all pebbles collected from the natural test squares and the
beach samples (see section on chi-square tests below).

3. Pebble shape

The unbroken recorded pebbles had their shape classified according to
three categories: oval, round and irregular.

Tor Cairn

Most pebbles in Tor Cairn were irregular or oval in form with very few (5 per cent or less) being round. Frequencies of these varied between the pebble layers in the cairn and according to excavation unit but there was no systematic patterning, that is, positive choices for irregular as opposed to oval pebbles in different areas or levels of the cairn.

Little Tor Cairn

Round pebbles account for around 6–8 per cent of the pebbles in all lay-
ers and quadrants in Little Tor Cairn. Irregular pebbles make up between
20 and 52 per cent of the total with the lowest frequency occurring in the
pebbles in quadrant N1 (20–38 per cent). Oval pebbles make up between
17 and 23 per cent of the pebbles in various levels.

Twin Cairn A

The majority of the pebbles in all the layers of Twin Cairn A, as in TC and LTC, are irregular in shape with few round pebbles and variable frequencies of oval pebbles (normally within the range of 15–20 per cent). Again this varies little between the pebble layers in TCA, except in a few cases where the total number of pebbles is anyway low. Figure 4.5 shows the results of all excavated units. It is clear that the pebbles from the beach differ substantially from both the pebbles found in the natural soil across the heathlands and in the built cairns in terms of shape and frequencies of broken and unbroken pebbles.

Broken and unbroken pebbles

Soil acidity has acted to deteriorate the constitution of the heathland
pebbles and make them more fragile and prone to cracking, a condition
that does not occur on the beach, where most pebbles are unbroken. At
<figure><img src="image_80.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.5** The relative frequencies of the pebbles for shape at the excavated cairns and in the natural samples (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

LTC the frequency of broken pebbles varies between 35 per cent and 58 per cent in the different layers (around 45 per cent for the whole cairn). Similarly, the frequency of broken pebbles at TCA varies between 31 per cent and 52 per cent in the different layers (around 45 per cent for the whole cairn). No consistent pattern was identified in LTC or TC. The relative frequencies of broken pebbles in TCA varies between 26 per cent and 49 per cent (37 per cent for the whole cairn).

## 4. Pebble colours

The colours of the pebbles were recorded in terms of seven categories: white/quartz, red, brown, grey, yellow, black and Carter Blue Stone (CBS), a category first identified by George Carter in his work, discussed in Chapter 2.

### Tor Cairn

Despite exhaustive detailed recording of the colour of the individual pebbles that make up the cairn, we could find no patterning whatsoever in terms of preferentially using, for example, white pebbles in one area or pebble layer of the cairn as opposed to, for example, yellow or brown ones.

### Little Tor Cairn

The relative frequencies of yellow, red, brown and grey pebbles in Little Tor Cairn vary from level to level without any consistent patterning.
Overall there is no evidence for choosing pebbles of different colours in the different layers or areas of the cairn. Like the natural pebbles in the Pebblebeds, the chief characteristic of the cairn is that it is a multicoloured structure. The only exception to this is the arrangement of some of the blue stones. Blue stones are found in almost every level throughout Little Tor Cairn in low absolute and relative frequencies. In all 71 Carter Blue Stones were recorded. These, like the special pebbles, were most frequent on the NE side of the cairn in squares S3 and N4.

## Twin Cairn A

Frequencies of quartz/white pebbles are fairly consistent from level to level throughout Twin Cairn A except in the basal levels and in the central area, where relative frequencies are twice as high as in the upper levels. Red pebbles are surprisingly infrequent in levels 7 and 8 or the middle levels of TCA. Brown, grey and yellow pebbles vary significantly from level to level. Only eight blue stones were recorded, seven of these from the central basal level of the cairn (Table 4.6). In the SW section through the cairn another interesting feature was documented – a column of blue stones going through the whole structure of the cairn. The column was located near the E–W profile in the middle between the centre and the western perimeter of the cairn. Similar features were documented in plotting the blue stones in TC (see Chapter 3).

As regards the colours of the pebbles the test samples showed a similar range of colour variations. In other words the colours of the pebbles in the cairns simply mimic those found across the Pebblebed heathlands. There appears to be no preferential choice for more pebbles of one colour (e.g. yellow or red) to include in the cairn construction. The cairns were meant to be multicoloured like the pebbles of the Pebblebeds themselves. So the cultural product – the cairn – mimics the landscape of pebbles on which it stands. The exception to this is the blue stones. In all the test samples there were either no blue stones present or only one or two compared with 72 recorded and individually plotted at LTC, 8 in the NE quadrant at TCA and 152 at TC. They must have been deliberately curated. To find so many in the cairns, given their general rarity, provides positive evidence for their differential selection and curation. At TC and TCA some blue stones were arranged in vertical columns through the levels of the cairn structure, a fugitive patterning within the cairn itself and not visible from the outside. In LTC there were clusters of these stones deposited in the pebble layers on the NE side but no columns. Figure 4.6 shows the frequency of colours as they appear in the three cairns and the test samples.
<table><caption>Table 4.6 The frequencies and percentages of coloured and special pebbles recorded in the levels of the NE quadrant and central area of Twin Cairn A.</caption><thead><tr><th>Level</th><th>Q</th><th>Percentage</th><th>R</th><th>Percentage</th><th>Br</th><th>Percentage</th><th>G</th><th>Percentage</th><th>Y</th><th>Percentage</th><th>Bl</th><th>Percentage</th><th>CBS</th><th>Percentage</th><th>S</th><th>Percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>24</td><td>20</td><td>43</td><td>36</td><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>28</td><td>24</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>19</td><td>20</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>21</td><td>22</td><td>22</td><td>23</td><td>20</td><td>21</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>12</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>14</td><td>16</td><td>32</td><td>38</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>14</td><td>14</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>52</td><td>50</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>18</td><td>15</td><td>29</td><td>24</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>36</td><td>30</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>18</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>11</td><td>11</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>14</td><td>14</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>22</td><td>20</td><td>26</td><td>22</td><td>29</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>10</td><td>12</td><td>16</td><td>19</td><td>32</td><td>39</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>14</td><td>12</td><td>17</td><td>14</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>6</td><td>14</td><td>9</td><td>20</td><td>7</td><td>16</td><td>9</td><td>20</td><td>10</td><td>23</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>32</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>47</td><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>C1</td><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>4</td><td>15</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>11</td><td>42</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>42</td><td>3</td><td>30</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>42</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Q = quartz; R = red; Br = brown; G = grey; Y = yellow; Bl = black; CBS = Carter Blue Stones; S = special.
<figure><img src="image_81.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.6** The relative frequencies of the pebbles by colour at the excavated cairns and in the natural samples (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

## 5. Special pebbles

Excavation is always a theatrical performance, bringing together a team of people with different backgrounds, interests, gender and competencies to conduct the work (Tilley 1989; Bender et al. 2007). Many of our discussions inevitably involved the form and character of the pebbles themselves and their potential significance. At the initial stage the project brief that we had set ourselves was simply to record only two visual aspects of the pebbles: their shape and colour. However, having uncovered the entire upper surface of Tor Cairn we realized that this did not do sufficient justice to the *materiality* of the pebbles themselves. Some were multicoloured in a quite extraordinary way: how were we to record that? Others had remarkable quartz veins and inclusions: should they be ignored as if they did not exist? Might not these pebbles have a particular significance themselves in the process of the construction and colouring of the cairn? Following the suggestion of Wayne Bennett, we started to record another category of pebble that we termed 'specials'. These were recorded separately following the excavation of each individual excavation unit and layer, bagged up and taken away for later analysis (see Chapters 5 and 6). We also recorded the frequency of specials from our test samples and took these away for comparative purposes.

### Tor Cairn

In all 968 specials were recorded from the two completely excavated quadrants of the cairn. This may be compared with only 83 special
pebbles from all the test samples. Special pebbles were significantly more frequent in almost all of the cairn squares and levels than those recorded from the natural samples. The only exceptions were the two beach samples, in which special pebbles were far more common than in the 13 other test samples. In these special pebbles made up between 19 per cent and 24 per cent of the total number of pebbles recorded. The fact that there were far more special pebbles recorded from the beach samples than from either the cairns or the other natural samples is easily explained. The beach pebbles are clean and completely devoid of any soil staining. Since they are continuously being scoured by salt water, it is easy to recognize special and unusually patterned pebbles with their multiple colours and quartz veins and inclusions. By comparison, the pebbles recorded from the cairns are stained and discoloured by the soil matrix in which they are embedded, as is the case for the other natural samples. As a consequence, the frequency of special pebbles that can be recognized, even after washing and scrubbing the pebbles, is inevitably considerably lower. From the beach samples we can conclude that about 20 per cent of the pebbles in the Budleigh Salterton Pebblebeds as a whole are 'special'.

The more valuable comparison to be made is between the frequencies of special pebbles in the cairn and those found in the other samples from the natural. To take one example, for Square 9 of the SE quadrant of Tor Cairn the special pebbles varied between 4 per cent and 10 per cent of the total number of pebbles in nine recorded levels, whereas none were recorded from the four excavated test samples in its immediate vicinity. Overall the frequency of special pebbles in the other test samples from the natural varied from 1 per cent to 5 per cent. By contrast the frequency of special pebbles in the excavated metre squares and pebble layers of the cairn varied between 3 per cent and 20 per cent, with the highest frequency being the pebbles recorded from the pit under the cairn (22 per cent). It should be noted that the frequencies of special pebbles in some of the cairn excavation units and levels match those of the natural beach samples despite the fact that their frequency without being scoured by salt water is inevitably considerably depressed. The mean frequency of special pebbles from the cairns was c. 12 per cent, while that from the natural samples, excluding the two beach samples, was only 2 per cent. Furthermore the majority of the specials in the beach samples were 'mottled' pebbles with fine gradations in colours. These colour gradations do not show up well where pebbles are buried and earth-stained. The vast majority of the specials from Tor Cairn were those with striking veins and quartz inclusions that are much easier to recognize and show through the discoloration of the pebble surface caused through burial.
under sandy and peaty soil. Considering this together with the striking
contrast between the high frequencies of the specials at the cairns when
compared with all the other samples from the natural leads us to con-
clude that special pebbles were deliberately selected during the construc-
tion of the cairn and that they occur in considerably greater numbers
than we would expect from a random pebble selection. Their frequency
varies considerably from metre square to metre square and between the
various pebble levels from the top to the bottom of the cairn. There is no
evidence for it increasing from top to bottom of the cairn or vice versa or
from one part of the cairn to another. Special pebbles are found through-
out and everywhere in Tor Cairn. The entire cairn is thus composed of
both multicoloured and special pebbles.

Little Tor Cairn

Special pebbles range in relative frequency from 3 per cent to 26 per cent in Little Tor Cairn. They occur in consistently higher frequencies in N4 and S3 on the northeast side of the cairn than in N1 and S2 on the southwest side (between 3 per cent and 10 per cent on the SW side and 10–26 per cent on the NE side). They are thus between two and three times more numerous in the NE part of the cairn. In N1 the frequency of special pebbles is highest in level 2 and thereafter declines with depth, from 10 per cent to 4 per cent. In S2 the lowest frequencies of special pebbles occur (only 3–5 per cent). In N4 frequencies of special pebbles are twice or three times greater (9–12 per cent) in all levels except level 5 (19 per cent). In S3 most occur (11–26 per cent) with again the highest frequency in level 5, a basal level of the cairn.

Twin Cairn A

At TCA we recorded 101 specials in the NE quadrant and the centre of the cairn (10 per cent of the total). Special pebbles vary in relative frequency from 4 per cent to 42 per cent in the individual layers of TCA. They are particularly frequent in levels 6 and 7 (the central layers of the cairn) and in the basal level of the bowl shaped depression at the centre of the bottom of the cairn (Table 4.6).

Overall the frequency of special pebbles in the test samples from the
natural across the heathlands varied from 1 per cent to 5 per cent. This
strongly suggests positive selection of these pebbles for inclusion in the
cairn construction. Some may have been collected in the vicinity, others
possibly from much further away.
Choice and randomness: similarities and differences
amongst cairn structures and pebble test samples

In order to formally verify whether there was a pattern in the construc-
tion of the cairns and to check similarities and differences between their
structure and the natural disposition of pebbles on the landscape, a
number of chi-square tests were performed. In other words, these tests
are intended to ascertain whether there was positive selection in the
process of collecting pebbles from nature to build a cairn or whether
they were randomly picked up. Rejecting the null hypothesis of no
difference between the cairn pebbles and the samples from the natural
would lead to the conclusion that observed differences did not occur by
chance, an indication that there was positive selection. In other words,
if the test rejects the null hypothesis, it confirms that there was positive
selection. If not, the patterns observed in cairns are not statistically dif-
ferent from the natural samples. The three cairns were tested against
the natural test samples, and the results are shown in Table 4.7.

For all tests, the null hypothesis was strongly rejected (all p-
values are far below 5 per cent), indicating that there are statistically
significant differences for all categories across every pair of squares
and, therefore, there was positive selection of pebbles in the process
of building Tor Cairn, Little Tor Cairn and Twin Cairn A. These results
can also be represented in the form of graphs, as in the three examples
shown in Figure 4.7, that show the difference between the observed
and expected frequencies for shape in a comparison between LTC and
the natural, for weight in a comparison between TC and the natural,
and for length between TCA and the natural (Figure 4.7) All cairns and

<table><caption>*Table 4.7* Chi-square test statistics for pebble shape, weight, length and colour comparing Tor Cairn, Little Tor Cairn and Twin Cairn A with the 13 test samples of pebbles from the natural (excluding beach pebbles).</caption>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th rowspan="2"></th>
      <th colspan="2">Shape</th>
      <th colspan="2">Weight</th>
      <th colspan="2">Length</th>
      <th colspan="2">Colour</th>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <th>χ<sup>2</sup></th>
      <th>p-value</th>
      <th>χ<sup>2</sup></th>
      <th>p-value</th>
      <th>χ<sup>2</sup></th>
      <th>p-value</th>
      <th>χ<sup>2</sup></th>
      <th>p-value</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <th>TC vs. Natural</th>
      <td>35</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
      <td>874</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
      <td>860</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
      <td>209</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <th>LTC vs. Natural</th>
      <td>58</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
      <td>476</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
      <td>212</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
      <td>152</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <th>TCA vs. Natural</th>
      <td>85</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
      <td>484</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
      <td>273</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
      <td>265</td>
      <td>0.000</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

**Figure 4.7** Examples of the observed and expected frequencies in the chi-square tests comparing the natural samples of pebbles 1–13 (see Fig. 5.1) with the pebbles from Little Tor Cairn for shape, with the pebbles from Tor Cairn for weight and with Twin Cairn A for length (Source: author)
categories of analysis were tested in the same way against the natural samples.

Chi-square tests were also applied to verify similarities or differences in the choice of pebbles used to construct the cairns. To do this, the cairns were tested in pairs against one another (TC vs. LTC, TC vs. TCA and LTC vs. TCA) according to each analysed category (shape, weight, length and colour). The null hypothesis affirms that there is no statistically significant difference between the frequencies of pebbles across cairns, for a given category. The chi-square statistics ($\chi^2$) can be found in Table 4.8 alongside their respective p-values. The null hypothesis was strongly rejected (all p-values are far below the 5 per cent confidence level that this might occur by chance) in all tests, indicating that there are statistically significant differences for all categories across every pair of cairns and that there was no strict pattern in the composition of pebbles in these monuments. In other words, the tests indicate that each cairn was built in a different way, using a selection of pebbles that was not random.

All tests confirmed that the observed frequency of pebbles in all four categories of analysis for every square did not replicate the expected frequency and therefore rejected the null hypothesis. Figure 4.8 below illustrates this conclusion for all tested pairs of cairns.

The statistical analysis presented in this chapter allowed for two strong conclusions: first, that the construction of cairns involved intentional or positive selection and curation of pebbles. Second, that the building of an individual cairn was a singular event, that is, it was in part improvised rather than following strict patterns for the selection and the deposition of pebbles. The action of cairn building differed from one case to another even though many similarities can be observed in terms of the overall statistics for pebble length, weight, shape and colour.

<table><caption>Table 4.8 Examples of chi-square statistics for the three cairns for shape, weight, length and colour.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Shape</th><th colspan="2">Weight</th><th colspan="2">Length</th><th colspan="2">Colour</th></tr><tr><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>p-value</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>p-value</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>p-value</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>TC vs. LTC</td><td>16</td><td>0.000</td><td>171</td><td>0.000</td><td>163</td><td>0.000</td><td>84</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>TC vs. TCA</td><td>36</td><td>0.000</td><td>10</td><td>0.008</td><td>21</td><td>0.000</td><td>318</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>LTC vs. TCA</td><td>8</td><td>0.016</td><td>66</td><td>0.000</td><td>31</td><td>0.000</td><td>215</td><td>0.000</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

**Figure 4.8** Examples of the observed and expected frequencies of the pebbles in the chi-square tests at the excavated cairns comparing Tor Cairn and Twin Cairn A for pebble colour, Little Tor Cairn and Twin Cairn A for pebble shape and Little Tor Cairn and Tor Cairn for pebble weight (Source: author)
# The poetics of pebbles

*Christopher Tilley and Clarissa Sanfelice Rahmeier*

## Pebble statistics and pebble poetics

The account provided in *Chapter 4* is an abstract ‘objectivist’ standpoint that in fact may not tell us all that much that is important about the pebbles and their characteristics used in cairn construction. The intention of this chapter is to present an alternative perspective going far beyond measurable and quantifiable parameters that may be statistically analysed. We cannot understand a pebble adequately by isolating each of its qualities and thinking about them.

A pebble is a whole; it is its different features altogether and, at the same time, none of them. A pebble refuses to be divided into variables or classified according to labels. You name it yellow and it may appear brown. You say it is round and it will seem irregular. Yes, it can be between 5.1 and 15 cm long – but long in which way? Triangular (I mean, irregular) or oval? Is it heavy? It depends on how strong you are or how used you are to handling stones. Is it ordinary or boring or does it catch your attention? Then it is a ‘special’ one. But are all ‘specials’ equally special or are some more special than others? The point is that it is imprecise and desperately limited and inadequate to try and define pebbles in terms of their physical properties without simultaneously referring to subjective values and symbolic meanings. The two together – the physical properties of these stones and human interactions with them – make pebbles what they are.

We can make more sense out of them if we ‘translate’ their physicality into sensibility – how do we humanly sense pebbles? In which ways can our senses be stimulated by different kinds of pebbles? What matters
is not how much they weigh, but how we carry their heaviness or light-
ness around; it is not how long they are, but how they fit into human
hands. Although relevant, scientific precision, in this case study, does
not communicate the properties of the objects in a better manner than a
more humanized description. It doesn't make much sense thinking about
the cairns as a sequence of pebbles layered according to their length. The
information we have about the pebbles will generate a robust interpreta-
tion only when combined with our own accounts of the way we interact
with them. And this is possible only because we have been there, because
the past has become present through the process of excavation and anal-
ysis and because other people in this landscape interact with pebbles on
a daily basis and have a sensibility for them.

The intention of this chapter then is to provide some phenomeno-
logical reflections on this data in order to offer an alternative human-
ist perspective and understanding of the material. In doing so we weave
back and forth between the past and the present, from interpreting the
pebbles in terms of their prehistoric contexts and understanding them in
relation to how contemporary people, including ourselves, relate to the
same material. We first provide some general observations on pebbles
and their many synaesthetic qualities and then consider in more detail
sensory aspects of touch and visual appearance.

Synaesthetics of pebbles: initial observations

A first and fundamental property of pebbles that is of great importance
is their tactile properties: the manner in which they are smooth and
rounded to the touch. The contrast with the coarseness of a stone such
as granite is absolute, but they even feel smooth compared with fine-
grained sandstones or chalk. Pebbles possess a quality of smoothness
unmatched by any other kind of small stone in its natural state found in
the UK. Quartzites are sandstones cemented together with silica which
are incredibly hard and dense. This unyielding hardness and sheer den-
sity of the stones is an important quality that makes them so distinctive
and contributes to their tactile effects.

These quartzite pebbles when struck tend to shatter and break in
all directions, producing surfaces which both are shiny but also then feel
greasy to the touch: an important tactile property that remains hidden
within the pebble.

Going beyond the feel of pebbles, they have a definite smell. On the
beach they smell and taste of salt. Inland they take on the odours and
tastes of the streams and soils and vegetation in which they are embed-
ded. Quartzites are also known in folklore as firestones. They produce
orange sparks and smell like gunpowder when struck or violently rubbed
together. They produce far better and bigger sparks than are emitted
from struck flint. In darkness there is an orange flash and even when
struck under water they emit a flash (Ellis 1971: 69). Some of the pebbles
used in cairn building may also have been used as hammer stones. This
is unlikely to have been purely for practical reasons in making things but
as part of fire ceremonies taking place at them (see Chapter 3), in which
flashing light together with a distinctive sulphurous smell was released
from the pebbles.

Pebbles have a definite voice. Usually found solely in the littoral
zone between land and sea, they mark the point of transition between
the two domains. They constantly roar as they are rolled back and forth
by the waves along the beach. Inland they chatter and clatter in the
streambeds. Pebbles make a crunching sound when you walk on them.
Sometimes you can hear movement by somebody along a winding pebble
path before you can see anyone coming. Pebbles are exceedingly difficult
to walk on, as anyone who has walked along a pebble beach knows. They
slow movement down and tire the body in motion, an important kinaes-
thetic effect.

Pebbles are ready-mades. They are ‘finished’ stones and because of
their inherent completeness of form, seem to almost naturally lend them-
selves to sorting and counting activities in terms of colour or shape or
form or a combination of all of these. Visually pebbles vary in shape and
size. They are inconstant in colour. Importantly pebbles are inherently
transformative materials. Unlike other kinds of stone their colours do
not remain the same. The colour of the outer skin can be very deceptive.
Being exposed to the elements and to the rolling action of the waves,
the outer surface is typically bleached a dirty white or grey. Dry pebbles
on a beach or elsewhere can all look the same: dull and grey. Water dra-
matically transforms them: the colours, obscured when dry, leap out in
a magical fashion. What was dull and grey matter becomes vibrant, dif-
ferentiated forms infused by the latent colours within the stone itself that
the water brings forth (see Figure 4.2). Pebbles are activated by rain or
water that brings out and intensifies their colours. The brightest of the
pebbles on the beach are always those washed by the waves of the sea.
Conversely pebbles dry very quickly compared with other kinds of stones
because of their lack of porosity. They lose their colours as rapidly as
they acquire them. Pebbles disguise themselves. They have a skin which
reveals its true colour only when wet. When struck pebbles produce fire
and smell utterly different. They are thus transformed by both water and
fire: an elemental opposition.

Considered in this way it is evident that pebbles have definite quali-
ties and effects from the visual to the kinaesthetic in relation to which
people may react and respond. In the following section we present an
anthropological study of the relationship between people and pebbles
located in the vicinity of the Pebblebed heathlands to further investigate
some of the general points made.

People and pebble structures

This group of people were selected because they lived in towns or vil-
lages in the vicinity of the heathlands and had pebble structures in their
gardens: paths, driveways, walls, outbuildings, etc. that were recorded
during a comprehensive survey of pebble structures in the area (see
Chapter 13 for a discussion of this). Interviews were conducted with 23
informants in their homes and gardens. Of these 13 had always lived
in the area. The others had moved or retired here, anything up to 20
years or more ago. Eight were male, the rest female. Their ages ranged
from 17 to 90 and of these eight were under 65. Only a few of them cur-
rently visited the Pebblebed heathlands frequently or knew them well.
All, of necessity, drove across or around them but that was the limit of
their knowledge apart from the odd short walk, usually in the vicinity of
Woodbury Castle, located next to the main road running along the west-
ern edge of the heathlands. This reflects a much more general trend in
the area: that most local residents do not go to visit the heaths except on
a very occasional basis and their knowledge of them and their geology
is slight (see Tilley and Cameron-Daum 2017). The heathlands remain a
hidden and almost invisible landscape. All informants had, however, vis-
ited the beach at Budleigh Salterton and experienced the pebbles there.

All the people interviewed were owner-occupiers. Of these seven
had built pebble structures in their garden or created something out of
pebbles or curated them in various ways. The rest had inherited and
maintained them after moving into their property. All were aware of the
presence of pebbles insofar as they constantly encountered them when
doing anything in their gardens. Only a minority, when asked, were aware
that pebbles constituted a significant part of the vernacular architecture
of the area and could remember memorable pebble structures elsewhere
that they had seen, such as walls or paths, guttering and decorative edg-
ing. Most took them for granted and in this sense did not see or think
about them. They were very much an unremarked and taken-for-granted aspect of everyday life. Keith, who has lived and farmed in the area all his life, remarked: 'We have never really studied them you see. They're just pebbles, we don't notice them because they have always been with us.'

## Photographs of pebbles

Seventeen of the 23 informants were asked to take two photographs of their pebbles, anything that they wished. Of the 36 photographs, 7 were of individual large pebbles, close-up photographs of pebbles in walls and, in one case, of pebbles collected from the beach. The remainder were of walls, yards, patio features, outbuildings, path edging and water features, reflecting the wide range of structures commonly encountered in the area. When asked why they took these photographs there were a range of responses:

> 'The big rugby ball and the little egg there: obviously the size and showing the remarkable possibilities of colour, that if you dig long enough you will find remarkable little treasures like that.' (Michael)

> 'It is a great collection of pebbles. I like the ones in the courtyard. They were put there by garden designers and it's just a lovely contrast, we have the brick, we have artificially made flagstones ... and we have gravel so it adds contrast; different size, different texture, and I love it.' (Bonnie)

> 'It was the variation in them, the colour and the shapes ... natural stone ... I suppose also it's the size. Some of them are huge.' (Patricia)

> 'They've got all shapes and sizes and colours. And not just plain, they're veined as well, some of them.' (Alan)

Size, shape, colour and contrasts with other types of building materials were the properties of pebbles that people regularly identified as being important to them, together with the fact that they were natural building materials that had been historically important and therefore were appropriate to the locality. Many were proud to have these structures in their gardens and to have maintained them. Most people remarked how uncomfortable it was to walk on pebbles and that paths, courtyards, etc. needed weeding in order to maintain them. When
asked to choose up to five words to describe pebbles the most frequent responses were ‘colourful’ (eight) and ‘smooth’ (eight). Eight people also referred to shape – ‘round’, ‘oval’ – and a further five to ‘tactility’ as being important. If pebbles were regarded as being difficult to walk on, they were nevertheless regarded as good to hold in the hand: pebbles were said to feel comfortable. Five people also used the word ‘hard’. To some they were ‘warm’. Others referred to pebbles as being attractive, individual, variegated, different and decorative, as being like eggs. They were described as being useful, traditional, local, historical, travelled, noisy, water-worn and reminding one of the beach and the sea:

> ‘They come in all shapes and sizes. You have the big ones and the little ones, and all the different colours, a huge variety so visually its really quite exciting to look at pebbles. And I love the sound, the crunching sound. And people are just moved to make things with them. So you find the little piles and structures that people produce spontaneously [on the beach].’ (Bonnie)

The emphasis put on shape and tactility, that it felt warm and comfortable to hold pebbles, was clearly as important to some people as their colours and decorative nature. Pebbles felt warm because they were smooth and comforting to hold; the smoothness was associated with water and the sea:

> ‘They’re just so smooth, they’re silky. You couldn’t grind anything to that perfection could you?’ (Geoff)

> ‘You just feel like you want to touch them and you can just hold pebbles and each pebble you held would feel different.’ (Brian)

The sheer hardness of these pebbles was a quality that keen gardeners had noticed. This mitigated against any attempt to shape pebbles or cut them to size in building anything. Unlike other kinds of building stone they had to be used as found. In people’s gardens, pebbles were felt particularly appropriate to use as water features, placed next to ponds and fountains. Curating pebbles was commonplace; once dug up in the garden they would be saved in piles to be used in future construction projects, and building walls or paths of pebbles was one way of using up what was a ready-to-hand and free building material. Each project produced its own harvest of pebbles. Some people had collections of pebbles or individual pebbles displayed as decorative items in their houses
or used 'practically' as doorstops, paperweights, to keep windows open,
etc. Some of these had been picked up on the beach and were said to be
irresistible despite the recent and signposted ban imposed by the local
council on removing pebbles from the beach:

'You pick one up and think you'll keep it, find another one, I'll keep
that. Keep going on and on. And if you are not too careful you have
a pocket full of them.' (Susan)

Virtually everyone mentioned this pebble picking ban (mainly imposed
to prevent commercial exploitation by builders) and it made some of
them feel mildly guilty, but the attraction of the pebbles was too great.
A number showed me polished pebbles or painted pebbles that they
had bought or been given as gifts (Figure 5.1). Painting pebbles was a
widespread practice in the 1960s and 1970s among local artists and also
among school children during the Budleigh Salterton Gala week, with
pebble painting competitions taking place in the day centre of the local
hospital.

Wendy had retired to East Devon with her husband in 1986. They
bought an old farmhouse with a paddock and started transforming it into

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.1** Painted beach pebbles from the 1970s (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_89.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.2** Wendy's pebble beach (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

a garden. Wherever they dug they found pebbles and started creating structures out of them: walls, paths, patio and courtyard areas, pebbles to line the vegetable patch. Having dug a large pond they created a pebble beach with the excavated material on one side, with the pebbles graded in size from larger to smaller ones at the water's edge (Figure 5.2). Like other people in the area who have constructed structures out of pebbles, they have an intimate knowledge of them: their different shapes, sizes and colours. Building these structures required careful selection and grading of the pebbles and choosing the right one to maintain an even and attractive surface. Building things out of pebbles requires one to gain a craftsperson's skill and knowledge of how to work the materials to the best advantage. Those who had not attempted to build anything from pebbles were largely unaware of the potential they offered as a building material and, more importantly, the problems faced by anyone trying to construct something out of such smooth and slippery stones without any straight edges except when they were broken and you could get a flat face.

The act of building things from pebbles substantially altered both people's knowledge of them and the manner in which they thought about them, reinforcing the significance of the Heideggerian link between
building, thinking and dwelling (Heidegger 1962). Nigel, who had
recently restored a dilapidated pebble pigsty, remarked:

'Oh if you pick a pebble up you can feel it's something different, every one you pick up is different, has a different feel because you've got years and years of erosion where they have been washed in the sea and each one is individual no matter what size they are, they're individual as opposed to something stamped out on a machine.'

As I walked around with people in their gardens and was shown
things made of pebbles this often brought back strong memories of
the event of their construction and the labour involved. The biogra-
phies of these people and those of the pebbles were intertwined and
entangled. More generally pebbles themselves brought back people's
memories of beaches, particularly beautiful beaches in different parts
of the world that they had visited during their lives, since pebbles were
always associated with the sea. Some had souvenir pebbles from these
trips, others from the beach at Budleigh Salterton. Bathrooms were
regarded as particularly appropriate places to display these pebbles,
thus maintaining the association with water and its enlivening effects
on pebble colour.

Alan was born on a farm situated on the edge of the Pebblebed heathlands, moved as a boy to the adjacent farm and has been cultivating the land ever since, having taken over the tenancy from his father. His photographs were of a cowshed constructed out of pebbles and a huge broken pebble, one of many large pebbles displayed in his garden (Figure 5.3). This pebble when weighed by me was found to be no less than 52 kg and was 40 cm long and 26 cm broad. Given that it was broken at one end it must have originally weighed 60–70 kg and been up to half a metre in length: the mother of all pebbles! His father had started deep ploughing, about 18 inches deep in the 1960s. One of the unintended consequences was the unearthing of pebbles everywhere: the family spent the next three years removing them from the fields, because pebbles wreck ploughs, and placing them along hedge banks. This was one of those pebbles that was important enough to be brought back to be placed in the garden beside the farmhouse.

Alan has strong memories of pebbles from childhood, of collecting them off the fields, the orange sparks that flashed when you hit them, and the strong smell of gunpowder, but also of how he imagined this landscape of pebbles to be:
<figure><img src="image_90.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.3** Alan's huge curated pebble. The phone gives the scale
(Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

‘I’ve always thought since I was young that this [the ridge of higher
land running behind his farmhouse] was the edge of the beach.
I always thought when I was younger I could imagine Ice Age man
sitting on the edge of the beach and that ridge there which I’ve always
been aware of was the ridge of the beach ... and water would have
lapped up to here [the farmhouse], that’s how I always imagined
it.’ (Alan)

He described his pebbles as being ‘historic’ and ‘well travelled’ because he now knows that they had come all the way from France. Even if some people could not say much about the pebble structures in their own gardens, almost all had strong memories from childhood of pebble beaches and beachcombing: finding and collecting pebbles, building castles out of pebbles, skimming pebbles across the water. Pebbles were invariably strongly associated with childhood and happy times. On Budleigh Salterton beach a favourite childhood activity for some was to attempt to throw pebbles so that they landed onto ledges on the red sandstone cliffs running out into the sea to the east of the mouth of the river Otter, and onto the rock stacks at Ladram Bay to the east.

These interviews reveal how deeply connected local people feel in
relation to pebbles and also that this had a deep somatic and habitual
basis. Pebbles were part and parcel of their daily experience, something usually taken for granted rather than consciously noticed and discursively discussed unless except prompted to do so. Below we discuss in more detail the tactile qualities and visual characteristics of pebbles that were undoubtedly most important to the people we interviewed.

## The feel of pebbles

We have demonstrated in Chapter 4 that the majority of the pebbles used to build the cairns fall within fairly restricted weight and length parameters. There are comparatively few small pebbles or very large and heavy pebbles. Only a few would require lifting and putting into place while building the cairn with two hands. The size of the pebbles is such that few could be picked up and put on the cairn together. So the construction of the cairn involved placing the pebbles side by side and in layers on top of each other, one by one. The excavations showed that most pebbles were placed side by side along their horizontal or long axis. The fact that most are of a similar weight and size indicates pebble selection and sorting prior to building the cairn. The cairn builders must have been working with piles of pebbles brought to the site that had already been sorted. Collecting material to build the cairns was therefore not a matter of shovelling unsorted material into baskets and carrying it to the site. The pebbles that were chosen were invariably those that could easily be grasped and fitted comfortably into the palm of the hand. The construction of Tor Cairn involved at least 31,000 individual acts of placing individual pebbles on the cairn surface side by side and pebble after pebble. The pebbles in any particular layer do not overlap with each other. They were placed in relationship to each other with a minimum of distance between them, a bit like building a jigsaw puzzle. The size and shape of one pebble required choosing another pebble of a suitable size and shape to put next to it from the collected material to hand. We might regard the whole process as thinking through the body involving the collection, transportation, selection and individual placement of pebbles. Knowledge of the sizes and shapes of the pebbles was grounded in the activities of those building the cairns, a process of thinking and perceiving through the body, of gripping the pebbles, an internal kinaesthetic relationship. Pebbles, because they have a ready-made form (they are naturally pre-shaped) and do not require fabrication into a suitable size or shape unlike quarried stone, seem to almost naturally lend themselves to sorting activities in terms
of shape and size or colour or a combination of all these. They invite the
creation of form and pattern. The grip (involving size and shape, visual
perception and colour) of one pebble put in place determined the suit-
ability of the next. The cairn builders would have worked side by side,
utilizing their piles of building materials in a routinized fashion. Most
probably they worked from the perimeter of the cairn to the middle
and then, a pebble layer having been completed, filled in the gaps and
covered the pebbles with a thin layer of sandy soil to create an even and
uniform surface before starting to construct the next layer. Building the
cairns involved a rhythmic process of moving from the outside to the
inside and back again, starting at a distance and coming closer, meet-
ing at the middle, something that was intimate, given the small size of
the cairns, and intensely social. Building the cairns was part and par-
cel of the body habitus, a habitual understanding of the right way to
do things. The resulting cairn was a material expression of these tech-
niques of the body.

Most of the pebbles used to build the cairns are irregular in shape.
Few are perfect oval or round forms and there is a gradation in shape
between irregular, oval and round pebbles. In other words, some peb-
bles are more irregular than others. The irregularity of pebbles, of
course, makes them distinctive, so that no two pebbles are exactly alike.
The feel and grip is different. That which remains common to all the
pebbles is the smoothness of their surfaces. Informants (as discussed
above) say that they like to feel pebbles in their hands. To many of them,
indeed, the feel of a pebble is its most significant aspect. A slipping, slid-
ing, sleeky smoothness: there is something comforting and deliciously
satisfying in experiencing holding a pebble that makes it very different
from other kinds of stone. Because the pebbles have a surface patina
they also look old, contrasting with the fresh surfaces of quarried stone.
They are pre-formed or pre-made. Smoothness and age commingle in
the tactile grip of the stone. Most note that these pebbles (quartzites)
feel very dense and hard. The tactile experience combines these two
qualities – smoothness and hardness – in an interesting way and in a
very different manner from, say, a hard stone with a rough surface. A
smooth, hard pebble does not cut or abrade the hands. Some also say
that the pebbles feel warm. This ‘warmth’ of the pebble seems to stem
from the smoothness of touch. Things that are smooth, like the human
body, feel warm and one is comforted by them. It is clear that feeling a
pebble thus creates an emotional reaction of well-being in the body sub-
ject, a harmonious relationship with the stone. From this point of view
building a pebble cairn, irrespective of the labour involved, must have
been an intensely satisfying tactile experience. Through the process of collective cairn construction people were building both themselves and their relationships with others.

## Colour

We first describe the physical characteristics of differently coloured pebbles and then further consider our use of abstract colour categories as a basis for classification (outlined in Chapter 4).

### Brown pebbles

Brown pebbles are variable in shape and size. Some have a very smooth and rounded outer surface, others feel coarser. They are the softest of the pebbles, with a relatively high sand content, and tend to split in a regular fashion along bedding planes in the acidic soils of the Pebblebeds. Some have fine parallel bands across their entire surface creating a subtle wood-grain-type appearance. Others have broader darker and lighter bands that are very distinctive, forming special pebble category 12 (see discussion below). There is much colour variation, from darker to lighter tones of brown through to red-brown. Some possess a rough surface.

### Red pebbles

Red pebbles are very similar in their physical characteristics to the brown pebbles and are also prone to split in a regular fashion along bedding planes, but far fewer have a wood-grain-type surface and none have distinctive darker bands. Some red pebbles have a very distinctive hue, others shade into browns and greys to various degrees. According to sand content some are harder and smoother to the touch than others.

### Yellow pebbles

These pebbles lack a wood-grain appearance and tend to be considerably harder than red or brown pebbles, with a higher silica content. They lack visible bedding planes and bands. There is considerable colour variation, with many merging into shades of brown and grey. All have smooth surfaces. These are frequently fissured with networks of very fine surface cracks. Unlike red and brown pebbles they tend to break vertically rather than horizontally because of the absence of bedding planes. A few
have shallow surface holes and indentations. Unbroken pebbles feel very smooth.

## Black pebbles

These are rare and infrequent. They invariably have many quartz veins and inclusions running across their surface. They break irregularly and feel rough in comparison with other pebbles. Some of these pebbles probably originate from Dartmoor, being carried east into the ancient Triassic river bed by feeder streams.

## Grey pebbles

Some of these, like brown pebbles and some red pebbles, have a wood-grain surface appearance and they tend to split along their bedding planes. There is much variation in terms of colour, merging into shades of brown, red and yellow to various degrees. Most have smooth surfaces but others have a distinctively rougher surface texture. Harder pebbles have small surface cracks like yellow pebbles.

## Quartz (white) pebbles

These are the most easily recognizable and distinctive of the basic pebble categories recorded. They are harder than the other pebbles and always break and fracture in an irregular way. They vary considerably in colour, from almost pure white through shades of white-grey, white-brown, white-pink and white-yellow. Some are perfectly smooth, others have a surface entirely covered with fine cracks and fissures and feel rougher. Others have larger and fewer surface cracks. Many have a mottled or multicoloured surface.

## Carter Blue Stones

Prior to the 2008 excavations undertaken by the Pebblebeds project, Chris Tilley had been looking out for blue stones while carrying out field research on the heathlands. He never found any – not helped by the fact that he didn't know what they looked like. Carter had not published photographs of any of his blue stones nor drawn any of them, and he did not seem to have kept any from his excavations. The garden of Carter's house was searched for them but he had evidently not brought any back from the heathlands and put them there. As discussed in Chapter 2, the blue stones that Carter found were primarily significant to him because
<figure><img src="image_91.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.4** Examples of blue stones from Tor Cairn (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

of their blue colour – sacred in Indo-Aryan mythologies and associated
with Indra the great father-god.

There are a number of specific features of these blue stones that Carter does not mention which are potentially very important indeed in their interpretation. These pebbles are hard, with smooth external surfaces and all are irregular in form, 10–15 cm in size. They are almost always found broken (90 per cent of those recovered from Tor Cairn) and unbroken examples are irregular in shape (Figure 5.4). Only a very few are perfectly water-rounded on all faces. In contrast to the other pebbles, these blue stones lose their blueness when wet, becoming much darker. Their blueness is intensified when dry. This in an interesting manner inverts the situation found with other pebbles, whose colours are always intensified and enhanced when wet.

Roger Taylor examined the blue stones recovered from Tor Cairn and reported that they are quartzite, just like the other pebbles, but that they are highly unusual because they have not been subjected to the same water attrition processes and have a different transport history. Their source, in contrast to that of the other pebbles, may be quite close to East Devon, perhaps from rock outcrops now submerged under the English Channel. As a consequence the rocks have not been rolled and ground down into pebble forms as much as the other stone material
by the ancient Triassic river. This accounts for the irregular shape and
form of many of these blue stones – they are not like the other pebbles.
What was the importance of these stones? These stones were significant
because of the manner in which they were noticeably different from all
the other pebbles in form, colour and the manner in which they react
to water.

Classifying colour

As has been discussed in *Chapter 3* and above, we recorded the pebbles
from the cairns in terms of basic colour categories: red, brown, grey, etc.
This was an attempt to avoid the kind of confusion and uncertainty that
would inevitably arise if we attempted to record shades of brown or yel-
low or red or grey, etc. or use a much more extended range of categories,
for example pink pebbles, olive-green, orange, mauve, etc. What this
meant in practice was that a decision had to be made whether a pebble
was, for example, more red than brown, in which case it was recorded as
red, or more brown than red, when it would be recorded as brown. Using
a colour chart such as the Munsell system (Munsell 1912) to ‘objectively’
record the colour of the pebbles was ruled out at the outset since one of
the things that we do absolutely know for certain is that such a system
would not have been used by the Bronze Age people constructing the
cairn, and the numerical colour codes arising would have been as mean-
ingless to them as a description or categorization of colour as they are to
us. In practice, anyway, using the ‘objective’ Munsell chart is a subjective
enterprise – we make a subjective judgement between a number of pos-
sible alternatives. More seriously such a way of categorizing colour gives
us no insight into meaning. Their colour categories would have been cul-
turally constructed in the same manner as our own modern classification
system, using abstract colour categories.

Archaeologists generally use abstract colour categories in discus-
sions of stratigraphic sequences and the colours of materials, such as clay
and stone, as if they are unproblematic. So they do not ask how red is this
red and how different is this red from brown. In many cases this may be
justified when the materials being discussed are obviously different and
contrasting. So for example some of the prehistoric stone circles on the
Isle of Arran are composed of grey granite and red sandstone and there
is no problem describing them as such (Jones 1999 and see discussions
in Jones and MacGregor 2002). However, in the case of the pebbles of
the Budleigh Salterton Pebblebeds this is far from easy since there are so
many shades of red, brown, grey, etc., sometimes even on different parts of a single pebble. Having recorded pebble colours as a team we carried out a series of tests in order to ascertain how much individual variability there was in our own colour classifications and how this might affect the interpretations of the results.

## Test results

We selected 50 pebbles, 10 from each of five colour-contrasting categories – red, yellow, grey, brown and white (which accounted for the quartz pebbles) – and numbered them accordingly. These particular colour categories were chosen because we knew from our own experience of recording colours that these were often problematic, except for ‘white’ or quartz pebbles, where there was good general agreement as to what white was (the same applied to black pebbles and blue pebbles that were not included in the analysis). We interviewed 57 people. Eleven of these were members of the excavation team who had colour-coded pebbles during the excavations, and had some experience of doing so, and 46 were students at University College London, who had none. We told the informants that there was no right or wrong answer, and asked them to group together ten pebbles under each of the five categories of colours. From the 2,850 answers given (570 answers for each colour), 1,908 (66.9 per cent) matched our classification. All the pebbles in the tests were wet so that their colours would be enhanced.

Among the 942 pebble categorizations that did not match our colour classification, brown was the colour which had the most ‘divergent’ answers (332 in total, of which 43 per cent were yellow pebbles, 33 per cent were grey, and the rest, red), followed by grey (a total of 299, of which 87 per cent were brown pebbles), yellow (195 in total, of which 74 per cent were grey pebbles), red (111, with 45 per cent being brown) and white (5 in total, 40 per cent being brown) (see Table 5.1).

<table><caption>Table 5.1 Answers that differed from our colour classification.</caption><thead><tr><th>For brown</th><th>For grey</th><th>For yellow</th><th>For red</th><th>For white</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>143 yellow</td><td>262 brown</td><td>146 grey</td><td>50 brown</td><td>2 brown</td></tr><tr><td>112 grey</td><td>33 yellow</td><td>25 red</td><td>40 grey</td><td>1 red</td></tr><tr><td>77 red</td><td>4 red</td><td>22 brown</td><td>19 yellow</td><td>1 yellow</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2 white</td><td>2 white</td><td>1 grey</td></tr></tbody></table>
There was no appreciable difference between the results of the stu-
dents and the members of the excavation team. We can conclude from
this that there is in general a high level of agreement between the man-
ner in which different individual colours were classified by different per-
sons, but up to 30 per cent level of disagreement. As a consequence, in
the interpretation of colour statistics for the pebbles in the cairns dis-
cussed in Chapter 4 this has to be allowed for.

Special pebbles

As discussed previously, a category of special or extraordinary pebbles
was first formulated mid-way through the first season of excavations at
Tor Cairn in 2008. These pebbles are distinguished from others by having
a far more complex and less uniform visual appearance. They may have
multicoloured or mottled surface colours rather than being uniformly
grey, brown, yellow, etc., and/or possess a wide variety of different quartz
veins or inclusions of different forms. Each of these pebbles has its own
unique characteristics. Figure 5.5 shows a general classification system
identifying 13 basic categories. Any individual pebble may possess up to
four of these categories somewhere on its surface. Frequently the same
pebble may appear completely different according to which side or area
is seen. The quartz veins and inclusions criss-crossing some pebbles vary
from bright white to various shades of cream, pink or red, yellow or black.

Class 1 are pebbles with a mottled or variegated surface with two or
more different colours. Such pebbles are seriously underrepresented in
the cairns compared with the test beach samples because of erosion and
iron staining in the acidic soils affecting the pebble surface. Only pebbles
left exposed to the sun, wind and rain for two years following the excava-
tion of Tor Cairn began to resemble the beach pebbles in this respect and
it was evident that many special pebbles of this category had not been
possible to recognize during the course of the excavations.

Classes 2 and 3 are pebbles with a single narrow or broader quartz vein running across their surface. Usually these veins are white but sometimes they may be grey to pink to red.

Classes 4 and 5 are pebbles with multiple narrow or broad quartz
veins running across their surfaces. Sometimes these may be broad and
roughly parallel bands. In other cases pebbles may be criss-crossed with
such thread-like or broader veins in an almost infinite number of forms.

Class 6 are pebbles with quartz inclusions or surface areas made up
by quartz of variable form and extent.
<figure><img src="image_92.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.5** Schematic diagram of categories of ‘special’ pebbles: (1): pebble with mottled surface of different colours; (2): narrow quartz veins; (3): broad quartz veins; (4 and 4a): multiple thread veins; (5 and 5a): broad quartz bands; (6): quartz inclusions; (7): quartz rings or ovals; (8): multiple quartz rings/ovals; (9): conglomerate/spotted; (10): pebble with two or more distinct surfaces/colours; (11): blue stones; (12): distinctive bedding planes/stripes; and (13): other – any combination of the above categories (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
Class 7 are pebbles with oval rings resembling eyes. These are invariably found around the end of the long axis of the pebble, only rarely occurring elsewhere on its surface (Fig. 5.6). The shape of some bear a striking resemblance to a human eye. Once looked at by Bronze Age eyes, they now look at us.

Class 8 pebbles are those with multiple oval rings.

Class 9 pebbles are conglomerates with a conspicuously spotted surface that may take a variety of forms. Class 10 pebbles are those with two distinct surfaces; class 11 are Carter Blue Stones already discussed. Class 12 pebbles have distinctive broad bands or stripes running along bedding planes. Class 13 pebbles are a small number of examples of pebbles that have none of the above characteristics, possessing instead such features as black veins or unusual holes on their surface.

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.6** Examples of pebble ‘eyes’: (a): Little Tor Cairn north quadrant square N4 level 2; (b): Tor Cairn north quadrant square 4 level 3; (c): Tor Cairn south quadrant square 9 level 2; (d): Tor Cairn north quadrant square 3 level 1; (e): Tor Cairn south quadrant square 4 level 3; (f) Tor Cairn south quadrant square 6 level 2; (g): Tor Cairn south quadrant square 6 level 2 (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 5.2** The percentages of different types of classes on the special pebbles recorded in the excavated cairns and the pebbles recorded from two excavated sections across the middle of the Aylesbeare ox hide and axe pebble platforms (see Chapter 6) and from the 15 test squares. For ‘motifs’ see Figure 5.5. Percentages are also given for pebbles with two, three and four different ‘motifs’.</caption><thead><tr><th>Classes recorded</th><th>Tor Cairn (NW quadrant) percentage</th><th>Little Tor Cairn (W side) percentage</th><th>Little Tor Cairn (E side) percentage</th><th>Twin Cairn A (NE quadrant) percentage</th><th>Aylesbeare platforms sections percentage</th><th>Test squares percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>30</td><td>9</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>13</td><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>9</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>20</td><td>15</td><td>22</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>15</td><td>17</td><td>11</td><td>27</td><td>16</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>17</td><td>16</td><td>12</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>25</td><td>26</td><td>19</td><td>11</td><td>33</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>10</td><td>0.01</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>0.1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>20</td><td>12</td><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>0.03</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>0.01</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Number of pebbles</td><td>837</td><td>113</td><td>481</td><td>101</td><td>45</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Two classes percentage</td><td>34</td><td>36</td><td>31</td><td>26</td><td>29</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Three classes percentage</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>0.04</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Four classes percentage</td><td>0.1</td><td>3</td><td>0.01</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

Any pebble may possess any combination of these characteristics up to a maximum of four, for example a single pebble might have a mot-tled surface, narrow quartz vein, multiple broad bands and a quartz oval.

Given that we know that special pebbles were differentially selected to include in the cairns, an important question to ask is whether this process of selection shows any preference for the different categories of ‘motifs’ or ‘patterns’ on these pebbles as outlined above. **Table 5.2** shows the statistics from the excavated sites (both the cairns and the pebble
sculptures discussed in Chapter 6) and the 15 natural test squares. The frequencies of mottled pebbles, as expected, are lower in the excavated sites compared with the test squares but the great majority of these were recorded in the beach samples. Otherwise there is little difference in the relative frequencies, except for cairn TCA where positive selection seems to have taken place. Class 2 is overrepresented in the pebbles recorded in the three platform sections on Aylesbeare Common discussed in Chapter 7 and TC and LTC but underrepresented at cairn TCA. Class 3 is slightly overrepresented in the cairns but not the platforms compared with the natural test samples. Class 4 is more common in the platforms than in the natural test samples but not the cairns. By contrast Class 5 is more frequent in the natural samples and is underrepresented everywhere except at cairn TCA. Class 6 is similarly less frequent in TCA and the platforms than in the natural but occurs in similar frequencies in TC and LTC. Class 7 is underrepresented at all sites compared with the natural and especially in TCA, as is class 8, except in the western half of LTC. Class 9 is underrepresented at all the excavated sites, while Carter Blue Stones are dramatically overrepresented compared with the natural samples, most especially at TC. Class 12 is overrepresented in all excavated sites. The relative frequencies of combinations of the different classes on the pebbles differs little from the natural, except at TC and the western half of LTC, where they are far more frequent than in the natural samples.

While we already know that there is very strong evidence for the preferential selection of Carter Blue Stones in all excavated sites, there also appears to be positive selection for classes 2, 3, 4 and 12 in the excavated sites, that is to say pebbles with single thin or thick quartz veins and multiple thin quartz veins running over the surface and multiple bedding plane rings. The platforms differ from the cairns in preferential selection of classes 2 and 4 and 12 as opposed to 3, the latter being more frequent in the cairns. Special selection differs somewhat from cairn to cairn and between the two halves of LTC but varies from case to case.

It is important to note that all the special pebbles are absolutely unique. Not only is this the case but many look very different from side to side or viewing angle. The same pebble is not one but many. The classification system for the special pebbles is necessarily very generalized and inevitably subsumes difference. Although we have identified certain broad preferences for different categories of special pebbles compared with the natural test samples these are only generalized trends. What was probably far more significant to the prehistoric populations was the individual form and unique characteristics of the individual 'motifs' and the 'patterns' and the 'motif' combinations on the special pebbles, which
were almost certainly not conceived in terms of being, or not being,
members of a particular class as in our analysis.

Describing specials

We have discussed above different broad categories of special pebbles.
Here we want to instead stress individual differences. No two pebbles are
exactly alike. Each has its own personality and integrity of form. Six spe-
cial pebbles from three cairns are discussed in the following.

LTC 2010 square 4 level 7 (Figure 5.7)

This pebble is from the middle of the basal level of Little Tor Cairn in the SE excavated quadrant. It was therefore deposited at the outset of cairn construction. This small pebble is brown and perfectly oval in form. It is identical in form and size to many of the smaller pebbles found on Budleigh Salterton beach today and this might be its likely origin. One side is plain, the other has a striking quartz oval covering half of the pebble. The quartz is pinky-white and contains a number of black thread veins forming an irregular honeycomb-like pattern over part of the outer surface at one end.

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.7** Special pebble from Little Tor Cairn S4 L7 (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
This pebble is from the uppermost level of square 4 in the centre of Tor Cairn. Irregular in form and grey in colour, the surface of the entire pebble is criss-crossed with thread-like white quartz veins and inclusions. These form a fine mesh across the pebble surface. They run parallel to each other diagonally across the pebble on one side together with others that curl around and across the pebble. On the other side they run parallel to each other with thicker veins cutting across the centre. The pointed and smaller end of the pebble has another thicker oval or eye-shaped quartz vein running around it, seen in Figure 5.8 at the top. This can only be seen in its entirety by holding the pebble upright. As one rotates the pebble in the hands the patterns of quartz veins alter and change in a kalteidoscopic manner. This pebble, like so many others found in the cairns, is both one and many. The patterning running and changing across its surface changes radically giving a sense of unfolding dynamism and fluidity of form (Figure 5.8).

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.8** Special pebble from Tor Cairn N6 L2 (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
LTC 2010 SE quadrant level 3

This irregular pebble found in the second pebble layer of the cairn on its western periphery has a mottled and slightly pitted surface with an irregular coverage of grey, pink and brown areas, all with merging surfaces and irregular outlines. It is crossed by a single broad and bold quartz band that stands out from the rest of the pebble in a striking manner (Figure 5.9).

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.9** Special pebble from Little Tor Cairn S4 L3 (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

TCA NE quadrant level 1

This striking irregular brown pebble has one face covered with pink quartz inclusions. These wrap themselves over the pebble surface in an extraordinary manner, creating meandering folded masses, sometimes broad, in other places narrow, creating a plethora of forms running across the surface. The other, 'back' surface of the pebble is almost uniformly brown, except at one end, where the quartz inclusions from the 'front' side continue and wrap themselves around it in a bold but broken band, revealing the brown surface beneath enclosing a series of irregular geometric shapes (Figure 5.10).
<figure><img src="image_97.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.10** Special pebble from Twin Cairn A NE L1 (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

### TCA NE quadrant level 1

This pebble from the surface of the cairn has a complex mottled surface. Across the brown 'front' surface run broad involuted and indented meaninging yellow bands. Other areas of the 'back' of the pebble surface are flecked and splashed with yellow highlights (Figure 5.11).

### TCA NE quadrant level 6

This is a conglomerate pebble spotted or flecked over its entire surface, with larger and smaller white and pink quartz inclusions, larger at the centre, smaller towards the ends of the pebble. It was found in a middle layer of the excavated NE quadrant. The perceived surface patterning differs considerably as one rotates the pebble in the hands. Quartz flecks are absent from small areas (Figure 5.12).

It is exceedingly difficult to either adequately describe these special pebbles or indeed to photograph them. They need to be physically experienced, held and moved in the hands to appreciate the sheer complexity of their forms and patterning. No two pebbles are exactly alike. Each has
<figure><img src="image_98.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.11** Special pebble from Twin Cairn A NE L1 (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.12** Special pebble from Twin Cairn A NE L6 (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>
its own personality and integrity of form. We have demonstrated that there are far more of these special pebbles in the cairns than are found in the natural. This suggests that their striking and unusual character was recognized and that they were picked up individually by different people and brought to the cairns during their construction rather than simply being shovelled into a basket as a bulk collection. Such an activity might appeal to children, in particular, who could be taught to recognize unusual and striking ones.

This may have been over a considerable period of time. As argued in Chapters 3 and 4, the pebble layers on the cairn might have been added to seasonally or annually as part of the rhythm of life or after a number of years. We undertook an experiment with beach pebbles, taking some away and leaving them exposed in a pile inland. After a period of six or seven years their surface begins to dull and go grey. This is the result of lichen growth. So adding fresh layers of pebbles to the cairn surface would in effect renew the vibrancy of its colours and the individual character of the specials.

Infinitely variable, these special pebbles invite and attract, compel one to examine their surfaces that flow and change as the pebble is rotated in the hands. Different patterns and images appear and disappear in the process, emerge and fade away. The meandering white quartz veins on some twist and turn, widen and narrow. Others have multicoloured patterns. Nobody made these pebbles, created their shapes and forms and patterns, but the inherent beauty and intricacy of their forms is nonetheless quite remarkable. Although this is, of course, a modern aesthetic response we can still ask how prehistoric people may have responded to them. Might they not have thought about them too as wonderful or magical, regarded them as talismans and emotionally responded to their forms? Most of the patterning on the pebbles is 'abstract' in character; sometimes they are strikingly geometric in just the same way as the motifs that occur on Early Bronze Age/Beaker pottery. On some one can read into the patterning representational forms. A considerable number of these pebbles have quartz ovals on their surfaces resembling the shapes of eyes observing the observer (Figure 5.6). As noted above, these are usually found on the ends of the pebbles. Usually there is only one, but sometimes two; more rarely, multiples. Other pebbles resemble in shape and form internal body organs: kidneys, livers, brains, etc. On others the patterns of quartz veins create forms analogous to sinews and binding. On some we can find 'depictions' of plants and animals such as the fronds of ferns, fugitive outlines of animals or birds, lobsters and prawns (Figure 5.13).
<figure><img src="image_100.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.13** Pebble with a 'prawn' (Source: author)</figcaption></figure>

In case the reader has not noticed, there is an intended irony in the
illustrations: they juxtapose the pebble with a measuring scale in centime-
tres. What does the objectivity of the scale tell us about these pebbles? Does
it capture their essence? We assume there is no need to provide an answer.

Contemporary tests

Fifty informants were asked to select their 10 favourite pebbles from a
sample of 20 collected from the beach. Ten of these were plain pebbles
of different colours, the others the kind of intricate pebbles with mot-
tled and patterned surfaces and/or distinctive quartz veins that we had
recorded as special from both the cairn and the test samples.

The first thing we wanted to verify with this test was whether our
own classification for specials would be reproduced in the informants'
choices. Nearly 70 per cent of the pebbles chosen by the 50 informants