'; // Add CSS container, banner and display the menu // Note the div contianr needs closing in the HTML below require_once('../includes/functions.php'); display_banner_and_menu($title); ?>
Photo: The Dancers Cairn Circle and Stall Moor (Upper Erme) Stone Row
Perhaps the most distinctive and enigmatic of the prehistoric monuments on Dartmoor are the stone rows. Dartmoor has the largest concentrations of stone rows of any area in Britain. There are over seventy stone rows known on Dartmoor today (see listing below) although there were probably once considerably more. A small number of the rows recorded by antiquarians in the nineteenth century have disappeared either through destruction at the hands of road and newtake wall builders whilst others may have simply receded into the peat1.
The stone rows consist of one or more roughly straight lines of standing stones many of which include structures such as cairn circles or large standing stones at either or both ends. The rows consist of a wide variety of size stones and a wide variety of lengths.
The single rows are typically 40 to 200 m in length2 although there are four rows on the southern moor which are over 0.5 km in length (Burford Down, Stall Moor (Upper Erme), Stalldown and Butterdon Hill). Curiously these four rows are all very roughly north-south in orientation. The longest is the Stall Moor stone row which stretches for 3.1 km from The Dancers (Upper Erme) cairn circle over rough terrain with stones going up and down gullies all the way to a cairn on Green Hill.
There are many double and a few triple stone rows on Dartmoor. These rows are typically between 100m and 200m in length. Particularly fine examples of double rows include Merrivale, Hurston Ridge and the Assycombe stone rows. The Cosdon and Challacombe rows are the most impressive of the triple stone rows. At Corringdon Ball there is an odd complex variously described as a seven-fold stone row or a combination of two triple stone rows consisting of very small stones.
The double stone rows have often been referred to as stone avenues suggesting that they may have had some kind of ritual processional purpose. However whilst some have an average spacing of around 3.0m between the rows many have spacing less than 0.5m, some as narrow as 0.2m which is too narrow for a ritual pathway. The spacing of the stones within a row is very irregular as is the spacing in-between rows3. A good example is the Assycombe double stone row which has a distance between the rows that fluctuates wildly between 1.0m and 1.6m.
Hurston Ridge Stone Row
The stones of the rows vary in size with the majority consisting of stones less than 1m high for most of their length. Many of the rows consist of very small stones but often there will be a large terminal standing stone. The most impressive of these are the Drizzlecombe stone rows one of which has a terminal standing stone 4.2m high. Other notable examples include the Langstone Moor stone row, the Laughter Tor double stone row and the Shovel Down Longstone stone row. According to an account by Wilkinson in 1859 the Hart Tor double stone row was “terminated by a large monolith, now fallen, measuring about 25 feet long by 2 feet and 3 inches”, sadly this massive stone has long disappeared. A small number of the double rows have transverse blocking stones at the lower end, a good example being the Hurston Ridge row.
Cairns are also commonly associated as terminal features of the stone rows typically at the upper end. Fine examples include the Down Tor, Trowlesworthy East, Hart Tor and Ringmoor stone rows. In the case of single rows there is often a cairn at one end followed by a row of small stones ended by a large terminal stone a good example being the Drizzlecombe stone rows. Some of the rows have cairns and cists alongside them and in the case of one of the Merrivale double rows there is a large cairn actually within the row about midway along its length. A few of the rows form part of a ceremonial complex with other associated monuments such as stone circles, cists, cairns and standing stones such as at Merrivale, Fernworthy, Shovel Down and Drizzlecombe.
Perhaps the most impressive stone row still standing is the megalithic in proportion Stalldown stone row (see photo). This consists of massive blocks with mostly 1m to 1.5m high with four over 2m. The fallen stones of the Piles Hill stone row suggest it would have been even more striking with over 30 stones being between 2m and 3m in length. In 2004 a new stone row was discovered on Cut Hill which consists of massive fallen slabs over 2m in length. The Cut Hill row is the only row to have solid dating evidence, carbon dating of the peat surrounding the recumbent stones suggests a date “around the second half of the fourth millennium BC”.4 It is thought that most of the cairn circles and cists date to the early Bronze Age which would suggest a similar date for most of the stone rows but clearly the Cut Hill example is earlier dating back into the Neolithic. This suggests that the stone rows may have been constructed over a prolonged period of time through the late Neolithic and the early Bronze Age. It could be that the more megalithic in proportion rows are earlier but without firm evidence this is mere speculation. The association of many rows with cairns suggests that most of the stone rows are related to burial customs although care is needed when generalising to all stone rows as they are so varied in form. Also Emmett suggests it could be possible that these monuments could have had multiple phases of construction with cairns added later. To understand the stone rows better it is necessary to consider the environment at the time of construction.
The first thing that should be considered is the environment in which these structures were erected. Today it is largely open moorland but in the Mesolithic these upland areas were largely forested. The first farmers started to change the environment and a process of deforestation started to take place. Initially Mesolithic clearances would have started to cause forest recession on higher ground. Later there would have been clearings on lower land with otherwise continuous forest. Much of Dartmoor would have been forested at the time these monuments started to be erected.
Until recently the only stone row on Dartmoor to undergo a detailed archaeological dig was the Cholwich Town stone row which was excavated in 1961 prior to being buried underneath waste from the china clay works. The pollen evidence suggested it was constructed in a clearing of grassland or heath land within a forest of alder, oak and hazel.
The Cholwich Town example suggests that many of the stone rows would not have been constructed on open moorland as we see it today, instead they were constructed on the forest margins when the valley slopes and bottoms were still forested. The altitude and location of the stone rows, around the altitude of the then forest margins, is similar to those of the cairn circles but notably different to the location of the hut circles which came later largely on lower ground in the valleys. Emmett suggests that the clear implication “is that the rows are earlier than the ubiquitous, valley sited, later Bronze Age settlements, and roughly contemporary with the elusive earlier Bronze Age settlements, at a time when Dartmoor was still largely forested”.4 The recent dating of the Cut Hill stone row fits this general picture of the rows belonging to a period before the later Bronze Age settlement remains that can be seen today. In fact in this particular case the row, which is at a higher altitude than any other, is much earlier than previously thought for rows dating as it does to much earlier in the Neolithic.
There was a major study of 71 Dartmoor stone rows carried out by Emmett in 1979 (Stone rows: the traditional view reconsidered, D.A.S.P. No. 37 pp. 94-114). The orientation of the rows was largely random depending on the slopes they were sited on as the rows tend to gently ascend slopes. There was a very slight bias in the data to alignments in the NE quadrant but Emmett suggested this merely reflected a preponderance of rows in southern and eastern Dartmoor (there are very few in north-west Dartmoor). Giving a precise orientation was also impossible because many of them are not straight with bends and curves along the length. According to Butler a closer inspection of row orientation does also bring out a possible tendency towards orientation towards the cardinal points for some of the rows5.
The vast bulk of the rows have cairns at one end or sometimes at both ends. Emmett pointed out that it was impossible to say without excavations whether or not the cairns and the rows at each site were constructed at the same time. However, it seems likely that they were, which would suggest they are burial monuments. Claims for astronomical or solstice alignments for the vast majority of rows does not fit with their orientations and rough construction. The spacing of the stones within a row is very variable and for double and treble rows the spacing between the rows is very variable and the rows are generally “wriggly” with random kinks and curves along their length. According to Emmett:
“The obvious conclusion is that the exact stone position was irrelevant ... The general random nature of stone placing throughout, leads to the conclusion that rows were not precisely designed monuments, but structures built for an overall impression”.
Down Tor Cairn Cirlce and Stone Row
There has long been speculation that Dartmoor stone rows have an astronomical purpose. The evidence for most of the rows does not support such a theory. The astronomer Lockyer made claims in 1906 that Merrivale and a number of other sites had astronomical purposes. R.H. Worth was rather scathing about such suggestions. In the case of Trowlesworthy, which Lockyer claimed pointed to Arcturus in 2100 BC, Worth simply pointed out that one end of the row was not visible from the other as it went over a hill - so it could not possibly be used for such a purpose6. Jack Walker's book Dartmoor Sun has beautiful pictures of the stones of the Down Tor stone row at the summer and winter solstices casting their shadows along the line of the row7. It is of course not impossible that this is by design but a simpler explanation is that with over 70 stone rows with widely variant orientations it is not surprising that one may have by chance the right orientation for this to happen. There is no credibility to claims that Dartmoor stone rows have an astronomical purpose.
In contrast to the stone rows the cists do have a very obvious alignment as first noted by Worth8. About 94% of them have the long axis within the NW/SE quadrants skewed by about 5 degrees on average. It would appear that some rough orientation towards the sun was a factor in the orientation of cists. According to Butler this pattern is not repeated on Bodmin Moor where the orientation of cists “is too variable to be significant”. Clearly burial customs and monument construction had a local character in the prehistoric. It is interesting to note that there are very few stone rows on Exmoor in North Devon instead there are curious arrangements of very small stones in rectangular structures known as stone settings. There are a small number of stone rows elsewhere in North Devon and some on Bodmin Moor but they appear to be quite different to the Dartmoor rows. The greatest concentration of stone rows in the British Isles outside of Dartmoor are to be found on the upland fringes in counties Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone in Northern Ireland. There are also sites consisting of very small stones known as stone fans in NE Scotland which apparently have similarities with the Corringdon Ball stone rows.
One of the earliest accounts of a “stone avenue” on Dartmoor appears in Richard Polwhele's 1793 book Historical Views of Devonshire. This was actually written by Rev. John Swete and is a description of a supposed “druid way” near Spinsters Rock. Whilst there are still some “conical pillars” near Spinsters Rock these remains may no longer exist although a dig on Shilstone Common by Tyler in 1930 probably rediscovered cairn circles associated with these old reports. Polwhele in his descriptions of monuments in Devon, and his contemporary Borlase in his writings on Cornwall, attributed monuments and natural features such as rock basins as being the temples and places of worship of the Druids. This tradition of association of prehistoric monuments to the Druids was continued by Samuel Rowe in his classic 1848 work A Perambulation of Dartmoor. This was based on an earlier article Antiquarian Investigations in the Forest of Dartmoor, Devon published in 1830 in the Transactions of the Plymouth Institute. He introduces his paper by saying that the remoteness of Dartmoor has prevented the destruction of ancient remains but they are at risk, he stated:
“In these districts, therefore, the antiquary naturally looks for the vestiges of this people and their times; and as many of the most interesting relics are in hourly danger of spoliation, the notices in the following paper have been collected and published, with the hope that some may escape impending destruction, and that others may be preserved from that oblivion which appears to endanger the very memory of their existence”.9
These sentiments were reflected later in the concerns of the Dartmoor Preservation Society and the activities of the Dartmoor Exploration Committee. In the early nineteenth century stones from monuments were being plundered by road builders and there was an active campaign to make land productive for agriculture and as a consequence stones were being utilised for new buildings and new-take walls. This was also a period of industrial development on Dartmoor with leats, tramways associated with mining and railways starting to be built.
Rowe's 1830 article was one of the first to give descriptions of stone rows on Dartmoor. He gives accounts of Merrivale, Black Tor (Hart Tor), Challacombe, Watern Hill (Hurston Ridge - later claimed as being discovered by George French and the Dartmoor Exploration Committee) and the Shovel Down stone rows. A Perambulation of Dartmoor was majorly revised in a third edition in 1895 by Rowe's nephew J. Brooking Rowe although he rejected the Druid views of Samuel Rowe. R. N. Worth felt it necessary in 1880 to put the issue to rest by penning the rather scathing article Were There Druids in Devon? which pointed out that the theories of Polwhele and Borlase had no basis in fact.10
From the mid-nineteenth century there was a flourishing of interest in Dartmoor antiquities. Authors such as Ormerod revisited earlier accounts and made new observations. The Egyptologist Gardener Wilkinson wrote a major article on British Remains on Dartmoor in 1862. Spence Bate carried out an excavation of the terminal cairn of the Penn Beacon row and W. C. Lukis made plans of many sites on Dartmoor in 1879. In 1892 Richard Nichols Worth, father of Richard Hansford Worth, started the first in a series of five articles in the Transactions of the Devonshire Association on The Stone Rows of Dartmoor11. The first of these documented the 27 known stone rows at the time but the pace of discovery of new rows was illustrated by the inclusion of a last minute footnote from Robert Burnard about the discovery of the Assycombe stone row. This was the golden age of exploration and each annual report included descriptions of newly discovered stone rows. After R. N. Worth's death his son R. H. Worth continued the reports until 1911 and a total of 62 stone rows were listed in his collated writings on the subject in Worth's Dartmoor first published in 1953. To this day new stone rows are still periodically discovered such as the Cut Hill row in 2004 and the Tottiford row in 2009.
A number of the stone rows were restored by the Dartmoor Exploration Committee (notably by Sabine Baring-Gould, Robert Burnard and R. H. Worth). There has been much criticism of these restorations. There are many accounts in the reports to the Devonshire Association which give a sense of why it was considered so important to intervene to protect the sites. For example the report of the restoration of the Cosdon Row makes it clear that the Dartmoor Exploration committee were deeply concerned that failure to intervene would lead to the potential destruction of the site, see Extract from the Third Report of the Dartmoor Exploration Committee. R.H. Worth was very critical of some of the restorations, notably at Ringmoor Down and on the summit of Lakehead Hill due to a lack of accuracy in the restorations, but he was himself actively involved in the restorations as an act of preservation from further despoliation. Whatever criticisms we may have of the restorations we should be grateful that the process of destruction of sites was largely ended by the efforts of the restorers.
The following is a list of some of the more significant excavations and restorations of Dartmoor stone rows or associated cairns and menhirs:
1Butler points out that a number of monuments have disappeared under the peat and that this is likely to happen soon to the remaining sections of the Holne Moor triple row and the east end of the Cosdon rows. Butler (1997) p. 18.
2 Emmett (1979)
3 Emmett (1979)
4 Fyfe, Ralph M. & Greeves, Tom (2010)
5 Butler (1997) pp.239-243
6 Stone Rows and Astronomical Theory reproduced as Appendix IV in Worth (1971) pp.452-457
7 Walker (2005)
8 Worth R. H. (1971) pp.176-180
9 Rowe (1830) p.180
10 Were There Druids in Devon? T.D.A. Vol. 12, Worth R.N. (1880)
11 For a full listing of The Stone Rows of Dartmoor articles in the T.D.A and the reports of the Dartmoor Exploration Committee, see the listing of : Articles
12 An account of this is reproduced in Mrs Bray's The Borders of the Tamar and the Tavy, vol.1, (1844)
13 Bate (1872)
14 See Twelfth Report of the Barrow Committee (1890) and Transactions of the Plymouth Institute Vol. X 1889-1990
, and The Stone Rows of Dartmoor - Part 1, T.D.A. Vol. 24. The restoration of the menhirs is described in The Stone Rows of Dartmoor - Part 2, T.D.A. Vol. 25 (1893).
15 See Second Report of the Dartmoor Exploration Committee T.D.A. Vol. 27, (1895)
16 See Second Report of the Dartmoor Exploration Committee T.D.A. Vol. 27, (1895)
17 Worth R. H. (1971) p.226
18 See Twenty-Second Report of the Barrow Committee T.D.A Vol. 35 (1903)
19 Baring-Gould's field notes clearly refer to the blocking stone down hill being prone, see The Stone Rows of Dartmoor - Part 1 T.D.A. Vol. 24 p.389 (1892). Butler states the terminal stone at the other end was also restored, see Butler Vol. 2 p.166 (1991)
20 See The Stone Rows of Dartmoor - Part 3, T.D.A. Vol. 26 (1894)
21 See The Stone Rows of Dartmoor - Part 3, T.D.A. Vol. 26 (1894) and for a detailed account of the restoration see Burnard's Dartmoor Pictorial Records (originally published in 1894) pp. 68-70
22 See Third Report of the Dartmoor Exploration Committee, T.D.A. Vol. 28 (1896)
23 Worth R. H. (1971) pp.229-230
24Hemery (1983) p483
25 See Extract from the Third report of the Dartmoor Exploration Committee, T.D.A. Vol. 28 (1896)
26 See Fourth Report of the Dartmoor Exploration Committee, T.D.A. Vol. 29 (1897)
27 Worth R. H. (1971) pp.206-7
28 The date of this restoration is typically referred to as being 1909 but may have been a subsequent summer. The Twenty-ninth Report of the Barrow Committee, T.D.A. Vol. 42 (1910) states that Brisworthy stone circle had been restored but the work on the row is not mentioned although it is stated that it had been included on the OS map. Breton (1911) refers to restoring the Brisworthy stone circle alongside R.H. Worth in the summer of 1909 and then later in reference to Ringmoor writes "we hope all these remains will be restored during the coming summer".
29 Worth R. H. (1971) pp.209, the original plan before restoration can be seen in T.D.A. Vol 73 p.234
30 Butler Vol 3 (1994) pp.142-3
31 See Katy Armstrong's thesis Archaeological geophysical prospection in peatland environments (2010) pp.206-241. See also, Armstrong, K, 2009b. Archaeological excavations at Yellowmead Stone Circles, Dartmoor Matters, The Dartmoor Preservation Association, Spring 2009, pp.10-11 and Armstrong, K, 2009c. Yellowmead stone circles, Sheepstor, Dartmoor Magazine. 94, pp.35-6.
Baring-Gould, S, A Book of Dartmoor, (1900), (Halgrove reprint 2002)
Bate, C Spence, Researches into Some Antient Tumuli on Dartmoor, T.D.A. Vol. 5 pp.549-58 (1872)
Bray, Anna Eliza, The Borders of the Tamar and the Tavy, vol.1, (1844)
Breton, Henry Hugh, Beautiful Dartmoor And Its Interesting Antiquities, (1911, republished in 1990)
Burnard, Robert, Dartmoor Pictorial Records, (1986)
Butler, Jeremy, Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities, vol.2: The North, (1991)
Butler, Jeremy, Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities, vol.3: The South-West, (1994)
Butler, Jeremy Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities: Vol. 5. - The Second Millennium B.C. (Devon Books, 1997)
Emmett, D.D. Stone rows: the traditional view reconsidered, D.A.S.P. No. 37 pp. 94-114 (1979)
Fyfe, Ralph M. & Greeves, Tom The date and context of a stone row: Cut Hill, Dartmoor, south-west England Antiquity Vol 84, No. 323 pp55-70. (2010). The article can be read on line here: The date and context of a stone row: Cut Hill, Dartmoor, south-west England
Lukis, W.C,
Report on the Prehistoric Monuments of Devon and Cornwall and Report on the Monuments of Dartmoor, Proceeding of the Society of Antiquaries Vol. 8 (1881)
Newman, Phil The Field Archaeology of Dartmoor (English Heritage, 2011)
Hemery, Eric. High Dartmoor (Robert Hale, 1983)
Rowe, Samuel, Antiquarian Investigations in the Forest of Dartmoor, Devon, Transactions of the Plymouth Institute Vol. 1, pp.179- 212 (1830)
Rowe, Samuel, A Perambulation of Dartmoor (3rd Edition), (1896)
Walker, Jack, Dartmoor Sun, (2005)
Wilkinson J. Gardner, British Remains on Dartmoor, Journal Brit. Arch. Assoc. xviii. pp.22-53, 111-133. (1862)
Worth, R.H. Worth's Dartmoor (David & Charles, 1971)
Worth, R. N., The Stone Rows of Dartmoor - Parts 1-5 (1880)
Worth, R. N., Were There Druids in Devon?, Transactions of the Devonshire Association Vol. 12, pp.228- 242 (1880)
There are 76 stone rows listed by Butler ( Vol. 5 pp.213-14) and with one exception (see note on Shoveldown) they are all listed below with links to their location on the OS map, to their National Monument Records (NMR) and to any coverage on this website. Please note that external links open in a new page. Some of these rows were reliably reported in the past but on the National Monument Record are described as no longer in existence or otherwise untraceable (e.g. destroyed by quarrying or sunken in the peat or in the case of the Soussons Down Triple Stone row destroyed by plunder and afforestation). Worth listed 62 stones rows as republished in Worth's Dartmoor. This listing was increased to 71 rows by Emmett in his 1979 study although Emmett mentions "42 sites, some with rows of doubtful authenticity which are excluded". Since Butler's list a stone row on Cut Hill has been discovered. The Time Team dig at Tottiford Reservoir discovered two more stone rows which are included once in the listings. These 2 additional inclusions, less one Shoveldown row, brings the total of rows to 77.
There are numerous alignments of stones in existence today or reported to have once existed which have been described as stone rows or as possible stone rows. It is likely that many of these are in fact remains of reaves or walls or other structures from the historic period and some are just geological features. Some of these are discussed by Butler (Vol. 5 pp 214-19). Emmett refers to 42 sites of "doubtful authenticity" which he excluded from his study.
Academics and researchers will find the very comprehensive listing of 117 sites on Bill Radcliffe's Prehistoric Monuments of Dartmoor (PMD) website very useful. Each entry has a link to any related NMR and HER (Historical Environment Record) records along with useful bibliography and other details. The listing has a useful interface which gives listings by OS grid squares. It covers doubtful rows and those rows once reported by early explorers but now lost, destroyed, or otherwise untraceable.
The listing below covers most of the confirmed stone rows that can be seen today although it should be emphasised that some are insignificant and potentially very difficult to find!
Each record has a link to corresponding NMR, HER (the Heritage Gateway Historic Environment Record) and PMD records, a link to the location on the Ordnance Survey map, a photo (if available) and a link to relevant coverage on Prehistoric Dartmoor Walks and a link giving a listing of nearby sites. The author would like to thank Bill Radcliffe for the helpful correspondence whilst checking records. See also: Database and Web Search Tools
Note on nomenclature
The naming and numbering systems for stone rows used by different authors and authorities are not consistent. The listings by Worth are perhaps best well known so aspects of Worth's nomenclature will be used in these listings. Where there are 2 or more rows in the same location they maybe referred to using letters A,B,C ...or by numbers 1,2,3 ... where possible we use compass bearings as there can be no ambiguity with these e.g. N, E or S.E etc sometimes combined with Worth's lettering.
Note on Shoveldown
Different sources report different numbers of stone rows on Shovel Down. These vary from 5 to 10 rows. Worth describes 3 double rows (NMR Rows A,B,C) and one single row with an additional double row south of the Longstone. He speculates on whether the double row heading south from the Longstone to the Three Boys might be a continuation of the double row to the north of the Longstone with the Longstone in the middle. Butler treats these as two separate rows. The most recent update to the NMR record suggests that they are one and the same row (NMR Row E-F). The NMR records also mention accounts which suggest a total of up to 10 rows but later accounts suggest that there is one long single row broken into several sections (NMR Row D-G-H-F) which give the appearance of separate rows. This leaves a total of 4 double rows and one single row. Unfortunately, the NMR, Butler and Worth all use different systems for labelling the Shoveldown rows. Worth confusingly uses two letters per double row so there is a row A (presumably A & B) then a row C (C & D) etc. We will adopt the labelling used in the NMRs.
A table of these rows without photos and additional notes is available: Table of Dartmoor Stone Rows
Default listing is by Worth number. Click here to order instead by: Site Name, OS, Worth Number
Page last updated 12/07/15