Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Peter Herring

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 1 Dimensions of Cornish quoits compared

Table 1 Dimensions of Cornish quoits compared

Related Figures (9)

and noting the existence of ‘Part of retaining wall of very large stones’ (1971, 23). The stones are also higher than those found in the wall of a typical hut circle, or ruined round house, although this is what our former President Martin Fletcher thought the site might have been when he visited in 1985, when working for the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (Pastscape Mon.
and noting the existence of ‘Part of retaining wall of very large stones’ (1971, 23). The stones are also higher than those found in the wall of a typical hut circle, or ruined round house, although this is what our former President Martin Fletcher thought the site might have been when he visited in 1985, when working for the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (Pastscape Mon.
Fig 2. West Penwith, showing major Early Neolithic sites: Grumbla Quoit, other chambered tombs (extant and suggested by field names), the Chapel Carn Brea long cairn and three tor enclosures, including the postulated one on St Michael’s Mount. (Prepared by Sharon Soutar, Historic England, with permission. Height data — ©Bluesky International / Getmapping PLC.)
Fig 2. West Penwith, showing major Early Neolithic sites: Grumbla Quoit, other chambered tombs (extant and suggested by field names), the Chapel Carn Brea long cairn and three tor enclosures, including the postulated one on St Michael’s Mount. (Prepared by Sharon Soutar, Historic England, with permission. Height data — ©Bluesky International / Getmapping PLC.)
4); these have now fallen. A narrow passage (0.5m wide) at the south-west end of the cottage’s north- west wall was probably the cottage’s doorway, there being no obvious alternative means of access. The floor was levelled into the slope and the other walls, which were built of small and medium-sized roughly weathered granite stones, are now low and overgrown (0.3 to 0.6m high, 0.6 to 0.8m wide). It is not possible to establish whether there was any window, but there would have been space for one in either of the north-east and north-west walls; the door might also have been hepsed, allowing light in when the upper half was open (Jenkin 1945, 333). The cottage was probably single-storeyed and single-roomed and its roof appears to have been thatched as no fragments of slate were noticed in the several areas of disturbed ground on and near the site. Several thatched buildings survive in West Penwith and numerous historic images indicate that the material was used throughout the peninsula, mainly for more modest dwellings and farm buildings. For example, 17 of the Victorian photos gathered by Reg Watkiss (1975) feature thatched buildings; these have influenced the conjectural reconstruction of the cottage (Fig 9).
4); these have now fallen. A narrow passage (0.5m wide) at the south-west end of the cottage’s north- west wall was probably the cottage’s doorway, there being no obvious alternative means of access. The floor was levelled into the slope and the other walls, which were built of small and medium-sized roughly weathered granite stones, are now low and overgrown (0.3 to 0.6m high, 0.6 to 0.8m wide). It is not possible to establish whether there was any window, but there would have been space for one in either of the north-east and north-west walls; the door might also have been hepsed, allowing light in when the upper half was open (Jenkin 1945, 333). The cottage was probably single-storeyed and single-roomed and its roof appears to have been thatched as no fragments of slate were noticed in the several areas of disturbed ground on and near the site. Several thatched buildings survive in West Penwith and numerous historic images indicate that the material was used throughout the peninsula, mainly for more modest dwellings and farm buildings. For example, 17 of the Victorian photos gathered by Reg Watkiss (1975) feature thatched buildings; these have influenced the conjectural reconstruction of the cottage (Fig 9).
cromlech’s form should start with this stone. IN NID ND INA IID NILA NA EEE NRE ER The other larger stones on the site have all been broken and moved around, but it can be suggested that all derive from just three stones of roughly similar size to stone A. If no other large stones have been removed from the site (and the nearest field hedge to which stones might have been carried is over 20m to the east), it seems likely that these derive from the cromlech’s other uprights. The broken stub of one (D) is immediately adjacent and perpendicular to stone A, suggesting that it was a shorter side stone and that the four stones formed a rectangular chamber, similar to Mulfra and Chun Quoits (for which see Barnatt 1982, fig All figures are in metres and all except for Grumbla Quoit are from Barnatt 1982, appendix B. PD = portal dolmen; SCT = simple chambered tomb, following the typology of Kytmannow (2008). Lanyon, Sperris, Carwynnen and Lesquite are of mor uncertain forms.
cromlech’s form should start with this stone. IN NID ND INA IID NILA NA EEE NRE ER The other larger stones on the site have all been broken and moved around, but it can be suggested that all derive from just three stones of roughly similar size to stone A. If no other large stones have been removed from the site (and the nearest field hedge to which stones might have been carried is over 20m to the east), it seems likely that these derive from the cromlech’s other uprights. The broken stub of one (D) is immediately adjacent and perpendicular to stone A, suggesting that it was a shorter side stone and that the four stones formed a rectangular chamber, similar to Mulfra and Chun Quoits (for which see Barnatt 1982, fig All figures are in metres and all except for Grumbla Quoit are from Barnatt 1982, appendix B. PD = portal dolmen; SCT = simple chambered tomb, following the typology of Kytmannow (2008). Lanyon, Sperris, Carwynnen and Lesquite are of mor uncertain forms.
2.2), and not a portal dolmen, which would have had a simple facade or antechamber formed by two portal stones, as at Zennor, Pawton and Trethevy Quoits (ibid). Tatjana Kytmannow has recently categorised the two types as ‘simple chambered tomb’ and ‘portal tomb’ (2008). TWO LY Pes ads SLIP Ie CHAIUUELEU LOLI aii PULtdl LOLI \LUU0). The largest of the three displaced stones (B on Fig 6), near the north-eastern edge of the complex. was broken using powder, presumably in the nineteenth century. The central charge-hole and holes drilled to further reduce the piece by tare-and-feather splitting are visible. Stone B has maximum dimensions 2.9m by 1.4m; if erect some of its length would presumably have been placed into the ground and it would have been as long as stone A. Its width is less certain, but may be expected to be less than 1.4m, perhaps close to the 0.8m of stone A. If it stood at the far downhill side of the cromlech to match stone A and had around 1.0m of its lensth in the ground then the capstone may have originally been set fairly horizontally.
2.2), and not a portal dolmen, which would have had a simple facade or antechamber formed by two portal stones, as at Zennor, Pawton and Trethevy Quoits (ibid). Tatjana Kytmannow has recently categorised the two types as ‘simple chambered tomb’ and ‘portal tomb’ (2008). TWO LY Pes ads SLIP Ie CHAIUUELEU LOLI aii PULtdl LOLI \LUU0). The largest of the three displaced stones (B on Fig 6), near the north-eastern edge of the complex. was broken using powder, presumably in the nineteenth century. The central charge-hole and holes drilled to further reduce the piece by tare-and-feather splitting are visible. Stone B has maximum dimensions 2.9m by 1.4m; if erect some of its length would presumably have been placed into the ground and it would have been as long as stone A. Its width is less certain, but may be expected to be less than 1.4m, perhaps close to the 0.8m of stone A. If it stood at the far downhill side of the cromlech to match stone A and had around 1.0m of its lensth in the ground then the capstone may have originally been set fairly horizontally.
and allowing easier access to the chamber. The overhang of the capstone would also appear to have been greater than at those other two sites. Figure 9 includes a reconstruction of the cromlech based on the analytical survey undertaken here. Although the site has been much disturbed, the positions of stones A and D appear to be original and suggest that there may be preserved features in the area of the chamber (stone-holes, deposits, dateable material, etc); excavation may yet confirm or adjust the interpretations made here. ‘P’ had noted in 1843 that the capstone had already slipped off its supporters, and presumably leant fairly vertically against the chamber it had once covered for local people to have seen it as a “Giant’s Chair’. In the reconstruction of the Giant’s Chair (Fig 9) it has been assumed that the capstone slipped because the south. eastern support moved forwards into the chamber, leaving the capstone leaning at an angle similar to that o1 Mulfra Quoit’s capstone. If the slipped capstone stood on the south- east side of the chamber, it was probably tipped over two times and then set vertical to become the cottage wall. If so, the original upper surface of the capstone was that more uneven, more convex side now facing south east, again comparable to
and allowing easier access to the chamber. The overhang of the capstone would also appear to have been greater than at those other two sites. Figure 9 includes a reconstruction of the cromlech based on the analytical survey undertaken here. Although the site has been much disturbed, the positions of stones A and D appear to be original and suggest that there may be preserved features in the area of the chamber (stone-holes, deposits, dateable material, etc); excavation may yet confirm or adjust the interpretations made here. ‘P’ had noted in 1843 that the capstone had already slipped off its supporters, and presumably leant fairly vertically against the chamber it had once covered for local people to have seen it as a “Giant’s Chair’. In the reconstruction of the Giant’s Chair (Fig 9) it has been assumed that the capstone slipped because the south. eastern support moved forwards into the chamber, leaving the capstone leaning at an angle similar to that o1 Mulfra Quoit’s capstone. If the slipped capstone stood on the south- east side of the chamber, it was probably tipped over two times and then set vertical to become the cottage wall. If so, the original upper surface of the capstone was that more uneven, more convex side now facing south east, again comparable to
In summary then, the remains seen on the site today fit very well with interpretation as a dismantled cromlech, and the site is a good candidate — at present the only candidate — to have been the cromlech which gave Grumbla its name and which was known in the nineteenth century as the Giant’s Chair.
In summary then, the remains seen on the site today fit very well with interpretation as a dismantled cromlech, and the site is a good candidate — at present the only candidate — to have been the cromlech which gave Grumbla its name and which was known in the nineteenth century as the Giant’s Chair.
Fig 10 The views north from Grumbla cromlech are restricted by the rounded downs of Botrea and Bosvenning Common 2 km away (top centre), preventing the great northern hills, including Carn Galva, from being seen. Towards the north east (top right) the views open somewhat towards Trengwainton Carn (4 km) and Castle-an-Dinas (10 km), but only to the east-north-east are there longer views. Figure 3 shows how these views, between Castle-an-Dinas and Sancreed Beacon, extended beyond West Penwith, but on all other sides they were restricted to nearby slopes. (Photograph: P Herring, 1994.)
Fig 10 The views north from Grumbla cromlech are restricted by the rounded downs of Botrea and Bosvenning Common 2 km away (top centre), preventing the great northern hills, including Carn Galva, from being seen. Towards the north east (top right) the views open somewhat towards Trengwainton Carn (4 km) and Castle-an-Dinas (10 km), but only to the east-north-east are there longer views. Figure 3 shows how these views, between Castle-an-Dinas and Sancreed Beacon, extended beyond West Penwith, but on all other sides they were restricted to nearby slopes. (Photograph: P Herring, 1994.)
Related topics:
Neolithic ArchaeologyMegalithic Monuments
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved