Whispers of the Ancients
- Rob Vickery
- May 31
- 8 min read
A Digital Reconstruction of Cornwall's Neolithic Network
Introduction
The granite tors scattered across Cornwall are deeply symbolic in the modern imagination,
standing as monumental reminders of the county’s distinctive geology and ancient past. Yet,
archaeological evidence shows that these dramatic outcrops were also profoundly meaningful to
the Neolithic communities who inhabited the region between approximately 4000 BCE and 2000
BCE (Tilley, 1995; Davies, 2010; Herring, 2011; Herring, 2016; Jones and Quinnell, 2011;
Farnworth, Herring, Tapper & Farnworth, 2023). These tors and their surrounding landscapes
are rich in archaeological features, and recent studies suggest that their visibility influenced
Neolithic decisions regarding monument placement, with some constructions seemingly “paying
tribute” to the tors themselves (Farnworth, Herring, Tapper & Farnworth, 2023, p. 7).
Among the most intriguing features associated with these tors are the Neolithic tor
enclosures—stone-built hilltop or hillslope enclosures that surround prominent rocky outcrops
(Heritage Gateway, n.d.). Drawing on existing research, this study categorises tor enclosures
into four types based on the strength of available evidence: proven (confirmed through
excavation, such as Carn Brea and Helman Tor), probable (sites with strong similarities to
known examples, e.g., Rough Tor, De Lank, Stowe’s Pound), possible (sites with some shared
characteristics, including Carn Galva, Caradon Hill, Trencom Hill), and postulated (sites with
limited evidence, such as St Michael’s Mount) (Davies, 2010, p. 216; Jones and Quinnell, 2011,
p. 202; Herring, 2016, p. 121; Heritage Gateway, n.d.).
This paper provides a brief introduction to Cornish Neolithic tor enclosures, exploring what they
may have meant to the communities who built and used them. Additionally, it introduces
viewshed analysis as a digital method that may help further our understanding of how these
monuments relate to the broader Neolithic landscape. While the findings are not exhaustive, the
aim is to demonstrate the potential of this technique in exploring prehistoric perceptions of
space, visibility, and symbolic place-making.
Purpose of Tor Enclosures
Debate surrounding the function of tor enclosures has been ongoing since the earliest
excavations. Roger Mercer was among the first to argue that the emergence of tor enclosures
coincided with the earliest stages of the Neolithic in Cornwall (Jones and Quinnell, 2011, p.
197). Through his work at Carn Brea and Helman Tor, Mercer and his team uncovered evidence
that these hilltops were enclosed by stone ramparts during the fourth millennium BCE. The
enclosures may have served as focal points for the exchange of greenstone axes and the
deposition of early ceramics (Jones and Quinnell, 2011, p. 200). Mercer interpreted them as
permanent agricultural settlements and central places that controlled the flow of material culture
in the southwest (Davies, 2010, p. 4).
However, this interpretation—rooted in the functionalist archaeological frameworks dominant at
the time—has since been challenged. Excavations have revealed scant evidence for domestic
structures, and the absence of querns and rubbers typically associated with daily subsistence
activities casts doubt on the settlement theory (Jones and Quinnell, 2011, p. 202). Moreover, the
extreme exposure, lack of freshwater, and high-altitude locations of sites such as Rough Tor and
Stowe’s Pound further undermine the likelihood that they were year-round habitations (Tilley,
1995, pp. 15–16).
Instead, many scholars now suggest these sites held symbolic or ceremonial roles. Tilley 1995,
describes tor enclosures as visually dominant locations intended to be approached, climbed,
and temporarily occupied for ceremonial activities (Tilley 1995, p. 16). These sites were places
where communities gathered periodically, perhaps to exchange goods, settle disputes, and
participate in rituals. Their positions on visually striking hills may have rendered them liminal
spaces—thresholds between the everyday and the supernatural (Jones and Quinnell, 2011, p.
204). Tor enclosures incorporated the tors themselves, lending an air of ancestral power to the
sites—what Tilley refers to as drawing out the “sacred powers of topographic space,” (1995, p.
17).
Peter Herring 2011, further suggests that tor enclosures were gathering places for people from
broader territories. He imagines them as dynamic hubs of Neolithic life where one might share
stories, engage in trade, witness rites of passage, or reinforce cosmological beliefs (Herring
2011, p. 164). Whether primarily economic, social, or ceremonial in purpose, these enclosures
evidently held ongoing importance, with some sites remaining significant into the Bronze Age
(Tilley, 1995, p. 41).
Viewshed Analysis
In line with theories that tors and their enclosures were designed to be visible—and to allow
visibility—a pair of viewshed analyses were undertaken to test how such spaces may have
influenced Neolithic perceptions and interactions with the landscape. These exploratory
analyses are based on available digital elevation data.
The first viewshed examined the number of tor enclosures that had visual access to specific
areas of the landscape, essentially asking: from how many enclosures could a given location be
seen? The second viewshed took a reverse approach, positing that tor enclosures were used
for ceremonial gatherings that involved fire. Assuming a large central hearth was used during
such events, we modelled visibility from the landscape to the enclosures by simulating the
line-of-sight to hypothetical smoke plumes rising from each tor.
These analyses are intended as an introduction to what visibility studies can offer—not as
definitive answers to complex questions about Neolithic cognition or ritual behaviour.
Limitations and Parameters
As with all spatial modelling of prehistoric environments, a number of assumptions and
simplifications were necessary. Although we originally planned to simulate Neolithic sea levels
by lowering the modern coastline by 3–5 metres, the scale of the map rendered these changes
visually insignificant. We therefore used a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) to best
capture Cornwall’s current topography.
Environmental factors such as tree cover, fog, and atmospheric conditions are not accounted for
in this analysis. The prehistoric landscape of Cornwall likely featured extensive woodland, which
would have significantly limited visibility. Furthermore, our viewshed models assume clear
weather—something rarely guaranteed in the Cornish climate.
In the second viewshed, the visibility of smoke was modelled with a plume height of 10 metres,
based on the assumption of a large communal fire. While this is a generous
estimate—particularly given the strong winds that buffet high tors like Rough Tor—it provides an
effective starting point for visualising how enclosures might have functioned as visual signals or
beacons within the landscape.
Results
While viewshed analyses cannot tell us exactly why Neolithic sites were located where they
were, they can help highlight patterns in visibility that may point to areas of
significance—patterns which merit further investigation. One example of this can be seen in the
results relating to the area north of St Austell.
Previous research has explored the impact of the tors themselves on how prehistoric people
interacted with their landscape (Farnworth, Herring, Tapper & Farnworth, 2023), but what might
our own results suggest about the potential influence of tor enclosures? In the first viewshed,
the area north of St Austell is visible from six to nine different tor enclosures. This is particularly
significant because the region has been heavily altered by china clay quarrying. As noted in the
limitations section, our analysis uses a modern DEM, and the quarries are therefore present in
the data. Large-scale quarrying in this area may have reduced the elevation of significant hills,
and waste tips mask what was once visible, thereby artificially altering visibility across the
landscape.
Setting that limitation aside and assuming that modern quarrying has not substantially altered
the visibility results, there is a substantial possibility that the tor enclosure at St Stephen’s
Beacon lies within this highly visible zone. Could this imply greater significance for this
enclosure due to its intervisibility with so many others? While we don’t have enough evidence to
draw firm conclusions, it does suggest that the area could be a valuable focus for further
archaeological inquiry.
To explore this, we can cross-reference our visibility results with the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Historic Environment Record. Within this area of visibility lies the site of Treggarick Farm, where
a group of ten pits was discovered containing deposits such as pottery, flint, a small saddle
quern, and charred hazelnuts (Cole et al., 2002–3, p. 107). The authors of that study suggested
the features may represent ritualised activity linked to seasonal gatherings (Cole et al., 2002–3,
p. 131); relatedly, tor enclosures have also been linked to seasonal gatherings (Tilley, 1995, pp.
12). Their work provided insights into early Neolithic activity in lowland Cornwall and highlighted
Roche Rock as a prominent place in the landscape (Cole et al., 2002–3, p. 136). Roche Rock
also falls within the highly visible area highlighted by our viewshed analysis, underscoring how
key sites—both enclosures and natural features—could have been visually connected across
the Neolithic landscape.
The visibility of St Stephen’s Beacon, Treggarick Farm, Roche Rock, and various other Neolithic
sites within this zone suggests a compelling case study for the interpretive value of viewshed
analysis in examining Cornwall’s early landscapes. Though speculative, this alignment raises
important questions about how visual prominence and intervisibility may have shaped Neolithic
perceptions of place and significance.
Turning to the second viewshed—showing from where smoke signals at tor enclosures would
have been visible—we observe a similar pattern. Whereas the first viewshed highlighted the
visibility to the St Stephen’s Beacon area, this second view shows that smoke generated by at
least six tor enclosures would have been visible from that area. This suggests a potential
dynamic relationship between elevated and lowland areas during the Neolithic period.
Once again, the prominence of the area north of St Austell stands out. But here too lies a
sobering thought: the extent to which modern china clay quarrying may have erased vital
archaeological evidence. What features may have been destroyed before they could be
documented—features that might have helped us build a more complete understanding of the
area's significance?
Conclusion
This study offers a brief and exploratory look into the potential meanings and functions of
Neolithic tor enclosures in Cornwall. While not exhaustive, it highlights how digital methods like
viewshed analyses can enrich our understanding of the prehistoric landscape and the symbolic
relationships between people, place, and visibility. Tor enclosures were likely not simple
settlements, but potentially complex spaces woven into the cosmologies and social networks of
Neolithic communities. Through continued research and technological integration, we may begin
to unravel more of their meaning—not just as built structures, but as intentional interventions
into a deeply storied landscape.
Bibliography
Cole, D. et al., 2002–3. Journeys to the Rock: archaeological investigations at Tregarrick Farm,
Roche, Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology, 41–42, pp.107–143.
Cornwall Council (n.d.) 'Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Historic Environment Record', Cornwall Council. Available at: https://map.cornwall.gov.uk/website/ccmap/?wsName=CIOS_historic_environment (Accessed: 9 April 2025).
European Space Agency (2024). <i>Copernicus Global Digital Elevation Model</i>. Distributed by OpenTopography. https://doi.org/10.5069/G9028PQB. Accessed: 2025-02-1.
Davies, S. R., 2010. The early Neolithic tor enclosures of Southwest Britain (Ph.D. thesis).
University of Birmingham.
Farnworth, R., Herring, P., Tapper, B. & Farnworth, C. R., 2023. Locations of Cornish cairns in relation to the Rough Tor Effect. Time and Mind, 16(1–4), pp.87–113.
Farnworth, R., Herring, P., Tapper, B. & Farnworth, C. R., 2023. The Rough Tor Effect: Early prehistoric monuments focusing on significant tors in Cornwall. Time and Mind, 16(1–4), pp.7–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2023.2245158
Heritage Gateway, n.d. MCO27973 [online]. Available at: https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=MCO27973&resourceID=1020 [Accessed 9 April 2025].
Herring, P., 2011. The Cornish landscape. Cornish Archaeology, 50, pp.161–174.
Herring, P., 2016. A tomb for the living: Grumbla cromlech, the Giant’s Chair, Sancreed. Cornish
Archaeology, 55, pp.119–133.
Jones, A. M. & Quinnell, H., 2011. The Neolithic and Bronze Age in Cornwall, c. 4000 cal BC to c. 1000 cal BC: An overview of recent developments. Cornish Archaeology, 50, pp.197–229.
Tilley, C., 1995. Rocks as resources: landscapes and power. Cornish Archaeology, 34, pp.199–215.
Comments