Lanyon Quoit Neolithic chambered tomb, Zennor Sites

Summary

A Neolithic chambered tomb, known as a portal dolmen. It stands on a mound up to 0.6m high. Orthostats on the mound suggest the locations of a least two later cists.

Identification Images (0)

Monument Types

Description

Lanyon Quoit was first recorded by William Borlase in the 18th century. Borlase also noted "a large barrow to the south" of the chamber, possibly the remains of the long barrow of which the quoit was part. In the mid-18th century an excavation beneath the capstone located a grave shaped pit containing black earth (Borlase, c.1750,155). In the later half of the 19th century W.C.Borlase found a ring of stones set on edge in the centre of a long low barrow (Borlase, 1872, 155; see also 91356). This was interpreted as part of the long barrow associated with the chambered tomb. The quoit collapsed during a storm in 1815 and was re-erected in 1824 but some of the stones were broken and it was not set up again in its original form. Lukis recorded that the covering stone was replaced upside down (Lukis and Borlase, 1885, 25). William Borlase's illustrations show the quoit in its original form. It consisted of four tall slender pillars parallel and in a rough line: three of them supported the capstone(Borlase,ibid). Lukis' plan and illustration shows a completely different arrangement of uprights used in the reconstruction (Lukis and Borlase,ibid). A date "AD 1824" is carved on the southern upright (Herring, PC, pers.comm). Another illustration of the reconstructed quoit is featured by Blight (1876, 16). Glyn Daniel described the site as "a long barrow 27.4m by 12m oriented north-south with a chamber at its north end and at the south end more large stones which may be the remains of one or more cists. The north chamber consists of 3 orthostats supporting a capstone 5.8m long, but their present arrangement is not original..."(Daniel, 1950,238). Lanyon Quoit was surveyed by John Barnatt prior to 1982. He suggests that the collapse of the capstone was caused by the lean and eventual fall of the single orthostat to the south. This appears to have been re-erected at right angles to its original position to give added stability. Barnatt records the site as a much altered Portal Dolmen, probably originally consisting of a rectangular box with a possible antechamber on the north side (Barnatt, 1982,121-4). Fieldwork indicated that the mound is irregular in shape and has been cut into in several places, mainly the result of antiquarian digging. The mound, which is up to 0.6m high appears to be predominantly earthen although there are traces of fist to head size granite stones visible in eroded areas. The chamber consists of a capstone supported by three orthostats. There are also three fallen stones. A single stone on the edge of the mound to the south east of the chamber has been displaced. It may either have been associated with the chamber or perhaps some other structure in the mound.

Orthostats are visible in the south end of the mound. At least four of them form angles suggestive of at least two cist structures. The mound is at its highest around the orthostats but the apparent height may be artificial due to spoil from pits sunk in this area.
The edges of the monument are poorly defined. Ridge and furrow cultivation (see 91352) encroaches on the longer sides of the mound where one might expect to find quarry ditches for the construction of the monument. At the north end, a moorstone quarry pit cuts the edge of the mound. Archaeological Comments - Site:91350*0 The majority of chambered tombs, including all the known examples in Cornwall, were robbed out in antiquity. Consequently their precise purpose is not known. Modern archaeological investigation of long barrows (a broadly contemporary monument type found in central and south-eastern England) suggest that chambered tombs were complex ritual monuments being used for ceremonies as well as interment. Long barrows (and chambered tombs) were apparently built by communities and were part of a multple burial practice. Some long barrows have been demonstrated to be associated with causewayed enclosures (Mercer 1980,43,63;Bradley,1984,23-4). Mercer suggests that some chambered tombs may be associated with hill-top or tor enclosures (enclosures of demonstrably Early Neolithic date, possibly settlements, built on higher and dramatic hills in Devon and Cornwall) (Mercer, 1981,191-3). In West Penwith, Trencrom Hill and Carn Galva are suggested to be tor enclosures (Mercer, ibid; Herring, 1987). Interpretation of the site is problematic and the position of the cists in relation to the chamber suggest several possibilities: *The chamber and long mound are primary and the cists are secondary interments cut into the mound.*The chamber was originally beneath a round or oval barrow and the cists were beneath a separate barrow to the south. The mounds have become merged due to antiquarian activity. *The cists were originally beneath a round or oval earlier Neolithic barrow, which was later incorporated into and superimposed by a long barrow and chamber. Such multi-phase Neolithic monuments have been discovered elsewhere in Britain, such as Dyffryn Ardudwy, Gwynedd and Waylands Smithy, Oxfordshire. *The cists are part of a late Neolithic or Bronze Age round barrow, superimposed on an earlier, defunct Neolithic long barrow. Both these latter interpretations presuppose changes in ritual practice, one system of barrow building superceding another.

References

Designations

Other Statuses and References

Associated Events

Associated Finds

None Recorded

Related Records