Transcriber’s Notes
Text printed in italics has been transcribed _between underscores_,
bold face text =between equal signs=. Small capitals have been
replaced with ALL CAPITALS. Texts ~between tildes~ have been
transcribed from illustrations, and have been included here for the
sake of consistency with the illustrated versions.
More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of this text.
STONEHENGE
LIST OF WORKS BY SIR NORMAN
LOCKYER.
PRIMER OF ASTRONOMY.
ELEMENTARY LESSONS IN ASTRONOMY.
MOVEMENTS OF THE EARTH.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOLAR PHYSICS.
CHEMISTRY OF THE SUN.
THE METEORITIC HYPOTHESIS.
THE SUN’S PLACE IN NATURE.
INORGANIC EVOLUTION.
RECENT AND COMING ECLIPSES.
STARGAZING, PAST AND PRESENT.
(_In conjunction with G. M. Seabroke._)
THE DAWN OF ASTRONOMY.
STONEHENGE AND OTHER BRITISH STONE MONUMENTS.
STUDIES IN SPECTRUM ANALYSIS.
THE SPECTROSCOPE AND ITS APPLICATIONS.
THE RULES OF GOLF.
(_In conjunction with W. Rutherford._)
_In the Press._
EDUCATION AND NATIONAL PROGRESS.
STONEHENGE
AND OTHER
BRITISH STONE MONUMENTS
_Astronomically Considered_
BY
SIR NORMAN LOCKYER, K.C.B., F.R.S.
DIRECTOR OF THE SOLAR PHYSICS OBSERVATORY
HON. LL. D., GLASGOW; HON. SC.D., CAMBRIDGE; CORRESPONDENT OF THE
INSTITUTE OF FRANCE; CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE IMPERIAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES OF ST. PETERSBURG; THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL
INDUSTRY OF FRANCE; THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, GÖTTINGEN; THE
FRANKLIN INSTITUTE, PHILADELPHIA; THE ROYAL MEDICAL SOCIETY OF
BRUSSELS; SOCIETY OF ITALIAN SPECTROSCOPISTS; THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF
PALERMO; THE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF GENEVA; OF THE ASTRONOMICAL
SOCIETY OF MEXICO; MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF LYNCEI, ROME; AND
THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, PHILADELPHIA; HONORARY MEMBER OF
THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCE OF CATANIA; PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF
YORK; LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF MANCHESTER; ROYAL CORNWALL
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION; AND LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
London
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
1906
_All rights reserved_
RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.
PREFACE
In continuation of my work on the astronomical uses of the Egyptian
Temples, I have from time to time, when leisure has permitted, given
attention to some of the stone circles and other stone monuments
erected, as I believed, for similar uses in this country. One reason for
doing so was that in consequence of the supineness of successive
Governments, and the neglect and wanton destruction by individuals, the
British monuments are rapidly disappearing.
Although, and indeed because, these inquiries are still incomplete, I
now bring together some of the notes I have collected, as they may
induce other inquirers to go on with the work. Some of the results
already obtained have been communicated to the Royal Society, and others
have appeared in articles published in _Nature_, but only a small
percentage of the monuments available has so far been examined. Further
observations are required in order that the hypothesis set forth in this
book may be rejected or confirmed.
In the observations made at Stonehenge referred to in Chapter VII. I had
the inestimable advantage of the collaboration of the late Mr. Penrose.
Our work there would not have been possible without the sympathetic
assistance of Sir Edmund Antrobus, Bart.; Colonel Duncan A. Johnston,
R.E., Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, also was good enough on
several occasions to furnish us with much valuable information which is
referred to in its place. Messrs. Howard Payn and Fowler skilfully and
zealously helped in the observations and computations. To all these I am
glad to take this opportunity of expressing my obligations.
With regard to the other monuments besides Stonehenge, I have to tender
my thanks to the following gentlemen for most valuable local
assistance:--
Brittany--Lieut. de Vaisseau Devoir.
Stenness--Mr. Spence.
Stanton Drew--Professor Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Morrow, and Mr. Dymond.
The Hurlers, and the Merry Maidens--the Right Hon. Viscount Falmouth,
Capt. Henderson, Mr. Horton Bolitho and Mr. Wallis.
Tregaseal--Mr. Horton Bolitho and Mr. Thomas.
The Dartmoor Avenues--Mr. Worth.
The following have helped me in many ways, among them with advice and
criticism:--Principal Rhys, Dr. Wallis Budge, Dr. J. G. Frazer, and Mr.
A. L. Lewis.
The assistance so generously afforded in the case of Stonehenge by
Colonel Johnston, R.E., in furnishing me with accurate azimuths was
continued for the monuments subsequently investigated till his
retirement. To his successor, Colonel R. C. Hellard, R.E., I am already
under deep obligations.
For the use of some of the Illustrations my thanks are due to the Royal
Society, the Society of Antiquaries, the Royal Institute of British
Architects, Messrs. Macmillan, and Mr. John Murray.
I have to thank Mr. Rolston, F.R.A.S., one of my staff, for assistance
in the computations involved.
NORMAN LOCKYER.
SOLAR PHYSICS OBSERVATORY,
_17th May, 1906_.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE v
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTORY 1
II. THE ASTRONOMICAL DIVISIONS OF THE YEAR 12
III. THE AGRICULTURAL DIVISIONS OF THE YEAR 17
IV. THE VARIOUS NEW-YEAR DAYS 25
V. CONDITIONS AND TRADITIONS AT STONEHENGE 34
VI. GENERAL ARCHITECTURE OF STONEHENGE 55
VII. ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS AT STONEHENGE IN 1901 62
VIII. ARCHÆOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS AT STONEHENGE, 1901 69
IX. WAS THERE AN EARLIER CIRCLE? 88
X. THE MAY AND JUNE WORSHIPS IN BRITTANY 96
XI. ASTRONOMICAL HINTS FOR ARCHÆOLOGISTS 107
XII. ASTRONOMICAL HINTS FOR ARCHÆOLOGISTS (_Continued_) 118
XIII. STENNESS (Lat. 59° N.) 123
XIV. THE HURLERS (Lat. 50° 31′ N.) 133
XV. THE DARTMOOR AVENUES 145
XVI. THE DARTMOOR AVENUES (_Continued_) 157
XVII. STANTON DREW (Lat. 51° 10′ N.) 166
XVIII. FOLKLORE AND TRADITION 178
XIX. SACRED FIRES 189
XX. SACRED TREES 200
XXI. HOLY WELLS AND STREAMS 213
XXII. WHERE DID THE BRITISH WORSHIP ORIGINATE? 232
XXIII. THE SIMILARITY OF THE SEMITIC AND BRITISH WORSHIPS 252
XXIV. THE MAY YEAR IN SOUTH-WEST CORNWALL 261
XXV. THE MERRY MAIDENS CIRCLE (Lat. 50° 4′ N.) 265
XXVI. THE TREGASEAL CIRCLES 277
XXVII. SOME OTHER CORNISH MONUMENTS 287
XXVIII. THE CLOCK-STARS IN EGYPT AND BRITAIN 294
XXIX. A SHORT HISTORY OF SUN-TEMPLES 304
XXX. THE LIFE OF THE ASTRONOMER-PRIESTS 316
APPENDICES.
I. DETAILS OF THE THEODOLITE OBSERVATIONS AT STONEHENGE 325
II. SUGGESTIONS ON FIELD OBSERVATIONS 329
INDEX 333
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIG. PAGE
1. Present Sun Worship in Japan 4
2. The Celestial Sphere, Conditions at the North Pole 5
3. The Celestial Sphere, Conditions at the Equator 6
4. The Celestial Sphere, Conditions in a Middle Latitude 6
5. The Four Astronomical Divisions of the Year 14
6. The Various Bearings of the Sun Risings and Settings in N.
latitude 51° 14
7. The Astronomical and Vegetation Divisions of the Year 23
8. Original Tooling of the Stones at Stonehenge 44
9. View of Stonehenge from the West 45
10. Copy of Hoare’s Plan of Stonehenge, 1810 46
11. The Leaning Stone in 1901 48
12. The Axis of the Temple of Karnak 56
13. Plan of the Temple of Ramses II. in the Memnonia at Thebes 57
14. One of the remaining Trilithons at Stonehenge 59
15. General Plan of Stonehenge 60
16. The Arrangements for raising the Stone 70
17. The Cradle and Supports 71
18. The Frame used to locate the Finds 73
19. Some of the Flint Implements 77
20. Showing the careful Tooling of the Sarsens 82
21. Face of Rock against which a Stone was made to rest 83
22. The Leaning Stone Upright 85
23. Stonehenge, 1905 86
24. Map of the Stones made by the Ordnance Survey 89
25. Rod placed in the Common Axis of the Circle and Avenue 94
26. Alignments at Le Ménec 99
27. Menhir on Melon Island 100
28. Melon Island, showing Menhir and Cromlech 101
29. Menhirs of St. Dourzal 102
30. Alignment at Lagatjar (photograph) 103
31. Alignments at Lagatjar (plan) 104
32. Menhirs on Solstitial and May Alignments 105
33. Diagram for finding Declination from given Amplitudes or
Azimuths in British Latitudes 113
34. Declinations of Northern Stars from 250 A.D. to 2150 B.C. 115
35. Declinations of Southern Stars from 250 A.D. to 2150 B.C. 116
36. The Conditions of Sunrise at the Summer Solstice in Lat.
59° N. 119
37. The Azimuths of the Sunrise (upper limb) at the Summer
Solstice. Lats. N. 59°-47° 121
38. Maeshowe and the Stones of Stenness 124
39. Chief Sight-Lines from the Stones of Stenness 126
40. Variation of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic 100 A.D.-4000 B.C. 130
41. The Sight-Lines at the Hurlers 136
42. The Southern Avenue at Merrivale, looking East 147
43. Avenues, Circle and Stones at Merrivale, with their Azimuths 154
44. Cursus at Stonehenge, nearly parallel to the Merrivale Avenue 155
45. The remains of the Challacombe Avenue 159
46. The Sight-Lines at Trowlesworthy 162
47. The Circles and Avenues at Stanton Drew 169
48. The Carro, Florence 194
49. Cresset-Stone, Lewannick 257
50. First Appearance of May Sun in British Latitudes 263
51. Azimuths of the May Sunrise 264
52. The Merry Maidens 269
53. 25-inch Ordnance Map of Merry Maidens showing Alignments 275
54. The Eastern Circle at Tregaseal 279
55. Photograph of Ordnance Map showing Sight-lines 281
56. Plan of the Mên-an-Tol 283
57. Photograph of the Mên-an-Tol 284
58. The Mên-an-Tol. Front View and Section 285
59. Photograph of the Ordnance Map of Boscawen-un 288
60. Diagram showing Azimuths of Sunrise 1680 B.C. and 1905 A.D. 290
61. Arcturus and Capella as Clock-Stars in Britain 300
62. A Night-Dial 303
63. Layard’s Plan of the Palace of Sennacherib 305
64. Layard’s Plan of the Mound at Nimrood 306
65. The Temples at Chichen Itza 307
STONEHENGE
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
In the book I published ten years ago, entitled “The Dawn of Astronomy,”
I gave a pretty full account of the principles and the methods of
observation which enable us to trace the ideas which were in the minds
of the ancient Egyptians when they set out the line of a temple they
proposed to build.
Numerous references to the ceremonial of laying the foundation-stones of
temples exist, and we learn from the works of Chabas, Brugsch,
Dümichen[1] and others, that the foundation of an Egyptian temple was
associated with a series of ceremonies which are repeatedly described
with great minuteness. Amongst these ceremonies, one especially refers
to the fixing of the temple-axis; it is called, technically, “the
stretching of the cord,” and is not only illustrated by inscriptions on
the walls of the temples of Karnak, Denderah and Edfu--to mention the
best-known cases--but is referred to elsewhere.
During the ceremony the king proceeded to the site where the temple was
to be built, accompanied mythically by the goddess Sesheta, who is
styled “the mistress of the laying of the foundation-stone.”
Each was armed with a stake. The two stakes were connected by a cord.
Next the cord was aligned towards the sun on some day of the year, or a
star, as the case might be; when the alignment was perfect the two
stakes were driven into the ground by means of a wooden mallet. One
boundary wall parallel to the main axis of the temple was built along
the line marked out by this stretched cord.
If the moment of the rising or setting of the sun or star were chosen,
as we have every reason to believe was the case, seeing that all the
early observations were made on the horizon, it is obvious that the
light from the body towards which the temple was thus aligned would
penetrate the axis of the temple from one end to the other in the
original direction of the cord.
We learn from Chabas that the Egyptian word which expresses the idea of
founding or laying the foundation-stone of a temple is _Senti_--a word
which still exists in Coptic. But in the old language another word
_Pet-ser_, which no longer remains in Coptic, has been traced. It has
been established that _pet_ means to stretch, and _ser_ means cord, so
that that part of the ceremonial which consisted in stretching a cord in
the direction of a star was considered of so great an importance that it
gave its name to the whole ceremonial.
Dealing with the existing remains of Egyptian temples, it may be said
that the most majestic among them was that of Amen-Rā at Karnak,
dedicated to the Sun-God, and oriented to catch the light of the sun
setting at the summer solstice, the time of the year at which the
all-important rise of the Nile began.
Although the sun is no longer worshipped in Egypt or Britain,
sun-worship has not yet disappeared from the world. Professor Gowland
has recently[2] brought to notice a surviving form of sun-worship in
Japan. I quote his statement:--
“There on the seashore at Fûta-mi-ga-ura (as will be seen in a copy of a
print which I obtained at that ancient place) the orientation of the
shrine of adoration is given by two gigantic rocks which rise from the
sea as natural pillars. The sun as it rises over the mountains of the
distant shore is observed between them, and the customary prayers and
offerings made in that direction (Fig. 1).
“It is, too, specially worthy of note that the point from which the sun
is revered is marked by a structure of the form of a trilithon, but made
of wood, placed immediately behind the altar. This representative of the
trilithon is of very remote date in Japan, and has been in use there
from the earliest times in connection with the observances of the
ancient Shintō cult in which the Sun-Goddess is the chief deity. One of
its important uses, which still survives, was to indicate the direction
of the position of some sacred place or object of veneration, in order
that worshippers might make their prayers and oblations towards the
proper quarter.”
The table of offerings must also be noted.
In the book to which I have referred, I also endeavoured to show that a
knowledge of even elementary astronomy may be of very great assistance
to students of archæology, history, folk-lore and all that learning
which deals with man’s first attempts to grasp the meaning and phenomena
of the universe in which he found himself before any scientific methods
were available to him; before he had any idea of the origins or the
conditionings of the things around him.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Present sun worship in Japan.]
It may be well, however, in the present book to restate the underlying
astronomical principles in the briefest possible manner; and this is the
more easily done because, in the absence of measuring instruments, the
horizon was the only circle which the ancient peoples could employ
effectively, and we need only therefore consider it.
Indeed, whether we regard the Rig-Veda or the Egyptian monuments from an
astronomical point of view, we are struck by the fact that the early
worship and all the early observations related to the horizon. This was
true not only for the sun, but for all the stars which studded the
general expanse of sky.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--The celestial sphere, conditions at the North
Pole. A parallel sphere. _N.P._, North celestial Pole; _N_, position of
observer.]
We have therefore chiefly to consider the relation of the horizon of any
place to the apparent movements of celestial bodies at that place.
[Illustration: FIG. 3.--The celestial sphere, conditions at the Equator.
A right sphere. _Q_, standpoint of observer; _PP_, the celestial poles;
_EW_, east and west points.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4.--The celestial sphere, conditions in a middle
latitude. An oblique sphere. In this woodcut _DD′_ shows the apparent
path of a circumpolar star; _BB′B″_ the path and rising and setting
points of an equatorial star; _CC′C″_ and _AA′A″_, those of stars of mid
declination, one north and the other south; _O_, standpoint of
observer.]
We now know that the earth rotates on its axis, but this idea was of
course quite unknown to these early peoples. Since the earth rotates,
with stars infinitely removed surrounding it on all sides, the apparent
movements of the stars will depend very much upon the position we
happen to occupy on the earth. An observer at the North Pole of the
earth, for instance, would see the stars moving round in circles
parallel to the horizon (Fig. 2). No star could therefore either rise or
set--one half of the heavens would be always visible above his horizon,
and the other half invisible. An observer at the South Pole would of
course see that half of the stars invisible to the observer at the
northern one.
If the observer be on the equator, the movements of the stars will
appear to be as indicated in this diagram (Fig. 3)--that is, all the
stars will rise and set, and each star will be, in turn, twelve hours
above the horizon, and the same time below it. But if we consider the
position of an observer in a middle latitude, say at Stonehenge, we find
that some stars will always be above the horizon, some always
below--that is, they will neither rise nor set. All other stars will
both rise and set, but some of them will be above the horizon for a long
time and below for a short time, whereas others will be a very short
time above the horizon and a long time below it, each star completing a
circle in a day (Fig. 4).
Wherever we are upon the earth we always imagine that we are on the top
of it. The idea held by all the early peoples was that the surface of
the earth near them was an extended plain: they imagined that the land
that they knew and just the surrounding lands were really in the centre
of the extended plain. Plato, for instance, was content to think the
Mediterranean and Greece upon the top of a cube, and Anaximander placed
the same region at the top of a cylinder.
By the use of a terrestrial globe we can best study the conditions of
observation at the poles of the earth, the equator and some place in
middle latitude. The wooden horizon of the globe is parallel to the
horizon of a place at the top of the globe, which horizon we can
represent by a wafer. By inclining the axis of the globe and watching
the movement of the wafer as the globe is turned round, we can get a
very concrete idea of the different relations of the observer’s horizon
to the apparent paths of the stars in different latitudes.
We have next to deal with the astronomical relations of the horizon of
any place, in connection with the observation of the sun and stars at
the times of rising or setting, when of course they are on or near the
horizon; and in order to bring this matter nearer to the ancient
monuments, we will study this question for both Thebes and Stonehenge.
We may take the latitude of Thebes as 25°, Stonehenge as 51°, and we
will begin with Thebes.
To consider an observer on the Nile at Thebes and to adjust things
properly we must rectify a celestial globe to the latitude of 25° N.,
or, in other words, incline the axis of the globe at that angle to the
wooden horizon.
Since all the stars which pass between the North Pole and the horizon
cannot set, all their apparent movements will take place above the
horizon. All the stars between the horizon and the South Pole will never
rise. Hence, stars within the distance of 25° from the North Pole will
never set at Thebes, and those stars within 25° of the South Pole will
never be visible there. At any place the latitude and the elevation of
the pole are the same. It so happens that many of those places with
which archæologists have to do in studying the history of early
peoples--Chaldæa, Egypt, Babylonia, &c.--are in low middle latitudes,
therefore we have to deal with bodies in the skies which do set and
bodies which do not, and the elevation of the pole is neither very great
nor very small. But although in each different latitude the inclination
of the equator to the horizon as well as the elevation of the pole will
vary, there will be a strict relationship between the inclination of the
equator at each place and the elevation of the pole. Except at the poles
themselves the equator will cut the horizon due east and due west;
therefore every celestial body to the north of the celestial equator
which rises and sets will cut the horizon between the east and west
point and the north point; those bodies which do not rise will of course
not cut the horizon at all.
The stars near the equator, and the sun, in such a latitude as that of
Thebes, will appear to rise or set at no very considerable angle from
the vertical; but when we deal with stars very near to the north or
south points of the horizon they will seem to skim along the horizon
instead of rising directly.
* * * * *
We now pass on to Stonehenge. To represent the new condition the axis of
the globe will now require to be inclined 51° to the horizon. The number
of northern stars which do not set and of southern stars which do not
rise will be much greater than at Thebes. The most northern and southern
stars visible will in their movement hug the horizon more closely than
was observed under the Thebes condition.
The sun, both at Thebes and Stonehenge, since it moves among the stars
from 23¹⁄₂° N. to 23¹⁄₂° S. each year, will change its place of rising
and setting at different times of the year.
Now it will at once be obvious that there must be a strict law
connecting the position of a star with its place of rising or setting.
Stars at the same distance from the celestial pole or equator will rise
or set at the same point of the horizon, and if a star does not change
its place in the heavens it will always rise or set in the same place.
The sun as it changes its position each day, in its swing N. and S. of
the equator, will rise and set on any day in the same place as a star
which permanently has the same distance from the equator as that
temporarily occupied by the sun.
Here it will be convenient to introduce one or two technical terms: we
generally define a star’s place by giving, as one ordinate, its distance
in degrees from the equator: this distance is called its _declination_.
Further, we generally define points on the horizon by dividing its whole
circumference into 360°, so that we can have _azimuths_ up to 90° from
the north and south points to the east and west points. We also have
_amplitudes_ from the east and west points towards the north and south
points. We can say, then, that a star of a certain declination, or the
sun when it occupies that declination, will rise or set at such an
azimuth, or at such an amplitude. This will apply to both north and
south declinations.
Then supposing the azimuth to be 39° in the N.E. quadrant, it is written
N. 39° E. For the other quadrants we have N. 39° W., S. 39° E., and S.
39° W., respectively.
The following table gives the amplitudes of rising or setting (north or
south) of celestial bodies having declinations from 0° to 64°, at Thebes
and Stonehenge respectively.
AMPLITUDES AT THEBES AND STONEHENGE.
------------+--------------------
| Amplitude.
Declination.+-------+-----------
|Thebes.|Stonehenge.
------------+-------+-----------
0° | 0° 0′| 0° 0′
1 | 1 7 | 1 36
2 | 2 13 | 3 11
3 | 3 20 | 4 46
4 | 4 26 | 6 22
5 | 5 33 | 7 58
6 | 6 40 | 9 34
7 | 7 47 | 11 10
8 | 8 53 | 12 47
9 | 9 59 | 14 23
10 | 11 6 | 16 1
11 | 12 13 | 17 39
12 | 13 20 | 19 18
13 | 14 27 | 20 57
14 | 15 34 | 22 36
15 | 16 41 | 24 17
16 | 17 49 | 25 58
17 | 18 56 | 27 45
18 | 20 3 | 29 24
19 | 21 10 | 31 10
20 | 22 17 | 32 55
21 | 23 25 | 34 43
22 | 24 33 | 36 32
23 | 25 41 | 38 23
24 | 26 49 | 40 16
25 | 27 58 | 42 11
26 | 29 6 | 44 10
27 | 30 15 | 46 10
28 | 31 23 | 48 15
29 | 32 32 | 50 22
30 | 33 41 | 52 36
31 | 34 51 | 54 55
32 | 36 1 | 57 21
33 | 37 11 | 59 56
34 | 38 21 | 62 42
35 | 39 31 | 65 44
36 | 40 42 | 69 4
37 | 41 53 | 73 0
38 | 43 5 | 78 4
39 | 44 17 | 90 0
40 | 45 30 |
41 | 46 43 |
42 | 47 56 |
43 | 49 10 |
44 | 50 25 |
45 | 51 41 |
46 | 52 57 |
47 | 54 14 |
48 | 55 32 |
49 | 56 51 |
50 | 58 12 |
51 | 59 34 |
52 | 60 58 |
53 | 62 23 |
54 | 63 51 |
55 | 65 21 |
56 | 66 54 |
57 | 68 31 |
58 | 70 12 |
59 | 71 59 |
60 | 73 55 |
61 | 76 1 |
62 | 78 25 |
63 | 81 19 |
64 | 85 42 |
------------+-------+------------
The amplitude is always the complement of the azimuth, so that amplitude
+ azimuth = 90°. Later on I shall give amplitudes for latitudes higher
than that of Stonehenge, so that still more northerly monuments can be
considered.
[1] “Baugeschichte des Dendera-Tempels.” 1877.
[2] “Archæologia,” vol. lviii.
CHAPTER II
THE ASTRONOMICAL DIVISIONS OF THE YEAR
It is next important to deal with the yearly path of the sun, with a
view of studying the relation of the various points of the horizon
occupied by the sun at different times in the year. In the very early
observations that were made in Egypt, Chaldæa and elsewhere, when the
sun was considered to be a god who every morning got into his boat and
floated across space, there was no particular reason for considering the
amplitude at which the boat left, or came to, shore. But a few centuries
showed that this rising or setting of the sun in widely varying
amplitudes at different times of the year at the same place obeyed a
very definite law.
In its northward passage it reaches the highest point at our summer
solstice, and then goes down again till it reaches its greatest southern
declination, as it does in our winter. At both these points the sun
appears to stand still in its north or south movement, and the Latin
word solstice exactly expresses that idea. The change of declination
brought about by these movements will affect the place of the sun’s
rising and setting; this is why the sun sets most to the north in
summer and most to the south in winter. At the equinoxes the sun has
always 0° Decl., so it rises and sets due east and west all over the
world. But at the solstices it has its greatest declination of 23¹⁄₂° N.
or S.; it will rise and set therefore furthest from the east and west
points; how far, will depend upon the latitude of the place, as will
have been gathered from the preceding table (p. 11).
These solstices and their accompaniments are among the striking things
in the natural world. In the winter solstice we have the depth of
winter, in the summer solstice we have the height of summer, while at
the equinoxes we have but transitional changes; in other words, while
the solstices point out for us the conditions of greatest heat and
greatest cold, the equinoxes point out for us those two times of the
year at which the temperature conditions are very nearly equal, although
of course in the one case we are saying good-bye to summer and in the
other to winter.
Did the ancients know anything about these solstices and these
equinoxes? Dealing with the monumental evidence in Egypt alone, the
answer is absolutely overwhelming. Many thousand years ago the Egyptians
were perfectly familiar with the solstices, and therefore with the
yearly path of the sun.
This fundamental division of the sun’s apparent revolution and course
which define our year into four nearly equal parts may be indicated as
in Fig. 5, the highest point reached by the sun in our northern
hemisphere being represented at the top.
[Illustration: FIG. 5.--The four Astronomical Divisions of the year.]
[Illustration: FIG. 6.--The various bearings of the sun risings and
settings in a place with a N. latitude of 51°.]
In order better to consider the problem as it was presented to the early
astronomers who built observatories (temples) to mark these points, we
may deal with the bearings of the points occupied by the sun on the
horizon (either at rising or setting) at the times indicated. These
points are defined, as we have seen, by their “amplitude” or their
distance in degrees from the E. or W. points of the horizon. In the
diagram (Fig. 6) I represent the conditions of our chief British
sun-temple, Stonehenge, in latitude 51° N. approximately.
Taking the astronomical facts regarding the solstices and equinoxes for
the first year (1901) of the present century, we find--
Sun enters Aries, Spring equinox, March 21.
„ „ Gemini, Summer solstice, June 21.
„ „ Libra, Autumn equinox, September 23.
„ „ Sagittarius, Winter solstice, December 23.
These points, then, are approximately ninety-one days apart (91 × 4 =
364).
In Fig. 6 I deal with the “amplitudes” at Stonehenge, that is, the
angular distance along the horizon from the E. and W. points, at which
the sunrise and sunset are seen at the solstices; at the equinoxes they
are seen at the E. and W. points. But as these amplitudes vary with the
latitude and therefore depend upon the place of observation, a more
general treatment is possible if we deal with the declination of the sun
itself, that is, its angular distance from the equator.
The maximum declination depends upon the obliquity of the ecliptic, that
is, the angle between the plane of the ecliptic and that of the equator
at the time of observation. When the Stonehenge Sarsen Stones were
erected this angle was, as I shall show later on, 23° 54′ 30″. Its mean
value for the present year (1906) is 23° 27′ 5″; it is decreasing very
slowly.
It will be obvious from Fig. 6 that in temples built to observe the
solstices or equinoxes, if they were open from end to end, looking in
one direction we should see the sun rising at a solstice or equinox, and
looking in the other we should see the sun setting at the opposite one.
I shall show later on that this statement requires a slight
modification.
But temples so built interfered with the ceremonial, which required that
the light should illuminate a naos--that is, the Sanctuary or Holy of
Holies, only entered by the High Priest, and generally kept dark.
Usually, therefore, two temples were built back to back, with a common
axis, as at Karnak.
And here a very important point comes in; which time of the year and day
of the year are most easy to fix by astronomical observation? As a
matter of fact the summer solstice, the position of the sun on the
longest day, is a point easily fixed. All we have to do is to observe
the sun rising more and more to the north as the summer approaches,
until at the very height of the summer we have the extreme
north-easterly point of the horizon reached, and the sun stands still.
We have the solstice. We can then put a row of stakes up, and so fix the
solstitial line. Of course we find, as mankind has found generally, that
the sun comes back next year to that same solstitial place of rising or
setting. So that when we have once got such an alignment for the rising
of the sun at midsummer, we can determine the length of the year in
days, and therefore the beginning of each year as it comes round.
So much, then, for the chief points in what we may term the astronomical
year, those at which the sun’s declination is greatest and least. We see
that they are approximately ninety-one days apart--say three months.
CHAPTER III
THE AGRICULTURAL DIVISIONS OF THE YEAR
The early peoples have been very much misrepresented, and held to have
been uninstructed, by several writers who have not considered what they
were really driving at. It was absolutely essential for early man,
including the inhabitants of Britain as it was then--townless,
uncivilised--that the people should know something about the proper time
for performing their agricultural operations. We now go into a shop and
for a penny buy an almanack which gives us everything we want to know
about the year, the month and the day, and that is the reason why so few
of us care about astronomy: we can get all we want from astronomy for a
penny or twopence. But these poor people, unless they found out the time
of the year and the month and the day for themselves, or got some one to
tell them--and their priests were the men who knew, and they were
priests because they knew--had absolutely no means of determining when
their various agricultural operations should take place. So that we find
all over the world temples erected in the very first flush of
civilisation.
On this a point comes in of very considerable interest. If we study the
civilisations in Egypt, we find that, so far as we know, one of the
first peoples who used this principle of orientation for agricultural
purposes was some tribe that came down the Nile about 6400 years B.C.
They used the star Canopus, and their determination was that of the
autumnal equinox, which practically was the time when the Nile began to
go down, and when their sowing might begin. There was another race who,
instead of being interested in the sun, and therefore in agriculture, at
the time of the autumnal equinox, were interested in the year about the
time of Easter as well. This race built the Pyramids about four thousand
years B.C. There was an interval of about two or three thousand years
between these races. As we shall see there were others, who at Thebes
started the solstitial worship--that is to say, the worship of the sun
at midsummer--and at Memphis in May, so as to enable them to go on with
their agricultural operations with greater certainty. We must not forget
that first of all the farmers tried to plough and sow by the moon. We
can see how hopeless agriculture must have been under such conditions.
The month, indeed, was the only unit of time employed, even of human
life. We hear of people who lived 1200 years; that means 1200
months--there is no question whatever about that now.
When we study the history of our own country--when we come back from
Egypt to Britain, leaving alone Greece and Rome--we find that in various
times in our country we have had a year, a farmer’s year, beginning in
the month of May; we have had another farmer’s year beginning in the
month of August; we have had another farmer’s year beginning at the
longest day; and it appears that the year beginning at the longest day
was really the last year to be introduced. So that while we have in
Stonehenge a solstitial temple--that is to say, a temple to make
observations of the length of the year by observing the rise of the sun
on the longest day of the year--in other parts of England there were
other temples observing the sun, not on the 21st of June, but early in
May and early in August.
Now, as I have indicated, the priest-astronomers in these temples could
only have won and kept the respect of the agricultural population with
whom alone they were surrounded in early times, and by whom they were
supported, by being useful to them in some way or another. This could
only have been in connection with what we may term generally the
_farming_ operations necessary at different times of the year, whether
in the shape of preparing the ground or gathering the produce. For this
they must have watched the stars.
A very large part of mythology has sprung out of the temple cults,
prayer, sacrifices and thanksgiving connected with these farming
operations in different lands and ages.
I wish to show next that by studying the orientation of temples erected
to watch the stars and sunrise and sunset at times other than the
solstices or equinoxes, an immense amount of information may be gained
if we endeavour to find the way in which the problem must have been
attacked before the year was thoroughly established, and when it was
still a question of grass- or corn-kings or gods who had to be
propitiated; and we may even be enabled to understand why the particular
divisions of the year were chosen.
In a solstitial temple the sun makes its appearance only once a year,
when it reaches its greatest north or south declination; but in the
temples dealing with lower declinations the sun appears twice, once on
its journey from the summer to the winter solstice, and again on its
return.
The first difficulty of the inquiry in the direction I have indicated
arises from the fact that the products of different countries vary, and
that identical farming operations have to be carried on at different
times in these countries. We must, then, begin with some one country,
and as the record is fullest for Greece I will begin with it.
The first thing we find is that the chief points in the farmer’s year in
Greece are about as far from the fixed points in the astronomical year
as they well can be.
In the Greek information so admirably collated by M. Ruelle in the
article on the calendar in Daremberg and Saglio’s monumental
“Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines,” the earlier
Gregorian dates on which the seasons were reckoned to commence in
ancient Greece were as follows:--
Summer May 6.
Autumn (φθινοπωρον) August 11.
Winter November 10.
Spring February 7.
I may also add from the same source that in the calendars of the Latins
the dates become:--
Summer May 9.
Autumn August 8.
Winter November 9.
Spring February 7.
Now we see at once that these dates are, roughly, half-way between the
solstices and equinoxes.
This, then, at once brings us back to the orientation problem, which was
to fix by means of a temple in the ordinary way dates nearer to these
turning-points in the local farmer’s years than those fixed by the
solstitial and equinoctial temples.
It must be borne in mind that it is not merely a question of stately
piles such as Karnak and the Parthenon in populous centres, but of the
humblest dolmen or stone circle, in scattered agricultural communities,
which was as certainly used for orientation purposes, that is, for
recording the lapse of time at night or return of some season important
to the tiller of the soil. The advent of the season thus determined
could be announced to outlying districts by fire signals at night.
I have already pointed out that any temple, dolmen or cromlech oriented
to a sunrise or sunset at any dates between the solstices will receive
the sunlight twice a year.
If the temple is pointed nearly solstitially the two dates at which the
sun appears in it will be near the solstice; similarly, for a temple
pointed nearly equinoctially the dates will be near the equinox; but if
the ancients wished to divide the ninety-one days’ interval between the
solstice and equinox, a convenient method of doing this would be to
observe the sun at the half-time interval, such that the same temple
would serve on both occasions. This could be done by orienting the
temple to the sun’s place on the horizon when it had the declination 16°
20′ on its upward and downward journey, or, in other words, was, _in
days_, half-way between the equinox and solstice. Thus, for the 45 days
( 91 days )
( = ------- )
( 2 )
from March 22, we have in--
March 9
April 30
May 6
---
45
What, then, are the non-equinoctial, non-solstitial days of the year
when the sun has this declination?
They are, in the sun’s journey from the vernal equinox to the summer
solstice and back again,
May 6 and August 8 Sun’s decl. N. 16° 20′.
Similarly, for the journey to the winter solstice and return we have
November 8 and February 4 Sun’s decl. S. 16° 20′.
We get, then, a year symmetrical with the astronomical year, which can
be indicated with it as in Fig. 7; a year roughly halving the intervals
between the chief dates of the astronomical year.
With regard to the dates shown I have already pointed out that farming
operations would not occur at the same time in different lands; that
ploughing and seed time and harvest would vary with crops and latitudes;
and I must now add that when we wish to determine the exact days of the
month we have to struggle with all the difficulties introduced by the
various systems adopted by different ancient nations to bring together
the reckoning of months by the moon and of years by the sun.
[Illustration: FIG. 7.--The astronomical and vegetation divisions of the
year.]
In more recent times there is an additional difficulty owing to the
incomplete reconstruction of the calendar by Julius Cæsar, who gave us
the Julian year. Thus, while the spring equinox occurred on March 21 at
the time of the Council of Nice, in 325 A.D., by the year 1751 the
dating of the year on which it took place had slipped back to the 10th.
Hence the Act 24 George II. c. 23, by which September 2, 1752, was
followed by September 14 instead of by the 3rd, thus regaining the
eleven days lost. This change from the so-called “old style” to the “new
style” is responsible for a great deal of confusion.
Another cause of trouble was the forsaking by the Jews of the solar
year, with which they commenced, in favour of the Babylonian lunar year,
which has been continued for the purposes of worship by Christians,
giving us “movable feasts” to such an extent that Easter Day, which once
invariably marked the spring equinox, may vary from March 22 to April
25, and Whit Sunday from May 10 to June 13. It is at once obvious that
no fixed operations of Nature can be indicated by such variable dates as
these.
Hence in what follows I shall only deal with the months involved; these
amply suffice for a general statement, but a discussion as to exact
dates may come later.
To sum up, then, the astronomer-priests had (1) to watch the time at
night by observing a star rising near the north point of the horizon.
This star would act as a warner of sunrise at some time of the year.
(2) To watch for the rising or setting of other stars in various
azimuths warning sunrise at the other critical times of the May or
Solstitial years.
(3) To watch the sunrise and sunset.
(4) To mark all rising or setting places of the warning stars and sun by
sight-lines from the circle.
CHAPTER IV
THE VARIOUS NEW-YEAR DAYS
With regard to the astronomical year it may be stated that each solstice
and equinox has in turn in some country or another, and even in the same
country at different times, been taken as the beginning of the year.
We have, then, to begin with, the following which may be called
_astronomical_ years:--
Solstitial { June December June.
year. { December June December.
Equinoctial { March September March.
year. { September March September.
Next, if we treat the intermediate points we have found in the same way,
we have the following _vegetation_ years:--
Flower { May November May.
year. { November May November.
Harvest { August February August.
year. { February August February.
It will have been gathered from Fig. 7 that the temples or cromlechs
erected to watch the first sunrise of the May-November-May year could
also perform the same office for the August-February-August year; and in
a stone circle the priests, by looking along the axis almost in an
opposite direction, could note the sunsets marking the completion of the
half of the sun’s yearly round in November and February.
Now to those who know anything of the important contributions of Grimm,
Rhŷs, Frazer, and many others we might name, to our knowledge of the
mythology, worships, and customs in the Mediterranean basin and western
Europe, an inspection of the first columns in the above tables will show
that here we have a common meeting-ground for temple orientation,
vegetation and customs depending on it, religious festivals, and
mythology. From the Egyptian times at least to our own a generic sun-god
has been specifically commemorated in each of the named months. Generic
customs with specific differences are as easily traced in the same
months; while generic vegetation with specific representatives proper to
the season of the year has been so carefully regarded that even
December, though without May flowers or August harvests, not to be
outdone, brings forward its offering in the shape of the berries of the
mistletoe and holly.
About the mistletoe there is this difficulty. Innumerable traditions
associate it with worship and the oak tree. Undoubtedly the year in
question was the solstitial year, so that so far as this goes the
association is justified. But as a rule the mistletoe does not grow on
oaks. This point has been frequently inquired into, especially by Dr.
Henry Ball (_Journal of Botany_, vol. ii. p. 361, 1864) in relation to
the growth of the plant in Herefordshire, and by a writer in the
_Quarterly Review_ (vol. cxiv.), who spoke of the mistletoe “deserting
the oak” in modern times and stated, “it is now so rarely found on that
tree as to have led to the suggestion that we must look for the
mistletoe of the Druids, not in the _Viscum album_ of our own trees and
orchards, but in the _Loranthus Europaeus_ which is frequently found on
oaks in the south of Europe.”
On this point I consulted two eminent botanical friends, Mr. Murray, of
the British Museum, and Prof. Farmer, from whom I have learned that the
distribution of _V. album_ is in Europe universal except north of Norway
and north of Russia; in India in the temperate Himalayas from Kashmir to
Nepaul, altitude 3000 to 7000 feet.
The _Viscum aureum_, otherwise called _Loranthus Europaeus_, is a near
relation of the familiar mistletoe, and in Italy grows on the oak almost
exclusively. There are fifty species of Loranthus in the Indian flora,
but _L. Europaeus_ does not occur.
In the _Viscum aureum_ we have the “golden bough,” the oak-borne _Aurum
frondens_ and _Ramus aureus_ of Virgil; and it can easily be imagined
that when the Druids reached our shores from a country which had
supplied them with the _Viscum aureum_, this would be replaced by the
_V. album_ growing chiefly on apple trees and not on oaks; indeed, Mr.
Davies, in his “Celtic Researches,” tells us that the apple was the next
sacred tree to the oak, and that apple orchards were planted in the
vicinity of the sacred groves. The transplanting of the mistletoe from
the apple to the oak tree before the mystic ceremonies began was not
beyond the resources of priestcraft.
It must not be forgotten that these ceremonies took place at both
solstices--once in June, when the oak was in full leaf, and again in
December, when the parasitic plant was better visible in the light of
the young moon. Mr. Frazer, in his “Golden Bough” (iii. p. 328), points
out that at the summer solstice not only was mistletoe gathered, but
many other “magic plants, whose evanescent virtue can be secured at this
mystic season alone.”
It is the ripening of the berries at the winter solstice which secured
for the mistletoe the paramount importance the ceremonials connected
with it possessed at that time, when the rest of the vegetable world was
dormant.
With regard especially to the particular time of the year chosen for
sun-worship and the worship of the gods and solar heroes connected with
the years to which I have referred, I may add that the vague year in
Egyptian chronology makes it a very difficult matter to determine the
exact Gregorian dates for the ancient Egyptian festivals, but,
fortunately, there is another way of getting at them. Mr. Roland
Mitchell, when compiling his valuable “Egyptian Calendar” (Luzac and
Co., 1900), found that the Koptic calendar really presents to us the old
Egyptian year, “which has been in use for thousands of years, and has
survived all the revolutions.”
Of the many festivals included in the calendar, the great Tanta fair,
which is also a Mohammedan feast. “is the most important of all held in
Egypt. Religion, commerce, and pleasure offer combined attractions.” As
many as 600,000 or 700,000 often attend this great fair, “no doubt the
survival of one of the ancient Egyptian national festivals.”
It is held so as to end on a Friday, and in 1901 the Friday was August
9!
This naturally suggests that we should look for a feast in the early
part of May. We find the Festival of Al-Khidr, or Elias in the middle of
the wheat harvest in Lower Egypt; of this we read:--
“Al-Khidr is a mysterious personage, who, according to learned opinion,
was a just man, or saint, the Visīr of Dhu’l-Karnên (who was a great
conqueror, contemporary with Ibrahīm--Abraham--and identified in other
legends with Alexander the Great, St. George, &c.). Al-Khidr, it is
believed, still lives, and will live until the Day of Judgment. He is
clad in green garments, whence probably the name. He is commonly
identified with Elias (Elijah), and this confusion seems due to a
confusion or similarity of some of the attributes that tradition assigns
to both.”
“The ‘Festival of El-Khidr and of Elias,’ falling generally on May 6,
marks the two-fold division of the year, in the Turkish and Armenian
calendars, into the Rūz Kāsim and the Rūz Khidr (of 179-80 and 185-6
days respectively).”
This last paragraph is important, as it points to ancient sun-worship,
Helios being read for Elias; and 179 days from May 6 bring us to
November 1. So we find that the modern Turks and Armenians have the old
May-November year as well as the ancient Egyptians who celebrated it in
the Temple of Menu at Thebes.
The traces of the Ptah worship are not so obvious. Finally, it may be
stated that the second Tanta fair occurs at the spring equinox, so that
the pyramid worship can still be traced in the modern Egyptian
calendar. The proof that this was an exotic[3] is established, I think,
by the fact that no important agricultural operations occur at this
period in Egypt, while in May we have the harvest, in August and
November sowing, going on.
A cursory examination of Prof. Rhŷs’ book containing the Hibbert
Lectures of 1886, in the light of these years, used as clues, suggests
that in Ireland the sequence was May-November (Fomori and Fir Bolg),
August-February (Lug and the Tuatha Dé Danann), and, lastly,
June-December (Cúchulainn). Should this be confirmed we see that the
farmers’ years were the first to be established, and it is interesting
to note that the agricultural rent year in many parts of Ireland still
runs from May to November. It is well also to bear in mind, if it be
established that the solstitial year did really arrive last, that the
facts recorded by Mr. Frazer in his “Golden Bough” indicate that the
custom of lighting fires on hills has been in historic times most
prevalent at the summer solstice; evidently maps showing the
geographical distribution of the May, June, and August fires would be of
great value.
Some customs of the May and August years are common to the solstitial
and equinoctial years. Each was ushered in by fires on hills and the
like; flowers in May and the fruits of the earth in August are
associated with them; there are also special customs in the case of
November. In western Europe, however, it does not seem that such
traditions exist over such a large area as that over which the remnants
of the solstitial practices have been traced.
I have pointed out that both the May and August years began when the sun
had the same declination (16° N. or thereabouts); once, on its ascent
from March to the summer solstice in June, again in its decline from the
solstice to September. Hence it may be more difficult in this case to
disentangle and follow the mythology, but the two years stand out here
and there. With regard to August, Mr. Penrose’s orientation data for the
Panathenæa fix the 19th day (Gregorian) for the festival in the
Hecatompedon; similar celebrations were not peculiar to western Europe
and Greece, as a comparison of dates of worship will show.
Hecatompedon April 28 and August 16.
Older Erechtheum April 29 „ August 13.
Temple of Diana, Ephesus April 29 „ August 13.
„ Min, Thebes May 1 „ August 12.
„ Ptah, Memphis April 18 „ August 24.
„ „ Annu April 18 „ August 24.
„ Solar Disc, Tell el-Amarna April 18 „ August 24.
In the above table I have given both the dates on which the sunlight (at
rising or setting) entered the temple, but we do not know for certain,
except in the case of the Hecatompedon, on which of the two days the
temples were used; it is likely they were all used on both days, and
that the variation from the dates proper to the sun’s declination of N.
16° indicates that they were very accurately oriented to fit the local
vegetation conditions in the most important and extensive temple fields
in the world.
This is the more probable because the Jews also, after they had left
Egypt, established their feast of Pentecost fifty days after Easter =
May 10, on which day loaves made of newly harvested corn formed the
chief offering.
With regard to the equinoctial year, the most complete account of the
temple arrangements is to be found in Josephus touching that at
Jerusalem. The temple had to be so erected that at the spring equinox
the sunrise light should fall on, and be reflected to, the worshippers
by the sardonyx stones on the high priest’s garment. At this festival
the first barley was laid upon the altar.
But this worship was in full swing in Egypt for thousands of years
before we hear of it in connection with the Jews. It has left its
temples at Ephesus, Athens, and other places, and with the opening of
this year as well as of the solstitial one the custom of lighting fires
is associated, not only on hills, but also in churches.
Here the sequence of cult cannot be mistaken. We begin with Isis and the
young Sun-god Horus at the Pyramids, and we end with “Lady Day,” a
British legal date; while St. Peter’s at Rome is as truly oriented to
the equinox as the Pyramids themselves, so that we have a distinct
change of cult with no change of orientation.
If such considerations as these help us to connect Egyptian with British
worships we may hope that they will be no less useful when we go further
afield. I gather from a study of Mr. Maudslay’s admirable plans of
Palenque and Chichén-Itzá that the solstitial and farmers’ years’
worships were provided for there. How did these worships and associated
temples with naos and sphinxes[4] get from Egypt to Yucatan? The more we
know of ancient travel the more we are convinced that it was coastwise,
that is, from one point of visible land to the next. Are the cults as
old as differences in the coast-lines which would most easily explain
their wide distribution?
[3] In Babylonia the spring equinox was the critical time of the year
because the Tigris and Euphrates then began to rise.
[4] See _Dawn of Astronomy_, Plate facing p. 182, for the lines of
sphinxes at Karnak.
CHAPTER V
CONDITIONS AND TRADITIONS AT STONEHENGE
After Mr. Penrose, by his admirable observations in Greece, had shown
that the orientation theory accounted as satisfactorily for the
directions in which the chief temples in Greece had been built as I had
shown it did for some in Egypt, it seemed important to apply the same
methods of inquiry with all available accuracy to some example, at all
events, of the various stone circles in Britain which have so far
escaped destruction. Many attempts had been previously made to secure
data, but the instruments and methods employed did not seem to be
sufficient.
Much time has, indeed, been lost in the investigation of a great many of
these circles, for the reason that in many cases the relations of the
monuments to the chief points of the horizon have not been considered;
and when they were, the observations were made only with reference to
the magnetic north, which is different at different places, and besides
is always varying; few indeed have tried to get at the astronomical
conditions of the problem.
The first, I think, was Mr. Jonathan Otley, who in 1849 showed the
“Orientation” of the Keswick Circle “according to the solar meridian,”
giving true solar bearings throughout the year.
I wrote a good deal in _Nature_[5] on sun and star temples in 1891, and
Mr. Lewis the next year expressed the opinion that the British Stone
Monuments, or some of them, were sun and star temples.
Mr. Magnus Spence of Deerness in Orkney published a pamphlet, “Standing
Stones and Maeshowe of Stenness,[6]” in 1894; it is a reprint of an
article in the _Scottish Review_, Oct. 1893. Mr. Cursiter, F.S.A., of
Kirkwall, in a letter to me dated 15 March 1894, a letter suggested by
my _Dawn of Astronomy_ which appeared in that year and in which the
articles which had appeared in _Nature_ in 1891 had been expanded, drew
my attention to the pamphlet; the observations had no pretension to
scientific accuracy, and although some of the sight-lines were
incorrectly shown in an accompanying map, May year and solstitial
alignments were indicated.
* * * * *
So far as I know, there has never been a complete inquiry into the stone
circles in Britain, but Mr. Lewis, who has paid great attention to these
matters, has dealt in a general manner with them (_Archaeological
Journal_, vol. xlix. p. 136), and has further described (_Journal_
Anthropological Institute, n.s., iii., 1900) the observations made by
him of stone circles in various parts of Scotland. From an examination
of the latter he concludes that they may be divided into different
types, each of which has its centre in a different locality. The types
are--(1) the Western Scottish type, consisting of a rather irregular
single ring or sometimes of two concentric rings; (2) the Inverness
type, consisting of a more regular ring of better-shaped stones,
surrounding a tumulus with a retaining wall, containing a built-up
chamber and passage leading to it, or a kist without a passage; (3) the
Aberdeen type, consisting of a similar ring with the addition of a
so-called “altar-stone” and usually having traces of a tumulus and kist
in the middle. In addition to these three types of circles, there are in
Britain generally what Mr. Lewis calls sun and star circles, with their
alignments of stones, and apparently proportioned measurements. He has
shown that there is a great preponderance of outlying stones and
hill-tops lying between the circles and the N.E. quarter of the horizon.
From what has been stated in Chapter III with regard to the nightly
observations of stars it will be gathered that these may have been used
for this purpose.
The following list gives some of the bearings of outlying stones and
other circles from the centres of the named circles:--
Roll-rich, Oxon.--Kingstone N. 27° E.
Stripple Stones, Cornwall--Bastion on bank N. 26 E.
Long Meg, Cumberland--Small circle N. 27 E.
The Hurlers, Cornwall--Two outlying circles N. 13-16 E.
Trippet Stones--Leaze circle N. 11 E.
If these alignments mean anything they must of course refer to the
rising of _stars_, as the position on the horizon is outside the sun’s
path.
The many circles in Cornwall have been dealt with by Mr. Lukis in a
volume published by the Society of Antiquaries in 1895.[7] A carefully
prepared list of circles will be found in Mr. Windle’s recently
published work entitled “Remains of the Prehistoric Age in England.”
It may be useful here to state, with regard to megalithic remains
generally, that they may be classed as follows; some details will be
discussed later on.
(_a_) Circles. These may be single, double, or multiple, and either
concentric or not.
(_b_) Menhirs, large single stones, used to mark sight-lines from
circles.
(_c_) Alignments, _i.e._, lines of stones in single, double, or in many
parallel lines. If these alignments are short they are termed avenues.
(_d_) Holed-stones, doubtless used for observing sight-lines, sometimes
_over_ a circle.
(_e_) Coves. A term applied by Dr. Stukeley and others to what they
considered shrines formed by three upright stones, thus leaving one side
open. I take them to be partially protected observing places. There are
well-marked examples at Avebury, Stanton Drew and Kit’s Coity House.
(_f_) Cromlechs. This term generally means a grouping of upright stones;
it is applied to irregular circles in Brittany. It also applies to a
stone or stones raised on the summits of three or more pillar stones
forming the end and sides of an irregular vault generally open at one
end (“Dolmens of Ireland,” Borlase, p. 429). The top stone is called in
S.W. England a “quoit.” Cromlechs in most cases have been covered by
barrows or cairns.
(_g_) Dolmens, from Dol Men, a table stone. These consist of stones,
resting on two or more upright stones forming a more or less complete
chamber, some of which are of great length. I note the following
subdivisions: “Dolmen à galerie” having an entrance way of sufficient
height, and “Galgal,” similar but smaller. In the “Dolmen à l’allée
couverte” there is a covered passage way to the centre. It is a more
elaborate cove. For the relation between cromlechs and dolmens, see
Borlase (_loc. cit._ and p. 424 _et seq._).
With regard to dolmens, I give the following quotation from Mr. Penrose
(_Nature_, vol. lxiv., September 12, 1901):--
“Near Locmariaquer in the estuary named Rivière d’Auray, there is an
island named Gavr’ Inis, or Goat Island, which contains a good specimen
of the kind of dolmen which has been named ‘Galgal.’
“At the entrance our attention is at once arrested by the profusion of
tracery which covers the walls. From the entrance to the wall facing us
the distance is between 50 and 60 feet. The square chamber to which the
gallery leads is composed of two huge slabs, the sides of the room and
gallery being composed of upright stones, about a dozen on each side.
The mystic lines and hieroglyphics similar to those above mentioned
appear to have a decorative character.
“An interesting feature of Gavr’ Inis is its remarkable resemblance to
the New Grange tumulus at Meath. In construction there is again a
strong resemblance to Mæs-Howe, in the island of Orkney. There is also
some resemblance in smaller details.”
While we generally have circles in Britain without, or with small,
alignments; in Brittany we have alignments without circles, some of them
being on an enormous scale;[8] thus at Menec (the place of stones) we
have eleven lines of menhirs, terminating towards the west in a
cromlech, and, notwithstanding that great numbers have been converted to
other uses, 1169 menhirs still remain, some reaching as much as 18 feet
in height.
The alignments of Kermario (the place of the dead) contain 989 menhirs
in ten lines. Those of Kerlescant (the place of burning), which
beginning with eleven rows are afterwards increased to thirteen, contain
altogether 579 stones and thirty-nine in the cromlech, with some
additional stones. The adoration paid these stones yielded very slowly
to Christianity. In the church history of Brittany the _Cultus Lapidum_
was denounced in 658 A.D.
Many of the fallen menhirs in these alignments have been restored to
their upright position by the French Government. Some of them may have
been overturned in compliance with the decree of 658 A.D. above referred
to. Several of the loftier menhirs are surmounted by crosses of stone or
iron.
Both circles and alignments are associated with holidays and the
lighting of fires on certain days of the year. This custom has remained
more general in Brittany than in Britain. At Mount St. Michael, near
Carnac, the custom still prevails of lighting a large bonfire on its
summit at the time of the summer solstice; others, kindled on prominent
eminences for a distance of twenty or thirty miles round, reply to it.
These fires are locally called “Tan Heol,” and also by a later use, Tan
St. Jean. In Scotland there was a similar custom in the first week in
May under the name of Bel Tan, or Baal’s Fire; the synonym for summer
used by Sir Walter Scott in the “Lady of the Lake”:--
Ours is no sapling chance-sown by the fountain,
Blooming at Beltane in winter to fade.
At Kerlescant the winter solstice is celebrated by a holiday, whilst
Menec greets the summer solstice, and Kermario the equinoxes, with
festivals. Concerning these fires and the associated customs Mr.
Frazer’s “Golden Bough” is a perfect mine of information and should be
consulted. It may simply be said here that the May and November, and
June and December fires seem to be the most ancient. It is stated that
the Balder bale fires on Mayday Eve were recognised by the primitive
race, and I shall prove this in the sequel when British customs are
referred to. On the introduction of Christianity the various customs
were either transferred to or reorganised in association with church
festivals; but as some of these, such as Easter, are movable feasts, it
is difficult to follow the dates.
Regarding both circles and alignments in the light of the orientation
theory, we may consider simple circles with a central stone as a
collection of sight-lines from the central stone to one or more of the
outer ones, or the interval between any two; indicating the place of the
rise or setting of either the sun or a star on some particular day of
the year, which day, in the case of the sun, will be a new year’s day.
Alignments, on the other hand, will play the same part as the
sight-lines in the circles.
Sometimes the sight-line may be indicated by a menhir outside, and even
at a considerable distance from, the circle; later on tumuli replaced
menhirs.
The dolmens have, I am convinced, been in many cases not graves
originally, but darkened observing places whence to observe along a
sight-line; this would be best done by means of an _allée couverte_, the
predecessor of the darkened naos at Stonehenge, shielded by its covered
trilithons.
In order to obtain some measurements to test the orientation theory in
Britain, I found that Stonehenge is the ancient monument in this country
which lends itself to accurate theodolite work better than any other.
Mr. Spence’s excellent work on astronomical lines at Stenness, where the
stones, till some years ago at all events, have been more respected than
further south, suggested a beginning there, but the distance from London
made it impossible.
Avebury and Stanton Drew are well known to a great many archæologists;
there are also other very wonderful stone circles near Keswick and in
other parts of England; but unfortunately it is very much more difficult
to get astronomical data from these ancient monuments than it is in the
case of Stonehenge, one reason being that Stonehenge itself lies high,
and the horizon round it in all directions is pretty nearly the same
height, so that the important question of the heights of the hills along
the sight-line--a matter which is fundamental from an astronomical point
of view, although it has been neglected, so far as I can make out, by
most who have made observations on these ancient monuments--is quite a
simple one at Stonehenge. Hence it was much easier to determine a date
there than by working at any of the other ancient remains to which I
have referred.
In orientation generally--such orientation as has been dealt with by Mr.
Penrose and myself in Egypt and in Greece--the question frequently was a
change in direction in the axis of a temple, or the laying down of the
axis of a temple, by means of observations of stars. Unfortunately for
us as archæologists, not as astronomers, the changes of position of the
stars, owing to certain causes, chiefly the precessional movement, are
very considerable; so that if a temple pointed to a star in one year, in
two or three hundred years it would no longer point to the same star,
but to another.
These star observations were requisite in order to warn the priests
about an hour before sunrise so that they might prepare for the morning
sacrifice which always took place at the first appearance of the sun.
Hence the morning star to be visible in the dawn must be a bright one,
and the further north or south of the sun’s rising place it rose, the
more easily it would be seen. Some stars so chosen rose not far from
the north point of the horizon. The alignments with small azimuths
referred to in the British circles (p. 36) I believe to be connected
with the Egyptian and Greek practice.
Acting on a very old tradition, some people from Salisbury and other
surrounding places go to observe the sunrise on the longest day of the
year at Stonehenge. We therefore are perfectly justified in assuming
that it was a solar temple used for observation in the height of
midsummer. But at dawn in midsummer in these latitudes the sky is so
bright that it is not easy to see stars even if we get up in the morning
to look for them; stars, therefore, were not in question, so that some
other principle had to be adopted, and that was to point the temple
directly to the position on the horizon at which the sun rose on that
particular day of the year, and no other.
Now, if there were no change in the position of the sun, that, of
course, would go on for ever and ever; but, fortunately for
archæologists, there is a slight change in the position of the sun, as
there is in the case of a star, but for a different reason; the planes
of the ecliptic and of the equator undergo a slight change in the angle
included between them. So far as we know, that angle has been gradually
getting less for many thousands of years, so that, in the case of
Stonehenge, if we wish to determine the date, having no stars to help
us, the only thing that we can hope to get any information from is the
very slow change of this angle; that, therefore, was the special point
which Mr. Penrose and I were anxious to study at Stonehenge, for the
reason that we seemed in a position to do it there more conveniently
than anywhere else in Britain.
[Illustration: FIG. 8.--The original tooling of the stone protected from
the action of the weather.]
But while the astronomical conditions are better at Stonehenge than
elsewhere, the ruined state of the monument makes accurate measurements
very difficult.
Great age and the action of weather are responsible for much havoc, so
that very many of the stones are now recumbent, as will be gathered from
an article by Mr. Lewis, who described the condition of the monument in
1901, in _Man_.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.--View of Stonehenge from the west. A, stone which
fell in 1900; _BB_, stones which fell in 1797. (Reproduced from an
article on the fallen stones by Mr. Lewis in _Man_.)]
Professor Gowland in his excavations at Stonehenge, to which I shall
refer in the sequel, found the original tooled surface near the bottom
of one of the large sarsens which had been protected from the action of
the weather by having been buried in the ground. It enables us to
imagine the appearance of the monument as it left the hands of the
builders (Fig. 8).
[Illustration: FIG. 10.--Copy of Hoare’s plan of 1810, showing the
unbroken Vallum and its relation with the Avenue.]
But the real destructive agent has been man himself; savages could not
have played more havoc with the monument than the English who have
visited it at different times for different purposes. It is said the
fall of one great stone was caused in 1620 by some excavations, but this
has been doubted; the fall of another in 1797 was caused by gipsies
digging a hole in which to shelter, and boil their kettle; many of the
stones have been used for building walls and bridges; masses weighing
from 56 lb. downwards have been broken off by hammers or cracked off as
a result of fires lighted by excursionists.
It appears that the temenos wall or vallum, which is shown complete in
Hoare’s plan of 1810, is now broken down in many places by vehicles
indiscriminately driven over it. Indeed, its original importance has now
become so obliterated that many do not notice it as part of the
structure--that, in fact, it bears the same relation to the interior
stone circle as the nave of St. Paul’s does to the Lady Chapel (Fig.
10).
It is within the knowledge of all interested in archæology that not long
ago Sir Edmund Antrobus, the owner of Stonehenge, advised by the famous
Wiltshire local society, the Society for the Protection of Ancient
Buildings, and the Society of Antiquaries, enclosed the monument in
order to preserve it from further wanton destruction, and--a first step
in the way of restoration--with the skilled assistance of Prof. Gowland
and Messrs. Carruthers, Detmar Blow and Stallybrass, set upright the
most important menhir, which threatened to fall or else break off at one
of the cracks. This menhir, the so-called “leaning stone,” once formed
one of the uprights of the trilithon the fall of the other member of
which is stated by Mr. Lewis to have occurred before 1574. The latter,
broken in two pieces, and the supported impost, now lie prostrate
across the altar stone.
[Illustration: FIG. 11.--The Leaning Stone in 1901.]
This piece of work was carried out with consummate skill and care, and
most important conclusions, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter,
were derived from the minute inquiry into the conditions revealed in the
excavations which were necessary for the proper conduct of the work.
Let us hope that we have heard the last of the work of devastators, and
even that, before long, some of the other larger stones, now inclined or
prostrate, may be set upright.
Since Sir Edmund Antrobus, the present owner, has acted on the advice of
the societies I have named to enclose the monument, with a view to guard
it from destruction and desecration, he has been assailed on all sides.
It is not a little surprising that the “unclimbable wire fence”
recommended by the societies in question (the Bishop of Bristol being
the president of the Wiltshire society at the time) is by some regarded
as a suggestion that the property is not national, the fact being that
the nation has not bought the property, and that it has been private
property for centuries, and treated in the way we have seen.
Let us hope also that before long the gaps in the vallum may be filled
up. These, as I have already stated, take away from the meaning of an
important part of one of the most imposing monuments of the world. In
the meantime, it is comforting to know that, thanks to what Sir Edmund
Antrobus has done, no more stones will be stolen, or broken by
sledge-hammers; that fires; that excavations such as were apparently the
prime cause of the disastrous fall of one of the majestic trilithons in
1797; that litter, broken bottles and the like, with which too many
British sightseers mark their progress, besides much indecent
desecration, are things of the past.
If Stonehenge had been built in Italy, or France, or Germany, it would
have been in charge of the State long ago.
* * * * *
I now pass from the monument itself to a reference to some of the
traditions and historical statements concerning it.
Those who are interested in these matters should thank the Wiltshire
Archæological and Natural History Society, which is to be warmly
congratulated on its persistent and admirable efforts to do all in its
power to enable the whole nation to learn about the venerable monuments
of antiquity which it has practically taken under its scientific charge.
It has published two most important volumes[9] dealing specially with
Stonehenge, including both its traditions and history.
With regard to Mr. Long’s memoir, it may be stated that it includes
important extracts from notices of Stonehenge from the time of Henry of
Huntingdon (twelfth century) to Hoare (1812), and that all extant
information is given touching on the questions by whom the stones were
erected, whence they came, and what was the object of the structure.
From Mr. Harrison’s more recently published bibliography, no reference
to Stonehenge by any ancient author, no letter to the _Times_ for the
last twenty years dealing with any question touching the monuments,
seems to be omitted.
It is very sad to read, both in Mr. Long’s volume and the bibliography,
of the devastation which has been allowed to go on for so many years and
of the various forms it has taken.
* * * * *
As almost the whole of the notes which follow deal with the assumption
of Stonehenge having been a solar temple, a short reference to the
earliest statements concerning this view is desirable; and, again, as
the approximate date arrived at by Mr. Penrose and myself in 1901 is an
early one, a few words may be added indicating the presence in Britain
at that time of a race of men capable of designing and executing such
work. I quote from the paper communicated by Mr. Penrose and myself to
the Royal Society:--
“As to the first point, Diodorus Siculus (ii., 47, ed. Didot, p. 116)
has preserved a statement of Hecatæus in which Stonehenge alone can by
any probability be referred to.
“‘We think that no one will consider it foreign to our subject to say a
word respecting the Hyperboreans.
“‘Amongst the writers who have occupied themselves with the mythology of
the ancients, Hecatæus and some others tell us that opposite the land of
the Celts [ἑν τοις ἁντιπεραν της Κελτικης τοποις] there exists in the
Ocean an island not smaller than Sicily, and which, situated under the
constellation of The Bear, is inhabited by the Hyperboreans; so called
because they live beyond the point from which the North wind blows....
If one may believe the same mythology, Latona was born in this island,
and for that reason the inhabitants honour Apollo more than any other
deity. A sacred enclosure [νησον] is dedicated to him in the island, as
well as a magnificent circular temple adorned with many rich
offerings.... The Hyperboreans are in general very friendly to the
Greeks.’”
“The Hecatæus above referred to was probably Hecatæus of Abdera, in
Thrace, fourth century B.C.; a friend of Alexander the Great. This
Hecatæus is said to have written a history of the Hyperboreans: that it
was Hecatæus of Miletus, an historian of the sixth century B.C., is less
likely.
“As to the second point, although we cannot go so far back in evidence
of the power and civilisation of the Britons, there is an argument of
some value to be drawn from the fine character of the coinage issued by
British kings early in the second century B.C., and from the statement
of Julius Cæsar (‘De Bello Gallico,’ vi., c. 14) that in the schools of
the Druids the subjects taught included the movements of the stars, the
size of the earth, and the nature of things (multa præterea de sideribus
et eorum motu, de mundi magnitudine, de rerum natura, de deorum
immortalium vi ac potestate disputant et juventuti tradunt).
“Studies of such a character seem quite consistent with, and to demand,
a long antecedent period of civilisation.”
Henry of Huntingdon is the first English writer to refer to Stonehenge,
which he calls Stanenges. Geoffrey of Monmouth (1138) and Giraldus
Cambrensis come next.
In 1771, Dr. John Smith, in a work entitled “Choir Gawr, the Grand
Orrery of the Ancient Druids, called Stonehenge, Astronomically
Explained, and proved to be a Temple for Observing the Motions of the
Heavenly Bodies,” wrote as follows:--
“From many and repeated visits, I conceived it to be an astronomical
temple; and from what I could recollect to have read of it, no author
had as yet investigated its uses. Without an instrument or any
assistance whatever, but White’s ‘Ephemeris,’ I began my survey. I
suspected the stone called _The Friar’s Heel_ to be the index that would
disclose the uses of this structure; nor was I deceived. This stone
stands in a right line with the centre of the temple, pointing to the
north-east. I first drew a circle round the vallum of the ditch and
divided it into 360 equal parts; and then a right line through the body
of the temple to the Friar’s Heel; at the intersection of these lines I
reckoned the sun’s greatest amplitude at the summer solstice, in this
latitude, to be about 60 degrees, and fixed the eastern points
accordingly. Pursuing this plan, I soon discovered the uses of all the
detached stones, as well as those that formed the body of the temple.”
With regard to this “Choir Gawr,” translated Chorea Gigantum, Leland’s
opinion is quoted (Long, p. 51) that we should read Choir vawr, the
equivalent of which is Chorea nobilis or magna.[10]
In spite of Inigo Jones’s (1600) dictum that Stonehenge was of Roman
origin, Stukeley came to the conclusion in 1723 that the Druids were
responsible for its building; and Halley, who visited it in
1720--probably with Stukeley--concluded from the weathering of the
stones that it was at least 3000 years old; if he only had taken his
theodolite with him, how much his interest in the monument would have
been increased!
[5] See especially _Nature_, July 2, 1891 p. 201.
[6] Gardner, Paisley and London.
[7] “The Prehistoric Stone Monuments of the British Isles--Cornwall.”
[8] “The French Stonehenge: An Account of the Principal Megalithic
Remains in the Morbihan Archipelago.” By T. Cato Worsfold, F. R. Hist.
S., F.R.S.I. (London: Bemrose and Sons, Ltd.)
[9] _The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine_:
“Stonehenge and its Barrows.” By William Long, M.A., F.S.A. 1876. _The
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine_: “Stonehenge
Bibliography Number.” By W. Jerome Harrison. 1902.
[10] Mr. Morien Morgan informs me that Cor y Gawres is correct, and
means Choir of the Giantess Cariadwen, the Welsh Neith, Nyth (Nydd).
CHAPTER VI
GENERAL ARCHITECTURE OF STONEHENGE
Although I have before hinted that the astronomical use of the Egyptian
temples and British circles was the same, there is at first sight a vast
difference in the general plan of structure.
This has chiefly depended upon the fact that the riches and population
of ancient Egypt were so great that that people could afford to build a
temple to a particular star, or to the sun’s position on any particular
day of the year. The temple axis along the line pointing to the
celestial body involved, then became the chief feature, and tens of
years were spent in lengthening, constricting and embellishing it.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.--The axis of the Temple of Karnak, looking
south-east, from outside the north-west pylon (from a photograph by the
author).]
From one end of an Egyptian temple to the other we find the axis marked
out by narrow apertures in the various pylons, and many walls with doors
crossing the axis. There are seventeen or eighteen of these apertures in
the solar temple of Amen-Rā at Karnak, limiting the light which falls
into the Holy of Holies or Sanctuary. This construction gives one a very
definite impression that every part of the temple was built to subserve
a special object, viz., to limit the sunlight which fell on its front
into a narrow beam, and to carry it to the other extremity of the
temple--into the sanctuary, where the high priest performed his
functions. The sanctuary was always blocked. There is no case in which
the beam of light can pass absolutely through a temple (Figs. 12 and
13).
[Illustration: FIG. 13.--Plan of the Temple of Ramses II. in the
Memnonia at Thebes (from Lepsius), showing the pylon at the open end,
the various doors along the axis, the sanctuary at the closed end, and
the temple at right angles.]
In Britain the case was different, there was neither skill nor workers
sufficient to erect such stately piles, and as a consequence one
structure had to do the work of several and it had to be done in the
most economical way. Hence the circle with the observer at the centre
and practically a temple axis in every direction among which could be
chosen the chief directions required, each alignment being defined by
stones, more or less distant, or openings in the circle itself.
Now for some particulars with regard to those parts of Stonehenge which
lend themselves to the inquiry.
The main architecture of Stonehenge consisted of an external circle of
about 100 feet in diameter, composed of thirty large upright stones,
named sarsens, connected by continuous lintels. The upright stones
formerly stood 14 feet above the surface of the ground. They have nobs
or tenons on the top which fit into mortice holes in the lintels. Within
this peristyle there was originally an inner structure of ten still
larger upright stones, arranged in the shape of a horseshoe, formed by
five isolated trilithons which rose progressively from N.E. to S.W., the
loftiest stones being 25 feet above the ground. About one-half of these
uprights have fallen, and a still greater number of the imposts which
they originally carried.
[Illustration: FIG. 14.--One of the remaining Trilithons.]
There is also another circle of smaller upright stones, respecting which
the only point requiring notice now is that none of them would have
interrupted the line of the axis of the avenue. The circular temple was
also surrounded by the earthen bank, shown in Fig. 15, of about 300
feet in diameter, interrupted towards the north-east by receiving into
itself the banks forming the avenue before mentioned, which is about 50
feet across. Within this avenue, no doubt an old _via sacra_, and
looking north-east from the centre of the temple, at about 250 feet
distance and considerably to the right hand of the axis, stands an
isolated stone, which from a mediæval legend has been named the Friar’s
Heel.
[Illustration: FIG. 15.--General plan; the outer circle, naos and avenue
of Stonehenge.
_F.H._ = Friar’s Heel.]
The axis passes very nearly centrally through an intercolumniation (so
to call it) between two uprights of the external circle and between the
uprights of the westernmost trilithon as it originally stood. Of this
trilithon the southernmost upright with the lintel stone fell in 1620,
but the companion survived as the leaning stone which formed a
conspicuous and picturesque object for many years, but happily now
restored to its original more dignified and safer condition of
vertically. The inclination of this stone, however, took place in the
direction of the axis of the avenue, and as the distance between it and
its original companion is known both by the analogy of the two perfect
trilithons and by the measure of the mortice holes on the lintel they
formerly supported, we obtain by bisection the distance, 11 inches, from
its edge, of a point in the continuation of the central axis of the
avenue and temple.
The banks which form the avenue have suffered much degradation. It
appears from Sir Richard Colt Hoare’s account that at the beginning of
the last century they were distinguishable for a much greater distance
than at present, but they are still discernible, especially on the
northern side, for more than 1300 feet from the centre of the temple,
and particularly the line of the bottom of the ditch from which the
earth was taken to form the bank, and which runs parallel to it.
CHAPTER VII
ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS AT STONEHENGE IN 1901[11]
An investigation was undertaken by Mr. Penrose and myself in the spring
of 1901, as a sequel to analogous work in Egypt and Greece, with a view
to determine whether the orientation theory could throw any light upon
the date of the foundation of Stonehenge, concerning which authorities
vary in their estimates by some thousands of years. Ours was not the
first attempt to obtain the date of Stonehenge by means of astronomical
considerations. In Mr. Godfrey Higgins’ work[12] he refers to a method
of attack connected with precession. This furnished him with the date
4000 B.C.
More recently, Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie,[13] whose plan of the stones
is a valuable contribution to the study of Stonehenge, was led by his
measures of the orientation to a date very greatly in the opposite
direction, but, owing to an error in his application of the change of
obliquity, clearly a mistaken one.
The chief astronomical evidence in favour of the solar temple theory
lies in the fact that the “avenue,” as it is called, formed by two
ancient earthen banks, extends for a considerable distance from the
structure, in the general direction of the sunrise at the summer
solstice, precisely in the same way as in Egypt a long avenue of
sphinxes indicates the principal outlook of a temple.
These earthen banks defining the avenue do not exist alone. As will be
seen from the sketch plan (Fig. 15), there is a general common line of
direction for the avenue and the principal axis of the structure; and
the general design of the building, together with the position and shape
of the naos, indicates a close connection of the whole temple structure
with the direction of the avenue. There may have been other pylon and
screen equivalents as in other ancient temples, which have disappeared,
the object being to confine the illumination to a small part of the
naos. There can be little doubt, also, that the temple was originally
roofed in, and that the sun’s first ray, suddenly shining into the
darkness, formed a fundamental part of the cultus.
With regard to the question of the roof, however, the above suggestion,
I now find, is not new, the view having been held by no less an
authority than Dr. Thurnham, who apparently was led to it by the
representations of the Scandinavian temples as covered and enclosed
structures.
Since the actual observation of sunrise was doubtless made within the
sanctuary itself, we seem justified in taking the orientation of the
axis to be the same as that of the avenue, and since in the present
state of the S.W. trilithon the direction of the avenue can probably be
determined with greater accuracy than that of the temple axis itself,
the estimate of date must be based upon the orientation of the avenue.
Further evidence will be given, however, to show that the direction of
the axis of the temple, so far as it can now be determined, is
sufficiently accordant with the direction of the avenue.
The orientation of this avenue may be examined upon the same principles
that have been found successful in the case of Greek and Egyptian
temples--that is, on the assumption that Stonehenge was a solar temple,
and that the greatest function took place at sunrise on the longest day
of the year. This not only had a religious motive; it had also the
economic value of marking officially and distinctly that time of the
year and the beginning of an annual period.
It is, indeed, possible that the present structure may have had other
capabilities, such as being connected with the May year, the equinoxes
or the winter solstice; but it is with its uses at the summer solstice
alone that we now deal.
There is a difference in treatment between the observations required for
Stonehenge and those which are available for Greek or Egyptian solar
temples. In the case of the latter, the effect of the precession of the
equinoxes upon the stars, which as warning clock stars were almost
invariably connected with those temples, offers the best measure of the
dates of foundation; but in Britain, owing to the brightness of the dawn
at the summer solstice, such a star could not have been employed, so
that we can rely only on the secular change of the obliquity as
affecting the azimuth of the point of sunrise. This requires the
measurements to be taken with very great precision, and as the azimuth
of the place of sunrise varies with the latitude, and as a datum point
on the horizon in a known position was also required, Colonel Johnston,
R.E., the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, was asked for and
obligingly supplied the following particulars:
{ Lat. 51° 10′ 42″
Centre of stone circle, Stonehenge { Long. W. 1 49 99
{ Lat. 51° 3′ 52″
Centre of spire, Salisbury Cathedral { Long. 1 47 45
The real point was to determine the direction of the so-called avenue.
Measurements taken from the line of the bottom of the ditch assisted
materially those taken from the crown of the bank itself. With this help
and by using the southern bank and ditch whenever it admitted of
recognition, a fair estimate of the central line could be arrived at. To
verify this, two pegs were placed at points 140 feet apart along the
line near the commencement of the avenue, and four others at distances
averaging 100 feet apart nearer the further recognisable extremity, and
their directions were measured with the theodolite, independently by two
observers, the reference point being Salisbury Spire, of which the exact
bearing had been communicated by Colonel Johnston.
This bearing was also measured locally by observations of the Sun and of
Polaris, the mean of which differed by less than 20″ from the Ordnance
value. The resulting observations gave for the axis of the avenue
nearest the commencement an azimuth of 49° 38′ 48″, and for that of the
more distant part 49° 32′ 54″. The mean of these two lines drawn from
the central interval of the great trilithon, already referred to, passes
between two of the sarsens of the exterior circle, which have an opening
of about 4 feet, within a few inches of their middle point, the
deviation being northwards. This may be considered to prove the close
coincidence of the original axis of the temple with the direction of the
avenue.
This value of the azimuth, the mean of which is 49° 35′ 51″, is
confirmed by the information, also supplied from the Ordnance Survey,
that from the centre of the temple, the bearing to the N.E. of the
principal bench mark on a hill, about 8 miles distant, the bench mark
being very near a well-known ancient fortified British encampment named
Silbury or Sidbury, is 49° 34′ 18″; and that the same line continued
through Stonehenge, to the south-west, strikes another ancient
fortification, namely, Grovely Castle, about 6 miles distant, and at
practically the same azimuth, viz., 49° 35′ 51″. For the above reasons
49° 34′ 18″ has been adopted for the azimuth of the avenue.
The summer solstice sunrise in 1901 was also watched for by Mr. Howard
Payn on five successive mornings, viz., June 21 to 25, and was
successfully observed on the last occasion. As soon as the Sun’s limb
was sufficiently above the horizon for its bisection to be well
measured, it was found to be 8′ 40″ northwards of the peak of the
Friar’s Heel, which was used as the reference point; the altitude of the
horizon being 35′ 48″. The azimuth of this peak from the point of
observation had been previously ascertained to be 50° 39′ 5″, giving for
that of the Sun when measured, 50° 30′ 25″; by calculation that of the
Sun, with the limb 2′ above the horizon, should be 50° 30′ 54″. This
observation was therefore completely in accordance with the results
which had been obtained otherwise.
The time which would elapse between geometrical sunrise, that is, with
the upper limb tangential with the horizon, and that which is here
supposed, would be about 17 seconds, and the difference of azimuth would
be 3′ 15″.
The remaining point was to find what value should be given to the Sun’s
declination when it appeared showing itself 2′ above the horizon, the
azimuth being 49° 34′ 18″.
The data obtained for the determination of the required epoch were as
follows:--
(1.) The elevation of the local horizon at the sunrise point seen by a
man standing between the uprights of the great trilithon (a distance of
about 8000 feet) is about 35′ 30″, and 2′ additional for Sun’s upper
limb makes 37′ 30″.
(2.) -Refraction + parallax, 27′ 20″.
(3.) Sun’s semi-diameter, allowance being made for greater eccentricity
than at present, 15′ 45″.
(4.) Sun’s azimuth, 49° 34′ 18″, and N. latitude, 51° 10′ 42″.
From the above data the Sun’s declination works out 23° 54′ 30″ N., and
by Stockwell’s tables of the obliquity, which are based upon modern
determinations of the elements of the solar system,[14] the date is
found to be 1680 B.C.
It is to be understood that on account of the slight uncertainty as to
the original line of observation and the very slow rate of change in
the obliquity of the ecliptic, the date thus derived may possibly be in
error by 200 years more or less; this gives us a date of construction
lying between say 1900 and 1500 B.C.
In this investigation the so-called Friar’s Heel was used only as a
convenient point for reference and verification in measurement, and no
theory was formed as to its purpose. It is placed at some distance, as
before mentioned, to the south of the axis of the avenue, so that at the
date arrived at for the erection of the temple the Sun must have
completely risen before it was vertically over the summit of the stone.
It may be remarked, further, that more than 500 years must yet elapse
before such a coincidence can take place at the beginning of sunrise.
In an Appendix certain details of the observations are given.
In the next chapter I propose to show that an independent archæological
inquiry carried out, in a most complete and admirable way, just after
Mr. Penrose and myself had obtained our conclusion, entirely
corroborates the date at which we had arrived.
[11] This chapter and the end of the previous one are mainly based on
the paper communicated by Mr. Penrose and myself to the Royal Society
(see _Proceedings_, _Royal Society_, vol. 69, p. 137 _et seq._).
[12] _The Celtic Druids_. 4to. London. 1827.
[13] _Stonehenge, &c._ 1880.
[14] _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. xviii. No. 232,
table 9. Washington. 1873. For curve, see page 130.
CHAPTER VIII
ARCHÆOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS AT STONEHENGE, 1901
Soon after Mr. Penrose and myself had made our astronomical survey of
Stonehenge in 1901, some archæological results of the highest importance
were obtained by Professor Gowland. The operations which secured them
were designed and carried out in order to re-erect the leaning stone
which threatened to fall, a piece of work recommended to Sir Edmund
Antrobus by the Society of Antiquaries of London and other learned
bodies, and conducted at his desire and expense.
[Illustration: FIG. 16.--The arrangements for raising the stone, looking
north-east.]
They were necessarily on a large scale, for the great monolith, “the
leaning stone,” is the largest in England, the Rudston monolith
excepted. It stood behind the altar stone, over which it leant at an
angle of 65 degrees, resting at one point against a small stone of
syenite. Half-way up it had a fracture one-third across it; the weight
of stone above this fracture was a dangerous strain on it, so that both
powerful machinery and great care and precautions had to be used.
Professor Gowland was charged by the Society of Antiquaries with the
conduct of the excavations necessary in the work. The engineering
operations were planned by Mr. Carruthers, and Mr. Detmar Blow was
responsible for the local superintendence. Mr. Blow thus describes the
arrangements (_Journal_ Institute of British Architects, 3rd series,
ix., January, 1902):--
“A strong cradle of 12-inch square baulks of timber was bolted round the
stone, with packing and felt, to prevent any marking of the stone. To
the cradle were fixed two 1-inch steel eyebolts to receive the blocks
for two six-folds of 6-inch ropes. These were secured and wound on to
two strong winches fifty feet away, with four men at each winch. When
the ropes were thoroughly tight, the first excavation was made as the
stone was raised on its west side.”
[Illustration: FIG. 17.--The cradle and supports, looking west.]
The method employed by Professor Gowland in the excavation should be a
model for all future work of the kind.
Above each space to be excavated was placed a frame of wood, bearing on
its long sides the letters A to H, and on its short sides the letters R
M L, each letter being on a line one foot distant from the next. By this
means the area to be excavated was divided into squares each having the
dimension of a square foot. A long rod divided into 6-inch spaces,
numbered from 1 to 16, was also provided for indicating the depth from
the datum line of anything found. In this way a letter on the long sides
of the frame, together with one on the short sides, and a number on the
vertical rod, indicated the position of any object found in any part of
the excavation.
Excavations were necessary because to secure the stone for the future
the whole of the adjacent soil had to be removed down to the rock level,
so that it could be replaced by concrete.
[Illustration: FIG. 18.--The frame used to locate the finds.]
All results were registered by Professor Gowland in relation to a datum
line 337·4 feet above sea level. The material was removed in buckets,
and carefully sifted through a series of sieves 1-inch, ¹⁄₂-inch,
¹⁄₄-inch, and ¹⁄₈-inch mesh, in order that the smallest object might
not be overlooked.
From the exhaustive account of his work given by Professor Gowland to
the Society of Antiquaries (_Archaeologia_, lviii.), I gather three
results of the highest importance from the point of view I am
considering. These were, first, the finding of an enormous number of
implements; secondly, the disposition and relative quantities of the
chippings of the sarsen and blue stones; and thirdly, the discovery of
the method by which the stones were originally erected.
I will take the implements first. This, in a condensed form, is what
Professor Gowland says about them:--
More than a hundred flint implements were found, and the greater number
occurred in the stratum of chalk rubble which either directly overlaid
or was on a level with the bed rock. They may all be arranged generally
in the following classes:--
_Class I._--Axes roughly chipped and of rude forms, but having
well-defined, more or less sharp cutting edges.
_Class II._--Hammerstones, with more or less well-chipped, sharp curved
edges. Most may be correctly termed hammer-axes. They are chipped to an
edge at one end, but at the other are broad and thick, and in many
examples terminated there by a more or less flat surface. In some the
natural coating of the flint is left untouched at the thick end.
_Class III._--Hammerstones, more or less rounded. Some specimens appear
to have once had distinct working edges, but they are now much blunted
and battered by use.
In addition to the above flint implements were found about thirty
hammerstones, consisting of large pebbles or small boulders of the hard
quartzite variety of sarsen. Some have been roughly broken into
convenient forms for holding in the hand, whilst a few have been rudely
trimmed into more regular shapes. They vary in weight from about a pound
up to six and a half pounds. To these we have to add mauls, a more
remarkable kind of hammerstone than those just enumerated. They are
ponderous boulders of the quartzite variety of sarsen with their
broadest sides more or less flat. Their weights range from about 40 lb.
to 64 lb.
How came these flints and stones where they were found? Prof. Gowland
gives an answer which everybody will accept. The implements must be
regarded as the discarded tools of the builders of Stonehenge, dumped
down into the holes as they became unfit for use, and, in fact, used to
pack the monoliths as they were erected. We read:--“Dealing with the
cavity occupied by No. 55 before its fall, the mauls were found wedged
in below the front of its base to act together with the large blocks of
sarsen as supports” (p. 54). Nearly all bear evidence of extremely rough
usage, their edges being jagged and broken, just as we should expect to
find after such rough employment. We evidently have to deal with
builders doing their work in the Stone and not in the Bronze age. But
was the age Palæolithic or Neolithic?
Prof. Gowland writes:--
“Perhaps the most striking features of the flint implements is their
extreme rudeness, and that there is not a single ground or polished
specimen among them. This, at first sight and without due consideration,
might be taken to indicate an extremely remote age. But in this
connection it must be borne in mind that in the building of such a
stupendous structure as Stonehenge, the tools required must have been
numbered by thousands. The work, too, was of the roughest character, and
for such only rude tools were required. The highly finished and polished
implements which we are accustomed to consider, and rightly so, as
characteristic of Neolithic man, would find no place in such work. They
required too much labour and time for their manufacture, and, when made,
could not have been more effective than the hammer-axes and hammerstones
found in the excavations, which could be so easily fashioned by merely
rudely shaping the natural flints, with which the district abounds, by a
few well directed blows of a sarsen pebble.”
On this ground Prof. Gowland is of opinion that, notwithstanding their
rudeness, they may be legitimately ascribed to the Neolithic age, and,
it may be, near its termination, that is, before the Bronze age, the
commencement of which has been placed at 1400 B.C. by Sir John Evans for
Britain, though he is inclined to think that estimate too low, and 2000
B.C. by Montelius for Italy.
[Illustration: FIG. 19.--Some of the Flint Implements.]
Prof. Gowland guardedly writes:--
“The occurrence of stone tools does not alone prove with absolute
certainty that Stonehenge belongs to the Neolithic age, although it
affords a strong presumption in favour of that view. But, and this is
important, had bronze been in general or even moderately extensive use
when the stones were set up, it is in the highest degree probable that
some implement of that metal would have been lost within the area of the
excavations, and if so lost, it would certainly have been found together
with the stone tools. Further, the employment of deer’s horn picks for
the extensive excavations made in the chalk around the base of the
monoliths also tends to support the view that bronze implements cannot
have been in common use. If they had it would seem not unreasonable to
assume that they would have been employed, as they would have been so
much more effective for such work than the picks of deer’s horn.
“Again, the chippings of the stones of Stonehenge in two of the Bronze
age barrows[15] in its neighbourhood show that it is of earlier date
than they.”
And finally:--
“In my opinion, the date when copper or bronze was first known in
Britain is a very remote one, as no country in the world presented
greater facilities for their discovery. The beginning of their
application to practical uses should, I think, be placed at least as far
back as 1800 B.C., and that date I am inclined to give, until further
evidence is forthcoming, as the approximate date of the erection of
Stonehenge.”
Now the date arrived at by Mr. Penrose and myself on astronomical
grounds was about 1700 B.C. It is not a little remarkable that
independent astronomical and archæological inquiries conducted in the
same year should have come so nearly to the same conclusion. If a
general agreement be arrived at regarding it, we have a firm basis for
the study of other similar ancient monuments in this country.
I have previously in this book referred to the fact that the trilithons
of the naos and the stones of the outer circle are all built up of
so-called “sarsen” stones. To describe their geological character, I
cannot do better than quote, from Mr. Cunnington’s “Geology of
Stonehenge,”[16] their origin according to Prestwich.
“Among the _Lower Tertiaries_ (the Eocene of Sir Charles Lyell) are
certain sands and mottled clays, named by Mr. Prestwich the Woolwich and
Reading beds, from their being largely developed at these places, and
from these he proves the sarsens to have been derived; although they are
seldom found _in situ_, owing to the destruction of the stratum to which
they belonged. They are large _masses of sand concreted together_ by a
siliceous cement, and when the looser portions of the stratum were
washed away, the blocks of sandy rocks were left scattered over the
surface of the ground.
“At Standen, near Hungerford, large masses of sarsen are found,
consisting almost _entirely_ of flints, formed into conglomerate with
the sand. Flints are also common in some of the large stones forming the
ancient temple of Avebury.
“The abundance of these remains, especially in some of the valleys of
North Wilts, is very remarkable. Few persons who have not seen them can
form an adequate idea of the extraordinary scene presented to the eye
of the spectator, who standing on the brow of one of the hills near
Clatford, sees stretching for miles before him, countless numbers of
these enormous stones, occupying the middle of the valley, and winding
like a mighty stream towards the south.”
These stones, then, may be regarded as closely associated with the local
geology.
The exact nature of the stones, called “blue stones,” can best be
gathered from a valuable “Note” by Prof. Judd which accompanies Prof.
Gowland’s paper. These blue stones are entirely unconnected with the
local geology; they must, therefore, represent boulders of the Glacial
drift, or they must have been brought by man, from distant localities.
Prof. Judd inclines to the first opinion.
The distinction between these two kinds of stone are well shown by Prof.
Gowland:--
“The large monoliths of the outer circle, and the trilithons of the
horse-shoe are all sarsens. [See general plan, Fig. 15.] These sarsens
in their composition are sandstones, consisting of quartz-sand, either
fine or coarse, occasionally mixed with pebbles and angular bits of
flint, all more or less firmly cemented together with silica. They are
the relics of the concretionary masses which had become consolidated in
the sandstone beds that once overlaid the chalk of the district, and had
resisted the destructive agencies by which the softer parts of the beds
were removed in geological times. They range in structure from a
granular rock resembling loaf sugar in internal appearance to one of
great compactness similar to and sometimes passing into quartzite.
“The monoliths and trilithons all consist of the granular rock. The
examples of the compact quartzite variety, of which many were found in
the excavations, were almost without exception either hammerstones that
had been used in shaping and dressing the monoliths, or fragments which
had been broken from off them in these operations.
“The small monoliths, the so-called ‘blue stones,’ which form the inner
circle and the inner horse-shoe, are, with the undermentioned
exceptions, all of diabase more or less porphyritic. Two are porphyrite
(formerly known as felstone or hornstone). Two are argillaceous
sandstone.
“Mr. William Cunnington, in his valuable paper, ‘Stonehenge Notes,’
records the discovery of two stumps of ‘blue stones’ now covered by the
turf. One of these lies in the inner horseshoe between Nos. 61 and 62,
and 9 feet distant from the latter. It is diabase. The other is in the
inner circle between Nos. 32 and 33, 10 feet from the former, and
consists of a soft calcareous altered tuff, afterwards designated for
the sake of brevity fissile rock.
“The altar stone is of micaceous sandstone.”
I now come to the second point, to which I shall return in the next
chapter.
In studying the material obtained from the excavations, it was found in
almost every case that the number of chippings and fragments of blue
stone largely exceeded that of the sarsens; more than this, diabase
(blue stone) and sarsen were found together in the layer overlying the
solid chalk (p. 15). Chippings of diabase were the most abundant, but
there were few large pieces of it. Sarsen, on the other hand, occurred
most abundantly in lumps (p. 20); very few small chips of sarsen were
found (p. 42). Hence Prof. Gowland is of opinion that the sarsen blocks
were roughly hewn where they were found (p. 40); the local tooling,
executed with the small quartzite hammers and mauls, would produce not
chips but dust.
[Illustration: FIG. 20.--Showing the careful tooling of the Sarsens.]
Finally, I reach the third point of importance from the present
standpoint; the excavations produced clear evidence touching the mode of
erection. Prof. Gowland’s memoir deals only with the leaning stone, but
I take it for granted that the same method was employed throughout: the
method was this.
[Illustration: FIG. 21.--Face of rock against which a stone was made to
rest.]
(1) The ground in the site a stone was to occupy was removed, the chalk
rock being cut into in such a manner as to leave a ledge, on which the
base of the stone was to rest, _and a perpendicular face rising from it,
against which as a buttress_ one side would bear when set up. From the
bottom of this hole an inclined plane was cut to the surface down which
the monolith which had already been dressed was slid until its base
rested on the ledge.
(2) It was then gradually raised into a vertical position by means first
of levers and afterwards of ropes. The levers would be long trunks of
trees, to one end of which a number of ropes was attached (this method
is still employed in Japan); so that the weights and pulling force of
many men might be exerted on them. The stronger ropes were probably of
hide or hair, but others of straw, or of withes of hazel or willow, may
have been in use for minor purposes.
(3) As the stone was raised, it was packed up with logs of timber and
probably also with blocks of stone placed beneath it.
(4) After its upper end had reached a certain elevation, ropes were
attached to it, and it was then hauled by numerous men into a vertical
position, _so that its back rested against the perpendicular face of the
chalk which had been prepared for it_. During this part of the
operation, struts of timber would probably be placed against its sides
to guard against slip, a precaution taken when the leaning stone was
raised and until the foundation was properly set.
As regards the raising of the lintels, and imposts, and the placing of
them on the tops of the uprights, there would be even less difficulty
than in the erection of the uprights themselves.
[Illustration: FIG. 22.--The leaning stone upright before the struts
were removed.]
It could be easily effected by the simple method practised in Japan for
placing heavy blocks of stone in position. The stone, when lying on the
ground, would be raised a little at one end by means of long wooden
levers. A packing of logs would then be placed under the end so raised,
the other extremity of the stone would be similarly raised and packed,
and the raising and packing at alternate ends would be continued until
the block had gradually reached the height of the uprights. It would
then be simply pushed forward by levers until it rested upon them.
[Illustration: FIG. 23.--Stonehenge, 1905.]
It is not often that an engineering operation has been made so
subservient to the interests of science as the one we have dealt with in
this chapter. It is satisfactory to know not only that much new
knowledge has been acquired by Professor Gowland and his coadjutors, but
that the famous leaning stone has now been set upright in such fashion
that it will remain upright for hundreds of years. May the other leaning
stones soon receive the same treatment.
[15] Sir Richard Colt Hoare, _Ancient History of South Wiltshire_, p.
127. (London, 1812); W. Stukeley, _Stonehenge_, p. 46. (London, 1740).
[16] _Wilts Archaeological and Natural History Magazine_, xxi. pp.
141-149.
CHAPTER IX
WAS THERE AN EARLIER CIRCLE?
When we come to examine Stonehenge carefully in relation to the
orientation theory, it soon becomes clear that its outer circle of
upright stones with lintels, and the inner naos, built of trilithons,
oriented in the line of the “avenue” and the summer solstice sunrise,
are not the only things to be considered. These stones, all composed of
sarsen, which, be it remarked, have been trimmed and tooled, are not
alone in question. We have:--
(1) An interior circle broken in many places, and other stones near the
naos, composed of stones, “blue stones,” which, as we have seen, are of
an entirely different origin and composition.
(2) Two smaller _untrimmed_ sarsen stones lying near the vallum, _not_
at the same distance from it, the line joining them passing nearly, but
not quite, through the centre of the sarsen circle. The amplitude of the
line joining them is approximately 26° S. of E. and 26° N. of W. Of
these stones, the stump of the N.W. one is situated 22 feet from the top
of the vallum according to the Ordnance plan. The S.E. stone has fallen,
but according to careful observations and measurements by Mr. Penrose,
when erect its centre was 14 feet from the top of the vallum. The centre
of the line joining the stones is therefore about 4 feet to the S.E. of
the axis of the present circles, which, it may be stated, passes 3 feet
to the N.W. of the N.W. edge of the Friar’s Heel (see Fig. 24).
[Illustration: FIG. 24.--Map of the Stones made by the Ordnance
Survey.[17] A, N.W. stone; B, S.E. stone; C, Friar’s Heel; D, Slaughter
stone.]
There are besides these two large _untrimmed_ sarsen stones, one
standing some distance outside the vallum, one recumbent lying on the
vallum; both nearly, but not quite, in the sunrise line as viewed from
the centre of the sarsen circle. These are termed the “Friar’s Heel” and
“Slaughter Stone” respectively.
I will deal with (1) first, and begin by another quotation from Mr.
Cunnington, who displayed great acumen in dealing with the smaller
stones not sarsens.
“The most important consideration connected with the smaller stones, and
one which in its archæological bearing has been too much overlooked, is
the fact of their having been brought from a great distance. I expressed
an opinion on this subject in a lecture delivered at Devizes more than
eighteen years ago, and I have been increasingly impressed with it
since. I believe that these stones would not have been brought from such
a distance to a spot where an abundance of building stones equally
suitable in every respect already existed, unless some special or
religious value had been attached to them. This goes far to prove that
Stonehenge was _originally a temple_, and neither a monument raised to
the memory of the dead, nor an astronomical calendar or almanac.
“It has been suggested that they were Danams, or the offerings of
successive votaries. Would there in such case have been such uniformity
of design, or would they have been all alike of foreign materials? I
would make one remark about the small impost of a trilithon of syenite,
now lying prostrate within the circle. One writer has followed another
in taking it for granted that there must have been a second,
corresponding with it, on the opposite side. Of this there is neither
proof nor record, not a trace of one having been seen by any person who
has written on the subject. This small impost, not being of sarsen, but
syenite, must have belonged to the original old circle; _it may even
have suggested to the builders of the present Stonehenge the idea of the
large imposts, and trilithons with their tenons and mortices_.”
In Prof. Gowland’s examination of the contents of the holes necessarily
dug in his operations, it was found over and over again, indeed almost
universally, that the quantity of blue stone chippings was much greater
than that from the sarsen stones. While the sarsen stones had only been
worked or tooled on their surface, the blue stones had been hewed and
trimmed in extraordinary fashion; indeed it is stated by Prof. Judd that
they had been reduced to half their original dimensions in this process,
the chippings almost equalling the volume of the stones themselves.
It seems, then, that when the sarsen stones were set up, the sarsen and
blue stones were treated very differently. This being so, the following
quotation from Prof. Judd’s “Note” is interesting (_Archaeologia_,
lviii., p. 81):--
“I may repeat my conviction that if the prevalent beliefs and traditions
concerning Stonehenge were true, and the “bluestone” circles were
transported from some distant locality, either as trophies of war or as
the sacred treasures of a wandering tribe, it is quite inconceivable
that they should have been hewed and chipped, as we now know them to
have been, and reduced in some cases to half their dimensions, _after
having been carried with enormous difficulty over land and water, and
over hills and valleys_. On the other hand, in the glacial drift, which
once probably thinly covered the district, the glacial deposits dying
out very gradually as we proceed southwards, we have a source from which
such stones might probably have been derived. It is quite a well-known
peculiarity of the glacial drift to exhibit considerable assemblages of
stones of a particular character at certain spots, each of these
assemblages having probably been derived from the same source.
“I would therefore suggest as probable that when the early inhabitants
of this island commenced the erection of Stonehenge, Salisbury Plain was
sprinkled over thickly with the great white masses of the sarsen-stones
(‘grey wethers’), and much more sparingly with darker coloured boulders
(the so-called ‘blue-stones’), the last relics of the glacial drift,
which have been nearly denuded away. From these two kinds of materials
the stones suitable for the contemplated temple were selected. It is
even possible that the abundance and association of these two kinds of
materials so strikingly contrasted in colour and appearance, at a
particular spot, may not only have decided the site, but to some extent
have suggested the architectural features of the noble structure of
Stonehenge.”
If we grant everything that Prof. Judd states, the question remains--why
did the same men in the same place at the same time treat the sarsen and
blue stones so differently?
I shall show subsequently that there is a definite answer to the
question on one assumption.
I next come to (2). The important point about these stones is that with
the amplitude 26°, at Stonehenge, a line from the centre of the circle
over the N.W. stone would mark the sunset place in the first week in
May, and a line over the S.E. stone would similarly deal with the
November sunrise. We are thus brought in presence of the May-November
year.
Another point about these stones is that they are not at the same
distance from the centre of the sarsen stone circle, which itself is
concentric with the temenos mound; this is why they lie at different
distances from the mound. Further, a line drawn from the point of the
Friar’s Heel over the now recumbent Slaughter Stone with the amplitude
determined by Mr. Penrose and myself for the summer solstice sunrise in
1680 B.C. cuts the line joining the stones at the middle point,
suggesting that the four untrimmed sarsen stones provided alignments
both for the May and June years at about that date.
Nor is this all; the so-called tumuli within the vallum (Fig. 10) may
have been observation mounds, for the lines passing from the northern
tumulus over the N.W. stone and from the southern tumulus over the S.E.
one are parallel to the avenue, and therefore represent the solstitial
orientation.
So much, then, for the stones. We see that, dealing only with the
untrimmed sarsens that remain, the places of the May sunset and June and
November sunrises were marked from the same central point.
Statements have been made that there was the stump of another stone
near the vallum to the S.W., in the line of the Friar’s Heel and
Slaughter Stone, produced backwards, at the same distance from the old
centre as the N.W. and S.E. stones. This stone was _not_ found in an
exploration by Sir Edmund Antrobus, Mr. Penrose and Mr. Howard Payn by
means of a sword and an auger. But the question will not be settled
until surface digging is permitted, as a “road” about which there is a
present contention passes near the spot.
[Illustration: FIG. 25.--The rod on the recumbent stone is placed in and
along the common axis of the present circle and avenue. It is seen that
the Friar’s Heel, the top of which is shown in the distance, would hide
the sunrise place if the axis were a little further to the S.E.]
But even this is not the only evidence we have for the May worship in
early times. There is an old tradition of the slaughter of Britons by
the Saxons at Stonehenge, known as “The Treachery of the Long Knives”;
according to some accounts, 460 British chieftains were killed while
attending a banquet and conference. Now at what time of the year did
this take place? Was it at the summer solstice on June 21? I have
gathered from Guest’s “Mabinogion,” vol. ii. p. 433, and Davies’s
“Mythology of the British Druids,” p. 333, that _the banquet took place
on May eve_ “_Meinvethydd_.” Is it likely that this date would have been
chosen in a solar temple dedicated exclusively to the solstice?
Now the theory to which my work and thought have led me is that the
megalithic structures at Stonehenge--the worked sarsens with their
mortices and lintels, and above all the trilithons of the magnificent
naos--represent a re-dedication and a reconstruction, on a more imposing
plan and scale, of a much older temple, which was originally used for
worship in connection with the May year.
[17] Plans and photographs of Stonehenge, &c., by Colonel Sir Henry
James, R.E., F.R.S., Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, 1867.
CHAPTER X
THE MAY AND JUNE WORSHIPS IN BRITTANY
I purpose next to inquire whether in the wonderful series of Megalithic
remains in Brittany, remains more extensive than any in Britain, any
light is thrown on the suggestion I have made that the May Worship
preceded the Solstitial Worship at Stonehenge.
It has long been known that the stones which compose the prehistoric
remains in Brittany are generally similar in size and shape to those at
Stonehenge, but, as I have already stated, in one respect there is a
vast difference. Instead of a few, arranged in circles as at Stonehenge,
we have an enormous multitude of the so-called menhirs arranged in many
parallel lines for great distances. Some of these are unhewn like the
Friar’s Heel, some have as certainly been trimmed.
The literature which has been devoted to them is very considerable, but
the authors of it, for the most part, have taken little or no pains to
master the few elementary astronomical principles which are necessary to
regard the monuments from the point of view of orientation.
It is consoling to know that this cannot be said of the last published
contribution to our knowledge of this region, which we owe to Monsieur
F. Gaillard, a member of the Paris Anthropological Society and of the
Polymathic Society of Morbihan at Plouharnel.[18]
M. Gaillard is a firm believer in the orientation theory, and accepts
the view that a very considerable number of the alignments are
solstitial. But although he gives the correct azimuths for the
solstitial points and also figures showing the values of the obliquity
of the ecliptic as far as 2200 B.C., his observations are not
sufficiently precise to enable a final conclusion to be drawn, and his
method of fixing the alignments and the selection of the index menhir
are difficult to gather from his memoir and the small plans which
accompany it, which, alas! deal with compass bearings only.
All the same, those interested in such researches owe a debt of
gratitude to M. Gaillard for his laborious efforts to increase our
knowledge, and will sympathise with him at the manner in which his
conclusions were treated by the Paris anthropologists. One of them,
apparently thinking that the place of sun rising is affected by the
precession of the equinoxes, used this convincing argument:--“Si, à
l’origine les alignements étaient orientés, comme le pense M. Gaillard,
ils ne le pourraient plus être aujourd’hui; au contraire, s’ils le sont
actuellement, on peut affirmer qu’ils ne l’étaient pas alors!”
M. Gaillard is not only convinced of the solstitial orientation of the
avenues, but finds the same result in the case of the dolmens.
I cannot find any reference in the text to any orientations dealing with
the farmers’ years, that is with amplitudes of about 25° N. and S. of
the E. and W. points; but in the diagrams on pp. 78 and 127 I find both
avenue and dolmen alignments, which within the limits of accuracy
apparently employed may perhaps with justice be referred to them; but
observations of greater accuracy must be made, and details of the
heights of the horizon at the various points given, before anything
certain can be said about them.
I append a reproduction of one of M. Gaillard’s plans, which will give
an idea of his use of the index menhir. It shows the alignments at Le
Ménec, lat. 47¹⁄₂° (Fig. 26). The line A--Soleil runs across the stone
alignments and is fixed from A by the menhir B, but there does not seem
any good reason for selecting B except that it appears to fall in the
line of the solstitial azimuth according to M. Gaillard. But if we take
this azimuth as N. 54° E., then we find the alignments to have an
azimuth roughly of N. 66° E., which gives us the amplitude of 24° N.
marking the place of sunrise at the beginning of the May and November
years, and the alignments may have dealt principally with those times of
the year.
I esteem it a most fortunate thing that while I have been casting about
as to the best way of getting more accurate data, Lieutenant Devoir, of
the French Navy and therefore fully equipped with all the astronomical
knowledge necessary; who resides at Brest and has been studying the
prehistoric monuments in his neighbourhood for many years, has been good
enough to give me the results of his work in that region, in which the
problems seem to be simpler than further south; for while in the
vicinity of Carnac the menhirs were erected in groups numbering five or
six thousand, near Brest, lat. 48¹⁄₂°, they are much more restricted in
number. I am much indebted to him for permission to use and publish his
results.
[Illustration: FIG. 26.--Alignments at Le Ménec.]
Lieutenant Devoir, by his many well-planned and approximately accurate
observations, has put the solstitial orientation beyond question, and,
further, has made important observations which prove that the May and
August sunrises were also provided for in the systems of alignments. I
give the following extracts from his letter:--
[Illustration: FIG. 27.--Menhir (A) on Melon Island.]
“It is about twelve years ago that I remarked in the west part of the
Department of Morbihan (near Lorient) the parallelism of the lines
marked out by monuments of all sorts, and frequently oriented to the
N.E., or rather between N. 50° E. and N. 55° E. I had ascertained,
moreover, the existence of lines perpendicular to the first named, the
right angle being very well measured.
“The plans, which refer to the cantons of Ploudalmézeau and of St. Renan
(district of Brest) and of Crozon (district of Chateaulin), have been
made on a plane-table; the orientations are exact to one or two degrees.
“In the cantons of Ploudalmézeau and of St. Renan, the monuments are
generally simple; seven menhirs are visible of enormous dimensions,
remarkable by the polish of their surface and the regularity of their
section. The roughnesses hardly ever reach a centimetre; the sections
are more often ovals, sometimes rectangles with the angles rounded or
terminated by semicircles. In the canton of Crozon the monuments are, on
the contrary, complex; we find a cromlech with an avenue leading to it
of a length of 800 metres, another of 300 metres. Unfortunately, the
rocks employed (sandstone and schist from Plungastel and Crozon) have
resisted less well than the granulite from the north part of the
Department. The monuments are for the most part in a very bad condition;
the whole must, nevertheless, formerly have been comparable with that of
Carnac-Leomariaquer.
[Illustration: FIG. 28.--Melon Island, showing Menhir (A) and Cromlech
(B and C).]
“For the two regions, granitic and schistose, the results of the
observations are identical.
“The monuments lie along lines oriented S. 54° W. → N. 54° E. (54° =
azimuth at the solstices for L = 48° 30′ and _i_ = 23° 30′) and N. 54°
W. → S. 54° E. Some of them determine lines perpendicular to the
meridian.
[Illustration: FIG. 29.--Menhirs of St. Dourzal, D, E, F.]
“One menhir (A), 6m. 90 in height and 9m. 20 in circumference, erected
in the small island of Melon (canton of Ploudalmézeau, latitude 48° 29′
05″) a few metres from a tumulus surrounded by the ruins of a cromlech
(B and C), has the section such that the faces, parallel and remarkably
plane, are oriented N. 54° E. (Figs. 27 and 28).
“At 1300 metres in the same azimuth there is a line of three large
menhirs (D, E, F), of which one (E) is overthrown. The direction of the
line passes exactly by the menhir A. Prolonged towards the N.E. it
meets at 3k. 700m. an overturned block of 2m. 50 in height, which is
without doubt a menhir; towards the S.W. it passes a little to the south
some lines of the island of Molène.... (Fig. 29).
[Illustration: FIG. 30.--Alignment at Lagatjar, G G′.]
“There exists in the neighbourhood other groups, forming also lines of
the same orientation and that of the winter solstice. It is advisable to
remark that orientations well determined for the solstices are much less
so for the equinoxes, which is natural, the rising amplitude varying
very rapidly at this time of year.
“The same general dispositions are to be found in the complex monuments
of the peninsula of Crozon. I take for example the alignments of
Lagatjar. Two parallel lines of menhirs, G G′ H H′, are oriented to S.
54° E. and cut perpendicularly by a third line, I I′. There existed less
than fifty years ago a menhir at K, 6 metres high, which is to-day
broken and overturned. This megalith, known in the country by the name
of ‘pierre du Conseil’ (a bronze axe was found underneath it) gives with
a dolmen situated near Camaret the direction of the sunrise on June 21
(Fig. 31).
[Illustration: FIG. 31.--Alignments at Lagatjar, showing the pierre du
Conseil and the direction of the dolmen. From the pierre du Conseil the
dolmen marks the sunrise place at the summer solstice, and the avenue G
G′ H H′ the sunset place on the same day.]
“I have just spoken of the lines perpendicular to the solstitial one;
there exists more especially in the complex monuments another
particularity which merits attention. Between two monuments, M and N, on
a solstitial line, sometimes other menhirs are noticed, the line joining
them being inclined 12° to the solstitial line, always towards the east”
(Fig. 32).
I must call particular attention to this important observation of
Lieutenant Devoir, for it gives us the amplitude 24° N., the direction
of sunrise at the beginning of the May and August years. It shows,
moreover, that, as at Le Ménec according to M. Gaillard, the solstitial
and May-August directions were both provided for at the monuments in
the neighbourhood of Brest so carefully studied by Lieutenant Devoir.
[Illustration: FIG. 32.--Menhirs, M N on N.E.-S.W. solstitial alignment.
Menhirs 1, 2, on May-August years alignment, sunrise May-August, sunset
November-February.]
Lieutenant Devoir points out the wonderful regularity of form and the
fine polish of many of the menhirs. It will have been gathered from his
account that those most carefully trimmed and tooled belong to the
solstitial alignments. The one at Kerloas (11 metres high) heads the
list in point of size; others in the island of Melon (7 metres), at
Kergadion (8 metres and 10 metres), Kerenneur, Kervaon and Kermabion
follow suit. He considers them to have been erected at the time of the
highest civilisation of the Megalithic peoples. He also states that
these regularly formed menhirs do not exist at Carnac, or in the region
of Pont l’Abbé, so rich in other remains which certainly refer chiefly
to the May-November year. It seems, then, that in these localities the
May-August worship first chiefly predominated, and that the index
menhirs of M. Gaillard which indicate the solstice and which do not form
part of the alignments were erected subsequently.
Finally, then, the appeal to Brittany is entirely in favour of the
May-November year worship having preceded the solstitial one.
I have already stated the evidence at Stonehenge that the sunrise at the
beginning of the May and August years was observed in an earlier temple
which existed before the present structure existed. Were this so we have
another point common to the British and Breton monuments. I therefore
think that I may justly claim the Brittany evidence as entirely in
favour of the suggestion put forward in Chap. IX with regard to
Stonehenge.
[18] “L’Astronomie Préhistorique.” Published in “Les Sciences
Populaires, revue mensuelle internationale,” and issued separately by
the administration des “Sciences populaires,” 15 Rue Lebrun, Paris.
CHAPTER XI
ASTRONOMICAL HINTS FOR ARCHÆOLOGISTS
The foregoing chapters will have shown that in dealing with the ancient
monuments from an astronomical point of view, we have to consider
chiefly the direction of the sight-lines, whether they are marked as in
Brittany by long rows of stones--alignments; as at Stonehenge by an
avenue; as in some of our British circles, by two or more circles the
direction being indicated from the central stone of one to the central
stone of the other, or finally by a single standing stone or barrow.
It is important then that before we proceed further in our inquiries we
should consider how a meaning is got out of these directions, and I
propose to devote this chapter to this question, so that the full use of
the “azimuths” already referred to and others which are to follow may be
fully understood.
There is another matter, at which I hinted on pp. 36 and 42. We have to
inquire whether there are any stones or barrows marking the direction of
the rising or setting of _stars_, as well as those which deal with the
rising and setting of the _sun_ at different times of the year, which we
have already found at Stonehenge and in Brittany. To face this question
we have to consider the stellar as well as solar conditions of
observations, and as the former are the simpler I will begin with them,
especially as now there is no question whatever that the rising and
setting of stars were provided for.
In continuation of my work in Egypt in 1891, and Mr. Penrose’s in Greece
in 1892, I have recently endeavoured to see whether there are any traces
in Britain of star observations, including those connected with the
worship of the sun at certain times of the year. We both discovered that
stars, far out of the sun’s course, especially in Egypt, were observed
in the dawn as heralds of sunrise--“warning-stars”--so that the priests
might have time to prepare the sunrise sacrifice. To do this properly
the star should rise while the sun is still about 10° below the horizon.
There is also reason to believe that stars rising not far from the north
point were also used as clock-stars to enable the time to be estimated
during the night in the same way as the time during the day could be
estimated by the position of the sun.
I stated (_Dawn of Astronomy_, p. 319) that Spica was the star the
heliacal rising of which heralded the sun on May-day 3200 B.C. in the
temple of Menu at Thebes. Sirius was associated with the summer solstice
at about the same time.
Mr. Penrose found this May-day worship continued at Athens on
foundations built in 1495 B.C. and 2020 B.C., on which the Hecatompedon
and older Erechtheum respectively were subsequently built, the warning
star being now no longer Spica, but the cluster of the Pleiades rising,
or Antares setting, in the dawn.
It is generally known that Stonehenge is associated with the solstitial
year, and I have suggested that it was originally connected with the
May year; but the probable date of its re-dedication, 1680 B.C., was
determined by Mr. Penrose and myself by the change of obliquity.
Now if Stonehenge or any other British stone circle could be proved to
have used observations of warning stars, the determination of the date
when such observations were made would be enormously facilitated. Mr.
Penrose and myself were content to think that our date might be within
200 years of the truth, whereas if we could use the rapid movement of
stars in declination brought about by the precession of the equinoxes,
instead of the slow change of the sun’s declination brought about by the
change of the value of the obliquity, a possible error of 200 years
would be reduced to one of 10 years.
In spite of this enormous advantage, no one so far as I know has yet
made any inquiry to connect star observations with any of the British
circles.
I have recently obtained clear evidence that some circles in different
parts of Britain were used for night work and also in relation to the
May year, which we know was general over the whole of Europe in early
times, and which still determines the quarter-days in Scotland.
If the Egyptian and Greek practice were continued here, we should expect
then to find some indications of the star observations utilised at the
temple of Min and at the Hecatompedon for the beginning, or the other
chief months, of the May year.
I have found them, and I will now show the method employed.
To begin with, if we assume that the astronomer-priests here did
attempt such observations, what is the most likely way in which they
would have gone to work?
The easiest way for the astronomer-priests to conduct such observations
in a stone circle would be to erect a stone or barrow indicating the
direction of the place on the horizon at which the star would rise as
seen from the centre of the circle. If the dawn the star was to herald
occurred in the summer, the stone or barrow itself might be visible if
not too far away, but there was a reason why they should not be too
close; in a solemn ceremonial the less seen of the machinery the better.
Doubtless such stones and barrows would be rendered obvious in the dark
by a light placed on or near them. Cups which could hold oil or grease
are known in connection with such stones, and a light thus fed would
suffice in the open if there were no wind; but in windy weather a
cromlech or some similar shelter must have been provided for it.
Now if these standing stones or barrows were ever erected and still
remain, accurate plans--not the slovenly plans with which Ferguson and
too many others have provided us, giving us either no indication of the
north or any other point, or else a rough compass bearing without taking
the trouble to state the variation at the time and place--will help us.
I have already pointed out that much time has been lost in the
investigation of our stone circles, for the reason that in many cases
the exact relations of the monuments to the chief points of the horizon,
and therefore to the place of sunrise at different times of the year,
have not been considered; and when they were, the observations were
made only with reference to the magnetic north, which is different at
different places, and besides is always varying; few indeed have tried
to get at the real astronomical conditions of the problem. The first, I
think, was Mr. Jonathan Otley, who in 1849 showed the “orientation” of
the Keswick circle “according to the solar meridian,” giving true solar
bearings throughout the year.
In my opinion the most accurate plans conceivable, in the absence of a
long and minute local inquiry, are the 25-inch maps of the Ordnance
Survey, on which, I have it on the authority of Colonel Johnston the
distinguished Director, each stone may be taken to be shown with a limit
of error of 6 feet. With a large circular protractor azimuths can be
read to one minute of arc, and in critical cases the true azimuth of the
side lines, which are not necessarily meridians as latitudes are not
marked, can be found on inquiry at the Ordnance Office, Southampton.
Having then true azimuths, the next question concerns the declinations
of the stars which may have been observed.
The work of Stockwell in America, Danckworth in Germany,[19] and Dr. W.
J. S. Lockyer in England, has provided us with tables of the changing
declinations of stars throughout past time, or enough of it for our
purpose.
An accurate determination on the 25-inch map of either the _azimuth_
(angular distance from the N. or S. points) or _amplitude_ (angular
distance from the E. or W. points) of the stone or barrow as seen from
the centre of the stone circle will enable us to determine the
declination of the star at the time when it was observed.
I give a diagram which enables this determination to be made with the
greatest ease for any monuments between Land’s End and John o’ Groats,
whether the direction is recorded by amplitude or azimuth; the
declination is read at the side from the value of either indicated, say,
by a dot, at the proper latitude.
This, of course, only gives us a first approximation. The angular height
of the point on the horizon to which the alignment or sight-line is
directed by the stone or barrow from the centre of the circle must be
most accurately determined, otherwise the declinations may be one or two
degrees out.
In the absence of measurements it is convenient to assume, in the first
instance, that the horizon is half a degree high, as with this elevation
refraction is compensated, as the following table will show:
Elevation of actual Bessel’s
horizon. refraction. Combined effect.
0°0′0″ 34′54″ -34′54″
0°10′ 32′49″ -22′49″
20′ 30′52″ -10′52″
30′ 29′3·5″ +0′56·5″
40′ 27′22·7″ +12′37·3″
50′ 25′49·8″ +24′10·2″
1°0′ 24′24·6″ +35′35·4″
In the absence of theodolite observations the actual elevation of the
horizon can be roughly found by a study of the contour lines on the
1-inch map. The following heights will agree with the previous
assumption of hills ¹⁄₂° high:
Distance 1 mile Height = 46 feet
„ 2 miles „ = 92 „
„ 4 „ „ = 184 „
„ 8 „ „ = 368 „
„ 10 „ „ = 460 „
[Illustration: FIG. 33.--Diagram for finding declination from given
amplitudes or azimuths in British latitudes.
~Curves represent (from top) Lat. 49°, 51°, 53°, 55°, 57° and 59°.~]
I also give other diagrams showing the changing declinations of the
brightest stars, those which would naturally be observed, between the
years 150 A.D. and 2150 B.C. These have been plotted from the
calculations of the authorities I have named.
Fig. 34 deals with the Northern stars. The stars are numbered as
follows:--
Number. Name of star.
1 β Ursae Minoris.
2 α Ursae Minoris (Polaris).
3 α Draconis.
4 α Ursae Majoris (Dubhe).
5 γ Ursae Majoris.
6 η Ursae Majoris (Benetnasch).
7 γ Draconis.
8 β Cassiopeiae.
9 α Cassiopeiae.
10 α Persei.
11 α Aurigae (Capella).
12 α Cygni.
13 α Lyrae (Vega).
14 α Coronae.
15 α Geminorum (Castor).
16 β Geminorum (Pollux).
17 α Boötes (Arcturus).
18 β Leonis.
19 α Leonis (Regulus).
20 α Andromedae.
21 η Tauri (Alcyone).
22 α Tauri (Aldebaran).
23 α Canis Minoris (Procyon).
24 α Aquilae.
25 α Orionis (Betelgeuse).
26 α Virginis (Spica).
On Fig. 35, dealing with the Southern stars, the names are given along
the curves.
* * * * *
Now supposing that we have our plans; that we have determined the
azimuth of the sight lines; and have found the declination of the star
observed; we may find more than one star occupying that declination at
various dates.
[Illustration: FIG. 34.--Declinations of Northern Stars from 250 A.D. to
2150 B.C.]
Which of these stars, then, must we consider?
Obviously those most conveniently situated for enabling the time to be
estimated during the night, or those which could have been used as
warning stars.
[Illustration: FIG. 35.--Declinations of Southern Stars from 250 A.D. to
2150 B.C.
α Ceti, α Aquarii, β Orionis, α Capricorni, α Canis Majoris, α Scorpii,
α Columbæ, α Pisces Austr., η Argûs, α Centauri, α Argûs, α Crucis, α
Gruis, and α Eridani.]
The warning stars can be conveniently picked up by using a precessional
globe. From it we gather that about 1900, 1400 and 800 B.C. they were as
follows for the critical times of the May year, _i.e._ May, August,
November, February:--
1900 B.C. 1400 B.C. 800 B.C.
May Castor rising Pleiades rising Pleiades rising
N. 41° E. N. 77° E. N. 71° E.
Antares setting Antares setting
S. 75° W. S. 72° W.
August Arcturus Arcturus rising Sirius rising
circumpolar. N. 17° E. S. 63° E.
With hill 3′ high:--
Rising.
Date 2170 B.C. N. 11°15′ E.
„ 2090 B.C. N. 14°18′ E.
„ 1900 B.C. N. 18°44′ E.
November Betelgeuse setting
N. 87° W.
February Capella rising Capella rising Capella rising
N. 36° E. N. 28° E. N. 21° E.
For the solstices, that is, June and December, the following stars might
be used as warners:--
1900 B.C. 1400 B.C. 800 B.C.
Summer Solstice Betelgeuse rising Betelgeuse γ Geminorum
N. 87° E. rising N. 90° E. rising
Arcturus setting Arcturus setting N. 68° E.
with hill 3′ high (late) N. 16° W. (“Alhena”
N. 18° W. α Serpentis mag. 1·9.)
setting N. 53° W.
Winter Solstice Sheat rising (early) Castor α Capricorni
N. 72° E. setting N. 37° W. rising
Markab rising (late) Pollux S. 66° E.
S. 89° E. setting N. 42° W.
It is obvious that a star used all the year round for night work will
warn the sunrise at some one of the yearly festivals.
When the stars having the same declinations are considered from this
point of view, the star actually used, and _therefore the date of its
use_, may generally be gathered. I shall show subsequently that some of
the stars in the above lists were actually observed in British as well
as in Grecian temples.
[19] Dr. O. Danckworth, _Vierteljahrschrift der Astronomischen
Gesellschaft_, 16. Jahrgang 1881, p. 9. Dr. Stockwell’s results have
been communicated to me by letter. Some, but not all, of Dr. Lockyer’s
calculations appeared in _The Dawn of Astronomy_.
CHAPTER XII
ASTRONOMICAL HINTS FOR ARCHÆOLOGISTS--_Continued._
I next come to the sun observations.
First we must consider the astronomical differences between the rising
of a star and of the sun, by which we generally mean that small part of
the sun’s limb first visible.
It is frequently imagined that for determining the exact place of
sunrise or sunset in connection with these ancient monuments we have to
deal with the sun’s centre, as we should do with the sun half risen. As
a matter of fact, we must consider that part of the sun’s limb which
first makes its appearance above the horizon; the first glimpse of the
upper limb of the sun is in question, say, when the visible limb is 2′
high; and we must carefully take the height of the hills over which it
rises into account.
The accompanying diagram will at once show the difference between the
rising conditions we have now to consider. It deals with the summer
solstice, as being the most precise case, in Lat. 59° N.
At this time the position of the sun, _that is of the sun’s centre_, as
given in the “Nautical Almanac,” is represented by the double circle on
the sea horizon.
[Illustration: FIG. 36.--The Conditions of “Sunrise” at the Summer
Solstice in Lat. 59° N.
~Vertical axis from bottom: Altitudes SEA HORIZON, HILL ¹⁄₂° HIGH, HILL
1° HIGH, HILL 1¹⁄₂° HIGH.~
~Horizontal axis from left: Azimuths N 37°-42° E.~]
The azimuth of this position is N. 39° 16′ E. This is the equivalent of
the declination of a star, but it will be seen that the real azimuths we
want are very different. The dotted circles represent the actual
position of the sun with regard to the horizon, the continuous circles
the apparent positions caused by the lifting-up effect of refraction. We
have the positions in azimuth of the apparent sun as it appears on a sea
horizon, and when the horizon is formed by hills up to 1¹⁄₂° in vertical
height.
To make this quite clear I give a table which has been computed by Mr.
Rolston, of the Solar Physics Observatory, showing azimuths with hills
up to 1¹⁄₂° high for lat. 59° N., and 51° N. nearly the latitude of
Stonehenge, of the sun’s upper limb for the summer solstice:--
Lat. 59° Lat. 51°
SUMMER Rising N-E or Rising N-E or
SOLSTICE. Setting N-W. Setting N-W.
° ′ ° ′
Sun’s centre; uncorrected 39 16 50 40
{sea horizon 37 1 49 20
Sun’s upper limb; corrected{hill ¹⁄₂° high 38 34 50 16
for semi-diameter and { „ 1° „ 40 8 51 12
refraction { „ 1¹⁄₂° „ 41 30 52 4
WINTER Rising S-E or Rising S-E or
SOLSTICE. Setting S-W. Setting S-W.
° ′ ° ′
Sun’s centre; uncorrected 39 16 50 40
{sea horizon 41 24 52 0
Sun’s upper limb; corrected{hill ¹⁄₂° high 39 54 51 4
for semi-diameter and { „ 1° „ 38 23 50 8
refraction { „ 1¹⁄₂° „ 36 54 49 14
The first important thing we learn from the table is that although at
both solstices the azimuths of the rising and setting of the sun’s
centre are the same, these azimuths of the upper limb at the summer and
winter solstices differ in a high northern latitude by some 5°. The
difference arises, of course, from the fact that the limb is some 16′
from the sun’s centre, so that considering the sun’s centre as a star
with fixed declination, at rising the limb appears before the centre,
and at setting it lags behind it.
[Illustration: FIG. 37.--The Azimuths of the Sunrise (upper limb) at the
Summer Solstice.
The values given in the table have been plotted, and the effect of the
height of hills on the azimuth is shown. The range of latitude given
enables the diagram to be used in connection with the solstitial
alignments at Carnak, Le Ménac, and other monuments in Brittany.
~Vertical axis from bottom: LAT. 47-59.~
~Horizontal axis from left: AZIMUTHS 37-56.~
~Curves from left: SEA HORIZON, HILLS ¹⁄₂°, 1°, 1¹⁄₂°~]
It will also be seen that at sunrise hills increase the azimuth from N.,
and refraction reduces it; while at setting, hills reduce the azimuth
from S. and refraction increases it.
This diagram and table should fully explain the variation of azimuth at
sunrise caused by the fact that from our present point of view we do not
deal with the sun as a star.
To make the foregoing applicable for monuments in all latitudes between
Brittany and the Orkneys, I give still another diagram, Fig. 37, also
prepared for me by Mr. Rolston which will enable any archæologist to
determine approximately, _for the present time_, the azimuth of sunrise
at the summer solstice, without waiting for the 21st of June in any year
actually to observe it.
As before stated, I have dealt with the solstice in this chapter because
it affords us the most precise case. I hope to be able to deal with the
May year sun in the same way later on.
CHAPTER XIII
STENNESS (Lat. 59° N.).
I wrote a good deal in _Nature_[20] on sun and star temples in 1891, and
Mr. Lewis the next year expressed the opinion that the British stone
monuments, or some of them, were sun and star temples.
Mr. Magnus Spence, of Deerness, in Orkney, published a pamphlet,
“Standing Stones and Maeshowe of Stenness,”[21] in 1894; it is a reprint
of an article in the _Scottish Review_, October, 1893, showing that the
stones were set up for solar worship. Mr. Cursiter, F.S.A., of Kirkwall,
in a letter to me dated March 15, 1894, a letter suggested by my “Dawn
of Astronomy,” which appeared in that year, and in which the articles
which had been published in _Nature_ in 1891 had been expanded, directed
my attention to the pamphlet.
I began the consideration of the Stenness circles and alignments in
1901, but other pressing calls on my time then caused me to break off
the inquiry. Quite recently it occurred to me that a complete study of
the Stenness circles might throw light on the question of an earlier
Stonehenge, so I have gone over the old papers, plotting the results on
the Ordnance map.
[Illustration: FIG. 38.--Maeshowe, in the foreground, and the Stones of
Stenness. From “Notice of Runic Inscriptions,” by James Farrer, M.P.
(1862).]
Now that the inquiry is as complete as I can make it without spending
some time in Orkney with a theodolite, I will begin my reference to
other circles besides Stonehenge by stating the conclusions at which I
have arrived with regard to the stones of Stenness.
In the first place I may state that although many of the alignments to
which Mr. Spence refers in his pamphlet on Maeshowe prove to be very
different from those he supposed and drew on the map which accompanies
his paper, the main point of his contention is amply confirmed.
I give a copy of the Ordnance map showing the true orientation of these
and of other sight-lines I have made out.
The alignments on which Mr. Spence chiefly depended were two, one
running from the stone circle past the entrance of Maeshowe to the place
of sunrise at Hallowe’en (November 1), another from the same circle by
the Barnhouse standing stone to the mid-winter sunrise at the solstice.
Although the map gives these sight-lines, I shall show that they had not
the use Mr. Spence attributes to them; but still observations of the sun
were provided for on the days in question, and the circles and
outstanding stones were undoubtedly set up to guide astronomical
observations relating to the different times of the year. Of course, as
I have shown elsewhere, such astronomical observations were always
associated with religious celebrations of one kind or another, as the
astronomer and the priest were one.
[Illustration: FIG. 39.--Copy of Ordnance Map showing chief sight-lines
from the stones of Stenness.]
I shall not refer to all the sight-lines indicated, but deal only with
those which I have without local knowledge been able to test and justify
by means of the 25-inch Ordnance map.
Not only does calculation prove the worship of the May and June years,
but I think the facts now before us really go to show that in Orkney the
May year was the first established, and that the solstitial (June) year
came afterwards, and this was one of the chief questions I had in view.
I will begin with the May year. I have already shown, p. 22, that the
half-way time between an equinox and a solstice is when the sun’s centre
has a declination approximately 16° 20′ N. or S. In Orkney, with the
latitude of 59°, assuming a sea horizon, the approximate amplitude of
sunrise or sunset is 33° 6′, the corresponding azimuth being 56° 54′.
Now the most interesting and best defined line near this azimuth on the
Ordnance map is the one stretching S.E. from the centre of the Stenness
circle to the Barnstone, with an azimuth of 57° 15′. The line contains
between the two points I have named another stone, the Watchstone, 18¹⁄₂
feet high, in the precise alignment; and from the statements made and
measures given it is to be inferred that a still more famous and
perforated stone, the “Stone of Odin,” demolished seventy years since,
was also in the same line within the extremities named.
If we may accept this we learn something about perforated stones, and
can understand most of the folk lore associated with them, and few have
more connected with them than the one at Stenness. I suggest that the
perforation, which was in this case 5 feet from the ground, was used by
the astronomer-priest to view the sunrise in November over the Barnhouse
stone in one direction, and the sunset in May over the circle in the
other. I hope to be able to return to this question subsequently.
There is another echo of this fundamental line; that joining the Ring of
Bookan and the Stones of Via has the same azimuth and doubtless served
the same purpose for the May year.
But this line, giving us the May sunset and November sunrise, _not_ the
December solstitial sunrise as Mr. Spence shows it, is not the only
orientation connected with the May year at the stones of Stenness. The
November sunset is provided for by a sight-line from the circle to a
stone across the Loch of Stenness with an azimuth of S. 53° 30′ W.
To apply the table, given on p. 120, to the solstitial risings and
settings at Stenness, and the sight-lines which I have plotted on the
map, it will be seen that the table shows us that the lines marked
S. 41° 0′ E.
N. 41° 16′ E. S. 36° 30′ W.
are solstitial lines; to get exact agreement with the table the heights
of the hills must be found and allowed for.
I have roughly determined this height from the 1-inch map in the case of
the Barnstone-Maeshowe alignment. On the N.E. horizon are the Burrien
Hills, four miles away, 600 feet high at the sunrise place, gradually
ascending to the E., vertical angle = 1° 36′ 30″. The near alignment is
on and over the centre of Maeshowe. Colonel Johnston, the
Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, has informed me that the true
azimuth of this bearing is N. 41° 16′ E., and in all probability it
represents the place of sunrise as seen from the Barnstone when Maeshowe
was erected. What is most required in Orkney now is that some one with a
good 6-inch theodolite should observe the sun’s place of rising and the
angular height of the hills at the next summer solstice in order to
determine the date of the erection of Maeshowe. Mr. Spence and others
made an attempt to determine this value with a sextant in 1899, but not
from the Barnstone.
In the absence of this observation we may use the diagram given on p.
121. With the height of hill previously given the sun should rise
according to calculation at about the azimuth N. 41° 50′ E.
The difference between the new and old azimuth then, on the assumption
that az. N. 41° 16′ E. really represents an observation over Maeshowe,
gives us the difference of date.
Treating these figures then as we have done in the case of Stonehenge in
Chapter VII, the result is as follows. The Barnhouse-Maeshowe line was
established about 700 B.C., when the obliquity had a value of 23° 48′
according to Stockwell’s tables. (Fig. 40.)
I confess the late date does not surprise me. The masonry of Maeshowe
differs widely from that of other similar structures in that the sides
of the gallery and chamber, instead of being composed of upright stones,
are built in regular courses.
I do not believe that the Maeshowe structure was built to observe a
winter sunrise twenty days from the solstice, nor can I think it was set
up at midsummer by someone who had only dealt with a high sun and a sea
horizon, and imagined that the sunrise and sunset points were exactly
opposite to each other. It was a priest’s house, and the alignment of
the passage to the Barnstone was for the exchange of signals, probably
by lights in Maeshowe itself.
[Illustration: FIG. 40.--Variation of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic, 100
A.D.-4000 B.C. (Stockwell’s Values.)
~Horizontal axis: Years. From left: AD 0-BC 4000.~
~Vertical axis: Obliquity. From bottom: 23.40-24.10.~]
The Ordnance maps give no indication of stones, &c., by which the
direction of the midsummer setting or the midwinter rising and setting
might have been indicated from either the Maeshowe or the Barnstone.
To sum up the solar alignments from the circle.
We have the May sunrise marked by the top of Burrien Hill, from 600 to
700 feet high, Az. 59° 30′.
We have the November sunset marked by a standing stone on the other side
of the Loch of Stenness, Az. 53° 30′.
June rising, Line from Barnstone over Maeshowe tumulus.
December rising, tumulus (Az. 41°) on Ward Hill.
December setting, tumulus Onston 36° 30′.
It is not a little remarkable that the summer solstice rising and the
winter solstice rising and setting seem to have been provided for at the
Stenness circle by alignment on the centres of tumuli, two of them,
across the Loch, one the Onston tumulus to the S.W. (Az. 36° 30′), the
other tumulus being on Ward Hill to the S.E., Az. 41° (rough
measurement).
If the Maeshowe tumulus was a structure erected at the time I have
suggested to use the Barnstone for the summer solstice rising; then
these two other tumuli, to deal with the winter solstice at Stenness
circle, may have been built at the same time. All these provided for a
new cult.
There are also tumuli near the line (which cannot be exactly determined
because the heights of the hills are unknown) of the summer solstice
setting; none was required for the sunrise at this date, as the line
passes over the highest point of Hindera fiold, a natural tumulus more
than 500 feet high, and on that account a triangulation station.
Another argument in favour of the tumuli being additions to the original
design is that the place of the _November_ setting from the Stenness
circle is marked, _not_ by a tumulus, but by a standing stone. As this
stone, near Deepdale, and the tumulus at Onston are only about 1200
yards apart, the suggestion may be made that under certain unknown
conditions and possibly in later times tumuli in some cases replaced
stones as collimation marks.
With regard to the clock-star, it is to be feared that the stones in the
N.E. quadrant as viewed from the circle which might have given us a clue
have been removed. As the latitude of Stenness is N. 59°, some star with
a less declination than N. 31° would have been chosen, assuming that the
sky-line towards the N. point is not very high.
[20] See especially _Nature_, July 2, 1891, p. 201.
[21] Gardner: Paisley and London.