Megalithic astronomy: The last five years

Megalithic astronomy: The last five years

Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 27, pp. 231-289, 1984 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved. 0083-6656/84 So.O0 +.50 Copyright © ]984 Pergamon Pres...

3MB Sizes 0 Downloads 130 Views

Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 27, pp. 231-289, 1984 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved.

0083-6656/84 So.O0 +.50 Copyright © ]984 Pergamon Press l,td.

MEGALITHIC ASTRONOMY: THE LAST FIVE Y E A R S C. L. N. Rugglcs Computing Studics Unit, University of Leicestcr, University Road, Leiccster LE1 7RH. U.K.

ABSTRACT. Until recently, megalithic astronomy too often consisted merely of seeking out specific examples of astronomical alignments at particular sites and laying great emphasis upon them. Too little attention was paid to the question of whether the alignments could have arisen through factors quite unrelated to astronomy, and also to wider archaeological evidence about the sites involved. In recent years a more critical approach has emerged, both in discussions of individual sites and in statistical studies of groups of sites. Interdisciplinary collaboration has become more common, involving workers trained in the numerate sciences and those in the humanities. As a result, we are just beginning to see more reliable conclusions about astronomical observations in ancient times, and to see them interpreted in the context of current archaeological thought. At last, it seems, archaeoastronomy in Britain is starting to produce results of genuine interest to archaeologists and historians of astronomy alike. This paper attempts to review developments in megalithic astronomy since 1979 and to examine the topic in the wider contexts of world archaeoastronomy and of archaeology and anthropology in general.

I

!BI~g~W~I~g~

Ever

since

individuals significance pursuit

of

speculations recent

the have

earliest

antiquarians

sporadically

become

roamed the British countryside recording ancient remains, fascinated by the idea that there might be an astronomical

in many prehistoric monuments, and have dedicated large amounts of time and energy in this

idea.

with

Astronomer Norman Lockyer was perhaps the first to back up astronomical

accurate

measurements

(Lockyer 1909); and by f a r the most i n f l u e n c i a L name o f

decades has been t h a t o f e n g i n e e r Alexander Thom, who has p u b l i s h e d t h r e e books (Thom 1967;

1971; Thom & Thom 1978a) and a g r e a t many papers in a d i v e r s e c o l l e c t i o n

That are

f r e e - s t a n d i n g m e g a l i t h i c s i t e s - stone c i r c l e s nowhere near c i r c u l a r ) ,

menhirs

-

Firstly,

should megalithic

particularly to

known,

monuments.

can

:,v^~::,~

concentrate

easily

termed stone r i n g s , si nce many

rows o f t h r e e or more s t a n d i n g s t o n e s , stone p a i r s and s i n g l e s t a n d i n g

been

sites

interested

tended

and

have

(more c o r r e c t l y

of journals.

the focus o f almost a l l

have

o f t h i s work i s perhaps due t o two f a c t o r s .

s u r v i v e d the passage o f time p e c u l i a r l y

well:

in astronomy - h a r d l y ever w i t h any formal t r a i n i n g their

a t t e n t i o n upon these r e l a t i v e l y

thus i n v e s t i g a t o r s

i n a r c h a e o l o g y - have

conspicuous, and consequently w e l l -

Secondly, alignments along and between s t a n d i n g stones are e a s i l y p i c k e d o u t , be imagined t o be ' i n d i c a t i n g '

something: the idea t h a t such alignments i n d i c a t e d

231

232

C.L.N. Ruggles

horizon

astronomical

events

has dominated investigations of prehistoric astronomy, almost to the

exclusion of any others.

Thus,

over

become

many

years,

the concept of 'megalithic

astronomy'

has been born, and it has risen to

a vigorous field of enquiry as well as one attracting considerable popular interest.

has

been

far

in

much

talk of a 'megalithic culture'

advance

(1971:

ch.

of

I),

harbouring astronomical (and geometrical) expertise

its time and hitherto totally unexpected:

was

a

There

'Megalithic Man', according to Thom

competent engineer, had an extensive knowledge of practical geometry, and

studied the movements of the sun and moon in great detail.

In

fact,

as

archaeologist Graham Ritchie pointed out in his introductory talk at the 1981 Oxford

Archaeoastronomy tradition

Symposium

(Ritchie

is rather different.

1982),

the

archaeological

perspective

on

the megalithic

Our current vision of prehistoric societies in Britain depends not

only on the evidence of spectacular burial and ritual monuments, into which category the megalithic monuments clear

fall,

that

monuments

but

also on that from settlement sites, artefacts and environmental data.

It is

there was no 'megalithic culture' as such, and no 'Megalithic Man': instead megalithic of various types span a period of about four millennia, being built at various stages in

a long and complex period of social change, and are related to many independent traditions.

The

following outline of current archaeological thought is taken largely from Burgess (1980), with

embellishments fair

f r o m Whittle

representation of

hopefully

it

(e.g. 1981) and other authors. I t does not claim necessarily to be a

their

does at

least

views, give

and i t certainly touches upon many contentious points; but

the essential flavour of the archaeological background to the

megalithic astronomy debate.

Early

communities w e r e established in B r i t a i n and Ireland by about 3500 bc (uncorrected

farming

radiocarbon years), that is by about the end of the f i f t h millennium BC.

Their best-known funerary

monuments are the Long tombs, which were b u i l t of Large stones in the north and west, and of earth, timber,

turf

burials,

and

chalk in the south and east.

covered by a Large mound and sealed.

were accessible

after

collective

burial

millennium

BC.

groupings,

and with

The earthen Long barrows were used f o r one or two The megalithic Long tombs contained chambers which

t h e i r mounds were thrown up.

places, During

sometimes over this

period

These e a r l i e s t megalithic sites were used as

Long periods.

Their construction spanned the fourth

the population was widespread, organised perhaps in family

few Large focal centres; there seem to be few signs of stress or competition

f o r resources.

Around 2500 bc

(3000 BC)

there were sweeping innovations in material culture and in burial and

Megalithic Astronomy

ritual

practice.

In both the megalithic and non-megaLithic areas, Long communal tombs were grad-

ually replaced by round burial mounds - passage graves (including of

Ireland),

During

233

the vast ones in the Boyne Valley

round chambered cairns of a variety of forms, and round barrows in southern England.

this

period there are signs of population growth, and possibly of a concern to define t e r -

ritories

and

maintain

'public'

sites.

good relations with neighbours; there is evidence of social interaction at

The scale of some of these sites - the I r i s h passage graves, enormous earthwork

monuments such as Silbury H i l l in Wiltshire and the 9km-long Dorset cursus - implies that society at

this time was remarkably uell-organised, with powerful and capable ruling e l i t e s who could com-

mand and carry out vast undertakings. first

Amongst these public works of the t h i r d millennium were the

henges (earthwork c i r c l e s , sometimes containing rings of standing stones or upright timbers)

and large stone circles.

Midway through the t h i r d millennium there emerged the mysterious Beaker t r a d i t i o n , and also a major technical

innovation

- metallurgy. The Beaker is a fine, distinctive and eye-catching vessel. The

classic

'Beaker burial' consists of an individual crouched inhumation accompanied by a beaker but

rarely

with other grave goods, placed in a groove or cist beneath a small round barrow. For every

individual preserve of

buried

with

a

beaker, many more were buried without.

Beakers, i t seems, were the

of a privileged few: in other words they were some sort of status item.

Howeverthe idea

an invasion of 'Beaker f o l k ' from the continent, bringing new traditions and the s k i l l of metal

working, has currently fallen from archaeological favour: the Beaker t r a d i t i o n , i t is now generally felt,

marks social change which occurred throughout Britain around the middle of the third millen-

nium BC.

A

further

in

the

disruption occurred around 1750 bc, or the beginning of the second millennium BC.

Only

Wessex chalklands, where burials were prestigious and (for example) the Sarsen Stones were

erected

at

Stonehenge, does a r e l a t i v e l y stable, organised society seem to have endured, and even

reached i t s apex. Elsewherewe see the gradual demise of the great public centres, and increasing evidence

of

population appears

competition and

to

climatic

for scarce resources and great social division.

Social upheaval, rising

deterioration may a l l have contributed to an agricultural c r i s i s which

have come to a head about 1200 BC.

This f i n a l convulsion marks the end of a number of

long-standing t r a d i t i o n s , the megalithic one amongst them.

The

free-standing megalithic sites remaining from this general period of our prehistory are numer-

ous: there are something like a thousand stone circles alone surviving in varying states of repair. However these sites

are

notoriously d i f f i c u l t to date, since demonstrable associations with organic

remains are almost unknown. described span

a

above, that

I t is generally thought that they date to the later part of the period

is to the third and second millennia BC; but even so they almost certainly

considerableperiod in terms of culture change and represent a variety of d i f f e r e n t motiv-

ations and uses.

234

C.L.N. Ruggles

2.1

~£~g~j~

The megalithic astronomy debate has largely - indeed, until recently almost exclusively - been comprised of arguments about the interpretation of a few individual sites. of

Alexander

wholly

Thom,

themselves

disproptionate

involving

Even the extensive studies

numerous sites, continued until recently to generate a

amount of interest in just a few "classic" sites where particularly notable

astronomical alignments seem to occur.

There

are

many

elaborated logical it

is

those

in

pitfalls later

in

lavishing so much attention on so few sites, pitfalls which will be

sections

of this paper.

This is especially true where independent archaeo-

evidence relating to the astronomical hypothesis is either absent or ignored. informative cases

where

Nonetheless

briefly to examine recent debates about certain "classic" sites, especially in independent

archaeological evidence is available and has been brought to bear

upon the astronomical discussion.

Newgrange

is perhaps the least contentious example of a monument widely quoted as incorporating an

astronomical

alignment.

Built somewhat before 3000 BC, it is the largest of the vast Boyne Valley

passage graves. A 19m-long passage, with ample headroom for the visitor, leads from the entrance to a

large central chamber with a corbelled ceiling up to 6m high.

the

Three side chambers open out from

central one, each housing a stone basin which probably held the cremated remains of the people

for whom the tomb was built. The entire passage grave is surrounded by a circle of standing stones.

Newgrange covered the

was a

was sealed.

His own observations, followed up by a survey by Patrick (1974), estab-

that the sun's rays will enter the roof-box, penetrate the entire length of the passage and

illuminate -23o.0

Over the entrance to the passage he dis-

mysterious 'roof-box' which would have continued to admit light into the interior after

entrance

lished

excavated and restored by O'Kelly (1971).

the

central

chamber

and -25o.9 (Fig. I).

just

after

sunrise if the sun's declination lies between about

Thus direct sunlight reached the centre of the tomb every morning for

about a week on either side of the winter solstice.

Given t h a t s o u t h - e a s t e r l y o r i e n t a t i o n s for

other

the

presence o f the r o o f - b o x (not r e a d i l y e x p l i c a b l e o t h e r w i s e ) i n j u s t the r i g h t p o s i t i o n

shaft

of

reasons,

light

to

the p r o b a b i l i t y

are q u i t e common amongst passage g r a v e s , and may be f a v o u r e d

penetrate

the

of a chance s o l s t i t i a l

alignment i s a p p r e c i a b l y hi gh; however

e n t i r e passage has made i t s

accepted amongst a r c h a e o l o g i s t s and astronomers a l i k e .

intentionality

f o r the

almost u n i v e r s a l l y

FIG. 1. Plan and s e c t i o n a l After Patrick (1974).

box

profile

Roof

0 I

2 I

4 I

6 I

8 a

o f Newgrange, showing t h e p a t h o f d i r e c t

J

sunlight

10 J metres

after

--

dawn a r o u n d m i d w i n t e r

~ N

solstice.

o

r~

0a

236

C.L.N. Ruggles

Maes

Howe

was

built

around

2500

BE

and is the greatest of the Orkney tombs.

Its entrance is

oriented SW, and here the se~tjnQ sun's rays around the midwinter solstice illuminate the rear wall of the central chamber (Moir 1981). The stone that blocked the passage was not quite tall enough to fit

to

the

top of the entrance, and it has been suggested (Burl 1981a) that the shortfall was to

allow, as at Newgrange, the sun's light to enter the tomb after it had been sealed.

There on

are

some problems remaining at Maes Howe, and certain pitfalls in placing too much emphasis

apparent similarities between the two sites (see Moir 1981); however Newgrange and Maes Howe do

seem

to

provide evidence of astronomical observations as early as about 3000 BC which were incor-

porated into monumental architecture.

2.3 ~ O ~ O Q ~

Stonehenge,

being

astronomical these

such

a well-known monument, has attracted a grossly disproportionate amount of

attention, especially during the 1960s.

theories

ments here.

has

A detailed and balanced appraisal of many of

been given by Heggie (1981a) and there is no need to repeat the various argu-

Thankfully it seems that the tide of unwarranted speculation has abated quite markedly

in recent years.

The

only

reasonably uncontentious statement that can be made about Stonehenge is that the general

orientation sunrise of

of

the axis of the monument at various stages in its development is towards midsummer

and midwinter sunset, and that this may well have been deliberate.

at

A precision in azimuth

best a degree or two of arc is involved; the popular notion that the heel stone defined the

direction of solstitial sunrise more precisely is quite unsupportable, because the supposed observing position (the centre of the monument) can not be defined precisely enough on the archaeological evidence, and, even if it could be, the Heel Stone is too near to provide an accurate foresight and the horizon behind it is featureless.

The practice most common at Stonehenge has been to identify certain features at the site and to fit a

theory to 'explain' them.

uting

Even when this is done impartially there are grave dangers in attrib-

astronomical (and geometrical) frameworks onto what is a very limited sample of the original

features

at

the site, namely those which in 2000 AD are superficially obvious, those which happen

to have been excavated when large areas of the site are still unexplored, and so on. have

been

amply

expounded

These dangers

by Pitts (1981a; 1981b) in the context of the discovery of a possible

companion to the Heel Stone.

Some depend

of

the upon

most famous astronomical theories at Stonehenge (Hawkins 1963; Hawkins & White 1966) statistical

arguments

about

the number of astronomical alignments between pairs of

points chosen at possibly significant. These arguments fall down on many different grounds:

lack of

Megalithic Astronomy

~£J~ZJ

justification

237

for the points chosen in the first place, and archaeological doubts about

some of those that were (Atkinson 1966); numerical flaws in the probability calculation (see, e.g., Ruggles ion a

1981a); and, perhaps most importantly, the non-independence of data (e.g. when the precis-

of alignment being considered is only about one degree and the horizon is flat, a line between pair

of points indicating midsummer sunrise in one direction will inevitably indicate midwinter

sunset in the other).

It

is

truly

unfortunate

that

the topic of megalithic astronomy is so coloured by the excessive

attention that this one site, and some highly speculative interpretations of it, have received over the years.

Ballochroy 1954). 3.5m, The

has

been a source of debate ever since Thom first mentioned it in an early paper (Thom

It is a 5m-long three-stone row situated on the west coast of Kintyre.

The stones are some

3.0m and 2.0m in height, the last of the three appearing to have been broken off at the top. second

and third stones are slabs oriented across the alignment. Some 35m away, in the align-

ment, is a cist (Fig. 2a).

Thom Two

came to regard this site as one of the most important solar sites known to him (1971: 36-37). indications

at the site, the three-stone alignment and the wide flat face of the central slab

$2, point to horizon foresights behind which the upper limb of the sun would just graze at the summer

and

accurate

winter solstices respectively 'in Megalithic times' to

one or two minutes of arc.

(Figs. 2b & 2c), providing foresights

The existence of not one but two precise foresights, both

indicated at the same site, was seen as sure proof that they could not have arisen by chance.

Commentators sceptical of this interpretation, such as MacKie (1974), pointed out various problems. Firstly, slabs

the line along the stone row is not well-defined, precisely because two of the stones are

oriented across it; it may point anywhere in an azimuth range of some 10 ° or more.

The wide

face of the central stone is not perfectly flat, so that the qusetion of exactly where it points is open to interpretation: stone

may well have weathered and leant over somewhat since erection.

impressive this

it depends upon which part is used for doing the sighting.

because

orientation

its is

top

Furthermore the

Stone $1, although now less

has broken off, also has flat faces which point to a different peak;

without solar significance.

These observations suggest that the statistical

probability of the Ballochroy alignments occurring by chance may well be quite large, given all the implicit midwinter the view.

assumptions

which

have

been

made.

Finally the kist, which is on the line of sight to

sunset, would have been covered by a cairn in prehistoric times, and would have obscured

238

C.L.N. Ruggles

N To Corra Bheinn f

0,

3metres ,

A TO kist 4 - - ~ .....

ToCara ~ Island

J, 0 ....

about40m 4m

3.5m

J--

2m

1o-

B

30"

I

I

316°

317°

C +3

:I

"-.

I

222 ° FIG. 2.

223°

I

224 °

225 °

I

226 °

Ballochroy, Kintyre. (a) Site plan, after Thom (1971). (b) Midsummer sunset at 1600 B.C. behind Corra Bheinn, Jura (30 km). After Bailey et a~. (1975). (c) Midwinter sunset at 1600 B.C. behind Cara Island (12 km). After Bailey et a~. (1975).

Megalithic Astronomy

Because date

the

the

precision of the claimed foresights is only a minute or two of arc, it is possible to

two

foresights. would

alignments

to

within a century or two, assuming that they were used as solstitial

Bailey e~ a~. (1975) carried out a survey and concluded that a date of around 1600 BC

fit

suppose,

239

both, could

lending either

strong

support

to

the astronomical hypothesis.

The cairn, one might

have predated the stones and been levelled when they were erected, or else

not built until the stones had fallen into (astronomical)

disuse.

There

the debate rested, various opinions being expressed by different popular writers on the sub-

ject,

until

alignment two

Burl

66) uncovered a sketch of the site made in 1700.

This clearly shows an

consisting not only of the three standing stones and the cairn (still erect) but also of

further

predated

(1979:

cairns

the

and a further menhir.

stones.

Thus

it

The 'Great Cairn' is of an early type unlikely to have

almost certainly obscured the view throughout the lifetime of the

stones, and indeed did so until recent times.

Debates such as the Ballochroy one are never, it seems, settled once and for all. Thus astronomical enthusiasts

point

out that an observer in prehistoric times might have stood on the cairn to make

midwinter sunset observations. Burl himself (1983) maintains that the solstitial orientation of the alignment

was probably deliberate, but at a much lower level of precision: similar in fact to New-

grange

and

Maes

Howe.

Patrick (1981) points out that, if this were the case, the orientation of

stones

set at right angles to the alignment would approximately indicate midsummer solstice simply

because the azimuths of midsummer and midwinter sunset are roughly 90 ° apart at Scottish latitudes.

The story of Kintrau is one of the best-known in megatithic astronomy. The most conspicuous feature at the site is a 4m-tall menhir, whose flat faces roughly indicate a distant mountain notch ideally placed

as

a solstitial foresight accurate to a minute or two of arc.

The one problem is that the

view of the notch is obscured by an intervening mountain ridge. To avoid this Thom (1969) suggested that

observations could have been made from a ledge, which he thought to be artificial, on a hill-

side just behind the menhir (Fig. 3). The possibility emerged of an archaeological test upon a supposed astronomical site: was the platform indeed artificial?

MacKie surface.

(1974) duly

An analysis of the orientation and dip of the long axes of these stones showed that their

distribution MacKie

excavated the platform, and found a Layer of small stones beneath the present

appeared to resemble that in other known artificial layers more than in natural ones.

concluded

that this, together with circumstantial evidence from the excavation, left "very

little doubt that the Kintraw notch and platform together form an artificial construction".

240

C.L.N. Ruggles

N

S To notch

,.-..

Stream in

deep g o r g e ~

-.~,-=-,.-....'...'.'.-.-.i..Z . . . . . . .

~

...............

:~::::. large menhir I stone Despoiled cairn

Plan of Kintraw, Argyll, after Thom (1971).

The debate continues to the present day. MacKie

complete

-~,=. ~ ~ ~

~- 7 ~"~ .\ Ledge 5m higher than ground at cairn 30metres I

0 I

but

~ -

~ ~i~-~

/_~=~=_=

~

4m

FIG. 3.

~ ~ ( ~

. . . . . . . .

(1981:

lack

of

McCreery (1980b) cast doubt upon the petrofabric anaysis,

116) responded forcefully.

McCreery and others have also pointed out that the

human debris found during the excavation is very surprising if the platform was

used as the astronomical theory supposes.

MacKie (MacKie et a~.1984) now concedes that the Kintraw

evidence is inconclusive.

Another doubt has been cast by the assertion (Patrick 1981) that the distant notch cannot, in fact, be seen even from the 'observation platform': an intervening ridge just obscures it. 140-141)

simply

calls

MacKie (1981:

this a nonsense, and indeed the present author has seen the notch from the

platform; however a movement of less than 0.5m from the centre of the platform makes a crucial difference.

McCreery et a~. (1982) suggest that the disagreement may be accounted for by differences

in eye height of different investigators, differences in vegetation levels on the intervening ridge at

different

times of year, and differences in weather conditions altering terrestrial refraction

effects.

Perhaps the most teLLing o b s e r v a t i o n , although one only mentioned in passing by McCreery e t a ~ . , i s that

an

observer

view

the

notch.

first before

place, and

i.e. after

along the ridge t o the SE of the p l a t f o r m c e r t a i n l y would not have been able t o Yet such o b s e r v a t i o n s would have been c r u c i a l t o s e t t i n g up the s i g h t l i n e

in the

in determining the p o s i t i o n o f the p l a t f o r m , by making o b se rva t io n s o f sunsets the

solstice

(see Thom 1971: 13-14). This creates severe d i f f i c u l t i e s

t h e o r y t h a t Kintraw represented a h i g h - p r e c i s i o n s o l s t i t i a l

sightline.

f o r the

Mega]ithic Astronomy

The

site

at

Brainport

Bay, which has been uncovered in recent years, is an important one in the

context of the megalithic astronomy debate. natural has

outcrop

izon

It is a complex involving an alignment of features - a

which has been paved and terraced, two large boulders and a 'back platform' which

also been artficially modified (Fig. 4).

distant

241

The alignment is oriented to the NE towards the only

horizon visible from the site - at the far end of Loch Fyne.

would

mark

the

upper

A notch on this distant hor-

limb of the rising sun at about a fortnight either side of midsummer

solstice.

Excavations nearby,

by Gladwin, described by MacKie (1981), uncovered two sockets in the main outcrop and,

two

small

'observation

stone

boulders'

slabs into which they fitted well.

As viewed from the boulders, dubbed

by MacKie, the shape of the outcrop frames the distant notch and the slabs,

if erect, would have resembled 'the sights of a huge rifle' pointing at the notch.

Subsequent

excavation

(MacKie

e~

~!- 1984) established C-14 dates around 1400 Be, and uncovered

more

specific evidence of human occupation such as scatters of flint flakes.

site

was

The

not,

it

'observation

At the same time the

seems, primarily intended for domestic, defensive, industrial or funerary use. boulders'

have, however, been in place since well before Neolithic times. Their

presence might be explained by the chance discovery in Neolithic times of a site suitable for rough orientation

towards midsummer solstice.

MacKie's subsequent work uncovered evidence of a further,

equinoctial, alignment at the site, again involving man-made features and a horizon notch.

The

site

hypothesis is

is

important

of

perhaps

solar

there

exist archaeological data which appear to corroborate the

constructions oriented upon solar phenomena.

misleading:

high-precision

because

he sees his work as a successful archaeological test of the hypothesis of

observations

observation

(and

MacKie's own interpretation, however,

using natural foresights.

hence Thom's solar calendar)

He insists that the idea of high-precision is supported.

In fact, the structure orien-

tations at Minard are in themselves insufficiently precise, and the two notches respectively do not fall

exactly

could

well

at have

the solstice or at the 'calendrical'

equinox (Thom 1967: oh. 9).

The alignments

been only rough, and the notches on the horizons indicated are in positions that

might easily have arisen by chance.

3.1 !h~ ~

~! !bemi~ ~ ! Q ~

In

contrast to these discussions of individual sites, arguably the most important evidence presen-

ted

over the years by A. Thom (and later by A. Thom & A.S. Thom) arises from analyses of groups of

FIG. 4.

I J >,.:o:.:-" ::::::::::: • A

main alignment

l

0

r

!

1

i

i

I

5m

i

observation boulders

N

,

Trench

Plan of Mtnard (Brainport Bay), Argyll, after MacKie (1981).

E x c a v a t e d area Rock outcrop Stone s o c k e t s Standing stone A r t i f i c i a l bank

Back platform

Back platform

Observation boulders Rock

Lower terraces

Kerbs

Notch Rear stone .~

Main Outcrop

Front stone Turf

~n

00

("3

r,o

sites taken together.

Megalithic Astronomy

243

The evidence is cumulative in nature.

At each stage in the work it consists

essentially of one or more analyses of many putative indications from a number of megaLithic sites, and

at

stage

each

stages.

the level of precision of indication being tested is greater than at previous

The later work concentrates on lunar sightLines. Four distinct stages have been identified

by the current author (Ruggles 1981b) as follows.

~

5- In his earliest work Thom measured the declinations indicated by 72 structures at 39 mega-

lithic

sites,

plotting

results in the form of a probability histogram, or "curvigram" (Thom

1955:

Fig.

1967:

Fig. 8.1).

B.1),

the only difference being that rising and setting lines are not distinguished.

of

these

solar, are

8).

the

This evidence was later extended to 262 structure indications at 145 sites (Thom The 1967 curvigram is replotted in Fig. 5 from Thom's original data (1967: Table

curvigrams

lunar

and

and

On the basis

associated statistical tests Thom suggested the existence of deliberate

stellar alignments set up to a precision of about half a degree.

Accumulations

evident around the solar solstices, equinoxes and intermediate declinations representing equal

division

of

the

year

into

8

and

maybe

16 parts; and also around the four declinations which

represent the extremes of the moon's Limiting monthly motions in its 18.6-year cycle - declinations referred

to

by Thom as the lunar 'standstills'.

Further accumulations are interpreted by Thom in

terms of stellar alignments at particular dates.

~

2-

itial

declinations,

Lower

Limbs were preferentially observed; the further analysis of the lunar lines (ibid.: ch. 10),

of

In 1967 Thom analysed further those Level 1 indications which fell near the solar solst-

which

about the

there

about

are

about

10 minutes of arc. four

declination

30

of

them (Thom 1967: ch. 9), and found evidence that the upper and

40, suggests the same thing. This increased the inferred precision to

The results for the lunar Lines are shown in Fig. 6a, which superimposes

intervals

centred upon the mean lunar standstills, and reproduces the data

considered by Thom.

6~

~-

horizon

In his Later work Thom considered an effectively distinct hypothesis, namely that distant features

themselves Because two

merely

such

as

served

notches to

provided natural foresights, and that structures at the sites

identify the observing position and which foresight was to be used.

of the accuracy of any individual foresight,

declinations can now be quoted to a minute or

of arc, and the idea of sightlines of much higher precision can be tested.

distant

The analysis of 40

horizon features at 23 sites (Thom 1971: ch. 7) suggests the use of distant foresights for

observations accurate to 3' or better, and to record the 173-day, 9' perturbation in the moon's motion (Thom 1971: ch. 2; see also Morrison 1980). The resulting curvigram is reproduced in Fig. 7a.

~eve~ 4. The a n a l y s i s at Level 3 took no account o f small v a r i a b l e c o r r e c t i o n s t o the d e c l i n a t i o n s , such

since

as

variable parallax.

1978

(Thom

&

Thom

At Level 4, represented in t h r e e papers by Thom and his son A.S. Thom

1978b; 1980a; A.S. Thom 1981) each sightline was considered on its own

244

C.L.N. Ruggles

('2D ('U

(N)

I

<

V

<

~

-

Lr? __kY? I

<

<-

Q

?

<

Lc? I

I

nd I

I

FIG. 5.

8.8

0

i

I

J

8S

S

J

b

I

i

i

f

3@

I

18

I

f

i

J

3S

iS

i

]

48

'Curvigram, of declinations indicated by 262 structures at 145 sites. Thom's original data (Thom 1967: Table 8.1) is used. This graph differs from Thom's own (1967: Fig. 8.1) by not distinguishing between rising and setting lines.

'

t

o 0 a

246

C.L,N, Ruggles

m e r i t s , t a k i n g i n t o account the time o f year and time o f day o f presumed use, va rio u s small c o r r e c t i o n s being made a c c o r d i n g l y . In a d d i t i o n , the data set was r e s t r i c t e d t o those few Lines the Thoms considered t o be most convincing on the ground. cut

than

The r e s u l t i n g curvigram peaks are even more c l e a r -

at previous l e v e l s , and when the a n a l y s i s i s r e f o r m u l a t e d in a more rig o ro u s way as sug-

gested by Morrison (1980), the s i g h t l i n e s seem so accurate ( t o b e t t e r than a minute of arc) t h a t i t seems they

could

only have been set up at the end o f an averaging process Lasting some 180 years

(A.S. Thom 1981: 38).

There

have

1981)

f o r example has drawn a t t e n t i o n t o the great v a r i e t y o f types o f s i t e ,

and

been

methods

have

s~e

a

of

number

of c r i t i c a l

assessments o f the data a t d i f f e r e n t

f e a t u r e s in common w i t h one a n o t h e r ) .

has

Moir (1980;

geographical Location

i n d i c a t i o n found in the data at Level 1 ( s i t e s used in a s i m i l a r way would s u r e l y He has a lso h i g h l i g h t e d se ve ra l s i t e s where a r c h -

a e o l o g i c a l evidence makes the proposed astronomical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p a r t i c u l a r l y (1979)

levels.

doubtful.

questioned the e f f i c a c y of several of the s i t e s in the sample at Level 3 as h i g h - p r e c -

i s i o n Lunar i n d i c a t o r s , t h a t is how c o n v i n c i n g l y they £ou~d have served t h i s purpose. have

pointed

sites,

out

which

indicated

(1980a)

t h a t s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n s as t o which data t o analyse in the f i r s t

potential

-

justifiable

McCreery

are on

indicating

subjective

and

devices

at each s i t e ,

t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r

a 2Ejo£~ grounds.

Many authors place - which

and which h o rizo n f e a t u r e s taken t o be

s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n s made by Thom may not be

F i n a l l y some commentators, most n o t a b l y Heggie (1972), McCreery

and Ellegaard (1981), have pointed out t h a t lunar o b s e r v a t i o n s o f the p r e c i s i o n claimed a t

Levels 3 and 4 simply may not be f e a s i b l e in p r a c t i c e .

Thorough

reassessments

of

the

evidence at each o f the f o u r Levels have been attempted in recent

years by the present a u t h o r , based upon f i r s t - h a n d examination o f each o f the s i t e s in question and upon

resurveys

where

appropriate.

The r e s u l t s o f t h i s work are described in more d e t a i l

in the

sections that f o l l o w .

The

principal

questions

to

be

answered

in

order t o reassess Thom's data at t h i s

l e v e l are as

follows.

How ence

~#

~

E~2~O ~g~ ~ 2 ~ £ ~ 2 0 ~

site List

The sequence o f s i t e reference numbers in Thom's r e f e r -

(Thom 1967: Table 12.1) - A l / 1 , A l / 2 e t c . - shows t h a t f o r each s i t e included some-

t h i n g l i k e two o t h e r s , which were present in an unpublished s i t e L i s t , were missed o u t . We must ask why

other

s i t e s which were v i s i t e d were found u n s u i t a b l e f o r surveying and i n c l u s i o n .

reasons would c l e a r l y be u n r e l a t e d t o t h e i r astronomical p o t e n t i a l , bad a s t a t e of r e p a i r f o r a survey t o be w o r t h w h i l e .

f o r example i f

Legitimate

they were in t o o

Megalithic Astronomy

~g~ ~z~ 92~o~!g! io~i~l~o~ ~ ! ~ tion criteria were adhered to. two

slabs

~ ~U

~i~l

zn a n

247

early analysis (Thom 1955) rigid selec-

Thom considered only indications defined by an outlier to a circle,

in line, or a row of three or more stones.

In the 1967 analysis, however, there are no

such clear-cut selection criteria, and there are a number of instances where astronomical lines may have been preferentially selected.

For example, at some sites only the indication one way along an

alignment has been included, and not the other. It is possible that such decisions were unwittingly based upon one line being astronomical and not the other.

~Z~

~£~

~[~g~gJ£~

~!0~9~!~!~0~

i O ~

~

~

gQ~QZ

If so, these require iden-

tification and removal.

~

~

~RO~J2~

2~ b

Z ~

C ~

JO ~ J ~

~J~l

About 20% of the 1967 data consist of

sightlines to what are considered to be indicated horizon foresights, tains. not

In these cases we are often not told what the claimed method of indication is; we are often

told

other

what

the

equally

foresight

is; and we are never told how wide the indication is, and how many

prominent and well-indicated horizon foresights might equally well have been chosen

as putative foresights by the investigator. are an

such as notches between moun-

being

confused.

astronomical

What is happening here is that two distinct hypotheses

One is that structures on the ground, such as stone rows, themselves provide

indication, and that the actual shape of the horizon they point to is irrelevant.

The other is that natural horizon foresights provide the astronomical sightline, and all the structure on the ground has to do is to point out - preferably uniquely - which foresight is to be used. If

the

two

hypotheses

are tested in the same analysis there is a danger that our decision as to

whether a given putative sightline is considered to be of the 'indicated foresight' type may depend upon

a

consideration of the declinations yielded by the two hypotheses; the choice can clearly be

influenced by the astronomical possibilities.

!~ !b~mi~ ~r~!~m~o~ 2! 2£~J~!~ ~rrgr~ Q Q S g ~ that

a

fixed

Thom used fixed widths for his gaussian humps, so

uncertainty was assigned to each indicated declination regardless of the nature and

present

state of the indication.

certain

within

wide

bounds,

Where the direction of the original structure orientation is un-

this

means

that a subjective decision was made as to the original

probable indication. This decision might unwittingly have been influenced by astronomical considerations.

In

order

to

considered be

invoked.

indications

answer the first of these questions it is insufficient simply to revisit those sites

by Thom.

Some overall strategy for identifying and selecting sites for analysis has to

In order to answer the second point it is also insufficient merely to remeasure those recorded

by Thom.

A code of practice for selecting potential indications needs to be

laid down and strictly adhered to at each site encountered.

248

A

C.L.N. Ruggles

surveying

finally

programme

western

Scotland was begun in 1975 with these points in mind.

completed in 1981, and the results were published in 1984 (Ruggles 1984a).

progressed, it

in

was

a

It was

As the project

reassessment of Thom's work was no longer seen as the principal aim of the project;

more an attempt to lay a new methodological framework for assessing alignments of possible

astronomical

significance

at

ancient

sites.

The project and its results are described in more

detail in Section 4.2 below.

The

evidence at Level 2 for lunar indications of a precision of about 10' depends upon the reality

of the bimodal shape of the cumulative probability curve in Fig. 6a. the

curve

is just as good, a Level 1 explanation will suffice.

If a unimodal (Normal) fit to

A reassessment of the evidence at

Level 2 was undertaken in 1979 and published two years later (Ruggles 1981b: Section 4.3). eight

Thirty-

indications were identified in Thom's original list (Thom 1967: Table 8.1) as comprising the

data of possible lunar significance.

An

archaeological reappraisal was attempted first.

Three sites were identified whose authenticity

is in serious doubt, and a further four where there is some doubt. found

to

involve else

be dubious on archaeological grounds in other cases too.

The astronomical hypothesis was Four indications were found to

chambered tombs or cairns, putatively functioning either as backsights to be stood upon or

as

likely

artificial foresights to be viewed from another site some distance away. elements

usually

define

Cairns make un-

in astronomical alignments of this precision, because their construction does not a

position

anywhere

near accurately enough.

The "room for manoeuvre" open to a

present-day investigator looking for astronomical alignments is illustrated by the fact that a further on

line top

in the sample involved sighting towards a menhir when standing adjacent to (rather than

of)

standing

a

large

megalithic

chambered cairn. sites,

and

these

Only 24 putative indications in the sample involved freewere a diverse collection, comprising rows, pairs, single

menhirs, circles and circles with outliers drawn from a wide geographical area. status of different lines (reasonable,

somewhat dubious and very dubious)

The archaeological

is indicated by differen-

tial shading in Fig. 6a.

A

reappraisal

tions not

simply

the efficacy of the sites as lunar indicators revealed that 6 of the 38 indica-

could

not work at all in the manner claimed.

At one site the claimed horizon could

in fact be seen from the structure postulated to be indicating it; and in the other five cases

indications seem

of

corresponding to Thom's description could not be found.

impressive

now

were

Two further indications which

once merely an undistinctive part of a more complex structure - in one

case a pair of stones are all that remains of a stone circle.

The outcome of these reappraisals was that only 19 of the original 38 lines seem at all reasonable;

Q

FIG. 6.

O0

i

Level 2 analysis and reassessment. (a) Curvigram based on Thom's data, but with archaeological status indicated by differential shading. (b) Remaining indications after an additional reappraisal of the efficacy of the putative indications. of the lines is indicated by differential shading, the most reliable being the darkest. (c) Revised indications after reassessment and resurvey. The horizontal scale is in degrees. After Ruggles (1981b).

S)

Again, the status

~o

~ o

o

250

C.L.N. Ruggles

seven

are

somewhat

dubious

ruled out altogether.

for

one reason or another, six are very dubious and six more can be

The resulting effect on the declination curvigram is shown in Fig. 6b.

When

lines of reasonable status are considered alone, virtually all trace of the double-peaked structure disappears.

The final stage in the reassessment was to resurvey the sightlines trying to treat indications in a demonstrably indicated

unbiased

way.

declinations,

The biggest problem, it was found, was that the accuracy quotable for

given

the

nature of the indication and its present state of repair, was

often considerably greater than the standard error quoted by Thom. In many cases there seemed to be no a ~ o £ ~

reason for selecting the particular declination value quoted by Thom. In the reassessed

curvigram, different standard errors (i.e. different gaussian hump widths) were assigned to different indicated declinations in order to reflect this.

The results are shown in Fig. 6c.

No signif-

icant trace remains of the double-peaked structure.

It

was

lunar

concluded that the data provided by Thom does not, in fact, provide reasonable support for observations

bimodal

of the precision implied by Level 2.

However Thom stated (1967: 165) that the

shape came as a complete surprise when he first plotted the graph; thus, as Heggie (1981b:

$23) has pointed out, this consideration could have had no influence on the selection of the lines. It

was

hoped

that the large-scale Level 1 project, when completed, would provide fresh data with

which to resolve this issue.

3.4 ~ Q ~ S ~ m ~

The

evidence

the

proximity

gets.

~ ~S~

at Levels 3 and 4 depends upon the precise distribution of indicated declinations in of

particular astronomical "targets" (the mean lunar standstills)

about those tar-

The question of the selection of sites themselves, and of potential indicating structures at

those sites, is thus of minor importance compared with the selection of horizon features for inclusion as potential foresights.

A reassessment of the evidence at Level 3 was carried out alongside that at Level 2 described above (Ruggles curvigram

1981b:

Section

(Fig. 7a).

4.4).

Forty

putative sightlines were identified as contributing to the

Peaks are evident at deviations of 2, ~ + A

stills, where s is the lunar semidiameter and

and s - ~

from the mean stand-

A is the amplitude of the 173-day perturbation.

In fact, astronomical considerations should immediately raise our suspicions about this result: for even to

if the 173-day wobble was observed, the 180-year cyclical variation in these declinations due the

wide.

ellipticity

of the moon's orbit should in fact blur out these points over a range some 6'

(A fixed parallax correction was applied to this data by Thom at Level 3.)



--

i. /

FIG. 7.

I ; Jr_

(~0 _-

\\

~\ =

(

,

.

Level 3 analysis and reassessment. (a) Curvigram based on Thom's data. (b) Remaining indications after reappraisals of their efficacy. Indicated foresights are shaded; unindicated foresights are unshaded. Untenable indications have been removed. (c) Results of an analysis of all horizon notches and dips indicated by structures for which a single 'indicated foresight' was included by Thom. Classes of horizon feature are indicated by differential shading, the best being the darkest. the horizontal scale is in arc minutes. After Ruggles (1981b).

~ ~

LF]

;JJ"

J

~ ~

5

}l ' ~ ,

(L

._ . - - ~ ~ _ _ _ _ ~

Q

:~.

c~

252

C.L.N. Ruggles

The

hypothesis being tested at Level 3 is that a sightline consists of a horizon foresight such as

a prominent notch, together with a structure marking an observing position (behind it) and pointing to the foresight. When the sites in question were visited it transpired that one foresight was nonexistent

and a further five could not be seen at all from the positions from which they were meant

to be indicated. An example is the line to the south at Callanish in Lewis - the foresight, amongst mountains on Harris some 26 km away, is obscured by a local outcrop just 50m to the south. A further 19 of the 40 claimed foresights are not in fact indicated by any artificial structure at all, or else the supposed indication is not genuinely prehistoric or is some degrees off line. This fact is not

clear from Thom's accounts (1971: Chs. 5 & 6). A typical example is Beacharr in Kintyre, a 5m-

tall

menhir

claimed

with

its longer sides oriented roughly parallel to the shore by which it stands: the

foresight,

however, is out to sea on Jura, where there is a fine selection of notches for

the investigator to choose from as putative foresights: without restriction, since none is actually indicated. The 'psychological devastation' which results when a tentative convert to high-precision megalithic astronomy first encounters a site such as this has been described by Gingerich (1981).

In Fig. 7b we have omitted the non-existent foresight and the five which cannot be indication; is

the unindicated foresights are left unshaded.

largely

formed by unindicated foresights.

unindicated

lines,

let

those

seen

from

It is clear that the main peak at s +

the A

The fact that a peak shows up at all amongst so few

alone so prominently, is tantamount to proof that Thom simply included in

his

analysis

horizon features that fitted the anticipated declinations in the first place.

This

simply

that

this selection effect did occur are manifest in accounts by the Thoms of their site procedure

backs up the variable parallax argument for thinking the same thing.

Some indication

(e.g.A.S. Thom 1981: 24). It is clear that if a horizon feature was found, by site measurement, to yield an astronomically significant declination, then it was considered by the Thoms as a candidate for

a deliberate foresight, whereas if it did not, it was not so considered.

justified,

in

The Thoms felt quite

view of the existing conclusions at Levels 1 and 2 when this later work was carried

out, in proceeding in this manner.

Amongst the 15 remaining f o r e s i g h t s in the Level 3 a n a l y s i s , i t es,

sides of h i l l s l o p e s ,

least

one

actually the

or

analysis

and

because

considered out

foresights.

In a l l

but t h r e e cases, t h e r e were a t

two, and o f t e n s e v e r a l , o t h e r contenders f o r i n d i c a t e d f o r e s i g h t s adjacent t o those

included in the s t a t i s t i c a l

ground

carried

knobs, dips and shoulders o f h i l l s .

was found t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d n o t c h -

a n a l y s i s : these o t h e r f e a t u r e s were e q u a l l y w e l l - i n d i c a t e d on

at Least as prominent as the chosen ones, but were a p p a r e n t l y not included in t h e their

significant

d e c l i n a t i o n s did not correspond t o any o f the Lunar p e r t u r b a t i o n extremes by

Thom.

Fig. 7c shows the r e s u l t s o f an independent a n a l y s i s which was

as p a r t of the reassessment. A~

such

features

which

Only notches and dips were considered as candidates f o r could

equally well have been indicated by the suggested

indications on the ground were surveyed and included on the graph. peaks are now evident.

It is clear that no significant

Megalithic Astronomy

A

253

reassessment of the evidence at Level 4 was completed in 1981 and has been published recently in

two

parts

1981)

(Ruggles

1982a;

1983a).

The data set used by the Thoms (Thom & Thom 1980a; A.S. Thom

consisted of all indications they considered to have been reliably measured - a total of 42.

Detailed

reasons

were given by A.S. Thom (1981: Appendix 1.1) why indications included in earlier

analyses

were not now suitable.

Of these 42 lines, 23 were amongst a sample of 25 examined separ-

ately in an earlier paper (Thom & Thom 1978b) as being most convincing according to strict terms of reference. of

In both analyses, the calculated residuals between measured and expected declinations

lunar significance were less than 2'.

The reassessment considered all 44 lines included in one

or other of the Thoms' analyses.

3.5.1 ~ E ~ 2 f l ~ E ~ lines,

both

indications,

Z ~ J ~ -

on

the

and

by

basis

As

at earlier levels, an attempt was made to classify the 44

of archaeological knowledge about the structures forming the putative

considering

the

efficacy

of the structures as high-precision astronomical

indicators.

Three

of the three indications can, it seems, be ruled out as intentional.

Orkney)

the

In one case (Stenness,

archaeological structures forming the indication predate its date of supposed use, as

deduced from the positions of the structures themselves, by some 1500 years; in the second (Callanish, to

Lewis) the proposed foresight cannot in fact be seen from the structure which is hypothesized be indicating it, a situation which is clearly absurd; and in the third (Skipness, Kintyre) the

backsight is not a genuine archaeological site.

In

a

further

other

words

entirely

14 the

cases the azimuth range indicated misses the proposed foresight by up to 50; in indication,

unindicated,

if deliberate, was only rough. Thirteen more foresights are in fact

although

two

are indicated from another position from which they are also

postulated to have been observed.

Only

14

of

remaining

the 44 putative indications, it transpires, actually represent cases where structures

today

accurately indicate the proposed horizon foresight.

One of these (Dunskeig, Kin-

tyre) is however very dubious on archaeological grounds - the two stones forming the indication may well represent the grounders of a former field wall. Brogar,

Orkney)

(Corogle a

former

relatively idually,

involves

a

barely

discernible

A further three are somewhat dubious: one (at mound

of

uncertain artificial status; another

Burn, Forfar) involves two large irregular stone blocks which are possibly the remains of field

wall,

and the third (Stillaig, Cowal) involves a menhir which is very possibly a

modern trackway marker. seem

geographically,

reasonable spanning

The remaining ten putative indications, when considered indiv-

enough on archaeological grounds; however as a group they are scattered the

Scottish

Highlands

from Orkney to Kintyre, with only three fairly

254

C.L.N. Ruggles

close together in Argyll and one far-flung addition in Dyfed.

Furthermore they represent a diverse

collection of indicating structures: a line of three mounds, four alignments of menhirs, a cairn to a menhir, a menhir to a cairn, a stone setting to a stone circle, and two flat sides of single menhirs.

In other words even the most convincing sites do not manifest any archaeological coherence.

3.5.2 ~ 9 ~ J ~ E ~ the to

44

~E~O~J~9~-

During 1979 and 1981 all the relevant sites were visited, and 38 of

indications were resurveyed.

within

about

This produced general agreement with the Thoms' declinations

I', but also confirmed the contentions of other authors (e.g. Patrick 1979) that

measured declinations are in fact only reliable to about I', owing to uncertainties in astronomical refraction and other factors.

3.5.3 Z ~

~2[~J9~

equally

plausible

statistical selves fell At

~0~ ~E

~J£

J~gO-

A study was undertaken of how many horizon features,

se as foresights, might equally well have been chosen for inclusion in the

analysis.

A classification system for horizon features developed by the Thoms them-

(Thorn & Thom 1980b) was used as the basis for this study, and it was noted whether features directly

within

an 'indicated azimuth range' or within 5° in azimuth on either side of one.

sites where surveys were possible, a total of 161 candidates were uncovered, compared with only

37 selected by the Thoms.

3.5.4 ~he Q ~ Z ~ calculated

2~ ~gOQ~ ~ E ~ J ~ Q ~ 2 9 ~ -

the

'measured'

The methods were then scrutinised by which the Thoms had

deviations

(B) and the 'expected' deviations (Q) from the mean lunar

standstill declinations. In calculating

6-values, it transpired that implicit assumptions had been

made about the value of a terrestrial refraction correction (the 'graze effect') and about the date of use of the site. In calculating the Q-values, implicit assumptions had been made about the particular

lunar

measured

event

and

postulated

expected

to

have been observed.

deviations had to be reformulated, so as to eliminate implicit assumptions

which could vary from sightline to sightline.

The

Q-values

noted

that

observed.

for the

Thus the entire method of calculation of

particular standard

The Thoms' calculations were then reworked.

Lunar events a c t u a l l y vary from one s t a n d s t i l l

t o the n e x t .

d e v i a t i o n o f t h i s v a r i a t i o n was f a r in excess o f the r e s i d u a l s

Analysis showed t h a t i t

would n o t , even t h e o r e t i c a l l y ,

I t was m6 - ~1

be p o s s i b l e t o achieve such small

r e s i d u a l s by o b s e r v a t i o n - even a f t e r an o b s e r v a t i o n programme Lasting some 200 ye a rs.

3.5.5 S ~ a ~ j s ~ a ! resents

[ea~cajsa~

For each s i g h t l i n e a r e s i d u a l

16

- ~1 can be c a l c u l a t e d which re p -

the d i f f e r e n c e between the measured d e c l i n a t i o n and t h a t expected f o r a given lunar e v e n t .

Even i f questions of data s e l e c t i o n have been adequately r e s o l v e d , a t t a c h i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e values t o small be

residuals

exaggerated

different

depends upon a number of hidden f a c t o r s . (i.e

Those quoted by the Thoms were found t o

the hypothesis of d e l i b e r a t e i n d i c a t i o n s a r t i f i c i a l l y

means, as f o l l o w s .

strengthened) by t h r e e

Mega ii th i c As tronomy

(i) ~ O ~ E ~ g ~ -

255

We must test whether observed declinations within a given 'band' centred on a lunar

standstill declination in fact cluster about targets within that band. ing

this

width used

hypothesis

must

For the purposes of examin-

a bandwidth must be assumed, and all observed data falling within this band-

be included.

The Thoms' statistical test assumes a bandwidth rather greater than that

in selecting the data; thus data towards the edges of the bands will be absent and clustering

about targets (towards the centre of the band) will be exaggerated.

(ii)

IQZQ~

E~O~J~£~-

In testing whether the data clustered about certain target values, the

Thoms considered six possible targets in each 'lunar band'. In fact, nine targets occur within each band.

The

subset

of

six chosen by the Thoms are not those inherently most likely to have been

observed; the only criterion seems to have been that the fitted the data best in the first place.

(iii) of

Da~e the

i.e.

When

9~ 9J~ ~0~ J 9 £ ~

terrestrial

their

~

refraction

-

The mean date o f use o f the i n d i c a t i o n s and the mean val ue

'graze effect'

(Thom & Thom 1978b: 174) were deduced from the d a t a :

values were a d j u s t e d t o f i n d those which f i t t e d

best.

these factors are taken into account, the small residuals obtained by the Thoms are no Longer

significant.

This is true even when only the data selected by the Thoms is taken into account.

3.5.6 Summa£~.

The

argument for very high-l~recision lunar indications can, it seems, be convin-

cingly challenged on any one of four different grounds.

These are

(i) archaeological; (ii) theoretical

(astronomical),

i.e. what is actually possible;

(iii) by examining the selection of data; and (iv) by reassessing the methods of statistical analysis.

When

all

four

factors are taken together the evidence is overwhelmingly against deliberate lunar

indications of very high precision.

4.1 ~ c ~ d ~ E t j ~ Q

Two

recent p r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g the p r e s e n t a u t h o r have attempted t o examine groups o f s i t e s as Thom

did, but paying paramount attention to the demonstrably unbiased selection of data. statistical

tests

on

the

data

obtained

The aim of any

is then simply to compare the observed distribution of

indicated azimuths and declinations with that expected given random structure orientations. two

differ

significantly,

we

may investigate possible causes.

If the

One of them is that astronomical

considerations affected the orientations of some of the structures in the sample.

256

C.L.N. Ruggles

The result of a statistical test on any particular accumulation of data is a simple overall answer: a

probability that random orientation can account for the distribution of declinations or azimuths

observed.

If this probability is very small, we must ask whether the non-randomness can be accoun-

ted for by any non-astronomical hypothesis; if not, we are forced to accept an astronomical explanation.

In this case, and at this stage, we can return to the data in more detail and investigate

possible

variations in astronomical precision with site type or geographical location, in the hope

of

correlating

evidence

on

variations in astronomical orientation with other facets of archaeo-

logical evidence about the sites.

Before

there

is

any point in carrying out a statistical test, we need to accumulate enough data,

and from a sufficiently promising group of sites, to give a reasonable hope of a definitive result. We

immediately encounter the problem of finding a suitable data sample.

and of

attempts problems

span or

One approach follows Thom

to examine a variety of free-standing megalithic sites: there are, however, a number in doing this.

Firstly, they almost certainly represent a variety of motivations and

a long period in terms of culture change.

Secondly, many of them are of a design (e.g. three

four stones, not in llne) which does not suggest any overridingly important candidates for ast-

ronomical stones

indications.

having

Thirdly,

vanished

without

some of them are doubtless partially destroyed, further standing trace.

Finally, some may not be genuinely prehistoric, such as

single standing stones erected in more recent times as trackway markers, boundary stones or cattlerubbing posts.

In

the

tive of

almost total absence of helpful archaeological evidence (such as radiocarbon dating, rela-

chronology extant

and excavated artefacts)

relating to these sites, a rigorous statistical analysis

structure orientations provides a possible means of isolating trends of interest.

from 'misleading' sites will simply add to the background noise. Level

1,

however,

there

If it were not for Thom's work at

might seem little hope of isolating any overall trends, astronomical or

otherwise, amongst such a diverse group of sites. do

Data

Motivated by Thom's work a project attempting to

this was conceived by the present author and three colleagues in 1975.

It is described In Sec-

tion 4.2 below.

An

alternative approach might lead us to seek a group of sites that are demonstrably similar arch-

aeologically, so as to avoid most of the problems about selecting sites for consideration. Ideally, the group would be well-defined and confined to a given geographical area, yet sufficient in number to provide a reasonable set of data. In addition, we might seek sites with a design such that (say) one

direction

at each site is clearly of special importance.

the problems about selecting possible 'indications'

The close

Recumbent to

this

In that case we would avoid most of

at each site.

Stone Circles (RSCs) of eastern Scotland and south-western Ireland (BurL 1976) come ideal.

In and around Aberdeenshire about one hundred certain or possible RSCs are

Megalithic Astronomy

257

known, about half of which are in a reasonable state of preservation, confined to an area some 80 x 50

km.

At each site the line joining the centre of the ring and the centre of the recumbent stone

provides

an obvious principal axis.

A new study of the Aberdeenshire group was undertaken in 1981

by the author in association with H.A.W. Burl, and is described in Section 4.3 below.

4.2 6 ~

~!ggx Rf ~QQ ~

4.2.1Z~ ~ & ~ i ~

~! ~ i ~

~f~h

~

f~f s~iQ~r~!!~

In preparing a list of sites for initial consideration, three problems immediately arise: (I) Which types of feature should be included? (II) What combinations of features comprise a site? (III) Which

geographical

areas

should

be considered and how should a list of sites within these

areas be compiled? The following scheme was proposed.

~I~.

Only monuments consisting of free-standing megaliths were considered - i.e. stone rings, set-

tings,

alignments and single standing stones - as opposed to those standing stones erected as part

of more complex architectural structures, such as orthostats and peristaliths of chamber tombs.

~I~. sites If,

A

SITE

of

was defined as any collection of megalithic rings, standing or fallen menhirs and

menhirs,

however,

two

such that each of these features is within 300m of at least one of the others. features are separated by a sea channel, or natural rises in intervening ground

level prevent them being intervisible, then the features were counted as separate sites.

~I~

Most

of the western Scottish islands and mainland Argyll were considered.

The region is

one in which Thom's work has been particularly extensive.

An

initial

the

site llst, comprising 322 reported sites, was compiled (Ruggles 1984a: Table 2.1) from

various

reference lists available.

It included all reports of free-standing megalithic sites

by each of the following five sources: (i) Thom's full site list, unpublished elsewhere; (ii) the Ordnance Survey Archaeological Record cards; (iii) the

relevant

inventories of the Royal Co~mnission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of

Scotland; (iv) Burl's "The Stone Circles of the British Isles" (Burl 1976); (v) "Discovery

and Excavation in Scotland".

new discoveries.

This is an annual publication containing reports of

258

C.L.N. Ruggles

Most

of

the

322

sites were visited between 1973 and 1981, often more than once. On the basis of

these first-hand examinations, together with the descriptions and interpretations of other authors, 133

of

the

related

sites were dismissed from further consideration on various grounds, none of which was

to their possible astronomical significance.

grounds.

Seventy-five were excluded on archaeological

Forty-seven of them are highly dubious contenders for prehistoric sites. They consist of

natural

rocks and stone settings, more modern structures such as enclosures and shielings, and the

like. In the remaining 28 cases there is convincing evidence that the sites were not constructed as free-standing such

as

megaliths.

Most of them apparently represent the remains of more complex structures

megalithic chamber tombs.

A small number represent natural boulders which have been cup-

marked.

Of

the remaining 247 sites in the initial List, 43 were excluded from further consideration on the

grounds

that

either

been

original

their

exact

completely

positions,

(original) position could not be determined.

destroyed

or

(in

Thirty-one of these have

the case of single menhirs) removed intact from their

which can only be established with varying degrees of certainty.

(Re-erected

menhirs were included in this category, unless their original position was determined by excavation prior

to re-erection.)

of

the

12

sites

In order to avoid making decisions from site to site about the reliability

original position, all such sites were excluded from further consideration. could

not

be

The remaining

located, or else had previously not been located by other sources and no

fresh attempt was made to do so.

Every effort was made to visit all sites, however remote. in

the initial llst (mostly on small islands) could not be reached, either through lack of time or

sufficient in

However seven of the remaining 204 sites

the

funds,

lists

and were not considered further.

Another six sites were only recently included

of the Ordnance Survey and RCAHMS, coming to light during fieldwork concurrent with

that of the project, and were also not considered further.

Finally, the

the sites at Kintraw and Minard in Argyll (described in Section 2 above) were excluded on

grounds

that

they had both been excavated with a view to testing an astronomical hypothesis,

rendering the statistical approach irrelevant. Thus 189 sites were finally considered for analysis.

4.2.2 Zb~ m~&~ign ~ l!ogi~i2oml

Where at

we

each

making and

are deali ng w i t h a v a r i e t y of s i t e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , very g r e a t care is needed in d e cid in g s i t e what c o n s t i t u t e s an o r i e n t a t i o n worthy o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

a s e r i e s of i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n s in the f i e l d ,

might

selection

be

influenced

process

similar sites.

by

our

We must at a l l

costs avoid

d e c i s i o n s which might vary from s i t e t o s i t e

own p r e d i l e c t i o n s and p r e j u d i c e s regarding astronomy. Our data

must ensure t h a t we include (or r e j e c t ) s i m i l a r alignments from a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y

Megalithic Astronomy

A

259

preliminary set of selection criteria was developed and tested at the group of sites around Cal-

lanish,

Lewis

(Cooke et a~. 1977). They were subsequently modified, in order to take account both

of new types of site which were encountered, and of criticisms by other authors (e.g. Heggie 1981a: 141; 1981b: $19). and

then

The ideal is that such selection criteria should be Laid down prior to fieldwork

adhered

to strictly. In practice, modifications take place and data may be discarded or

extra data found to be required after a field visit. As the project evolved, some sites were revisited

and resurveyed in order to acquire additional data.

dilections

However in order to be certain that pre-

about particular sites did not influence this process, no reduction work was undertaken

on this project until the entire fieLdwork had been completed in 1981.

The

selection criteria

ed:

they

while

at

amidst the site

must

enough t o cope w i t h each d i f f e r e n t

a l s o be j u s t s u f f i c i e n t l y

a

welter

are

to

significant

of data which i s p a t e n t l y i r r e l e v a n t

following selection criterion:

t o the h y p o t h e s i s .

"the orientations of all

might be s i g n i f i c a n t .

However now consider a c i r c l e

omical . o r i e n t a t i o n

problems,

virtually

i n t o an o r d e r o f p r e f e r e n c e .

e x i s t e d at any p a r t i c u l a r such

as

procedure

unknown, or p a r t i a l l y

all

at

sites

where

we

find fallen

for

these

situations

that

scale, might,

One p o s s i b i l i t y

stones whose o r i g i n a l

another

conceivably,

have

i s t o a t t a c h Lower s t a t i s t i c a l

been i n t e n d e d .

is

cases, the code o f p r a c t i c e must c a t e r

t o g i v e equal l i k e l i h o o d t o the f u l l originally

position

In o r d e r t o p r e v e n t

weight t o i n d i c a t i o n s

or dubious s t o n e s , a n o t h e r t o g i v e them a lower c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

and

signif-

There are a number o f a s s o c i a t e d

submerged stones which may or may not be f a l l e n menhirs.

also.

would have us

structures for deliberate astron-

s i t e were then c o n s i d e r e d .

L e f t t o make s u b j e c t i v e judgements in i n d i v i d u a l

ation

likely

at the

Only those s t r u c t u r e s w i t h the h i g h e s t c l a s s i f i c -

being

fallen

At a s i t e c o n s i s t i n g o n l y o f two

w i t h o u t a doubt o f no p a r t i c u l a r

our

involving

two s t a n d i n g stones at a

o f 20 s t o n e s : the c r i t e r i o n

icance. The code o f p r a c t i c e adopted attempted t o c l a s s i f y

that

tines joining

As an example, c o n s i d e r

as these are the most obvious ways i n which an o r i e n t a t i o n

i n c l u d e from the s i t e some 380 o r i e n t a t i o n s ,

ation

evidence t o be submerged and l o s t

be i n c l u d e d in the a n a l y s i s ( i n both d i r e c t i o n s ) " . i s a good c r i t e r i o n ,

type o f s i t e e n c o u n t e r -

s e l e c t i v e so as t o p r o v i d e enough data f o r the a n a l y s i s ,

the same time not a l l o w i n g any p o t e n t i a l l y

menhirs t h i s site

must be f l e x i b l e

on the c l a s s i f i c -

range o f d e c l i n a t i o n s o r azimuths

A combination o f the second and t h i r d

o p t i o n s was f a v o u r e d .

Various selection criteria orientations rows

of

possible

interest

at a s i t e o f any p a r t i c u l a r

form.

t h r e e o f Bore stones were g i v e n the h i g h e s t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,

indications order

of

were d e f i n e d in o r d e r t o determine o b j e c t i v e l y

to

produced take

by the f l a t

account o f f a l l e n and dubious s t o n e s .

between stones in the c i r c l e indications

sides o f s i n g l e sl abs the l o w e s t .

o r between c i r c l e

formed by v i e w i n g one s i t e

what c o n s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e In b r i e f ,

i n d i c a t i o n s al ong

between stone p a i r s n e x t , and Adjustments were then made i n

I n d i c a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g stone c i r c l e s

c e n t r e s and o u t l i e r s )

from a n o t h e r ( " i n t e r - s i t e "

were not c o n s i d e r e d . indications)

Horizons c l o s e r than 1 km, however, were excluded from c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

(either Finally,

were a l s o examined.

260

C.L.N. Ruggles

Most

statistical

independent

of

tests all

will

the

assume that each item of data (indicated azimuth or declination)

rest.

Thus there should be no direct relation between two items of data

which holds regardless of whether or not the structure orientations are random. are

is

If both directions

considered along a particular structure orientation or inter-site line, then this condition is

clearly near

violated.

to

minus

concerned). preference

We would obtain indications with azimuths exactly 180 ° apart and declinations

each

other (although this would depend upon the altitudes of the horizon profiles

On the other hand, there is rarely any a E ~ i ~ ! reason for choosing one direction in to

the other, and both indications mus~ be considered.

the data, once recognised,

Fortunately this inadequacy in

is easily allowed for when implementing statistical tests.

On the other

hand a different way in which non-independent data can arise, and one rather more difficult to deal with, is if too many alignments are considered between the same points (cf. Stonehenge).

This prob-

lem was avoided by the careful choice of selection criteria.

Surveys

were

of

weather conditions, were calculated from Ordnance Survey maps.

bad

undertaken between 1973 and 1981, and the remaining horizon profiles, missed because A total of 130 on-site and

146 inter-site indications were produced for analysis.

4.2.3 ~ ! ~ i ~

~8~!~-

We wish to test whether the indicated declinations observed are consis-

tent with random structure orientations. hypothesis

is

non-uniform,

no simple test was available and Monte-Carlo simulations were used in

order to assess significance levels.

The

This was done as follows.

property to be randomised is structure orientation, and the property we wish to investigate is

the indicated declination. pends of

Because the expected distribution under the null (random)

not only upon the indicated azimuth, but also upon the latitude of the site and the altitude

the indicated horizon.

which

We immediately hit a problem here because the indicated declination de-

Furthermore we are actually interested in an indication of finite width

will include a range of declinations. Thus the width of the indicated azimuth range (IAR) is

relevant, and also the shape of the horizon. Each of these other properties needs to be distributed in exactly the same way amongst the simulated data as it is amongst the observed data.

Each of the 276 indications has an associated latitude, altitude, IAR width and profile shape. simplification taken

as

values these

was

made:

it was assumed that all horizon profiles were flat, with their altitude

the mean of the actual altitude range within the IAR.

for data

latitude, are

altitude

sufficient

One

for

and IAR width. us

This gives 276 sets of associated

When combined with the azimuth of any indication,

to calculate the declination at both ends of the IAR.

These

declinations will represent the limiting indicated declinations except in those cases where the IAR includes

due

north or south (in which case one of the limiting declinations must be calculated at

the north or south point).

Megalithic Astronomy

In

26]

order to generate a set of simulated declinations three lists were produced, containing respec-

tively the 276 values of the latitude, altitude and IAR width for the observed data. Two were shuffled

randomly;

then the first entry from each list was recombined, then the second, and so on, so

as to produce 276 new latitude-altitude-width triplets. To each triplet was now assigned an azimuth selected set

at random, and the limiting declinations were calculated for the simulated indication.

of

276

ations

declination

have

observed

been

data.

intervals produced in this way will satisfy the requirement that orient-

randomised,

but that all other properties reflect exactly those present in the

To generate further simulations two of the three lists were merely reshuffled and

the process repeated.

We

One hundred simulations were produced in this way.

can now identify any 'target window' of declinations, and calculate the number of 'hits' scored

by the observed data upon that target. many or

A

We ask (i) in how many of the 100 simulations were there as

or more hits upon this target? and (ii) in how many of the 100 simulations were there as many fewer

hits upon this target?

The answer to question (i), expressed as a percentage, gives the

significance level at which the null hypothesis can be rejected in favour of this target being preferred; question (ii) expresses the significance level in favour of avoidance.

If we are to be completely objective we should avoid the trap of concentrating upon certain declinations known to be interesting in terms of celestial phenomena, and look for evidence of clustering about (or

an~

declinations.

Furthermore since we do not know how precisely any given orientation was

might have been intended to be) set up, we must test for a range of possible precisions.

Thus

we must look at a comprehensive range of declination windows of varying centres and widths.

The we

problem

is that we are now effectively considering some hundreds of different hypotheses, and

must lower accordingly the significance level at which we are prepared to reject the null hypo-

thesis

in

favour

of

any one of them. The precise amount by which we should do this, however, is

uncertain. Freeman & Elmore (1979) have noted the problem, but we still lack the theoretical framework

to deal with it in a rigorous way.

avoided the null

by

(i)

In the case of the western Scottish sites the problem was

only taking an interest in significance levels less than about I% and (ii) adding

rider that the only formal statement that can be made is that if we can confidently reject the (random)

hypothesis in favour of any of the alternatives presented, it is in favour of those

picked out in this manner.

4.2.4 As tzgngmj~a ~

~9~

manifested

at

trends

~Q~J~-

The statistical analysis of the 276 indicated declinations

three levels of precision.

-15 ° and +15 ° are strongly avoided.

At the lowest level, declinations between about

This reflects a general preference for structures to be orien-

ted N-S, NW-SE or NE-SW rather than E-W.

At

t h e second l e v e l ,

t h e r e i s a marked p r e f e r e n c e f o r s o u t h e r n d e c l i n a t i o n s

between -31 ° and -19 ° ,

262

C.L.N. Ruggles

J ~

(-

I

l

I

(

C~

fSD I

~J

o

ST I

I

I

I

0~

@I I

I

S

$2

"(e~86L) se166n~ J e ~ V " u ° ~ e o ~ s s e l o ~se46~4 e4~ o~ 6uLpuodseJJO3 6uLPe4 s ~se~Jep e4~ a6uLpe4s le~ueJe#~Lp Xq paL#~U6LS SL suo~e3Lpu~ #o uo~eoL~Lsselo aq~ "sa~Ls 4 s ~ o 3 5 uJe~Se~ 6g~ ~e suo~euL13e p pa~eoLpuL ~o =eJSLAJn3

82

8

"~ " 9 ~

264

C.L.N. Ruggles

and of

for

northern declinations above +27 ° . Since the majority of the data represent opposite pairs

indications

sequence

of

along

the

the

other.

same structures, one of these trends is almost certainly a simple conThe southern range very closely matches (i.e. matches to within about a

degree at either end) the range of declinations between the two standstills (i.e. the range of declinations range

which

the

corresponds

moon

can reach at the southern limit of its monthly motions).

The northern

(again to within about a degree) to those declinations to the north of any ever

reached

by the moon (or sun).

effect,

then this implies that structures were preferentially oriented upon the southerly limit of

the

If the southern trend represents the cause and the northern one the

moon's motions in a particular month. a

This need not have involved nightly observations of the

moon

in

given month, but could have been achieved simply by observing the rising or setting of

the

full

the

cause and the southern one the effect, then this implies that structures were oriented prefer-

moon nearest to the summer solstice.

entially

to

point

ever rose or set.

If on the other hand the northern trend represents

farther along the horizon to the north than the moon (or consequently the sun) Statistical analysis of the data as a whole can not formally distinguish between

these two possibilities.

At

the

most

precise level, there is marginal evidence of a preference for six particular declin-

ation values to within a precision of one or two degrees. Three of the declinations (-30~ +18° and +27 ° )

may

indicate

a

specific interest in the lunar standstills, and would imply that organised

observations were undertaken over periods of at least twenty years. However there is no evidence of any

interest in the other lunar standstill declination (-19°.5).

is -25 ° , and may indicate an interest in the winter solstice. ticular

The fourth preferred declination

The fifth value (-22°.5) has no par-

solar or lunar significance and the last (+33 °) is well outside those declinations attain-

able by the sun or moon.

Although the

there

winter

equinoxes

is

clear evidence of lunar orientation, and marginal evidence of orientation upon

solstice, (indeed,

there

is

no evidence whatsoever for an interest in the summer solstice or

declinations in the vicinity of the equinoxes are strongly avoided).

No evid-

ence was found of astronomical orientations of a precision greater than about one degree.

The

curvigram in Fig. 8 displays the new results in a form that can be compared with those of Thom

(Fig. 5).

Differential shading denotes the classification of indications, the darkest shading cor-

responding

to the highest classification.

to

the

assess

It should, however, be emphasized that it is misleading

significance of peaks purely on visual grounds, because of the non-uniform pattern

that would be expected even with random structure orientations.

4.2.5

!~

certain ular

~i~

i~g!~=

Perhaps the most interesting result to emerge from the project was that

coherent groups of sites featured predominantly amongst the indications falling in partic-

"preferred"

declination intervals.

These were sites in Mull and mainland Argyll in general,

Megalithic Astronomy

265

and the 3-, 4- and 5-stone rows in these areas in particular. No significant azimuth or declination trends

were

detected amongst sites in the Outer Hebrides or those in Jura and Islay.

No evidence

was found of any significant trends amongst inter-site indications.

A

closer

marked

declination

pairs the

examination of the rows, pairs and single flat slabs in Mull and mainland Argyll reveals trends.

Twenty-seven structures (13 alignments, 3 aligned pairs of slabs, 3

and 8 single slabs) are oriented in the south upon a declination which the moon can reach at southern

aligned

limit

pair

sideration slabs)

its

monthly

motions.

At a further fourteen structures (4 alignments, 1

of slabs, 2 pairs and 7 single slabs) the southern indication was excluded from con-

because

remain

tion"

of

the horizon was nearer than 1 km.

of

A mere ten structures (4 pairs and 6 single

which six represent cases where there is special reason to believe the "indica-

to be spurious.

None of the exceptions is a stone alignment.

The results are summarised in

Figs. 9(a) and 9(b).

The

exclusion

bears

upon

from

the

consideration of horizons closer than I km leaves us lacking vital data which

lunar hypothesis.

However it brings unwittingly a considerable bonus: the oppor-

tunity to test that hypothesis at a future date on "fresh" data.

There

is

no c o n c l u s i v e evidence f o r h i g h e r - p r e c i s i o n s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n the sout her n l i m i t i n g

range. The d i s t r i b u t i o n moon's

southerly

within

the

observed.

o f the 27 i n d i c a t e d d e c l i n a t i o n s

range).

However t h e r e i s some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t more p r e c i s e phenomena might have been

Alignments i n M u l l and m i d - A r g y l l appear t o be p r e f e r e n t i a l l y

and

ments range,

upon the "major s t a n d s t i l l "

Ouncracaig and Dunamuck I i n A r g y l l .

slabs in K i n t y r e and southern KnapdaLe are p r e f e r e n t i a l l y

which may i n d i c a t e an i n t e r e s t

o r i e n t e d upon the sout her n

moon). The s i t e s i n v o l v e d are Q u i n i s h , B a l l i s -

Dervaig S in M u l l , and B a r b r e c k , K i l m a r t i n ,

and

towards the

monthly Limit at random times w i t h i n the 1 8 . 6 - y e a r cycl e (a s i n u s o i d a l v a r i a t i o n

Limit of the range ( i . e . cate

is consistent with orientation

lunar

ALign-

o r i e n t e d i n the middle o f the

not i n the moon but i n the w i n t e r s o l s t i c e .

The p r i m a r y can-

d i d a t e s are A r d p a t r i c k , B a l t o c h r o y , Beinn an T u i r c , C l o c h k e i l , Mingary and KnockstappLe. The o r i e n tations

in

the v i c i n i t y

o f -19 ° are a more motley c o l l e c t i o n ,

i n c l u d i n g the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l l y dub-

ious s i t e s at U l u v a L t , Mull and Ounskeig, K i n t y r e (see S e c t i o n 3.5.1 above). The a c q u i s i t i o n ditional

of a d -

data from the s i t e s w i t h Local southern h o r i z o n s may help us t o decide whether any o f the

higher-precision

phenomena

are

real.

A study o f the Longer axes o f s i n g l e r e c t a n g u l a r stones i n

Kintyre, many of which failed to meet our criterion to qualify as slabs, might also be worthwhile.

4.3.1 ! ~ and

~ 2 ~

2~ ~ -

Recumbent stone c i r c l e s

are r i n g s o f stones a l l

o f which stood u p r i g h t

a p a r t from one a n o t h e r , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f one ( u s u a l l y by f a r the l a r g e s t stone) which Lay

on i t s

side f l a n k e d by two u p r i g h t s .

N i n e t y - s e v e n s i t e s were noted as c e r t a i n ,

p r o b a b l e or p o s s i b l e

266

C.L.N.

Ruggles

6

S

4

3

DuschW

2

qRC-'Yt_L

1".c S I ..~ggon

/

@

9

+

e i

~ 010~In3~

QKI 1 ,~.G'L. ~

• D u n c e s CG ~Q

Id

,-n,T o r b h ~ t " } E ~.f 9unstuck I ' s q~ hn 3i:3~ o O o k C ;~ t : I / '

"~IQu~O.mucl~

rT

(.

8

1

7

6

+

S

4

3-

8-

A

c

o

I

i -

°~7"'"~'° -i

~@ ,_

I

,

I

I

!

I

1

~8

3

4

S

6

:7

8

9

8

FIG. 9.

m i--1 0 o [] m I-- 2 3 - 2 2 -21 - 2 0 - 1 9 -18 -17 -16 -15

J I

03

Sites in Mull and mainland Argyll and their astronomical significance. (a) Map showing the distribution of stone rows (large dots), pairs (small dots) and single slabs (small circles). (b) Southern declinations indicated at the sites, where the horizon is not less than 1 km distant.

DECLINATION

Carse Quinish m [] Avinagillan Dunamuck I Kilmartin II Barbreck B Duncracaig Kilmartin m Escart m ! Dervaig $ Balliscate m Knockstapple i [] Branault Ballochroy m Duncracaig Beinn an Tuirc t Rowanfield i Ardnacross ClochkeU Mingary Ardpatrick Duachy Uisken Dunamuck II Cillchriosd Dunskeig Uluvalt Gruline Kilmory - 3 3 - 3 2 -31 - 3 0 - 2 9 - 2 8 - 2 7 - 2 6 - 2 5 - 2 4

0

,10

268

C.L.N. Ruggles

RSCs

by

Burl (1976: Appendix 1).

vation, upon

When a site has been destroyed or is in a poor state of preser-

whether it is in fact a good candidate for an RSC will be debatable: decisions will depend

the

(where

interpretation

known,

Lesser

greater

or

reason,

sites

unlikely

deduced

of descriptions by antiquarians, the situation of the site, its diameter or

quoted in the past) and the like.

Such decisions inevitably involve a

degree of subjective interpretation by the present-day investigator.

were

For this

classified independently by Ruggles (1984b) as certain, probable, possible or

candidates

for

RSCs

on

the

basis

of first-hand inspection and reference to original

sources.

During

the

listed

by Burt, with the exception of 18 quoted by Burl as destroyed.

cases

the

fields

summer

site

of

1981

visits were attempted to each of the 70 certain and 24 probable RSCs

could not be located at the given grid references.

In four of the remaining 76 A further eight sites were in

under crop and could not be approached for further study, leaving 64 that were successfully

examined.

4.3.2

~J~J2g

~

~J~b ~ =

~2~z--°D ~ J ~ D ~

With only two exceptions, all the sites visited

were found to be located on flat ground, hill tops or south- or southeast-facing slopes. This could reflect a preference for non-nearby horizons to the south and east, and so wherever a site was Located and accessible, a "horizon scan" was carried out. This consisted of dividing horizon distances into four categories: A (up to 1 km), B (1 - 3 km); C (3 - 5 km) and D (over 5 km). The horizon was then

scrutinized,

nearest degree.

The

most

south.

with

the azimuths of junctions between different categories being noted to the

The results are shown in Fig. 10.

obvious

trend t h a t emerges is a d i s t i n c t

The percentage o f horizons in category A drops from near 30% around due n o rt h t o under 5%

around

due

south.

The preference against nearby horizons i s not symmetrical about t h i s minimum,

but instead extends towards the e a s t . 10%

preference f o r non-nearby horizons towards the

between

evidence

The p r o p o r t i o n o f horizons in Category A does not r i s e above

azimuths o f around 60° (ENE) and 230 ° (SW).

that

At the same t i m e , t h e r e i s no convincing

t h e r e e x i s t e d a preference f o r very d i s t a n t ,

as opposed t o moderately d i s t a n t ,

hor-

izons in any p a r t i c u l a r d i r e c t i o n .

4.3.3

~£~D~!~

have

produced

clear

that

omical

2~ plans

~

B~-

Various authors have quoted valueS f o r RSC o r i e n t a t i o n s , o r e l s e

from which they can be measured.

On c l o s e r e xa m in a t io n , however, i t

becomes

there are at each s i t e not one but two candidates f o r a primary o r i e n t a t i o n o f a s t r o n -

significance,

and t h a t surveys by previous authors had sometimes confused the two.

One i s

the

Line from the centre of the s i t e through the centre o f the recumbent stone (the "Centre L in e " )

and

the

dicular either

other

is the l i n e p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o the longest a x i s o f the recumbent stone (the "Perpen-

Line"). Line,

At any p a r t i c u l a r

site,

depending on i t s present s t a t e , i t

is possible to define

or both: and where only the L a t t e r e x i s t s , t h i s has o f t e n been presented as the f o r -

~ZIMUTH RELATIVE TO PRINCIPALAXIS

~,ZIMUTH (ABSOLUTE)

0

10

20

3O

40

50

6O

7O

80

100

--80

10o

:IGS' 10 (UPPER) & 11 (LOWER). Aberdeenshire Recumbent Stone C i r c l e s . FIG. 10. Horizon scans by azimuth. For each 1 i n t e r v a l in azimuth we p l o t the percentage of horizons in d i f f e r e n t distance c a t e g o r i e s . A (0 - 1 km) bLack; B (1 - 3 km) dark shading; C (3 - 5 km) l i g h t shading; O (over 5 km) unshaded. A f t e r Ruggles (1984b). FIG. 11. Horizon scans f o r azimuths r e l a t i v e to the 'perpendicuLar' axis of s i t e s . Shading as above. A f t e r Ruggles (1984b).

70

°°t

8O

10o

LO-

20

30

40.

50.

60'

70,

80

IO0

rt

¢3

r~

270

C.L.N. Ruggles

mer.

However

at sites where both exist it can be seen that the long axis of the recumbent stone

often appears to have been set considerably off the line tangential to the ring, and the two orientations were

may

differ

considered,

by almost 20 ° . In the analysis both the Centre and Perpendicular orientations

and

they were analysed separately.

In each case the data set consists of those

sites where the axis in question can be defined.

Surveys

were carried out at sites examined during the summer of 1981 wherever the condition of the

site merited it. dicular

Line

Inevitably there were uncertainties in defining either the Centre Line or Perpen-

azimuth,

their magnitude depending upon the state of the site.

In the former case,

where a ring is circular and several stones remain in situ, the RSC centre may be accurately definable, but otherwise a good deal of subjective interpretation may be involved. Where there exists an internal

cairn or ring cairn this may influence the decision: if this is placed away from the ring

centre

we may have to decide which "centre" is the appropriate one, and if too few stones exist to

define

a centre we have to decide whether to take the position of an internal feature as such.

the

case

axis

of the Perpendicular Line the accuracy of the orientation of the assumed recumbent stone

will

exact

depend

upon how regular its shape is and whether it has moved.

The decision as to the

position of the centre of the recumbent stone, which is relevant to both the Centre and Per-

pendicular azimuths, also depends upon its shape and where the assumed ends are taken. is

In

it

were

possible quoted

to

reliably to define either axis to an accuracy of 1 ° or better. 0o.5,

Thus seldom

Measured azimuths

but in the majority of cases this figure is subject to considerable uncer-

tainty for one reason or another.

In

a

number

Perpendicular stones

of cases it is not possible to determine even an approximate value for the Centre or Line

azimuth.

This happens, for example, at sites where at most one or two circle

remain (Centre Line indeterminable) or where the recumbent stone has fallen or been removed

(Perpendicular Line indeterminable).

The primary orientations display a highly significant general trend: whether we consider the Centre Line or the Perpendicular Line, the azimuths from the site interior towards the recumbent stone all fall, without a single exception, within an azimuth band about 90 ° in width centred upon SSW. in

itself

roughest out

Even

this is a trend which can only be explained if astronomical observations (albeit of the kind,

undertaken

the sites.

merely in order to determine absolute directions) were used in setting

The geographical area they span is far too large for sightings upon any particular

terrestrial feature to have been any use.

4.3.4

~E~g~

~

~

~2 ~

2~o~t~i~

- It is clearly of interest to plot horizon dis-

tances against azimuths relative to the Centre or Perpendicular Line orientation. Fig. 11 shows the results

for the Perpendicular Line.

There is a complete avoidance of nearby (category A) horizons

in the general direction of the primary axis; the boycott extends over a total of 37 ° . (In the case

Megallthlc Astronomy

of the Centre Line this is only about 11°.)

271

These figures imply that when viewed along the Perpen-

dicular Line from, say, 10m behind the recumbent stone, there is never any nearby horizon above the recumbent

stone.

There

does not, however, appear to be any preference for a particularly distant

(as opposed to merely non-local) horizon.

The

fact that nearby horizons are shunned completely over the recumbent stone may provide evidence

of an interest in celestial observations near to the horizon which should not be obscured by nearby land

or

vegetation.

approximate beneath

In the great majority of cases the flankers cut the horizon as viewed from

eye-height

the

horizon.

in the interior of the ring, whereas the recumbent stone between them lies Thus the inner edges of the flankers appear to "partition off" a stretch of

horizon which the recumbent stone lies beneath; and it is not unlikely that this stretch of horizon might have been used for some sort of astronomical observation. The azimuth range over which nearby horizons are shunned is much wider in the case of the Perpendicular Line than the Centre Line, providing some evidence that it is the direction perpendicular to the recumbent stone, rather than the Centre

Axis, that was of particular astronomical significance; however this conclusion merits much

fuller discussion.

These

results

observations (1980)

on

authors. a

provide affected

the

basis

a the of

strong layout fifty

motivation for examining whether any more specific astronomical of

the

sites. This possibility has been investigated by Burl

indicated

azimuths deduced from the existing surveys of earlier

His conclusions about the astronomical significance of the RSCs are now in question, and

detailed consideration of the indicated declinations on the basis of the new data is in progress

(Ruggles & Burl 1985).

It does however appear that a lunar, rather than a solar, significance will

be demonstrable.

s.1 l s ~ t ~ i g s

If

the preceding three sections have talked a great deal about precision of alignments and statis-

tical

rigour,

them,

then this merely reflects the overriding flavour of the megalithic astronomy debate, even in

recent years. omical

and

very

little about the nature of the sites themselves and the people who built

The ultimate quest remains, for many investigators, to examine the nature of astron-

observations

made

in prehistoric times: other archaeolHical

evidence merely serves as an

arbiter in the astronomical debate, or else to provide background evidence.

From

the point of view of the great majority of archaeol~ists

questionable. the

Why

construction,

this whole approach has always been

concentrate upon astrOnomy when so many other factors might also have motivated design and use of sites about which we know so little?

The answer is of course

272

C.L.N. Ruggles

that

this

is

the

approach o f the astronomer or the h i s t o r i a n

reflection

of

the

backgrounds

approach ations

is

inevitably

of

the

majority

o f sciences and t h a t i t

o f workers i n t h i s t o p i c .

is a clear

The a r c h a e o l o g i s t ' s

more b r o a d - b a s e d , and in recent year s a number o f a r c h a e o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g -

have been undertaken in which astronomy i s c o n s i d e r e d as merely one o f a number of p o s s i b l e

factors

influencing

Lation

from

s i t e placement and o r i e n t a t i o n .

those

considerations

described

were

so

far.

These s t u d i e s have proceeded l a r g e l y i n i s o -

They have s t a r t e d t o uncover evidence t h a t a s t r o n o m i c a l

a f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g the s i t i n g

monument at d i f f e r e n t

times i n B r i t i s h

prehistory,

and design o f a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t

types o f

and have s t a r t e d t o g i v e us some clues about the

r o l e played by astronomy in the Lives o f the people concerned.

A

number

o f a r c h a e o l o g i s t s have s t u d i e d the o r i e n t a t i o n s

f r e q u e n t l y been observed. a

of burial

tombs and common p a t t e r n s have

A w i d e l y - q u o t e d example i s the e a r t h e n long barrows o f Cranbourne Chase,

g r e a t many o f which are a l i g n e d NW/SE w i t h the Larger end at the SE (Ashbee 1970: 162-163).

other

i s the Clyde c a i r n s o f Scotland where a n o r t h - e a s t e r l y

c o u r t o f the long a x i s of the c a i r n (Henshall 1972: 9 9 ) . tation

orientation

An-

i s f a v o u r e d f o r the f o r e -

Henshall has a l s o commented on the o r i e n -

of the c a i r n s o f n o r t h e r n Scotland: she notes t h a t o n l y 12 o f the 114 c a i r n s i n her Orkney-

Cromarty group face the western h a l f o f the compass, the normal o r i e n t a t i o n (Henshall 1963: 104) and t h a t an e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n universally,

by

orientation

of

the

builders

the

of

being between NE and SE

a l s o seems t o have been p r e f e r r e d , al t hough not

Maes Howe type c a i r n s (1963: 130).

Clava c a i r n s o f I n v e r n e s s - s h i r e .

Burl

(1981b) notes the SSW

A recent p r o j e c t on the chambered c a i r n s o f

Orkney i s d e s c r i b e d below.

5.2 ! ~

~!~b-~e~

evidence the

~!iEO~

relating

Land

on

architectural

~

which

they

lived.

form,

their

relationship

e v i d e n c e ) , and t h e i r

There

are

two

henges

stone) pottery other

best known.

not

His main source o f data i s the Orkney chambered c a i r n s : t h e i r t o o t h e r m a t e r i a l evidence ( o t h e r monuments, a r t e f a c t s

and

relationships.

in

other

words

found at d i f f e r e n t styles, objects

cairns places

Other monuments o f the same age i n Orkney i n c l u d e f o u r s e t t l e m e n t s i t e s ,

and a number o f i n d i v i d u a l

s i t e s as w e l l ) , bered

spatial

and second m i l l e n n i a bc and

at l e a s t 76 chambered c a i r n s known in Orkney, o f which Maes Howe ( S e c t i o n 2.2 above) i s

the

present:

Fraser (1983) has attempted t o draw t o g e t h e r many l i n e s o f

t o the people who i n h a b i t e d Orkney d u r i n g the t h i r d

burial

perhaps

~O~X-

Unstan

assemblages

standing stones. of

s i t e s seem t o f a l l Ware

and

There are two d i f f e r e n t

small p o r t a b l e a r t e f a c t s

(objects of pottery,

were

Grooved Ware.

However Fraser concludes t h a t the a r t e f a c t s and

o b j e c t s (such as r i t u a l

they t u r n up at s e t t l e m e n t

i s t r u e both f o r Unstan and Grooved Ware s i t e s .

places where the o r d i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s

where a c t i v i t i e s

of special significance,

objects) took place.

bone and

i n t o one o f two g r o u p s , c h a r a c t e r i s e d by two d i s t i n c t

found in chambered c a i r n s are not p e c u l i a r t o them ( i . e . and t h a t t h i s

material cultures

of daily

life

He i n f e r s t h a t cham-

were c a r r i e d o u t : they were

r e q u i r i n g the manufacture and use o f s p e c i a l

Megalithic Astronomy

A

locational

analysis was undertaken in an attempt to explore the relationships between the cham-

bered cairns and the landscape of Orkney. geology,

273

Various aspects of the landscape were identified, namely

soils, land use capability, topography, vegetation, altitude, visibility from a location,

drainage, ease of approach to a location and the nature of the nearest coast. The distribution pattern of the chambered cairns was examined in relation to each of these aspects in turn, and then to all

the

nium,

factors taken together. Since the chambered cairns cover a time period of about a millen-

such an analysis can only hope to reveal factors influencing the siting of cairns which span

this period. The assumption is inherent that the qualities of the landscape assumed in the analysis were relatively unchanging during the period under consideration.

Some o f the r e s u l t s o f the u n i v a r i a t e approach were as f o l l o w s . (i)

The

accessibility

w i t h no s u p e r f i c i a l (ii)

The

of

b u i l d i n g stone may have c o n s t r a i n e d the c a i r n - b u i l d e r s

t o p r e f e r Land

d e p o s i t s (such as a mantle o f peat ) over land w i t h such d e p o s i t s .

chambered c a i r n s seem p r e f e r e n t i a l l y

and f r e e l y d r a i n e d , i . e .

t o be l o c a t e d near t o s o i l s which were easy t o work

on or near the farming land o f the b u i l d e r s .

(iii) They were located in a variety of topographic positions (i.e. valley bottoms, coastal plains, hill slopes, hill tops, etc.). (iv) The distribution of present-day vegetation does not appear to be correlated with the distribution of chambered cairns. (v) The cairns were not located in places with extensive sectors of restricted visibility. (vi) They were generally located in positions which are easy to approach. (vii) They

show a pronounced tendency to be located close to the coast: high cliffs were preferred

over major beach systems as the nearest coastal type.

To some e x t e n t i t from

the

is misleading to isolate different

others.

actually

importance. A p r i n c i p a l

land . second

appears

typically

extensive

a c t i n g t o g e t h e r or vyi ng a g a i n s t one a n o t h e r i n

components a n a l y s i s ( F r a s e r 1983: S e c t i o n 12.3) r e v e a l s two d i s t i n c t

l o c a t i o n . The f i r s t

It

c o n s i d e r i n g each o f them i n i s o l a t i o n

The a c t u a l d e c i s i o n about where t o p l a c e a chambered c a i r n would, presumably,

have r e s u l t e d from any number o f f a c t o r s ,

of original

factors,

to

fit

typically

consists of a hillslope

l o c a t i o n i n marginal a g r i c u l t u r a l

best those c a i r n s which are small and round w i t h simple chambers. The

c o n s i s t s o f a l o c a t i o n on land now reckoned t o be good f o r a g r i c u l t u r e ,

views

models

o f the land w i t h i n 5 km.

I t appears t o f i t

and w i t h

best t hose c a i r n s o f o t h e r s s i z e s and

shapes.

FinaLly,

interpretation tation visibility

(1983:

Fraser

of

as

cairns of

ch. 15) examines v a r i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s

symbolic.

and a r t e f a c t s most r e a d i l y open t o

One o f these i s symbolism connected w i t h the sky, such as the o r i e n -

with respect t o the s u r r o u n d i n g Land and the v i s i b l e

cairns,

the

demarcation

sky; o t h e r s are the i n t e r -

o f space w i t h i n and around c a i r n s , animal and b i r d bones

found w i t h i n c a i r n s , and d e c o r a t i o n s (such as s p i r a l s )

found on s c u l p t e d s t o n e s .

274

C.L.N. Ruggles

Conclusions from s t u d i e s o f the c a i r n o r i e n t a t i o n s were as f o l l o w s . (i)

Those c a i r n s which are e l o n g a t e d seem p r e f e r e n t i a l l y

(ii)

Amongst

t o be o r i e n t e d i n the N~P-SE q u a d r a n t s .

those c a i r n s w i t h e l o n g a t e d chambers, t h e r e i s no p a t t e r n o f o r i e n t a t i o n

amongst the

chambers. (iii)

As

a

group,

the

known

chambered

c a i r n s o f Orkney have passages which are p r e f e r e n t i a l l y

o r i e n t e d outwards from the chamber t o the south and e a s t .

To determine the o r i e n t a t i o n position

near

material

if

divided

into

restricted

to the

of visibility,

the e n t r a n c e passage o f the c a i r n , e i t h e r on the ground s u r f a c e o r on the mound view

was r e s t r i c t e d

sectors of visibility

the h o r i z o n t a l view.

Oistant:

the h o r i z o n was scanned w i t h a p r i s m a t i c compass from a

visibility

by the c a i r n i t s e l f .

The classes o f v i s i b i l i t y

Restricted:

l e s s than 500mr.

The data were s i m p l i f i e d

by q u a n t i z i n g each azimuth c i r c l e

Fraser

(Oavidson

evidence

tall

v e g e t a t i o n as i t

The

results

of

is

& Jones 1984) t h a t the environment at the time was as d e v o i d o f

apparent around 0 ° . visibility,

The p a t t e r n i s more pronounced than those f o r e i t h e r

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the d i s t a n t v i s i b i l i t y

was the i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r .

observed i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y

The

as

particular bility are

now,

points

of

One

inter-

in cert ain direct ions,

Applying a Kolmogorov-Smirnov t e s t ,

azimuth d i s t r i b u t i o n

question

The observed azimuth d i s t r i b u t i o n

i s b i m o d a l , w i t h a major peak around 140° and a minor one around 270° .

or r e s t r i c t e d

anything,

In c o n s i d e r i n g v i s i b i l i t y

is today.

visibility

trough

mediate

i n t o 10° b i n s .

f o r the 76 known c a i r n s are sunvmarised i n F i g . 12.

distant

major

were:

exceeding 5 km. between 500m and 5 km.

notes

f o r each c a i r n was

depending upon the d i s t a n c e t o t h e n e a r e s t p i e c e o f land which

Intermediate: visibility visibility

The azimuth c i r c l e

if

Fraser concludes t h a t the

n o n - u n i f o r m at the 1% l e v e l .

w i t h the Recumbent Stone C i r c l e data above, i s what i s s p e c i a l about t hese the compass t h a t r e q u i r e s d i s t a n t v i s i b i l i t y .

o f l o c a l topography i n f l u e n c i n g o r i e n t a t i o n w i d e l y d i s p e r s e d o v e r 20 i s l a n d s .

c i s e l y w i t h measurements o f t h i s

of visibility

As w i t h the RSCs, the p o s s i -

can be d i s c o u n t e d si nce the c a i r n s

Although a s t r o n o m i c a l design can not be t i e d down v e r y p r e -

accuracy, i t

is interesting

t o note t h a t at t h e l a t i t u d e

o f Orkney

when the c a i r n s were e r e c t e d , midwinter s u n r i s e oc cur r ed at an azimuth o f around 140° . Azimuth 270° i s o f course t h a t o f the e q u i n o c t i a l

A

relationship

one other

cairn

s e t t i n g sun.

o f dominance and subservience might be expressed i n r e l a t i o n

being in a dominant l o c a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n

cairns

then i t

to others.

t o chambered c a i r n s by

I f one c a i r n can be seen from many

i s always p r e s e n t and can never be ignored by the users o f the o t h e r c a i r n s .

I f messages were passed between c a i r n s by v i s u a l means, then a h i g h l y i n t e r v i s i b l e important

link

in the d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n .

c a i r n becomes an

However F r a s e r ' s a n a l y s i s of i n t e r v i s i b i l i t y

FIG. 12.

I-

N

¢-

e-

"0

00 0 o Q~

~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil~

0

10

l

20

I

!

40

!

60

|

50

Number o f c a i r n s w i t h d i s t a n t ,

Number of cairns

30

I

76

i n t e r m e d i a t e and r e s t r i c t e d

70

I

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

~ii{iiiiii{iiiii!!iiiiii{iiiiiiii{iii!!{{{iiiilil.. .%.

iiiii iiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiii iiiii!! iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiii!!!iiiii!!i!iiiii!iiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiii~, .....

,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiii!iigii!iiiiiilgHi~i~e ...........

iiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiL

ii?iiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!iiiiilP

Orientation of visibility f o r 76 chambered c a i r n s i n Orkney. visibility by 10 ° s e c t o r i n azimuth. A f t e r Fraser (1983).

000

270-

180-

090-

000

o=

o



276

C.L.N. Ruggles

found

no

strong

evidence

for

the

existence of power relationships expressed in terms of cairn

location.

Fraser

concludes

places

which

that that the neolithic inhabitants of Orkney situated their chambered cairns in

were

chosen

so as to make certain solar observations possible.

These observations

could

have

been of importance to a farming people in signalling significant times in the agricul-

tural

year.

He also suggests that the chambered cairn, situated in the physical centre and social

heart

of

the

community,

would

have been the obvious meeting place to rejoice and celebrate the

changing o f the seasons.

Fraser's in

work

approach

has d e l i b e r a t e l y

been d e s c r i b e d at some l e n g t h .

between an a r c h a e o l o g i s t concerned o n l y i n passing w i t h a s t r o n o m i c a l symbolism and an

astronomer or e n g i n e e r p a r t i c u l a r l y

Some recent

analyses

of

grave

seeking evidence o f a s t r o n o m i c a l achievement.

orientations

considered i n the r e s t o f t h i s a r t i c l e considered isolation,

bear

some similarity

the

from

cemeteries d a t i n g much l a t e r than the p e r i o d

are worthy o f mention h e r e , because the t e c h n i q u e s and ideas

to

those

and some r a t h e r elementary p i t f a l l s

Studies o f the o r i e n t a t i o n s yoking

I t g i v e s a f e e l f o r the d i f f e r e n c e

discussed above, y e t they have proceeded i n apparent might have been avoided had t h i s not been the case.

o f Saxon graves have been undertaken by Rahtz (1978).

the a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e

- particularly

a classic article

He begins by i n =

by Rose (1922) - t o suggest

kinds o f reason why i t might be d e s i r a b l e f o r a head or body t o be Laid i n the e a r t h i n a p a r -

ticular

direction.

The

most g e n e r a l l y held b e l i e f ,

ground

in a c e r t a i n d i r e c t i o n

to

so f o r e v e r ; or t h a t u l t i m a t e l y

do

rise,

and

the

direction

because i t

of

(i)

~29~,

seems, i s t h a t the body i s placed i n the

p o i n t s t o something, or looks at something, and c o n t i n u e s

at some dramatic end t o the w o r l d the corpse or s p i r i t

rising will

T y p i c a l reasons f o r o r i e n t a t i o n ,

it

be determined i n some way by the d i r e c t i o n

will

o f the body.

as quoted by v a r i o u s a u t h o r s , were summartsed by Rahtz as f o l l o w s .

depending on age, r a n k , s o c i a l s t a t u s , sex, morals ( s t a t e o f g u i l t

or innocence at

d e a t h ) , manner o f death ( d i s e a s e , v i o l e n c e or i n bed) . (ii) ~ ! ~



~2~X

2~E~!,

which either the spirit is due to travel to, or the corpse will

spend eternity gazing towards. (iii)

A[ea

2~

females

2EJgiO~= being

X!~

oriented

£~2~C~ towards

~£ 2 ~ £ ~ E ~ ! ~ , the

west,

such as h u n t i n g or farming grounds; o r

t o the s u n s e t , when the w i f e w i l l

p r e p a r e her

husband's meal. ( i v ) Sett~emeo~ individual (v) ~ 2 £ ! ~



~29~

~J~-

Graves may p o i n t i n the g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n

graves may p o i n t t o the dead p e r s o n ' s house. 2~ ~ 2 D ~ D ~ -

such as c r o s s e s , h i l l - f i g u r e s

or idols.

of the sunset, or

Megalithic Astronomy

(vi) ~9~Z ~ j ~ J O 9 ~ (vii) 5 ~ L

9£ ~ U ~ J -

~ L

2~L

277

including shrines and former burial places.

Z2~;

so that the cemetery may impress, or at least be seen, by those

passing by. (viii) Natura~ ~eat~es such as mountains, clefts, hills, rivers, contours and rocks. (ix) O~he~

9 ~

~

~ -

The orientation of one grave may determine that of others that

follow. (x) As~£onom~£a~ observations of celestial bodies at their rising, traverse or setting.

In addition we should bear the following thoughts in mind. (xi) Individual some

of

perversities

may

come into play, such as amongst the Ashanti

(Ucko 1969: 273),

whom deliberately bury their dead in the opposite direction to that considered the

norm, in the belief that the dead turn themselves round after a certain passage of time. (xii) Many other controlling factors might have prevailed, of which we can have no knowledge. (xiii) The gravedigger might have made an arbitrary decision based on some passing whim.

The

orientation

of particular graves will be the result of many factors, of which some might have

been

identified here.

set.

He showed that all but 2% of the 305 measurable bodies lay with their feet oriented on points

within the

the

local

alignment

east-facing

Rahtz concerned himself with the large Saxon cemetery at Cannington, Somer-

solar arc. He concluded that the position of sunrise could well have determined

of the corpse, thereby criticising the assumption that the observed predominance of

graves

pagan

practice.

quent

orientation

necessarily represented the graves of Christians; it could be the remnant of a

Furthermore if the position of sunrise at the time of death determined the subseof the corpse, then one could make observations about the seasonal incidence of

mortality.

The

distribution

data

represent

orientation ence

of

is

of a

the Cannington graves is shown in Fig. 13(a).

unimodal

Although it is clear that the

distribution, centred around azimuth 110 ° , Rahtz concludes that solar

a major factor, and refers to arguments that the distribution might indicate evid-

seasonal death, with a high proportion of deaths occurring in summer, when bubonic plague

hits hardest.

In

a discussion of a Saxon cemetery at Finglesham, Kent, Hawkes (1976) established a similar range

of

east-west orientation, shown in Fig. 13(b).

distributed

The Finglesham orientations are clearly unimodaIly

more or less about due east, yet again the hypothesis of solar orientation was consid-

ered.

Fortunately

Brown

strongly

favours

mortality

model.

(1983) a

normal He

has

recently

distribution

compares

the

pointed about

expected

out that the statistical evidence in both cases a preferred orientation rather than the sunrisedistribution

of orientations given random deaths

t o mid j u l y

7 0 °.

6 0 ~_

50 t

FIG. 13.

outside solar arc

I

I

a

20 I

I

30 I

1

I I I

I

40

feet orientation

I

I

I

5 I

I

10

I

I

b

I

I

20 I

I

30 I

I

I I

I

40

feet orientation

I

I 10%

0

Grave o r i e n t a t i o n w i t h i n the soLar arc at Cannington, Somerset (A) and at Finglesham, Kent (B), together with the expected d i s t r i b u t i o n given a sunrise o r i e n t a t i o n model and random incidence of deaths throughout the year (C). A f t e r Rahtz (1977), Hawkes (1976) and Brown (1983).

1403

/

e a r l i e r a p r i l o r e a r l y s e p t 8 0 ~_ e a r l y a p r i l or m i d s e p t . l a t e r m a r c h or l a t e r s e p t 9 0 _~ mid m a r c h or l a t e s e p t . e a r l i e r m a r c h o r e a r l y o c t 100"e a r l y m a r c h or e a r l i e r o c t l a t e f e b or l a t e o c t 1 1 0 ~mid f e b or l a t e o c t - n o v . e a r l y f e b or e a r l y n o v 1 2 0 ~. l a t e r j a n or mid n o v dec to earlier jan ___130:

l a t e r april or e a r l i e r a u g mid april or later aug

e a r l y m a y or l a t e j u l y - a u g

mid m a y or l a t e r j u l y

latemay

outside solar arc

40 ~

Azimuth

~

10 0

I

5

0

I

No. of g r a v e s i n s i d e s o l a r a r c : 2 0 0

No.of graves inside solar arc : 299

¢n

Megalithic Astronomy

throughout the

279

the year, which is of course sinusoidal (Fig. 13(c)), with a mortality model based upon

seasonal incidence of plague deaths during the fourteenth century.

tality at a certain season might explain the maximum concentrations, the

abnormally

low

death

rate

around the solstices.

While a model of high mor-

it does not adequately explain

The simple, preferred-orientation model,

explains the data far better.

An

independent

statistical

study of grave orientations, this time collating data from five Roman

and post-Roman cemeteries including Cannington, has also appeared recently (Kendall 1982). Although the

data

from

all five sites are distinctly unimodal in character, the sunrise-seasonal model is

considered against concentration models about single and multiple orientations, and mixtures of the two.

There are a number of dubious astronomical statements such as

..the

sun

does

not

travel

through twelve distinct monthly periods within its annual arc.

There are, in fact, seven periods of which five are two-monthly.. and

there

almost and

is

a

diagram

vertically,

points

out

implying,

quite erroneously, that the sun rises much more steeply, and

around the equinoxes.

that

However Kendall eventually dismisses the seasonal model

the observed distributions about a mean orientation may be explained by the

error between the direction being aimed at and that achieved by the grave-digger.

That

d i s c u s s i o n s such as t h a t on Saxon grave o r i e n t a t i o n s

statistical

reappraisal, while sophisticated statistical

c a r r i e d out with c o m p a r a t i v e l y l i t t l e munication with one

possible

statistical

noting quite rightly

factor; rigour,

is indicative

can be

o f the yawning com-

Many a r c h a e o l o g i s t s view archaeoastronomy

t h a t the a n a l y s i s o f o r i e n t a t i o n s

meanwhile many archaeoastronomers p e r s i s t but paying l i t t l e

f o r so Long w i t h o u t adequate

t e s t s upon m e g a l i t h i c o r i e n t a t i o n s

archaeological reappraisal,

gap which has p e r s i s t e d i n t h i s touchy a r e a .

suspicion,

can p e r s i s t

i n v o l v e s astronomy as o n l y

in analysing t heir

data w i t h g r e a t

a t t e n t i o n t o f a c t o r s o t h e r than a s t r o n o m i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

which might have i n f l u e n c e d s t r u c t u r e o r i e n t a t i o n s .

5.4 ~gO~ c i r c l e s

Recent

work

studying without to

a

two

a r c h a e o l o g i s t s ( B a r n a t t & P i e r p o i n t 1983) has broken important new ground by

group o f s i t e s

f o r evidence o f a s t r o n o m i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s usi ng h o r i z o n f o r e s i g h t s ,

but

s t r u c t u r e s on the ground being o r i e n t e d upon the f o r e s i g h t s i n q u e s t i o n . T h e i r approach i s

detect

vable

by

in

those areas on t h e ground from which c e r t a i n a s t r o n o m i c a l events would have been o b s e r particular

h o r i z o n n o t c h e s , and t o see whether the placement o f s i t e s w i t h i n t h a t g i v e n

area f a v o u r s Locations where a good many such events would have been v i s i b l e .

Recalling have

been

isolation

Fraser's

work d e s c r i b e d above, we see t h a t a s t r o n o m i c a l i n f l u e n c e s o f t h i s n a t u r e might

o n l y one o f many f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g s i t e placement, and t o c o n s i d e r any one o f them i n might

be m i s l e a d i n g .

B a r n a t t and P i e r p o i n t do, however, a l s o c o n s i d e r one o t h e r f a c t o r

280

C.L.N. Ruggles

which

might have influenced site placement: the desire for prominent siting, which is very similar

to Fraser's intervisibility criterion.

Barnatt and Pierpoint concentrate on stone circles, suggesting that they were the focal points of a society

that

happened

to have an interest in astronomy (amongst, presumably, many other things).

Machrie Moor on Arran was chosen for a case study.

The area has a large concentration of monuments

including six stone circles of various designs, three chambered tombs and over twenty round houses, together with associated clearance cairns and field walls. and

a

single

about the

standing

stone.

There are also two large cairns, a cist

All these sites are positioned on a relatively well-drained ridge

1 km 2 in extent surrounded by deep peat bogs.

Because of the large number of stone circles,

moor provided an ideal opportunity to consider the precise location of its monuments and their

astronomical potential.

In

order

tions

to compare the actual siting of the Macrie Moor stone circles with other potential loca-

within

the Moor, the whole area was covered with a conceptual grid, its intersections being

at 100m intervals.

Measurements were then taken from the site locations themselves, and from every

grid

intersection.

were

assessed

In order to estimate visual prominence, the relative amounts of visible land

from

each point by recording the general area of land visible, potential zones for

settlement and the presence of field monuments and other archaeological evidence. Many similarities with Fraser's approach are evident. The authors conclude that the stone circles on Macrie Moor were placed at optimally prominent locations,

in strong contrast to the other types of site on the moor,

although some riders have been pointed out in an accompanying comment (Ruggles 1983b).

The

eastern

and western skylines were classified as having eight well-defined features and twenty

others, which although clearly visible with the naked eye, are not very obvious targets. 23

features

excluded. were

to the north and south fell well beyond the horizon range of the sun or moon and were ALL

measured

enormous,

A further

and

28

features studied were regarded as potential foresights and their declinations

by theodolite from each grid intersection. one

wonders

whether

an

The amount of work involved was clearly

adequate picture might be gained elsewhere from computer

studies using large-scale Ordnance Survey maps which are now stored digitally.

Astronomical a

map

was

particular circles these

events considered s i g n i f i c a n t

and

p l o t t e d showing areas from which p a r t i c u l a r s o l a r or Lunar events could be observed in notches.

The

superimposed. areas

were the soLar s o l s t i c e s and the Lunar s t a n d s t i l l s ,

only

results

are

shown in Fig. 14, w i t h the a c t u a l l o c a t i o n s o f the stone

Five out of seven c i r c l e s occupy the areas w it h two o r more l i n e s , although

make up some 27% of the t o t a l . rather

than

a

stone c i r c l e .

The only r e a l l y b a d ly-p la ce d s i t e i s probably a

complex

ring-cairn

B a r n a t t and P i e r p o i n t conclude t h a t t h e r e is a

distinct

bias in the s i t i n g of stone c i r c l e s f o r Locations f a v o r a b l e t o astronomical o r i e n t a t i o n .

Megalithic Astronomy

!

: .

~

0 n u m b e r of 1 horizon 2 orientations 3 4

.

.

281

.

• circles A standing stone

0

2 0' 0

FIG. 14. The astronomical potential of the Macrie Moor area, Arran. Shading shows how many solar solstitial or lunar standstill risings or settings can be viewed behind prominent horizon features from a given spot. The location of stone circles within the area is plotted. After Barnatt & Pierpoint (1983).

5.5 ~ b ~ g ~ ! ~ g ~ !

An

attempt

points

e~JD~

has

about

been

made by the present author (Ruggles 1981c; 1982b) to examine methodological

studying

orientations.

There are three general classes of factor which might have

influenced structure orientations: (i) Astronomical towards

considerations.

the

horizon

Structures

might

be aligned upon the heavenly bodies, e.g.

rising or setting points of the sun at a solstice or other significant

time in the year. (ii) Azimuthal

directions.

Structures

might

be deliberately or preferentially aligned north-

south, or in some other direction. (iii) Features type,

on

the

natural

whence

ground.

Structure orientations might be towards nearby sites of a certain

features such as distant mountains, or directions of local significance (e.g.

ancestors

came); or else they might depend upon the local lie of the land (e.g. tomb

entrances downhill).

Any

given

factors, been the

orientation acting

will,

together

presumably,

actually

have

resulted

or vying against one another in importance.

from any number of d i f f e r e n t For example, i t might have

desired to s i t u a t e a ceremonial s i t e in a p o s i t i o n with wide views, within the r e s t r i c t i o n of builders'

available

t e r r i t o r y and avoiding prime a g r i c u l t u r a l Land; a desired solar or lunar

282

C.L.N. Ruggles

rising the

or

setting

other

never

alignment behind a d i s t a n t mountain, f o r example, might have been secondary t o

r e q u i r e m e n t s , and a compromise reached.

prove t h a t any p a r t i c u l a r

eration:

it

might

In the absence o f independent e v i d e n c e , we can

structure orientation

was m o t i v a t e d by a s i n g l e o v e r r i d i n g c o n s i d -

have a r i s e n through the chance combination o f o t h e r f a c t o r s ,

i n a c c e s s i b l e t o us.

many o f which are

Even sheer human p e r v e r s i t y might have p r e v a i l e d , as i s known from the Ashanti

case mentioned above.

Thus we are o f n e c e s s i t y f o r c e d t o seek a l a r g e data sample and t o hope t h a t

the causal f a c t o r being t e s t e d w i l l

lead t o t r e n d s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e

at high s i g n i f i c a n c e

l e v e l s from

the e f f e c t s o f o t h e r causal f a c t o r s .

In p r a c t i c e one t e s t s any p a r t i c u l a r tations

that

being

tested.

would

check of

other

causal

factors

~2~

think of testing;

long

barrows

merely lead t o random background noi se amongst the data

face s o u t h - e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n s ,

type

(ii)

hypothesis, explains

c o n c l u s i o n s can r e s u l t .

and

possibly

the o r i e n t a t i o n

under

a

type ( i )

t r e n d q u i t e simply:

be.

of

any

particular

significant.

Our f i r s t

causal

trends

in

the d a t a .

be i d e n t i f i e d tures

are

will

cases

achieving

(i)

and ( i i )

significant

individually.

directions

all

simplification

h y p o t h e s i s need t o

d e f i n e what c o n s t i t u t e s a

candidates at each s i t e .

in

field

t o consi der s i g n i f i c a n t ,

p r o c e d u r e , by d e f i n i n g s i g n i f i c a n t

At each s i t e ,

the observed d i s t r i b u t i o n

directions

in

any range o f h o r i z o n " i n d i c a t e d " by a When data are accumulated

o f i n d i c a t e d d e c l i n a t i o n s or azimuths can be com-

pared

statistically

w i t h the expected d i s t r i b u t i o n

icant

accumulation

o f d e c l i n a t i o n s around a p a r t i c u l a r

object or objects.

overwhelm any genuine

under any p a r t i c u l a r

can be d e f i n e d in terms o f azimuth or d e c l i n a t i o n .

from a number o f s i t e s ,

celestial

inevitably

For example, i n o r d e r t o t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s t r u c -

terms o f d e c l i n a t i o n and azimuth r e s p e c t i v e l y . structure orientation

t h a t they w i l l

we can surmount the problem o f how many d i r e c t i o n s

considerable

This causal f a c t o r

I f too many, then so many f o r -

a l i g n e d upon d i s t a n t mountains, we must f i r s t

d i s t a n t mountain, and then i d e n t i f y

In

24).

p r o c e d u r a l problem, t h e n , i s t o decide how g r e a t t h i s number should

In case ( i i i )

preferentially

However a t y p e ( i i i )

h y p o t h e s i s must depend upon a number of d i r e c t i o n s being

be c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t

f o r each s i t e

under a

l i e on p r e d o m i n a n t l y NW-SE r i d g e s .

I f too few, then t r e n d s o f p o s s i b l e importance may be missed.

tuitous orientations

Three q u a r t e r s o f

i s t h a t the b u i l d e r s were compelled t o

the mounds along the r i d g e s upon which they were e r e c t e d ( i b i d . :

testing

deemed

h y p o t h e s i s as w e l l . it

If this

As an example, consi der the group

a f a c t which would undoubtedly show up as s i g n i f i c a n t

does not produce random azimuths because the s i t e s a l l

The

must be examined.

on Cranborne Chase examined by Ashbee (1970: 2 3 - 2 4 ) .

them

out

t h e n , t o check (as f a r as i s p o s -

however any r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t i e s

i s not made, demonstrably i n v a l i d

hypothesis

It is essential,

t h a t the o r i e n -

There may, o f course, be many p o s s i b l e causal f a c t o r s not now apparent t o us, which

never

earthen

lay

h y p o t h e s i s a g a i n s t the a l t e r n a t i v e

in q u e s t i o n were randomly d i s t r i b u t e d .

sible)

we

orientation

g i v e n random s t r u c t u r e o r i e n t a t i o n s .

A signif-

v a l u e , say, can be r e l a t e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r

Megalithic Astronomy

It

283

is advisable to analyse both indicated azimuths and declinations, since the former are directly

related

to particular celestial objects, whereas the latter are more useful in considering whether

ground-based ones.

hypotheses

could

in

fact

explain any observed trends just as well as astronomical

However in view of the considerable additional work involved, no type (iii) hypotheses have

been considered methodically in any detail by any authors.

Debates

such

as

possibilities tions

that at Ballochroy can never be satisfactorily resolved on their own merits; new

can

always it seems be dreamed up by one side in the argument to counter any objec-

raised by the other, and there is insufficient evidence to assess on statistical grounds the

hypothesis

that

Stonehenge

the

ensures

that

tunity

to

any

astronomically alignments were in fact deliberate.

problems are different but equally confounding:

the profusion of interrelated data

no statistical analysis will produce meaningful results.

test

At complex sites such as

There is rarely any oppor-

an astronomical hypothesis by archaeological means, and the experience at Kintraw

shows that even this can be inconclusive and lead to interminable debate.

Burl

(1981b)

present trend

at is

author

has

pointed out some poignant examples where convincing astronomical alignments are

individual sites, but when these sites are seen as part of an archaeological group the not

repeated

and the alignment then appears to have come about by chance.

The present

was disillusioned about the solstitial interpretation of Ballochroy when he first visited a

similar three-stone row at Duachy, which was not solstitially oriented. Patrick (1979) has objected to

Thom's

lunar interpretation of the Kilmartin, Argyll site on the basis that an architecturally

similar site at Barbreck has no lunar alignments (in fact he was wrong about Barbreck - see Ruggles 1984a

but

the line of argument is one which needs to be pursued rather more often than usually

happens).

The message is clear: studies of groups of sites seem by far the best way forward.

The

of a lunar significance

idea

Mull

and

ideas

of

mainland Burl

Argyll,

(1980;

in the o r i e n t a t i o n s o f c e r t a i n f r e e - s t a n d i n g m e g a l i t h i c s i t e s i n

particularly

1981b;

and ceremonial s i t e s .

higher-precision

summer s o l s t i c e .

involved

the

extreme

trends)

of

were for

(as opposed t o the more t e n -

r e q u i r e no more than the o b s e r v a t i o n o f the f u l l

Burl's earlier positions

lunar, orientations

However the l unar o r i e n t a t i o n s

t h e r e is c o n v i n c i n g evidence amongst the western S c o t t i s h s i t e s

tative the

lends c o n s i d e r a b l e support t o the

1983) t h a t a s t r o n o m i c a l , and p a r t i c u l a r l y

i n c o r p o r a t e d in c e r t a i n m e g a l i t h i c b u r i a l which

the stone a l i g n m e n t s ,

moon n e a r e s t t o

interpretation

o f the Aberdeenshire Recumbent Stone C i r c l e s

the moon in i t s

1 8 . 6 - y e a r cycl e and thus would have r e q u i r e d

284

C.L.N. Ruggles

organised work

Lunar

(Ruggles

observations &

Burl

over

1985)

a period of at l e a s t twenty years; however the r e s u l t s of new

seem t o modify t h i s conclusion in the d i r e c t i o n o f lower p r e c i s i o n

o b s e r v a t i o n s , in Line w i t h the conclusion f o r the western S c o t t i s h s i t e s .

That

the moon, r a t h e r than the sun, seems predominantly t o have i n f l u e n c e d the o r i e n t a t i o n o f c e r -

tain

free-standing

the

megalithic

ethnographic r e c o r d .

d a i l y one; i t such

as

s u r p r i s e in view o f what i s found in

The cycle Of lunar phases is the most obvious cycle in the sky a f t e r the

demarcates time periods of a convenient l e n g t h ; and i t

the

seasonal

s i t e s cOmes perhaps as l i t t l e

human menstrual

calendars

cycle.

c l o s e l y matches n a t u r a l cycles

Knowledge o f the Lunar month is almost u n i v e r s a l , and many

are lunar-based ( B a i t y 1973; Thorpe 1981; Carlson & yon del Chamberlain 1985).

On the o t h e r hand horizon s o l a r o b s e r v a t i o n s , apart from in a few well-known cases such as the Hopi (McCluskey 1977), tend t o be of secondary s i g n i f i c a n c e

( f o r a poignant example see Turton & Ruggles

1978).

Even

if

we accept the marginal evidence from the western S c o t t i s h s i t e s in favour of o r i e n t a t i o n s

upon

the

southern major s t a n d s t i l l ,

o f the f u l l

It

t h i s could have been e a s i l y achieved: occasional o b s e r v a t i o n s

moon nearest the summer s o l s t i c e would have s u f f i c e d .

is i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t the western S c o t t i s h s i t e s manifest marginal evidence f o r o r i e n t a t i o n s upon

the w i n t e r s o l s t i c e but not f o r any o t h e r s o l a r events. cases

of

winter

solstitial

Howe discussed

alignments in m e g a l i t h i c tombs - such as those at Newgrange and Maes

in Section 2 above - no evidence has emerged b e f o re t h a t the w i n t e r s o l s t i c e might

have been of p a r t i c u l a r nographic

While t h e re are some well-known i n d i v i d u a l

record,

ceremonial i n t e r e s t .

In f a c t , t h i s a lso comes as no s u r p r i s e from the e t h -

where w i n t e r s o l s t i c e ceremonies are o f t e n o f great importance, the sun needing

t o be turned back from i t s

southward movement (Thorpe 1981; Carlson & yon deL Chamberlain 1985).

6.3 Z~2 Q ~ g Q ~ b ~

Throughout

the

decades

of debate about m e g a l i t h i c astronomy, e s p e c i a l l y as regards s i n g l e s i t e s ,

the emphasis has been upon the p o s s i b i l i t y whose

primary

course

of

effort

has

motivation

great been

was

interest spent

t h a t many were p r e h i s t o r i c o b s e r v a t o r i e s : t h a t i s ,

as centres f o r o b s e r v a t i o n s of the sun, moon or s t a r s .

sites

This is o f

t o the h i s t o r i a n o f science: as a r e s u l t a very g r e a t deal of time and

investigating

the

reality

of p a r t i c u l a r

astronomical a lig n m e n t s, t h e i r

intended p r e c i s i o n , and so on.

However like

who

evidence wide

the are for

archaeologist, particularly it.

Looking

on in h o r r o r , sees a group o f astronomers, engineers and the

fascinated

by astronomical and engineering achievement, and seek out

The dangers in doing t h i s are t w o f o l d .

Firstly,

range of o t h e r evidence bearing upon the purpose o f a s i t e ,

we may miss or m i s i n t e r p r e t a

and upon the people who b u i l t

it.

Megalithic Astronomy

Secondly, remains

we may unwittingly project our own ideas of "achievement" onto the people whose material we

pologist, facets

285

are

studying.

This "ethnocentrism" is a tendency which the archaeologist or anthro-

in his more general experience studying different cultures and his wider interest in all

of

the societies and their material culture - not just astronomical observations - is in a

far better position to recognise.

The

real problem is to separate statistical discussion concerning the intentionality and precision

of certain alignments from the subsequent consideration and interpretation of such results in their archaeological context.

However attention is constantly being diverted from this essential problem

by debates on largely irrelevant points. "science precision

v.

ceremonial"debate.

as

ammunition

in

this

The most distracting of all is undoubtedly the persistent

Many investigators insist on using data about intentionality and debate: evidence in favour high-precision observations becomes

evidence in favour of "scientific" astronomy; refutation of high-precision indications and evidence in

favour of low-precision ones becomes evidence in favour of "ceremonial" astronomy.

Strongly on

the side of "scientific" astronomy is, for example, MacKie (1981; MacKie et a~. 1984); in the other camp In

are authors such as Butt (1980; 1981b; 1983), Barnatt and Pierpoint (1983) and Fraser (1984). fairness, all these authors derive support for their view from independent archaeological evid-

ence.

Thus MacKie (1977a; 1977b) believes that a "two-tier" social system was in operation in some

megalith-building societies, the top tier being a elite of astronomer-priests undertaking intricate astronomical

observations. Burl, on the other hand, sites the funerary association of much ancient

astronomy in support of the idea that it was a ritual, not a scientific, practice.

In

fact,

the rigid dichotomy between science and ceremonial is undoubtedly misleading; we need to

consider first the existence and precision of intentional orientations, astronomical and otherwise, and

then to interpret them using far more than two crude (and actually very vaguely-defined)

gories.

As

Renfrew

cate-

(1981) has pointed out, to insist on such a rigid and ultimately subjective

dichotomy between science and non-science serves only to obscure the nature of what surely ranks as an interesting development in the evolution of scientific thought.

What

we

are really asking from the dispositional evidence a ~ £ ~ 2 ~ astronomy is (i) how important

an influence were astronomical considerations upon the placing (and possibly the design) of a site; and (ii) what was the precision of any astronomical observations made. basis

When this is decided on the

of the statistical evidence, then and only then is the time to consider this evidence in its

social context alongside the other strands of archaeological evidence at our disposal.

Megalithic

astronomy

aeoastronomy.

has now become merely one (albeit important)

topic in the new field of arch-

Alongside archaeoastronomy has developed ethnoastronomy.

During the last five years

286

C.L.N. Ruggles

the

two

fields

seem

to have become firmly established as disciplines in their own right, and to

have acquired a considerable momentum. astronomy: the A~chaeoas~onom~ its

supplement to the ~ouzna~ ~o~ ~he H~sto£~ o~ Astronomy, which began

separate existence in 1979, and the bulletin of the Center for Archaeoastronomy at the Univer-

sity

of

Maryland,

archaeoastronomy in

There are now two publications entirely devoted to archaeo-

which started up shortly afterwards. In September 1979 the first international

symposium was held in Oxford, England, and the second is planned for January 1986

Merida, Mexico.

The first international conference on ethnoastronomy was held in Washington DC

in September 1981.

Attempts

to

define the disciplines, or even to tie down their fields of interest and define their

bounds, have tended to come in retrospect and to be rather vague. ences

of

exist

some

which

are far less remote in time, and for which strands of evidence are available other than just

the

approach between, say, British archaeoastronomers

Certainly there are huge differ-

4000

present

ethno-

and

years

interested in cultures which ceased to

ago and American archaeoastronomers,

disposition

of

archaeoastronomy

archaeological as

remains.

interested in pre-Columbian cultures

In general terms one might simply describe

the study of astronomical practice amongst contemporary and past

societies.

Ethno- and archaeoastronomy arose through the p a r t i c u l a r science, the

and

disciplines

ultimately in

many

of their

form

merely

be j u s t i f i e d

isolation

practicioners

in r e l a t i o n

and

continue t o have a background i n these f i e l d s .

one aspect o f the study o f human s o c i e t i e s

from o t h e r f a c t o r s ,

archaeoastronomy

i n t e r e s t s o f astronomers and h i s t o r i a n s o f

t o such s t u d i e s .

However

in g e n e r a l , and can o n l y

The dangers o f s t u d y i n g a s t r o n o m i c a l p r a c t i c e

or as an end in i t s e l f ,

have a l r e a d y been mentioned. Thus whether

ethnoastronomy should r e a l l y be t r e a t e d as d i s c i p l i n e s

i n t h e i r own r i g h t

is

the s u b j e c t o f much debate at the moment.

There

are,

in f a c t ,

v a t i o n s . The f i r s t tice

two i m p o r t a n t ways o f j u s t i f y i n g

interest

i s the e x t e n t t o which we can hope t o r e c o n s t r u c t r i t u a l

in one form or a n o t h e r seems t o perform a v i t a l

ficult,

a particular

role in all

societies,

in astronomical obserpractice.

Ritual prac-

but i s n o t o r i o u s l y d i f -

some would say i m p o s s i b l e , t o r e c o n s t r u c t from the e t h n o g r a p h i c (and p a r t i c u l a r l y

the a r c h -

a e o l o g i c a l ) r e c o r d . Edmund Leach i s one of a number o f s o c i a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s who have attempted t o recognise

s o m e g e n e r a l f e a t u r e s about r i t u a l

practice.

He demonstrated (Leach 1961: 124-36) t h a t

the boundaries between w e l l - d e f i n e d time p e r i o d s tend t o be marked o f f by r i t u a l seasonal f e s t i v a l s .

Astronomical o b s e r v a t i o n s p r o v i d e a r e l i a b l e

activities

such as

way o f demarcating these time i n t -

e r v a l s ; the cycles o f the sun, moon, p l a n e t s and s t a r s are by f a r the most dependable r e g u l a r l y curring natural events.

Thus a s t r o n o m i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s are r e l e v a n t , o f t e n c r u c i a l ,

the t i m i n g o f f e s t i v a l s ,

and hence a s t r o n o m i c a l symbolism tends t o f e a t u r e i n the r i t u a l

themselves.

By

studying astronomical practice in Living societ ies,

a n c i e n t s i t e s where r i t u a l

re-

in determining activities

or a s t r o n o m i c a l symbolism i n

p r a c t i c e s may have o c c u r r e d , may g i v e us some important i n s i g h t s .

Megalithic Astronomy

The

second

recent the

justification concerns even wider issues.

years

past,

human

concerns

and

that

behaviour".

latter

side

287

A vigorous debate amongst archaeologists in

the extent to which archaeology should merely be attempting to reconstruct to

which it should be trying to interpret its evidence in terms of "laws of

Are

we

trying simply to describe history, or perhaps to explain it?

On the

of the fence, there might be some hope in studying practices which are almost univer-

sal, in the hope of correlating their development with the complexity of the society concerned.

The

movements

universal some

the

concern,

hope

example,

of has

systematic

even

(i.e. (see,

However

the most primitive of hunter-gatherer societies.

astronomical practice with other facets of society.

that of

with

increasing the

heavens)

increasing

complexity

of

This gives us

Leach (1954), for

ways of thinking about time (hence more

is correlated with the emergence of a priestly class of

social stratification).

An such view may of course be over-

e.g., Thorpe 1981) and can only be developed with the aid of ethnographic field-

sufficient

1978).

moon and stars are, to judge by the ethnographic evidence, of almost

amongst

correlating

observations

simplistic of

sun,

suggested

time-keepers

work

of

methodological

rigour (for an attempt in this direction see Turton & Ruggles

in the light of such correlations ethno- and archaeoastronomy acquire a valuable

role

in extrapolating from astronomical evidence to facets of the society in question which may be

less

directly

observable.

This remark has particular force in archaeological applications, where

facets of great interest may leave no direct trace in the archaeological record.

Archaeoastronomical

evidence

nonetheless

suffers, in common with archaeological evidence in gen-

eral, from the limitations of the archaeological record. variety and

of

even

Ruggles

1978:

the

590),

featuring

activities have

lithic

practices, such as the recognition and naming of stars and constellations,

the use of heliacal risings and settings to determine seasonal activities (e.g. Turton &

symbolism

we

widespread

It is clear from ethnographic work that a

tend in

to

leave no trace in the archaeological record.

ritual activities may be incorporated in the design of centres where such

were performed, and hence may well be recoverable. extensive

sites

wrong

of

remains of burial and (presumably) British prehistory.

motives)

However astronomical

these

are

the

Our best hope of success lies where

ritual sites, as in the free-standing mega-

Indeed, this brings us full circle, for (albeit perhaps for sites

upon

which attention has been concentrated since the

earliest emergence of the subject (e.g. Lockyer 1909).

Prehistoric astronomy is both an area of importance and one in which the surface record can give us valuable information in advance of excavation. investigations

(for

example an excavation strategy)

than merely to collect data. aeology

as

hypotheses ation,

and

In archaeology as a whole, it is possible to design in order to test particular hypotheses rather

This becomes increasingly important for the overall progress of arch-

resources become increasingly scarce.

If we can use the surface data to set up viable

in areas of importance, then we have both a working hypothesis in advance of any excavalso

a strategy which should save resources if ever we are in a position to undertake

288

one.

C.L.N. Ruggles

If

corroborative

evidence on prehistoric astronomy is sought from excavation, then survey

work can isolate groups of sites where excavation might preferentially be undertaken, together with hypotheses (solar and lunar association) which might be tested. The stone rows of Mull and mainland Argyll,

and

their

possible

lunar association, are in the author's view a particularly exciting

example which has cropped up in recent years.

REFERENCES Ashbee, P. (1970).

!~ ~

~9

~E~

~ ~ =

London.

Atkinson, R.J.C. (1966). Moonshine on Stonehenge. ~ i g ~ Z , ~g, 212-216. Bailey, M.E., Cooke, J.A., Few, R.W., Morgan, J.G. & Ruggles, C.L.N. (1975). Survey of three megalithic sites in Argyllshire. Natuze, 253, 431-433. Baity, E.C. (1973). Archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy so far. Cu~£en~ ~ O ~ g ~ , ~ , 389-449. Barnatt, J. & Pierpoint, S. (1983). Stone circles: observatories or ceremonial centres? ~ 2 ~ J ~ ~C~2~9~ ~ X J ~ , ~, 101-115. Brown, M.A. (1983). Grave orientation: a further view. ~ E ~ g ! ~ ~£~, ~ , 322-328. Burgess, C. (1980). Z ~ ~ ~ ~b~Dg~London. Burl, H.A.W. (1976). Z ~ ~ D ~ ~ J £ ~ ~ ~b~ ~ J ~ ~ New Haven & London. Burl, H.A.W. (1979). R.~iQgsof Stone. London. Burl, H.A.W. (1980). Science or symbolism: problems of archaeo-astronomy. An~gu~t~, 54, 191-200. Burl, H.A.W. (1981a). ~ ~ ~ 5~London. Burl, H.A.W. (1981b). "By the light of the cinerary moon": chambered tombs and the astronomy of death. In Ruggles & Whittle (eds.), o ~ ~t=, 243-274. Burl, H.A.W. (1983). ~ E ~ Z J ~ ~ ~Qg Z~gQ~- Aylesbury. Carlson, J.B. & Chamberlain, yon del (eds.) (1985). Proceedings of the first international ethnoastronomy conference. Washington DC (2 vols., forthcoming). Cooke, J.A., Few, R.W., Morgan, J.G. & Ruggles, C.L.N. (1977). Indicated declinations at the Callanlsh megalithic sites. ~ £ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Z~Z, ~, 113-133. Cowgill, G.L., Whallon, R. & Ottoway, B.S. (1981) (eds.). Mane~o de datos Z Metodo~ Ma~ema~jcos de Azggeo~_ocj~a. UISSP Congress X, Commission IV. Mexico City. Davidson, D.A. & Jones, R.L. (1984). The environment of Orkney. In A.C. Renfrew (ed.), The 2~e~

~ Z ~ ~ZEllegaard, A. (1981).

In press. Stone age science in Britain? Current ~ E ~ Q Z , ~ , 99-125. Fraser, D. (1983). L_~ag~~ ~S~ !9 9 ~ J ~ ~£~9~= Oxford: B.A.R. 117 (2 vols.).

Fraser, D. (1984). In support of festive astronomy. ~ 6£SbQ~QJ~Q~ E~!~, ~, 16-18. Freeman, P.M. & Elmore, W. (1979). A test for the significance of astronomical alignments. A£chaeoast~on_~, no. 1, $86-$96. Gingerich, O. (1981). Comment on Ellegaard (o~ c~t.). Current An~h£o~o~oQ~, 22, 117-118. Hawkes, S.C. (1976). Orientation at Finglesham: sunrise dating of death and burial in an Anglo-Saxon cemetrery in East Kent. ~ b ~ Q ~ Q ~ Q ~ Q O ~ , ~ - 33-51. Hawkins, G.S. (1963). Stonehenge decoded. Nature, 200, 306-308. Hawkins, G.S. & White, J.B. (1966). Stonehenge Decoded. New York & London. Heggie, D.C. (1972). Megalithic lunar observatories: an astronomer's view. An~jgu~t~, 46, 43-48. Heggie, D.C. (1981a). M e g a ~ h ~ Science. London. Heggie, D.C. (1981b). Highlights and problems of megalithic astronomy. A~chaeoast~onom~, no. 3, $17-$37. Heggie, D.C. (1982) (ed.). ~ Z ~ e ~ o ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ = Cambridge. Henshall, A. (1963). Z ~ ~ # Z ~ ~g~ ~ ~2~Q~¢ ~ Edinburgh. Henshall, A. (1972). Z ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ Edinburgh. Kendall, G. (1982). A study of grave orientation in several Roman and post-Roman cemeteries from Southern Britain. ~ E ~ Q J E ~ ~ , Z ~ , 101-123. Leach, E.R. (1954). Primitive time-reckoning. In C. Singer, E.J. Holmyard & A.R. Hall (eds.), ~E~ ~ ~Q~QZ, Vol. 1, Oxford, pp. 110-127. Leach, E.R. (1961). Rethinkin9 Q9~bZ~R~QZ. London & New York. edition). London. McCluskey, S.C. (1977). The astronomy of the Hopi Indians. Jou£na~ fo~ ~he Hjsto~ o~ Astronomy, 8, 174-195. McCreery, T. (1979). Megalithic lunar observatories - a critique, Part I. K~onos, 5 ~ , 47-63. McCreery, T. (1980a). Megalithic lunar observatories - a critique, Part If. ~£~0~, ~ , 6-26. McCreery, T. (1980b). The Kintraw stone platform. ~Z~O~, ~£~, 71-79. McCreery, T., Hastie, A.J. & Moulds, T. (1982). Observations at Kintraw. In Heggie (ed.), o ~ Ejt~, 183-190. MacKie, E.W. (1974). Archaeological tests on supposed astronomical sites in Scotland. Phi~oso~h~a~ MacKie, E.W. (1977a). ~ E ~ QD~ ~ J ~ ~ ~J~JE ~£J~Q~O= London. MacKie, E.W. (19T7b). Z ~ m c Q ~ b ~J~g~c~= Oxford. MacKie, E.W. (1981). Wise men in antiquity? In Ruggles & Whittle (eds.), o~= c~=, 111-152. MacKie, E.W., Gladwin, P.F. & Roy, A.E. (1984). A prehistoric calendrical site in Argyll. NatuEe, in press.

%

Megalithic Astronomy

289

Moir, G. (1980). Megalithic science and some Scottish site plans: Part I. 8r~!g~J~, ~ , 37-40. Moir, G. (1981). Some archaeological and astronomical objections to scientific astronomy in British prehistory. In Ruggles & whittle (eds.), o2~ ~J~L, 221-241. Morrison, L.V. (1980). On the analysis of megalithic lunar sightllnes in Scotland. ~ Z £ ~ X ast~gO~_Z, no. 2, $65-$77. O'Kelly, M.J. (1971). ~O ~ £ g ~ §~J~ ~2 ~g~!rg~ (2nd edn.). Wexford. Patrick, J.D. (1974). Midwinter sunrise at Newgrange. ~Q~Z~, ~ , 517-19. Patrick, J.D. (1979). A reassessment of the lunar observatory hypothesis for the Kilmartin stones. ~Z~Q~Q~;£~r~mX, no. 1, $78-$85. P a t r i c k , J.D. (1981). A reassessment of the s o l s t i t i a l observatories at Kintraw and Ballochroy. In Ruggles & Whittle ( e d s . ) , o~= ~ = , 211-219. P i t t s , M.W. (1981a). Stones, p i t s and Stonehenge. Na~u£e, 290, 46-47. Pitts, M.W. (1981b). The discovery of a new stone at Stonehenge. ~££~g~2g~ggg~X ~ 9 ~ J r , ~J, 16-21. Rahtz, P. (1978). Grave orientation. ~ £ ~ 2 ~ g g ~ ~2~£rQ~, ~ , 1-14. Renfrew, A.C. (1981). Comment on Ellegaard (oB~ cjt~). ~ Z £ ~ ~r~Zggg~ggZ, ~ , 120-121. Ritchie, J.N.G. (1982). Archaeology and astronomy: an archaeological view. In Heggie (ed.), o ~ c~¢, 25-44. Rose, H.J. (1922). Celestial and terrestrial orientation of the dead. ~ou£na~ o~ the Ro~a~ ~ ~ Q J ~ ~r~J~~ , 124-140. Ruggles, C.L.N. (1981a). Archaeoastronomical anomalies. Natu£e, 294, 485-486. Ruggles, C.L.N. (1981b). A critical examination of the megallthic lunar observatories. In Ruggles & Whittle (eds.), o ~ c~t~, 153-209. Ruggles, C.L.N. (1981c). Orientation analysis and prehistoric astronomy. In Cowgill, Whallon & Ottoway (eds.), o ~ cjt~, 228-234. Ruggles, C.L.N. (1982a). A reassessment of the high precision megalithic lunar sightlines, I: Backsights, indicators and the archaeological status of the sightllnes. A ~ h Q e o a s ~ o n ~ , no. 4, $21-$40. Ruggles, C.L.N. (1982b). Megalithic astronomical sightlines: current reassessment and future directions. In Heggie (ed.), o~= cjt~, 83-105. Ruggles, C.L.N. (1983a). A reassessment of the high precision megalithic lunar sightlines, 2: Foresights and the problem of selection. A£chaeoas~zonom~, no. 5, $I-$36. Ruggles, C.L.N. (1983b). Comment on Barnatt & Pierpoint, o ~ Ejt. (1983). S~ottjsh A~¢haeo~ogjca~ ~X~, ~, 115-116. Ruggles, C.L.N. (1984a) (principal author: contributions by P.N. Appleton, S.F. Butch, J.A. Cooke, R.W. Few, J.G. Morgan @ R.P. Norris). M~QQ~jth~ ~£~_n~_~Z A r ~ Q Z ~ Q J ~ ~Q ~ Q ~ ~J~Q~ ~ X ~! ~Q ~ £ r ~J~b ~J~Oxford: B.A.R. 123. Ruggles, C.L.N. (1984b). A new study of the Aberdeenshire Recumbent Stone C i r c l e s , 1: Site data. ~Z~~D2~Z, no. 6, $55-S79. Ruggles, C.L.N. & Burl, H.A.W. (1985). A new study of the Aberdeenshire Recumbent Stone Circles, 2: Interpretation. Az~hQ~Q~t£~r_o~_x,no. 8, forthcoming. Ruggles, C.L.N. & Whittle, A.W.R. (1981) (eds.). ~ £ ~ r ~ ~y Qrg ~ J ~ x Jr ~J~J9 gg£~OQ ~ ~ J ~ Q ~gg~ : Z~QQ ~ Oxford: B.A.R. 88. Thom, A. (1954). The solar observatories of Megallthic Man. ~ £ r ~ ~ ~ ~J~JJ~ J ~ £ ~ 9 _ ~ _ ~ A ~ § o ~ a ~ o n , 64, 396-404. Thom, A. (1955). A statistical examination of the megalithic sites in Britain. ~ou£nQ~ o~ ~he

Bgx~ ~ ; ~ t J ~ Thom, Thom, Thom, Thom, Thom,

A. A. A. A. A.

~J~;x, ~!~, 275-295.

(1967). Mega~th~c Sites ~n B£jta~n. Oxford. (1969). The lunar observatories o~ Megalithic Man. ~ J ~ Jr ~tr~r-~-~, ~ , 1-29. (1971). MeQa~jth~c ~gna£ Obs~ato£j~s. Oxford. & Thom, A.S. (1978a). ~ g ~ J ~ b J ~ E~mQJO~ Jr ~J~QJr Q r~_ ~ £ ~ Q r X - Oxford. & Thom, A.S. (1978b). A reconsideration of the lunar sites in Britain. ~ £ r ~ ~£

~

Thom, A. & Thom, A.S. (1980a). A new study of all megalithic lunar lines. ~ £ ~ £ ~ r ~ Z , no. 2, $78-89. Thom, A. & Thom, A.S. (1980b). The astronomical foresights used by Megalithic Man. A~hQeo~ Q~E~r~, no. 2, $90-$94. Thom, A.S. (1981). MegaLithic lunar observatories: an assessment of 42 Lunar alignments, in Ruggles & Whittle (eds.), o~= cjt=, pp. 13-61. Thorpe, I.J. (1981). Ethnoastronomy: its patterns and archaeological implications. In Ruggles & Whittle (eds.), 275-288. Turton, D.A. & Ruggles, C.L.N. (1978). Agreeing to disagree: the measurement of duration in a southwestern Ethiopian community. ~£~ ~r~E~o.q~, ~9, 585-600. Ucko, P.J. (1969). Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. Woz~d

~ g x ,

Z, 262-280.

Whittle, A.W.R. (1981). Later Neolithic society in Britain: a realignment. (eds.), o ~ c~t~, 297-342.

In Ruggles & Whittle