Arqueoastronomia Chesley Baity

5/25/2018 Arqueoastronomia Chesley Baity

1/62

Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy So Far [and Comments and Reply]

Elizabeth Chesley Baity; Anthony F. Aveni; Rainer Berger; David A. Bretternitz; Geoffrey A.Clark; James W. Dow; P. -R. Giot; David H. Kelley; Leo S. Klejn; H. H. E. Loops; Rolf Muller;Richard Pittioni; Emilie Pleslova-Stikova; Zenon S. Pohorecky; Jonathan E. Reyman; S. B. Roy;Charles H. Smiley; Dean R. Snow; James L. Swauger; P. M. Vermeersch

Current Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 4. (Oct., 1973), pp. 389-449.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28197310%2914%3A4%3C389%3AAAESF%5B%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

Current Anthropologyis currently published by The University of Chicago Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgThu Dec 6 19:45:29 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28197310%2914%3A4%3C389%3AAAESF%5B%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Rhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28197310%2914%3A4%3C389%3AAAESF%5B%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R


2/62

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 14, NO. 4, October 1973Copyright 1973 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

Archaeoastronomy and EthnoastronomyFar1

by Elizabeth Chesley Baity

N E W a direct interactionUBDISCIPLINE, betweenastronomy, engineering, and archaeology, has re-

ELIZABETH BAITYHESLEY comes to anthrop ology (protohistory)from a career in independent research and writing. She waseducated at the Texas University for Women, Denton, andat the University of North Carolina (M.A., anthropology , 1962;Ph.D., anthropology, 1968). She has been a special studen tin anthropology and prehistory at the universities of Genevaand T ehra n and at the School of Oriental and African Studiesof the University of Lond on and has don e anthropologicalresearch in Spain, Turkey , Greece, Iran , India, and Bulgaria.When living in Geneva (whe re Dr. H . G. Baity was a Directorin the World Health Organization), she covered the first AsiaticConference and later political conferences as a special corre-spondent for the Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News, subsequentlyreport ing o n the work of various specialized agencies of theUnited Nations visited in the Middle East, South Asia, andAfrica. As the directo r of writing workshops for nationals inthe subcontinent and Africa (sponsored by the Committee forWorld Literacy and Christian Literatu re, now In term edia ), sheproduced six readers for use in tribal areas of West Pakistan(1954), five for use in tribal areas of the South Sudan (1955) ,and twenty-one for translation into Swahili and the vernacularlanguages of East Africa (dur ing the workshop in Ki nampanda,Tanzania , in 1956). She has surveyed population litera turein East and South Asia and Oceania (1969).Among her publications are two prize-winning books foryoung people, Americans Before Columbus (New York: VikingPress, 1951) and America Before Man (revised edition, NewYork: Viking Press, 1964). In prepara tion a re a younger-readers ' book on the protohistory of the Black Sea area a ndreports on fire, bull, and astra rituals and iconography of theMiddle East, Western Europe, and Asia. As a consultant tothe Morehead Planetarium, Mrs. Baity assisted with a showon British megalithic astronomy (March-April 1972). Sheteaches in the African Studies Program of the University ofNorth Carolina (Division of Political Science) an d con tinuesto be interested in population literature work.Coming from a family with strong astronomical interestsextending through three generations (son William is with anastrophysics team), Mrs. Balty first grappled with the precessionof the equinoxes while studying with her brothers, Herveyand Te d Chesley, at the latter's telescope and solar-system modelon a Texas hilltop. Star-studying and museum research in SouthAmerica, Asia, and Africa deepened the interest, leading toa dissertation study in which Ibero-Saharan astra iconographysupplied clues to the solution of the distribution of protohistorlcfire rituals and their survivals studied ethnographically in Spain ,India, and Oceania.Th e present paper, submitted in final form 14 72, wassent for comment to 50 scholars, of whom the followingresponded: Anthony F Aveni, Rainer Berge r, David A. Breter-nitz, Geoffrey A. Clark, James U . Dow, P.-R. Giot, Leo S.Klejn, H. H . E. Loofs, Rolf Miiller, Richard Pittioni, EmiliePleslov&Stikova, Zenon S. Pohorecky, Jonathan E. Reyman,S. B. Roy, Charles H. Smiley, Dean R. Snow, James L. Swauger,and P. M. Vermeersch. Their comments are printed belowand ale followed by a reply from the author.Vol. 14 No. 4 October 197 3

cently arisen out of interest in the apparent use ofastronomical techniques in the construction of mega-lithic and other monumental structures of ancienttimes. Hawkins (1963)has proposed the name "astro-archaeology" for this subdiscipline. "Megalithic as-tronomy" is the term used by Thom (1967, 1971),who has presented meticulous evidence of megalithic

' I n view of the growing interest in archaeoastronomy andethnoas tronomy and t he absence of indexe d bibliographical dataon the two, it seemed that a synthesizing review of the li teraturewould be worth attempting: it was not initially evident that thesubject would demand global coverage and a time dep th of some30,000 years. Th e task is beyond the competenc e of o ne reviewer;for aid, I thank the following scholars, absolving them fromresponsibility for error s or misunderstandings: H. Alimen, R. J.C. Atkinson, Anthony Arkell, H.-G. Bandi, Jose Miguel d e Baran-di ara n, R. Berger, Verla Birrell, L. Cabot Briggs, Donald Brock-ington , Pedro Bosch Gimpera , Peter Boev, Aubrey Bur!, CottieBur land , Anthony Christie, George Cowgill, J. Desmond Clark,Krishna Deva, James Dow, Vladimir Dmitriev, Wolfram Eb erha rd,Robert Ehrich, Clifford Evans, Brian Fagan, Thomas Stuart Fer-guson, P. R. Giot, Rojer Grosjean, Wayland B. Hand, HubertHarber, David Hart, Horst Hartung, Gerald S. Hawkins, VanceHaynes, Robert Heizer, Hug h Hencken, Josef Hennin ger, G.Evelyn Hutchinson, David Kelley, Ivan King, Paul Kirchhoff, LeoS. Klejn, Richard Knap p, K. K. Leuba, Paul Levy, Henri Lhote,Alan Lomax, Euan MacKle, Alexander Marshack, Robert L.Merritt, Hu gh Moran, Rolf Miiller, C. A. Newham, Raul Noriega,Nancy Kelley Owen, Asko Parpola, Stuart Piggott, Leon Po-merance, Colin Renfrew, Jonathan E. Reyman, Leonid Rezepkin,A. E. Roy, D. Robertson, the la te Keith Seeley, Charles H. Smiley,Marc Sauter, D. J. Schove, Ramon P. C. Schulz, J. B. Segal, ArcherTaylor, Alexander Thom, B. L. van der Waerden, and GeneWeltfish. I was not able to locate every study cited, but for thesake of fu ture researchers have listed th e titles in the app rop riat econtext.I thank my fellow workers at Soria, Sr. and Sra. Teogenes Ortegoy Frias and Jose Antonio P. Rioja; elsewhere in Spain, I washelped by ethnographers Julio Caro Baroja, Luis Cortes, and JoseTudelo, linguist Antonio Tovar , and archaeologists Antonio Arri-bas, Luis Pericot Garcia, and A. Panyello. At Greek fire ritualsI enjoyed the company of ethnographers Georges and AnastassiosMegas, M. Romaios, and Georges Spyridakis, and in Bulgaria,that of Peter Boev. I thank Rossitza Anghelova for h er book o nthe Bulgarian fire dance. In Tur key on various occasions I receivedho sp it al i~ t their excavations and institutions from Hamit Ko ~ay ,Tahsin Oz E and Raci Temizer, and in Iran was taught by~ o h a m e tX g h a d a m and helped by David Stronach, O. R. Gurney,and Maurizio Tosi. Among the specialists on Indian archaeologyto whom I am indebted for interviews in London and India areSir Mortimer Wheeler, F. R. Allchin, Swami Ranganathananda,S. Chaudhuri, and L. P. Vidyarthi and his anthropology staffat Ranchi University, through whose efforts I attended a Soraifire walk. Reference librarians giving invaluable assistance includeLouise McG. Hall an d her assistants at the Library of the Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Margaret Currier of the PeabodyMuseum at Harvard, and A. H. Weisencraft of t he Universityof London.


3/62

man's skills in astronomy, engineering, and mathe-matics. MacKie (1968, 1971a,b), who is testing Thom'sastronomical theories by traditional archaeologicalmethods, prefers "archaeoastronomy." As a broaderterm, this appears more widely useful than the othersand will be adopted here. "Ethnoastronomy" is theaccepted name for a closely allied research field whichmerges astronomy, textual scholarship, ethnology,and the interpretation of ancient iconography forthe purpose of reconstructing lifeways, astronomicaltechniques, and rituals. By whatever name, the newinterdisciplinary studies are potentially of great sig-nificance for the insights they afford into the mentalattainments of certain prehistoric, protohistoric, andearly historic societies in Eurasia. Africa, and the~mer icas .Archaeoastronomy is a form of informationrecovery with time- and space-specific aspects which,when further refined and systematized, may providenot only a new theoretical framework for explicatingcertain problems of prehistory, but also a methodof producing, ordering, analyzing, and expressingdata with regard to the socioeconomic systems ofparticular cultures. These time- and space-specificaspects may also aid in tracing the influence of earlygroups whose most important seasonal rituals appearto have been set by astronomical events and recordedin rock art, on painted ceramics, and through othermedia. Archaeoastronomy, in the narrow sense, fo-cuses on the analysis of the orientations and measure-ments of megalithic and other monumental ancientstructures, many of which, as we will see, could haveserved for the prediction of solar and lunar eclipsesand unquestionably did serve for the determinationof solstices and equinoxes, enabling the setting ofdates for agricultural activities and for the ritual cycleof the year. Astronomical knowledge has affordeda prime facility for timekeeping and the determi-nation of the beginning of seasons, a function whichhad a cultural-economic significance to Paleolithichunter-gatherers and which since the Neolithic hasubeen extremely important for the successful cultiva-tion of crops (Essen 1969, Goudsmit et al. 1966,Hawkes 1962, Toulme and Goodfield 1966).This article will (1) review the debate betweenastronomers and archaeologists that initiated ar-chaeoastronomy as an interdisciplinary field of study,the debate concerning the possible use of Stonehengeas an astronomical observatory, and cite some of theevidence, both recent and earlier, for astronomicalfunctions with regard to megalithic and other earlystructures and town plans elsewhere in the Old andNew Worlds; 2) briefly review developments intime-factored art and other aspects of ethnoastron-omy; (3) note the implications of these studies forprehistorians and protohistorians; and (4) suggestareas where further study is indicated. A majorfunction of this synthesizing review is to bring to-gether references to articles, scattered in a varietyof international professional journals, that indicatepossibilities for a new interdisciplinary study for whichas yet virtually no indexing system exists. Only thebroad conclusions of the studies bearing on ancientastronomy can be noted: these are in many casessupported by essential mathematical, engineering,

astronomical, and linguistic data which cannot besummarized here.

ARCHAEOASTRONOMICAL STUDIES

The archaeological knowledge with regard to Stone-henge in Wiltshire and other megalithic structuresin the British Isles and France had by 1960 becomesufficiently detailed to encourage specialists fromother disciplines to attempt to assess the functionthese structures might have served for their builders(Atkinson 1960, Daniel 1963). The azimuths of sunan d moon, unlike those of constellations, are littleaffected by the precession of the equinoxes2 Th us

'Precession, a conical motion of the earth 's axis arou nd thepole of the ecliptic approximately every 25,800 years, is causedby the gravitational pull of the sun and moon on the earth'sequatorial bulge. I t causes a westward displacement of the vernalequinox along the ecliptic. Thus Paleolithic Eurasian observersof some 26,000 B.P. regarding a fixed directional point aroundwhich the circumpolar star groups nightly circled, would havebeen viewing Polaris; their descendants of half this time ago wouldhave had a far more spectacular pole star, Vega (assuming thatthe re has been no such shifting of landmasses as Hapgood [I970 1hypothesizes). Precession and other astronomical concepts usedin the following discussion, briefly defined in the glossary below,are explained an d related to early astronomical systems in Introduc-tion to Astronomy (Payne-Gaposchkin and Haramundanis 1970).Wallenquist's (1970) astronomical dictionary is also helpful.Astronomers measure azimuth westward from the south pointof the meridian, the north-south great circle passing through thezenith (the east-west great circle passing t hro ugh this point beingthe prime vertical . (Engin eering and navigation convention, incontrast, measures from true, not magnetic, nort h east along thehorizon; cf. Th om [1967: 14-33] . Four kinds of celestial coordi-nates are used in celestial surveying: (1) the horizon system, (2)the ecliptic system, 3) the equatorial system, and (4) the galacticsystem, which does not concern us.

The horizon system serves to indicate for a celestial object itsaltitude, measured in degrees up toward thezenith from the horizon(with negative altitudes referring to points below the horizon),and its azimuth. On the horizon system, the altitude of the celestialnorth pole, now marked by our Polaris, is equal to the latitudeof the observer, but the position of other heavenly bodies varieswith the place and time of observation (there being no star tomark the other pole).Th e ecliptic system is define d by the plane of the earth 's orbit ,which fixes the ecliptic, the apparen t yearly path of the sun th roughthe constellations. The ecliptic intersects the plane of th e celestialequator at two points, the equinoxes: called the nodes, these pointsare the locus of eclipses. Th e sun crosses the vernal equinox enroute from the winter solstice, the point of its southernmost rising,to the su mme r solstice, the point of its northernmost rising; a tthe autumnal equinox, it crosses the same point (i.e., due east)returning south. The ecliptic and the celestial equator do notcoincide because of the earth's tilt with reference to its orbit;the angle, called the obliquity of the ecliptic, varies over time (seen. 13). Th e zodiac is a cultural construct, coming to us from earlyastronomers of Western Asia: it is a band of constellations centeredon the ecliptic and including the appare nt path of the sun, moon,an d planets. Certain constellations no rth o r south of the zodiacbut rising at the same time as zodiacal ones and sometimes moreeasily detected were called paranatellonta by the ancient Greeksand were used, like the zodiacal constellations, for determiningdates.Th e equatorial system measures th e declination of a celestialbody as its angular distance from the equator towards the nearestpole, measured in degrees north (positive) or south (negative).There is a trigonometrical relation between the four angles-azimuth, declination, latitude, and altitude; knowing any three,one can find the other.For timekeeping by the stars and constellations, early astron-omers referred to the heliacal rising, the first visible rising of astar or constellation at dawn af ter a period of invisibility owingto its proximity to the sun, or to the heliacal setting, its first visiblesetting after sunset. Th e sidereal year ("sidereal" pertaining t o stars)C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y


4/62

sun and moon alignments marked out by megalith-builders still function to mark with fair recision thewinter and summer solstices and the vernal andautumnal equinoxes, after taking into accountchanges in the obliquity of the ecliptic, presentlydiminishing by approximately 46.84 seconds of arcper century, according to Newcomb's formula (R.L. Merritt, personal communication, 26 X 7 1 ) .Stone-henge has been assumed from archaeological evi-dence to have been built in three main stages fromapproximately 2000 B.C. to 1500 B.c.: new datingtechniques (Renfrew 1970a,b,c) indicate that its initialhenge may be over half a millennium older, but thatdoes not invalidate the tentative formulations withregard to the solar-lunar alignments, except as partic-ular postulated azimuths are affected by the fact thatthe obliquity of the ecliptic was slightly greater duringthe period of construction and use of the monument.Folklore has traditionally assigned an astronomicalfunction to Stonehenge. Diodorus, in his History ofthe Ancient Wo rld, written about 50 B.c. described thespherical3 temple of Apollo in Britain and its Hyper-borean supervisors, the star-gazing Boreadae: thoughthe connection is unproven, either with the area orthe monument, there is a tendency to equate thisdescription with Stonehenge. British folklore hasimmemorially associated the structure with celebra-tions attending the two hinges on which the solaryear turns, the winter a nd summer solstices. InScotland, similarly, tradition associates the many stonecircles with solar and lunar observations. AstronornerLockyer 190 1, 1902, 1905, 1906a,b, 1965; Lockyerand Penrose 1 9 0 1 )was not the first observer to suggestthat Stonehenge and other megalithic circles had asignificant astronomical f ~ n c t i o n . ~Also workingis def ined by the heliacal rising of a given star. Th e tropical year(from the Greek word fo r turning) is measured from solstice tosolstice. Th e anomalistic year is measured from perihelion (thepoint nearest the sun) to perihelion. The three years differ inlength, and this is what enabled Hipparchos , in 123 B.c., to discoverthe precession of the equinoxes. T he synodic month or lunationis the interval from new moon to new moon.

3C. A. Newham (personal communication, 1 VII 71) and G.E. Hutchinson (personal communication, 4 IV 72) call my attentionto the fact that the Greek word spherical has astronomicalconnotations41n the excitement generated by the Stonehenge controversy,it is often overlooked that many earlier studies anticipated therecent discoveries and hypotheses. Scholarly literature in French,English, German, Spanish, and other languages foreshadowed an dsupports the new subdiscipline. While this ignoring by contem-porary archaeoastronomers of earlier data has been methodol-ogically sound in that the new work has been approached indepen-dently, many early studies contain data well worth reviewing. Itis to be hoped that comprehensive synthesizing studies and bibliog-raphies will soon be undertaken. The Subject Catalogue of thePeabody Museum Library, Harvard University, indexes impressivescholarship with regard to megalithic structures and astra, stone,and calendar cults. The encyclopaedias of religion discuss suchcults at length: these and other well-indexed topics, includingjudicial and client astrology, will not be reviewed here. Lewis (1888,1897) ecognized the purposeful nature of me alithic constructionsand the importance of outlying stones a n f studied megalithicmeasurements. Peet (1894) connected megaliths with mythologyand showed interest in American and European stone circles (1901).Baudouin (1912), a pioneer archaeoastronomer, studied the solarorientation of rock engravings and megalithic structures, offered(1913) a technique for determining the orientation of dolmens,discussed (1 917 ~) rehistoric stellar knowledge, and recognized(1917 b) the cul tural significance of the Pleiades grou p (cf. Hamilton1902, 1904). Devoir (191 1) found that the mega l~thic tructuresof Brittany fit Lockyer's hypothesis of orientations directed at

Baity: ARCHAEOASTRONOMY AND ETHNOASTRONOMYwithout benefit of electronic computation to test therelationship between proposed sighting lines andsignificant astra events, Somerville 1 9 12 had notedastronomical indications for a circle at Callanish inthe Outer Hebrides.Although, as the following discussion will indicate,much remarkable work on megalithic astronomy hadbeen done by Thom 1954, 1964b) and Newham1 9 6 3 , 1 9 6 4 ) , and Newham's hypothesis of lunar andsolar alignments at Stonehenge had been published(cf. Emmott 1963) , little of it was known even toarchaeologists, much less to the general public, beforethe debate which followed the publication by Hawkins19 63; 1964; 1965a,b; 19 66; 1968 ) of the compu-terized correlation of Stonehenge alignments withthe rising and setting of the sun and moon at theirextreme positions during the period of the construc-

tion and reconstruction of the monument (fig. I .Hawkins proposed that the Aubrey Circle may havebeen used to mark off, count, or compute the swingof the azimuth of the moon, functioning as an

the risings at solstices, equinoxes, and intermediate points, forthe determination of an agricultural calendar, and that the samehypothesis explained orientations in other areas (see also Devoir1915-16, 1916, 1917). Jacquot (1915) noted the persistence ofBreton solar cults. Lenoir (1956) surveyed what he called megalithicthinking. Boule (1930) considered the use of astronomical da tain determining the age of megalithic structures. Baschmakoff(1930) summed up descriptions of the Carnac alignments, attribut-ed them to a pre-Aryan population, noted the correspondenceof cromlechs with alignments indicating solstice, equinox, andmidquarter points on the horizon, and interpreted a megalithicengraving as a calendar dividing the year into eight astronomicallydetermined parts and marking the times for fetes at specificlocations for each major division. (An ethnologist and not anengineer, Baschmakoff attributed the noncircular shapes andadjacent parallel lines as designating clans and a number of carvingsas totemic signs; since the carving illustrated shows bull, ram,and s erpen t, I suggest that the co rpus be restudied for possiblepresence of a zodiac of the Western Asian ty e [see below].)Foreshadowing present discussions, ~ a s c h m a k o glso postulatedthat an elite laid out th e alignments, which were t hen constructedby another class of workers. Cunn ington (1935) studied Stone-henge; Keiller (1934) surveyed megaliths in Scotland. Roy, McGrail,and Carmichael (1963) have examined the Tormore circle, andothers listed below have discussed other circles. O'Connell andHenry (1915) edited Irish astronomy.Though establishing that the contemporary association of Stone-henge with Druids is less a folk memory than the invention ofant iquary William Stukeley, Piggott (1968: 122-24) reviews classicaldata indicating for barbarian European priests a degree of astro-nomical and calendrical skill which, in view of Thom's increasingfindings, suggests to me that certain of the useful techniques ofmegalithic time-setting survived. Caesar (De bello Gallico, book 6),borrowing from Posidonius (ca. 135-ca. 50 B.c.), attributed to theCeltic priests much knowledge of the stars an d their motions,of the size of the world and of the earth (cf. Burn 1969:2-6);Hippolytus spoke of their ability to foretell certain events bycalculations and Pliny of their measuring time by the moon. TheGetae were said to have been taught by the semilegendary Dicineusthe courses of the 12 signs and of the planets passing throughthem, and the whole of astronomy as well as the names ofthe 356 stars (quoted by Piggott fro m the 6th-centur A.D. writerJordanes or his source Cassiodorus). The presence o r a 12-housezodiac among barbarians known to the Romans is of course suspect,as Greek colonies along the coasts of Spain, the Black Sea, andelsewhere were already old by the time of Dicineus (1st centuryB.c.), but Iberian sources and the 5th-century B.C.periplus quotedby Avienus mention astral, solar, and lunar cults on Iberian islandsan d capes (cf. Arribas 1962), and other Spanish scholars cite manyindications that these cults were pre-Greek. Further, there is muchfolkloric and archaeological ev~dence hat Celtiberian solsticerituals are more strongly pre-Celtic than Celtic (Baity 1968).

Vol. 4 No. 4 October 973


5/62

oo zoo F TFIG. 1. Sketch plan of Stonehenge, showing alignments suggested by Hawkins for Stonehenge I . The Sarsen Circleand Horsehoe of Stonehenge I11 are also shown, but not the bluestones. The Station Stone rectangle is assignedarchaeologically to Stonehenge 11 not I . The numbers at the arrows are declinations. (Drawing by Euan W MacKie.)eclipse-predictor ope rat ed by moving stones from on e equivalent of divine revelation. Atkinson was,hole to anot her aro und the circle. however, interested in the idea that the Aubrey Circle

I n a witty, if less than enthusiastic, initial rejoinde r, couldhave been used as a n eclipse-predictor providedMoonshine over Stonehenge, Atkinson ( 1 9 6 6 ~ ; f. tha t Hawkins' fifty-six-year cycle is acceptable to oth eralso 1966 c criticized Hawkins' claims on t he gro und s astronomers (which it subsequently proved no t toof inappr opr iate site plans, inaccurate archaeological be) and saw a suggestion of possible value in thedat a, indiscriminate selection of stones as markers, hypothesis tha t whenever a n observer at the cent eran d overconfidence in the compu ter, the secular of the circle saw the full moon nearest the winter392 C U R R E N T N T H R O P O L O G Y


6/62

solstice rise over the Heel Stone, it might alert himto the fact that an eclipse of the sun or moon wouldfollow (though not all eclipses predictable from Stone-henge could be observed there). Atkinson also com-mented with interest upon Hawkins' argument thatthe latitude of Stonehenge appears to have beendeliberately chosen so that the extreme northerly andsoutherly risings and settings of the sun and moonat the solstices were approximately at right anglesone to another, permitting a nearly rectangular layoutof the four Station Stones, a circumstance whichmakes this area exceptional. Newham (1966), whosehypothesis that Stonehenge was both a solar and lunarobservatory had been published earlier in the year,commented that we must be grateful to Hawkins forquickening the interest of prehistorians in the earlydevelopment of observational science and methods;he argued, however, that Hawkins' 56-year cycleseemed untenable.Hoyle (1966a), like Atkinson, found Hawkins'measured and calculated azimuth values outside thesuggested margin of e rro r, but suggested an evenmore sophisticated purposeful placing of the sightinglines a degree or so inside the azimuthal extremesat which the moon and sun appear to stand still.5Hovle further Dro~osedhat t h e Aubrey Circle mayhave represented an ecliptic, with Stonehenge servingas a simple protractor for measuring the anglesinvolved with reference to solstice risings and settingsand for predicting eclipses. An editorial in at&(July 3, 1966) described the Hoyle hypothesis asbreathtaking not merely by its ingenuity, that ofProfessor Hoyle as well as of the supposed buildersof Stonehenge, but by its practicality, adding (pro-phetically, it proved) that the cleverness is the mostdifficult Dart of his theory to ac ce ~t.T o clarify the astronomical argument , Hoyle(1966b) explained his model in trigonometry.Rephrasing the question How did they do it? asHow would we do it (granted Neolithic technicalpossibilities)? he concluded that an excellent proce-du re would be to build a structure of the patternof Stonehenge, particularly Stonehenge I. T o Atkin-son's question (by correspondence) why a pegboardwould not have served equally well, Hoyle answeredthat with large stones as markers a large circle wasnecessary for accuracy of angle measurements andwas moreover a definitive svstem which it is im~oss ib leto disturb by accident. He iuggested that the AubreyCircle could have been the reference studied for small~ e ~ b o a r d s .Regarding the determination of the solstices, soimportant in Neolithic renewal rituals set by anastronomically determined New Year, Hoyle(1966b:263 and fig. 1) reminded nonastronomers thatthe seasons are determined by the tilt in the earth'saxis of rotation and have no relationship to the diurnalrotation of the earth-a fact also ignored by the

5This apparent pause that occurs when the sun or the moonreaches extreme swing and turns makes the exact time of th esolstices hard to determine: as MacKie has expressed it, thenotorious phenomenon of the midsummer sun rising behind theHeel Stone when viewed through the great trilithon at Stonehengeis impressive only when one knows the da te of midsummer anyway.Vol 4 No 4 October 973

Baity: ARCHAEOASTRONOMY AND ETHNOASTRONOMYbuilders of Stonehenge. whose concern with the,extremes of declination of the solstices of the sunand of the moon is indicated by the placement ofthe stones. Hoyle further suggested that the Stone-hengers had resolved the two unfortunate coinci-dences that the sun and the moon have the sameapparent diameter and appear to replace each other,and that 12 lunar months roughly approximate asolar year, although the difference is great enoughto throw a lunar-based calendar fairly quickly outof synchronization with the solstices and hence theseasons. The Metonic cycle (named after Greek as-tronomer Meton, whose description of it is the earliestknown) affords an elementary adjustment througha cycle of 235 synodic months of 29.53 days each,or 6,939.7 days, which is practically identical with19 tropical years of 365.2422 days each, or 6,939.6days.6 Hoyle (19666) suggested that Stonehengersknew that by dividing the 19 years into two sets,12 years of 12 lunar months each and of 13, anadjustment could be made.Sadler (1966) viewed as astronomically acceptablethe hypothesis that Stonehenge was designed to markthe extreme and mean azimuths of the rising andsetting of the sun and moon, but suggested that bettermethods of predicting eclipses were available. New-ham (1966) offered an alternative astronomicalfunction for Stonehenge, suggesting that some 40postholes in six ranks seeming to radiate from thecenter of the Aubrey Circle may have been temporarymarkers set to align on the point where the winterfull moon appeared over the horizon every year:observations over a large number of years would besufficient to ascertain the 19-year phase and possiblythe 56-year eclipse cycle. He saw a strong lunarinfluence at Stonehenge and had little doubt thatin its earlier stages it was an astronomical observatory.Colton and Martin (196'7) showed that a sustained56-year cycle does not exist. The 18-year 11+-daySaros eclipse cycle, which is almost equal to 223lunations, is believed to have been known to theChaldeans and was certainly known to the Chinese(and perhaps to the Babylonians, though consensusdoes not exist on this). The Saros cycle was moreeasily detected by early observers than other eclipsecycles because each eclipse occurs close to the calendardate of the previous one.' Colton and Martin argued

=Bycoincidence, the Metonic cycle of 19 tropical years corre-sponds to the 18.61 tropical years required to complete theretrograde nodal cycle of the moon (th e time interval requiredfor the moon to return to the extreme azimuths at the winterand summer solstices: the nodes a re the points at which the moon'sorbit crosses the planeof the ear th'sorbit, i.e., the ecliptic). Newham(1970:17) points out a possible connection between this and the56 holes of the Aubrey Circle: 3 x 18.61 55.83.7T he relationship is: 19 eclipse years (6,585.78 days) equalsnearly 223 synodic months (6,585.32 days). The difference ofa fraction of a day causes each eclipse to fall west of the lastby almost a third of the way around the earth. Piggott (1968)notes that the Coligny calendar, a great bronze plate engravedwith a calendar of 62 consecutive lunar months with two intercalarymonths inserted alternately at two-and-a-half- and three-yearintervals, suggests the use of the Saros eclipse cycle and theadjustment of lunar to solar dates (cf. Charrikre 1960).


7/62

that while the Saros cycle produces more total eclipsesthan some other cycles and is thus useful, other eclipsecycles, including a more logical 47-year sequence(others are 23, 42, and 61 eclipse years), must beconsidered. They noted that it has been known sincethe 3d millennium that for a lunar eclipse to occurthe sun and the full moon must be diametricallyopposed in the sky and the moon must rise a shorttime before the sun sets, which suggests that theAubrey Circle and the many stone circles elsewherecould have served as protractors enabling observersin their centers to judge whether the sun and moonwere exactly opposite each other. They pointed outthat the method is a poor one for predicting solareclipses.In a summarizing panel of comments on the Hoylehypothesis (Hawkins et al. 1967), Hawkins noted theextremely far-reaching assumptions concerning intel-ligence and purpose. Atkinson found that new sitedata did not affect the Hoyle hypothesis substantiallyas an explanation of how we could use Stonehengeto predict eclipses and accepted the possibility thatthe positions of the Heel Stone and the Station Stonesand the latitude of Stonehenge were astronomicallydetermined. He criticized the use of some of theholes suggested as markers, as did Newham, whofavored the alignment with winter solstices but reject-ed others. Thom agreed that the astronomers' evi-dence that Stonehenge was a solar and lunar obser-vatory equated with his hypotheses (resulting from30 years of surveying megalithic sites) with regardto the precision of megalithic engineering and as-tronomy, but did not accept the Aubrey Stones asthe eclipse-predictor Hawkins had seen. Newhamsummed up arguments against the Aubrey Circle asan eclipse-predictor, though affirming the Stone-hengers' interest in eclipses.Defending the hithertofore accepted archaeologicalview, Hawkes (1967) challenged Stonehenge as Apol-lo's circular temple, dismissed the Aubrey Circle asan eclipse-predictor (on the grounds that the holeswere refilled soon after they were du g and showno evidence of ever having held stones), fitted Stone-henge harmoniously into British, European, andMediterranean history, and-unwarned by KingCanute's unsatisfactory experience-dismissed thenouveau vague flowing over Stonehenge by reaf-firming the monument as a sanctuary, its structureas architectural rather than mechanical, and its orien-

tation as symbolic rather than astronomical. Th e newwave, not so easily dismissed, flowed back in New-ham's (1970) counter-reappraisal, a succinct, origin-al, and plausible summary of Stonehenge man'sprobable astronomical experiments and in capsuleform the young archaeoastronomer's guide to sitesurveys. Feeling that astronomers had overstatedStonehenger astronomical skills less than archae-ologists had understated them, Newham turned hisattention to three recently discovered disturbancessituated in the adjoining carpark. In view of Thom'smany discoveries of distant markers (usually moun-tain gaps or other skyline features, which are remark-ably lacking on the Stonehenge skyline), Newhamcalculated that had tree trunks some 30 ft. high been

placed in the disturbances they would have servedas precise, nonreversible distant markers with regardto important setting phenomena of sun and moonwhen observed from the four Stations and the HeelStone position. Site excavation data (then unknownto Newham) indicates that the holes once held treetrunks some 2 ft. 6 in. in diameter supported bywedges.8 Newham analysed the possible significanceof the Aubrey holes in relation to astronomical phe-nomena, not only in number but also in their align-ments and spacing, suggesting that the 56 holes couldhave been du g to hold posts serving their brief timein an ex~e rimen taltrial-and-error Drocess and thenabandoied when found inadequate [or the hoped-forpurposes.Robinson (1970), agreeing with Atkinson that al-though the axis and Avenue were oriented to thesummer-solstice sunrise the Heel Stone did not infact mark the midsummer precisely, has advancedthe hypothesis that instead it marked the full moonwhen it rose at the winter solstice point, thus servinga most important function as a winter eclipse-warningmoonrise marker. The hypothesis gives a functionalexplanation of why the Heel Stone is set slightly southof the center of the Avenue: rising slightly to theleft, the midsummer sun hung just above the hori-zon when passing directly above the Heel Stone.In suggesting that other alignment errors couldbe reduced by associating stones and archways withthe moon rather than with the sun, Robinson agreeswith Newham's initial hypothesis. Newham (1968:9,1970:15 has since given much independent data withregard to the strong possibility of lunar functionsof the structure.Whatever the final decision as to the motives andskills of megalith-builders, the Stonehenge contro-versy and its aftermath have shown the necessity forinterdisciplinary work in archaeology, for adequatesummaries in national journals of ongoing researchelsewhere, and for wider recognition of the contribu-tions made to archaeoastronomy by professionals inother disci~lines. o illustrate both ~o in t s . o Britishcommentator known to me refers to Charrikre's (196 1)earlier analysis of Stonehenge, which anticipated theargument that consideration should be given to itsinteresting site in a narrow zone where the maximumazimuths of sun and moon could be indicated bythe right-angle construction of the Station Stones.Charr ikre also observed the repetition of the number19 in connection with the bluestones, relating it bothto the fact that the nodes of the lunar orbit rotaterelative to the place of the ecliptic in approximately19 years (actually a retrograde nodal cycle of 18.61tropical years) and to Diodorus' account of Apollo'svisit every 19 years to his spherical temple, wherehe sang and played his zither the night through from

8The use of tall tree trunks for distant markers is supportedby the finding of early British boats indicating quite surprisingtimber sizes and woodworking skills (Wri ht and Churchill 1965).I have elsewhere (Baity 1971a) noted t%e extreme significanceof posthole data which might indicate the former presence ofposts serving as distant markers.C U R R E N T N T H R O P O L O G Y


8/62

the spring equinox to the rising of the ~ l e i a d e s . ~Himself an architect, Charrikre noted the architec-tural parallels between the orientations of the Frenchmegalithic monuments, including tombs, and thoseof Etruscan, early Roman, and Christian sacred edi-fices.'' Moreover, Charrikre (1963, 1964, 1966,Char-rikre and Roos 1964) attaches as much importanceto lunar orientations as do Thom and Newham,attributing so-called errors in orientation to a pur-poseful and highly sophisticated skill which in hisview reconciled lunar and solar calendars and setintermediate (neither solstice nor equinox) datesfor festivals, as Thom has established in his studiesof the megalithic calendar. Charrikre (1963) notesthe singular resemblance in form between the designof Stonehenge and that of the far later calendriccircle and horseshoe monument at Sarmizegetusa inRomania, more fully described by Daicoviciu (1960).11Time has already indicated that the most revolu-tionary and valuable aspect of the Stonehenge debatehas been its introduction to archaeologists of theradical, innovative, and extremely precise work ofengineer Alexander Thom. It is impossible to reviewThom's 30-year self-dedicated task: his summarizingbooks (1967, 197 1) are required reading for anyoneconcerned with archaeoastronomy. Thom's (1967)study supports with statistics and numerous clearillustrations his argument that British noncircularstone rings were not carelessly designed circles, butdeliberate, purposeful, and experimental demon-strations of mathematical concepts, including the use

gT he Diodorus text is supposed to have been derived froman account by Hecataeus probably written around 500 B.c., atwhich time the tradition may already have been ancient. R. S.Newell (cf. Newham 1964: 15-16) obtained from astronomer F.Addey the information that around 1500 B C the Pleiades wouldhave been almost in conjunction with the sun, rising unseen shortlyafter sunrise. As neither the computers nor the astronomers areprogrammed for cultural lag, no account is taken of the fact thatthe tradition may have originated at an earlier date, perhaps whenthe Pleiades were linked to the Bull. Har tner (1965:4-5) considersthat the heliacal rising symbols were established around the timeof the first Elamite and Mesopotamian settlements (ca. 4000 B.c.),when Taurus, Leo, and Scorpio (roughly 90 apar t) preceded thesunrise at the spring equinox, summer solstice, and autumnalequinox respectively by ca. 10-25 and thus were the last visiblezodiacal risings. The probable time of the construction of thecircular ditch at Stonehenge I was around 3000 B.C. (Renfrew1970), at which time the heliacal rising of Taurus marked thespring equinox in the Mesopotamian zodiac. The re is no evidence(known to me) that the British megalithic astronomers used sucha zodiac, but the Diodorus text is thought-provoking.''Though it is eripheral to this study, I note the significanceof Borst's (1966-%9) suggestion tha t a megalithic s tructure gaveits plan to Canterbury Cathedral, a hypothesis with which Barmore(1969) and MacKie (personal communication, 29 11 72) do notagree. In Iberia and elsewhere churches mark many a pre-Christianshrine; in Mesoamerica, many a pyramid.I am indebted to Daicoviciu (personal communication, 29 x71) for the following information: Besides the great circularsanctuary, at Sarmizegetusa there is a small circular sanctuary,and another , with limestone pillars, was found at Fefele Albe,in the neighbourhood of Sarmizegetusa, and a third one withwood pillars at Pecica (ancient Ziridava); this latter one has beenpublished by I. H. Cr i~ ann Acta Musei N apocensis (Cluj) 3:91-101.We do not know the origin of this type of sanctuary, thoughit seems to be a marvellous resurrection of the megalithic monu-ments. Its circular shape might be a result of its connection withthe seemingly circular motion of the Sun , or with the discoidalaspect of the Sun and of the Moon. I believe that th e importanceof this kind of sanctuary lies in the fact that it proves the existenceof a serious preoccupation of the Dacians with astronomy, andof an original calendar based on their own observations.Vol. 4 No. 4 October 973

Baity: RCH EO STRONOMY N D E T HNO S T RONOMYof Pythagorean triangles, in the service of advancedobservational astronomy or perhaps as a parallelintellectual study. His (197 1) further examination ofScottish sites indicates that lunar observatories hada far more searching function than that of calendarcorrection and date-setting: for New Year's and otherrituals, which activities may, he suggests, have becomemere routine fund-raising projects supporting a sci-entific study of the moon's motions.Thom (197 1 147) demonstrates the possibility thatthrough the use of temporary markers placed dur ingobservations of the rising and setting orbs slidingpast small, clean-cut distant marks (mountain con-tours or precisely aligned megaliths), megalithic as-tronomers were able to indicate mean differenceswith their stone markers (hence the errors reportedby modern students who fail to take into accountthe sophistication of the megalithic observatories).From many thousands of precise measurements,Thom deduces a standard measurement unit, themegalithic yard (MY) of 2.720 .003 ft . (Thom1968:43), subdivided by a smaller unit, 1/40 MY,appearing in connection with cup-and-ring rock carv-ings and forming part of a larger unit of 2 3 MY(i.e., 6.80 ft.).12Though he has not worked at Stone-

12Thom's megalithic yard has aroused much interest amongstudents of ancient metrology. Hammerton (1971), studyingThom's (1967: table 5.1) table of values of the site unit at 145sites, suggests that Thom's megalithic fathom has a range valuewhich does not suggest a stand ard issued from a center: h e advancesthe theory that the site unit was based o n the height of theengineer-priest in charge (or of a local dignitary). I n view of Miiller'sevidence of similar egg-shaped struc tures, orientations, andmeasurements in Germany as well as in Britain (and France),the chief's height hypothesis may afford more problems thanit solves. Fletcher (1969), in a typescript which Robert L. Merritthas sent me along with other papers from his collection onmegalithic astronomy, links the megalithic yard with ancientmeasures identified by Petrie and others, concluding that it andthe megalithic fathom (5.44 ft.) were not mere upstart British-French standards but were part of a major metric system commonto the ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilizations andrelated to an empirical prescientific geometry. Newham (personalcommunication, 1 V I I 71) does not, however, find that the MYconsistently applies at Stonehenge, though in some instances itcoincides with his moon-swing long measure (LM) of 47.6 ft.( 1 7 i MY), and this discrepancy leads him to question whetherthe builders of Stonehenge were the same as those responsiblefor other megalithic structures. Newham's work, IikeThom's, o ffe rsthe possibility of archaeological proof , as he predicts that certainalignments must be found in as yet unexcavated areas of thesite. He cites a large depression in a field to the southeast (inthe position of a stone shown in an early etching) which centersexactly 13 LM from the Sarsen center, aligning with moonriseseen from Aubrey Hole 28 (where a stone was supposed to havebeen) and also with other significant sun and moonrise positions.Newham's question with regard to the identity of the Stonehengebuilders is of interest in connection with the fact that the diagonalsof the four Station Stones, which cross at the center of the SarsenCircle of Stonehenge I1 to form a rectangle about 105 by 260ft., did not do so in the time of Stonehenge I , but centered about3 ft. southwest of the common cente r.Stecchini's (cf. Tompkins 1971) study indicating the precisionof 3d-millennium Egyptian measurements affords much data fo rcomparative studies. Eberhard's (personal communication, 21 I V72) reference to Chinese links between astronomical and musicalconcepts is significant (cf. n. 23), as are his references to studiesof early Chinese metrology: On Chinese measurements we havea number of studies in Chinese. They have found some earlymeasures and by using these they have been giving interpretationsto texts. Some references (but by no means the most impor tantones-those I do not have at hand): Monumenta Serica 6:357:~ i l l e t i n - - i f h i n G e tu die s ( ~ h e n g - t u j1:93; T oung Pao 35:246;Oriental Art 2: 1, 46; T6y6 Gakuh6 35: 1-30.


9/62

Er Grs h9A Exf rapolal , g r ec t o r

Tumlllul

FIG. 2. Er Grah (Le Grand Menhir Brisi) as a universalforesight for the rising and setting moon at the eight criticalpositions. (Reprinted from Thorn and Thorn 1971:150by perm.ission of the Journal for the History of Astronomy.)

henge, Thom (1968:28) has surveyed Woodhenge,which he sees as a possible example of mathematicalexperiment.Among the lacunae in the Stonehenge debate, assuggested above, is the failure to consider the astro-nomical alignments of the French megalithic struc-tures suggested by a number of French archaeologists(Niel 196 1, 1970; Savary 1966). The inevitable ques-tion whether the highly impressive megalithic sitesof Brittany, remarkably concentrated in the Carnacarea (Giot 1960), show the same astronomical andmetrical patterns as British megaliths has led Thom(1970~;Thom and Tho m 1971, 1972) and colleaguesto make site surveys and orientation studies of severalthousand Breton megaliths or menhirs. At Carnac,a huge lunar observatory spread over a wide territorysurrounding Quiberon Bay was centered on thegreatest menhir in Europe, Er Grah Le Grand MenhirBrisk), which, as Tho m and his colleagues show, couldhave served as a universal foresight used by stationslocated in several different directions (see fig. 2).Measuring at least 67 ft . and weighing over 340 tons,this menhir appears to have been brought from thewest coast of the Quiberon Peninsula on a preparedtrack with rollers, a task doubtless requiring decadesof work following those necessary to locate a suitablesite.Several commentators on Thom s astronomical hy-potheses have objected to the process of starting withthe known menhir position, on the grounds that someapparent celestial target can always be indicated (anobjection which begs the point that the targets mayhave had some functional role to play in ceremoni-alism). In the first study of the Carnac alignments(Thom and Thom 1971), Tho m predicted that ErGrah could have served as a universal foresight andestimated on which lines focusing on Er Grah observ-ing stations must have been located. His team searchedfor and found five of the eight predicted stations(cf. fig. 2). Thom further hypothesized that the rowsof stones at Petit MCnec and at St. Pierre must have

been used as extrapolating sectors, as he had suggest-ed for similar rows at Caithness (Thom 1970a). Afurther objective in the first Brittany survey was toascertain the geometrical layout of the various sitesand to determine the problem which the Carnacalignments had been laid out to solve. As most ofthe stones had been reerected, with possible inaccura-cies, the first task was to determine by surveys andstatistical analyses the original designs and the unitof measurement employed. The second survey, inMarch of 1972, fur ther tested and confirmed thesehypotheses (Thom and Thom 1972). The surveysestablish that reerection of stones has been sufficientlyaccurate to permit statistical analyses indicating thegeometrical designs laid out by the builders. Theanalyses indicated that the Le MCnec west and eastcromlechs are Type 1 and 2 megalithic egg-shapedrings, based on 3,4,5 triangles of the type previouslystudied in Scotland (Thom and Thom 1971). Thestandard megalithic unit of measurement used was2 megalithic yards (called by Thom a megalithicrod). The Brittany studies indicate a remarkableuniformity of the measuring unit, which Thom esti-mates must have been a rod measuring 6.802 0.002ft. The remarkable closeness of this to the Britishunit indicates an accuracy today attained only bytrained surveyors using good modern equipment.The high degree of organization and administrationresponsible for the impressive Breton alignments andthe presence in Brittany and Scotland of identicalunits suggests a common culture. Which area wasthe center of this culture? The extensive remainsin Brittany are suggestive, but Thom and Thomindicate that so far none of the Breton sites examinedaffords a geometry comparable to that of Avebury.Th om suggests that the continual use of observatorieslike those in Argyllshire and Caithness may havepresented problems the solution of which was foundat Carnac. The Brittany alignments have also beensurveyed by Hiille (1942, 1967) and by Rennes-Beaulieu (H. Alimen, personal communication, 4 X70), neither of whose reports are available to me.The Crucuno rectangle (near Erdeven-en-Morbihan),cited by Charrikre (1964: 166) as a st ructure in whichthe diagonals indicated the rising and setting pointsof the sun at the first and last gleam at summerand winter solstices, has been surveyed and studiedby Thom, Thom, Merritt, and Merritt (see pp. 450-54 of this issue).

Tho m (1970a,b; Thom and Tho m 197 1, 1972) hasdetermined by statistically analyzed surveys that Brit-ish/Breton Neolithic astronomers were capable ofdetermining complex lunar movements by means ofstakes put into the ground at successive observationsnear the major (maximum) and minor (minimum)standstills, thus obtaining an eclipse-warning system.

''Not only does the m oon com plete its solstice swings monthlyrather than yearly as the sun does, but the angle of arc is notprecisely the same from month to m onth for reasons which includeboth the obliquity of the ecliptic and the fact that the inclinationof the moon's orbit (i) is subject to a small oscillation: as Thom(19 706 :93 ) describes it, The lunar orbit is inclined at5 08' 43 to the ecliptic. T he line of the nodes rotates relative tothe equinox in 18.61 3 years. So in this period, the inclination

C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y


10/62

In a ra re flight of fancy, Tho m an d Th om (1971: 158)visualize t hg work invdlved:We must now try to think of how a position was foundfor Er Grah which would have satisfied the requirements.Increasingly careful observations of the Moon had probablybeen made for hundreds of years. These would haverevealed unexplained anomalies due to variations in paral-lax and refraction, and so it may have been considerednecessary to observe at the major and minor standstillsat both rising and setting. At each standstill there were10or 12 lunations when the monthly declination maximumand minimum could be used. At each maximum or mini-mum, parties would be out at all possible places tryingto see the Moon rise or set behind high trial poles. Atnight these poles would have needed torches at the topsbecause anv other marks would not be visible until actuallvsilhouetted on the Moon's disc. Meantime some earlierexisting observatory must have been in use so that erectorscould be kept informed about the kind of maximum whichwas being observed; they would need to know the stateof the perturbation. Then there would ensue the nineyears of waiting till the next standstill when the other foursites were being sought.

T h e process of establishing the maximum pointswas further complicated by the fact that the ris-ing and setting times only occasionally coincide withthe moon's monthly declination maximum. Thom(1970b:96) shows how megalithic astronomers solvedthis by sett ing stakes o n several successive nights nearthe solstice, from them calculating the maximumposition by extrapolation; h e interprets the grids an dfans of carefully placed small stones fou nd alike inBritain an d Brittany as devices (computer s) to aidin this extrapolation.

Thom's system, though discussed in a simple andlucid prose and illustrated with explicit drawings,deman ds a high degree of mathematical, engineering,an d astronomical knowledge: as yet few archaeologistshave re spo nde d to the challenge. MacKie (1969: 11)analyzes this resistance, noting unarguably thatscholars ar e only hu ma n beings an d may be motivat-

ed by things other than purely rational, objective

of the orbit to the equator goes through a complete cycle between(E and (E i) where is the obliquityof the ecliptic. Megalithicastronomers appear to Thom to have been able by means of stakesand stones (empirical mathematics) to determine the moon's nodalcycle and its maxima, thus enabling eclipse prediction, as eclipsescan occur only at the two points called nodes (knots) where themoon's orbit crosses that of the sun along the plane of the ecliptic.The inclination is at a maximum when the sun is passing a node.For about a year, the declination maxima do not range over morethan 20', a period Thom calls a major standstill; a minor standstillwill occur 9.3 years later.As Thom points out, for the past severalyears the rising and setting points of the moon have ranged oververy wide arcs, far to the north and then, two weeks later, farto the south; the maxima of both cycles coincided in 1969,producing a high peak which will not be equalled for manymillennia: it will gradually decrease for nine years until it obtainsa minimum value, after which it will again increase. In megalithictimes, when the obliquity of the ecliptic was half a degree greaterthan today, this action was more pronounced, with a spectacularresult: to a n observer in the north of the Hebrides the moonwas for a few days circumpolar, never setting at all (Thom1970a:901). This striking phenomenon, as seen from megalithicobservatories near the Arctic Circle, such as Callanish cf. Thom1967:122-28 fig. 11.1; Hawkins 1965b), might well have givenrise to the tradition repeated by Diodorus that in the time ofApollo's visits to his spherical temple the moon came closer tothe earth (i.e.,swung nearer the horizon in a circumpolar sweep).Vol 4 No October I973

Baity: A R C H A EOA S T R ~ N ~MYAND ETHNOASTRONOMYthoug ht. none of us are astronomers; none ofus possess the detailed knowledge of the motions ofthe celestial sph ere without which o ne simply canno tknow where to look f or evidence of prehistoricastronomy. H e explains why the usual type of ar -chaeological evidence is irrelevant an d observes tha tthe astronomical function of the standing stones canonly be deduced by testing the designs against varioushypotheses of geographical design and astronomicalfunction. He questions, however, th e use of statisticalanalyses based on a large num ber of orientationsabstracted from different sites, concluding (MacKie1969: 11):Though some of the details are open to discussion I findthe geometrical and astronomical theories basically quiteconvincing, mainly because of the way in which they aredeveloped. Here is a vast amount of information,painstakingly collected over many years-plans of sites andcarefully measured potential alignments in them. Whenone has enough of such information it begins to fall intopatterns of its own accord when analyzed in various ways.The patterns are real and we must accept them. If wedo not like the conclusions drawn from the patterns thenwe must think of better ones, but it is impossible to ignorethe new data in any future assessment of Neolithic Britain.

Heggie (1972) commends Tho m's hypotheses an d,above all, the meticulous detail that characterizes hisreduct ion of the data, source material t hat will beuseful to other workers. Discussing the monthlymaximum declination of the moon, Heggie pointsou t that although it changes from mon th to mo nthover a period of 19 years, the limits are almost thesame for some centuries, so that it would have beenworthwhile to record the corresponding positions onthe horizon. Asking Is the re any indication tha trecords of some of these points still exist in themegalithic sites? , he answers that, to his mind, Th omhas shown this quite conclusively. Many alignmentsappear to him to fit the hypothesis that they wereerected to indicate the points at which very brightstars rose a nd set. Heggie suggests a minor improve-men t o n Thom's theoretical derivation of G in theanalysis of the fan-shaped alignments which appearto have been used for extrapolation and concludes(p. 48):Thom's evidence that megalithic man observed the moonis so strong that it may be accepted without hesitation.That he also used extrapolation seems to be indicated bythe evidence of the stone fans of Caithness and elsewhere.The data on which Thom bases his assertion that thebuilders of the monuments established accurate sightlinesfor several interesting declinations, implying a knowledgeof its motion that was not to be improved upon for overthree thousand years, may have been interpreted incorrect-ly. Much interesting material for feeding research inthis subject may be found in Professor Thom's writings.The fact that few others have repeated his work shouldbe understood as a symptom, not of doubts as to its value,but of theenormous effort that must be expended if Thom'sstandards are to be maintained.


11/62

Hutchinson (1972a), in a summary review ofThom's geometrical arguments, applies a type-Aflattened circle to the plan of Castle Rigg and a type-Bflattened circle to a plan of Long Meg and herDaughters, demonstrating that a reverse fit is notpossible. He suggests that the term stone ring beused in place of stone circle, in view of the manynoncircular rings with geometric aspects. He furthersuggests that slight irregularities attributed to frostheaving or to variations in the tension of measuringlines might instead be due to work by two groups,the ritual laying out of the sacred enclosure havingperhaps been done by people of superior intellectualcapacities using geometrical procedures as part ofa philosophical-religious orientation similar to thatof- the pythagoreans, the subsequent constructionhaving been left to less skilled hands. In his reviewof Thom's astronomical arguments, Hutchinson(19726) suggests that the distribution of solar calen-drical declinations, with maxima at the solstices butwith the next mode one megalithic month or sixteenthof a year (in Thom's suggested megalithic calendar)from the winter solstice, may represent a precautionin case of bad weather at the solstice. In this studyof Thom's astronomv. it is stressed that the search,for possible central observing points is a next step;Hutchinson finds that Thom's general conclusionsappear to stand, though lunar computations mayinvolve arbitrary identifications. The sight lines toCapella imply dates later than the majority of C14-dated structures, if the bristlecone pine calibration(see below) is accepted. Hutchinson is impressed withthe earliness of elaborate geometrical constructions:he suggests that these may represent the fusion ofan older chamber-tomb megalithic architecture witha geometry worked out on a smaller scale usingperishable material. MacKie (personal commu-nication, 29 71) finds Hutchinson's suggestion thatthe geometric designs may have been worked outby a separate group (and then translated into archi-tecture by workers who did not fully understand thegeometry) of interest in connection with his studyof brochs, stone tower forts with nonutilitarian geo-metrical plans incorporated in them, which show whatappear to be sudden departures from the precisegeometrical plans indicated.To some commentators, Thom's data suggest otherconclusions. Hogg (1968) accepts the astronomy andthe measurements, but suggests another unit in placeof Thom's megalithic yard. Crampton (1967) andothers have argued that Stonehenge was in fact nevera sacred structure totally open to the sky, but insteadwas a roofed and walled kingly center. Burl's (197 la )survey of the corpus of British stone circles (whichhas a most useful comprehensive bibliography) l hasled him to assign a directional rather than an astro-nomical function to circles and outliers (see also Burl1971b:49). He also cites new evidence for domestic

4 am indebted to Burl (personal communication, 27 vrrr 71)for the following references dealing with stone circles in Britainand Ireland: Browne (1921), Bushell (1911), Coles (1909), Fahy(1959, 1961 1962), Hyslop (1912), Lewis (1878-1914), Morrow(1915), Somerville (1909a, b 1912, 1922, 1923, 1925, 1929, 1930),Watson (1900), and Worth (1953).

occupation of certain of the henge sites. This doesnot, however, necessarily disqualify them for astro-nomical use: astronomer-priests elsewhere have livedin or near their observatories. The reference of Dio-dorus to the royal and priestly Boreadae in chargeof Apollo's spherical temple, of whom the successionhas never been broken, suggests a perhaps veryancient tradition of custodianship. Burl's (1969a,b)further finding that only 17 of the 83 henges studiedhave stone circles within them again does not-atthe present stage-disqualify them; stone circles instony treeless areas and wood post circles in agricul-tural areas could equally have demarked the sacredarea and served for sighting lines. In a well-docu-mented study of diminutive and late stone circlescalled four-posters, Burl (1971b) suggests that thepeople who built them, apparently for burial pur-poses, had left their homeland in search of lebensraumwhen the earlier society that could undertake vastbuilding works began to split into small family groupsinterring their dead in family vaults or simple flatcemeteries.Kendall(1971) discusses Thom's major hypothesesand suggests a number of checks, not all at presentpossible because of changes in the objective astro-nomical facts since megalithic times. With regard tohis emphasis on the number of sight lines affordedby the notches in hill country, it must be rememberedthat, even aside from settlement patterns and vagariesof topography, the megalithic Clite enjoyed an ex-tremely long period of time for experimental stake-setting and undoubtedly tested various sites beforeerecting the stone markers. The basic question iswhether or not the astronomical observatories ex-isted: the exactitude of Thom's methods of declinationrefinement, as shown not only in the corpus of hiswork but in the accuracy of prediction his methodsafford, puts a weighty burden of disproof on thosewho wish to deny this.Cowan (1970) extends Thom's argument with re-gard to the sophisticated design of megalithic circles:he favors, however, the use of stakes and a rope,rather than two standard-length rods as Thomproposes (1967:32), and his theory assumes that twoanchor stakes and two other pivot stakes were usedin the construction of each ring and that they werealigned at right angles; he concludes that the mega-lithic geometers knew rudimentary trigonometry andsimple topology, had a standard length, and haddeveloped a unique method of geometric construc-tion.The determination of the presence or absence ofpostholes in astronomically significant locations, andof man-made observation platforms, is required toestablish astronomical-mathematical function, andthis, as Thom stresses, is one of archaeoastronomy'sfirst tasks. T o carry out such a test, MacKie (1971b,c)has worked at Kintraw, where Thom (1967:154;1971:36-38) has surveyed a site which he designatesas a highly accurate solstitial observatory which alsocould have given megalithic observers an accuratelunar eclipse-warning station (Thom 197 1 65; see alsoThom's [I97 1 26, 1071 imaginary dialogue in whicha megalithic astronomer teaches an apprentice how



12/62

FIG.3 . View from the proposed stone platform at Kintraw,Argyllshire, looking southwest towards the col betweenBeinn Shiantaidh and Beinn a Chaolais (the distant markerindicated by Thom). The theodolite was set up in the notchformed by two boulders on the platform; the declinationof the mountain notch is that determined by Thom. Thecairn and standing stone (menhir) at the Kintraw site beloware 1,135 m. distant, and the foreground ridge that hidesthe col from the site is about a mile away. The left-handsolar position marks the winter solstice as it should havebeen some 38 centuries ago, the central dotted disc marksthe present solstice (at declination -23 27 ), and theright-hand one a second plausible alignment of unknownsignificance which the menhir could equally be indicating.The post shown marks the position of a wooden postindicated for the center of the cairn in the 1960 excavation.(Drawing by Euan W. MacKie.)to employ the site to determine the date of a cominglunar standstill and thus of coming eclipses). Thomestimates that at the site of the Kintraw cairn andmenhir, a small portion of the upper limb of thesetting sun at the winter solstice, after it had set behindBeinn Shiantaidh, would flash momentarily in thecol. By moving rapidly across the line of sight, anobserver (or a row of stationary observers) could markwith a stake the precise stop from which this couldbe viewed: the stakes set for several successive nightswould have moved first to the right (just before thesolstice), then to the left (after the solstice), theextreme right-hand point marking the solstice. Thesite, however, afforded a problem to megalithic as-tronomers which has provided the test needed bycontemporary archaeologists. It is situated on a smallplateau on a very steep hillside, and from its surfacethe mountain target is hidden by a nearby foregroundridge. To enable the col to be seen, Thom theorized,it had been necessary to establish an observationplatform on a steep hillside to the north of the plateauand across a deep and almost impassable gorge, sothat the exact location of a flat-topped cairn whichwould bring the col into sight could be determined(fig. 3). search at the site of the hypothesizedplatform revealed a stone platform at the edge ofwhich two boulders afforded a notch suitable forviewing the col. The archaeological problem of estab-lishing whether this platform was man-made or hadbeen formed by natural processes-by accumulationof fallen scree behind fortuitiously placed boulders

Baity: ARCHAEOA~TRONOMY AND ETHNOASTRONOMYor by natural solifluction in glacial times-has beencomplicated by the absence of charcoal usable forradiocarbon dating, datable artifacts, or pollen (thelatter suggests postglacial times but is badly pre-served). The scree hypothesis can be dismissed: theslope of scree would have been far steeper. MacKie(1971~)brought a soil scientist to determine by mea-suring the angle and dip of the long axes of 100adjacent stones whether these were nonrandom (asin a solifluxed layer) or random (as in a man-madelayer). The test and other evidence strongly suggestthat the layer is man-made: further testing shouldbe conclusive. If so, the astronomical interpretationof the site will have been independently vindicatedand Thom s theory of sophisticated prehistoric astro-nomical work supported by implication.Before leaving the British-Breton megalithic as-tronomy controversy to consider the astronomicalsignificance of other archaeological sites, we mustreview another revolution in prehistory, that occa-sioned by Renfrew s (1968; 1970a,b,c) application tomegalithic Britain and to Neolithic Europe of thebristlecone pine tree-ring correction of radiocarbondates. Briefly, the 5,000-year dendrochronology ob-tained from the study of the rings of this Californiatree has been compared by Suess (1967) and others(cf. Stuiver and Suess 1965) to radiocarbon determi-nations made upon its wood, leading to the discoverythat radiocarbon dates before 2000 B . C . may be upto some 700 years too young (Delibrias, Guillier, andLabeyrie 1970; ature 228: 1019-20). To shift West-ern European cultures formerly dated to the 3dmillennium back some 700 years would alter radicallythe relative chronological positions of the Near Eastand Europe, making untenable the accepted archae-ological theory that European skills were derived fromthe Near East. Egyptian chronology, based on histori-cal records astronomically dated by the heliacal risingsof Sirius (the Egyptian year-bringer Sothis), remainsunchanged: in fact, the revised radiocarbon datesare in better agreement than older ones with Egyp-tian astra-determined historical chronology (MacKie1970: figs. 1 and 2). Minoan and Mycenaean chronol-ogies, obtained by cross-dating with Egyptian artifacts,also remained unchanged.In Western Europe, however, in the absence ofhistorical records recent dating has been based onradiocarbon determinations. Now at one stroke themegalithic structures of Malta, of Los Millares andother early Iberian sites, and Western Europeanmegalithic structures may have to be dated aroundor before 3000 B.c . , drapingsome of these monumentsin a venerable antiquity outranking that of the Egyp-tian pyramids, not to mention the voyages of theMyceanaean traders whose building skills have beensuggested as a model for those evident at Stonehenge.The British structures so fa r dated by archaeoastron-omy (primarily by Thom) appear to cluster around2 100-1600 B . c . , ~ which is not greatly earlier than

Wewham (personal communication, 1 V I I 71 states that reliabledati ng appears possible where very accurate survey data is available:

Vol 14 N o 4 October 1973


13/62

the C 14-determined and archeologically accepted es-timates for Stonehenge I1 and 111. Renfrew (1971)estimates that Stonehenge I, the henge ditch, may,however, have been in construction around 2930-2550 B.C. and Aubrey Hole 32 around 2500-1900B.C. The new bristlecone pine dating is in betteragreement with recent archaeological studies whichhave proposed British origins for the designs of manyof the megalithic structures and also falls into linewith some previously unaccepted dates. MacKie(1969:6) notes that a possible date of 2900-2600 B Cin real (i.e., calibrated C 14) years for the Phase Ihenge at Stonehenge is exceeded by the dates ofother henges; the vast ring ditch enclosing severalcircular settings of posts at Durrington Walls yieldsradiocarbon dates equivalent to about 3400-3 100 B.c.,while Arminghall appears to have been constructedbetween 3000 and 2800 B.c.; thus the three hengemonuments are a millennium or so older than theperiod of the stone circles deduced on astronomicalgrounds, and appear to be contemporaneous withthe Old Kingdom and the great pryamids. As MacKienotes, the henges will provide a crucial test for thereliability of the astronomical theory of the ~ u r ~ o s e f u lconstruciion of the Neolithic rings: if thky Adicatethis older dating, the theory will be vindicated; ifnot. some other ex~lanationmust be found for theuniformity of Thom's evidence with regard to themegalithic structures (cf. Atkinson 1967, 1969).In summary, weighing together the many well-doc-umented analyses made by the several participants inthe Stonehenge debate and their most generousresponses to my own questions, I am inclined to setaside such exasperated personal comments from themas the astronomers and the archaeologists are notspeaking the same language and a brilliant andexplosive theory has gone rocketing ahead withoutanything like critical control. By 1972 a rapid growthof mutual understanding and of critical control isquite evident, and there is increasingly well-informedopinion that Stonehenge (and many other ancientmonuments) not only could have been used for so-phisticated observations and predictions of astraevents ( astra being a shorthand expression for allthe celestial bodies), including eclipses and moonperturbations, but probably were so used. That theywere used precisely as theorized by Hawkins andHoyle is not accepted, and an understandable andmutually educational scholarly exchange continues,in which archaeologists and others in various areasare now engaging. Th e outcome of this standardscientific procedure promises to be the addition ofastronomy to the archaeologists' conceptual tools,even more scrupulous attention to accurate recon-structions and to the construction of precise sitee. g. , at Stonehenge, the 9 station to No. carpark hole givesa sun declination corresponding to 1700 B.C. ? 200 years. Datingby the sun is only possible when it is at the solstice: once thisis known at a particular site where intermediate alignments alsoexist, it is poss~ble o calculate the dav of the vear to which thevwill apply.Merritt (1968) shows that megalithic astronomy establishes dateswhich invalidate the hvwthesis of Velikovskv that Venus enteredthe sun s planetary f a d y as a comet well affer the first historicalrecords were made.

maps, adequately documenting the presence of outly-ing stones, postholes, and distant markers, and theacknowledgement of the necessity for cooperationbetween archaeologists, astronomers, engineers, andothers.

The possible earlier dating of the megalithic struc-tures. considered in connection with the hv~otheses,.with regard to their astronomical-mathematical func-tion, focuses interest on megalithic structures in otherareas than Britain and Brittanv. Miiller's (1970) ad-mirably concise presentation of Thom's hypothesesextends the range of similar structures to CentralEurope, indicating for this area an early interest inastra orientation and calendar sites. If archaeologistsin Central Europe and beyond confirm this furtherextension of Thom's megalithic measurements andorientations and agree with his astronomical hypoth-eses (while perhaps disagreeing with him in somedetails), then clearly archaeoastronomy will haveproved its value.MennevCe (1960) suggests that the rarity of mega-liths in Italy may be due to the comparative rarityof suitable rocks: he reproduces iconography (rockart and stelae) and compares the distributions ofmegaliths, bell beakers, and metal deposits exploitedin prehistoric times. Rojer Grosjean (personal com-munication, 14 X I 70) reports that no archaeoastro-nomical hypotheses have been tested in Corsica butnotes that Corsica's anthropomorphic stelae face east,as if facing the rising sun at the equinox. Less archaicmonuments in Sardinia and the Balearic Islands were.he suspects, temples de feu, either for incinerationof the dead, for burning of offerings, or as the siteof ritual repasts. (Evidence from Iberia to Indiaindicates to me that fire rituals, symbolically relatedto solar events and accompanied by bull rituals andbull sacrifice, were a part of a New Year's sacreddrama cycle [Baity 1962, 19681Barandiarin (personal communication, 7 X I 71)notes that the almost 400 dolmens in the Basquecountry for the most part face east, though someare oriented to the south and a few to the northeast;this suggests patterned behavior concentrating on therising sun at the equinoxes and solstices. Basque tombshave similar orientation, as do the more recent Basqueillarri (death stones), the designs of which have longsuggested to me solar-stellar symbols. Barandiarinfully documents this symbolism and shows that swas-ticas also appear: moreover, the stones appear tohim to match the myths (BarandiarQn 1960, 1970).At present there are few C14 dates for Iberia; I amthus unable to compare the date of Iberian megalithswith the high Breton dates in the time range 3500-3000 B.C. that are now substantiated (Delibrias, Guil-lier, and Labeyrie 1970; cf. Nature 8: 1019-20),making it appear possible that collective burial inmegalithic chamber-tombs was known to the firstimmigrant farmers who reached Britain around 3500B C (or, in calibrated C14 dating or real years, around4200 B.c.): it also appears possible that the tradition



14/62

of astronomical alignments for burials came as partof the funerary complex.Burl (personal communication, 8 VIII 71) indicatesthat stone circles are reported in connection withmegaliths in Galicia and elsewhere (calling attentionto Leisner and Leisner 1956, among others), but noreports known to me indicate whether Thom's hy-potheses have been tested in this rich area, thesignificance of which to archaeoastronomy is indicatednot only by its megaliths and metals but also by itsAfrican and Anatolian prehistoric connections.Should Iberian megaliths demonstrate orientationsand measurements similar to those of Britain andBrittany, the attempt to construct a megalithic calen-dric ritual cycle might profit from the remarkablerichness of Iberian folkloric survivals and scholarship:most extensive bibliographies are available in theworks of Caro Baroja (1958) and Barandiarin (1960,1970). The solstice madness that sweeps throughIberia at midsummer, expressing itself in a rich varietyof bull and fire rituals closely paralleling hundredsof scenes in protohistoric cattlekeepers' rock art (andalso resembling Berber summer-solstice ritualsreported by Laoust [1921]), strongly suggests to thisparticipant observer that the association of suchactivities with a solstice ritual event (perhaps in earliertimes a New Year) is at least as old as Iberia'scattlekeeping traditions and may even preserve ele-ments of predomestication fire rituals (though I amnot suggesting derivation from the Homo erectusfire-drive indicated at an elephant kill-site in SoriaProvince).The significance for archaeoastronorny of the BlackSea megaliths is evident: the many similarities ofBasque-Caucasus folklore, dance, and music, andabove all the extensive linguistic correspondences,suggest the possibility that similar orientations mayalso be found. Markovin (1969), Lunin (1924, 1936),Leshchenko (1931), Lavrov (1960), Shchepinsky(1963), and Chechenov (1970) have conducted large-scale surveys and excavations of megalithic structuresin the Caucasus and nearby: I have not been ableto examine their reports, but suggest that orientationsand measurements already made or obtainable maymake possible a systematic comparison.16 It will beinteresting to see whether a synthesis of this Basque-Caucasus archaeological and folkloric data showscorrespondences with the French megalithic folklorecollected by Saintyves (1934) and students with refer-ence to some 2,000 stones and structures. (Frenchfolkloric classics hppear to me to be especially signifi-cant sources with regard to megalithic traditions andsurvivals: Wayland Hand [personal communication,18 I 721 notes that Skbillot [1968], like Saintyves,based much of his folkloric data on the physicalworld.)Regrettably, I have uncovered almost no reportson archaeoastronomy elsewhere in Eurasia or inAfrica. Allchin (1956) has suggested that stone align-ments in southern Hyderabad may have had astro-

6 am indebted to Leo S Klejn (personal communication, 9x 7 1 , aided by megalith students Vladimir Dmitriev and LeonidRezepkin, for these and other most useful references.Vol 14 No. 4 ctober 973

Baity: ARCHAEOASTRONOMY AND ETHNOASTRONOMYnomical significance; the alignments he reports seemto indicate this. Evidence, both textual and astronom-ical, to be published by Hawkins (personal com-munication, 6 XI 71 indicates that the Egyptianpyramids were oriented with reference to stellartargets (see also Pogo 1930, Giedion 1962). The stonecircles of the Gambia and the Senegal are reportedto be recent (Beale 1968). Perhaps commentators willbe able to contribute further information on theseareas.Pre-Hispanic architecture and art in the Americashave fascinated a generation of archaeologists andother students, many of whom have suggested astro-nomical functions for the structures (cf. Marquina195 1, 1960; Morley 1956; Noriega 1954, 1956, 1958;Saville 1909, 1929; Spinden 1940).17As the textualand iconographic evidence indicates the presence ofastronomical-mathematical skills of a high order , itis predictable that these skills will be reflected in theorientations and measurements of sacred structuresand cult sites. As vet Mesoamerican archaeoastronomvhas found no worker with the determination andengineering qualifications of Thom to make andstatistically analyze the needed series of precisionstudies, and until such studies are systematically madeon a statistical basis American archaeoastronornycannot be expected to yield the information which,the evidence suggests, may be encoded in the struc-tures. Morley (1956:fig. 33) indicates the possible useof astronomical alignments in Group E, Uaxactun(Guatemala): here an astronomer-priest using Pyra-mid E-VII as an observation platform could, Morleyestimates, have observed the flash of the rising sunat the equinoxes and solstices, using the wall andplatform angles of three temples on an oppositepyramid as precise distant markers (fig. 4; cf. Morley1956:figs. 4, 32).

Har tung (1969), studying site-maps of Tikal, Co-pin , Uxmal, and ChichCn It zi , finds subtle overallplanning suggested despite the apparent irregularity:at Co pi n a network of coordinates and parallel linesappears to connect ballcourts, while altars M andN correspond with cardinal points (cf. Guillemin1969). Ballcourts, long recognized as connected witha solar cult, are a central feature of overall planningat various sites (cf. De Borhegyi 1969). Hartungsurmises, as have others, that the doors of the Caracolat ChichCn Itzi and other round structures whichmay have been observatories functioned as observa-

Not an Americanist and largely absent from the Americasfor over two decades, I am relatively unfamiliar with the growingbody of curr ent unpublished work in this area and have elsewhere(Baity 1969, 1971a noted the need for a synthesizing review ofAmerican archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy. I hope thatcommentators will supplement the following discussion. For sourcesand criticisms with regard to American archaeoastronomy, I amdeeply appreciative of the help of D. H. Kelley, Jonathan Reyman,and Charles H. Smiley. In connection with the various Maya studies,Kelley observes (personal communication, 8 v 71 that when onehas a large number of figures with which to work and little controlas to their meaning, impressive results may be cited that maynot stand up; to me it seems important that skills from the fieldsof archaeology, protohistory, astronomy, and engineering maynow be brought to bear on problems of common interest.


15/62

outh tLlw of sunrlw Line of sunrise on LIM of sumlno June2 September 2 and March 2 on Decembn 2

FIG.4. Diagram of the astronomical observatory at GroupE, Uaxactun, PetCn, Guatemala, for determining the datesof the solstices and equinoxes. Morley (1956) describes thisOld Empire observatory, found in an area where a numberof stelae date back to around A D 328, as one of overa dozen similar observatories at Old Empire sites. (Reprintedfrom Morley 1956:300, fig. 33, by permission of thepublishers, Stanford University Press. Copyright 1946,1947,1956by the Board of Trustees of the Leland StanfordJunior University.)tion posts (cf. Ricketson 1928, Ricketson and Ricket-son 1937, Pollock 1939, Rupper t 1935). He warnsagainst the possibility of errors in calculations basedon site-plans rather than site examinations. Dow(personal communication, 5 x 68) warns in turnagainst the possibility of errors where reconstructionshave been wrongly oriented, a factor which invali-dated some of his conclusions with regard to thestellar targets at Teotihuacin (Dow 1967). The pyra-mids of the Sun and of the Moon at this ancientMexican cultural and sacred center are spectacularreminders of the pre-Aztec culture that dominateda wide area of Mesoamerica and influenced far-distantcultures (Millon, Drewitt, and Bennyhoff 1965). Muchevidence indicates that astronomical observationsfunctioned as a part of a complex ceremonialism usingastra indicators and accompanied by astra mythologyand deities. Teotihuacin is clearly the flowering ofmuch older cultures, and for earlier stages of astro-nomical development researchers must turn to LaVenta and other centers of the Olmec culture andalso to the Chavin culture of the Peruvian highlands,in each of which a vigorous culture is in evidencein the 1st millennium B.c., and in each of which ajaguar-god symbolism is present. Possible Asian influ-ences in the ancient American cultures have beentheorized on the basis of stylistic resemblances (Birrell1970, Ekholm 1953, Kirchhoff 1964, Moran andKelley 1969). Mertz (1969a,b) suggests that earlyGreeks voyaged to the area, and Taylor (1957) assessesthe navigational astronomy which would have madethis possible. As yet consensus is lacking on trans-oceanic contact, and archaeoastronomy may well con-tribute useful insights. At La Venta, as in megalithic

cultures, a priestly Clite prevailed upon its followersto cut and transport 50-ton stones which Olmec artistscarved into huge heads, though similar-sized stoneswere used architecturally on the western coast ofSouth America. Throughout Mesoamerica for at leasttwo millennia, impressive pyramids were built andan endless flow of carved stone time-marking a rtworks produced. T he preoccupation of Maya-Mexi-can astronomer-mathematicia

Arqueoastronomia Chesley Baity

Documents

Transcript of Arqueoastronomia Chesley Baity