Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically Considered Sir Norman Lockyer 1568 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Stonehenge and Other British
Stone Monuments Astronomically Considered

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically
Considered

Author: Sir Norman Lockyer

Release date: June 8, 2020 [eBook #62342]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62342

Credits: Produced by Tim Lindell, Harry Lamé and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian
Libraries)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STONEHENGE
AND OTHER BRITISH STONE MONUMENTS ASTRONOMICALLY
CONSIDERED ***

Please see the Transcriber’s Notes at the
end of this text.
The cover image has been created for
this e-book and is in the public domain.

STONEHENGE

LIST OF WORKS BY SIR NORMAN
LOCKYER.

PRIMER OF ASTRONOMY.
ELEMENTARY LESSONS IN ASTRONOMY.
MOVEMENTS OF THE EARTH.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOLAR PHYSICS.
CHEMISTRY OF THE SUN.
THE METEORITIC HYPOTHESIS.
THE SUN’S PLACE IN NATURE.
INORGANIC EVOLUTION.
RECENT AND COMING ECLIPSES.
STARGAZING, PAST AND PRESENT.
(In conjunction with G. M. Seabroke.)
THE DAWN OF ASTRONOMY.
STONEHENGE AND OTHER BRITISH
STONE MONUMENTS.

STUDIES IN SPECTRUM ANALYSIS.
THE SPECTROSCOPE AND ITS
APPLICATIONS.

THE RULES OF GOLF.
(In conjunction with W. Rutherford.)

In the Press.
EDUCATION AND NATIONAL PROGRESS.

STONEHENGE

AND OTHER

BRITISH STONE MONUMENTS

Astronomically Considered

BY

SIR NORMAN LOCKYER, K.C.B., F.R.S.
DIRECTOR OF THE SOLAR PHYSICS OBSERVATORY
HON. LL. D., GLASGOW; HON. SC.D., CAMBRIDGE; CORRESPONDENT OF THE INSTITUTE
OF FRANCE; CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE IMPERIAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
OF ST. PETERSBURG; THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INDUSTRY
OF FRANCE; THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, GÖTTINGEN; THE FRANKLIN
INSTITUTE, PHILADELPHIA; THE ROYAL MEDICAL SOCIETY OF BRUSSELS;

SOCIETY OF ITALIAN SPECTROSCOPISTS; THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF PALERMO;
THE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF GENEVA; OF THE ASTRONOMICAL
SOCIETY OF MEXICO; MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF LYNCEI,
ROME; AND THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, PHILADELPHIA;
HONORARY MEMBER OF THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCE OF
CATANIA; PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF YORK; LITERARY AND
PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF MANCHESTER; ROYAL CORNWALL
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION; AND LEHIGH UNIVERSITY

London
MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited
1906
All rights reserved

Richard Clay and Sons, Limited

BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND

BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

PREFACE
In continuation of my work on the astronomical uses of the Egyptian
Temples, I have from time to time, when leisure has permitted, given
attention to some of the stone circles and other stone monuments erected, as
I believed, for similar uses in this country. One reason for doing so was that
in consequence of the supineness of successive Governments, and the
neglect and wanton destruction by individuals, the British monuments are
rapidly disappearing.
Although, and indeed because, these inquiries are still incomplete, I now
bring together some of the notes I have collected, as they may induce other
inquirers to go on with the work. Some of the results already obtained have
been communicated to the Royal Society, and others have appeared in
articles published in Nature, but only a small percentage of the monuments
available has so far been examined. Further observations are required in
order that the hypothesis set forth in this book may be rejected or
confirmed.
In the observations made at Stonehenge referred to in Chapter VII. I had
the inestimable advantage of the collaboration of the late Mr. Penrose. Our
work there would not have been possible without the sympathetic assistance
of Sir Edmund Antrobus, Bart.; Colonel Duncan A. Johnston, R.E.,
Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, also was good enough on several
occasions to furnish us with much valuable information which is referred to
in its place. Messrs. Howard Payn and Fowler skilfully and zealously
helped in the observations and computations. To all these I am glad to take
this opportunity of expressing my obligations.
With regard to the other monuments besides Stonehenge, I have to tender
my thanks to the following gentlemen for most valuable local assistance:—
Brittany—Lieut. de Vaisseau Devoir.
Stenness—Mr. Spence.
Stanton Drew—Professor Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Morrow, and Mr.
Dymond.

The Hurlers, and the Merry Maidens—the Right Hon. Viscount
Falmouth, Capt. Henderson, Mr. Horton Bolitho and Mr. Wallis.
Tregaseal—Mr. Horton Bolitho and Mr. Thomas.
The Dartmoor Avenues—Mr. Worth.
The following have helped me in many ways, among them with advice
and criticism:—Principal Rhys, Dr. Wallis Budge, Dr. J. G. Frazer, and Mr.
A. L. Lewis.
The assistance so generously afforded in the case of Stonehenge by
Colonel Johnston, R.E., in furnishing me with accurate azimuths was
continued for the monuments subsequently investigated till his retirement.
To his successor, Colonel R. C. Hellard, R.E., I am already under deep
obligations.
For the use of some of the Illustrations my thanks are due to the Royal
Society, the Society of Antiquaries, the Royal Institute of British Architects,
Messrs. Macmillan, and Mr. John Murray.
I have to thank Mr. Rolston, F.R.A.S., one of my staff, for assistance in
the computations involved.
NORMAN LOCKYER.

Solar Physics Observatory,
17th May, 1906.

CONTENTS

PAGE

Preface v
CHAPTER

I. Introductory 1
II. The Astronomical Divisions of the Year 12
III. The Agricultural Divisions of the Year 17
IV. The Various New-Year Days 25
V. Conditions and Traditions at Stonehenge 34
VI. General Architecture of Stonehenge 55
VII. Astronomical Observations at Stonehenge in 1901 62
VIII. Archæological Observations at Stonehenge, 1901 69
IX. Was there an Earlier Circle? 88
X. The May and June Worships in Brittany 96
XI. Astronomical Hints for Archæologists 107
XII. Astronomical Hints for Archæologists (Continued) 118
XIII. Stenness (Lat. 59° N.) 123
XIV. The Hurlers (Lat. 50° 31′ N.) 133
XV. The Dartmoor Avenues 145
XVI. The Dartmoor Avenues (Continued) 157
XVII. Stanton Drew (Lat. 51° 10′ N.) 166
XVIII. Folklore and Tradition 178

XIX. Sacred Fires 189
XX. Sacred Trees 200
XXI. Holy Wells and Streams 213
XXII. Where did the British Worship Originate? 232
XXIII. The Similarity of the Semitic and British Worships 252
XXIV. The May Year in South-West Cornwall 261
XXV. The Merry Maidens Circle (Lat. 50° 4′ N.) 265
XXVI. The Tregaseal Circles 277
XXVII. Some other Cornish Monuments 287
XXVIII. The Clock-Stars in Egypt and Britain 294
XXIX. A Short History of Sun-Temples 304
XXX. The Life of the Astronomer-Priests 316
APPENDICES.
I. Details of the Theodolite Observations at
Stonehenge 325
II. Suggestions on Field Observations 329
Index 333

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIG. PAGE

1. Present Sun Worship in Japan 4
2. The Celestial Sphere, Conditions at the North Pole 5
3. The Celestial Sphere, Conditions at the Equator 6
4. The Celestial Sphere, Conditions in a Middle Latitude 6
5. The Four Astronomical Divisions of the Year 14
6. The Various Bearings of the Sun Risings and Settings in N.
latitude 51° 14
7. The Astronomical and Vegetation Divisions of the Year 23
8. Original Tooling of the Stones at Stonehenge 44
9. View of Stonehenge from the West 45
10. Copy of Hoare’s Plan of Stonehenge, 1810 46
11. The Leaning Stone in 1901 48
12. The Axis of the Temple of Karnak 56
13. Plan of the Temple of Ramses II. in the Memnonia at Thebes 57
14. One of the remaining Trilithons at Stonehenge 59
15. General Plan of Stonehenge 60
16. The Arrangements for raising the Stone 70
17. The Cradle and Supports 71
18. The Frame used to locate the Finds 73
19. Some of the Flint Implements 77

20. Showing the careful Tooling of the Sarsens 82
21. Face of Rock against which a Stone was made to rest 83
22. The Leaning Stone Upright 85
23. Stonehenge, 1905 86
24. Map of the Stones made by the Ordnance Survey 89
25. Rod placed in the Common Axis of the Circle and Avenue 94
26. Alignments at Le Ménec 99
27. Menhir on Melon Island 100
28. Melon Island, showing Menhir and Cromlech 101
29. Menhirs of St. Dourzal 102
30. Alignment at Lagatjar (photograph) 103
31. Alignments at Lagatjar (plan) 104
32. Menhirs on Solstitial and May Alignments 105
33. Diagram for finding Declination from given Amplitudes or
Azimuths in British Latitudes 113
34. Declinations of Northern Stars from 250 a.d. to 2150 b.c. 115
35. Declinations of Southern Stars from 250 a.d. to 2150 b.c. 116
36. The Conditions of Sunrise at the Summer Solstice in Lat. 59°
N. 119
37. The Azimuths of the Sunrise (upper limb) at the Summer
Solstice. Lats. N. 59°-47° 121
38. Maeshowe and the Stones of Stenness 124
39. Chief Sight-Lines from the Stones of Stenness 126
40. Variation of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic 100 a.d.-4000 b.c. 130
41. The Sight-Lines at the Hurlers 136
42. The Southern Avenue at Merrivale, looking East 147
43. Avenues, Circle and Stones at Merrivale, with their Azimuths 154

44. Cursus at Stonehenge, nearly parallel to the Merrivale Avenue 155
45. The remains of the Challacombe Avenue 159
46. The Sight-Lines at Trowlesworthy 162
47. The Circles and Avenues at Stanton Drew 169
48. The Carro, Florence 194
49. Cresset-Stone, Lewannick 257
50. First Appearance of May Sun in British Latitudes 263
51. Azimuths of the May Sunrise 264
52. The Merry Maidens 269
53. 25-inch Ordnance Map of Merry Maidens showing
Alignments 275
54. The Eastern Circle at Tregaseal 279
55. Photograph of Ordnance Map showing Sight-lines 281
56. Plan of the Mên-an-Tol 283
57. Photograph of the Mên-an-Tol 284
58. The Mên-an-Tol. Front View and Section 285
59. Photograph of the Ordnance Map of Boscawen-un 288
60. Diagram showing Azimuths of Sunrise 1680 b.c. and 1905 a.d. 290
61. Arcturus and Capella as Clock-Stars in Britain 300
62. A Night-Dial 303
63. Layard’s Plan of the Palace of Sennacherib 305
64. Layard’s Plan of the Mound at Nimrood 306
65. The Temples at Chichen Itza 307

STONEHENGE

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY

In the book I published ten years ago, entitled “The Dawn of
Astronomy,” I gave a pretty full account of the principles and the methods
of observation which enable us to trace the ideas which were in the minds
of the ancient Egyptians when they set out the line of a temple they
proposed to build.
Numerous references to the ceremonial of laying the foundation-stones of
temples exist, and we learn from the works of Chabas, Brugsch,
Dümichen[1] and others, that the foundation of an Egyptian temple was
associated with a series of ceremonies which are repeatedly described with
great minuteness. Amongst these ceremonies, one especially refers to the
fixing of the temple-axis; it is called, technically, “the stretching of the
cord,” and is not only illustrated by inscriptions on the walls of the temples
of Karnak, Denderah and Edfu—to mention the best-known cases—but is
referred to elsewhere.
During the ceremony the king proceeded to the site where the temple was
to be built, accompanied mythically by the goddess Sesheta, who is styled
“the mistress of the laying of the foundation-stone.”
Each was armed with a stake. The two stakes were connected by a cord.
Next the cord was aligned towards the sun on some day of the year, or a
star, as the case might be; when the alignment was perfect the two stakes
were driven into the ground by means of a wooden mallet. One boundary
wall parallel to the main axis of the temple was built along the line marked
out by this stretched cord.
If the moment of the rising or setting of the sun or star were chosen, as
we have every reason to believe was the case, seeing that all the early
observations were made on the horizon, it is obvious that the light from the
body towards which the temple was thus aligned would penetrate the axis
of the temple from one end to the other in the original direction of the cord.

We learn from Chabas that the Egyptian word which expresses the idea
of founding or laying the foundation-stone of a temple is Senti—a word
which still exists in Coptic. But in the old language another word Pet-ser,
which no longer remains in Coptic, has been traced. It has been established
that pet means to stretch, and ser means cord, so that that part of the
ceremonial which consisted in stretching a cord in the direction of a star
was considered of so great an importance that it gave its name to the whole
ceremonial.
Dealing with the existing remains of Egyptian temples, it may be said
that the most majestic among them was that of Amen-Rā at Karnak,
dedicated to the Sun-God, and oriented to catch the light of the sun setting
at the summer solstice, the time of the year at which the all-important rise
of the Nile began.
Although the sun is no longer worshipped in Egypt or Britain, sun-
worship has not yet disappeared from the world. Professor Gowland has
recently[2] brought to notice a surviving form of sun-worship in Japan. I
quote his statement:—
“There on the seashore at Fûta-mi-ga-ura (as will be seen in a copy of a
print which I obtained at that ancient place) the orientation of the shrine of
adoration is given by two gigantic rocks which rise from the sea as natural
pillars. The sun as it rises over the mountains of the distant shore is
observed between them, and the customary prayers and offerings made in
that direction (Fig. 1).
“It is, too, specially worthy of note that the point from which the sun is
revered is marked by a structure of the form of a trilithon, but made of
wood, placed immediately behind the altar. This representative of the
trilithon is of very remote date in Japan, and has been in use there from the
earliest times in connection with the observances of the ancient Shintō cult
in which the Sun-Goddess is the chief deity. One of its important uses,
which still survives, was to indicate the direction of the position of some
sacred place or object of veneration, in order that worshippers might make
their prayers and oblations towards the proper quarter.”
The table of offerings must also be noted.
In the book to which I have referred, I also endeavoured to show that a
knowledge of even elementary astronomy may be of very great assistance
to students of archæology, history, folk-lore and all that learning which
deals with man’s first attempts to grasp the meaning and phenomena of the

universe in which he found himself before any scientific methods were
available to him; before he had any idea of the origins or the conditionings
of the things around him.

Fig. 1.—Present sun worship in Japan.

It may be well, however, in the present book to restate the underlying
astronomical principles in the briefest possible manner; and this is the more
easily done because, in the absence of measuring instruments, the horizon

was the only circle which the ancient peoples could employ effectively, and
we need only therefore consider it.
Indeed, whether we regard the Rig-Veda or the Egyptian monuments
from an astronomical point of view, we are struck by the fact that the early
worship and all the early observations related to the horizon. This was true
not only for the sun, but for all the stars which studded the general expanse
of sky.

Fig. 2.—The celestial sphere, conditions at the North Pole. A
parallel sphere. N.P., North celestial Pole; N, position of observer.

We have therefore chiefly to consider the relation of the horizon of any
place to the apparent movements of celestial bodies at that place.

Fig. 3.—The celestial sphere, conditions at the Equator. A
right sphere. Q, standpoint of observer; PP, the
celestial poles; EW, east and west points.

Fig. 4.—The celestial sphere, conditions in a middle latitude. An
oblique sphere. In this woodcut DD′ shows the apparent path of
a circumpolar star; BB′B″ the path and rising and setting points
of an equatorial star; CC′C″ and AA′A″, those of stars of mid
declination, one north and the other south; O, standpoint of
observer.

We now know that the earth rotates on its axis, but this idea was of
course quite unknown to these early peoples. Since the earth rotates, with
stars infinitely removed surrounding it on all sides, the apparent movements
of the stars will depend very much upon the position we happen to occupy
on the earth. An observer at the North Pole of the earth, for instance, would
see the stars moving round in circles parallel to the horizon (Fig. 2). No star
could therefore either rise or set—one half of the heavens would be always
visible above his horizon, and the other half invisible. An observer at the
South Pole would of course see that half of the stars invisible to the
observer at the northern one.
If the observer be on the equator, the movements of the stars will appear
to be as indicated in this diagram (Fig. 3)—that is, all the stars will rise and
set, and each star will be, in turn, twelve hours above the horizon, and the
same time below it. But if we consider the position of an observer in a
middle latitude, say at Stonehenge, we find that some stars will always be
above the horizon, some always below—that is, they will neither rise nor
set. All other stars will both rise and set, but some of them will be above the
horizon for a long time and below for a short time, whereas others will be a
very short time above the horizon and a long time below it, each star
completing a circle in a day (Fig. 4).
Wherever we are upon the earth we always imagine that we are on the
top of it. The idea held by all the early peoples was that the surface of the
earth near them was an extended plain: they imagined that the land that they
knew and just the surrounding lands were really in the centre of the
extended plain. Plato, for instance, was content to think the Mediterranean
and Greece upon the top of a cube, and Anaximander placed the same
region at the top of a cylinder.
By the use of a terrestrial globe we can best study the conditions of
observation at the poles of the earth, the equator and some place in middle
latitude. The wooden horizon of the globe is parallel to the horizon of a
place at the top of the globe, which horizon we can represent by a wafer. By

inclining the axis of the globe and watching the movement of the wafer as
the globe is turned round, we can get a very concrete idea of the different
relations of the observer’s horizon to the apparent paths of the stars in
different latitudes.
We have next to deal with the astronomical relations of the horizon of
any place, in connection with the observation of the sun and stars at the
times of rising or setting, when of course they are on or near the horizon;
and in order to bring this matter nearer to the ancient monuments, we will
study this question for both Thebes and Stonehenge. We may take the
latitude of Thebes as 25°, Stonehenge as 51°, and we will begin with
Thebes.
To consider an observer on the Nile at Thebes and to adjust things
properly we must rectify a celestial globe to the latitude of 25° N., or, in
other words, incline the axis of the globe at that angle to the wooden
horizon.
Since all the stars which pass between the North Pole and the horizon
cannot set, all their apparent movements will take place above the horizon.
All the stars between the horizon and the South Pole will never rise. Hence,
stars within the distance of 25° from the North Pole will never set at
Thebes, and those stars within 25° of the South Pole will never be visible
there. At any place the latitude and the elevation of the pole are the same. It
so happens that many of those places with which archæologists have to do
in studying the history of early peoples—Chaldæa, Egypt, Babylonia, &c.
—are in low middle latitudes, therefore we have to deal with bodies in the
skies which do set and bodies which do not, and the elevation of the pole is
neither very great nor very small. But although in each different latitude the
inclination of the equator to the horizon as well as the elevation of the pole
will vary, there will be a strict relationship between the inclination of the
equator at each place and the elevation of the pole. Except at the poles
themselves the equator will cut the horizon due east and due west; therefore
every celestial body to the north of the celestial equator which rises and sets
will cut the horizon between the east and west point and the north point;
those bodies which do not rise will of course not cut the horizon at all.
The stars near the equator, and the sun, in such a latitude as that of
Thebes, will appear to rise or set at no very considerable angle from the
vertical; but when we deal with stars very near to the north or south points

of the horizon they will seem to skim along the horizon instead of rising
directly.
We now pass on to Stonehenge. To represent the new condition the axis
of the globe will now require to be inclined 51° to the horizon. The number
of northern stars which do not set and of southern stars which do not rise
will be much greater than at Thebes. The most northern and southern stars
visible will in their movement hug the horizon more closely than was
observed under the Thebes condition.
The sun, both at Thebes and Stonehenge, since it moves among the stars
from 231⁄2° N. to 231⁄2° S. each year, will change its place of rising and
setting at different times of the year.
Now it will at once be obvious that there must be a strict law connecting
the position of a star with its place of rising or setting. Stars at the same
distance from the celestial pole or equator will rise or set at the same point
of the horizon, and if a star does not change its place in the heavens it will
always rise or set in the same place.
The sun as it changes its position each day, in its swing N. and S. of the
equator, will rise and set on any day in the same place as a star which
permanently has the same distance from the equator as that temporarily
occupied by the sun.
Here it will be convenient to introduce one or two technical terms: we
generally define a star’s place by giving, as one ordinate, its distance in
degrees from the equator: this distance is called its declination.
Further, we generally define points on the horizon by dividing its whole
circumference into 360°, so that we can have azimuths up to 90° from the
north and south points to the east and west points. We also have amplitudes
from the east and west points towards the north and south points. We can
say, then, that a star of a certain declination, or the sun when it occupies that
declination, will rise or set at such an azimuth, or at such an amplitude. This
will apply to both north and south declinations.
Then supposing the azimuth to be 39° in the N.E. quadrant, it is written
N. 39° E. For the other quadrants we have N. 39° W., S. 39° E., and S. 39°
W., respectively.
The following table gives the amplitudes of rising or setting (north or
south) of celestial bodies having declinations from 0° to 64°, at Thebes and
Stonehenge respectively.

Amplitudes at Thebes and Stonehenge.
Declina- Amplitude.
tion. Thebes. Stonehenge.
0° 0° 0′ 0° 0′
1 1 7 1 36
2 2 13 3 11
3 3 20 4 46
4 4 26 6 22
5 5 33 7 58
6 6 40 9 34
7 7 47 11 10
8 8 53 12 47
9 9 59 14 23
10 11 6 16 1
11 12 13 17 39
12 13 20 19 18
13 14 27 20 57
14 15 34 22 36
15 16 41 24 17
16 17 49 25 58
17 18 56 27 45
18 20 3 29 24
19 21 10 31 10
20 22 17 32 55
21 23 25 34 43
22 24 33 36 32
23 25 41 38 23
24 26 49 40 16
25 27 58 42 11
26 29 6 44 10
27 30 15 46 10
28 31 23 48 15
29 32 32 50 22
30 33 41 52 36
31 34 51 54 55
32 36 1 57 21
33 37 11 59 56
34 38 21 62 42
35 39 31 65 44
36 40 42 69 4
37 41 53 73 0
38 43 5 78 4
39 44 17 90 0
40 45 30

41 46 43
42 47 56
43 49 10
44 50 25
45 51 41
46 52 57
47 54 14
48 55 32
49 56 51
50 58 12
51 59 34
52 60 58
53 62 23
54 63 51
55 65 21
56 66 54
57 68 31
58 70 12
59 71 59
60 73 55
61 76 1
62 78 25
63 81 19
64 85 42

The amplitude is always the complement of the azimuth, so that
amplitude + azimuth = 90°. Later on I shall give amplitudes for latitudes
higher than that of Stonehenge, so that still more northerly monuments can
be considered.
[1] “Baugeschichte des Dendera-Tempels.” 1877.
[2] “Archæologia,” vol. lviii.

CHAPTER II
THE ASTRONOMICAL DIVISIONS OF THE YEAR

It is next important to deal with the yearly path of the sun, with a view of
studying the relation of the various points of the horizon occupied by the
sun at different times in the year. In the very early observations that were
made in Egypt, Chaldæa and elsewhere, when the sun was considered to be
a god who every morning got into his boat and floated across space, there
was no particular reason for considering the amplitude at which the boat
left, or came to, shore. But a few centuries showed that this rising or setting
of the sun in widely varying amplitudes at different times of the year at the
same place obeyed a very definite law.
In its northward passage it reaches the highest point at our summer
solstice, and then goes down again till it reaches its greatest southern
declination, as it does in our winter. At both these points the sun appears to
stand still in its north or south movement, and the Latin word solstice
exactly expresses that idea. The change of declination brought about by
these movements will affect the place of the sun’s rising and setting; this is
why the sun sets most to the north in summer and most to the south in
winter. At the equinoxes the sun has always 0° Decl., so it rises and sets due
east and west all over the world. But at the solstices it has its greatest
declination of 231⁄2° N. or S.; it will rise and set therefore furthest from the
east and west points; how far, will depend upon the latitude of the place, as
will have been gathered from the preceding table (p. 11).
These solstices and their accompaniments are among the striking things
in the natural world. In the winter solstice we have the depth of winter, in
the summer solstice we have the height of summer, while at the equinoxes
we have but transitional changes; in other words, while the solstices point
out for us the conditions of greatest heat and greatest cold, the equinoxes
point out for us those two times of the year at which the temperature
conditions are very nearly equal, although of course in the one case we are
saying good-bye to summer and in the other to winter.

Did the ancients know anything about these solstices and these
equinoxes? Dealing with the monumental evidence in Egypt alone, the
answer is absolutely overwhelming. Many thousand years ago the
Egyptians were perfectly familiar with the solstices, and therefore with the
yearly path of the sun.
This fundamental division of the sun’s apparent revolution and course
which define our year into four nearly equal parts may be indicated as in
Fig. 5, the highest point reached by the sun in our northern hemisphere
being represented at the top.

Fig. 5.—The four Astronomical Divisions of the year.

Fig. 6.—The various bearings of the sun risings and settings in a place with a N.
latitude of 51°.

In order better to consider the problem as it was presented to the early
astronomers who built observatories (temples) to mark these points, we may
deal with the bearings of the points occupied by the sun on the horizon
(either at rising or setting) at the times indicated. These points are defined,
as we have seen, by their “amplitude” or their distance in degrees from the
E. or W. points of the horizon. In the diagram (Fig. 6) I represent the
conditions of our chief British sun-temple, Stonehenge, in latitude 51° N.
approximately.
Taking the astronomical facts regarding the solstices and equinoxes for
the first year (1901) of the present century, we find—
Sun enters Aries, Spring equinox, March 21.
„ „ Gemini, Summer solstice, June 21.
„ „ Libra, Autumn equinox, September 23.
„ „ Sagittarius, Winter solstice, December 23.

These points, then, are approximately ninety-one days apart (91 × 4 =
364).
In Fig. 6 I deal with the “amplitudes” at Stonehenge, that is, the angular
distance along the horizon from the E. and W. points, at which the sunrise
and sunset are seen at the solstices; at the equinoxes they are seen at the E.

and W. points. But as these amplitudes vary with the latitude and therefore
depend upon the place of observation, a more general treatment is possible
if we deal with the declination of the sun itself, that is, its angular distance
from the equator.
The maximum declination depends upon the obliquity of the ecliptic, that
is, the angle between the plane of the ecliptic and that of the equator at the
time of observation. When the Stonehenge Sarsen Stones were erected this
angle was, as I shall show later on, 23° 54′ 30″. Its mean value for the
present year (1906) is 23° 27′ 5″; it is decreasing very slowly.
It will be obvious from Fig. 6 that in temples built to observe the solstices
or equinoxes, if they were open from end to end, looking in one direction
we should see the sun rising at a solstice or equinox, and looking in the
other we should see the sun setting at the opposite one. I shall show later on
that this statement requires a slight modification.
But temples so built interfered with the ceremonial, which required that
the light should illuminate a naos—that is, the Sanctuary or Holy of Holies,
only entered by the High Priest, and generally kept dark. Usually, therefore,
two temples were built back to back, with a common axis, as at Karnak.
And here a very important point comes in; which time of the year and
day of the year are most easy to fix by astronomical observation? As a
matter of fact the summer solstice, the position of the sun on the longest
day, is a point easily fixed. All we have to do is to observe the sun rising
more and more to the north as the summer approaches, until at the very
height of the summer we have the extreme north-easterly point of the
horizon reached, and the sun stands still. We have the solstice. We can then
put a row of stakes up, and so fix the solstitial line. Of course we find, as
mankind has found generally, that the sun comes back next year to that
same solstitial place of rising or setting. So that when we have once got
such an alignment for the rising of the sun at midsummer, we can determine
the length of the year in days, and therefore the beginning of each year as it
comes round.
So much, then, for the chief points in what we may term the astronomical
year, those at which the sun’s declination is greatest and least. We see that
they are approximately ninety-one days apart—say three months.

CHAPTER III
THE AGRICULTURAL DIVISIONS OF THE YEAR

The early peoples have been very much misrepresented, and held to have
been uninstructed, by several writers who have not considered what they
were really driving at. It was absolutely essential for early man, including
the inhabitants of Britain as it was then—townless, uncivilised—that the
people should know something about the proper time for performing their
agricultural operations. We now go into a shop and for a penny buy an
almanack which gives us everything we want to know about the year, the
month and the day, and that is the reason why so few of us care about
astronomy: we can get all we want from astronomy for a penny or
twopence. But these poor people, unless they found out the time of the year
and the month and the day for themselves, or got some one to tell them—
and their priests were the men who knew, and they were priests because
they knew—had absolutely no means of determining when their various
agricultural operations should take place. So that we find all over the world
temples erected in the very first flush of civilisation.
On this a point comes in of very considerable interest. If we study the
civilisations in Egypt, we find that, so far as we know, one of the first
peoples who used this principle of orientation for agricultural purposes was
some tribe that came down the Nile about 6400 years b.c. They used the star
Canopus, and their determination was that of the autumnal equinox, which
practically was the time when the Nile began to go down, and when their
sowing might begin. There was another race who, instead of being
interested in the sun, and therefore in agriculture, at the time of the
autumnal equinox, were interested in the year about the time of Easter as
well. This race built the Pyramids about four thousand years b.c. There was
an interval of about two or three thousand years between these races. As we
shall see there were others, who at Thebes started the solstitial worship—
that is to say, the worship of the sun at midsummer—and at Memphis in
May, so as to enable them to go on with their agricultural operations with

greater certainty. We must not forget that first of all the farmers tried to
plough and sow by the moon. We can see how hopeless agriculture must
have been under such conditions. The month, indeed, was the only unit of
time employed, even of human life. We hear of people who lived 1200
years; that means 1200 months—there is no question whatever about that
now.
When we study the history of our own country—when we come back
from Egypt to Britain, leaving alone Greece and Rome—we find that in
various times in our country we have had a year, a farmer’s year, beginning
in the month of May; we have had another farmer’s year beginning in the
month of August; we have had another farmer’s year beginning at the
longest day; and it appears that the year beginning at the longest day was
really the last year to be introduced. So that while we have in Stonehenge a
solstitial temple—that is to say, a temple to make observations of the length
of the year by observing the rise of the sun on the longest day of the year—
in other parts of England there were other temples observing the sun, not on
the 21st of June, but early in May and early in August.
Now, as I have indicated, the priest-astronomers in these temples could
only have won and kept the respect of the agricultural population with
whom alone they were surrounded in early times, and by whom they were
supported, by being useful to them in some way or another. This could only
have been in connection with what we may term generally the farming
operations necessary at different times of the year, whether in the shape of
preparing the ground or gathering the produce. For this they must have
watched the stars.
A very large part of mythology has sprung out of the temple cults, prayer,
sacrifices and thanksgiving connected with these farming operations in
different lands and ages.
I wish to show next that by studying the orientation of temples erected to
watch the stars and sunrise and sunset at times other than the solstices or
equinoxes, an immense amount of information may be gained if we
endeavour to find the way in which the problem must have been attacked
before the year was thoroughly established, and when it was still a question
of grass- or corn-kings or gods who had to be propitiated; and we may even
be enabled to understand why the particular divisions of the year were
chosen.

In a solstitial temple the sun makes its appearance only once a year, when
it reaches its greatest north or south declination; but in the temples dealing
with lower declinations the sun appears twice, once on its journey from the
summer to the winter solstice, and again on its return.
The first difficulty of the inquiry in the direction I have indicated arises
from the fact that the products of different countries vary, and that identical
farming operations have to be carried on at different times in these
countries. We must, then, begin with some one country, and as the record is
fullest for Greece I will begin with it.
The first thing we find is that the chief points in the farmer’s year in
Greece are about as far from the fixed points in the astronomical year as
they well can be.
In the Greek information so admirably collated by M. Ruelle in the
article on the calendar in Daremberg and Saglio’s monumental
“Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines,” the earlier Gregorian
dates on which the seasons were reckoned to commence in ancient Greece
were as follows:—
Summer May 6.
Autumn (φθινοπωρον) August 11.
Winter November 10.
Spring February 7.

I may also add from the same source that in the calendars of the Latins
the dates become:—
Summer May 9.
Autumn August 8.
Winter November 9.
Spring February 7.

Now we see at once that these dates are, roughly, half-way between the
solstices and equinoxes.
This, then, at once brings us back to the orientation problem, which was
to fix by means of a temple in the ordinary way dates nearer to these
turning-points in the local farmer’s years than those fixed by the solstitial
and equinoctial temples.
It must be borne in mind that it is not merely a question of stately piles
such as Karnak and the Parthenon in populous centres, but of the humblest
dolmen or stone circle, in scattered agricultural communities, which was as
certainly used for orientation purposes, that is, for recording the lapse of

time at night or return of some season important to the tiller of the soil. The
advent of the season thus determined could be announced to outlying
districts by fire signals at night.
I have already pointed out that any temple, dolmen or cromlech oriented
to a sunrise or sunset at any dates between the solstices will receive the
sunlight twice a year.
If the temple is pointed nearly solstitially the two dates at which the sun
appears in it will be near the solstice; similarly, for a temple pointed nearly
equinoctially the dates will be near the equinox; but if the ancients wished
to divide the ninety-one days’ interval between the solstice and equinox, a
convenient method of doing this would be to observe the sun at the half-
time interval, such that the same temple would serve on both occasions.
This could be done by orienting the temple to the sun’s place on the horizon
when it had the declination 16° 20′ on its upward and downward journey,
or, in other words, was, in days, half-way between the equinox and solstice.
91 days
Thus, for the 45 days ( ) from March 22, we have in—
2
March 9
April 30
May 6
45
What, then, are the non-equinoctial, non-solstitial days of the year when
the sun has this declination?
They are, in the sun’s journey from the vernal equinox to the summer
solstice and back again,
May 6 and August 8 Sun’s decl. N. 16° 20′.

Similarly, for the journey to the winter solstice and return we have
November 8 and
February 4 Sun’s decl. S. 16° 20′.

We get, then, a year symmetrical with the astronomical year, which can
be indicated with it as in Fig. 7; a year roughly halving the intervals
between the chief dates of the astronomical year.
With regard to the dates shown I have already pointed out that farming
operations would not occur at the same time in different lands; that

ploughing and seed time and harvest would vary with crops and latitudes;
and I must now add that when we wish to determine the exact days of the
month we have to struggle with all the difficulties introduced by the various
systems adopted by different ancient nations to bring together the reckoning
of months by the moon and of years by the sun.

Fig. 7.—The astronomical and vegetation divisions of the year.

In more recent times there is an additional difficulty owing to the
incomplete reconstruction of the calendar by Julius Cæsar, who gave us the
Julian year. Thus, while the spring equinox occurred on March 21 at the
time of the Council of Nice, in 325 a.d., by the year 1751 the dating of the
year on which it took place had slipped back to the 10th. Hence the Act 24
George II. c. 23, by which September 2, 1752, was followed by September
14 instead of by the 3rd, thus regaining the eleven days lost. This change
from the so-called “old style” to the “new style” is responsible for a great
deal of confusion.

Another cause of trouble was the forsaking by the Jews of the solar year,
with which they commenced, in favour of the Babylonian lunar year, which
has been continued for the purposes of worship by Christians, giving us
“movable feasts” to such an extent that Easter Day, which once invariably
marked the spring equinox, may vary from March 22 to April 25, and Whit
Sunday from May 10 to June 13. It is at once obvious that no fixed
operations of Nature can be indicated by such variable dates as these.
Hence in what follows I shall only deal with the months involved; these
amply suffice for a general statement, but a discussion as to exact dates may
come later.
To sum up, then, the astronomer-priests had (1) to watch the time at night
by observing a star rising near the north point of the horizon. This star
would act as a warner of sunrise at some time of the year.
(2) To watch for the rising or setting of other stars in various azimuths
warning sunrise at the other critical times of the May or Solstitial years.
(3) To watch the sunrise and sunset.
(4) To mark all rising or setting places of the warning stars and sun by
sight-lines from the circle.

CHAPTER IV
THE VARIOUS NEW-YEAR DAYS

With regard to the astronomical year it may be stated that each solstice
and equinox has in turn in some country or another, and even in the same
country at different times, been taken as the beginning of the year.
We have, then, to begin with, the following which may be called
astronomical years:—

{ June
Solstitial year.
December
December
June
June.
December.
Equinoctial
year. { March
September
September
March
March.
September.

Next, if we treat the intermediate points we have found in the same way,
we have the following vegetation years:—

{ May
Flower year.
November
November
May
May.
November.
Harvest
year. { August
February
February
August
August.
February.

It will have been gathered from Fig. 7 that the temples or cromlechs
erected to watch the first sunrise of the May-November-May year could
also perform the same office for the August-February-August year; and in a
stone circle the priests, by looking along the axis almost in an opposite
direction, could note the sunsets marking the completion of the half of the
sun’s yearly round in November and February.
Now to those who know anything of the important contributions of
Grimm, Rhŷs, Frazer, and many others we might name, to our knowledge
of the mythology, worships, and customs in the Mediterranean basin and
western Europe, an inspection of the first columns in the above tables will
show that here we have a common meeting-ground for temple orientation,
vegetation and customs depending on it, religious festivals, and mythology.
From the Egyptian times at least to our own a generic sun-god has been

specifically commemorated in each of the named months. Generic customs
with specific differences are as easily traced in the same months; while
generic vegetation with specific representatives proper to the season of the
year has been so carefully regarded that even December, though without
May flowers or August harvests, not to be outdone, brings forward its
offering in the shape of the berries of the mistletoe and holly.
About the mistletoe there is this difficulty. Innumerable traditions
associate it with worship and the oak tree. Undoubtedly the year in question
was the solstitial year, so that so far as this goes the association is justified.
But as a rule the mistletoe does not grow on oaks. This point has been
frequently inquired into, especially by Dr. Henry Ball (Journal of Botany,
vol. ii. p. 361, 1864) in relation to the growth of the plant in Herefordshire,
and by a writer in the Quarterly Review (vol. cxiv.), who spoke of the
mistletoe “deserting the oak” in modern times and stated, “it is now so
rarely found on that tree as to have led to the suggestion that we must look
for the mistletoe of the Druids, not in the Viscum album of our own trees
and orchards, but in the Loranthus Europaeus which is frequently found on
oaks in the south of Europe.”
On this point I consulted two eminent botanical friends, Mr. Murray, of
the British Museum, and Prof. Farmer, from whom I have learned that the
distribution of V. album is in Europe universal except north of Norway and
north of Russia; in India in the temperate Himalayas from Kashmir to
Nepaul, altitude 3000 to 7000 feet.
The Viscum aureum, otherwise called Loranthus Europaeus, is a near
relation of the familiar mistletoe, and in Italy grows on the oak almost
exclusively. There are fifty species of Loranthus in the Indian flora, but L.
Europaeus does not occur.
In the Viscum aureum we have the “golden bough,” the oak-borne Aurum
frondens and Ramus aureus of Virgil; and it can easily be imagined that
when the Druids reached our shores from a country which had supplied
them with the Viscum aureum, this would be replaced by the V. album
growing chiefly on apple trees and not on oaks; indeed, Mr. Davies, in his
“Celtic Researches,” tells us that the apple was the next sacred tree to the
oak, and that apple orchards were planted in the vicinity of the sacred
groves. The transplanting of the mistletoe from the apple to the oak tree
before the mystic ceremonies began was not beyond the resources of
priestcraft.

It must not be forgotten that these ceremonies took place at both solstices
—once in June, when the oak was in full leaf, and again in December, when
the parasitic plant was better visible in the light of the young moon. Mr.
Frazer, in his “Golden Bough” (iii. p. 328), points out that at the summer
solstice not only was mistletoe gathered, but many other “magic plants,
whose evanescent virtue can be secured at this mystic season alone.”
It is the ripening of the berries at the winter solstice which secured for the
mistletoe the paramount importance the ceremonials connected with it
possessed at that time, when the rest of the vegetable world was dormant.
With regard especially to the particular time of the year chosen for sun-
worship and the worship of the gods and solar heroes connected with the
years to which I have referred, I may add that the vague year in Egyptian
chronology makes it a very difficult matter to determine the exact
Gregorian dates for the ancient Egyptian festivals, but, fortunately, there is
another way of getting at them. Mr. Roland Mitchell, when compiling his
valuable “Egyptian Calendar” (Luzac and Co., 1900), found that the Koptic
calendar really presents to us the old Egyptian year, “which has been in use
for thousands of years, and has survived all the revolutions.”
Of the many festivals included in the calendar, the great Tanta fair, which
is also a Mohammedan feast. “is the most important of all held in Egypt.
Religion, commerce, and pleasure offer combined attractions.” As many as
600,000 or 700,000 often attend this great fair, “no doubt the survival of
one of the ancient Egyptian national festivals.”
It is held so as to end on a Friday, and in 1901 the Friday was August 9!
This naturally suggests that we should look for a feast in the early part of
May. We find the Festival of Al-Khidr, or Elias in the middle of the wheat
harvest in Lower Egypt; of this we read:—
“Al-Khidr is a mysterious personage, who, according to learned opinion,
was a just man, or saint, the Visīr of Dhu’l-Karnên (who was a great
conqueror, contemporary with Ibrahīm—Abraham—and identified in other
legends with Alexander the Great, St. George, &c.). Al-Khidr, it is believed,
still lives, and will live until the Day of Judgment. He is clad in green
garments, whence probably the name. He is commonly identified with Elias
(Elijah), and this confusion seems due to a confusion or similarity of some
of the attributes that tradition assigns to both.”
“The ‘Festival of El-Khidr and of Elias,’ falling generally on May 6,
marks the two-fold division of the year, in the Turkish and Armenian

calendars, into the Rūz Kāsim and the Rūz Khidr (of 179-80 and 185-6 days
respectively).”
This last paragraph is important, as it points to ancient sun-worship,
Helios being read for Elias; and 179 days from May 6 bring us to
November 1. So we find that the modern Turks and Armenians have the old
May-November year as well as the ancient Egyptians who celebrated it in
the Temple of Menu at Thebes.
The traces of the Ptah worship are not so obvious. Finally, it may be
stated that the second Tanta fair occurs at the spring equinox, so that the
pyramid worship can still be traced in the modern Egyptian calendar. The
proof that this was an exotic[3] is established, I think, by the fact that no
important agricultural operations occur at this period in Egypt, while in
May we have the harvest, in August and November sowing, going on.
A cursory examination of Prof. Rhŷs’ book containing the Hibbert
Lectures of 1886, in the light of these years, used as clues, suggests that in
Ireland the sequence was May-November (Fomori and Fir Bolg), August-
February (Lug and the Tuatha Dé Danann), and, lastly, June-December
(Cúchulainn). Should this be confirmed we see that the farmers’ years were
the first to be established, and it is interesting to note that the agricultural
rent year in many parts of Ireland still runs from May to November. It is
well also to bear in mind, if it be established that the solstitial year did
really arrive last, that the facts recorded by Mr. Frazer in his “Golden
Bough” indicate that the custom of lighting fires on hills has been in
historic times most prevalent at the summer solstice; evidently maps
showing the geographical distribution of the May, June, and August fires
would be of great value.
Some customs of the May and August years are common to the solstitial
and equinoctial years. Each was ushered in by fires on hills and the like;
flowers in May and the fruits of the earth in August are associated with
them; there are also special customs in the case of November. In western
Europe, however, it does not seem that such traditions exist over such a
large area as that over which the remnants of the solstitial practices have
been traced.
I have pointed out that both the May and August years began when the
sun had the same declination (16° N. or thereabouts); once, on its ascent
from March to the summer solstice in June, again in its decline from the
solstice to September. Hence it may be more difficult in this case to

disentangle and follow the mythology, but the two years stand out here and
there. With regard to August, Mr. Penrose’s orientation data for the
Panathenæa fix the 19th day (Gregorian) for the festival in the
Hecatompedon; similar celebrations were not peculiar to western Europe
and Greece, as a comparison of dates of worship will show.
Hecatompedon April 28 and August 16.
Older Erechtheum April 29 „ August 13.
Temple of Diana, Ephesus April 29 „ August 13.
„ Min, Thebes May 1 „ August 12.
„ Ptah, Memphis April 18 „ August 24.
„ „ Annu April 18 „ August 24.
„ Solar Disc, Tell el-Amarna April 18 „ August 24.

In the above table I have given both the dates on which the sunlight (at
rising or setting) entered the temple, but we do not know for certain, except
in the case of the Hecatompedon, on which of the two days the temples
were used; it is likely they were all used on both days, and that the variation
from the dates proper to the sun’s declination of N. 16° indicates that they
were very accurately oriented to fit the local vegetation conditions in the
most important and extensive temple fields in the world.
This is the more probable because the Jews also, after they had left
Egypt, established their feast of Pentecost fifty days after Easter = May 10,
on which day loaves made of newly harvested corn formed the chief
offering.
With regard to the equinoctial year, the most complete account of the
temple arrangements is to be found in Josephus touching that at Jerusalem.
The temple had to be so erected that at the spring equinox the sunrise light
should fall on, and be reflected to, the worshippers by the sardonyx stones
on the high priest’s garment. At this festival the first barley was laid upon
the altar.
But this worship was in full swing in Egypt for thousands of years before
we hear of it in connection with the Jews. It has left its temples at Ephesus,
Athens, and other places, and with the opening of this year as well as of the
solstitial one the custom of lighting fires is associated, not only on hills, but
also in churches.
Here the sequence of cult cannot be mistaken. We begin with Isis and the
young Sun-god Horus at the Pyramids, and we end with “Lady Day,” a
British legal date; while St. Peter’s at Rome is as truly oriented to the

equinox as the Pyramids themselves, so that we have a distinct change of
cult with no change of orientation.
If such considerations as these help us to connect Egyptian with British
worships we may hope that they will be no less useful when we go further
afield. I gather from a study of Mr. Maudslay’s admirable plans of Palenque
and Chichén-Itzá that the solstitial and farmers’ years’ worships were
provided for there. How did these worships and associated temples with
naos and sphinxes[4] get from Egypt to Yucatan? The more we know of
ancient travel the more we are convinced that it was coastwise, that is, from
one point of visible land to the next. Are the cults as old as differences in
the coast-lines which would most easily explain their wide distribution?
[3] In Babylonia the spring equinox was the critical time of the year because the Tigris and
Euphrates then began to rise.
[4] See Dawn of Astronomy, Plate facing p. 182, for the lines of sphinxes at Karnak.

CHAPTER V
CONDITIONS AND TRADITIONS AT STONEHENGE

After Mr. Penrose, by his admirable observations in Greece, had shown
that the orientation theory accounted as satisfactorily for the directions in
which the chief temples in Greece had been built as I had shown it did for
some in Egypt, it seemed important to apply the same methods of inquiry
with all available accuracy to some example, at all events, of the various
stone circles in Britain which have so far escaped destruction. Many
attempts had been previously made to secure data, but the instruments and
methods employed did not seem to be sufficient.
Much time has, indeed, been lost in the investigation of a great many of
these circles, for the reason that in many cases the relations of the
monuments to the chief points of the horizon have not been considered; and
when they were, the observations were made only with reference to the
magnetic north, which is different at different places, and besides is always
varying; few indeed have tried to get at the astronomical conditions of the
problem.
The first, I think, was Mr. Jonathan Otley, who in 1849 showed the
“Orientation” of the Keswick Circle “according to the solar meridian,”
giving true solar bearings throughout the year.
I wrote a good deal in Nature[5] on sun and star temples in 1891, and Mr.
Lewis the next year expressed the opinion that the British Stone
Monuments, or some of them, were sun and star temples.
Mr. Magnus Spence of Deerness in Orkney published a pamphlet,
“Standing Stones and Maeshowe of Stenness,[6]” in 1894; it is a reprint of
an article in the Scottish Review, Oct. 1893. Mr. Cursiter, F.S.A., of
Kirkwall, in a letter to me dated 15 March 1894, a letter suggested by my
Dawn of Astronomy which appeared in that year and in which the articles
which had appeared in Nature in 1891 had been expanded, drew my
attention to the pamphlet; the observations had no pretension to scientific

accuracy, and although some of the sight-lines were incorrectly shown in an
accompanying map, May year and solstitial alignments were indicated.
So far as I know, there has never been a complete inquiry into the stone
circles in Britain, but Mr. Lewis, who has paid great attention to these
matters, has dealt in a general manner with them (Archaeological Journal,
vol. xlix. p. 136), and has further described (Journal Anthropological
Institute, n.s., iii., 1900) the observations made by him of stone circles in
various parts of Scotland. From an examination of the latter he concludes
that they may be divided into different types, each of which has its centre in
a different locality. The types are—(1) the Western Scottish type, consisting
of a rather irregular single ring or sometimes of two concentric rings; (2)
the Inverness type, consisting of a more regular ring of better-shaped
stones, surrounding a tumulus with a retaining wall, containing a built-up
chamber and passage leading to it, or a kist without a passage; (3) the
Aberdeen type, consisting of a similar ring with the addition of a so-called
“altar-stone” and usually having traces of a tumulus and kist in the middle.
In addition to these three types of circles, there are in Britain generally what
Mr. Lewis calls sun and star circles, with their alignments of stones, and
apparently proportioned measurements. He has shown that there is a great
preponderance of outlying stones and hill-tops lying between the circles and
the N.E. quarter of the horizon. From what has been stated in Chapter III
with regard to the nightly observations of stars it will be gathered that these
may have been used for this purpose.
The following list gives some of the bearings of outlying stones and other
circles from the centres of the named circles:—
Roll-rich, Oxon.—Kingstone N. 27° E.
Stripple Stones, Cornwall—Bastion on bank N. 26 E.
Long Meg, Cumberland—Small circle N. 27 E.
The Hurlers, Cornwall—Two outlying circles N. 13-16 E.
Trippet Stones—Leaze circle N. 11 E.

If these alignments mean anything they must of course refer to the rising
of stars, as the position on the horizon is outside the sun’s path.
The many circles in Cornwall have been dealt with by Mr. Lukis in a
volume published by the Society of Antiquaries in 1895.[7] A carefully
prepared list of circles will be found in Mr. Windle’s recently published
work entitled “Remains of the Prehistoric Age in England.”

It may be useful here to state, with regard to megalithic remains
generally, that they may be classed as follows; some details will be
discussed later on.
(a) Circles. These may be single, double, or multiple, and either
concentric or not.
(b) Menhirs, large single stones, used to mark sight-lines from circles.
(c) Alignments, i.e., lines of stones in single, double, or in many parallel
lines. If these alignments are short they are termed avenues.
(d) Holed-stones, doubtless used for observing sight-lines, sometimes
over a circle.
(e) Coves. A term applied by Dr. Stukeley and others to what they
considered shrines formed by three upright stones, thus leaving one side
open. I take them to be partially protected observing places. There are well-
marked examples at Avebury, Stanton Drew and Kit’s Coity House.
(f) Cromlechs. This term generally means a grouping of upright stones; it
is applied to irregular circles in Brittany. It also applies to a stone or stones
raised on the summits of three or more pillar stones forming the end and
sides of an irregular vault generally open at one end (“Dolmens of Ireland,”
Borlase, p. 429). The top stone is called in S.W. England a “quoit.”
Cromlechs in most cases have been covered by barrows or cairns.
(g) Dolmens, from Dol Men, a table stone. These consist of stones,
resting on two or more upright stones forming a more or less complete
chamber, some of which are of great length. I note the following
subdivisions: “Dolmen à galerie” having an entrance way of sufficient
height, and “Galgal,” similar but smaller. In the “Dolmen à l’allée couverte”
there is a covered passage way to the centre. It is a more elaborate cove. For
the relation between cromlechs and dolmens, see Borlase (loc. cit. and p.
424 et seq.).
With regard to dolmens, I give the following quotation from Mr. Penrose
(Nature, vol. lxiv., September 12, 1901):—
“Near Locmariaquer in the estuary named Rivière d’Auray, there is an
island named Gavr’ Inis, or Goat Island, which contains a good specimen of
the kind of dolmen which has been named ‘Galgal.’
“At the entrance our attention is at once arrested by the profusion of
tracery which covers the walls. From the entrance to the wall facing us the
distance is between 50 and 60 feet. The square chamber to which the gallery
leads is composed of two huge slabs, the sides of the room and gallery

being composed of upright stones, about a dozen on each side. The mystic
lines and hieroglyphics similar to those above mentioned appear to have a
decorative character.
“An interesting feature of Gavr’ Inis is its remarkable resemblance to the
New Grange tumulus at Meath. In construction there is again a strong
resemblance to Mæs-Howe, in the island of Orkney. There is also some
resemblance in smaller details.”
While we generally have circles in Britain without, or with small,
alignments; in Brittany we have alignments without circles, some of them
being on an enormous scale;[8] thus at Menec (the place of stones) we have
eleven lines of menhirs, terminating towards the west in a cromlech, and,
notwithstanding that great numbers have been converted to other uses, 1169
menhirs still remain, some reaching as much as 18 feet in height.
The alignments of Kermario (the place of the dead) contain 989 menhirs
in ten lines. Those of Kerlescant (the place of burning), which beginning
with eleven rows are afterwards increased to thirteen, contain altogether
579 stones and thirty-nine in the cromlech, with some additional stones.
The adoration paid these stones yielded very slowly to Christianity. In the
church history of Brittany the Cultus Lapidum was denounced in 658 a.d.
Many of the fallen menhirs in these alignments have been restored to
their upright position by the French Government. Some of them may have
been overturned in compliance with the decree of 658 a.d. above referred
to. Several of the loftier menhirs are surmounted by crosses of stone or iron.
Both circles and alignments are associated with holidays and the lighting
of fires on certain days of the year. This custom has remained more general
in Brittany than in Britain. At Mount St. Michael, near Carnac, the custom
still prevails of lighting a large bonfire on its summit at the time of the
summer solstice; others, kindled on prominent eminences for a distance of
twenty or thirty miles round, reply to it. These fires are locally called “Tan
Heol,” and also by a later use, Tan St. Jean. In Scotland there was a similar
custom in the first week in May under the name of Bel Tan, or Baal’s Fire;
the synonym for summer used by Sir Walter Scott in the “Lady of the
Lake”:—
Ours is no sapling chance-sown by the fountain,
Blooming at Beltane in winter to fade.

At Kerlescant the winter solstice is celebrated by a holiday, whilst Menec
greets the summer solstice, and Kermario the equinoxes, with festivals.

Concerning these fires and the associated customs Mr. Frazer’s “Golden
Bough” is a perfect mine of information and should be consulted. It may
simply be said here that the May and November, and June and December
fires seem to be the most ancient. It is stated that the Balder bale fires on
Mayday Eve were recognised by the primitive race, and I shall prove this in
the sequel when British customs are referred to. On the introduction of
Christianity the various customs were either transferred to or reorganised in
association with church festivals; but as some of these, such as Easter, are
movable feasts, it is difficult to follow the dates.
Regarding both circles and alignments in the light of the orientation
theory, we may consider simple circles with a central stone as a collection
of sight-lines from the central stone to one or more of the outer ones, or the
interval between any two; indicating the place of the rise or setting of either
the sun or a star on some particular day of the year, which day, in the case
of the sun, will be a new year’s day.
Alignments, on the other hand, will play the same part as the sight-lines
in the circles.
Sometimes the sight-line may be indicated by a menhir outside, and even
at a considerable distance from, the circle; later on tumuli replaced menhirs.
The dolmens have, I am convinced, been in many cases not graves
originally, but darkened observing places whence to observe along a sight-
line; this would be best done by means of an allée couverte, the predecessor
of the darkened naos at Stonehenge, shielded by its covered trilithons.
In order to obtain some measurements to test the orientation theory in
Britain, I found that Stonehenge is the ancient monument in this country
which lends itself to accurate theodolite work better than any other. Mr.
Spence’s excellent work on astronomical lines at Stenness, where the
stones, till some years ago at all events, have been more respected than
further south, suggested a beginning there, but the distance from London
made it impossible.
Avebury and Stanton Drew are well known to a great many
archæologists; there are also other very wonderful stone circles near
Keswick and in other parts of England; but unfortunately it is very much
more difficult to get astronomical data from these ancient monuments than
it is in the case of Stonehenge, one reason being that Stonehenge itself lies
high, and the horizon round it in all directions is pretty nearly the same
height, so that the important question of the heights of the hills along the

sight-line—a matter which is fundamental from an astronomical point of
view, although it has been neglected, so far as I can make out, by most who
have made observations on these ancient monuments—is quite a simple one
at Stonehenge. Hence it was much easier to determine a date there than by
working at any of the other ancient remains to which I have referred.
In orientation generally—such orientation as has been dealt with by Mr.
Penrose and myself in Egypt and in Greece—the question frequently was a
change in direction in the axis of a temple, or the laying down of the axis of
a temple, by means of observations of stars. Unfortunately for us as
archæologists, not as astronomers, the changes of position of the stars,
owing to certain causes, chiefly the precessional movement, are very
considerable; so that if a temple pointed to a star in one year, in two or three
hundred years it would no longer point to the same star, but to another.
These star observations were requisite in order to warn the priests about
an hour before sunrise so that they might prepare for the morning sacrifice
which always took place at the first appearance of the sun. Hence the
morning star to be visible in the dawn must be a bright one, and the further
north or south of the sun’s rising place it rose, the more easily it would be
seen. Some stars so chosen rose not far from the north point of the horizon.
The alignments with small azimuths referred to in the British circles (p. 36)
I believe to be connected with the Egyptian and Greek practice.
Acting on a very old tradition, some people from Salisbury and other
surrounding places go to observe the sunrise on the longest day of the year
at Stonehenge. We therefore are perfectly justified in assuming that it was a
solar temple used for observation in the height of midsummer. But at dawn
in midsummer in these latitudes the sky is so bright that it is not easy to see
stars even if we get up in the morning to look for them; stars, therefore,
were not in question, so that some other principle had to be adopted, and
that was to point the temple directly to the position on the horizon at which
the sun rose on that particular day of the year, and no other.
Now, if there were no change in the position of the sun, that, of course,
would go on for ever and ever; but, fortunately for archæologists, there is a
slight change in the position of the sun, as there is in the case of a star, but
for a different reason; the planes of the ecliptic and of the equator undergo a
slight change in the angle included between them. So far as we know, that
angle has been gradually getting less for many thousands of years, so that,
in the case of Stonehenge, if we wish to determine the date, having no stars

to help us, the only thing that we can hope to get any information from is
the very slow change of this angle; that, therefore, was the special point
which Mr. Penrose and I were anxious to study at Stonehenge, for the
reason that we seemed in a position to do it there more conveniently than
anywhere else in Britain.

Fig. 8.—The original tooling of the stone protected from the action of
the weather.

But while the astronomical conditions are better at Stonehenge than
elsewhere, the ruined state of the monument makes accurate measurements
very difficult.
Great age and the action of weather are responsible for much havoc, so
that very many of the stones are now recumbent, as will be gathered from
an article by Mr. Lewis, who described the condition of the monument in
1901, in Man.

Fig. 9.—View of Stonehenge from the west. A, stone which fell in 1900;
BB, stones which fell in 1797. (Reproduced from an article on the fallen
stones by Mr. Lewis in Man.)

Professor Gowland in his excavations at Stonehenge, to which I shall
refer in the sequel, found the original tooled surface near the bottom of one
of the large sarsens which had been protected from the action of the weather
by having been buried in the ground. It enables us to imagine the
appearance of the monument as it left the hands of the builders (Fig. 8).

Fig. 10.—Copy of Hoare’s plan of 1810, showing the unbroken Vallum
and its relation with the Avenue.

But the real destructive agent has been man himself; savages could not
have played more havoc with the monument than the English who have
visited it at different times for different purposes. It is said the fall of one
great stone was caused in 1620 by some excavations, but this has been
doubted; the fall of another in 1797 was caused by gipsies digging a hole in
which to shelter, and boil their kettle; many of the stones have been used for
building walls and bridges; masses weighing from 56 lb. downwards have

been broken off by hammers or cracked off as a result of fires lighted by
excursionists.
It appears that the temenos wall or vallum, which is shown complete in
Hoare’s plan of 1810, is now broken down in many places by vehicles
indiscriminately driven over it. Indeed, its original importance has now
become so obliterated that many do not notice it as part of the structure—
that, in fact, it bears the same relation to the interior stone circle as the nave
of St. Paul’s does to the Lady Chapel (Fig. 10).
It is within the knowledge of all interested in archæology that not long
ago Sir Edmund Antrobus, the owner of Stonehenge, advised by the famous
Wiltshire local society, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings,
and the Society of Antiquaries, enclosed the monument in order to preserve
it from further wanton destruction, and—a first step in the way of
restoration—with the skilled assistance of Prof. Gowland and Messrs.
Carruthers, Detmar Blow and Stallybrass, set upright the most important
menhir, which threatened to fall or else break off at one of the cracks. This
menhir, the so-called “leaning stone,” once formed one of the uprights of
the trilithon the fall of the other member of which is stated by Mr. Lewis to
have occurred before 1574. The latter, broken in two pieces, and the
supported impost, now lie prostrate across the altar stone.

Fig. 11.—The Leaning Stone in 1901.

This piece of work was carried out with consummate skill and care, and
most important conclusions, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, were
derived from the minute inquiry into the conditions revealed in the
excavations which were necessary for the proper conduct of the work.
Let us hope that we have heard the last of the work of devastators, and
even that, before long, some of the other larger stones, now inclined or
prostrate, may be set upright.

Since Sir Edmund Antrobus, the present owner, has acted on the advice
of the societies I have named to enclose the monument, with a view to
guard it from destruction and desecration, he has been assailed on all sides.
It is not a little surprising that the “unclimbable wire fence” recommended
by the societies in question (the Bishop of Bristol being the president of the
Wiltshire society at the time) is by some regarded as a suggestion that the
property is not national, the fact being that the nation has not bought the
property, and that it has been private property for centuries, and treated in
the way we have seen.
Let us hope also that before long the gaps in the vallum may be filled up.
These, as I have already stated, take away from the meaning of an important
part of one of the most imposing monuments of the world. In the meantime,
it is comforting to know that, thanks to what Sir Edmund Antrobus has
done, no more stones will be stolen, or broken by sledge-hammers; that
fires; that excavations such as were apparently the prime cause of the
disastrous fall of one of the majestic trilithons in 1797; that litter, broken
bottles and the like, with which too many British sightseers mark their
progress, besides much indecent desecration, are things of the past.
If Stonehenge had been built in Italy, or France, or Germany, it would
have been in charge of the State long ago.
I now pass from the monument itself to a reference to some of the
traditions and historical statements concerning it.
Those who are interested in these matters should thank the Wiltshire
Archæological and Natural History Society, which is to be warmly
congratulated on its persistent and admirable efforts to do all in its power to
enable the whole nation to learn about the venerable monuments of
antiquity which it has practically taken under its scientific charge. It has
published two most important volumes[9] dealing specially with
Stonehenge, including both its traditions and history.
With regard to Mr. Long’s memoir, it may be stated that it includes
important extracts from notices of Stonehenge from the time of Henry of
Huntingdon (twelfth century) to Hoare (1812), and that all extant
information is given touching on the questions by whom the stones were
erected, whence they came, and what was the object of the structure.
From Mr. Harrison’s more recently published bibliography, no reference
to Stonehenge by any ancient author, no letter to the Times for the last

twenty years dealing with any question touching the monuments, seems to
be omitted.
It is very sad to read, both in Mr. Long’s volume and the bibliography, of
the devastation which has been allowed to go on for so many years and of
the various forms it has taken.
As almost the whole of the notes which follow deal with the assumption
of Stonehenge having been a solar temple, a short reference to the earliest
statements concerning this view is desirable; and, again, as the approximate
date arrived at by Mr. Penrose and myself in 1901 is an early one, a few
words may be added indicating the presence in Britain at that time of a race
of men capable of designing and executing such work. I quote from the
paper communicated by Mr. Penrose and myself to the Royal Society:—
“As to the first point, Diodorus Siculus (ii., 47, ed. Didot, p. 116) has
preserved a statement of Hecatæus in which Stonehenge alone can by any
probability be referred to.
“‘We think that no one will consider it foreign to our subject to say a
word respecting the Hyperboreans.
“‘Amongst the writers who have occupied themselves with the
mythology of the ancients, Hecatæus and some others tell us that opposite
the land of the Celts [ἑν τοις ἁντιπεραν της Κελτικης τοποις] there exists in
the Ocean an island not smaller than Sicily, and which, situated under the
constellation of The Bear, is inhabited by the Hyperboreans; so called
because they live beyond the point from which the North wind blows.... If
one may believe the same mythology, Latona was born in this island, and
for that reason the inhabitants honour Apollo more than any other deity. A
sacred enclosure [νησον] is dedicated to him in the island, as well as a
magnificent circular temple adorned with many rich offerings.... The
Hyperboreans are in general very friendly to the Greeks.’”
“The Hecatæus above referred to was probably Hecatæus of Abdera, in
Thrace, fourth century b.c.; a friend of Alexander the Great. This Hecatæus
is said to have written a history of the Hyperboreans: that it was Hecatæus
of Miletus, an historian of the sixth century b.c., is less likely.
“As to the second point, although we cannot go so far back in evidence of
the power and civilisation of the Britons, there is an argument of some
value to be drawn from the fine character of the coinage issued by British
kings early in the second century b.c., and from the statement of Julius

Cæsar (‘De Bello Gallico,’ vi., c. 14) that in the schools of the Druids the
subjects taught included the movements of the stars, the size of the earth,
and the nature of things (multa præterea de sideribus et eorum motu, de
mundi magnitudine, de rerum natura, de deorum immortalium vi ac
potestate disputant et juventuti tradunt).
“Studies of such a character seem quite consistent with, and to demand, a
long antecedent period of civilisation.”
Henry of Huntingdon is the first English writer to refer to Stonehenge,
which he calls Stanenges. Geoffrey of Monmouth (1138) and Giraldus
Cambrensis come next.
In 1771, Dr. John Smith, in a work entitled “Choir Gawr, the Grand
Orrery of the Ancient Druids, called Stonehenge, Astronomically
Explained, and proved to be a Temple for Observing the Motions of the
Heavenly Bodies,” wrote as follows:—
“From many and repeated visits, I conceived it to be an astronomical
temple; and from what I could recollect to have read of it, no author had as
yet investigated its uses. Without an instrument or any assistance whatever,
but White’s ‘Ephemeris,’ I began my survey. I suspected the stone called
The Friar’s Heel to be the index that would disclose the uses of this
structure; nor was I deceived. This stone stands in a right line with the
centre of the temple, pointing to the north-east. I first drew a circle round
the vallum of the ditch and divided it into 360 equal parts; and then a right
line through the body of the temple to the Friar’s Heel; at the intersection of
these lines I reckoned the sun’s greatest amplitude at the summer solstice, in
this latitude, to be about 60 degrees, and fixed the eastern points
accordingly. Pursuing this plan, I soon discovered the uses of all the
detached stones, as well as those that formed the body of the temple.”
With regard to this “Choir Gawr,” translated Chorea Gigantum, Leland’s
opinion is quoted (Long, p. 51) that we should read Choir vawr, the
equivalent of which is Chorea nobilis or magna.[10]
In spite of Inigo Jones’s (1600) dictum that Stonehenge was of Roman
origin, Stukeley came to the conclusion in 1723 that the Druids were
responsible for its building; and Halley, who visited it in 1720—probably
with Stukeley—concluded from the weathering of the stones that it was at
least 3000 years old; if he only had taken his theodolite with him, how
much his interest in the monument would have been increased!
[5] See especially Nature, July 2, 1891 p. 201.

[6] Gardner, Paisley and London.
[7] “The Prehistoric Stone Monuments of the British Isles—Cornwall.”
[8] “The French Stonehenge: An Account of the Principal Megalithic Remains in the
Morbihan Archipelago.” By T. Cato Worsfold, F. R. Hist. S., F.R.S.I. (London:
Bemrose and Sons, Ltd.)
[9] The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine: “Stonehenge and its
Barrows.” By William Long, M.A., F.S.A. 1876. The Wiltshire Archaeological and
Natural History Magazine: “Stonehenge Bibliography Number.” By W. Jerome
Harrison. 1902.
[10] Mr. Morien Morgan informs me that Cor y Gawres is correct, and means Choir of the
Giantess Cariadwen, the Welsh Neith, Nyth (Nydd).

CHAPTER VI
GENERAL ARCHITECTURE OF STONEHENGE

Although I have before hinted that the astronomical use of the Egyptian
temples and British circles was the same, there is at first sight a vast
difference in the general plan of structure.
This has chiefly depended upon the fact that the riches and population of
ancient Egypt were so great that that people could afford to build a temple
to a particular star, or to the sun’s position on any particular day of the year.
The temple axis along the line pointing to the celestial body involved, then
became the chief feature, and tens of years were spent in lengthening,
constricting and embellishing it.

Fig. 12.—The axis of the Temple of Karnak, looking
south-east, from outside the north-west pylon
(from a photograph by the author).

From one end of an Egyptian temple to the other we find the axis marked
out by narrow apertures in the various pylons, and many walls with doors
crossing the axis. There are seventeen or eighteen of these apertures in the
solar temple of Amen-Rā at Karnak, limiting the light which falls into the
Holy of Holies or Sanctuary. This construction gives one a very definite
impression that every part of the temple was built to subserve a special
object, viz., to limit the sunlight which fell on its front into a narrow beam,

and to carry it to the other extremity of the temple—into the sanctuary,
where the high priest performed his functions. The sanctuary was always
blocked. There is no case in which the beam of light can pass absolutely
through a temple (Figs. 12 and 13).

Fig. 13.—Plan of the Temple of Ramses II. in the Memnonia at Thebes (from Lepsius), showing the
pylon at the open end, the various doors along the axis, the sanctuary at the closed end, and the
temple at right angles.

In Britain the case was different, there was neither skill nor workers
sufficient to erect such stately piles, and as a consequence one structure had
to do the work of several and it had to be done in the most economical way.
Hence the circle with the observer at the centre and practically a temple axis
in every direction among which could be chosen the chief directions
required, each alignment being defined by stones, more or less distant, or
openings in the circle itself.
Now for some particulars with regard to those parts of Stonehenge which
lend themselves to the inquiry.
The main architecture of Stonehenge consisted of an external circle of
about 100 feet in diameter, composed of thirty large upright stones, named
sarsens, connected by continuous lintels. The upright stones formerly stood
14 feet above the surface of the ground. They have nobs or tenons on the
top which fit into mortice holes in the lintels. Within this peristyle there was
originally an inner structure of ten still larger upright stones, arranged in the

shape of a horseshoe, formed by five isolated trilithons which rose
progressively from N.E. to S.W., the loftiest stones being 25 feet above the
ground. About one-half of these uprights have fallen, and a still greater
number of the imposts which they originally carried.

Fig. 14.—One of the remaining Trilithons.

There is also another circle of smaller upright stones, respecting which
the only point requiring notice now is that none of them would have
interrupted the line of the axis of the avenue. The circular temple was also
surrounded by the earthen bank, shown in Fig. 15, of about 300 feet in
diameter, interrupted towards the north-east by receiving into itself the
banks forming the avenue before mentioned, which is about 50 feet across.
Within this avenue, no doubt an old via sacra, and looking north-east from
the centre of the temple, at about 250 feet distance and considerably to the
right hand of the axis, stands an isolated stone, which from a mediæval
legend has been named the Friar’s Heel.

Fig. 15.—General plan; the outer circle, naos and avenue of Stonehenge.
F.H. = Friar’s Heel.

The axis passes very nearly centrally through an intercolumniation (so to
call it) between two uprights of the external circle and between the uprights
of the westernmost trilithon as it originally stood. Of this trilithon the
southernmost upright with the lintel stone fell in 1620, but the companion
survived as the leaning stone which formed a conspicuous and picturesque
object for many years, but happily now restored to its original more
dignified and safer condition of vertically. The inclination of this stone,
however, took place in the direction of the axis of the avenue, and as the

distance between it and its original companion is known both by the
analogy of the two perfect trilithons and by the measure of the mortice
holes on the lintel they formerly supported, we obtain by bisection the
distance, 11 inches, from its edge, of a point in the continuation of the
central axis of the avenue and temple.
The banks which form the avenue have suffered much degradation. It
appears from Sir Richard Colt Hoare’s account that at the beginning of the
last century they were distinguishable for a much greater distance than at
present, but they are still discernible, especially on the northern side, for
more than 1300 feet from the centre of the temple, and particularly the line
of the bottom of the ditch from which the earth was taken to form the bank,
and which runs parallel to it.

CHAPTER VII
ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS AT STONEHENGE IN 1901[11]

An investigation was undertaken by Mr. Penrose and myself in the spring
of 1901, as a sequel to analogous work in Egypt and Greece, with a view to
determine whether the orientation theory could throw any light upon the
date of the foundation of Stonehenge, concerning which authorities vary in
their estimates by some thousands of years. Ours was not the first attempt to
obtain the date of Stonehenge by means of astronomical considerations. In
Mr. Godfrey Higgins’ work[12] he refers to a method of attack connected
with precession. This furnished him with the date 4000 b.c.
More recently, Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie,[13] whose plan of the stones is
a valuable contribution to the study of Stonehenge, was led by his measures
of the orientation to a date very greatly in the opposite direction, but, owing
to an error in his application of the change of obliquity, clearly a mistaken
one.
The chief astronomical evidence in favour of the solar temple theory lies
in the fact that the “avenue,” as it is called, formed by two ancient earthen
banks, extends for a considerable distance from the structure, in the general
direction of the sunrise at the summer solstice, precisely in the same way as
in Egypt a long avenue of sphinxes indicates the principal outlook of a
temple.
These earthen banks defining the avenue do not exist alone. As will be
seen from the sketch plan (Fig. 15), there is a general common line of
direction for the avenue and the principal axis of the structure; and the
general design of the building, together with the position and shape of the
naos, indicates a close connection of the whole temple structure with the
direction of the avenue. There may have been other pylon and screen
equivalents as in other ancient temples, which have disappeared, the object
being to confine the illumination to a small part of the naos. There can be
little doubt, also, that the temple was originally roofed in, and that the sun’s

first ray, suddenly shining into the darkness, formed a fundamental part of
the cultus.
With regard to the question of the roof, however, the above suggestion, I
now find, is not new, the view having been held by no less an authority than
Dr. Thurnham, who apparently was led to it by the representations of the
Scandinavian temples as covered and enclosed structures.
Since the actual observation of sunrise was doubtless made within the
sanctuary itself, we seem justified in taking the orientation of the axis to be
the same as that of the avenue, and since in the present state of the S.W.
trilithon the direction of the avenue can probably be determined with
greater accuracy than that of the temple axis itself, the estimate of date must
be based upon the orientation of the avenue. Further evidence will be given,
however, to show that the direction of the axis of the temple, so far as it can
now be determined, is sufficiently accordant with the direction of the
avenue.
The orientation of this avenue may be examined upon the same principles
that have been found successful in the case of Greek and Egyptian temples
—that is, on the assumption that Stonehenge was a solar temple, and that
the greatest function took place at sunrise on the longest day of the year.
This not only had a religious motive; it had also the economic value of
marking officially and distinctly that time of the year and the beginning of
an annual period.
It is, indeed, possible that the present structure may have had other
capabilities, such as being connected with the May year, the equinoxes or
the winter solstice; but it is with its uses at the summer solstice alone that
we now deal.
There is a difference in treatment between the observations required for
Stonehenge and those which are available for Greek or Egyptian solar
temples. In the case of the latter, the effect of the precession of the
equinoxes upon the stars, which as warning clock stars were almost
invariably connected with those temples, offers the best measure of the
dates of foundation; but in Britain, owing to the brightness of the dawn at
the summer solstice, such a star could not have been employed, so that we
can rely only on the secular change of the obliquity as affecting the azimuth
of the point of sunrise. This requires the measurements to be taken with
very great precision, and as the azimuth of the place of sunrise varies with
the latitude, and as a datum point on the horizon in a known position was

also required, Colonel Johnston, R.E., the Director-General of the Ordnance
Survey, was asked for and obligingly supplied the following particulars:
Lat. 51° 10′ 42″
Centre of stone circle, Stonehenge { Long. W. 1 49 99
Lat. 51° 3′ 52″
Centre of spire, Salisbury Cathedral {
Long. 1 47 45

The real point was to determine the direction of the so-called avenue.
Measurements taken from the line of the bottom of the ditch assisted
materially those taken from the crown of the bank itself. With this help and
by using the southern bank and ditch whenever it admitted of recognition, a
fair estimate of the central line could be arrived at. To verify this, two pegs
were placed at points 140 feet apart along the line near the commencement
of the avenue, and four others at distances averaging 100 feet apart nearer
the further recognisable extremity, and their directions were measured with
the theodolite, independently by two observers, the reference point being
Salisbury Spire, of which the exact bearing had been communicated by
Colonel Johnston.
This bearing was also measured locally by observations of the Sun and of
Polaris, the mean of which differed by less than 20″ from the Ordnance
value. The resulting observations gave for the axis of the avenue nearest the
commencement an azimuth of 49° 38′ 48″, and for that of the more distant
part 49° 32′ 54″. The mean of these two lines drawn from the central
interval of the great trilithon, already referred to, passes between two of the
sarsens of the exterior circle, which have an opening of about 4 feet, within
a few inches of their middle point, the deviation being northwards. This
may be considered to prove the close coincidence of the original axis of the
temple with the direction of the avenue.
This value of the azimuth, the mean of which is 49° 35′ 51″, is confirmed
by the information, also supplied from the Ordnance Survey, that from the
centre of the temple, the bearing to the N.E. of the principal bench mark on
a hill, about 8 miles distant, the bench mark being very near a well-known
ancient fortified British encampment named Silbury or Sidbury, is 49° 34′
18″; and that the same line continued through Stonehenge, to the south-
west, strikes another ancient fortification, namely, Grovely Castle, about 6
miles distant, and at practically the same azimuth, viz., 49° 35′ 51″. For the
above reasons 49° 34′ 18″ has been adopted for the azimuth of the avenue.

The summer solstice sunrise in 1901 was also watched for by Mr.
Howard Payn on five successive mornings, viz., June 21 to 25, and was
successfully observed on the last occasion. As soon as the Sun’s limb was
sufficiently above the horizon for its bisection to be well measured, it was
found to be 8′ 40″ northwards of the peak of the Friar’s Heel, which was
used as the reference point; the altitude of the horizon being 35′ 48″. The
azimuth of this peak from the point of observation had been previously
ascertained to be 50° 39′ 5″, giving for that of the Sun when measured, 50°
30′ 25″; by calculation that of the Sun, with the limb 2′ above the horizon,
should be 50° 30′ 54″. This observation was therefore completely in
accordance with the results which had been obtained otherwise.
The time which would elapse between geometrical sunrise, that is, with
the upper limb tangential with the horizon, and that which is here supposed,
would be about 17 seconds, and the difference of azimuth would be 3′ 15″.
The remaining point was to find what value should be given to the Sun’s
declination when it appeared showing itself 2′ above the horizon, the
azimuth being 49° 34′ 18″.
The data obtained for the determination of the required epoch were as
follows:—
(1.) The elevation of the local horizon at the sunrise point seen by a man
standing between the uprights of the great trilithon (a distance of about
8000 feet) is about 35′ 30″, and 2′ additional for Sun’s upper limb makes
37′ 30″.
(2.) -Refraction + parallax, 27′ 20″.
(3.) Sun’s semi-diameter, allowance being made for greater eccentricity
than at present, 15′ 45″.
(4.) Sun’s azimuth, 49° 34′ 18″, and N. latitude, 51° 10′ 42″.
From the above data the Sun’s declination works out 23° 54′ 30″ N., and
by Stockwell’s tables of the obliquity, which are based upon modern
determinations of the elements of the solar system,[14] the date is found to
be 1680 b.c.
It is to be understood that on account of the slight uncertainty as to the
original line of observation and the very slow rate of change in the obliquity
of the ecliptic, the date thus derived may possibly be in error by 200 years
more or less; this gives us a date of construction lying between say 1900
and 1500 b.c.

In this investigation the so-called Friar’s Heel was used only as a
convenient point for reference and verification in measurement, and no
theory was formed as to its purpose. It is placed at some distance, as before
mentioned, to the south of the axis of the avenue, so that at the date arrived
at for the erection of the temple the Sun must have completely risen before
it was vertically over the summit of the stone. It may be remarked, further,
that more than 500 years must yet elapse before such a coincidence can take
place at the beginning of sunrise.
In an Appendix certain details of the observations are given.
In the next chapter I propose to show that an independent archæological
inquiry carried out, in a most complete and admirable way, just after Mr.
Penrose and myself had obtained our conclusion, entirely corroborates the
date at which we had arrived.

[11] This chapter and the end of the previous one are mainly based on the paper
communicated by Mr. Penrose and myself to the Royal Society (see Proceedings,
Royal Society, vol. 69, p. 137 et seq.).
[12] The Celtic Druids. 4to. London. 1827.
[13] Stonehenge, &c. 1880.
[14] Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. xviii. No. 232, table 9. Washington. 1873.
For curve, see page 130.

CHAPTER VIII
ARCHÆOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS AT STONEHENGE, 1901

Soon after Mr. Penrose and myself had made our astronomical survey of
Stonehenge in 1901, some archæological results of the highest importance
were obtained by Professor Gowland. The operations which secured them
were designed and carried out in order to re-erect the leaning stone which
threatened to fall, a piece of work recommended to Sir Edmund Antrobus
by the Society of Antiquaries of London and other learned bodies, and
conducted at his desire and expense.

Fig. 16.—The arrangements for raising the stone, looking north-east.

They were necessarily on a large scale, for the great monolith, “the
leaning stone,” is the largest in England, the Rudston monolith excepted. It

stood behind the altar stone, over which it leant at an angle of 65 degrees,
resting at one point against a small stone of syenite. Half-way up it had a
fracture one-third across it; the weight of stone above this fracture was a
dangerous strain on it, so that both powerful machinery and great care and
precautions had to be used. Professor Gowland was charged by the Society
of Antiquaries with the conduct of the excavations necessary in the work.
The engineering operations were planned by Mr. Carruthers, and Mr.
Detmar Blow was responsible for the local superintendence. Mr. Blow thus
describes the arrangements (Journal Institute of British Architects, 3rd
series, ix., January, 1902):—
“A strong cradle of 12-inch square baulks of timber was bolted round the
stone, with packing and felt, to prevent any marking of the stone. To the
cradle were fixed two 1-inch steel eyebolts to receive the blocks for two
six-folds of 6-inch ropes. These were secured and wound on to two strong
winches fifty feet away, with four men at each winch. When the ropes were
thoroughly tight, the first excavation was made as the stone was raised on
its west side.”

Fig. 17.—The cradle and supports, looking west.

The method employed by Professor Gowland in the excavation should be
a model for all future work of the kind.
Above each space to be excavated was placed a frame of wood, bearing
on its long sides the letters A to H, and on its short sides the letters R M L,
each letter being on a line one foot distant from the next. By this means the
area to be excavated was divided into squares each having the dimension of
a square foot. A long rod divided into 6-inch spaces, numbered from 1 to
16, was also provided for indicating the depth from the datum line of

anything found. In this way a letter on the long sides of the frame, together
with one on the short sides, and a number on the vertical rod, indicated the
position of any object found in any part of the excavation.
Excavations were necessary because to secure the stone for the future the
whole of the adjacent soil had to be removed down to the rock level, so that
it could be replaced by concrete.

Fig. 18.—The frame used to locate the finds.

All results were registered by Professor Gowland in relation to a datum
line 337·4 feet above sea level. The material was removed in buckets, and
carefully sifted through a series of sieves 1-inch, 1⁄2-inch, 1⁄4-inch, and 1⁄8-
inch mesh, in order that the smallest object might not be overlooked.
From the exhaustive account of his work given by Professor Gowland to
the Society of Antiquaries (Archaeologia, lviii.), I gather three results of the
highest importance from the point of view I am considering. These were,
first, the finding of an enormous number of implements; secondly, the

disposition and relative quantities of the chippings of the sarsen and blue
stones; and thirdly, the discovery of the method by which the stones were
originally erected.
I will take the implements first. This, in a condensed form, is what
Professor Gowland says about them:—
More than a hundred flint implements were found, and the greater
number occurred in the stratum of chalk rubble which either directly
overlaid or was on a level with the bed rock. They may all be arranged
generally in the following classes:—
Class I.—Axes roughly chipped and of rude forms, but having well-
defined, more or less sharp cutting edges.
Class II.—Hammerstones, with more or less well-chipped, sharp curved
edges. Most may be correctly termed hammer-axes. They are chipped to an
edge at one end, but at the other are broad and thick, and in many examples
terminated there by a more or less flat surface. In some the natural coating
of the flint is left untouched at the thick end.
Class III.—Hammerstones, more or less rounded. Some specimens
appear to have once had distinct working edges, but they are now much
blunted and battered by use.
In addition to the above flint implements were found about thirty
hammerstones, consisting of large pebbles or small boulders of the hard
quartzite variety of sarsen. Some have been roughly broken into convenient
forms for holding in the hand, whilst a few have been rudely trimmed into
more regular shapes. They vary in weight from about a pound up to six and
a half pounds. To these we have to add mauls, a more remarkable kind of
hammerstone than those just enumerated. They are ponderous boulders of
the quartzite variety of sarsen with their broadest sides more or less flat.
Their weights range from about 40 lb. to 64 lb.
How came these flints and stones where they were found? Prof. Gowland
gives an answer which everybody will accept. The implements must be
regarded as the discarded tools of the builders of Stonehenge, dumped
down into the holes as they became unfit for use, and, in fact, used to pack
the monoliths as they were erected. We read:—“Dealing with the cavity
occupied by No. 55 before its fall, the mauls were found wedged in below
the front of its base to act together with the large blocks of sarsen as
supports” (p. 54). Nearly all bear evidence of extremely rough usage, their
edges being jagged and broken, just as we should expect to find after such

rough employment. We evidently have to deal with builders doing their
work in the Stone and not in the Bronze age. But was the age Palæolithic or
Neolithic?
Prof. Gowland writes:—
“Perhaps the most striking features of the flint implements is their
extreme rudeness, and that there is not a single ground or polished specimen
among them. This, at first sight and without due consideration, might be
taken to indicate an extremely remote age. But in this connection it must be
borne in mind that in the building of such a stupendous structure as
Stonehenge, the tools required must have been numbered by thousands. The
work, too, was of the roughest character, and for such only rude tools were
required. The highly finished and polished implements which we are
accustomed to consider, and rightly so, as characteristic of Neolithic man,
would find no place in such work. They required too much labour and time
for their manufacture, and, when made, could not have been more effective
than the hammer-axes and hammerstones found in the excavations, which
could be so easily fashioned by merely rudely shaping the natural flints,
with which the district abounds, by a few well directed blows of a sarsen
pebble.”
On this ground Prof. Gowland is of opinion that, notwithstanding their
rudeness, they may be legitimately ascribed to the Neolithic age, and, it
may be, near its termination, that is, before the Bronze age, the
commencement of which has been placed at 1400 b.c. by Sir John Evans for
Britain, though he is inclined to think that estimate too low, and 2000 b.c.
by Montelius for Italy.

Fig. 19.—Some of the Flint Implements.

Prof. Gowland guardedly writes:—
“The occurrence of stone tools does not alone prove with absolute
certainty that Stonehenge belongs to the Neolithic age, although it affords a
strong presumption in favour of that view. But, and this is important, had
bronze been in general or even moderately extensive use when the stones
were set up, it is in the highest degree probable that some implement of that
metal would have been lost within the area of the excavations, and if so
lost, it would certainly have been found together with the stone tools.
Further, the employment of deer’s horn picks for the extensive excavations
made in the chalk around the base of the monoliths also tends to support the
view that bronze implements cannot have been in common use. If they had
it would seem not unreasonable to assume that they would have been
employed, as they would have been so much more effective for such work
than the picks of deer’s horn.
“Again, the chippings of the stones of Stonehenge in two of the Bronze
age barrows[15] in its neighbourhood show that it is of earlier date than
they.”
And finally:—
“In my opinion, the date when copper or bronze was first known in
Britain is a very remote one, as no country in the world presented greater

facilities for their discovery. The beginning of their application to practical
uses should, I think, be placed at least as far back as 1800 b.c., and that date
I am inclined to give, until further evidence is forthcoming, as the
approximate date of the erection of Stonehenge.”
Now the date arrived at by Mr. Penrose and myself on astronomical
grounds was about 1700 b.c. It is not a little remarkable that independent
astronomical and archæological inquiries conducted in the same year should
have come so nearly to the same conclusion. If a general agreement be
arrived at regarding it, we have a firm basis for the study of other similar
ancient monuments in this country.
I have previously in this book referred to the fact that the trilithons of the
naos and the stones of the outer circle are all built up of so-called “sarsen”
stones. To describe their geological character, I cannot do better than quote,
from Mr. Cunnington’s “Geology of Stonehenge,”[16] their origin according
to Prestwich.
“Among the Lower Tertiaries (the Eocene of Sir Charles Lyell) are
certain sands and mottled clays, named by Mr. Prestwich the Woolwich and
Reading beds, from their being largely developed at these places, and from
these he proves the sarsens to have been derived; although they are seldom
found in situ, owing to the destruction of the stratum to which they
belonged. They are large masses of sand concreted together by a siliceous
cement, and when the looser portions of the stratum were washed away, the
blocks of sandy rocks were left scattered over the surface of the ground.
“At Standen, near Hungerford, large masses of sarsen are found,
consisting almost entirely of flints, formed into conglomerate with the sand.
Flints are also common in some of the large stones forming the ancient
temple of Avebury.
“The abundance of these remains, especially in some of the valleys of
North Wilts, is very remarkable. Few persons who have not seen them can
form an adequate idea of the extraordinary scene presented to the eye of the
spectator, who standing on the brow of one of the hills near Clatford, sees
stretching for miles before him, countless numbers of these enormous
stones, occupying the middle of the valley, and winding like a mighty
stream towards the south.”
These stones, then, may be regarded as closely associated with the local
geology.

The exact nature of the stones, called “blue stones,” can best be gathered
from a valuable “Note” by Prof. Judd which accompanies Prof. Gowland’s
paper. These blue stones are entirely unconnected with the local geology;
they must, therefore, represent boulders of the Glacial drift, or they must
have been brought by man, from distant localities. Prof. Judd inclines to the
first opinion.
The distinction between these two kinds of stone are well shown by Prof.
Gowland:—
“The large monoliths of the outer circle, and the trilithons of the horse-
shoe are all sarsens. [See general plan, Fig. 15.] These sarsens in their
composition are sandstones, consisting of quartz-sand, either fine or coarse,
occasionally mixed with pebbles and angular bits of flint, all more or less
firmly cemented together with silica. They are the relics of the
concretionary masses which had become consolidated in the sandstone beds
that once overlaid the chalk of the district, and had resisted the destructive
agencies by which the softer parts of the beds were removed in geological
times. They range in structure from a granular rock resembling loaf sugar in
internal appearance to one of great compactness similar to and sometimes
passing into quartzite.
“The monoliths and trilithons all consist of the granular rock. The
examples of the compact quartzite variety, of which many were found in the
excavations, were almost without exception either hammerstones that had
been used in shaping and dressing the monoliths, or fragments which had
been broken from off them in these operations.
“The small monoliths, the so-called ‘blue stones,’ which form the inner
circle and the inner horse-shoe, are, with the undermentioned exceptions, all
of diabase more or less porphyritic. Two are porphyrite (formerly known as
felstone or hornstone). Two are argillaceous sandstone.
“Mr. William Cunnington, in his valuable paper, ‘Stonehenge Notes,’
records the discovery of two stumps of ‘blue stones’ now covered by the
turf. One of these lies in the inner horseshoe between Nos. 61 and 62, and 9
feet distant from the latter. It is diabase. The other is in the inner circle
between Nos. 32 and 33, 10 feet from the former, and consists of a soft
calcareous altered tuff, afterwards designated for the sake of brevity fissile
rock.
“The altar stone is of micaceous sandstone.”

I now come to the second point, to which I shall return in the next
chapter.
In studying the material obtained from the excavations, it was found in
almost every case that the number of chippings and fragments of blue stone
largely exceeded that of the sarsens; more than this, diabase (blue stone)
and sarsen were found together in the layer overlying the solid chalk (p.
15). Chippings of diabase were the most abundant, but there were few large
pieces of it. Sarsen, on the other hand, occurred most abundantly in lumps
(p. 20); very few small chips of sarsen were found (p. 42). Hence Prof.
Gowland is of opinion that the sarsen blocks were roughly hewn where they
were found (p. 40); the local tooling, executed with the small quartzite
hammers and mauls, would produce not chips but dust.

Fig. 20.—Showing the careful tooling of the
Sarsens.

Finally, I reach the third point of importance from the present standpoint;
the excavations produced clear evidence touching the mode of erection.
Prof. Gowland’s memoir deals only with the leaning stone, but I take it for
granted that the same method was employed throughout: the method was
this.

Fig. 21.—Face of rock against which a stone was made to rest.

(1) The ground in the site a stone was to occupy was removed, the chalk
rock being cut into in such a manner as to leave a ledge, on which the base
of the stone was to rest, and a perpendicular face rising from it, against
which as a buttress one side would bear when set up. From the bottom of
this hole an inclined plane was cut to the surface down which the monolith
which had already been dressed was slid until its base rested on the ledge.
(2) It was then gradually raised into a vertical position by means first of
levers and afterwards of ropes. The levers would be long trunks of trees, to
one end of which a number of ropes was attached (this method is still
employed in Japan); so that the weights and pulling force of many men
might be exerted on them. The stronger ropes were probably of hide or hair,

but others of straw, or of withes of hazel or willow, may have been in use
for minor purposes.
(3) As the stone was raised, it was packed up with logs of timber and
probably also with blocks of stone placed beneath it.
(4) After its upper end had reached a certain elevation, ropes were
attached to it, and it was then hauled by numerous men into a vertical
position, so that its back rested against the perpendicular face of the chalk
which had been prepared for it. During this part of the operation, struts of
timber would probably be placed against its sides to guard against slip, a
precaution taken when the leaning stone was raised and until the foundation
was properly set.
As regards the raising of the lintels, and imposts, and the placing of them
on the tops of the uprights, there would be even less difficulty than in the
erection of the uprights themselves.

Fig. 22.—The leaning stone upright before the struts were removed.

It could be easily effected by the simple method practised in Japan for
placing heavy blocks of stone in position. The stone, when lying on the
ground, would be raised a little at one end by means of long wooden levers.
A packing of logs would then be placed under the end so raised, the other
extremity of the stone would be similarly raised and packed, and the raising
and packing at alternate ends would be continued until the block had
gradually reached the height of the uprights. It would then be simply pushed
forward by levers until it rested upon them.

Fig. 23.—Stonehenge, 1905.

It is not often that an engineering operation has been made so subservient
to the interests of science as the one we have dealt with in this chapter. It is
satisfactory to know not only that much new knowledge has been acquired
by Professor Gowland and his coadjutors, but that the famous leaning stone
has now been set upright in such fashion that it will remain upright for
hundreds of years. May the other leaning stones soon receive the same
treatment.
[15] Sir Richard Colt Hoare, Ancient History of South Wiltshire, p. 127. (London, 1812); W.
Stukeley, Stonehenge, p. 46. (London, 1740).
[16] Wilts Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, xxi. pp. 141-149.

CHAPTER IX
WAS THERE AN EARLIER CIRCLE?

When we come to examine Stonehenge carefully in relation to the
orientation theory, it soon becomes clear that its outer circle of upright
stones with lintels, and the inner naos, built of trilithons, oriented in the line
of the “avenue” and the summer solstice sunrise, are not the only things to
be considered. These stones, all composed of sarsen, which, be it remarked,
have been trimmed and tooled, are not alone in question. We have:—
(1) An interior circle broken in many places, and other stones near the
naos, composed of stones, “blue stones,” which, as we have seen, are of an
entirely different origin and composition.
(2) Two smaller untrimmed sarsen stones lying near the vallum, not at the
same distance from it, the line joining them passing nearly, but not quite,
through the centre of the sarsen circle. The amplitude of the line joining
them is approximately 26° S. of E. and 26° N. of W. Of these stones, the
stump of the N.W. one is situated 22 feet from the top of the vallum
according to the Ordnance plan. The S.E. stone has fallen, but according to
careful observations and measurements by Mr. Penrose, when erect its
centre was 14 feet from the top of the vallum. The centre of the line joining
the stones is therefore about 4 feet to the S.E. of the axis of the present
circles, which, it may be stated, passes 3 feet to the N.W. of the N.W. edge
of the Friar’s Heel (see Fig. 24).

Fig. 24.—Map of the Stones made by the Ordnance Survey.[17] a, N.W. stone; b,
S.E. stone; c, Friar’s Heel; d, Slaughter stone.

There are besides these two large untrimmed sarsen stones, one standing
some distance outside the vallum, one recumbent lying on the vallum; both
nearly, but not quite, in the sunrise line as viewed from the centre of the
sarsen circle. These are termed the “Friar’s Heel” and “Slaughter Stone”
respectively.
I will deal with (1) first, and begin by another quotation from Mr.
Cunnington, who displayed great acumen in dealing with the smaller stones

not sarsens.
“The most important consideration connected with the smaller stones,
and one which in its archæological bearing has been too much overlooked,
is the fact of their having been brought from a great distance. I expressed an
opinion on this subject in a lecture delivered at Devizes more than eighteen
years ago, and I have been increasingly impressed with it since. I believe
that these stones would not have been brought from such a distance to a
spot where an abundance of building stones equally suitable in every
respect already existed, unless some special or religious value had been
attached to them. This goes far to prove that Stonehenge was originally a
temple, and neither a monument raised to the memory of the dead, nor an
astronomical calendar or almanac.
“It has been suggested that they were Danams, or the offerings of
successive votaries. Would there in such case have been such uniformity of
design, or would they have been all alike of foreign materials? I would
make one remark about the small impost of a trilithon of syenite, now lying
prostrate within the circle. One writer has followed another in taking it for
granted that there must have been a second, corresponding with it, on the
opposite side. Of this there is neither proof nor record, not a trace of one
having been seen by any person who has written on the subject. This small
impost, not being of sarsen, but syenite, must have belonged to the original
old circle; it may even have suggested to the builders of the present
Stonehenge the idea of the large imposts, and trilithons with their tenons
and mortices.”
In Prof. Gowland’s examination of the contents of the holes necessarily
dug in his operations, it was found over and over again, indeed almost
universally, that the quantity of blue stone chippings was much greater than
that from the sarsen stones. While the sarsen stones had only been worked
or tooled on their surface, the blue stones had been hewed and trimmed in
extraordinary fashion; indeed it is stated by Prof. Judd that they had been
reduced to half their original dimensions in this process, the chippings
almost equalling the volume of the stones themselves.
It seems, then, that when the sarsen stones were set up, the sarsen and
blue stones were treated very differently. This being so, the following
quotation from Prof. Judd’s “Note” is interesting (Archaeologia, lviii., p.
81):—

“I may repeat my conviction that if the prevalent beliefs and traditions
concerning Stonehenge were true, and the “bluestone” circles were
transported from some distant locality, either as trophies of war or as the
sacred treasures of a wandering tribe, it is quite inconceivable that they
should have been hewed and chipped, as we now know them to have been,
and reduced in some cases to half their dimensions, after having been
carried with enormous difficulty over land and water, and over hills and
valleys. On the other hand, in the glacial drift, which once probably thinly
covered the district, the glacial deposits dying out very gradually as we
proceed southwards, we have a source from which such stones might
probably have been derived. It is quite a well-known peculiarity of the
glacial drift to exhibit considerable assemblages of stones of a particular
character at certain spots, each of these assemblages having probably been
derived from the same source.
“I would therefore suggest as probable that when the early inhabitants of
this island commenced the erection of Stonehenge, Salisbury Plain was
sprinkled over thickly with the great white masses of the sarsen-stones
(‘grey wethers’), and much more sparingly with darker coloured boulders
(the so-called ‘blue-stones’), the last relics of the glacial drift, which have
been nearly denuded away. From these two kinds of materials the stones
suitable for the contemplated temple were selected. It is even possible that
the abundance and association of these two kinds of materials so strikingly
contrasted in colour and appearance, at a particular spot, may not only have
decided the site, but to some extent have suggested the architectural
features of the noble structure of Stonehenge.”
If we grant everything that Prof. Judd states, the question remains—why
did the same men in the same place at the same time treat the sarsen and
blue stones so differently?
I shall show subsequently that there is a definite answer to the question
on one assumption.
I next come to (2). The important point about these stones is that with the
amplitude 26°, at Stonehenge, a line from the centre of the circle over the
N.W. stone would mark the sunset place in the first week in May, and a line
over the S.E. stone would similarly deal with the November sunrise. We are
thus brought in presence of the May-November year.
Another point about these stones is that they are not at the same distance
from the centre of the sarsen stone circle, which itself is concentric with the

temenos mound; this is why they lie at different distances from the mound.
Further, a line drawn from the point of the Friar’s Heel over the now
recumbent Slaughter Stone with the amplitude determined by Mr. Penrose
and myself for the summer solstice sunrise in 1680 b.c. cuts the line joining
the stones at the middle point, suggesting that the four untrimmed sarsen
stones provided alignments both for the May and June years at about that
date.
Nor is this all; the so-called tumuli within the vallum (Fig. 10) may have
been observation mounds, for the lines passing from the northern tumulus
over the N.W. stone and from the southern tumulus over the S.E. one are
parallel to the avenue, and therefore represent the solstitial orientation.
So much, then, for the stones. We see that, dealing only with the
untrimmed sarsens that remain, the places of the May sunset and June and
November sunrises were marked from the same central point.
Statements have been made that there was the stump of another stone
near the vallum to the S.W., in the line of the Friar’s Heel and Slaughter
Stone, produced backwards, at the same distance from the old centre as the
N.W. and S.E. stones. This stone was not found in an exploration by Sir
Edmund Antrobus, Mr. Penrose and Mr. Howard Payn by means of a sword
and an auger. But the question will not be settled until surface digging is
permitted, as a “road” about which there is a present contention passes near
the spot.

Fig. 25.—The rod on the recumbent stone is placed in and along the common
axis of the present circle and avenue. It is seen that the Friar’s Heel, the top
of which is shown in the distance, would hide the sunrise place if the axis
were a little further to the S.E.

But even this is not the only evidence we have for the May worship in
early times. There is an old tradition of the slaughter of Britons by the
Saxons at Stonehenge, known as “The Treachery of the Long Knives”;
according to some accounts, 460 British chieftains were killed while
attending a banquet and conference. Now at what time of the year did this
take place? Was it at the summer solstice on June 21? I have gathered from
Guest’s “Mabinogion,” vol. ii. p. 433, and Davies’s “Mythology of the
British Druids,” p. 333, that the banquet took place on May eve
“Meinvethydd.” Is it likely that this date would have been chosen in a solar
temple dedicated exclusively to the solstice?
Now the theory to which my work and thought have led me is that the
megalithic structures at Stonehenge—the worked sarsens with their
mortices and lintels, and above all the trilithons of the magnificent naos—

represent a re-dedication and a reconstruction, on a more imposing plan and
scale, of a much older temple, which was originally used for worship in
connection with the May year.
[17] Plans and photographs of Stonehenge, &c., by Colonel Sir Henry James, R.E., F.R.S.,
Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, 1867.

CHAPTER X
THE MAY AND JUNE WORSHIPS IN BRITTANY

I purpose next to inquire whether in the wonderful series of Megalithic
remains in Brittany, remains more extensive than any in Britain, any light is
thrown on the suggestion I have made that the May Worship preceded the
Solstitial Worship at Stonehenge.
It has long been known that the stones which compose the prehistoric
remains in Brittany are generally similar in size and shape to those at
Stonehenge, but, as I have already stated, in one respect there is a vast
difference. Instead of a few, arranged in circles as at Stonehenge, we have
an enormous multitude of the so-called menhirs arranged in many parallel
lines for great distances. Some of these are unhewn like the Friar’s Heel,
some have as certainly been trimmed.
The literature which has been devoted to them is very considerable, but
the authors of it, for the most part, have taken little or no pains to master the
few elementary astronomical principles which are necessary to regard the
monuments from the point of view of orientation.
It is consoling to know that this cannot be said of the last published
contribution to our knowledge of this region, which we owe to Monsieur F.
Gaillard, a member of the Paris Anthropological Society and of the
Polymathic Society of Morbihan at Plouharnel.[18]
M. Gaillard is a firm believer in the orientation theory, and accepts the
view that a very considerable number of the alignments are solstitial. But
although he gives the correct azimuths for the solstitial points and also
figures showing the values of the obliquity of the ecliptic as far as 2200
b.c., his observations are not sufficiently precise to enable a final conclusion
to be drawn, and his method of fixing the alignments and the selection of
the index menhir are difficult to gather from his memoir and the small plans
which accompany it, which, alas! deal with compass bearings only.
All the same, those interested in such researches owe a debt of gratitude
to M. Gaillard for his laborious efforts to increase our knowledge, and will

sympathise with him at the manner in which his conclusions were treated
by the Paris anthropologists. One of them, apparently thinking that the place
of sun rising is affected by the precession of the equinoxes, used this
convincing argument:—“Si, à l’origine les alignements étaient orientés,
comme le pense M. Gaillard, ils ne le pourraient plus être aujourd’hui; au
contraire, s’ils le sont actuellement, on peut affirmer qu’ils ne l’étaient pas
alors!”
M. Gaillard is not only convinced of the solstitial orientation of the
avenues, but finds the same result in the case of the dolmens.
I cannot find any reference in the text to any orientations dealing with the
farmers’ years, that is with amplitudes of about 25° N. and S. of the E. and
W. points; but in the diagrams on pp. 78 and 127 I find both avenue and
dolmen alignments, which within the limits of accuracy apparently
employed may perhaps with justice be referred to them; but observations of
greater accuracy must be made, and details of the heights of the horizon at
the various points given, before anything certain can be said about them.
I append a reproduction of one of M. Gaillard’s plans, which will give an
idea of his use of the index menhir. It shows the alignments at Le Ménec,
lat. 471⁄2° (Fig. 26). The line A—Soleil runs across the stone alignments and
is fixed from A by the menhir B, but there does not seem any good reason
for selecting B except that it appears to fall in the line of the solstitial
azimuth according to M. Gaillard. But if we take this azimuth as N. 54° E.,
then we find the alignments to have an azimuth roughly of N. 66° E., which
gives us the amplitude of 24° N. marking the place of sunrise at the
beginning of the May and November years, and the alignments may have
dealt principally with those times of the year.
I esteem it a most fortunate thing that while I have been casting about as
to the best way of getting more accurate data, Lieutenant Devoir, of the
French Navy and therefore fully equipped with all the astronomical
knowledge necessary; who resides at Brest and has been studying the
prehistoric monuments in his neighbourhood for many years, has been good
enough to give me the results of his work in that region, in which the
problems seem to be simpler than further south; for while in the vicinity of
Carnac the menhirs were erected in groups numbering five or six thousand,
near Brest, lat. 481⁄2°, they are much more restricted in number. I am much
indebted to him for permission to use and publish his results.

Larger illustration
Fig. 26.—Alignments at Le Ménec.

Lieutenant Devoir, by his many well-planned and approximately accurate
observations, has put the solstitial orientation beyond question, and, further,
has made important observations which prove that the May and August
sunrises were also provided for in the systems of alignments. I give the
following extracts from his letter:—

Fig. 27.—Menhir (A) on Melon Island.

“It is about twelve years ago that I remarked in the west part of the
Department of Morbihan (near Lorient) the parallelism of the lines marked
out by monuments of all sorts, and frequently oriented to the N.E., or rather
between N. 50° E. and N. 55° E. I had ascertained, moreover, the existence
of lines perpendicular to the first named, the right angle being very well
measured.
“The plans, which refer to the cantons of Ploudalmézeau and of St.
Renan (district of Brest) and of Crozon (district of Chateaulin), have been
made on a plane-table; the orientations are exact to one or two degrees.
“In the cantons of Ploudalmézeau and of St. Renan, the monuments are
generally simple; seven menhirs are visible of enormous dimensions,
remarkable by the polish of their surface and the regularity of their section.
The roughnesses hardly ever reach a centimetre; the sections are more often
ovals, sometimes rectangles with the angles rounded or terminated by

semicircles. In the canton of Crozon the monuments are, on the contrary,
complex; we find a cromlech with an avenue leading to it of a length of 800
metres, another of 300 metres. Unfortunately, the rocks employed
(sandstone and schist from Plungastel and Crozon) have resisted less well
than the granulite from the north part of the Department. The monuments
are for the most part in a very bad condition; the whole must, nevertheless,
formerly have been comparable with that of Carnac-Leomariaquer.

Fig. 28.—Melon Island, showing Menhir (A) and Cromlech (B and C).

“For the two regions, granitic and schistose, the results of the
observations are identical.
“The monuments lie along lines oriented S. 54° W. → N. 54° E. (54° =
azimuth at the solstices for L = 48° 30′ and i = 23° 30′) and N. 54° W. → S.
54° E. Some of them determine lines perpendicular to the meridian.

Fig. 29.—Menhirs of St. Dourzal, D, E, F.

“One menhir (A), 6m. 90 in height and 9m. 20 in circumference, erected
in the small island of Melon (canton of Ploudalmézeau, latitude 48° 29′
05″) a few metres from a tumulus surrounded by the ruins of a cromlech (B
and C), has the section such that the faces, parallel and remarkably plane,
are oriented N. 54° E. (Figs. 27 and 28).
“At 1300 metres in the same azimuth there is a line of three large menhirs
(D, E, F), of which one (E) is overthrown. The direction of the line passes
exactly by the menhir A. Prolonged towards the N.E. it meets at 3k. 700m.
an overturned block of 2m. 50 in height, which is without doubt a menhir;

towards the S.W. it passes a little to the south some lines of the island of
Molène.... (Fig. 29).

Fig. 30.—Alignment at Lagatjar, G G′.

“There exists in the neighbourhood other groups, forming also lines of
the same orientation and that of the winter solstice. It is advisable to remark
that orientations well determined for the solstices are much less so for the
equinoxes, which is natural, the rising amplitude varying very rapidly at this
time of year.
“The same general dispositions are to be found in the complex
monuments of the peninsula of Crozon. I take for example the alignments
of Lagatjar. Two parallel lines of menhirs, G G′ H H′, are oriented to S. 54°
E. and cut perpendicularly by a third line, I I′. There existed less than fifty
years ago a menhir at K, 6 metres high, which is to-day broken and
overturned. This megalith, known in the country by the name of ‘pierre du
Conseil’ (a bronze axe was found underneath it) gives with a dolmen
situated near Camaret the direction of the sunrise on June 21 (Fig. 31).

Fig. 31.—Alignments at Lagatjar, showing the pierre du Conseil and the direction of the dolmen.
From the pierre du Conseil the dolmen marks the sunrise place at the summer solstice, and the
avenue G G′ H H′ the sunset place on the same day.

“I have just spoken of the lines perpendicular to the solstitial one; there
exists more especially in the complex monuments another particularity
which merits attention. Between two monuments, M and N, on a solstitial
line, sometimes other menhirs are noticed, the line joining them being
inclined 12° to the solstitial line, always towards the east” (Fig. 32).
I must call particular attention to this important observation of Lieutenant
Devoir, for it gives us the amplitude 24° N., the direction of sunrise at the
beginning of the May and August years. It shows, moreover, that, as at Le
Ménec according to M. Gaillard, the solstitial and May-August directions
were both provided for at the monuments in the neighbourhood of Brest so
carefully studied by Lieutenant Devoir.

Fig. 32.—Menhirs, M N on N.E.-S.W. solstitial alignment. Menhirs 1, 2, on May-August years
alignment, sunrise May-August, sunset November-February.

Lieutenant Devoir points out the wonderful regularity of form and the
fine polish of many of the menhirs. It will have been gathered from his
account that those most carefully trimmed and tooled belong to the solstitial
alignments. The one at Kerloas (11 metres high) heads the list in point of
size; others in the island of Melon (7 metres), at Kergadion (8 metres and
10 metres), Kerenneur, Kervaon and Kermabion follow suit. He considers
them to have been erected at the time of the highest civilisation of the
Megalithic peoples. He also states that these regularly formed menhirs do
not exist at Carnac, or in the region of Pont l’Abbé, so rich in other remains
which certainly refer chiefly to the May-November year. It seems, then, that

in these localities the May-August worship first chiefly predominated, and
that the index menhirs of M. Gaillard which indicate the solstice and which
do not form part of the alignments were erected subsequently.
Finally, then, the appeal to Brittany is entirely in favour of the May-
November year worship having preceded the solstitial one.
I have already stated the evidence at Stonehenge that the sunrise at the
beginning of the May and August years was observed in an earlier temple
which existed before the present structure existed. Were this so we have
another point common to the British and Breton monuments. I therefore
think that I may justly claim the Brittany evidence as entirely in favour of
the suggestion put forward in Chap. IX with regard to Stonehenge.
[18] “L’Astronomie Préhistorique.” Published in “Les Sciences Populaires, revue mensuelle
internationale,” and issued separately by the administration des “Sciences populaires,”
15 Rue Lebrun, Paris.

CHAPTER XI
ASTRONOMICAL HINTS FOR ARCHÆOLOGISTS

The foregoing chapters will have shown that in dealing with the ancient
monuments from an astronomical point of view, we have to consider chiefly
the direction of the sight-lines, whether they are marked as in Brittany by
long rows of stones—alignments; as at Stonehenge by an avenue; as in
some of our British circles, by two or more circles the direction being
indicated from the central stone of one to the central stone of the other, or
finally by a single standing stone or barrow.
It is important then that before we proceed further in our inquiries we
should consider how a meaning is got out of these directions, and I propose
to devote this chapter to this question, so that the full use of the “azimuths”
already referred to and others which are to follow may be fully understood.
There is another matter, at which I hinted on pp. 36 and 42. We have to
inquire whether there are any stones or barrows marking the direction of the
rising or setting of stars, as well as those which deal with the rising and
setting of the sun at different times of the year, which we have already
found at Stonehenge and in Brittany. To face this question we have to
consider the stellar as well as solar conditions of observations, and as the
former are the simpler I will begin with them, especially as now there is no
question whatever that the rising and setting of stars were provided for.
In continuation of my work in Egypt in 1891, and Mr. Penrose’s in
Greece in 1892, I have recently endeavoured to see whether there are any
traces in Britain of star observations, including those connected with the
worship of the sun at certain times of the year. We both discovered that
stars, far out of the sun’s course, especially in Egypt, were observed in the
dawn as heralds of sunrise—“warning-stars”—so that the priests might
have time to prepare the sunrise sacrifice. To do this properly the star
should rise while the sun is still about 10° below the horizon. There is also
reason to believe that stars rising not far from the north point were also used
as clock-stars to enable the time to be estimated during the night in the

same way as the time during the day could be estimated by the position of
the sun.
I stated (Dawn of Astronomy, p. 319) that Spica was the star the heliacal
rising of which heralded the sun on May-day 3200 b.c. in the temple of
Menu at Thebes. Sirius was associated with the summer solstice at about
the same time.
Mr. Penrose found this May-day worship continued at Athens on
foundations built in 1495 b.c. and 2020 b.c., on which the Hecatompedon
and older Erechtheum respectively were subsequently built, the warning
star being now no longer Spica, but the cluster of the Pleiades rising, or
Antares setting, in the dawn.
It is generally known that Stonehenge is associated with the solstitial
year, and I have suggested that it was originally connected with the May
year; but the probable date of its re-dedication, 1680 b.c., was determined
by Mr. Penrose and myself by the change of obliquity.
Now if Stonehenge or any other British stone circle could be proved to
have used observations of warning stars, the determination of the date when
such observations were made would be enormously facilitated. Mr. Penrose
and myself were content to think that our date might be within 200 years of
the truth, whereas if we could use the rapid movement of stars in
declination brought about by the precession of the equinoxes, instead of the
slow change of the sun’s declination brought about by the change of the
value of the obliquity, a possible error of 200 years would be reduced to one
of 10 years.
In spite of this enormous advantage, no one so far as I know has yet
made any inquiry to connect star observations with any of the British
circles.
I have recently obtained clear evidence that some circles in different parts
of Britain were used for night work and also in relation to the May year,
which we know was general over the whole of Europe in early times, and
which still determines the quarter-days in Scotland.
If the Egyptian and Greek practice were continued here, we should
expect then to find some indications of the star observations utilised at the
temple of Min and at the Hecatompedon for the beginning, or the other
chief months, of the May year.
I have found them, and I will now show the method employed.

To begin with, if we assume that the astronomer-priests here did attempt
such observations, what is the most likely way in which they would have
gone to work?
The easiest way for the astronomer-priests to conduct such observations
in a stone circle would be to erect a stone or barrow indicating the direction
of the place on the horizon at which the star would rise as seen from the
centre of the circle. If the dawn the star was to herald occurred in the
summer, the stone or barrow itself might be visible if not too far away, but
there was a reason why they should not be too close; in a solemn
ceremonial the less seen of the machinery the better.
Doubtless such stones and barrows would be rendered obvious in the
dark by a light placed on or near them. Cups which could hold oil or grease
are known in connection with such stones, and a light thus fed would
suffice in the open if there were no wind; but in windy weather a cromlech
or some similar shelter must have been provided for it.
Now if these standing stones or barrows were ever erected and still
remain, accurate plans—not the slovenly plans with which Ferguson and
too many others have provided us, giving us either no indication of the
north or any other point, or else a rough compass bearing without taking the
trouble to state the variation at the time and place—will help us.
I have already pointed out that much time has been lost in the
investigation of our stone circles, for the reason that in many cases the exact
relations of the monuments to the chief points of the horizon, and therefore
to the place of sunrise at different times of the year, have not been
considered; and when they were, the observations were made only with
reference to the magnetic north, which is different at different places, and
besides is always varying; few indeed have tried to get at the real
astronomical conditions of the problem. The first, I think, was Mr. Jonathan
Otley, who in 1849 showed the “orientation” of the Keswick circle
“according to the solar meridian,” giving true solar bearings throughout the
year.
In my opinion the most accurate plans conceivable, in the absence of a
long and minute local inquiry, are the 25-inch maps of the Ordnance
Survey, on which, I have it on the authority of Colonel Johnston the
distinguished Director, each stone may be taken to be shown with a limit of
error of 6 feet. With a large circular protractor azimuths can be read to one
minute of arc, and in critical cases the true azimuth of the side lines, which

are not necessarily meridians as latitudes are not marked, can be found on
inquiry at the Ordnance Office, Southampton.
Having then true azimuths, the next question concerns the declinations of
the stars which may have been observed.
The work of Stockwell in America, Danckworth in Germany,[19] and Dr.
W. J. S. Lockyer in England, has provided us with tables of the changing
declinations of stars throughout past time, or enough of it for our purpose.
An accurate determination on the 25-inch map of either the azimuth
(angular distance from the N. or S. points) or amplitude (angular distance
from the E. or W. points) of the stone or barrow as seen from the centre of
the stone circle will enable us to determine the declination of the star at the
time when it was observed.
I give a diagram which enables this determination to be made with the
greatest ease for any monuments between Land’s End and John o’ Groats,
whether the direction is recorded by amplitude or azimuth; the declination
is read at the side from the value of either indicated, say, by a dot, at the
proper latitude.
This, of course, only gives us a first approximation. The angular height of
the point on the horizon to which the alignment or sight-line is directed by
the stone or barrow from the centre of the circle must be most accurately
determined, otherwise the declinations may be one or two degrees out.
In the absence of measurements it is convenient to assume, in the first
instance, that the horizon is half a degree high, as with this elevation
refraction is compensated, as the following table will show:
Elevation
of actual Bessel’s Combined
horizon. refraction. effect.
0° 0′0″ 34′54″ -34′54″
0°10′ 32′49″ -22′49″
20′ 30′52″ -10′52″
30′ 29′ 3·5″ +0′56·5″
40′ 27′22·7″ +12′37·3″
50′ 25′49·8″ +24′10·2″
1° 0′ 24′24·6″ +35′35·4″

In the absence of theodolite observations the actual elevation of the
horizon can be roughly found by a study of the contour lines on the 1-inch
map. The following heights will agree with the previous assumption of hills
1
⁄2° high:

Distance 1 mile Height = 46 feet
„ 2 miles „ = 92 „
„ 4 „ „ = 184 „
„ 8 „ „ = 368 „
„ 10 „ „ = 460 „

Larger diagram
Fig. 33.—Diagram for finding declination from given amplitudes or azimuths in British latitudes.

Curves represent (from top) Lat. 49°,
51°, 53°, 55°, 57° and 59°.

I also give other diagrams showing the changing declinations of the
brightest stars, those which would naturally be observed, between the years
150 a.d. and 2150 b.c. These have been plotted from the calculations of the
authorities I have named.
Fig. 34 deals with the Northern stars. The stars are numbered as
follows:—
Number. Name of star.
1 β Ursae Minoris.
2 α Ursae Minoris (Polaris).

3 α Draconis.
4 α Ursae Majoris (Dubhe).
5 γ Ursae Majoris.
6 η Ursae Majoris (Benetnasch).
7 γ Draconis.
8 β Cassiopeiae.
9 α Cassiopeiae.
10 α Persei.
11 α Aurigae (Capella).
12 α Cygni.
13 α Lyrae (Vega).
14 α Coronae.
15 α Geminorum (Castor).
16 β Geminorum (Pollux).
17 α Boötes (Arcturus).
18 β Leonis.
19 α Leonis (Regulus).
20 α Andromedae.
21 η Tauri (Alcyone).
22 α Tauri (Aldebaran).
23 α Canis Minoris (Procyon).
24 α Aquilae.
25 α Orionis (Betelgeuse).
26 α Virginis (Spica).

On Fig. 35, dealing with the Southern stars, the names are given along
the curves.
Now supposing that we have our plans; that we have determined the
azimuth of the sight lines; and have found the declination of the star
observed; we may find more than one star occupying that declination at
various dates.

Larger diagram
Fig. 34.—Declinations of Northern Stars from 250 a.d. to
2150 b.c.

Which of these stars, then, must we consider?
Obviously those most conveniently situated for enabling the time to be
estimated during the night, or those which could have been used as warning
stars.

Larger diagram
Fig. 35.—Declinations of Southern Stars from 250 a.d. to
2150 b.c.
α Ceti, α Aquarii, β Orionis, α Capricorni, α Canis Majoris, α
Scorpii, α Columbæ, α Pisces Austr., η Argûs, α Centauri, α
Argûs, α Crucis, α Gruis, and α Eridani.

The warning stars can be conveniently picked up by using a precessional
globe. From it we gather that about 1900, 1400 and 800 b.c. they were as
follows for the critical times of the May year, i.e. May, August, November,
February:—

1900 b.c. 1400 b.c. 800 b.c.
May Castor rising N. 41° E. Pleiades N. 77° E. Pleiades rising N. 71° E.
rising
Antares setting S. 75° W. Antares S. 72° W.
setting
August Arcturus circumpolar. Arcturus N. 17° E. Sirius rising S. 63° E.
rising
With hill 3′ high:—
Rising.
Date 2170 b.c. N. 11°15′ E.
Date 2090 b.c. N. 14°18′ E.
Date 1900 b.c. N. 18°44′ E.
November Betelgeuse N. 87° W.
setting
February Capella rising N. 36° E. Capella N. 28° E. Capella rising N. 21° E.
rising

For the solstices, that is, June and December, the following stars might be
used as warners:—
1900 b.c. 1400 b.c. 800 b.c.
Summer Betelgeuse N. 87° E. Betelgeuse N. 90° E. γ Geminorum N. 68° E.
Solstice rising rising rising
Arcturus N. 18° W. Arcturus setting N. 16° W. (“Alhena” mag. 1·9.)
setting (late)
with hill 3′
high
α Serpentis N. 53° W.
setting
Winter Sheat rising N. 72° E. Castor setting N. 37° W. α Capricorni S. 66° E.
Solstice (early) rising
Markab rising S. 89° E. Pollux setting N. 42° W.
(late)

It is obvious that a star used all the year round for night work will warn
the sunrise at some one of the yearly festivals.
When the stars having the same declinations are considered from this
point of view, the star actually used, and therefore the date of its use, may
generally be gathered. I shall show subsequently that some of the stars in
the above lists were actually observed in British as well as in Grecian
temples.
[19] Dr. O. Danckworth, Vierteljahrschrift der Astronomischen Gesellschaft, 16. Jahrgang
1881, p. 9. Dr. Stockwell’s results have been communicated to me by letter. Some, but
not all, of Dr. Lockyer’s calculations appeared in The Dawn of Astronomy.

CHAPTER XII
ASTRONOMICAL HINTS FOR ARCHÆOLOGISTS—Continued.

I next come to the sun observations.
First we must consider the astronomical differences between the rising of
a star and of the sun, by which we generally mean that small part of the
sun’s limb first visible.
It is frequently imagined that for determining the exact place of sunrise
or sunset in connection with these ancient monuments we have to deal with
the sun’s centre, as we should do with the sun half risen. As a matter of fact,
we must consider that part of the sun’s limb which first makes its
appearance above the horizon; the first glimpse of the upper limb of the sun
is in question, say, when the visible limb is 2′ high; and we must carefully
take the height of the hills over which it rises into account.
The accompanying diagram will at once show the difference between the
rising conditions we have now to consider. It deals with the summer
solstice, as being the most precise case, in Lat. 59° N.
At this time the position of the sun, that is of the sun’s centre, as given in
the “Nautical Almanac,” is represented by the double circle on the sea
horizon.

Larger diagram
Fig. 36.—The Conditions of “Sunrise” at the Summer Solstice in Lat. 59° N.

Vertical axis from bottom: Altitudes sea horizon, hill 1⁄2° high, hill 1° high, hill 11⁄2° high.
Horizontal axis from left: Azimuths N 37°-42° E.

The azimuth of this position is N. 39° 16′ E. This is the equivalent of the
declination of a star, but it will be seen that the real azimuths we want are
very different. The dotted circles represent the actual position of the sun
with regard to the horizon, the continuous circles the apparent positions
caused by the lifting-up effect of refraction. We have the positions in
azimuth of the apparent sun as it appears on a sea horizon, and when the
horizon is formed by hills up to 11⁄2° in vertical height.
To make this quite clear I give a table which has been computed by Mr.
Rolston, of the Solar Physics Observatory, showing azimuths with hills up
to 11⁄2° high for lat. 59° N., and 51° N. nearly the latitude of Stonehenge, of
the sun’s upper limb for the summer solstice:—
Lat. 59° Lat. 51°
Rising N-E Rising N-E
Summer
or or
Solstice.
Setting N-W. Setting N-W.
° ′ ° ′
Sun’s centre; uncorrected 39 16 50 40

sea horizon 37 1 49 20
Sun’s upper limb; corrected for semi-diameter and hill 1⁄2° high 38 34 50 16
-
refraction „ 1° „ 40 8 51 12
1
„ 1 ⁄2° „ 41 30 52 4

Rising S-E Rising S-E
Winter
or or
Solstice.
Setting S-W. Setting S-W.
° ′ ° ′
Sun’s centre; uncorrected 39 16 50 40
sea horizon 41 24 52 0
Sun’s upper limb; corrected for semi-diameter and 1
hill ⁄2° high 39 54 51 4
-
refraction „ 1° „ 38 23 50 8
1
„ 1 ⁄2° „ 36 54 49 14

The first important thing we learn from the table is that although at both
solstices the azimuths of the rising and setting of the sun’s centre are the
same, these azimuths of the upper limb at the summer and winter solstices
differ in a high northern latitude by some 5°. The difference arises, of
course, from the fact that the limb is some 16′ from the sun’s centre, so that
considering the sun’s centre as a star with fixed declination, at rising the
limb appears before the centre, and at setting it lags behind it.

Larger diagram
Fig. 37.—The Azimuths of the Sunrise (upper limb) at the Summer Solstice.
The values given in the table have been plotted, and the effect of the height of hills on the azimuth
is shown. The range of latitude given enables the diagram to be used in connection with the
solstitial alignments at Carnak, Le Ménac, and other monuments in Brittany.

Vertical axis from bottom: lat. 47-59.
Horizontal axis from left: azimuths 37-56.
Curves from left: sea horizon, hills 1⁄2°, 1°, 11⁄2°

It will also be seen that at sunrise hills increase the azimuth from N., and
refraction reduces it; while at setting, hills reduce the azimuth from S. and
refraction increases it.
This diagram and table should fully explain the variation of azimuth at
sunrise caused by the fact that from our present point of view we do not
deal with the sun as a star.
To make the foregoing applicable for monuments in all latitudes between
Brittany and the Orkneys, I give still another diagram, Fig. 37, also
prepared for me by Mr. Rolston which will enable any archæologist to
determine approximately, for the present time, the azimuth of sunrise at the
summer solstice, without waiting for the 21st of June in any year actually to
observe it.
As before stated, I have dealt with the solstice in this chapter because it
affords us the most precise case. I hope to be able to deal with the May year
sun in the same way later on.

CHAPTER XIII
STENNESS (Lat. 59° N.).

I wrote a good deal in Nature[20] on sun and star temples in 1891, and Mr.
Lewis the next year expressed the opinion that the British stone
monuments, or some of them, were sun and star temples.
Mr. Magnus Spence, of Deerness, in Orkney, published a pamphlet,
“Standing Stones and Maeshowe of Stenness,”[21] in 1894; it is a reprint of
an article in the Scottish Review, October, 1893, showing that the stones
were set up for solar worship. Mr. Cursiter, F.S.A., of Kirkwall, in a letter to
me dated March 15, 1894, a letter suggested by my “Dawn of Astronomy,”
which appeared in that year, and in which the articles which had been
published in Nature in 1891 had been expanded, directed my attention to
the pamphlet.
I began the consideration of the Stenness circles and alignments in 1901,
but other pressing calls on my time then caused me to break off the inquiry.
Quite recently it occurred to me that a complete study of the Stenness
circles might throw light on the question of an earlier Stonehenge, so I have
gone over the old papers, plotting the results on the Ordnance map.

Fig. 38.—Maeshowe, in the foreground, and the Stones of Stenness. From “Notice of Runic
Inscriptions,” by James Farrer, M.P. (1862).

Now that the inquiry is as complete as I can make it without spending
some time in Orkney with a theodolite, I will begin my reference to other
circles besides Stonehenge by stating the conclusions at which I have
arrived with regard to the stones of Stenness.
In the first place I may state that although many of the alignments to
which Mr. Spence refers in his pamphlet on Maeshowe prove to be very
different from those he supposed and drew on the map which accompanies
his paper, the main point of his contention is amply confirmed.
I give a copy of the Ordnance map showing the true orientation of these
and of other sight-lines I have made out.
The alignments on which Mr. Spence chiefly depended were two, one
running from the stone circle past the entrance of Maeshowe to the place of
sunrise at Hallowe’en (November 1), another from the same circle by the
Barnhouse standing stone to the mid-winter sunrise at the solstice.
Although the map gives these sight-lines, I shall show that they had not
the use Mr. Spence attributes to them; but still observations of the sun were
provided for on the days in question, and the circles and outstanding stones
were undoubtedly set up to guide astronomical observations relating to the
different times of the year. Of course, as I have shown elsewhere, such

astronomical observations were always associated with religious
celebrations of one kind or another, as the astronomer and the priest were
one.

Larger map
Fig. 39.—Copy of Ordnance Map showing chief sight-lines from the stones of Stenness.

I shall not refer to all the sight-lines indicated, but deal only with those
which I have without local knowledge been able to test and justify by
means of the 25-inch Ordnance map.
Not only does calculation prove the worship of the May and June years,
but I think the facts now before us really go to show that in Orkney the May
year was the first established, and that the solstitial (June) year came
afterwards, and this was one of the chief questions I had in view.
I will begin with the May year. I have already shown, p. 22, that the half-
way time between an equinox and a solstice is when the sun’s centre has a
declination approximately 16° 20′ N. or S. In Orkney, with the latitude of
59°, assuming a sea horizon, the approximate amplitude of sunrise or sunset
is 33° 6′, the corresponding azimuth being 56° 54′.

Now the most interesting and best defined line near this azimuth on the
Ordnance map is the one stretching S.E. from the centre of the Stenness
circle to the Barnstone, with an azimuth of 57° 15′. The line contains
between the two points I have named another stone, the Watchstone, 181⁄2
feet high, in the precise alignment; and from the statements made and
measures given it is to be inferred that a still more famous and perforated
stone, the “Stone of Odin,” demolished seventy years since, was also in the
same line within the extremities named.
If we may accept this we learn something about perforated stones, and
can understand most of the folk lore associated with them, and few have
more connected with them than the one at Stenness. I suggest that the
perforation, which was in this case 5 feet from the ground, was used by the
astronomer-priest to view the sunrise in November over the Barnhouse
stone in one direction, and the sunset in May over the circle in the other. I
hope to be able to return to this question subsequently.
There is another echo of this fundamental line; that joining the Ring of
Bookan and the Stones of Via has the same azimuth and doubtless served
the same purpose for the May year.
But this line, giving us the May sunset and November sunrise, not the
December solstitial sunrise as Mr. Spence shows it, is not the only
orientation connected with the May year at the stones of Stenness. The
November sunset is provided for by a sight-line from the circle to a stone
across the Loch of Stenness with an azimuth of S. 53° 30′ W.
To apply the table, given on p. 120, to the solstitial risings and settings at
Stenness, and the sight-lines which I have plotted on the map, it will be
seen that the table shows us that the lines marked
S. 41° 0′ E.
N. 41° 16′ E S. 36° 30′ W.

are solstitial lines; to get exact agreement with the table the heights of the
hills must be found and allowed for.
I have roughly determined this height from the 1-inch map in the case of
the Barnstone-Maeshowe alignment. On the N.E. horizon are the Burrien
Hills, four miles away, 600 feet high at the sunrise place, gradually
ascending to the E., vertical angle = 1° 36′ 30″. The near alignment is on
and over the centre of Maeshowe. Colonel Johnston, the Director-General

of the Ordnance Survey, has informed me that the true azimuth of this
bearing is N. 41° 16′ E., and in all probability it represents the place of
sunrise as seen from the Barnstone when Maeshowe was erected. What is
most required in Orkney now is that some one with a good 6-inch theodolite
should observe the sun’s place of rising and the angular height of the hills at
the next summer solstice in order to determine the date of the erection of
Maeshowe. Mr. Spence and others made an attempt to determine this value
with a sextant in 1899, but not from the Barnstone.
In the absence of this observation we may use the diagram given on p.
121. With the height of hill previously given the sun should rise according
to calculation at about the azimuth N. 41° 50′ E.
The difference between the new and old azimuth then, on the assumption
that az. N. 41° 16′ E. really represents an observation over Maeshowe, gives
us the difference of date.
Treating these figures then as we have done in the case of Stonehenge in
Chapter VII, the result is as follows. The Barnhouse-Maeshowe line was
established about 700 b.c., when the obliquity had a value of 23° 48′
according to Stockwell’s tables. (Fig. 40.)
I confess the late date does not surprise me. The masonry of Maeshowe
differs widely from that of other similar structures in that the sides of the
gallery and chamber, instead of being composed of upright stones, are built
in regular courses.
I do not believe that the Maeshowe structure was built to observe a
winter sunrise twenty days from the solstice, nor can I think it was set up at
midsummer by someone who had only dealt with a high sun and a sea
horizon, and imagined that the sunrise and sunset points were exactly
opposite to each other. It was a priest’s house, and the alignment of the
passage to the Barnstone was for the exchange of signals, probably by lights
in Maeshowe itself.

Larger diagram
Fig. 40.—Variation of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic, 100 a.d.-4000 b.c.
(Stockwell’s Values.)

Horizontal axis: Years. From left: ad 0-bc 4000.
Vertical axis: Obliquity. From bottom: 23.40-
24.10.

The Ordnance maps give no indication of stones, &c., by which the
direction of the midsummer setting or the midwinter rising and setting
might have been indicated from either the Maeshowe or the Barnstone.
To sum up the solar alignments from the circle.
We have the May sunrise marked by the top of Burrien Hill, from 600 to
700 feet high, Az. 59° 30′.
We have the November sunset marked by a standing stone on the other
side of the Loch of Stenness, Az. 53° 30′.
June rising, Line from Barnstone over Maeshowe tumulus.
December rising, tumulus (Az. 41°) on Ward Hill.
December setting, tumulus Onston 36° 30′.

It is not a little remarkable that the summer solstice rising and the winter
solstice rising and setting seem to have been provided for at the Stenness
circle by alignment on the centres of tumuli, two of them, across the Loch,
one the Onston tumulus to the S.W. (Az. 36° 30′), the other tumulus being
on Ward Hill to the S.E., Az. 41° (rough measurement).
If the Maeshowe tumulus was a structure erected at the time I have
suggested to use the Barnstone for the summer solstice rising; then these
two other tumuli, to deal with the winter solstice at Stenness circle, may
have been built at the same time. All these provided for a new cult.
There are also tumuli near the line (which cannot be exactly determined
because the heights of the hills are unknown) of the summer solstice
setting; none was required for the sunrise at this date, as the line passes over
the highest point of Hindera fiold, a natural tumulus more than 500 feet
high, and on that account a triangulation station.
Another argument in favour of the tumuli being additions to the original
design is that the place of the November setting from the Stenness circle is
marked, not by a tumulus, but by a standing stone. As this stone, near
Deepdale, and the tumulus at Onston are only about 1200 yards apart, the
suggestion may be made that under certain unknown conditions and
possibly in later times tumuli in some cases replaced stones as collimation
marks.
With regard to the clock-star, it is to be feared that the stones in the N.E.
quadrant as viewed from the circle which might have given us a clue have
been removed. As the latitude of Stenness is N. 59°, some star with a less
declination than N. 31° would have been chosen, assuming that the sky-line
towards the N. point is not very high.
[20] See especially Nature, July 2, 1891, p. 201.
[21] Gardner: Paisley and London.

CHAPTER XIV
THE HURLERS (Lat. 50° 31′ N.)

The sight-lines to which I have drawn attention in relation to the stones
of Stenness had to do with the places of sunrise and sunset in the May and
Solstitial years. I now pass to another group of circles in which we deal
chiefly with the places of star-rise and star-set, some of the stars being used
as warners for sunrise at the critical times of the two years in question.
Following the clue given me in the case of the Egyptian temples, such as
Luxor, by successive small changes of the axis necessitated by the change
in a star’s place due to precession, I began this stellar branch of the inquiry
by looking out for this peculiarity in an examination of many maps and
plans of circles.
I very soon came across two examples in which the sight-line had been
changed in the Egyptian manner. The first is the three circles of the Hurlers,
some 5 miles to the north of Liskeard, a plan of which is given in
“Prehistoric Stone Monuments of the British Isles: Cornwall,” by W. C.
Lukis, Rector of Wath, Yorkshire, published by the Society of Antiquaries,
who were so good as to furnish me with a copy, and also some unfolded
plans on which sight-lines could be accurately drawn and their azimuths
determined. I am anxious to express my obligations to the council and
officers of the society for the help thus afforded me.
The three circles are thus referred to by Lukis in the valuable monograph
which I have already mentioned.
“On the moor, about a mile to the south of the singular pile of granite
slabs, which rest upon and overlap each other, and is vulgarly called the
Cheesewring, there are three large circles of granite stones placed in a
nearly straight line in a north-north-east, and south-south-west direction, of
which the middle one is the largest, being 135 feet in diameter, the north
110 feet, and the south 105 feet.
“The north Circle is 98 feet, and the south 82 feet from the central one. If
a line be drawn uniting the centres of the extreme Circles, the centre of the

middle ring is found to be 12 feet 6 inches to the west of it.
“These Circles have been greatly injured. The largest consists of 9 erect
and 5 prostrate stones; the north Circle has 6 erect and 6 prostrate, and a
fragment of a seventh; and the south has 3 erect and 8 prostrate. In Dr.
Borlase’s time they were in a slightly better condition. A pen-and-ink sketch
made by him, which is extant in one of Dr. Stukeley’s volumes of original
drawings, represents the middle Circle as consisting of 7 erect and 10
prostrate stones; the north of 10 erect and 6 prostrate; and the south of 3
erect and 9 prostrate. The stone to the east of that marked C in the plan of
the middle Circle is the highest, and is 5 feet 8 inches out of the ground, and
appears to have been wantonly mutilated recently. Two of the prostrate
stones of the north Circle are 6 feet 6 inches in length.
“About 17 feet south from the centre of the middle Circle there is a
prostrate stone 4 feet long and 15 inches wide at one end. It may possibly
have been of larger dimensions formerly, and been erected on the spot
where it now lies, but as Dr. Borlase has omitted it in his sketch it is
probably a displaced stone of the ring.
“If we allow, as before, an average interval of 12 feet between the stones,
there will have been about 28 pillars in the north, 26 in the south, and 33 in
the middle Circle.
“At a distance of 409 feet westwards from K in the middle Circle there
are 2 stones, 7 feet apart, both inclined northwards. One is 4 feet 11 inches
in height out of the ground, and overhangs its base 2 feet 7 inches; the other
is 5 feet 4 inches high, and overhangs 18 inches.”
I now pass from a general description of the circles to the azimuths of the
sight-lines already referred to, so far as they can be determined from the
published Ordnance maps.
To investigate them as completely as possible without local observations
in the first instance, I begged Colonel Johnston, R.E., C.B., the Director-
General of the Ordnance Survey, to send me the 25-inch maps of the site
giving the exact azimuth of the side lines. This he obligingly did, and I have
to express my great indebtedness to him.
In Fig. 41 I show the sight-lines from the south and north Circles as
determined by the stones and barrows marked on the map. The sight-lines
on Arcturus are from the centres of the three circles in succession. I shall
point out later the significance of the fact that the November alignments are
from the south, the solstitial ones from the north Circle.

Larger map
Fig. 41.—The Sight-lines at the Hurlers.

Of the various sight-lines found, those to which I wish to direct attention
in the first instance, and which led me to the others, are approximately,
reading the azimuths to the nearest degree,
Lat. 50° 31′ N. Az.
S. circle to central circle N. 12° E.
Central to N. circle N. 15° E.
N. circle to tumulus N. 19° E.

In a preliminary inquiry in anticipation of the necessary local
observations with a theodolite, I assumed hills half a degree high, for the
reason given on p. 112. We have the following declinations
approximately:—
Dec. N. 381⁄2°
„ 38°
„ 37°

Here, then, we have declinations to work on, but declinations of what
star? To endeavour to answer this question I studied the declinations of the
three brightest stars in the northern heavens, having approximately the
declinations in question some time or other during the period 0 to 2500 b.c.
Vega is ruled out as its declination was too high. The remaining stars
Capella and Arcturus may have been observed so far as the declinations go.
For time limits we have:—
Dec. N. Capella. Arcturus.
381⁄2° 500 b.c. 1600 b.c.
36° 1050 „ 1150 „

Now there is no question as to which of these two stars we have to deal
with, for the northern circle is evidently less ancient than the others, for
some of the stones are squared and the others are less irregular than those in
the S. circle.
This being so, the approximate dates of the use of the three circles at the
Hurlers can be derived. They are, with the above assumption:—
b.c.
Southern circle aligning Arcturus over centre of central circle 1600
Central „ „ „ N. circle 1500
Northern „ „ „ tumulus 1300

The next step was to obtain, by means of a large circular protractor, more
accurate readings of the Ordnance Map. This I could do, but the all
important question of the angular height of the horizon remained. As it was
impossible for me to leave London when the significance of the alignments
was made out, I appealed to the authorities of the Royal Cornwall
Polytechnic Society for aid in obtaining the necessary angles, and as a
result, Captain J. S. Henderson, of Falmouth, an accomplished surveyor,
volunteered his aid and shortly sent me the angular heights along some of
the alignments, the means of eight readings obtained with a 6-inch

theodolite, both verniers and reversed telescopes being employed. Other
students of science besides myself will, I am sure, feel their indebtedness
for such opportune help.
The combination of the large protractor and theodolite work gives the
following final values. The difference between them and the provisional
ones given above speaks volumes as to the necessity of a local study of the
height of the horizon, a point I believe invariably neglected by
archæologists.

FINAL VALUES.

Arcturus from S. circle to central circle.
Az. N. 11° 15′ E. Hills, 3° 23′ 52″ high.
Dec. = 41° 38′ Date, 2170 b.c.

Arcturus from central circle to N. circle.
Az. N. 14° 18′ E. Same hills.
Dec. = 41° 9′ Date, 2090 b.c.

Arcturus from N. circle to Barrow.
Az. N. 18° 14′ E. Same hills.
Dec. = 40° 6′ Date, 1900 b.c.

Now before this evidence of star worship, so important if it can be
depended on, could be accepted, it was necessary to make a special inquiry
as to the existence of similar star observations in other places. Many have
been found of which more in the sequel.
The next point which arose was that Arcturus used as a clock-star (p.
108) would serve as a warner for August. This necessitated another inquiry
into the chief festivals in Cornwall: among these the August (Harvest)
festival is one.
Another point to consider was whether there was any evidence of a local
August festival. It happens that the Hurlers are in the parish of St. Cleer,
and some of the other Arcturus sight-lines are in that of St. Just. Now, a
local festival in old days was often associated with the local Saint. As most
of the Cornish Saints are common to Cornwall and Brittany, I looked up the
Calendar of the Annuaire of the Institut de France, and found that the days
dedicated to SS. Justin and Claire are the 9th and 12th of August. It seems,
then, that at the Hurlers it was really a question of a clock-star also used as

a warning star for the August festival. I think we have at last, then, run to
earth the origin of some of the northerly alignments referred to on pages 36
and 43.
It will have been noted that the last sight-line on Arcturus was marked by
a barrow. Captain Henderson inspected it and found it much ruined by
explorers, remains of a chamber inside being visible.
In a subsequent visit, in which Captain Henderson was accompanied by
Mr. Horton Bolitho, my wife and myself, we not only visited this barrow,
but found that the whole hill had been honeycombed to such an extent by
mining operations that it was very difficult to discriminate between
“investigated” barrows and other heaps and holes, unless the barrow
showed the remains of a chamber.
Our examination was not limited to barrows. Captain Henderson had
spent a long bleak day in examining and measuring the stones marked on
the Ordnance Map, to which I had called his special attention. We went over
part of the ground with him, and came to the conclusion that the whole
question of the Cornish treatment of “ancient stones” would have to be
gone into—an inquiry which Mr. Bolitho is now carrying on.
It must be remembered that any stone or barrow used in the sight-lines
we are now considering must have been put up nearly 4,000 years ago, so
long ago, in fact, that many of the chief barrows have been reduced to the
skeletons of their former selves, the enclosed stone chamber, built of mighty
stones, alone remaining.
Cromlechs and standing stones then formed important points in the
landscape long before ecclesiastical divisions were thought of, or any
attempt was made to indicate the boundaries of private property.
We should expect then to find these ancient monuments freely made use
of to mark what we now term “parish boundaries.” This is so. Four parishes
have thus used one of the larger cromlechs, and it is more than probable that
something beside the denunciation of the cultus lapidum, which we have
seen at work in Brittany (p. 39), has been responsible for the many stone
crosses in Cornwall. Of some of them near circles I have gathered the
astronomical use, while now they “mark the bounds,” as do some of the
stone rows in Dartmoor.
I believe that in later times this practice of the Church was followed by
those among whom the land was distributed, and this has gone on till at last
there are many ancient stones trimmed on one side and bearing initials and

so having a modern appearance. The astronomer, and even the archæologist,
may regret this practice, but as the habit in Cornwall appears to be for
anybody to use the nearest uncrossed and uninitialled stone for a wall or a
pigsty, Mr. Bolitho’s inquiry may show that in some cases, at all events, it
has been a blessing in disguise, for the stones are still there.
In the case of a long chambered barrow, the top of which nearly touches
the horizon, as seen from a circle near it, there is less danger of being
misled.
In my notes on the stones of Stenness (Chapter XIII) I pointed out that
the chambered Cairns at Onston and Maeshowe suggested that such
structures were later variants of the more ancient standing stones. Some
barrows at the Hurlers lend further confirmation of this view. I will deal
with them first. Of one the data are Az. from N. Circle S. 72° 49′ W., height
of horizon 12′ (Capt. Henderson). The resulting declination is S. 11° 5′, the
declination of Antares 1720 b.c. But why should Antares be thus singled
out? The table on page 117 shows the reason. At the date involved the
setting of Antares in the dawn was the warner of the sunrise on May
morning, the greatest day in all the year.
Is there any precedent for this use of Antares?
I have already pointed out (p. 108) that Mr. Penrose found the warning
stars for May morning at the dates of foundation of the Hecatompedon, and
the older Erechtheum, to be the group of the Pleiades rising and Antares
setting. As the foundations of the Hecatompedon were built only some few
years after the stones of the central circle of the Hurlers were used, we
ought to find traces of the observations of the same May-morning stars.
We have, then, now a third term in the astronomical use of stars to herald
the sunrise on May morning.
Temple of Min Thebes 3200 b.c. Spica.
Temple at the Hurlers Liskeard 1720 „ Antares.
Older Erechtheum Athens 1070 „ „

The next barrow to be referred to—it is shown to be a long one on the
Ordnance Map—is situated near the top of Caradon Hill, and is visible on
the sky-line from the circles. Data: Az. from N. Circle S. 65° E., height of
horizon 1° 38′ (Henderson). This corresponds almost exactly with the
azimuth of the rise of the sun’s upper limb with declination S. 16° 20′ on
the two critical dates in November and February of the May-year
(Halloween and Candlemas, see p. 23), so I am inclined to consider it more

than a mere coincidence that the azimuths coincide so closely. It, however,
may be urged that there are other barrows on Caradon Hill, but judging
from the Ordnance Map they seem to be of the round variety used for
burials, perhaps a thousand years after the circles were in use, and in my
opinion by a different race of men; but this matter must not detain us now, I
hope to return to it later.
Still one more barrow and a stone, uncrossed and uninitialled, in the
same sight-line, data: Az. from N. circle S. 59° 35′ E. Height of horizon 1°
38′ 23″ (Henderson), resulting declination S. 19° 50′. This was the
declination of Sirius 1690 b.c. Why Sirius? The table on p. 117 gives us the
answer. Sirius replaced Arcturus as a warning star for the August festival,
and we have seen that the last use of Arcturus was connected with the sight-
line to the barrow about 1900 b.c.
I pass now from barrows to stones. There is one about which there can be
no question. It is a famous Cross, a “Longstone” at which all travellers stop
on their way from St. Cleer to the Hurlers. It occupies nearly the same
position on the S.W. horizon as does the long tumulus on Caradon Hill in
the S.E. quadrant. From the South Circle, and this is important, its Azimuth,
S. 64° W., is nearly the same; it marked, and still marks, the sunset point on
the critical days of the May year in November and February.
There is another stone marked on the Ordnance Map Az. N. 88° E. from
the N. circle. It has been removed, so I may fairly assume that it was really
an ancient stone. Captain Henderson’s value for the height of the horizon is
11′ 31″. The table on p. 117 will show that in this direction we have to deal
with Betelgeuse as a warner for the summer solstice. The resulting date is
1730 b.c.
It would appear that possibly this is not the only stone dealing with (later)
solstitial alignments. Lukis gives two stones on the west side of the circles
which on the Ordnance Map are classed as boundary stones: they lie on a
boundary beyond all question, but also beyond all question they are as
ancient as the stones of the circles themselves. From the N. circle they are
almost but not quite in a line, and the azimuth of the south stone is S. 49°
W. This is a solstitial azimuth. I think, therefore, that we may accept this as
another evidence of the worship of the setting sun at the winter solstice,
from the N. circle, and in this we have still further evidence that to the
worship of the May year in the south circle was added later one dealing
with the solstitial year which was chiefly carried on in the N. circle.

CHAPTER XV
THE DARTMOOR AVENUES

In Chapter XI. I referred to the very numerous alignments of stones in
Brittany, and I was allowed by Lieutenant Devoir, of the French Navy, to
give some of his theodolite observations of the directions along which the
stones had been set up.
The conclusion was that we were really dealing with monuments
connected with the worship of the sun of the May year, a year which the
recent evidence has shown to have been the first used after the length of the
year had been determined; thus replacing the lunar unit of time which was
in vogue previously, and the use of which is brought home to us by the
reputed ages of Methuselah and other biblical personages, who knew no
other measurer of time than the moon.
There was also evidence to the effect that in later times solstitial
alignments had been added, so that the idea that we were dealing with
astronomically oriented rows of stones was greatly strengthened, not to say
established.
So long as the Brittany alignments were things of mystery, their origin, as
well as that of the more or less similar monuments in Britain, was variously
explained; they were models in stone of armies in battle array, or they
represented funeral processions, to mention only two suggestions. I should
add that Mr. H. Worth, who has devoted much time to their study, considers
that some sepulchral interest attaches to them, though he thinks it may be
argued that that was secondary, even as are interments in cathedrals and
churches. About burials associated with them, of course, there is no
question, for the kistvaens and cairns are there; but my observations suggest
that they were added long after the avenues were built, because some cairns
block avenues. Perhaps a careful study of the modes of burial adopted may
throw light on this point.
The equivalents of the Brittany alignments are not common in Britain;
they exist in the greatest number on Dartmoor, whither I went recently to

study them. The conditions on high Dartmoor are peculiar; dense blinding
mists are common, and, moreover, sometimes come on almost without
warning. From its conformation the land is full of streams. There are stones
everywhere. What I found, therefore, as had others before me, was that as a
consequence of the conditions to which I have referred, directions had been
indicated by rows of stones for quite other than ceremonial purposes. Here,
then, was another possible origin. It was a matter of great importance to
discriminate most carefully between these alignments, and to endeavour to
sort them out. My special inquiry, of course, was to see if they, like their
apparent equivalents in Brittany, could have had an astronomical origin.
The first thing to do, then, was to see which might have been erected for
worship or which for practical purposes.
In doing this there is no difficulty in dealing with extremes. Thus one
notable line of large flat stones has been claimed by Messrs. R. N. Worth
and R. Burnard as a portion of the Great Fosseway (Rowe’s Perambulation,
third edition, p. 63); it has been traced for eighteen miles from beyond
Hameldon nearly to Tavistock, the stones being about 2 feet thick and the
road 10 feet wide.

Photo. by Lady Lockyer.
Fig. 42.—The Southern Avenue at Merrivale, looking East.

There are two notable avenues of upright stones at Merrivale; they are in
close connection with a circle, and could have had no practical use. These
stones, then, we may claim as representing the opposite extreme of the
Fosseway and as suggesting an astronomical, as opposed to a practical, use;
the adjacent circle, of course greatly strengthens this view.
It is between these extremes that difficulties may arise, but the verdict
can, in a great many cases at all events, be settled without any very great
hesitation, especially where practical or astronomical uselessness can be
established. But even here care is necessary, as I shall show.
The stones now in question, originally upright, are variously called
avenues, rows, alignments or parallelithons. Their study dates from 1827,
when Rowe and Colonel Hamilton Smith examined those at Merrivale
(Rowe, op. cit., p. 31). Their number has increased with every careful study
of any part of the moor, and doubtless many are still unmapped.[22] The late
Mr. R. N. Worth, of Plymouth, and his son, Mr. H. Worth, have given great
attention to these monuments, and the former communicated a paper on
them to the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science in
1892 (Trans., xxv. pp. 387-417).
A word of caution must be said before I proceed. We must not take for
granted that the stone-rows are now as they left the hands of the builders.
The disastrous carelessness of the Government in the matter of our national
antiquities is, I am locally informed, admirably imitated by the Devonshire
County and other lesser councils, and, indeed, by anybody who has a road
to mend or a wall to build. On this account, any of the rows may once have
been much longer and with an obvious practical use; and those which now
appear to be far removed from circles may once have been used for sacred
processions at shrines which have disappeared.
Again, the rows of stones we are now considering must not be
confounded with the “track lines” or “boundary banks” which are so
numerous on Dartmoor, and are represented in Wiltshire according to Sir R.
C. Hoare; these serve for bounds and pathways, and for connecting and
enclosing fields or houses.
Dealing, then, with stone rows or avenues, which may be single, double,
or multiple; any which are very long and crooked, following several
directions, are certainly not astronomical; and it is easy to see in some cases
that they might have been useful guides at night or in mist in difficult
country with streams to cross. This possible utility must not be judged

wholly by the present conformation of the ground or the present beds of
streams.
For multiple avenues it is hard to find practical uses such as the above,
and we know how such avenues were used in Brittany for sun worship. Mr.
Baring Gould considers there were eight rows in an avenue on Challacombe
Down 528 feet long; of these only three rows remain, the others being
represented by single stones here and there (Rowe, p. 33). I shall have
something to say about this avenue further on.
Although, as I have said, long rows bending in various directions are not
likely to have had an astronomical origin, it must not be assumed that all
astronomical avenues must be exactly straight. This, of course, would be
true for level ground, but if the avenue has to pass over ridges and furrows,
the varying height of the horizon must be reckoned with, and therefore the
azimuth of the avenue at any point along it.
I think it possible that in the Stalldon Moor row we have the mixture of
religious and practical intention at which I have before hinted. Both Mr.
Lukis and Mr. Hansford Worth have studied this monument, which is two
miles and a quarter long. There is a circle at the south end about 60 feet in
diameter, while at its northern end there is a cairn.
Where the line starts from the circle the direction of the row is parallel to
many sight-lines in Cornwall, and Arcturus would rise in the azimuth
indicated. But this direction is afterwards given up for one which leads
towards an important collection of hut circles, and it crosses the Erme, no
doubt at the most convenient spot. More to the north it crosses another
stream and the bog of Red Lake. All this is surely practical enough,
although the way indicated might have been followed by the priests of the
hut circles to the stone circle to prepare the morning sacrifice and go
through the ritual.
But there is still another method of discrimination. If any of these
avenues were used at all for purposes of worship, their azimuths should
agree with those already found in connection with circles in other parts of
Britain, for we need not postulate a special race with a special cult limited
to Dartmoor; and in my inquiries what I have to do is to consider the
general question of orientation wherever traces of it can be found. The more
the evidences coincide the better it is for the argument, while variations
afford valuable tests.

Now, speaking very generally (I have not yet compared all my numerous
notes), in Cornwall the chief alignments from the circles there are with
azimuths N. 10°-20° E. watching the rise of the clock-star, N. 64°-68° E.
watching the rise of the May sun, N. 75°-82° E. watching the rise of the
Pleiades. The variation in the azimuths is largely due to the different heights
of the horizon towards which the sight-lines are directed.
The conclusion I have come to is that these alignments, depending upon
circles and menhirs in Cornwall, are all well represented on Dartmoor
associated with the avenues; and further, so far as I have learned at present,
in the case of the avenues connected with circles, there are not many
alignments I have not met with in connection with circles in Cornwall and
elsewhere.
This is not only a prima facie argument in favour of the astronomical use
underlying the structures, but it is against the burial theory, for certainly
there must have been burials in Cornwall.
In order, therefore, to proceed with the utmost caution, I limit myself in
the first instance to the above azimuths, and will begin by applying a test
which should be a rigid one.
If the avenues on Dartmoor had to deal with the same practices and cults
as did the circles in Cornwall, they ought to prove themselves to have been
in use at about the same time, and from this point of view the investigation
of the avenues becomes of very great importance, because of the
destruction of circles and menhirs which has been going on, and is still
going on, on Dartmoor. We have circles without menhirs and menhirs
without circles, so that the azimuths of the avenues alone remain to give us
any chance of dating the monuments if they were used in connection with
star worship. The case is far different in Cornwall, where both circles and
menhirs have in many cases been spared.
On Dartmoor, where in some cases the menhirs still remain, they have
been annexed as crosses and perhaps as boundary stones, and squared and
initialed; hence the Ordnance surveyors have been misled, and they are not
shown as ancient stones on the map. In some cases the azimuth of the
stones suggests that this has been the sequence of events.
It will be seen from the above that I have not tackled a question full of
pitfalls without due caution, and this care was all the more necessary as the
avenues have for long been the meeting ground of the friends and foes of
what Rowe calls “Druidical speculations”; even yet the war rages, and my

writing and Lieut. Devoir’s observing touching the similar but grander
avenues of Brittany have so far been all in vain; chiefly, I think, because no
discrimination has been considered possible between different uses of
avenues, and because the statements made by archæologists as to their
direction have been quite useless to anybody in consequence of their
vagueness, and last of all because the recent work on the Brittany remains is
little known.
I began my acquaintance with the Dartmoor monuments by visiting
Merrivale, and the result of my inquiries there left absolutely no doubt
whatever on my mind. I was armed, thanks to the kindness of Colonel
Johnston, the Director of the Ordnance Survey, with the 25-inch map, while
Mr. Hansford Worth had been so good as to send me one showing his
special survey.
The Merrivale avenues (lat. 50° 33′ 15″) are composed of two double
rows, roughly with the azimuth N. 82° E.; the northern row is shorter than
the other. Rowe, in his original description (1830), makes the northern 1143
feet long; they are not quite parallel, and the southern row has a distinct
“kink” or change of direction in it at about the centre. The stones are mostly
2 or 3 feet high, and in each row they are about 3 feet apart; the distance
between the rows is about 80 feet.
I have before pointed out (p. 149) that an avenue directed to the rising
place of a star, if it is erected over undulating ground, cannot be straight. I
may now mention another apparent paradox. If two avenues are directed to
the rising place of the same star at different times, they cannot be parallel. It
is not a little curious that absence of parallelism has been used against
avenues having had an astronomical use!
Both the Ordnance surveyors and Mr. Worth have shown the want of
parallelism of the two avenues, and Mr. Worth has noted the kink in the
southern one. The height of the horizon, as determined from my measures,
is 3° 18′. The results of these inquiries, assuming the Pleiades to have been
observed warning May morning, are as follows:—
N. Date
Azimuth. Authority. Declination. B.C.
° ° ′ ″
N. 83·15 E. Worth 6 47 47 1710
82·30 Worth 7 16 20 1630
82·10 Ordnance 7 32 0 1580
80·40 Worth 8 26 0 1420

80·30 Ordnance 8 30 0 1400

To simplify matters we may deal with the Ordnance values and neglect
the small change of direction in the southern avenue. We have, then, the two
dates 1580 b.c. and 1420 b.c. for the two avenues. The argument for the
Pleiades is strengthened by the fact that at Athens the Hecatompedon was
oriented to these stars in 1495 b.c. according to Mr. Penrose’s determination
of the azimuth.

Larger plan
Fig. 43.—Plan, from the Ordnance Map, showing the avenues, circle and stones at Merrivale, with
their azimuths.

Now this is not the first time I have referred to avenues in these notes.
The azimuth of one at Stonehenge was used to fix the date at which sun
worship went on there. That avenue, unlike the Dartmoor ones, was built of
earth, and it is not alone. There is another nearly two miles long called the
Cursus. So far, I have found no solstitial worship on Dartmoor, so there are
no avenues parallel to the one at Stonehenge leading N.E. from the temple.
But how about the other? It is roughly parallel to the avenues at Merrivale,
and I think, therefore, was, like them, used as a processional road, a via
sacra, to watch the rising of the Pleiades.

Larger map
Fig. 44.—Reprint of Ordnance Map showing that the Cursus at Stonehenge is nearly parallel to the
Merrivale Avenue. The azimuth is 82° and not 84° as shown in the figure.

I said roughly parallel; its azimuth is about the same (N. 82° E. roughly);
but the horizon is only about 1° high; it was therefore in use before those at
Merrivale; the exact date of use must wait for theodolite values of the
height of the horizon, but in the meantime we can see from the above
estimates that the declination of the Pleiades was about N. 5° 28′ 30″ and
the date of use 1950 b.c., that is some 300 years before the solstitial
restoration.
Mr. Worth’s survey gives another line of stones. It is undoubtedly, I think,
an ancient line, although it is not shown in the Ordnance map, a clear
indication of the difficulty of discriminating these avenues on land
cumbered with stones in all directions. Its azimuth is N. 24° 25′ E., and the
height of the horizon 5° 10′. This gives us Arcturus at the date 1860 b.c.,
showing that, as at the Hurlers, Arcturus was used as a clock-star. Hence a
possible astronomical use is evident, while this row, like the others, could

have been of no practical use to anybody. It is interesting to note that this
single row of stones is older than the double ones; this seems natural.
It is worth while to say a word as to the different treatment of the ends of
the south avenue now that it seems probable that it was used to watch the
rising of the Pleiades. At the east end there is what archæologists term a
“blocking stone”; these observations suggest that it was really a sighting
stone. At the west end such a stone is absent, but the final stones in the
avenue are longer than the rest. This may help us in the true direction of the
sight-lines in other avenues; and, indeed, I shall show in the sequel that this
consideration affords a criterion which, in the cases I have come across, is
entirely in harmony with others.
[22] On June 15, 1905, that excellent guide of the Chagford part of the moor, Mr. S. Perrott,
showed me an avenue (Azimuth N. 20° E. true) near Hurston Ridge which is not
given in the 1-inch map.

CHAPTER XVI
THE DARTMOOR AVENUES (continued)

My inquiries began at Merrivale because there is a circle associated with
the avenues a little to the south of the west end of the longest; and again
nearly, or quite, south of this there is a fine menhir, possibly used to give a
north-south line. There is another menhir given on the Ordnance map,
azimuth N. 70° 30′ E., which, with hills 3° high, points out roughly the
place of sunrise from the circle in May (April 29). Although this stone has
been squared and initialed, I think I am justified in claiming it as an ancient
monument. There is still another, azimuth N. 83° E., giving a line from the
circle almost parallel to the avenue. I hope some local archæologist will
examine it, for if ancient it will tell us whether the N. avenue or the circle
was built first, a point of which it is difficult to overrate the importance, as
it will show the strict relationship between the astronomy of the avenues
and that of the circle, and we can now, I think, deal with the astronomical
use of circles after the results obtained at Stonehenge, Stenness and the
Hurlers as an accepted fact. With the above approximate values the date
comes out 1750 b.c., the declination of the Pleiades being N. 6° 35′.
I now pass on from Merrivale as an example of those avenues the
direction of which lies somewhere in the E.-W. direction. Others which I
have not seen, given by Rowe, are at Assacombe, Drizzlecombe and
Trowlesworthy; to these Mr. Worth adds Harter or Har Tor (or Black Tor).
The avenues which lie nearly N. and S. are more numerous. Rowe gives
the following:—Fernworthy, Challacombe, Trowlesworthy, Stalldon Moor,
Battendon, Hook Lake, and Tristis Rock. Of these I have visited the first
two, as well as one on Shovel Down not named by Rowe, and the next two
I have studied on the 6-inch Ordnance map.
Fernworthy (lat. 50° 38′).—Here are two avenues, one with azimuth N.
15° 45′ E., hills 1° 15′. There is a sighting stone at the N. end. We appear to
be dealing with Arcturus as clock-star 1610 b.c. This is about the date of the
erection of the N. avenue at Merrivale.

The second avenue has its sighting stone built into a wall at the south
end. Looking south along the avenue, the conditions are azimuth S. 8° 42′
W., hills 3° 30′.
Both these avenues are aligned on points within, but not at the centre of,
the circle.
Challacombe (lat. 50° 36′).—This is a case of a triple avenue, probably
the remains of eight rows, in a depression between two hills, Challacombe
Down and Warrington. There is no circle. The azimuth is 23° 37′ N.W. or
S.E., according to direction. The northern end has been destroyed by an old
stream work; there is no blocking stone to the south on either of the
remaining avenues, but one large menhir terminates one row of stones. The
others may have been removed. So it is probable that the alignment was to
the north. If so, we are dealing with the setting of Arcturus, warning the
summer solstice sunrise in 1860 b.c. To the S. the hills are 4° 48′, to the N.
4° 50′.
To this result some importance must be attached, first, because it brings
us into presence of the cult of the solstitial year, secondly, because it shows
us that the system most in vogue in Brittany was introduced in relation to
that year. In Brittany, as I have before shown, the complicated alignments,
there are 11 parallel rows at Le Ménac (p. 99) (there were 8 parallel rows at
Challacombe), were set up to watch the May and August sunrises, and the
solstitial alignments came afterwards. The Brittany May alignments,
therefore, were probably used long before 1860 b.c., the date we have found
for Challacombe, where not the sunrise but the setting star which gave
warning of it was observed.

Fig. 45.—The remains of the eight rows of the Challacombe Avenue. Looking North of East.
Terminal Menhir on the extreme right.

It is worth while to point out that at Challacombe, as elsewhere, the
priest-astronomers so located their monuments that the nearly circumpolar
stars which were so useful to them should rise over an horizon of some

angular height. In this way the direction-lines would be available for a
longer period of time, for near the north point the change of azimuth with
change in the declination of the star observed is very rapid.
Shovel Down, near Batworthy (lat. 50° 39′ 20″).—A group of five rows
of stones, four double, one single, with two sets of azimuths.
One set gives az. 22° 25°, and 28°. They seem to be associated. I will call
them A, B, and C. A is directed to the circle on Godleigh Common. Its ends
are free. B is a single line of stones to the E. of the triple circle, about which
more presently. It is not marked on the Ordnance map; its ends are also free.
C has its south end blocked, I think in later times, by a kistvaen. The
astronomical direction may be, therefore, either N.W. or S.E. We find a
probable use in the N.W. quadrant, as at Challacombe, Arcturus setting at
daybreak as a warner of the summer solstice.
The height of hills is 46′; we have then:—
Az. N. Dec. Star. Date.
N. 22° W. 36° 19′ 40″ Arcturus 1210 b.c.
N. 25° W. 35° 23′ 20″ „ 1040 „
N. 28° W. 34° 19′ 30″ „ 850 „

Adjacent to A, B, C, is another avenue, which I will call D. Unlike the
others, its northern end points 2° E. of N. Its southern end is blocked by a
remarkable triple circle, the end of the avenue close to it being defined by
two tall terminal stones. We are justified, then, in thinking that its
orientation was towards the north; the height of the horizon I measured as
45′. It may have been an attempt to mark the N. point of the horizon.
The triple circle to which I have referred is not an ordinary circle. I
believe it to be a later added, much embellished, cairn. According to
Ormerod, the diameters are 26, 20, and 3 feet, and there are three small
stones at the centre.
All the above avenues are on the slope of the hill to the north. On the
south slope we find the longest of all, as shown on the Ordnance map
survey of 1885. There is a “long stone” in its centre, and at the southern end
was formerly a cromlech, the “three boys.” Part of this avenue, and two of
the three “boys,” have been taken to build a wall. The long stone remains,
because it is a boundary stone!
The azimuth is 2° 30′ W. of north or E. of south. Looking N. from the
long stone, the height of the horizon is 2° 30′. I think this avenue was an
attempt to mark the S. point.

Trowlesworthy (lat. 50° 27′ 30″).—The remains here are most interesting.
This is the only monument on Dartmoor in which I have so far traced any
attempt to locate the sun’s place at rising either for the May or solstitial
year. But I will deal with the N.-S. avenue first, as it is this feature which
associates it with Fernworthy and Challacombe.
As at Merrivale, the avenue has a decided “kink” or change of direction.
The facts as gathered from the 6-inch map are as follows:—
Az. Hills. Dec. N. Star. Date.
S. part of Avenue N. 7° E. 2° 52′ 41° 29′ 10″ Arcturus 2130 b.c.
N. „ „ N. 12° E. 2° 52′ 41° 6′ 20″ „ 2080 b.c.

Larger map

Fig. 46.—The sight-lines at Trowlesworthy, showing high northern azimuths. From the Ordnance
map.

This date is very nearly that of the use of the S. circle at the Hurlers, and
it is early for Dartmoor; but it is quite possible that local observations on an
associated avenue a little to the west of the circle which terminates the N.-S.
avenue will justify it. This is not far from parallel to that at Merrivale, but
its northern azimuth is greater, so that if it turns out to have been aligned on
the Pleiades its date will be some time before that of Merrivale, that is,
before 1580 b.c. I can say nothing more about it till I have visited it.
The new features to which I have referred are two tumuli which in all
probability represent more recent additions to the original scheme of
observation, as we have found at Stenness, and show that Trowlesworthy
was for long one of the chief centres of worship on Dartmoor. Their
azimuths are S. 64° E. and S. 49° W., dealing, therefore, with the May year
sunrises in November and February and the solstitial sunset in December. It
is probable that, as at the Hurlers, tumuli were used instead of stones not
earlier than 1900 b.c.
Stalldon Moor (lat. 50° 27′ 45″) I have already incidentally referred to.
The azimuth of the stone row as it leaves the circle, not from its centre as I
read the 6-inch map, is N. 3° E.; as the azimuth gradually increases for a
time, we may be dealing with Arcturus, but local observation is necessary.
The differences between the Cornish and Dartmoor monuments give
much food for thought, and it is to be hoped that they will be carefully
studied by future students of orientation, as so many questions are
suggested. I will refer to some of them.
(1) Are the avenues, chiefly consisting of two rows of stones, a reflection
of the sphinx avenues of Egypt? and, if so, how can the intensification of
them on Dartmoor be explained?
(2) Was there a double worship going on in the avenues and the circles at
the same time? If not, why were the former not aligned on the circles? On a
dead level, of course, if the avenues were aligned on the centre of the circle
towards the rising or setting of the sun or a star, the procession in the via
sacra would block the view of those in the circle. We have the avenue at
Stonehenge undoubtedly aligned on the centre of the circle, but there the
naos was on an eminence, so that the procession in the avenue was always
below the level of the horizon, and so did not block the view.

(3) Do all the cairns and cists in the avenues represent later additions, so
late, indeed, that they may have been added after the avenues had ceased to
be used for ceremonial purposes? The cairn at nearly the central point of the
S. avenue at Merrivale was certainly not there as a part of the structure
when the avenue was first used as a via sacra for observing the rising of the
Pleiades. I have always held that these ancient temples, and even their
attendant long and chambered barrows, were for the living and not for the
dead, and this view has been strengthened by what I have observed on
Dartmoor.
There was good reason for burials after the sacred nature of the spot had
been established, and they may have taken place at any time since; the most
probable time being after 1000 b.c. up to a date as recent as archæologists
may consider probable.
Mr. Worth, whose long labours on the Dartmoor avenues give such
importance to his opinions, objects to the astronomical use of those avenues
because there are so many of them; he informs me that he knows of 50; I
think this objection may be considered less valid if the avenues show that
they were dedicated to different uses, some practical and others sacred, at
different times of the year. For instance, Challacombe is not a duplicate of
Merrivale; one is solstitial, the other deals with the May year; and a
complete examination of them—I have only worked on the fringe—may
show other differences having the same bearing.
In favour of the astronomical view it must be borne in mind that the
results obtained in Devon and Cornwall are remarkably similar, and the
dates are roughly the same. Among the whole host of heaven from which
objectors urge it is free for me to select any star I choose, at present only six
stars have been considered, two of which were certainly used, as in Egypt,
as clock-stars as they just dipped below the northern horizon, and other two
afterwards at Athens; and these six stars are shown by nothing more
recondite than an inspection of a precessional globe to have been precisely
the stars, the “morning stars,” wanted by the priest-astronomers who wished
to be prepared for the instant of sunrise at the critical points of the May or
solstitial year.

CHAPTER XVII
STANTON DREW (Lat. 51° 10′ N.)

Other circles to which I have given some attention are at Stanton Drew in
Somerset. I regret to say that I have not as yet had an opportunity of visiting
them. But a cursory inspection on the Ordnance map of the possible sight-
lines from circle to circle, for there are three, suggested at once that we
were dealing with the same problem as that worked out, if somewhat
differently, at the Hurlers.
The three circles, two avenues leading from two of the circles towards
the river, and some outstanding stones were most carefully surveyed by Mr.
C. E. Dymond some years ago. He was good enough to send me copies of
his plans and levelling sections. I have not had the advantage of perusing
his memoir, but I have studied the monuments as well as I could by means
of the 25-inch Ordnance map. This, combined with an azimuth which
Colonel Johnston, the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, was kind
enough to send me, should give me bearings within a degree.
I will begin by giving a short account of the stones which remain,
abridged from the convenient pamphlet prepared for the British Association
meeting at Bristol in 1898 by Prof. Lloyd Morgan.
The circles at Stanton Drew, though far less imposing than those of
Avebury and Stonehenge, are thought to be more ancient than are the latter,
for the rough-hewn uprights and plinths of Stonehenge bear the marks of a
higher and presumably later stage of mechanical development. Taken as a
group, the Somersetshire circles are in some respects more complex than
their better known rivals in Wiltshire. There are three circles, from two of
which “avenues” proceed for a short distance in a more or less easterly
direction; there is a shattered but large dolmen—if we may so regard the set
of stones called “the cove”; and there are outlying stones—the “quoit,” and
those in Middle Ham—which bear such relations to the circles as to suggest
that they too formed parts of some general scheme of construction.

From the photograph of the Ordnance map (Fig. 47) it will be seen, as
pointed out by Prof. Lloyd Morgan,
(1) That the centre of the great circle, that of the S.W. circle, and that of
the quoit, are nearly in the same straight line.
(2) That the cove, the centre of the great circle, and that of the N.E.
circle, are nearly in the same straight line.
The quoit, which generally means the covering stone of a cromlech
—“Hautville’s Quoit,” as it is named on the Ordnance map—looms large in
Stanton Drew tradition; it is locally as much respected as the circles
themselves. It is pointed to most unmistakably by the fact that a line from it
to the S.W. circle passes nearly through the centre of the great circle.
If the observation line, then, meant anything astronomically, it can only
have had to do with the rising of a star far to the north, in a position far
more northerly than the sun ever reaches.
The “quoit,” lying in an orchard by the roadside, has nothing very
impressive about its appearance—a recumbent mass of greyish sandstone;
but it seems to be a brick in the Stanton Drew building. By some regarded
as a sarsen block from Wiltshire, it is, in Prof. Lloyd Morgan’s opinion,
more probably derived from the Old Red Sandstone of Mendip. In any case
it is not, geologically speaking, in situ; nor has it reached its present
position by natural agency.
With regard to two of the megalithic circles, at first sight the constituent
stones seem irregularly dotted about the field; but as we approach them the
unevenly spaced stones group themselves.
The material of which the greater number of the rude blocks is composed
is peculiar and worthy of careful examination. It is a much altered rock
consisting, in most of the stones, of an extremely hard siliceous breccia
with angular fragments embedded in a red or deep brown matrix, and with
numerous cavities which give it a rough slaggy appearance. Many of these
hollows are coated internally with a jasper-like material, the central cavity
being lined with gleaming quartz-crystals.

Larger map
Fig. 47.—The Circles and Avenues at Stanton Drew.
Photograph of 25-inch Ordnance map, shewing approximate
azimuths of sight-lines.

The majority of the stones were probably brought from Harptree Ridge
on Mendip, distant some six miles. Weathered blocks of Triassic breccia,
showing various stages of silicification, there lie on the surface; and there
probably lay the weathered monoliths which have been transported to
Stanton Drew. It is important to note that they were erected unhewn and

untouched by the tool. A few stones are of other material—sandstone, like
the “quoit,” or oolite from Dundry.
In the great circle, of the visible stones some retain their erect position,
others are recumbent, several are partially covered by accumulation of
grass-grown soil. Others are completely buried, their position being
revealed in dry seasons by the withering of the grass above them.
To the east of this circle a short avenue leads out, there being three
visible stones and one buried block on the one hand, and two visible stones
on the other. But one’s attention is apt to be diverted from these to the very
large and massive megaliths of the small N.E. circle. This is composed of
eight weathered masses, one of which (if indeed it do not represent more
than one), Prof. Lloyd Morgan tells us, is recumbent and shattered. From
this circle, all the stones of which are of the siliceous breccia, a short
avenue of small stones also opens out eastwards.
The third or S.W. circle lies at some little distance from the others. The
average size of the stones is smaller than in either of the other circles, and
not all are composed of the same material.
“The Cove,” which has been variously regarded as a dolmen, a druidical
chair of state, and a shelter for sacrificial fire, is close to the church.
The dimensions and numbers of the stones are as follow:
Great circle, diameter 368 feet, 30 stones.
N.E. „ „ 97 „ 8 „
S.W. „ „ 145 „ 12 „

As I was not able to visit Stanton Drew when the significance of the
northerly alignments struck me, I made an appeal to Prof. Lloyd Morgan, of
whose pamphlet I have so largely made use, to obtain some theodolite
observations. As a result such observations have been made by himself and
Mr. Morrow, from whom I have recently received a report with full
permission to make use of it in this place.
The monuments are not easy to measure, as the centres of the circles are
not readily determined, as so many of the stones are either absent,
recumbent or buried.
In my rough reading of the Ordnance map given in Fig. 47, I thought I
might be guided by taking centres, such that the avenues would be aligned
on them as at Stonehenge. I had not then seen the Dartmoor avenues, which
in some cases are not aligned on the centres. In this it is possible that I was
wrong, as both Mr. Dymond’s and Mr. Morrow’s observations suggest that

the avenues are really of the Dartmoor pattern. Mr. Morrow writes: “The
centres of the circles are (to a certain small extent) a matter of choice, a
difference of a few minutes may easily occur. In dealing with the avenues a
larger discrepancy may occur. I have taken what, in my opinion, was the
best centre line of each avenue and thus determined its azimuth. But I
believe that originally the southern line of stones forming each avenue was
directed towards the centre of the corresponding circle, and that the avenue
was then completed by the erection of a parallel line of stones. A difference
of a few degrees may thus be accounted for in the azimuth supposed to have
been originally marked out.”
About Mr. Morrow’s azimuths there can be no question. He writes:
“The instruments used were, first, a 6″ theodolite, and second, a 6″ transit
theodolite. The final results were obtained with the latter. It cannot be
reversed when measuring elevations. I tested it very carefully for the
adjustments of (a) line of collimation at right angles to the horizontal axis,
(b) horizontal axis perpendicular to vertical axis, and (c) line of collimation
and spirit level parallel to each other. The instrument was in first-rate order,
the error in elevation, for example, being within that corresponding to a
slope of 1 in 40,000; that is well within the limit of 20″ to which vertical
angles can be read.
“The meridian was obtained by two different methods applied several
times, the results agreeing very closely. Readings of azimuths and altitude
of sun were taken between three and four hours after noon, corrected for
semi-diameter, &c., and the true bearing obtained with the aid of the
latitude and the declination given in Nautical Almanac (corrected for time).
“With regard to the elevations of the horizon, the existence of trees on or
just below the sky-line renders readings to the nearest minute uncertain. In
all cases I have tried to give the most probable value, supposing the trees to
be absent. In some places the heights will have altered slightly during recent
years owing to the construction of railways.
“The values given are the means of observations. They are not corrected
for height of instrument above ground, which might increase the angles by
about 5 mins. Trees on the sky-line appear to make a difference of some 35
mins.”
The azimuths as found by Mr. Morrow and myself are as under:
Height of horizon
(excluding trees).

Morrow. Lockyer. Morrow.
[23] From centre of great circle to Hauteville’s
quoit N. 17° 59′ E. 17° 2° 23′
From centre of great circle to N.E. circle 53° 0′ 51° 1° 5′
From centre of great circle along great circle
avenue 68° 43′ 65° 0° 38′
From centre of N.E. circle along N.E. circle
avenue S. 83° 52′ E. 79° 1° 40′
From centre of S.W. circle to centre of great
circle N. 19° 51′ E. 20° 1° 44′

The azimuths to which I first direct attention are these:
Az.
Great circle to quoit N. 17° E.
S.W. circle to great circle N. 20° E.

These azimuths indicate that at Stanton Drew as at the Hurlers and
elsewhere we are dealing with Arcturus as a clock-star. The facts are:
Az. N. Decln. Height of hills. Star. Date.
N. 17° E. 38° 59′ 0″ 2° 23′ Arcturus 1690
20° 37° 26′ 50″ 1° 44′ „ 1410

One of the greatest differences between Mr. Morrow’s local observation
and my reading of the 25-inch Ordnance map occurs in the case of the
direction of the avenue from the great circle. It may be suggested that the
use of this avenue was to observe the May and August sunrises of the May
year. If we take the sun’s declination at 16° 20′ N., see p. 22, the azimuth
should be about N. 64° E.; this is 1° from my value and 5° from that given
by Mr. Morrow, but it must not be forgotten that the choice of a day in May
and August slightly differing from the normal date might easily produce
such a variation.
It seems probable that the great circle was one of the first erected, and the
fact that, like Stonehenge, it had an avenue, but that, unlike Stonehenge, the
avenue was directed towards the May and not the June (solstitial) sunrise
further, I think, suggests that the May worship was considered the most
important and was the first provided for.
There is reason for supposing that the great circle was at all events built
before the S.W. one. The great circle is situated at a lower level than the
S.W. one. The angular elevation of the hills over which Arcturus rose would
appear, therefore, to be higher from the great than from the S.W. circle.
Arcturus has been reducing its declination for centuries in consequence of

the precessional movement. It would therefore rise gradually in a greater
azimuth, that is, nearer the east. An observer in the centre of the great circle,
to follow this more easterly rising over the quoit, would have to change his
position gradually to the westward. But there was another way. The original
direction could be nearly maintained if the observation were made at a
higher level near the original line, as then the relative elevation of the
rising-place would be reduced.
This is what possibly was done, and this indeed may be the vera causa of
the building of the S.W. circle.
This view of the possible function of the “quoit” is, of course,
strengthened by the fact that we find traces of high northerly alignment in
other stone circles. I have already shown that there are such alignments in
Cornwall.
The “quoit” is nearly on a level with the great circle, while the hills rise
behind it. It has been suggested that it would have been more useful on the
top of the hill, but this suggestion cannot be accepted for a moment if it
were used in the way I have indicated. On a dark night it would have been
invisible, and it also would have prevented the observation of star-rise if it
were truly aligned. Being comparatively near the circle it could easily have
been illuminated at the critical time, and thus have anticipated the bright
line micrometer of more modern times.
So far I have found no obvious use for the avenue attached to the N.E.
circle. The conditions are:
Az. Height of Hills. Dec.
Morrow. Lockyer. Morrow. Morrow. Lockyer.
S. 83° 52′ E. S. 79° E. 1° 40′ 3° 52′ 30″ S. 5° 49′ 30″ S.

With regard to this N.E. circle, in relation to the large circle, the data are
as follows:
Az. Height of Hills. Dec. N.
Morrow. Lockyer. Morrow. Morrow. Lockyer.
N. 53° E. N. 51° E. 1° 5′ 22° 43′ 50″ 23° 48′ 46″

As Mr. Morrow states, the choice of centre of the circle may alter the
azimuth obtained by as much as “a few degrees,” but the value obtained
from the Ordnance map is, definitely, N. 51° E., and with the height of hills
determined by Mr. Morrow this would suggest that the N.E. circle was
really erected to provide the alignment, from the centre of the great circle,

or from the Cove, to the summer solstitial sun, about the year 870 b.c.,
Stockwell’s values for the obliquity being taken. This result is the more
striking as it gives a date for the substitution of the June for the May
worship at Stanton Drew, which is in full accordance with that obtained for
the similar change at Stenness.
There is other evidence, to which I attach importance, as it deals with a
method and policy found in many temple fields in Egypt, that of blocking
the alignment of an older star- or sun-cult, which the astronomer-priests
replaced by their own. The stones of the avenue of the solstitial N.E. circle I
expect once blocked the May sunrise line from the great circle; judging
from the Ordnance map, and remembering the number of stones that have
disappeared, this is probable if not certain.
If this were so, then the N.E. circle was the last to be erected, and this
suggestion is strengthened by Mr. Lewis’s statement that it is the most
perfect of the three.
Prof. Lloyd Morgan concludes his interesting account of which I have
made so much use with the following remarks:
“In what order the circles were constructed we do not know. Whether the
small N.E. circle with its more massive megaliths preceded or succeeded
the great circle with its more numerous but, on the average, less massive
stones, is a matter of mere conjecture. They may have been
contemporaneous: but it is more likely that so large a work took a long time
in execution; nor does the unity of plan of the final product preclude a
gradual process of development. Finally as to the purpose of the erection,
and its hidden astronomical, mythological, or social meaning (if it have
one), we are once more at the mercy of more or less plausible conjecture.
There stand the circles in a quiet Somersetshire valley, silent memorials of a
race concerning whose modes of life, of labour, and of thought we can but
speculate.”
It is to be hoped that before the monument has disappeared like so many
of its fellows, some student with more knowledge and time to devote to the
inquiry than myself will endeavour to answer more of the questions raised
by it.
[23] With regard to these values Mr. Morrow writes: “At present Hauteville’s quoit is not
visible from the centre of great circle. If the stone were erect, however, and any
intervening trees and walls removed, the top of the stone would no doubt be within
view. The Hauteville quoit line is thus rather a difficult one to obtain with accuracy,
but the azimuth given should be correct to the nearest minute.”

CHAPTER XVIII
FOLKLORE AND TRADITION

We have so far considered the circles at Stonehenge, Stenness, the
Hurlers and Stanton Drew, and the avenues in Brittany and on Dartmoor.
Before I refer to my later work in the south-west of England or attempt to
present a summary of the results of the inquiry, I think it will be convenient
to turn for a time to another branch of it, for that there is another closely
connected series of facts to be considered in relation to the monuments
folklore and tradition abundantly prove.
So far in this book I have dealt chiefly with stones—as I hold, associated
with, or themselves composing, sanctuaries. We have become acquainted
with circles, menhirs, dolmens, altars, viæ sacræ, various structures built up
of stones. Barrows and earthern banks represented them later.
The view which I have been led to bring forward so far is that these
structures had in one way or another to do with the worship of the sun and
stars; that they had for the most part an astronomical use in connection with
religious ceremonials.
The next question which concerns us in an attempt to get at the bottom of
the matter is to see whether there are any concomitant phenomena, and, if
there be any, to classify them and study the combined results.
Tradition and folklore, which give dim references to the ancient uses of
the stones, show in most unmistakable fashion that the stones were not
alone; associated with them almost universally were many practices
referred to on p. 26, such as the lighting of fires, passing through them, and
dancing round them; in the neighbourhood of the stones and associated with
the fire practices were also sacred trees and sacred wells or streams.
Folklore and tradition not only thus may help us, but I think they will be
helped by such a general survey, brief though it must be. So far as my
reading has gone each special tradition has been considered by itself; there
has been no general inquiry having for its object the study of the possible
origin and connection of many of the ancient practices and ideas which

have so dimly come down to us in many cases and which we can only
completely reconstruct by piecing together the information derived from
various sources.
I now propose to refer to all these matters with the view of seeing
whether there be any relation between practices apparently disconnected in
so many cases if we follow the literature in which they are chronicled. We
must not blame the literature, since the facts which remain to be recorded
now here, now there, are but a small fraction of those that have been
forgotten. Fortunately, the practices forgotten in one locality have been
remembered in another, so that it is possible the picture can be restored
more completely than one might have thought at first.
It will be seen at once that from the point of view with which we are at
present concerned, one of the chief relations we must look for is that of
time, seeing that my chief affirmation with regard to the stone monuments
is that they were used for ceremonial purposes at certain seasons, those
seasons being based first upon the agricultural, and later upon the
astronomical divisions of the year, to which I drew attention in Chapter III.
In Chapter IV., when referring to the agricultural and astronomical new
years’ days, I indicated a possible relation between the temple worship and
the floral celebrations of that time, and later on (p. 40), in connection with
the monuments in Brittany, I pointed out the coincidence of fire customs at
the same time of the year.
But in a matter of this kind it will not do to depend upon isolated cases;
the general trend of all the facts available along several lines of inquiry
must be found and studied, first separately and then inter se, if any final
conclusion is to be reached.
This is what I now propose to do in a very summary manner. It is not my
task to arrange the facts of folklore and tradition, but simply to cull from the
available sources precise statements which bear upon the questions before
us. These statements, I think, may be accepted as trustworthy, and all the
more so as many of the various recorders have had no idea either of the
existence of a May year at all or of the connection between the different
classes of the phenomena which ought to exist if my theory of their
common origin in connection with ancient worship and the monuments is
anywhere near the truth.
This question of time relations is surrounded by difficulties.

I gave in Fig. 7 the Gregorian dates of the beginning of the quarters of
the May year, if nothing but the sun’s declination of 16° 20′ N. or S., four
times in its yearly path, be considered. These were:—
May Greek Roman
Year. Calendar. Calendar.

} Feb. 4
End of Winter
Feb. 7 Feb. 7
Beginning of Spring
„ Summer May 6 May 6 May 9

} Aug. 8
End of Summer
Aug. 11 Aug. 8
Beginning of Autumn
„ Winter Nov. 8 Nov. 10 Nov. 9

In the table I also give, for comparison, the dates in the Greek and
Roman calendars (p. 20).
There is no question that on or about the above days festivals were
anciently celebrated in these islands; possibly not all at all holy places, but
some at one and some at another; this, perhaps, may help to explain the
variation in the local traditions and even some of the groupings of
orientations.
The earliest information on this point comes from Ireland.
Cormac, Archbishop of Cashel in the tenth century, states, according to
Vallancey, that “in his time four great fires were lighted up on the four great
festivals of the Druids, viz., in February, May, August and November.”[24]
I am not aware of any such general statement as early as this in relation
to the four festivals of the May year in Great Britain, but in spite of its
absence the fact is undoubted that festivals were held, and many various
forms of celebration used, during those months.
From the introduction of Christianity attempts of different kinds were
made to destroy this ancient time system and to abolish the so-called
“pagan” worships and practices connected with it. Efforts were made to
change the date and so obliterate gradually the old traditions; another way,
and this turned out to be the more efficacious, was to change the venue of
the festival, so to speak, in favour of some Christian celebration or saint’s
day. The old festivals took no account of week-days, so it was ruled that the
festivals were to take place on the first day of the week; later on some of
them were ruled to begin on the first day of the month.
When Easter became a movable feast, the efforts of the priests were
greatly facilitated, and indeed it would seem as if this result of such a

change was not absent from the minds of those who favoured it.
The change of style was, as I have before stated, a fruitful source of
confusion, and this was still further complicated by another difficulty.
Piers[25] tells us that consequent upon the change “the Roman Catholics
light their fires by the new style, as the correction originated from a pope;
and for that very same reason the Protestants adhere to the old.”
I will refer to each of the festivals and their changes of date.

February 4.
Before the movable Easter the February festival had been transformed
into Ash Wednesday (February 4). The eve of the festival was Shrove
Tuesday, and it is quite possible that the ashes used by the priests on
Wednesday were connected with the bonfires of the previous night.
It would seem that initially the festival, with its accompanying bonfire,
was transferred to the first Sunday in Lent, February 8.
I quote the following from Hazlitt[26]:—
“Durandus, in his ‘Rationale,’ tells us, Lent was counted to begin on that
which is now the first Sunday in Lent, and to end on Easter Eve; which
time, saith he, containing forty-two days, if you take out of them the six
Sundays (on which it was counted not lawful at any time of the year to
fast), then there will remain only thirty-six days: and, therefore, that the
number of days which Christ fasted might be perfected, Pope Gregory
added to Lent four days of the week before-going, viz., that which we now
call Ash Wednesday, and the three days following it. So that we see the first
observation of Lent began from a superstitious, unwarrantable, and indeed
profane, conceit of imitating Our Saviour’s miraculous abstinence. Lent is
so called from the time of the year wherein it is observed: Lent in the Saxon
language signifying Spring.”
Whether this be the origin of the lenten fast or not it is certain that the
connection thus established between an old pagan feast and a new Christian
one is very ingenious: 24 days in February plus 22 days in March (March
22 being originally the fixed date for Easter) gives us 46 days (6 × 7) + 4,
and from the point of view of priestcraft the result was eminently
satisfactory, for thousands of people still light fires on Shrove Tuesday or
on the first Sunday of Lent, whether those days occur in February or March.
They are under the impression that they are doing homage to a church

festival, and the pagan origin is entirely forgotten not only by them but even
by those who chronicle the practices as “Lent customs.”[27]
Finally, after the introduction of the movable Easter, the priests at Rome,
instead of using the “pagan” ashes produced on the eve of the first Sunday
in Lent or Ash Wednesday in each year, utilised those derived from the
burning of the palms used on Palm Sunday of the year before.
Further steps were taken to conceal from future generations the origin of
the “pagan” custom due on February 4. February 3 was dedicated to St.
“Blaze.” How well this answered is shown by the following quotation from
Percy.[28] “The anniversary of St. Blazeus is the 3rd February, when it is
still the custom in many parts of England to light up fires on the hills on St.
Blayse night: a custom antiently taken up perhaps for no better reason than
the jingling resemblance of his name to the word Blaze.”
This even did not suffice. A great candle church festival was established
on February 2. This was called “Candlemas,” and Candlemas is still the
common name of the beginning of the Scotch legal year. In the Cathedral of
Durham when Cosens was bishop he “busied himself from two of the
clocke in the afternoone till foure, in climbing long ladders to stick up wax
candles in the said Cathedral Church; the number of all the candles burnt
that evening was 220, besides 16 torches; 60 of those burning tapers and
torches standing upon and near the high altar.”[29]
There is evidence that the pagan fires at other times of the year were also
gradually replaced by candles in the churches.

May 6.
The May festival has been treated by the Church in the same way as the
February one. With a fixed Easter Sunday on March 22, 46 days after
brought us to a Thursday (May 7), hence Holy Thursday[30] and Ascension
Day. With Easter movable there of course was more confusion. Whit
Sunday, the Feast of Pentecost, was only nine days after Holy Thursday,
and it occurred, in some years, on the same day of the month as Ascension
Day in others. In Scotland the festival now is ascribed to Whit Sunday.
It is possibly in consequence of this that the festival before even the
change of style was held on the 1st of the month.
In Cornwall, where the celebrations still survive, the day chosen is May
8.

August 8.
For the migrations of the dates of the “pagan” festival in the beginning of
August from the 1st to the 12th, migrations complicated by the old and new
style, I refer to Prof. Rhys’ Hibbert Lectures, p. 418, in which work a full
account of the former practices in Ireland and Wales is given. The old
festival in Ireland was associated with Lug, a form of the Sun-God; the
most celebrated one was held at Tailetin. This feast—Lugnassad—was
changed into the church celebration Lammas, from A.S. hl’áfmaesse—that
is loaf-mass or bread-mass, so named as a mass or feast of thanksgiving for
the first fruits of the corn harvest. The old customs in Wales and the Isle of
Alan included the ascent of hills in the early morning, but so far I have
found no record of fires in connection with this date.[31]

November 8.
The facts that November 11 is quarter day in Scotland, that mayors are
elected on or about that date, show, I think, pretty clearly that we are here
dealing with the old “pagan” date.
The fact that the Church anticipated it by the feast of All Souls’ on
November 1 reminds us of what happened in the case of the February
celebration; later I give a reference to the change of date; and perhaps this
date was also determined by the natural gravitation to the first of the month,
as in the case of May, and because it marked at one time the beginning of
the Celtic year.
But what seems quite certain is that the feast which should have been
held on November 8 on astronomical grounds was first converted by the
Church into the feast of St. Martin on November 11. The Encyclopædia
Britannica tells us: “The feast of St. Martin (Martinmas) took the place of
an old pagan festival, and inherited some of its usages, such as the
Martinsmännchen, Martinsfeuer, Martinshorn, and the like, in various parts
of Germany.”
St. Martin lived about a.d. 300. As the number of saints increased, it
became impossible to dedicate a feast-day to each. Hence it was found
expedient to have an annual aggregate commemoration of such as had not
special days for themselves. So a church festival “All Hallows,” or
“Hallowmass,” was instituted about a.d. 610 in memory of the martyrs, and

it was to take place on May 1. For some reason or another this was changed
in a.d. 834; May was given up, and the date fixed as November 1. This was
a commemoration of all the saints, so we get the new name “All Saints’
Day.”
There can be little doubt that the intention of the Church was to
anticipate, and therefore gradually to obliterate the pagan festival still held
at Martinmas, and it has been successful in many places. In Ireland, for
instance; at Samhain,[32] November 1, “the proper time for prophecy and
the unveiling of mysteries.”... It was then that fire was lighted at a place
called after Mog Ruith’s daughter Tlachtga. From Tlachtga all the hearths in
Ireland are said to have been annually supplied, just as the Lemnians had
once a year to put their fires out and light them anew from that brought in
the sacred ship from Delos. The habit of celebrating Nos Galan-galaf in
Wales by lighting bonfires on the hills is possibly not yet extinct.
Here, then, we find the pagan fires transferred from the 8th to the 1st of
November in Ireland, but in the Isle of Man this is not so. I will anticipate
another reference to Rhys by stating that Martinmas had progressed from
the 11th to the 24th before the change of style brought it back, “old
Martinmas,” November 24, being one of the best recognised “old English
holidays,” “old Candlemas” being another, at the other end of the May year;
this last had slipped from February 2 to February 15 before it was put back
again.
With regard to the Isle of Man Rhys writes[33] that the feast is there called
Hollantide, and is kept on November 12, a reckoning which he states “is
according to the old style.” The question is, are we not dealing here with the
Martinmas festival not antedated to November 1? He adds, “that is the day
when the tenure of land terminates, and when serving men go to their
places. In other words it is the beginning of a new year.” This is exactly
what happens in Scotland, and the day is still called Martinmas.
There is a custom in mid-England which strikingly reminds us of the
importance of Martinmas in relation to old tenures, if even the custom does
not carry us still further back. This is the curious and interesting ceremony
of collecting the wroth silver, due and payable to his Grace the Duke of
Buccleuch and Queensbury on “Martinmas Eve.” The payment is made on
an ancient mound on the summit of Knightlow Hill, about five miles out of
Coventry, and in the parish of Ryton-on-Dunsmore. One feature about this
singular ceremonial is that it must take place before sun-rising.

[24] Hazlitt, Dictionary of Faiths and Folklore, under Gule of August.
[25] Survey of the South of Ireland, p. 232.
[26] Under Ash Wednesday.
[27] Frazer, Golden Bough, iii., 238 et seq.
[28] Notes to Northumberland Household Book, 1770, p. 333.
[29] Quoted by Hazlitt.
[30] Much confusion has arisen with regard to the Holy Thursday in Rogation week because
there is another Holy or Maundy Thursday in Easter week. Archæologists have also
been often misled by the practice of many writers of describing the May festivals as
midsummer festivals. The first of May, of course, marked the beginning of summer.
[31] Mr. Frazer informs me that the 13th August was Diana’s day at Nemi and there was a
fire festival.
[32] Rhys’ Hibbert Lectures, p. 514.
[33] Celtic Folklore, p. 315.

CHAPTER XIX
SACRED FIRES

The magnificent collection of facts bearing on this subject which has
been brought together by Mr. Frazer in The Golden Bough renders it
unnecessary for me to deal with the details of this part of my subject at any
great length.
We have these records of fires:—
(1) In February, May, August and November of the original May year.
(2) In June and December on the longest and shortest days of the
solstitial year, concerning which there could not be, and has not been, any
such change of date as has occurred in relation to the May year festivals.
(3) A fire at Easter, in all probability added not long before or at the
introduction of Christianity. I find no traces of a fire festival at the
corresponding equinox in September.
We learn from Cormac that the fires were generally double and that cattle
were driven between them.
Concerning this question of fire, both Mr. Frazer and the Rev. S. Baring-
Gould[34] suggest that we are justified in considering the Christian treatment
of the sacred fire as a survival of pagan times. Mr. Baring-Gould writes as
follows:—“When Christianity became dominant, it was necessary to
dissociate the ideas of the people from the central fire as mixed up with the
old gods; at the same time the central fire was an absolute need.
Accordingly the Church was converted into the sacred depository of the
perpetual fire.”
He further points out that there still remain in some of our churches (in
Cornwall, York, and Dorset) the contrivances—now called cresset-stones—
used. They are blocks of stone with cups hollowed out. Some are placed in
lamp-niches furnished with flues. On these he remarks (p. 122):—
“Now although these lamps and cressets had their religious signification,
yet this religious signification was an afterthought. The origin of them lay
in the necessity of there being in every place a central light, from which

light could at any time be borrowed; and the reason why this central light
was put in the church was to dissociate it from the heathen ideas attached
formerly to it. As it was, the good people of the Middle Ages were not quite
satisfied with the central church fire, and they had recourse in times of
emergency to other, and as the Church deemed them unholy, fires. When a
plague and murrain appeared among cattle, then they lighted need-fires
from two pieces of dry wood, and drove the cattle between the flames,
believing that this new flame was wholesome to the purging away of the
disease. For kindling the need-fires the employment of flint and steel was
forbidden. The fire was only efficacious when extracted in prehistoric
fashion, out of wood. The lighting of these need-fires was forbidden by the
Church in the eighth century. What shows that this need-fire was distinctly
heathen is that in the Church new fire was obtained at Easter annually by
striking flint and steel together. It was supposed that the old fire in a
twelvemonth had got exhausted, or perhaps that all light expired with
Christ, and that new fire must be obtained. Accordingly the priest solemnly
struck new fire out of flint and steel. But fire from flint and steel was a
novelty; and the people, Pagan at heart, had no confidence in it, and in time
of adversity went back to the need-fire kindled in the time-honoured way
from wood by friction, before this new-fangled way of drawing it out of
stone and iron was invented.”
The same authority informs us that before Christianity was introduced
into Ireland by St. Patrick there was a temple at Tara “where fire burned
ever, and was on no account suffered to go out.”
Mr. Frazer,[35] quoting Cerbied, shows that in the ancient religion of
Armenia the new fire was kindled at the February festival of the May year,
in honour of the fire-god Mihr. “A bonfire was made in a public place, and
lamps kindled at it were kept burning throughout the year in each of the
fire-god’s temples.” This festival now takes place at Candlemas, February
2.
We must assume, then, that the pagan fires were produced by the friction
of dry wood, and possibly in connection with an ever-burning fire. In either
case the priests officiating at the various circles must have had a place
handy where the wood was kept dry or the fire kept burning, and on this
ground alone we may again inquire whether such structures as Maeshowe at
the Stenness circle, the Fougou at that of the Merry Maidens, and indeed
chambered barrows and cairns generally, were not used for these purposes

amongst others; whether indeed they were not primarily built for the living
and not for the dead, and whether this will explain the finding of traces of
fires and of hollowed stones in them, as well as some points in their
structure. Mr. MacRitchie[36] has brought together several of these points,
among them fireplaces and flues for carrying away smoke.
At both solstices it would appear that a special fire-rite was practised.
This consisted of tying straw on a wheel and rolling it when lighted down a
hill. There is much evidence for the wheel at the summer, but less at the
winter, solstice; still, we learn from the old Runic fasti that a wheel was
used to denote the festival of Christmas. With regard to the summer solstice
I quote the following from Hazlitt (under John, St.):—
“Durandus, speaking of the rites of the
Feast of St. John Baptist, informs us of
this curious circumstance, that in some
places they roll a wheel about to signify
that the sun, then occupying the highest
place in the Zodiac, is beginning to
descend. ‘Rotam quoque hoc die in
quibusdam locis volvunt, ad
significandum quod Sol altissimum tunc
locum in Cœlo occupet, et descendere
incipiat in Zodiaco.’ Harl. MSS. 2345
(on vellum), Art. 100, is an account of
the rites of St. John Baptist’s Eve, in
which the wheel is also mentioned. In
the amplified account of these
ceremonies given by Naogeorgus, we
read that this wheel was taken up to the
top of a mountain and rolled down
thence; and that, as it had previously
Fig. 48.—The Carro, Florence. From
been covered with straw, twisted about it Baring-Gould’s Strange Survivals.
and set on fire, it appeared at a distance
as if the sun had been falling from the sky. And he further observes, that the
people imagine that all their ill-luck rolls away from them together with this
wheel. At Norwich, says a writer in Current Notes for March, 1854, the
rites of St. John the Baptist were anciently observed, ‘when it was the
custom to turn or roll a wheel about, in signification of the sun’s annual

course, or the sun, then occupying the highest place in the Zodiac, was
about descending.’”
At Magdalen College, Oxford, the May and June years are clearly
differentiated. There is a vocal service at sunrise on May morning, followed
by boys blowing horns. At the summer solstice there is a sermon preached
during the day in the quadrangle.
One of the most picturesque survivals of this ancient custom takes place
at Florence each year at Easter. This is fully described by Baring-Gould.
The moment the sacred fire is produced at the high altar a dove (in plaster)
carries it along a rope about 200 yards long to a car in the square outside the
west door of the cathedral and sets fire to a fuse, thus causing the explosion
of fireworks.
The car with its explosives is the survival of the ancient bonfire.
It would appear that the lighting of these fires on a large scale lingered
longest in Ireland and Brittany.
A correspondent of the Gentleman’s Magazine (February, 1795) thus
describes the Irish Beltane fires in 1782, “the most singular sight in
Ireland”:—
“Exactly at midnight, the fires began to appear, and taking the advantage
of going up to the leads of the house, which had a widely extended view, I
saw on a radius of thirty miles, all around, the fires burning on every
eminence which the country afforded. I had a farther satisfaction in
learning, from undoubted authority, that the people danced round the fires,
and at the close went through these fires, and made their sons and
daughters, together with their cattle, pass through the fire; and the whole
was conducted with religious solemnity.”
It will have been observed with reference to these fire festivals that
although there were undoubtedly four, in May, August, November and
February, those in May and November were more important than the others.
This no doubt arose from the fact that at different times the May and
November celebrations were New Year festivals. With regard to the New
Year in November in Celtic and later times. Rhys writes as follows (Hibbert
Lectures, p. 514):—
“The Celts were in the habit formerly of counting winters, and of giving
precedence in their reckoning to night and winter over day and summer (p.
360); I should argue that the last day of the year in the Irish story of
Diarmait’s death meant the eve of November or All-halloween, the night

before the Irish Samhain, and known in Welsh as Nos Galan-gaeaf, or the
Night of the Winter Calends. But there is no occasion to rest on this alone,
as we have the evidence of Cormac’s Glossary that the month before the
beginning of winter was the last month; so that the first day of the first
month of winter was also the first day of the year.”
That the November bonfire was recognised as heralding the dominion of
the gods and spirits of darkness,[37] that the old ideas surrounding Horus
and Set in Egypt were not forgotten, is evidenced by the fact that when it
was extinct the whole company round it would suddenly take to their heels,
shouting at the top of their voices:—
Yr hwch đu gwta The cropped black
A gipio ’r ola’! sow
Seize the hindmost!

A piecing together of the folklore and traditions of different districts
suggests that sacrifices were made in connection with the fire festivals, in
fact that the fire at one of the critical times of the May year at least was a
sacrificial one.
I will quote two cases given by Gomme[38] for May Day and All Souls’
Day respectively:—
“At the village of Holne, situated on one of the spurs of Dartmoor, is a
field of about two acres, the property of the parish, and called the Ploy
Field. In the centre of this field stands a granite pillar (Menhir) six or seven
feet high. On May-morning, before daybreak, the young men of the village
used to assemble there, and then proceed to the moor, where they selected a
ram lamb, and after running it down, brought it in triumph to the Ploy Field,
fastened it to the pillar, cut its throat and then roasted it whole, skin, wool,
&c. At midday a struggle took place, at the risk of cut hands, for a slice, it
being supposed to confer luck for the ensuing year on the fortunate
devourer. As an act of gallantry the young men sometimes fought their way
through the crowd to get a slice for the chosen amongst the young women,
all of whom, in their best dresses, attended the Ram Feast, as it was called.
Dancing, wrestling, and other games, assisted by copious libations of cider
during the afternoon, prolonged the festivity till midnight.”
In the parish of King’s Teignton, Devonshire, “a lamb is drawn about the
parish on Whitsun Monday in a cart covered with garlands of lilac,

laburnum and other flowers, when persons are requested to give something
towards the animal and attendant expenses; on Tuesday it is then killed and
roasted whole in the middle of the village. The lamb is then sold in slices to
the poor at a cheap rate.”
The popular legend concerning the origin of this custom introduces two
important elements—a reference to “heathen days” and the title of
“sacrifice” ascribed to the killing of the lamb (p. 31).
“At St. Peter’s, Athlone, every family of a village on St. Martin’s Day
kills an animal of some kind or other; those who are rich kill a cow or
sheep, others a goose or turkey, while those who are poor kill a hen or cock;
with the blood of the animal they sprinkle the threshold and also the four
corners of the house, and ‘this performance is done to exclude every kind of
evil spirit from the dwelling where the sacrifice is made till the return of the
same day the following year’” (p. 163).
Other traditions indicate that human sacrifices were in question, and that
lots were drawn, or some other method of the choice of a victim was
adopted. I quote from Hazlitt (i., 44) the following report of the Minister of
Callender in 1794:—
“The people of this district have two customs, which are fast wearing out,
not only here, but all over the Highlands, and therefore ought to be taken
notice of, while they remain. Upon the first day of May, which is called
Beltan, or Bàl-tein-day, all the boys in a township or hamlet meet in the
moors. They cut a table in the green sod, of a round figure, by casting a
trench in the ground of such a circumference as to hold the whole company.
They kindle a fire, and dress a repast of eggs and milk in the consistence of
a custard. They knead a cake of oatmeal, which is toasted at the embers
against a stone. After the custard is eaten up, they divide the cake into so
many portions, as similar as possible to one another in size and shape, as
there are persons in the company. They daub one of these portions all over
with charcoal, until it be perfectly black. They put all the bits of the cake
into a bonnet. Everyone, blindfold, draws out a portion. He who holds the
bonnet is entitled to the last bit. Whoever draws the black bit is the devoted
person, who is to be sacrificed to Baal, whose favour they mean to implore
in rendering the year productive of the sustenance of man and beast. There
is little doubt of these inhuman sacrifices having been once offered in this
country as well as in the East, although they now pass from the act of

sacrificing, and only compel the devoted person to leap three times through
the flames; with which the ceremonies of the festival are closed.”
I may conclude this chapter by referring to similar practices in Brittany,
where Baring-Gould[39] has so successfully studied them.
The present remnants of the old cult in the different parishes are now
called “pardons”;[40] they are still numerous. I give those for the May and
August festivals (p. 83).
May.
Ascension Day. Bodilis, Penhars, Spezet (at the well of S.
Gouzenou), Landevennec, Plougonnec.
Sunday after
Ascension Day. Trégoat, S. Divy.
Whit Sunday. Kernilis; Plouider; Edern; Coray; Spezet (Chapel of
Cran).
Whit Monday. Quimperlé (Pardon des Oiseaux); Pont l’Abbé
(Pardon des Enfants); Ergué-Armel, La Forêt,
Landudal, Ploneis, Landeleau, Carantec.
Whit Thursday. Gouezec (Les Fontaines).

August.

1st Sunday in Pleyben (horse races); Plébannalec; Pouldreuzic;
August. Plougomelin; Huelgoët; S. Nicodème in
Plumeliau (M.) (Cattle blessed; second day horse
fair, and girls sell their tresses to hair merchants).
Judging by the “pardons,” the solstitial celebrations are not so numerous
as those connected with the May year; the bonfire is built up by the head of
a family in which the right is hereditary. The fire has to be lighted only by a
pure virgin, and the sick and feeble are carried to the spot, as the bonfire
flames are held to be gifted with miraculous healing powers.
When the flames are abated, stones are placed for the souls of the dead to
sit there through the remainder of the night and enjoy the heat. “Every
member of the community carries away a handful of ashes as a sovereign
cure for sundry maladies. The whole proceeding is instinct with paganism”
(p. 75). With regard to the accompanying sacrifices we read: “In ancient

times sacrifices were made of cocks and oxen at certain shrines—now they
are still presented, but it is to the chapels of saints. S. Herbot receives cow’s
tails, and these may be seen heaped upon his altar in Loqeffret. At Coadret
as many as seven hundred are offered on the day of the “pardon.” At S.
Nicolas-des-Eaux, it is S. Nicodemus who in his chapel receives gifts of
whole oxen, and much the same takes place at Carnac.”
[34] Strange Survivals, p. 120 et seq.
[35] Golden Bough, iii. 248.
[36] The Testimony of Tradition.
[37] Hibbert Lectures, p. 516; Dawn of Astronomy, p. 215.
[38] Ethnology in Folklore, pp. 32 and 163.
[39] A Book of Brittany.
[40] These “pardons” run strangely parallel with the “Feast Days” in E. and W. Penrith, in
Cornwall, where of 26 feasts, 13 occur around the chief days of the May year.

CHAPTER XX
SACRED TREES

The subject of tree-worship is a vast one, as anyone may gather who will
read the Golden Bough. Fortunately for my readers it is not necessary to
discuss the whole or even any great part of it in connection with the inquiry
which now concerns us. I may say that only rarely is the old tree-worship
considered with its concomitant of temple-worship, so that I now have to
bring together information widely separated because the connection which I
have to show was intimate has not been enlarged upon; indeed, in many
cases it has not been suspected.
There is another limitation of the inquiry. We have only to deal chiefly
with those plants and trees recorded as worshipped at the chief festival
times of the year, which have already been marked out for us by the fire
ceremonials. These fires were like the chronofer installed in modern days at
the General Post Office, their practical function being to give the time; they
announced the beginning of a new season.
In Chapter IV. I referred to the association of Mistletoe with the Solstitial
worship. When we deal with the May year we meet constantly with
references to the Rowan and the Hawthorn in the folklore connected with it.
We seem in presence, then, not only of tree cult generally, but of sacred
trees special to each of the two worships we have been considering. I
propose now, therefore, to bring together some of the information to be
gathered from a very cursory reference to the vast literature which exists on
the subject.
In the first instance I begged my friend, Professor Bayley Balfour,
Keeper of the King’s Garden at Edinburgh, to give me some particulars of
the Rowan Tree, which I imagined (1) to have been chosen on account of its
flowers being prominent about May Day (Beltane) and its berries in early
November (Hallowe’en), and (2) to have a different habitat from the
Mistletoe. I have to thank my friend for much valuable information.

The Rowan Tree, called also the Mountain Ash (Pyrus Aucuparia), seems
to grow pretty freely all over the Northern parts of Europe. Professor
Balfour tells me: “Rowan is essentially a Northern plant—an immigrant to
Europe from N.W. Asia—and now is spread all over North and Central
Europe in abundance, with only some ‘feelers’ passing south into the
Mediterranean Basin. It does not go south of Cappadocia in Asia Minor. It
does not reach Greece. In Italy it occurs on the Eastern Apennines, and also
in N.E. Sicily. In Spain it runs over the higher regions in the N. and into the
centre, passing just into Portugal. Its occurrence in Madeira is not certainly
established as a natural phenomenon; perhaps it is only introduced there. In
all these Southern outruns the tree cannot be said to have any dominance,
and its area and abundance are infinitely less than in the North. Scandinavia
is one of its best homes. Everywhere it is found right north to 71°, there
becoming a bush only, but yet ripening seed. It reaches Iceland, where trees
of some size occur. All over Great Britain and Ireland it is generally spread.
You may certainly say there is much in Norway, and there is equally
certainly less, even little, in Italy.”
In Pratt’s Flowering Plants of Great Britain (vol. 2, p. 260) it is stated,
“The flowers, which grow in dense clusters, and are greenish-white, appear
in May.... In autumn, however, the tree is more beautiful than in summer,
for at that season the rich cluster of red fruits gleams among the foliage,
each berry having the form of a tiny apple, and containing a little core and
seeds within.”
At Christiania the mean of ten years’ flowering is given by Professor
Schübeler[41] as—first flowers, June 19; general flowering, June 30. This,
then, is later than in Britain. On high grounds the fruit is conspicuous here
on November 1; on lower levels the birds attack it and reduce its striking
appearance before that date.
Associated with the Rowan in the folklore connected with temple
worship is the Hawthorn, Whitethorn or “May” (Crategus oxyocantha),
which also flowers at the beginning of May, while its berries or “haws,” like
those of the Rowan, are conspicuous in November. We see, then, that there
is a most obvious reason in this for the association of the two trees.
According to Rhys,[42] the English name appears to be of Scandinavian
origin, the Old Norse being reynir, Danish rönne, Swedish rönn; and the
old Norsemen treated the tree as holy and sacred to Thor.

These two trees interest us from three points of view. We find them
connected with:—
1. May and November celebrations.
2. Superstitions concerning witchcraft, &c.
3. Holy wells.
In this chapter I shall deal with the two former.

I. The May Celebrations.
Seeing that the year beginning in May was established because that
month really opened the vegetation year, it is little to be wondered at that
among the chief features of New Year’s Day was what we may term a
flower worship; it is probable that we are here dealing with the sacred-tree
side of the general festival at all the monuments erected in connection with
the May year worship. The old traditions have lingered longest around the
things we have still with us, the trees and flowers; and it is in connection
with this side of the worship that most information is available. From the
facts I have already stated, for Britain the Rowan and Hawthorn were most
naturally selected as the typical forms.[43]
Many poets have written of this festival[44]: Chaucer, Shakspere, Milton,
Bourne, Herrick and others. Chaucer writes:
“Fourth goeth al the Court both most and lest,
To fetch the flouris fresh and branche and blome,”

when not the courtiers only, but lowliest of men and maidens sallied forth
“To do observaunce to a morn of May.”

There is a vast literature connected with May Day celebrations, among it
references to Celtic customs, and I may add that, besides May Day, August,
November and February had their flower festivals also. I shall, however,
deal chiefly with May in this book to keep it within bounds.
May Day in Manx was termed Shenn Laa Boaldyn; it is the belltaine of
Cormac’s Glossary, the Scotch Gaelic equivalent of which is bealtuinn.
The traditions and customs connected with May Day in Great Britain
have survived longest in the West of England; even now, as will be seen by
the account of recent celebrations at Helston in Cornwall, given below, they
are still continued.

Altogether the customs, ancient and modern, of which the flower worship
formed a part, may be summed up as follows:—
1. Lighting of bonfires,[45] and, in the evening, houses illuminated with
candles, torches carried about, and fireballs played with.
2. Man and beast passed through the fire or between two fires.
3. Going out at daybreak to gather Whitethorn or May (Sycamore in
Cornwall), and making whistles of the branches for the May-music and
merry-making. Blowing of tin horns at daybreak by boys, and from money
received getting breakfast at a farmhouse.
4. Flower-bedecked girls dance round a Maypole, and one chosen as
“Queen of the May.”
5. In Cornwall the custom prevailed till lately of going out with buckets
or any available vessels full of water and thoroughly wetting anyone who
was not wearing a piece of May.
6. The “Furry Dance” (in Cornwall), which consists in dancing through
the town and also through as many houses as desired. If resistance is offered
it is permitted to break open the door, and no penalty can be imposed.
7. Sacrifices made (Isle of Man) at a very ancient date, and probably
human ones still earlier (Scotland).
8. Special worship at holy wells.
Flowers are public property on Flora Day, and this custom of dancing
through the houses is supposed to have originated probably for the purpose
of picking the flowers in the gardens behind.
The following is a short abstract of a very interesting account given in
The Western Weekly News, May 13th, 1905, of the “Flora Day” at Helston,
Cornwall, which took place this year. It gives us an idea of former festivals
which are so quickly dying out:—
The Furry Dance is always the feature of the day. The first part took
place at seven o’clock in the morning, at which hour two couples started out
and danced through the streets and through some houses of residents. The
great dance was at noon, and those taking part in it assembled in the Corn
Exchange.
When all was ready the whole company, headed by a band playing the
old Furry Dance, started out and danced through the town and through
many houses.

The rest of the day was given over to a Horse Show and to much merry-
making. Excursions had been run from all parts.

II. The Rowan Tree and Witchcraft.
There is little doubt that in the constant association of the Rowan with the
May worship and the holy wells which were adjacent to the stone circles
where the worship was conducted, we find the reason of the selection of the
wood of the Rowan Tree as an antidote to all the ills which witchcraft was
supposed to bring about. Rhys tells us that “The tree has also the old names
of Quicken-tree, Roddon, and Witchen-tree.”
To quote again from Pratt (op. cit. vol. 2, p. 261): “The old notion that
the Mountain Ash, or Rowan Tree, as it is called in the North, was
efficacious against witchcraft and the evil eye, still prevails in the North of
England and the Scottish Highlands. Pennant remarks, in his Tour of
Scotland, that the farmers carefully preserve their cattle against witchcraft
by placing branches of Honeysuckle and Mountain Ash in their cowhouses
on the 2nd of May. The milkmaid in Westmorland may often be seen, even
now, with a branch of this tree either in her hand or tied to her milking-pail,
from a similar superstition; and in earlier days crosses cut out of its wood
were worn about the person. In an old song called “Laidley Wood,” in the
Northumberland Garland, we find a reference to this:
“The spells were vain, the hag return’d
To the Queen in sorrowful mood,
Crying, that witches have no power
Where there is Rown-tree wood.”

Rhys, referring to May Day customs in the Isle of Man, writes[46]: “This
was a day when systematic efforts were made to protect man and beast
against elves and witches; for it was then that people carried crosses of
rowan in their hats and placed may-flowers over the tops of their doors and
elsewhere as preservatives against all malignant influences. With the same
object in view, crosses of rowan were likewise fastened to the tails of the
cattle, small crosses which had to be made without the help of a knife.”
In connection with this last reference, Rhys quotes a passage showing
that a similar thing is done in Wales on May Eve.[47] “Another bad papistic
habit which prevails among some Welsh people is that of placing some of
the wood of the rowan-tree (coed cerdin or criafol) in their corn lands

(ttafyrieu) and their fields on May-eve (Nos Glamau) with the idea that
such a custom brings a blessing on their fields, a proceeding which would
better become atheists and pagans than Christians.”
Rhys also tells us that in Lincolnshire,[48] “a twig of the rowan-tree, or
wicken, as it is called, was effective against all evil things, including
witches. It is useful in many ways to guard the welfare of the household,
and to preserve both the live stock and the crops; while placed on the churn
it prevents any malign influence from retarding the coming of the butter.”
We also read (p. 358): “Not only the Celts, but some also of the Teutons,
have been in the habit of attaching great importance to the rowan or roan
tree, and regarding it as a preservative against the malignant influence of
witches and all things uncanny.... Moreover, the Swede of modern times
believes the rowan a safeguard against witchcraft, and likes to have on
board his ship something or other made of its wood, to protect him against
tempests and the demons of the water world.”
In the Hibbert Lectures, 1886, we have another interesting reference to
this tree. Rhys first relates an old Irish fairy story, the scene of which is
supposed to have been “on the plain near the Lake of Lein of the Crooked
Teeth, that is to say, the Lake of Killarney.” In it we are told that the scarlet
quicken-berries were first brought from the “Land of Promise,” that one
was accidentally dropped and took root, and “from the berry there grew up
a tree which had the virtues of the quicken-tree growing in fairy-land, for
all the berries on it had many virtues.” Then we learn (page 358) that these
berries “formed part of the sustenance of the gods, according to Goidelic
notions; and the description which has been quoted of the berries makes
them a sort of Celtic counterpart to the soma-plant of Hindu mythology.”
This suggests that at the November Celebration a decoction or brew of
Rowan berries was used for curative or superstitious purposes.
I have thought it desirable to enter at some length into the use of the
Rowan as a protection against witchcraft and as the basis of a brew used for
different purposes, because the Mistletoe has been dealt with in exactly the
same manner; indeed, it was to the later Solstitial worship what the Rowan
and Maythorn were to the earlier May worship.
Mr. Frazer has collected in his Golden Bough[49] much information
bearing on these points.

In Sweden, on Midsummer Eve, Mistletoe is sought after, the people
“believing it to be, in a high degree, possessed of mystic qualities; and that
if a sprig of it be attached to the ceiling of the dwelling-house, the horse’s
stall, or the cow’s crib, the ‘Troll’ will then be powerless to injure either
man or beast.” The Oak Mistletoe, we are told, is “held in the highest repute
in Sweden, and is commonly seen in farmhouses hanging from the ceiling
to protect the dwelling from all harm, but especially from fire; and persons
afflicted with the falling sickness think they can ward off attacks of the
malady by carrying about with them a knife which has a handle of Oak
Mistletoe.
“A Swedish remedy for other complaints is to hang a sprig of Mistletoe
round the sufferer’s neck, or to make him wear on his finger a ring made
from the plant.”
It would appear from Mr. Frazer’s inquiries that the Mistletoe was en
évidence at both the summer and winter solstice—precisely as the Rowan
and Hawthorn were associated with the May and November festivals.
He writes:—
“The sacred mistletoe may have acquired, in the eyes of the Druids, a
double portion of its mystic qualities at the solstice in June, and accordingly
they may have regularly cut it with solemn ceremony on Midsummer Eve.
The conjecture is confirmed when we find it to be still a rule of folklore that
the mistletoe should be cut on this day. Further, the peasants of Piedmont
and Lombardy still go out on Midsummer-morning to search the oak-leaves
for the ‘oil of St. John,’ which is supposed to heal all wounds made with
cutting instruments. Originally, perhaps, the ‘oil of St. John’ was simply the
mistletoe, or a decoction made from it. For in Holstein the mistletoe,
especially oak-mistletoe, is still regarded as a panacea for green wounds;
and if, as is alleged, ‘all-healer’ is the name of the plant in the modern
Celtic speech of Brittany, Wales, Ireland and Scotland, this can be nothing
but a survival of the name by which, as we have seen, the Druids addressed
the oak, or rather, perhaps, the mistletoe. At Lacaune, in France, the old
Druidical belief in the mistletoe as an antidote to all poisons still survives
among the people; they apply the plant to the stomach of the sufferer, or
give him a decoction of it to drink.”
If we attempt to collate the different festivals with the vegetation most
striking or abundant at each, in different countries naturally possessing
different floras, a great variety of plants and trees has to be considered. It is

probable that the Rowan-tree was chiefly taken here as the representative of
the ash in more southern and eastern lands, and the ash indeed did not
always take second rank, especially in the worship connected with wells, as
we shall see. Grimm[50] calls the ash “a world tree which links heaven,
earth and hell together; of all trees the greatest and holiest.”
In the same way at the later established Vernal Equinox festival, the palm
which grows in lower latitudes was replaced here by the willow. Coles, in
his Adam in Eden,[51] writes: “The willow blossoms come forth before any
leaves appear, and are in their most flourishing state usually before Easter,
divers gathering them to deck up their houses on Palm Sunday, and
therefore the said flowers are called palme.” Willows are still used to deck
churches at this time.
As in the case of the Rowan, the willow (or palm) was a protection
against witchcraft; small crosses and palm were carried about in the purses
and placed upon doors. These crosses had to be made on Palm Sunday out
of the wood used in the church. Sometimes box replaced the willow.
We are driven to the conclusion that practices connected with magic, the
precursor of the later “witchcraft,” were associated with the festivals now in
question, and that the products of the vegetable world at the different
seasons were utilized for these purposes.
The putting on of a special garb by the vegetable world at each season in
turn would be one of the first things to be manifested, and the close
association of it with the stars and the sun in their yearly course would
cause the representatives of it to be worshipped together with them, and it
would appear from the records that the astronomer priests did not neglect
those magical arts which were practised by man in the early stages of
civilisation.
Indeed, these magical practices seem to have taken such firm root that it
was difficult to get rid of them even in much later times. Newton[52] writes:
“I once knew a foolish cock-brained priest which ministered to a certaine
young man the ashes of boxe, being (forsooth) hallowed on Palme Sunday,
according to the superstitious order and doctrine of the Romish Church,
which ashes he mingled with their unholie holie water using to the same a
kind of... exorcisme; which... medicine (as he persuaded the standers by)
had vertue to drive away any ague.”
Among the virtues attributed to the May thorn was that of preserving the
beauty of those maidens who at daybreak on May morning each year would

wash themselves in hawthorn dew. As late as 1515 it was recorded that
Catherine of Aragon, accompanied by twenty-five of her ladies, sallied out
on May morning for this purpose.
[41] Schübeler, Die Pflanzenwelt Norwegens, Christiania, 1873-75, p. 439.
[42] Hibbert Lectures, p. 358.
[43] The Rowan had to be cut on Ascension Day, Golden Bough, III, p. 448.
[44] Pratt’s British Flowering Plants, vol. 2, p. 266.
[45] The word bonfire, according to the Century Dictionary, comes from the “early modern
English, boonfire, bondfire, bounfire, later burnfire; Scotch, banefire; the earliest
known instance is banefyre. ‘ignis ossium,’ in the Catholicon Anglicum, a.d. 1483;
from bone (Scotch, bane, Middle English, bone, bon, bane, &c.) + fire.”
Hence the word seems formerly to have meant a fire of bones; a funeral pile, a pyre. And
it has gradually developed into a fire out in the open, whatever its object.
[46] Celtic Folklore, vol. i. p. 308.
[47] Vol. ii. p. 691.
[48] Celtic Folklore, vol. i. p. 325.
[49] Second Edition, vol. iii. pp. 343 et seq.
[50] Teutonic Mythology, Stallybrass’s translation, ii. 796.
[51] Quoted by Hazlitt under Palm Sunday.
[52] Herbal for the Bible, p. 207.

CHAPTER XXI
HOLY WELLS AND STREAMS

I have thought it most important to look up this subject with a view of
seeing whether any clues were available which could help us to associate
the introduction of the well ceremonials with the worshippers of the May or
of the Solstitial year. For shortness I will call the ceremonial “baptism,” not
necessarily baptism in the modern sense, but as implying the use of water
for purifying or other religious purpose.
That baptism was pre-Christian is shown by John the Baptist using the
Jordan for this purpose before Christ’s ministration began. (Matt. 3. 6.)
There is a tremendous literature[53] dealing with the folklore of holy
wells and streams. The number of holy wells and streams in Britain is
legion; there are 3,000 in Ireland alone, and the first thing which strikes us
in a casual study of the folklore is the close association of the wells with
sacred trees. Almost equally distinctly we gather that both were situated
near holy stones, and that the worship included ceremonials connected with
all three.
The folklore dealing with holy wells and well-worship is so various that
it will be useful for our present purpose to classify the portions we need
under the following headings.
1. Well-worship outcome of pre-Christian days and customs.
2. Wells generally situated near circles, dolmens, cromlechs or cairns, or
churches which have replaced them.
3. Association with sacred trees.
4. Well-worship and offerings.
5. Time of the chief festivals.
1. Pagan origin.—It seems to be accepted now that well-worship in
Britain originated long before the Christian era; that it was not introduced
by the Christian missionaries, but rather they found it in vogue on their
arrival, and tolerated it at first and utilized it afterwards, as they did a great
many other Pagan customs.

With regard to this point Wood-Martin writes:[54]
“In many Irish MSS. there are allusions to this pre-Christian worship. For
example, Tirehan relates that St. Patrick, in his progress through Ireland,
came to a fountain called Slaun, to which the Druids offered sacrifices, and
which they worshipped as a God; and in Adamnan’s Life of St. Columkille it
is recounted that this saint, when in the country of the Picts, heard of a
notable fountain to which the Pagans paid divine honour.”
He adds (p. 50):
“It evidently did not originate in the blessing of wells by early saints and
thus spread downwards, until it became almost, if not quite, universal; on
the contrary, it began from the people, who were being Christianized, and
thence permeated the entire system of Irish Christianity.”
Baring-Gould tells us much concerning the transitional state (pp. 28 et
seq.). Wood-Martin divides holy wells into three classes: (1) those which
“derive their reputed virtues from Pagan superstition”; (2) those which were
“transferred from Pagan to so-called Christian uses,” and (3) “a few which
may lay claim to a merely Christian origin.”[55]
It is very easy to understand how the purely devout custom developed in
course of time, in the case of some wells at any rate, into a more
superstitious one, how some wells came to be called “wishing-wells” and
others were regarded as prophetic. Rhys gives us several instances of these
two classes in Wales.[56]
Wishing-wells are known all over the United Kingdom; many authors
give accounts of them.[57]
There can be no doubt that in the most ancient times magical practices
were carried on at wells or at the religious centre of which the well formed
a constituent part. Local practices of witchcraft would be a natural survival
of these. Gomme (p. 87) thus refers to the well of St. Aelian, not far from
Bettws Abergeley, in Denbighshire.
“Near the well resided a woman who officiated as a kind of priestess.
Anyone who wished to inflict a curse upon an enemy resorted to this
priestess, and for a trifling sum she registered, in a book kept for the
purpose, the name of the person on whom the curse was wished to fall. A
pin was then dropped into the well in the name of the victim, and the curse
was complete.”
The magical associations with wells appear in the following extract
(given by Quiller-Couch, p. 134) of a letter from Dr. O’Connor, the author

of the letters of Columbanus, to his brother.
“I have often inquired of your tenants what they themselves thought of
their pilgrimages to the wells of Kill-Aracht, Tobbar Brighde, Tobbar Muir,
near Elphin, Moor, near Castlereagh, where multitudes annually assembled
to celebrate what they, in broken English, termed Patterns (Patron’s days);
and when I pressed a very old man, Owen Hester, to state what possible
advantage he expected to derive from the singular custom of frequenting in
particular such wells as were contiguous to an old blasted oak, or an
upright hewn stone, and what the meaning was of the yet more singular
custom of sticking rags on the branches of such trees and spitting on them,
his answer, and the answer of the oldest men, was that their ancestors
always did it, and that it was a preservation against Geasa Draoidecht, i.e.,
the sorceries of the Druids, and that their cattle were preserved by it from
infectious disorders; that the daoini maithe, i.e., the fairies, were kept in
good humour by it; and so thoroughly persuaded were they of the sanctity
of these Pagan practices that they would travel bareheaded and barefooted
from ten to twenty miles for the purpose of crawling on their knees round
these wells, upright stones, and oak trees, westward, as the sun travels,
some three times, some six, some nine, and so on in uneven numbers until
their voluntary penances were completely fulfilled.”
2. Wells generally situated near stone monuments or churches which
have replaced them.
—We find many instances of wells near stone circles and dolmens.
It may even be that the existence of the spring determined the position of
the circle, for the officiating astronomer-priest must like other mortals have
had a water supply available. “Where a spring or a river flows,” says
Seneca, “there should we build altars and offer sacrifices” (Hope, p. 47).
The following shows how closely connected they were.[58]
“Closely associated with the circles, and occupying an equally important
position in the religious rites and ceremonies of the ancient inhabitants,
were sacred wells. These were more numerous than circles, no doubt owing
to the fact that their acquisition was more easily accomplished: but amongst
sacred wells we find some, as we find certain circles, occupying a position
of pre-eminence in the religious cult of their votaries, and these, as a rule, in
close proximity to sun and moon temples. At Tillie Beltane, in
Aberdeenshire, in close proximity to the remains of a larger and smaller

circle, is a well which was held sacred by the people. According to Col.
Leslie, on Beltane and Midsummer days, those on whom the dire hand of
disease had fallen, or those desirous of averting that calamity, went seven
times round the sacred wells sunwise (deasil)[59] and then proceeded to the
circles, where a like ceremony was performed.”
“In Stenness we find the same association of the well and the circles. But
in harmony with the unrivalled completeness of these monuments... we find
the sacred well here in a closer and deeper connection with the circles than
elsewhere.”
“In the parish of Stenness there is a district called Bigswell, in the centre
of which is a sacred well, and from which the district takes its name,
Big(s)well.... Be that as it may, we know from tradition that down to the
time when the Stone of Odin was demolished, parents came to the well with
children, on Beltane and Midsummer, passed round it sunwise, and having
bathed their little ones (a healthy ordeal), carried them thence to the Stone
of Odin, and passed them through the hole as a divine protection against the
malignant influences of the evil one.”
Borlase records an instance of a well near a stone-circle in Ireland in the
Townland of Ballyferriter, in County Kerry.[60]
The same author also gives examples in Ireland of wells near dolmens,
and of wells covered by dolmens.[61]
It may be remarked that in Cornwall Chapel Euny well is associated with
the circles at Bartinné and Carn Euny; St. Cleer with the three circles at the
Hurlers, and Alsia well is near the Bolleit circle. Mr. Horton Bolitho is my
authority for these statements.
A well is often found near a cell, cairn or keeill. Rhys gives us two
examples in the Isle of Man.[62] At Ardmore Bay the holy well is within the
ruined chapel of the saint.[63] A vast pile of stones surrounds the holy well
in Glencolumbkille in Donegal.[64]
It might be useful to add here that it is a very common thing to find a
well by a so-called tomb of a saint.
Let us turn now to wells situated near churches.
It is very generally known that many churches have been built on the
sites of stone-circles, menhirs, &c. This leads us to think that some form of
worship must have taken place at the “ancient-stones” originally. The
following extract from Wilson’s Archæology (page 110) is given in
Stonehenge by Sir Henry James (page 17):

“The common Gaelic phrase—Am bheil thu dol don chlachan—Are you
going to the stones?—by which the Scottish Highlander still enquires at a
neighbour if he is bound for church, seems in itself no doubtful tradition of
ancient worship within the monolithic ring.”
Rhys[65] gives us many instances of wells near churches, and here it may
be useful to add that the Welsh for well is Ffynnon.
Ffynnon Faglan is described as being near a church, also Ffynnon Fair, a
wishing-well. Criccieth Church is supposed to have had a well near it at one
time. Again, Ffynnon Beris is near the parish church of Llanberis (p. 366),
and Ffynnon Elian near to the church of Llanelian, Denbighshire. Then
there are St. Teilo’s Church and Well at Llandeilo Llwydarth, near Maen
Clochog, North Pembrokeshire.
Wood-Martin[66] refers to the rites at the well of Tubberpatrick, part of
the ceremony taking place in the church near by.
3. Association of sacred wells with sacred trees.—Rhys, and many other
authors, give us several instances of a tree by the side of a well.[67]
When we come to deal with well offerings we shall find, in fact, that in
almost every case a tree has been a necessary companion of the well, as the
well offerings were hung on them.
In many cases, of course, the kind of tree is not specified. When it is, it is
almost invariably the rowan or hawthorn. Rhys tells us: “The tree to expect
by a sacred well is doubtless some kind of thorn.”[68]
Then again, with reference to Ireland, Rhys, p. 335, quotes a passage
from a letter by the late Mr. W. C. Borlase, on Rag Offerings and Primitive
Pilgrimages in Ireland, to the effect that a hawthorn almost invariably
stands by the brink of the typical Irish “holy well.”
There are also many references to thorn trees in the same position in
Wales.
There are thorn trees at St. Madron’s well in Cornwall, and at Chapel
well St. Breward in the same county near Bodmin, there is a thorn tree over
the well.
Not only are wells often recorded as near sacred trees, but in the case of
some we learn that at the chief annual festival they were decked with
flowers and garlands, and “encircled with a jovial band of young people
celebrating the day with song and dance.” This is recorded of the “blessing
of the Brine” at Nantwich (Hope, p. 7).

—Although the traditions and superstitions
4. Well worship and offerings.connected with wells are fast becoming
things of the past, in certain parts they are still believed and practised.
Gomme[69] informs us that well-worship prevails in every county of the
three kingdoms. He finds it “most vital in the Gaelic countries, somewhat
less so in the British, and almost entirely wanting in the Teutonic south-east.
In some cases wells were resorted to for the cure of diseases; in others to
obtain change of weather or good luck. Offerings were made to them to
propitiate their guardian gods and nymphs. Pennant tells us that in olden
times the rich would sacrifice one of their horses at a well near Abergelen to
secure a blessing upon the rest.[70] Fowls were offered at St. Tegla’s Well,
near Wrexham, by epileptic patients,[71] but of late years the well spirits
have had to be content with much smaller tributes—such trifles as pins,
rags, coloured pebbles and small coins.”
In consequence of this dwindling down of the offering we have chiefly to
do with rags, but I think we may learn from the traditions that originally it
was an offering of a garment, and to the officiating priest, at the well, or
temple with which the well was connected. It is also a question whether the
almost universal association of pins with the garment or part of it might not
have originated at a time when such an offering—it was probably originally
a skin—to a priest without a pin (of bone) to fasten it on would not have
been complete. In Kent’s cavern pins of bone have been found associated
with bones of palæolithic mammals.
Mr. Gomme tells us,[72] “In the case of some wells, especially in
Scotland, at one time the whole garment was put down as an offering.
Gradually these offerings of clothes became less and less till they came
down to rags.” He also points out, as we have already seen, that “the
geographical distribution of rag-offerings coincides with the existence of
monoliths and dolmens.”
As has been noted, almost invariably by the side of every well there
grows the “sacred tree,” a rowan or thorn for the most part; on this tree the
rags are hung, then the bent pin is dropped in. If there happens to be no tree,
or if it is so old that only the stump is left, then the rags may sometimes be
seen wedged in between the stones of the well.
Quiller-Couch (p. 135) tells us that at Ahagour in Mayo is a well much
frequented by pilgrims, for penance chiefly, where among other offerings
they cut up their clothes, be they ever so new, and tie them to the two old

trees growing near, “lest, on the day of judgment,” thinks the superstitious
peasant, “the Almighty should forget that he came there, and in order that
the tokens should be known, when St. Patrick should lay them before the
tribunal.”
When the original well-worship in relation with the temples became
disestablished, if the well-worship were kept up at all, reasons other than
the old one would soon be invented, and many of these would naturally be
connected with magic and sorcery. In the oldest days the priest would be a
physician as well as an astronomer and a magician, and his advice might be
good for various disorders, but after he had disappeared there was only
magic to depend upon; and this atmosphere is reflected in the traditions.
I will now give a few extracts to show what goes on at present in certain
localities with regard to the offerings, and the frame of mind of the
devotees.
With reference to the reasons for the offerings made in the present day,
Wood-Martin writes:[73]
“Wells were the haunts of spirits that proved to be propitious if
remembered, but were vindictive if neglected, and hence no devotee
approached the sacred precincts empty-handed, the principle being no gift
no cure; therefore the modern devotee, when tying up a fragment from the
clothing, or dropping a cake, a small coin, or a crooked pin into the well, is
unconsciously worshipping the old presiding spirit of the place.”
Rhys[74] gives us a great deal of information on this. The ritual varies at
some of them. People came from far and near; it is the custom to make
some sort of offering, rags and pins being the most modern, and about these
we have most information as a matter of course.
Rhys quotes statements he has received about three wells in the county of
Glamorgan (Vol. 1, p. 356). At the first it was the custom “that the person
who wishes his health to be benefited should wash in the water of the well,
and throw a pin into it afterwards.” At another “the custom prevails of tying
rags to the branches of a tree growing close at hand”; and at the third, “it is
the custom for those who are healed in it to tie a shred of linen or cotton to
the branches of a tree that stands close by; and there the shreds are almost
as numerous as the leaves.”
Further (p. 363) we read of another Ffynnon Faglan, and of this Rhys
says, “One told me his mother used to take him to it when he was a child
for sore eyes, bathe them with the water, and then drop in a pin. The other

man, when he was young, bathed in it for rheumatism.” Of this well it is
recorded that when it was cleaned out about fifty years ago “two basinfuls
of pins were taken out,” which were all bent, but no coins were found in it.
Wood-Martin[75] also gives an interesting account of the rite performed at
a certain well in Ireland; it is a little more elaborate than at some, but
affords an idea of what was probably at one time a very usual ceremony in
connection with stones in other places.
“In a statistical account of the parish of Dungiven, written in 1813, it is
stated that at the well of Tubberpatrick, after performing the usual rounds,
devotees wash their hands and feet with the water and tear off a small rag
from their clothes, which they tie on a bush overhanging the well; from
whence they all proceed to a large stone in the River Roe, immediately
below the old church, and having performed an oblation they walk round
the stone, bowing to it, and repeating prayers as at the well. Their next
movement is to the old church, within which a similar ceremony goes on,
and they finish this rite by a procession and prayers round the upright
stone.”
5. Time of the chief festival.—On this point there is not a great quantity of
precise information, but what we have points to May 1 as being about the
time when the holy wells are most frequented and considered most
efficacious.
This lack of information arises from the fact that the existence of the May
year in prehistoric times has not been even dreamt of by those who have
compiled the various accounts of the fast fading traditions, and in very
many instances a reference to an unknown saint’s day is the only
information given as to the time of the annual celebration. Wide
generalisation, therefore, from the material at hand is risky.
I will refer in the first instance to the May worship, and begin with the
famous Madron well in Cornwall, the walls of which I found to be oriented
to the May sunrise, so that the priest officiating at the altar would face the
sunrise. Quiller-Couch (p. 137) thus refers to what happened there.
“Children used to be taken to this well on the first three Sunday mornings
in May to be dipped in the water, that they might be cured of the rickets, or
any other disorder with which they were troubled. Three times they were
plunged into the water, after having been stripped naked; the parent, or
person dipping them, standing facing the sun; after the dipping they were

passed nine times round the well from east to west; then they were dressed
and laid on St. Madern’s bed; should they sleep, and the water in the well
bubble, it was considered a good omen. Strict silence had to be kept during
the entire performance, or the spell was broken. At the present time the
people go to the well in crowds on the first Sunday in May, when the
Wesleyans hold a service there, and a sermon is preached; after which the
people throw in two pins or pebbles to consult the spirit, or try for
sweethearts; if the two articles sink together, they will soon be married.
“Here divination is performed on May morning by rustic maidens
anxious to know when they are to be married. Two pieces of straw about an
inch long are crossed and transfixed with a pin. This, floated on the waters,
elicits bubbles, the number of which, carefully counted, denotes the years
before the happy day.”
Chapel Euny in Cornwall, near the Bartinné circle, has a wishing (lucky)
well near it. It was used on one of the three first Wednesdays in May.
Children suffering from mesenteric disease are dipped three times
“widderschynnes,” that is contrary to the sun’s motion, and dragged round
the well three times in the same direction.[76]
Edmunds[77] thus refers to this well:—
“Some years since I had the curiosity to go with a friend to Chapel Euny
on one of these Wednesdays, and, whilst watching at a distance, we saw two
women come to the well at the appointed hour, and perform this ceremony
on an infant.”
Alsia Well, in the parish of Buryan, same parish as Bolleit circle, has its
well ceremonials on the first three Wednesdays in May.
In Cornwall the May bathing ceremonial is even carried out in salt water.
[78] The time chosen is the same as that at Madron and Chapel Euny, the
first three Sundays in May.
This Sunday in May celebration is not confined to Cornwall. At Eden
Hall, Giant’s Cave, water with sugar is drunk on the third Sunday in May. A
vast concourse of both sexes is present.[79]
At Rorrington, a township in the parish of Chirbury, was a holy well at
which a wake was celebrated on Ascension Day.
In the account of this well given by Gomme (p. 82) we get a glimpse of
many associated usages.
“The well was adorned with a bower of green boughs, rushes, and
flowers, and a may-pole was set up. The people walked round the well,

dancing and frolicking as they went. They threw pins into the well to bring
good luck and to preserve them from being bewitched, and they also drank
some of the water. Cakes were also eaten; they were round flat buns from
three to four inches across, sweetened, spiced, and marked with a cross, and
they were supposed to bring good luck if kept.”
The legend given by Quiller-Couch (p. 55) respecting St. Cuthbert’s well
in North Cornwall is that “in olden times mothers on Ascension Day
brought their deformed or sickly children here, and dipped them in, at the
same time passing them through the aperture connecting the two cisterns;
and thus, it is said, they became healed of their disease or deformity. It
would seem that other classes also believed virtue to reside in its water; for
it is said that the cripples were accustomed to leave their crutches in the
hole at the head of the well.”
At the village of Tissington, near Ashbourne, in Derbyshire, the custom
of well-flowering is still observed on every anniversary of the Ascension
(Hope, p. 48).
We may gather from these associated observances at different places that
the wells themselves were situated near circles, for the worshippers would
not be distributed at such a time. This argument is strengthened by the
custom of “waking the well” which took place on the patron saint’s day.
With regard to the time of the day or night at which well-worship took
place, there seems little doubt that for the most part it was carried on at
night. The practices connected with the “waking of the well” indicate this
clearly, and when it is remembered that these ancient worships were carried
on at a time when marriage had not been instituted, we can understand that
many ‘pagan’ rituals savoured of sensualism as we should now think and
call it.
The particular times when it was considered most propitious for the sick
to visit the wells appear anciently to have been at daybreak or sunrise.
At the well at Farr, in Sutherlandshire, it is held that the patient, after
undergoing his plunge, drinking of the water, and making his offering,
“must be away from the banks so as to be fairly out of sight of the water
before the sun rises, else no cure is effected.” At Roche Holywell, in
Cornwall, before sunrise on holy Thursday was the appointed time.
Sometimes the moment of sunrise is chosen. To bathe in the well of St.
Medan, at Kirkmaiden in Wigtonshire, as the sun rose on the first Sunday in
May was considered an infallible cure for almost any disease.

On the other hand, in some cases, as at St. Madron’s well, noon is chosen
on the first three Sundays in May, “not believing that these waters have any
virtue if resorted to on any other days of the year, or at any other hour of the
day.”
With regard to the August festival, there is a holy well at St. Cleer, near
the Hurlers; the festival is held on August 9th.[80] I have no special
references to August wells in Ireland, but there is evidence given by
Piers[81] that at that time cattle were bathed.
“On the first Sunday in harvest, viz., in August, they will be sure to drive
their cattle into some pool or river and therein swim them; this they observe
as inviolable as if it were a point of religion, for they think no beast will live
the whole year thro’ unless they be thus drenched. I deny not but that
swimming cattle, and chiefly in this season of the year, is healthful unto
them, as the poet hath observed:—

“Balantemque gregem fluvio mersare salubri.”—Virg.
In th’ healthful flood to plunge the bleating flock.

but precisely to do this on the first Sunday in harvest, I look on as not only
superstitious but profane.”
I next come to the solstice in June.
There is evidence concerning wells quite akin to that furnished by the
astronomical use of the circles, that the May year festivals were
subsequently changed to solstitial dates. The well worship does not appear
to have been carried on in the cold weather—hence the absence of
references to February and November; for the same reason we have only
now to do with the summer solstice.
Hazlitt quotes the following from the Irish Hudibras (1689) concerning
June worship at a well in the North of Ireland:—
“Have you beheld, when people pray
At St. John’s well on Patron-Day,
By charm of priest and miracle,
To cure diseases at this well;
The valleys filled with blind and lame,
And go as limping as they came.”

At Barnwell (Beirna-well = youths’ well), near Cambridge, the festival
took place on St. John’s Day.[82]
Brand, in his history of Newcastle (ii. 54), refers to a well still called
Bede’s Well, near Jarrow. “As late as 1740 it was a prevailing custom to
bring children troubled with any disease or infirmity; a crooked pin was put
in, and the well laved dry between each dipping. My informant has seen
twenty children brought together on a Sunday, to be dipped in this well, at
which also, on Midsummer Eve, there was a great resort of neighbouring
people, with bonfires, music, etc.”
Hope gives references to seven wells dedicated to “St. John,” one to “St.
John the Baptist,” and four to St. Peter. These may have been solstitial
wells, but the information given is very slight and not to the present point.
He states (xxii) that the most important celebrations were first held in May
and at the summer solstice. He then adds, “later Easter and Ascensiontide
were the favoured seasons.” May, Summer Solstice and Easter was, I think,
the true order.
Finally, I may refer to the earliest holy well known to history. This is the
famous well at Heliopolis where Rā used to wash himself, and Piankhi, b.c.

740, went and washed his face in it. At this same well the Virgin sat and
washed her Son’s swaddling bands in it. Its water made the balsam trees to
grow. It is now called by the Arabs “The Fountain of the Sun” ‘Êyn ash-
Shems.
[53] The literature that I have chiefly consulted is as follows:—
R. C. Hope Holy Wells; their Legends and Traditions.
R. L. Quiller-Couch Ancient and Holy Wells of Cornwall.
W. G. Wood-Martin Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland.
G. L. Gomme Ethnology in Folklore.
Prof. Rhys Celtic Folklore, Manx and Welsh.
W. C. Borlase Dolmens of Ireland.
S. Baring-Gould A Book of the West.

[54] Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland, A Folklore Sketch, ii., p. 47.
[55] Pp. 11, 47.
[56] Celtic Folklore, Manx and Welsh, ii., p. 366.
[57] Wood-Martin, loc. cit., ii., p. 80.
[58] Standing Stones and Maeshowe of Stenness, by Magnus Spence, p. 13.
[59] That is from W. to E. through N., or E. to W. through S.; in the same direction as the
hands of a clock.
[60] The Dolmens of Ireland, i., p. 3.
[61] Ibid., pp. 95, 765.
[62] Celtic Folklore, Manx and Welsh, i., p. 332.
[63] Borlase, loc. cit., p. 760.
[64] Ibid., p. 426.
[65] Rhys, Celtic Folklore, Manx and Welsh, p. 363.
[66] Pagan Ireland, p. 160.
[67] Rhys, Celtic Folklore, Manx and Welsh, i., pp. 354, 356, 357, &c.
[68] Rhys, ibid., p. 332.
[69] Ethnology in Folklore, p. 78.
[70] Sikes: British Goblins, p. 351.
[71] Sikes, idem., p. 329.
[72] Folklore, 1892, p. 89.
[73] Pagan Ireland, p. 145.
[74] Celtic Folklore, Manx and Welsh.
[75] Pagan Ireland, p. 160.
[76] Hope, p. 14.
[77] The Land’s End District, p. 72.
[78] Edmunds, p. 72.
[79] Hope, p. 40.
[80] St. Cleer = St. Cledod, a.d. 482. The arms of St. Cleer are the Sun in its glory.

[81] Description of Westmeath, 1682, quoted by Vallencey, i., 121.
[82] Hazlitt, ii., 616.

CHAPTER XXII
WHERE DID THE BRITISH WORSHIP ORIGINATE?

The recent chapters have, I think, established, by the evidence derived
from folklore and tradition, that there was in the long past a combined
worship of trees, wells and streams in the neighbourhood of sacred places,
the sacred place being a stone circle or some other monument built up of
stones.
We have gathered also that the chief times of worship were on or near the
most important dates defined for us by the May year, the original year
marked out by the various agricultural and other operations proper to the
various seasons.
It is again imperative that I should point out that if the basis of this
worship was not utility it must have been started by men sufficiently skilled
to indicate by their astronomical knowledge the proper times for the various
operations to which I have referred. In this we see the reason for the local
combination of the worship in the neighbourhood of the stones, for the
stones were really the instruments which enabled the astronomer-priest to
be useful to the community; that he in process of time became powerful and
sacred because he was wise, and added medicine and magic to his other
qualifications, was only what was to be expected.
I am not the first to have been driven by the facts to note the close
association to which I have referred, that the cults were not separate but
were parts of one whole.
Wood-Martin speaks with the most certain sound on this point. “It will be
seen that, from a review of the whole subject, stone, water, tree, and animal-
worship are intimately connected.”[83]
What the analysis in the recent chapters, taken in connection with the
astronomical results previously stated, has done is perhaps to give a clear
reason for the connection. Not only were the cults started together, but they
remained together for a long time; it is only in quite late years that the

traditions have become so dim that practices once closely connected are
now dealt with apart from the rest.
Hope points out (p. xxii) that the 16th of the canons of the reign of Edgar,
a.d. 963, which enjoins the clergy to be diligent, advance Christianity, and
extinguish heathenism, mentions especially the worship of stones, trees, and
fountains. The laws of Knut (a.d. 1018) specify the worship “of heathen
gods, the sun, moon, fire, rivers, fountains, rocks, or trees.”
Now, although the folklore evidence I have brought together has been
gathered for the most part from the British Isles, my inquiries have not been
limited to that area.
It was natural that when the study of folklore had suggested that there
was a close connection between the worship carried on in Britain at stone
monuments, sacred trees, and sacred wells an attempt should have been
made to see whether these three cults had been associated out of Britain
with the ceremonials of any of the early peoples for which complete and
trustworthy information is available.
On this point the traditions of widely sundered countries is amazingly
strong.
The folklore of the Pyrenees, France, Spain and Portugal regarding
sacred wells is very similar to that of Ireland. Borlase writes:[84]
“It is interesting to notice that the pre-Christian custom called dessil, or
circuit around a venerated spot, which is practised in Ireland in the case of
one dolmen at least, as well as at wells and Churches innumerable, is found
also in Portugal.”
In the Pyrenees, too, fairies and spirits are thought much of in this
connection. Borlase tells us:[85] “They are the presiding genii of certain
wells.” He adds:
“It is not in Ireland alone that dolmens are associated with the notion of
wells and water springs. The Portuguese names, Anta do Fontao, Fonte
Coberta, Anta do Fonte-de Mouratao, and the French names, Fonte de
Rourre, and Fonte nay le Marmion, show this to be the case.”[86]
In Persia Sir Wm. Ouseley saw a tree covered with rags, and similar trees
in the Himalayas are associated with large heaps of stones (Gomme, p.
105).
The late General Pitt-Rivers affirms that the customs of well-offerings I
referred to in the last chapter are invariably associated with cairns,
megalithic monuments or some such early Pagan institutions, and he adds

that the area in which traces of well-offerings are found is conterminous
with the area of the megalithic monuments.[87]
The idea that the waters of certain wells have marvellous healing powers
is also not confined to the British Isles, for in a great many parts of Europe,
perhaps more especially in France, Spain and Portugal, we find instances.
The practice of worshipping in connection with wells and the sacred
stones and sacred trees which were associated with them, as we have seen,
was indeed in ancient days almost, if not quite, universal wherever man
existed. The traditions of the past, therefore, are to be gathered over a very
wide area. I quote a summary of the universality of this practice given by
the late General Pitt-Rivers in the paper already noticed:
“Burton says it extends throughout northern Africa from west to east;
Mungo Park mentions it in western Africa; Sir Samuel Baker speaks of it on
the confines of Abyssinia, and says that the people who practised it were
unable to assign a reason for doing so; Burton also found the same custom
in Arabia during his pilgrimage to Mecca; in Persia Sir William Ouseley
saw a tree close to a large monolith covered with these rags, and he
describes it as a practice appertaining to a religion long since proscribed in
that country; in the Dekkan and Ceylon Colonel Leslie says that the trees in
the neighbourhood of wells may be seen covered with similar scraps of
cotton: Dr. A. Campbell speaks of it as being practised by the Limboos near
Darjeeling in the Himalaya, where it is associated, as in Ireland, with large
heaps of stones; and Huc in his travels mentions it among the Tartars.”
The astronomical facts given in this book, gathered from a study of the
monuments in these islands, can only give us information touching the
introduction of the combined worship here.
My investigations have strongly suggested, to say the least, that there
were men here with knowledge enough to utilise the movements of the sun
and stars for temple, and no doubt practical purposes before 2000 b.c., that
is, a thousand years before Solomon was born, and at about the time that the
Hecatompedon was founded at Athens.
If this is anywhere near the truth, these men must have been
representatives of a very old civilisation.
Now the civilisation principally considered by archæologists in
connection with the building of the monuments which I have studied is the
Aryan, of which the Celts formed a branch. This view, however, is not
universally held; the late General Pitt-Rivers, and I know of no higher

authority, stated his opinion that “The megalithic monuments... take us back
to pre-Aryan people, and suggest the spread of this people over the area
covered by their remains.”[88]
Mr. Gomme is of the same opinion (p. 27):
“Ceremonies which are demonstrably non-Aryan in India, even in the
presence of Aryan people, must in origin have been non-Aryan in Europe,
though the race from whom they have descended is not at present identified
by ethnologists.”
Sergi also points out:—
“Indo-Germanism led to almost entire forgetfulness of the most ancient
civilisations of the earth, those born in the valleys of the Euphrates and the
Tigris, and in the valley of the Nile; no influence was granted to them over
Greco-Roman classic civilisation, almost none anywhere in the
Mediterranean.”[89]
It is not necessary for me to deal at length with the great Aryan
controversy in this book, even if the subject were within my competence,
which it is not; but now that we have a large number of monuments dated,
say, within twenty years of their use, it is important to bring forward some
dates arrived at by archæologists and philologists to compare with those
which the astronomical method of inquiry has revealed.
Hall[90] gives evidence to show that the Aryans did not reach Greece till
after the earlier period of the Mycenæan age, which he dates at about 1700
b.c.
With regard to the date of the Aryan invasion of Britain, Mr. Read, of the
Department of Ethnography, British Museum, informs me that it may be
taken as about 1000 b.c.; it was associated with cremation. It is highly
probable that these Aryans were the Goidels or the Gael. These were
followed some 700 years later by another Aryan sept—the Brythons. Mr.
Read is also of opinion that the Goidels reached Britain from the country
round the South Baltic, and the Brythons from or through north-east France.
Archæologists, however, recognise a pre-Aryan invasion, about 1800 b.c.
(a date determined by the introduction of bronze), of a brachycephalic folk
who built covered barrows, different in these respects from the neolithic
folk, who were long-skulled and built long barrows. Now, in relation to the
stone structures to which this book especially refers, the question arises, are
we then dealing with this swarm or the people whom they found on the
soil?

There are some indications in the traditions which imply that we are
really dealing with an early stone age, when flints were the only weapons,
and there were no clothes to speak of. I will give one or two examples of
these traditions. Gomme (p. 53) refers to a singular fact preserved among
the ceremonies of witchcraft in Scotland:
“In order to injure the waxen image of the intended victim, the
implements used in some cases by the witches were stone arrowheads, or
elf-shots, as they were called, and their use was accompanied by an
incantation. Here we have, in the undoubted form of a prehistoric
implement, the oldest untouched detail of early life which has been
preserved by witchcraft.”
Gomme (p. 39) also tells us that one of the May practices at Stirling is for
boys of ten and twelve years old to divest themselves of their clothing, and
in a state of nudity to run round certain natural or artificial circles.
“Formerly the rounded summit of Demyat, an eminence in the Ochil range,
was a favourite scene of this strange pastime, but for many years it has been
performed at the King’s Knot, in Stirling, an octagonal mound in the Royal
Gardens. The performances are not infrequently repeated at Midsummer
and Lammas.” He adds, “The fact that in this instance the practice is
continued only by ‘boys of ten and twelve years old,’ shows that we have
here one of the last stages of an old rite before its final abolition.”
Baring-Gould (p. 21) provides us with a practice in Brittany which would
seem to be a remnant of a pre-clothing age.
Near Carnac is a menhir, at which a singular “ceremony took place till
comparatively recently, and may perhaps still be practised in secret. A
married couple that have no family repair to this stone when the moon is
full, strip themselves stark naked and course one another round it a
prescribed number of times, whilst their relations keep guard against
intrusion at a respectful distance.”
Now it is in connection with this question that I am in hopes that some
help may be got from the astronomical results recorded in the present
volume. The dates revealed by the orientation of the circles and outstanding
stones already dealt with (and there is a large number to follow) indicate
that it is among the records of some people of whom the civilisation is very
ancient that we must look in the first instance with a view of tracing the
origin of our British monuments.

Further, now that we have been able to follow their astronomical
methods, to note how sound they were, and to gather the purposes of utility
they were intended to serve, it is simply common sense to inquire, in the
first instance, if they may have been connected with these ancient peoples
whose astronomical skill is universally recognised, and whose records and
even observations have come down to us.
Now, while we know nothing of the astronomy of the Aryans generally,
or that of the Celts in particular, the astronomical knowledge of the
Babylonians and Egyptians is one of the wonders of the ancient world.
Hence Babylonia and Egypt are at once suggested, and the suggestion is
not rendered a less probable one when we remember that both these peoples
studied and utilised astronomy at least some 8,000 years ago.
But here we are dealing with two peoples. It is more than probable that
they both were associated more or less near the origin with one race, the
ideas of which permeated both civilisations.
I have it on the highest authority, that of Dr. Budge, that in Babylonia
there were originally the Sumerians and the Semites. The primitive race
which conquered the Egyptians seems to have been connected with the
former as regards civilisation, and with the latter as regards some aspects of
the Egyptian language.
This race was Semitic, and as the pyramids, built some 6,000 years ago,
are a proof of the interaction of the two civilisations at that time, for the
Easter festival celebrated on the banks of the Nile came from the valleys of
the Tigris and Euphrates, we may omit the pre-Semites from our
consideration.
There is other evidence that the connection between the Semites and
Egyptians was close astronomically, so that any Semitic influence in later
times or in other lands would be sure to show traces of this connection, and
in temple worship it would be traceable. While the carefully oriented
Egyptian temples built of stone remain and have been carefully studied,
those erected in the centres of Semitic power, built of unbaked brick, have
for the most part disappeared, but for the most part only; some stone
structures remain, but in regard to them there has been no Lepsius; of their
orientation, too, little is known. This is all the more to be regretted since
Layard, in addition to many E. and N. buildings found at Nimrood, noted at
the mound of Kouyunjik, the site of Nineveh, lat. 36° 20′ N., that

Sennacherib’s palace, which appears to have been built round a central
temple, was oriented to the May year.[91] (Az. N. 68° 30′ E. = Dec. N. 16°.)
Now, calling in the Babylonians as the originators of what went on in
Britain 4,000 years ago may seem to some to be far-fetched in more ways
than one; but the Babylonians were a remarkable people; according to some
they originated all the voyaging of the early world, though other authorities
point out that the first ships in the eastern seas must have been Indian.
Ihering[92] adduces a series of facts which indicate clearly that the
Babylonians carried on maritime navigation at least as early as about 3500
b.c. But, whatever this time was, the Semites and Egyptians had already a
rich culture behind them at a time when the Aryans, whatever or wherever
their origin, had not made themselves a place in the world’s history. An
ancient sea connection between Babylonia and India may explain the
similarity of the British and Indian folklore.
Some facts with regard to long distance ancient travel are the following.
Our start-point may be that Gudea, a Babylonian king who reigned about
2500 b.c., brought stones from Melukhkha and Makan, that is, Egypt and
Sinai (Budge, History of Egypt, ii., 130). Now these stones were taken
coastwise Sinai to Eridu, at the head of the Persian Gulf, a distance of 4,000
miles, and it is also said that then, or even before then, there was a coast-
wise traffic to and from Malabar, where teak was got to be used in house-
and boat-building. The distance from Eridu coastwise to Malabar, say the
present Cannanore, is 2,400 miles.
The distance, coastwise, from Alexandria to Sandwich, where we learn
that Phœnicians and others shipped the tin extracted from the mines in
Cornwall, is only 5,300 miles, so that a voyage of this length was quite
within the powers of the compassless navigators of 2500 b.c.
The old idea that the ancient merchants could make a course from Ushant
to, say, Falmouth or Penzance need no longer be entertained; the crossing
from Africa to Gibraltar and from Cape Grisnez to Sandwich were both to
visible land, i.e. coastwise. The cliffs on the opposite land are easily seen on
a clear day.
Hence it would have been easier before the days of astronomical
knowledge and compasses to have reached England, and therefore Ireland
and the Orkneys, than to get to some of the islands in the Mediterranean
itself.[93]

It is seen then that it is possible that Semites might have built our stone
monuments between 2000 and 1200 b.c., while it is quite certain that the
Aryans did not build them, if the archæologists are not widely wrong in
their dates.
Let us, then, begin our inquiries by considering the information available
with regard to the Semites. Let us see in the first instance whether they had
stone monuments, and sacred trees and sacred wells; a system of worship;
and whether this worship was connected with the sun and stars.
It is fortunate for us in this matter that one of the most fully equipped
scholars which the last century produced, Robertson Smith, devoted his
studies for many years to The Religion of the Semites, and information on
the points raised is to our hand; all I need do is to give as shortly as possible
a statement of the various conclusions he had reached on the points to
which our attention may in the first instance be confined. I quote from his
book The Religion of the Semites.
The Semites include the Babylonians, who spoke a Semitic dialect, for
there were Sumerian speaking peoples among them, Assyrians, Phœnicians,
Hebrews, Arabs and Aramæans, who in ancient times occupied the fertile
lands of Syria, Mesopotamia and Irak from the Mediterranean coast to the
base of the mountains of Iran and Armenia. They also embrace the
inhabitants of the great Arabian peninsula, which is believed to have been
the centre of dispersion.
The ordinary artificial mark of a Semitic sanctuary was the sacrificial
pillar, cairn, or rude altar (p. 183): it was a fixed point where, according to
primitive rule, the blood of the offering was applied to the sacred stones; or
where a sacred tree, as we shall see presently, was hung with gifts; the
stones and tree being symbols of the God (p. 151).
Further, it is certain that the original altar among the northern Semites
was a great unhewn[94] stone, or a cairn, at which the blood of the victim
was shed (p. 185).
Monolithic pillars or cairns of stones are frequently mentioned in the
more ancient parts of the Old Testament as marking sanctuaries; Shechem,
Bethel, Gilead, Gilgal, Mizpah, Gibeon, and En-Rogel are referred to (p.
186).
There is evidence that in very early times the sanctuary was a cave (p.
183). The obvious successors of a natural cave are, (1) an artificial cave
made in the earth like the natural one, and (2) a model or representation of a

cave built of stone, with a small entrance which would be barred, and
covered over with earth, thus protecting the priests from wild animals and
the weather.
The dolmens and cromlechs which are found in the Semitic area where
there are stones doubtless had this origin.
The use of a cave was probably borrowed both by the Egyptians and
Greeks (there is a cave, for instance, at Eleusis) from the Semites.
In later times, when caves or their equivalents were no longer in vogue
and temples were erected, they enclosed a Bit-ili or Beth-el, an upright
stone, consecrated by oil.[95]
We next learn (pp. 170 and 183) that no Canaanite high place was
complete without its sacred tree standing beside the altar.
In tree-worship pure and simple as in Arabia, the tree is adored at an
annual feast (? May), when it is hung with clothes and women’s ornaments
(p. 169).
The tree at Mecca to which offerings are made is spoken of as a “tree to
hang things on.”
The references to “groves” given in the Bible as associated with temple
worship are misleading, “groves” being a wrong translation of the word
Asherah, which was a pole made of wood which the Jews adopted from the
Canaanites. It was ornamented and perhaps draped, and was most probably
originally a tree. It may have been used in the “high places” because single
trees would not grow there in the East any more than on the moors in
Devon and Cornwall.
The antiquity of this emblem is proved by Smith’s statement (p. 171) that
in an Assyrian monument from Khorsābād an ornamental pole is shown
beside a portable altar. “Priests stand before it engaged in an act of worship
and touch the pole with their hands or perhaps anoint it with some liquid
substance.”
The draping of the tree seems to be proved by the passage which
suggested the mistranslation to me before I wrote to some Hebrew scholars
among my friends who allowed me to consult them. The passage is as
follows (II. Kings, xxiii., 6, 7):—
“And he brought out the grove from the house of the Lord, without
Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and
stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of
the children of the people.

“And he brake down the houses of the Sodomites, that were by the house
of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”
To show how little variation there was in the Semitic practices to those
recorded in British folklore I may state that one of my friends—one of the
revision committee—informed me that his impression was that the Asherah
was furnished with pegs or hooks, so that the garments, &c., might be easily
hung on it.
I next come to the sacred waters. A sacred fountain, as well as the sacred
tree, was a common symbol at Semitic sanctuaries (p. 183). Nevertheless,
they were sometimes absent, the main place being given to altar worship.
Further, Robertson Smith was of opinion that this altar worship did not
originate with tree [? or water] worship (p. 170); but still, sacred wells are
among the oldest and most ineradicable objects of reverence among all the
Semites, and were credited with oracular powers (pp. 128, 154). The
fountain or stream was not a mere adjunct to the temple, but was itself one
of the principal sacra of the spot (p. 155).
Undoubtedly there were ordeals among other things at these wells (p.
163). One case is given in Numbers, v., 17, where the words “holy water”
occur, and other water “that causeth the curse” is referred to. Ordeal by
water is not unknown among British customs.
It is interesting to note that special sanctity was attached to groups of
seven wells (p. 167), and that one such group was called Thorayga=Pleiades
(p. 153).[96] We may gather from this that one of the most sacred times for
Semitic worship was at the May festival, marked by the rising of the
Pleiades.
Although I do not find many references in Robertson Smith’s book as to
great festival days, there is other evidence which shows that the May
festival was the greatest, and represented New Year’s Day. I have already
shown that the May-November year is the one recognised in the present
Turkish, Armenian and I believe Persian calendars (p. 29). As this was the
year used at Thebes 3200 b.c., we may take it that at that time it was
universal in W. Asia and the adjacent lands. The Jews afterwards adopted
the equinoctial year.
It seems highly probable that we may learn from many passages in the
Old Testament what the Semitic temple practices were generally. There

were sacrifices of men and beasts, burnt offerings, and lighting of fires,
through which the children were made to pass.
I give some references to these fire practices.
“And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to
Molech.”—Leviticus, xviii., 21.
“There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of
times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
“Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a
necromancer.”—Deuteronomy, xviii., 10, 11.
“He walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to
pass through the fire.”—II. Kings, xvi., 3.
“And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire,
and used divination and enchantments.”—II. Kings, xvii., 17.
“And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of
Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through
the fire to Molech.”—II. Kings, xxiii., 10. (See also 4 and 5.)
Fire sacrifices which were interpreted as offerings of fragrant smoke
were prevalent among the settled Semites (p. 218). Sacrificial fat was
burned on the altar. Smith remarks: “This could be done without any
fundamental modification of the old type of sacred stone or altar pillar,
simply by making a hollow on the top to receive the grease, and there is
some reason to think that fire-altars of this simple kind, which in certain
Phœnician types are developed into altar candlesticks, are older than the
broad platform altar proper for receiving a burnt offering” (p. 364).
With regard to the worship of the sun and stars by the Semites, we read
that the Semite addressed his God as Baal or Bal. The simple form of Baal
was the sun.[97]
By the Semites the stars were, on account of their movements, held to be
alive; they were therefore gods, and it was in consequence of this
widespread belief that the stars were worshipped (p. 127). The worshippers
“burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, to the moon and to the planets, and to
all the hosts of heaven” (II. Kings, xxiii., 5). Job congratulated himself that
“his heart had not been enticed, nor his mouth kissed his hand, if he beheld
the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in her brightness” (Job, xxxi.,

26-27). The worship of the morning star as a god is the old Semitic
conception (Isa., xiv., 12), “Lucifer son of the Dawn.”
We gather from the later practices of the Saracens that the sacrifices to
the morning star could not be made after the star had disappeared in the
dawn.[98] The God had to be in the presence of the worshippers.
The Semitic worship was generally carried on in “high places”; in the
Babylonian temples built in a river valley the “high places” were secured by
building towers with the sanctuary on the top.
These high places were necessary because exact observations of the
risings of the heavenly bodies formed part of the ceremonial, and a clear
horizon was absolutely imperative. That this was generally understood and
acted on is well evidenced by the fact that in the Old Testament the mention
of high places is nearly always associated with the references to the religion
of the Canaanites and other Semitic nations as if the high places were
among the most important points in it.
Other arguments may be founded upon linguistic considerations. Prof. J.
Morris Jones[99] finds that the syntax of Welsh and Irish differs from that of
other Aryan languages in many important respects, e.g. the verb is put first
in every simple sentence. Prof. Rhys had suggested that these differences
represented the persistence in Welsh and Irish of the syntax of a pre-Aryan
dialect, and as the anthropologists hold that the pre-Aryan population of
these islands came from North Africa, it seemed to Prof. Jones that that was
the obvious place to look for the origin of these syntactical peculiarities. He
finds the similarities between Old Egyptian and neo-Celtic syntax to be
astonishing; he shows that practically all the peculiarities of Welsh and Irish
syntax are found in the Hamitic languages.
This conclusion practically implies that the bulk of the population of
these islands, before the arrival of the Celts, spoke dialects allied to those of
North Africa. The syntactical peculiarities must have represented the habits
of thought of the people, which survived in the Celtic vocabulary imposed
upon them.
These conclusions were not known to me when I began to see the
necessity of separating the cult of the June from that of the May year, and
the identity of the conclusions drawn from astronomical and linguistic data
is to me very striking and also suggests further special inquiries.

It is also worth while to state that the Semites, including the Hebrews and
Phœnicians, did not burn their dead. Finally, I may quote a remark made by
General Pitt-Rivers in the paper already referred to:—“If we do not accept
one old civilization as the origin of the various practices, then we must
assume accidental origins in each country.”
[83] Wood-Martin, p. 265.
[84] Dolmens of Ireland, ii., p. 696.
[85] Ibid., ii., p. 580.
[86] Ibid., p. 772.
[87] Journal Eth. Soc., N.S., i., 64.
[88] Journ. Eth. Soc., N.S. i., 64.
[89] The Mediterranean Races, p. 4.
[90] The Oldest Civilisation of Greece, p. 105.
[91] This I gather from the plan prepared by Lieut. Glascott, R.N., who apparently
accompanied Mr. Layard. He indicates the true north point with a sailor’s precision in
such matters. (See p. 305).
[92] Evolution of the Aryan, Translation by Drucker, § 32.
[93] The prevalence of solstitial customs in Sardinia and Corsica, with apparently no trace of
the May year, tends to support this view, which is also strengthened by the fact that
the solstitial customs in Morocco are very similar to those we read of in Britain: the
May year is unnoticed, and there is a second feast at Easter (March 16th). See
Westermarck in Folk-lore, vol. xxi., p. 27.
[94] And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if
thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.—Exodus, xx., 25.
[95] And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his
pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.
And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that thou
shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.—Genesis, xxviii., 18, 22.
[96] Herodotus, iii., 8, refers to an Arabian rite in which seven stones are smeared with blood
among peoples whose only gods were Dionysos and Urania, whom they called Orotalt
and Alilat.
[97] Sayce, Babylonians and Assyrians, p. 234.
[98] Nili op. quaedam (Paris, 1639), pp. 28, 117, quoted by Robertson Smith, p. 151.
[99] “Pre-Aryan Syntax in Insular Celtic,” in the Welsh People, by Rhys and Brynmor-Jones,
pp. 617-641.

CHAPTER XXIII
THE SIMILARITY OF THE SEMITIC AND BRITISH WORSHIPS

I propose in this chapter to bring into juxtaposition the various British
and Semitic-Egyptian practices which we have so far considered.
I confess I am amazed at the similarities we have come across in the first
cast of the net; we have found so much that is common to both worships in
connection with all the points we considered separately. I will, for
convenience, deal with the various points seriatim.
1. The cult of sacred stones or cairns.
The only objection which, so far as I can see, may be raised to these
practices being absolutely common is the idea among many British
archæologists that the cairns, in which term I include chambered barrows or
dolmens and their skeletons, the cromlechs and stone passages, were set up
for burial and not for worship. This idea has arisen because some of them
have been used for burials. But I cannot accept this argument, because since
the burials might have taken place at any time subsequent to their erection
they prove nothing as to the reason of the erection; and further, if these
chambered cairns were meant for burials, there should be burials in all of
them, and yet there are none in the most majestic of them all, Maeshowe.
Let us consider a few facts in relation to the Semitic use of cairns
referred to on p. 244.
That the cromlechs found both in Britain and Syria—there are 780 in
Ireland and 700 in Moab—are the remains of chambered cairns is pretty
clear from the evidence brought forward by Borlase.[100]
Mr. John Bell, of Dundalk, disinterred over sixty cromlechs from cairns
in Ulster. All dolmens were covered by tumuli according to Mr. Bell and
Mr. Lukis. Monuments called cairns in the earliest Ordnance Survey have
been marked dolmens in subsequent surveys (e.g. Townland of Leana in
Clare) because the earth covering the stones had disappeared in the
meantime.

Among the evidences of natural and artificial caves preceding cairns
which replaced them are the twenty-four caves which have been explored in
France (op. cit., p. 568).[101]
Borlase points out with regard to the Irish dolmens that large tumuli were
not essential; all that was necessary was that the walls of the cell or crypt
should be impervious to the elements and to wild animals. A creep or
passage communicating with the edge of the mound is common to Ireland,
Wales, Portugal and Brittany (op. cit., p. 428).
The facts that the cairns so often had their open ends facing the N.E. or
S.E., and that the west end was generally higher, like the naos trilithons at
Stonehenge, must be borne in mind.
Most of what we know of earliest man has been obtained from their lives
in caves; what they ate, the contemporary fauna and their art are thus
known to us, but caves have not been considered as tombs, though men
have died and left their remains in them.
In the case of a dolmen, however, an artificial cave, as we shall see, the
possibility of people living in them appears never to have been considered
seriously, and the tomb theory has led to bad reasoning and forced
argument.
When burials are absent it has been suggested that “owing to some
peculiarity of the soil, the entire of the human remains have become
decomposed, only the imperishable stone implements entombed with the
body remaining.”[102]
Mr. Spence has pointed out the extreme improbability of Maeshowe
being anything but a temple, and I may now add on the Semitic model.
There were a large central hall and side rooms for sleeping, a stone door
which could have been opened or shut from the inside, and a niche for a
guard, janitor or hall porter! So high an authority as Colonel Leslie has
pointed out that neither Maeshowe, New Grange and Dowth on the Boyne,
nor Gavr Innis in Brittany bear any internal proof of being specially
prepared as tombs.[103]
There is another point connected with these dolmens and cromlechs. An
origin in the Semitic area easily explains why in Asia and Britain the
dolmens are so alike, down to small details, such as the perforation of one
of the side stones. Borlase has remarked also upon the similarity of Indian
and Irish dolmens (op. cit., p. 755), similar holes also being common to

them. The curious concentric circles, &c., found on some dolmen stones are
common to Assyrian vessels.[104]
The most philosophical study of this question I have seen[105] certainly
suggests that much light may be expected from this source.
Part of the cult of the sacred stones was the ceremony of anointing them.
Robertson Smith (p. 214) gives us the meaning and history of anointing
among the Semites, and notes its continuation from Jacob’s pouring oil on
sacred stones at Bethel, through the time of Pausanias to that of the Pilgrims
of the fourth century a.d.
The anointing of stones was certainly carried on in ancient times in
Britain and Brittany. Baring-Gould tells us:[106]
“Formerly the menhir was beplastered with oil and honey and wax, and
this anointing of the stones was condemned by the bishops. In certain places
the local clergy succeeded in diverting the practice to the Churches. There
are still some in Lower Brittany whose exterior walls are strung with wax
lines arranged in festoons and patterns.
“In some places childless women still rub themselves against menhirs,
expecting thereby to be cured of barrenness, but in others, instead, they rub
themselves against stone images of saints.”
When I visited the Cave of Elephanta in 1871 I was told that the barren
women of Bombay visit the cave once a year and anoint the standing stone
in the chief chamber. In Egypt they still rub their bodies on the Colossi.
2. Sacred fires.
Among the Semites the sacrificial fat was burned on the altar. And we
have seen that “this could be done without any fundamental modification of
the old type of sacred stone or altar pillar, simply by making a hollow on
the top to receive the grease.”[107]
Baring-Gould[108] has written on the question of sacrificial and sacred
fires in ancient times in Britain, and points out that there still remain in
some of our churches (in Cornwall, York and Dorset) the contrivances—
now called cresset-stones—used. They are blocks of stone with cups
hollowed out precisely as described by Robertson Smith. Some are placed
in lamp-niches furnished with flues. On these he remarks (p. 122):—
“Now although these lamps and cressets had their religious signification,
yet this religious signification was an afterthought. The origin of them lay

in the necessity of there being in every
place a central light, from which light
could at any time be borrowed.”
3. The cult of the sacred tree.
I have shown that the sacred trees in
Britain, whether rowan, thorn or
mistletoe, were at their best at the times of
the festivals at which they were chiefly
worshipped. Mrs. J. H. Philpot, in her
valuable book on “the sacred tree,” gives
us the names of some used in different
countries; it would be interesting to
inquire whether the same consideration
applies to them in the Semitic and other
areas.
There seems to be no doubt that the
Semitic Asherah was the precursor of the
Fig. 49.—Cresset-stone, Lewannick. From
British Maypole, even to its dressing of Baring-Gould’s Strange Survivals.
many coloured ribands, and from the
Maypole customs we may infer something of the Semitic practices which
have not come down to us. Even “Jack o’ the Green” may eventually be
traced to Al-Khidr (p. 29) of the old May festivals.
4. The cult of the sacred well.
Here we find only trifling differences. The chief one is the use of pins in
Britain. If we knew more about the Asherah with its hooks this difference
might disappear.
It has been pointed out by several authors that the worship of wells and
water would be most likely to arise in a dry and thirsty land.
5. The time of the chief festivals.
Here we find beyond all question that the festival times were the same to
begin with. May is the chief month both in West Asia and West Europe.
It was not till a subsequent time that June and December were added in
Egypt and Britain, and April and September among the Jews.

6. The characteristics of the festivals.
Here again is precise agreement. The list I gave on p. 205 of what can be
gathered from British folklore is identical with the statements as to Semitic
practices which I quoted from Robertson Smith in the last chapter.
7. The worship in high places.
Absolute identity; and from this we can gather that the ancient condition
of the high places wherever selected for temple worship was as treeless as it
is now; otherwise the observations of sun- and star-rise and -set would be
greatly interfered with.
Of course, there may have been “groves” associated with, but away from,
sanctuaries in both Semitic and British areas: but it is not impossible that
much which has been written on this subject with regard to Britain and the
“Druids” may have been suggested in part by the erroneous translation of
Asherah to which I have referred. It has also been stated that an early
transcriber who, in error, substituted lucus for locus may also be held partly
responsible, even if lucus does not mean a clearing in a grove, as some
maintain.
8. The god or gods worshipped.
The year-gods in Babylonia and Egypt respectively were Baal and Thoth.
It is worth while to inquire whether either name has made its appearance as
a loan-word in the traditions of Western Europe.
About Baal there can be no question as to the coincidence, whether
accidental, as some philologists affirm, or not.
We find Bel or Baal common to the two areas. Mr. Borlase informs us
(op. cit., p. 1164) that in Western Europe Bel, Beal, Balor, Balder, and Phol,
Fal, Fáil are the equivalents of the Semitic Baal. Balus, indeed, is named as
the first king of Orkney. A May worship is connected with all the above.
Beltaine and many variants describe the fires lighted at the festival, and it is
worthy of note that although this fire worship has been extended to the
solstitial ceremonials in June, the name Baltaine has never been applied to it
at that time except by writers who think that the term “midsummer” may be
applied indiscriminately to the beginning of May and the end of June.
I next deal with the Egyptian year-god Thoth. In Greece he became
Hermes, among the Romans Mercury. In this connection I can most usefully
refer to Rhys’s Hibbert Lectures and his chapter on the Gaulish Pantheon.
He tells us (p. 5) that “Mercury is the god with whom the monuments lead

one to begin.” There is also mention of a god Toutates or Teutates, and a
Toutius, who might have been a public official (? priest of Toutates). Only
Celtic or other later origins of the words are suggested; it is not said
whether the possible Egyptian root has been considered.
We may even, I think, go further and ask whether some of the
constellations were not figured as in Egypt, otherwise it is difficult to
account for the horror of the black pig (p. 195) at Hallowe’en. The whole
Egyptian story is told in my Dawn of Astronomy[109] in connection with the
worship of Set, that is the stars visible at night, blotted out at dawn by the
rising sun, or becoming predominant after sunset.
9. The worship of the sun and stars.
Here also, as I have shown, is complete agreement. The same
astronomical methods have been employed for the same purpose. The chief
difference lies in the fact that by lapse of time the precessional movement
caused different stars to be observed as clock stars or to herald the sunrise
on the chief ceremonial days.
[100] Dolmens of Ireland, p. 426.
[101] “France, indeed, furnishes us with a stepping-stone, as it were, between the natural cave
and the dolmen in certain artificial caves which offer comparison both with the former
and the latter... the natural cave was scooped out into a large chamber or chambers
either by the swirling of water pent up in the limestone or other yielding rock and
finding its way out through some narrow crevice. The ground plan and section,
therefore, is that of an allée couverte with a vestibule... the artificial cave is modelled
on the natural one, and yet bears, as M. Mortillet points out, a close resemblance to
the dolmen.”
[102] Wandle, Remains of Prehistoric Age in England, p. 147.
[103] It is interesting to point out in relation to the fact that different swarms successively
introduced the May and solstitial years that the “sleeping rooms” of the May year
cairns at New Grange are about 3 feet square, while at the solstitial Maeshowe, built
very much later, the dimensions are 6 feet × 41⁄2 feet. There were differences of
sleeping posture in the old days among different peoples as well as different methods
of burial.
[104] Borlase, p. 617.
[105] “The Builders and the Antiquity of our Cornish Dolmens,” by Rev. D. Gath Whitley
(Journal R.I. Cornwall, No. 4).
[106] Book of Brittany, p. 21.
[107] History of the Semites, p. 364.
[108] Strange Survivals, p. 122.
[109] Pp. 146, 215, and elsewhere.

CHAPTER XXIV
THE MAY-YEAR IN SOUTH-WEST CORNWALL

The previous pages of this volume have apparently dealt with two
distinct subjects; the use of the British monuments on the orientation theory,
and the folklore and tradition which enable us to get some glimpses into the
lives, actions, habits and beliefs of the early inhabitants of these islands, and
the region whence these early inhabitants had migrated.
But although these subjects are apparently distinct, I think my readers
will agree that the study of each has led to an identical result, namely, that
in early times it was a question of the May year, and that the solstitial year
was introduced afterwards. This was the chief revelation of the monuments
when they were studied from the astronomical point of view.
Without confirmation from some other sources this result might have
been considered as doubtful, and the orientation theory might have been
thought valueless. It has, however, been seen that folklore and tradition
confirm it up to the hilt. I think it may be said, therefore, that the theory I
put forward in this book touching the astronomical use of our ancient
temples is so far justified.
The British monuments I had considered before this appeal to tradition
was made were the circles at Stonehenge, Stenness, The Hurlers and
Stanton Drew, and the avenues on Dartmoor. These were studied generally,
the main special result being that to which I have referred; we not only
found alignments to sunrise and sunset on the critical quarter-days of the
May years, but we found alignments to the stars which should have been
observed either at rising or setting to control the morning sacrifices.
But this inquiry had left out of account several circles in south-west
Cornwall, of which I had vaguely heard but never seen. When I had written
the previous chapters showing how fully May-year practices are referred to
in the folklore of that part of the country, I determined to visit the circles,
dealing with them as test objects in regard to this special branch of
orientation. I had not time to make a complete survey; this I must leave to

others; but with the help so readily afforded me, which I shall acknowledge
in its proper place, I thought it possible in a brief visit to see whether or not
there were any May-year alignments. In the following chapters I will give
an account of the observations made, but before doing so, in order to prove
how solid the evidence afforded by the Cornish monuments is, I will state
the details of the local astronomical conditions depending upon the latitude
of the Land’s End region, N. 50°. In the chapter containing some
astronomical hints to archæologists I referred (p. 122) to the solstice
conditions for Stenness beyond John o’ Groat’s, because those conditions
afforded a special case, the solstice being determined by the arrival of the
sun at its highest or lowest declination, which happens on particular dates
which recur each year. But with regard to the May year, during the first
week of May the sun’s declination is changing by over a quarter of a degree
daily, so that we must not expect to find the declination of 16° 20′ (see p.
22) rigidly adhered to.
As I have shown (p. 23), the sun’s passage through this declination four
times on its annual path on the dates stated accurately divides the year into
four equal parts. But this accuracy might have been neglected by the early
observers, so that, for instance, the sun’s position on the 4th or 8th of May
instead of that on the 6th might have been chosen as being in greater
harmony with the agricultural conditions at the place.
The conditions of the sunrise from John o’ Groat’s to Land’s End, 2′ of
the sun being visible above the sky-line, can be gathered from the following
diagram:—

Larger diagram
Fig. 50.—Place of first appearance of the May sun, in British latitudes.

Vertical axis: N. LAT. From bottom: 48-59.
Horizontal axis: AZIMUTHS. From left: 55-67.
Curves, from left: HORIZON, 0° HILL, 2°HILL.

The exact azimuths for this sunrise in the Land’s End region (Lat. 50°) in
relation to the place of the sunrise when half the sun has risen, with a sea
horizon, are shown in Fig. 51.

Fig. 51.—Showing the influence of the height of the sky-line on the apparent place of sunrise in
May and August. The double circle shows the tabular place of sun’s centre.

CHAPTER XXV
THE MERRY MAIDENS CIRCLE (LAT. 50° 4′ N.)

One of the best preserved circles that I know of is near Penzance. It is
called the Merry Maidens[110] (Dawns-Maen), and is thus described by
Lukis[111] (p. 1):—
“This very perfect Circle, which is 75 feet 8 inches in diameter, stands in
a cultivated field which slopes gently to the south.
“It consists of 19 granite stones placed at tolerably regular distances from
each other, but there is a gap on the east side, where another stone was most
probably once erected.
“Many of the stones are rectangular in plan at the ground level, vary from
3 feet 3 inches to 4 feet in height, and are separated by a space of from 10 to
12 feet. There is a somewhat shorter interval between four of the stones on
the south side.
“In the vicinity of this monument are two monoliths called the Pipers;
another called Goon-Rith; a holed stone (not long ago there were two
others); and several [5] Cairns.”
Lukis thus describes the “Pipers”:—
“Two rude stone pillars of granite stand erect, 317 feet apart, and about
400 yards to the north-east of the Circle of Dawns-Maen. No. 1 is 15 feet
high, 4 feet 6 inches in breadth, and has an average thickness of 22 inches,
and is 2 feet 9 inches out of the perpendicular. The stone is of a laminated
nature, and a thin fragment has flaked off from the upper part. No. 2 is 13
feet 6 inches high, and is much split perpendicularly. At the ground level its
plan in section is nearly a square of about 3 feet.”
Goon-Rith is next described:—“No. 3 is naturally of a rectangular form
in plan, and is 10 feet 6 inches in height. The land on which it stands is
called Goon-Rith, or Red Downs. The upper part of the stone is of irregular
shape.”
Borlase, in his History of Cornwall (1769), only mentions the circle, but
W. C. Borlase, in his Nænia Cornubiæ (1872), gives a very rough plan

including the stones before mentioned and several barrows, some of which
have been ploughed up.
At varying distances from the circle and in widely different azimuths are
other standing stones, ancient crosses and holed stones, while some of the
barrows can still be traced.
The descriptions of the locality given by Borlase and Lukis, however, do
not exhaust the points of interest. Edmonds[112] writes as follows:—
“A cave still perfect... is on an eminence in the tenement of Boleit
(Boleigh) in St. Buryan, and about a furlong south-west of the village of
Trewoofe (Trove). It is called the ‘Fowgow,’ and consists of a trench 6 feet
deep and 36 long, faced on each side with unhewn and uncemented stones,
across which, to serve as a roof, long stone posts or slabs are laid covered
with thick turf, planted with furze. The breadth of the cave is about 5 feet.
On its north-west side, near the south-west end, a narrow passage leads into
a branch cave of considerable extent, constructed in the same manner. At
the south-west end is an entrance by a descending path; but this, as well as
the cave itself, is so well concealed by the furze that the whole looks like an
ordinary furze break without any way into it. The direction of the line of
this cave is about north-east and south-west, which line, if continued
towards the south-west, would pass close to the two ancient pillars called
the Pipers, and the Druidical temple of Dawns Myin, all within half of a
mile.”
This fougou is situated on a hill on the other side of the Lamorna Valley,
near the village of Castallack, and the site of the Roundago shown in the 1-
inch Ordnance map.
Borlase[113] says that many similar caves were to be seen “in these parts”
in his time, and others had been destroyed by converting the stones to other
uses.
There is evidence that the circle conditions at the Merry Maidens were
once similar to those at Stenness, Stanton Drew, the Hurlers, Tregaseal and
Botallack, that is that there was more than one, the numbers running from 2
to 7. Mr. Horton Bolitho, without whose aid in local investigations this
chapter in all probability would never have been written, in one of his visits
came across “the oldest inhabitant,” who remembered a second circle. He
said, “It was covered with furze and never shown to antiquarians”;
ultimately the field in which it stood was ploughed up and the stones
removed. It is to prevent a similar fate happening to the “Merry Maidens”

themselves that Lord Falmouth will not allow the field in which they stand
to be ploughed, and all antiquarians certainly owe him a debt of gratitude
for this and other proofs of his interest in antiquities. Mr. Bolitho carefully
marked the site thus indicated on a copy of the 25-inch map. I shall
subsequently show that the circle which formerly existed here, like the
others named, was located on an important sight-line.
Mr. Horton Bolitho was good enough to make a careful examination of
the barrows A and B of Borlase.[114] In A (S. 69° W.) he found a long stone
still lying in the barrow, suggesting that the barrow had been built round it,
and that the apex of the barrow formed a new alignment. In B there is either
another recumbent long stone or the capstone of a dolmen. This suggests
work for the local antiquarians.
I should state that there may be some doubt about barrow A, for there are
two not far from each other with approximate azimuths S. 69° W. and S.
64° W. The destruction of these and other barrows was probably the
accompaniment of the reclamation of waste lands and the consequent
interference with antiquities which in Cornwall has mostly taken place
since 1800.

Photo. by Lady Lockier.
Fig. 52.—The Merry Maidens (looking East).

But it did not begin then, nor has it been confined to barrows. Dr.
Borlase, in his parochial memoranda under date September 29, 1752,
describes a monolith 20 feet above ground, and planted 4 feet in it, the
“Men Peru” (stone of sorrow) in the parish of Constantine. A farmer

acknowledged that he had cut it up, and had made twenty gate-posts out of
it.
My wife and I visited the Merry Maidens at Easter, 1905, for the purpose
of making a reconnaissance. Mr. Horton Bolitho and Mr. Cornish were
good enough to accompany us.
On my return to London I began work on the 25-inch Ordnance map, and
subsequently Colonel R. C. Hellard, R.E., director of the Ordnance Survey,
was kind enough to send me the true azimuths of the Pipers. In October,
1905, Mr. Horton Bolitho and Captain Henderson, whose help at the
Hurlers I have already had an opportunity of acknowledging, made a much
more complete survey of the adjacent standing stones and barrows.
In this survey they not only made use of the 25-inch map, but of the old
plan given by W. C. Borlase dating from about 1870. Although the
outstanding stones shown by Borlase remain, some of the barrows indicated
by him have disappeared.
In January, 1906, my wife and I paid other visits to the monuments, and
Mr. Horton Bolitho was again good enough to accompany us. Thanks to
him permission had been obtained to break an opening in the high wall-
boundary which prevented any view along the “Pipers” sight-line. I may
here add that unfortunately in Cornwall the field boundaries often consist of
high stone walls topped by furze, so that the outstanding stones once visible
from the circles can now no longer be seen from them; another trouble is
that from this cause the angular height of the sky-line along the alignment
cannot be measured in many cases.
I will now proceed to refer to the chief sight-lines seriatim. The first is
that connecting the circle which still exists with the site of the ancient one.
On this line exactly I found four points, a barrow (L) which Borlase had
missed (further from the circle than his barrow A), the site, the present
circle, and the fougou; azimuth from centre of circle N. 64° E. and S. 64°
W. This is the May-year line found at Stonehenge, Stenness, the Hurlers and
Stanton Drew.
In connection with this there is another sight-line which must not be
passed over; from the circle the bearing of the church of St. Burian is about
N. 64° W.; like the fougou it is situated on a hill, and near it are ancient
crosses which I suspect were menhirs first and crosses afterwards.[115]
However this may be, we see in this azimuth of 64° three times repeated

that the May and August sunrises and sunsets and the February and
November sunsets were provided for.
With regard to the other sight-lines I will begin with that of the Pipers, as
it is quite obviously connected with the eastern circle only; the stones could
not have been seen from the other on account of rising ground. The barrow
shown in this direction by Borlase has now entirely disappeared, and the
earth has evidently been spread over the surrounding field; its surface is
therefore higher than formerly, so that when the opening was made in the
wall the top of the nearest piper could not be seen from the centre of the
circle; an elevation of about 2 feet from the ground level was necessary.
Walking straight from the circle to the first piper, the second piper was
exactly in a line, though at a much lower level. This showed that the
Ordnance values were not quite accurate, which was not to be wondered at
as no direct observation had been possible. I therefore adopted the mean of
the Ordnance values as the true azimuth:—
Piper 1.—N. 37° 58′ 36″ E.
Piper 2.— 38 52 36
Mean 38 25 36

The sky-line from the centre of the circle was defined by the site of the
vanished barrow, angular elevation 20′, and it is highly probable that the
function of the barrow when built was to provide a new sight-line when the
star-rise place was no longer exactly pointed out by the piper line.
With these data the star in question was Capella, dec. 29° 58′ N.,
heralding the February sunrise, 2160 b.c.
I next come to the famous menhir Goon-Rith. The conditions are as
follows:—from the circle Az. S. 81° 35′ W. Altitude of sky-line 34′.
Concerning this alignment from the circle, it may be stated that it cuts
across many ancient stones, including one resembling a rock basin or laver,
and another either a holed stone or the socket of a stone cross. I suspect also
the presence in old days of a holy well attached to the circle, for there is a
pool of water in a depression which is shown in the 25-inch map.
I regard it as quite possible that we are here in presence of the remains of
a cursus, an old via sacra, for processions between the circle and the
monolith.
I have not been able to find any astronomical use for this stone from the
circle or from the site of the old one, but if we suppose it to have been used

like the Barnstone at Stenness for observations over the circle its object at
once becomes obvious.
From the azimuth given, the declination of the star was 5° 24′ N. Now
this was the position of the Pleiades b.c. 1960, when they would have
warned the rising of the May sun.
So that it is possible that the erection of the Pipers and of Goon-Rith took
place at about the same time, and represent the first operations.
The next alignment has an azimuth of S. 69° W. from the circle; it would
be the same within a degree from the site of the one which has disappeared;
altitude of sky-line 32′; this line is to a stone cross on rising ground,[116]
doubtless a re-dressing of an old menhir, and on the line nearer the circle
are the remains of a barrow.
With these data the star in question was Antares, dec. S. 13° 18′,
heralding the May sunrise 1310 b.c.
There is another stone cross defining a line az. N. 11° 45′ E. from the
circle, altitude of sky-line about the same as along the Piper azimuth; an
intervening house prevents measurement. These values give us N. dec. 38°
46′, referring to Arcturus warning the August sunrise in 1640 b.c.
The three alignments already referred to, then, give us the warning stars
for three out of the four quarter-days of the May year.
There is still another stone cross, Az. N. 82° 5′ W., hills about 34′. This
has no connection with the May year, but may refer to the equinoctial one.
W. C. Borlase refers to several holed stones. The data for two of these,
supplied by Capt. Henderson, are as follows:—
Alt. of
Az.
sky-line
Stone in hedge N. of road S. 50°33′ E. 45′
Stone, half still standing S. 79 25 W. 49

Azimuths near these have been noted before at other circles, and it must
not be forgotten that as the holed stones on my view were used for
observation, these azimuths must be reversed, since it is probable that the
observations were made over the circle. If this were so, then S.E. would be
changed into N.W., and we should get N. 50° 33′ W. indicating the solstitial
sunset. Similarly, S.W. would become N.E., and we should have N. 79° 25′
E., possibly a Pleiades alignment.
I have brought together in the following table all the sight-lines so far
referred to. Where the altitude of the sky-line has been measured it is

marked with a *.

Larger map
Fig. 53.—25-inch Ordnance Map of Merry Maidens, showing alignments.

In the map the probable site of the second circle and the barrows have
special marks attached to them. The numbers of the alignments in the table
are also shown in the map.
TABLE OF ALIGNMENTS.
Align-
Azimuth. Hill. Decl. Sun or Star. Date. Mark.
ment.
b.c.
1 N. 11° 45′ E. 20′ 38° 46′ N. Arcturus (warning August) 1650 Stone in road.
2 N. 38° 25′ E. 20′ * 29° 58′ N. Capella (warning February) 2160 The Pipers and
barrow.
1
3 N. 64° E. ⁄3° 16° 21′ N. May year — Fougou.
4 S. 38° 22′ N. 20′ 30° 27′ S. Pipers line — Barrrow B.
5 S. 64° W. 20′ 16° 26′ S. May year (February- — Barrow L.
November setting)

6 S. 69° W. 32′ * 13° 18′ S. Antares (warning May) 1310 Stone cross on hill
and Barrow A.
7 S. 81° 35′ W. 32′ * 5° 24′ N. Reversed line. Pleiades elev. 1960 Goon-Rith.
1
⁄2°(warning May)
8 N. 64° W. 42′ 16° N. May year (May eve setting) — St. Burian Church.

[110] I may here remark that “9 maidens” is very common as a name for a circle in Cornwall.
It is a short title for 19 maidens. Lukis implies that Dawns-Maen once consisted of 20
stones. If all the circles followed suit it would be interesting to note if the present
number of 19 is always associated with a gap on the eastern side. The “pipers” are, of
course, the musicians who keep the maidens merry, as does the “blind fiddler” at
Boscowen-un Circle.
[111] Prehistoric Stone Monuments, Cornwall.
[112] The Land’s End District, p. 46.
[113] Antiquities, p. 274.
[114] Nænia, p. 214.
[115] In a.d. 658 a council assembled at Nantes decreed:—“As in remote places and in
woodlands there stand certain stones which the people often worship, and at which
vows are made, and to which oblations are presented—we decree that they be all cast
down and concealed in such a place that their worshippers may not be able to find
them.”
“Now the carrying out of their order was left to the country parsons, and partly because
they had themselves been brought up to respect these stones, and partly because the
execution of the decree would have brought down a storm upon their heads, they
contented themselves with putting a cross on top of the stones.”—Book of Brittany, by
Baring-Gould, p. 20.
[116] With regard to this Mr. Horton Bolitho has sent me the following note:—“The rising
ground here is called locally ‘Lanine Hill’ (spelt Lanyon and pronounced Lanine); this
is worth noticing, as it is the same name as the dolmen six or seven miles away from
Boleit, and in the same district as the Men an Tôl and Boskednan Circle, to say
nothing of Lannion in Brittany. Lan signifies something sacred, the place of the saint,
or belonging to the saint.”

CHAPTER XXVI
THE TREGASEAL CIRCLES (LAT. 50° 8′ 25″ N., LONG. 5° 39′ 25″ W.)

There are two circles situated on Truthwall Common near to Tregaseal
and not far from St. Just; the one is nearly to the east of the other, and there
are outstanding stones, including four holed stones, and several barrows.
The eastern temple has a diameter of 69 feet, and includes, at the present
time, nine erect and four prostrate stones; the original structure seems to
have contained twenty-eight stones according to Lukis.
My wife and I visited the region in January, 1906, but previously to our
going Mr. Horton Bolitho, accompanied by Mr. Thomas, whose knowledge
of the local antiquities is very great, had explored the region and taught us
what to observe.
The chief interest appears to lie on the N.E. quadrant, where, in addition
to a famous longstone on a hill about a mile away, the nest of holed stones
and several of the barrows are located. Carn Kenidjack, a famous landmark,
lies to the north.
Of the two circles, I confined my attention almost exclusively to the
eastern one, as the other is in a fragmentary condition, though it is still
traceable. It is hidden almost entirely from the eastern circle by a modern
hedge.
Mr. Horton Bolitho, who accompanied us in January, has again visited
the spot, with Mr. Thomas, for the purpose of further exploration, and
determining the angular height of the sky-line along the different
alignments, which I have plotted from the 6-inch and 25-inch maps. My
readers will therefore see that my part of the work has been a small one, and
that they are chiefly indebted to those I have named.
No theodolite survey has as yet been made for determining the azimuths
and the height of the hills. The following approximate azimuths have been
determined by myself from a 25-inch map, and the elevations by Mr.
Horton Bolitho by means of a miner’s dial.
Alignments. Azimuth. Elevation.

1. Apex of Carn N. 12° 8′ E. 4′ 0′
2. Barrow 800′ distant N. 20 8 E. 3 50
3. Two barrows 900′ distant N. 50 8 E. 1 50
4. Holed stones N. 53 20 E. 1 15
5. Longstone N. 66 38 E. 2 10
6. Stone N. 76 13 E.

The carn referred to in the above table is Carn Kenidjack, called “the
hooting cairn.” The rocks on the summit, in which there is a remarkable
depression, are still by local superstition supposed to emit evil sounds by
night.

Photo. by Lady Lockyer.
Fig. 54.—The Eastern Circle at Tregaseal.

Of the sight-lines studied so far, those to and from the Longstone and the
holed stones seem the most important. The Longstone,[117] 11⁄2 miles to the
N.E., is a monolith 10 feet high on the western side of a hill; it is visible
from the circle though furze has grown round and partly hidden it.
The meanings of the various alignments seem to be as follows:—
Decl. N. Star. Date.
1. Apex of Carn 42° 33′ 0″ Arcturus 2330 b.c.
2. Barrow 800′ distant 40 29 0 „ 1970 „
3. Two barrows 900′ distant 25 20 21 ? Solstitial
4. Holed stones 23 2 20 ? „
5. Longstone 16 2 0 May sun

6. Stone 9 15 0 Pleiades 1270 b.c.

Regarding the possible solstitial alignments, the declinations obtained
may be neglected until the azimuths and angular heights of the hills have
been determined with a good theodolite. A change of -10′ in the angular
elevation, and hence about that in the resulting declination, would bring the
date given by the barrows to about 2000 b.c.
The position of the Longstone is well worthy of attention. Several very
fine monuments which mark the surrounding horizon are visible from it in
azimuths with which other monuments have made us familiar. They are as
follows:—
Alignment. Az. Hills.
Longstone to Mên-an-tol N. 50° 30′ E. 0° 34′
„ Nine Maidens (Boskednan) N. 54 0 E. 1 0
„ W. Lanyon Quoit N. 67 0 E. 0 0
„ Lanyon Quoit N. 72 45 E. 0 0

These values, of which the angular heights of the hills were determined
approximately from the contours on the 1-inch Ordnance map, lead us to
the following declinations:—
Alignment. Decl. Star. Date.
Longstone to Mên-an-tol 24° 7′ N. Solstitial sun.
„ Nine Maidens (Boskednan) 22 37 N. „
„ W. Lanyon Quoit 14 3 N. May sun.
„ Lanyon Quoit 10 30 N. Pleiades 1030 b.c.

Larger map
Fig. 55.—Photograph of Ordnance Map, showing sight-lines.

The May-sun alignment, it may be noted, differs from that from the
circle. The heights of hills when determined may give us the same solar
declination; that now used gives the declination for April 28 and August 15
in our present calendar.
Regarding the alignment on Lanyon Quoit, it need only be pointed out
that the Pleiades date obtained is some 200 years after the date obtained for
the analagous alignment from the circle, showing that if these two
monuments—the Tregaseal circle and the Longstone—have any
relationship, the removal to the high plain, now known as Woon Gumpus
and Boswen Commons, was an afterthought improvement.
I next come to the holed stones, not only the nest of them not far from the
circle, but the famous Mên-an-tol itself.
I had heard before going to Tregaseal that the four holed stones shown on
the Ordnance map had been knocked down and set up again (not
necessarily in their old places) two or three times. Mr. Horton Bolitho and
Mr. Thomas, however, in their examination were convinced that the largest
of them has never been moved. They also express the belief that the others

are not more than a foot or so from their original positions, and that this
change is only due to their re-erection by Mr. Cornish after they had fallen
down. So far I have heard nothing of the direction of the hole in the stone
which retains its original position.
Another interesting matter is that the explorers in question were able to
trace an ancient stone alignment from the circle to the holed stones.
I have long held that these holed stones were arrangements for
determining an alignment. The famous Odin stone at Stenness, long since
disappeared, was, if we may trust the very definite statements made about
its position, used to observe the Barnstone in one direction and the chief
circle in the other.

Larger plan
Fig. 56.—Plan of the Mên-an-tol from Lukis, showing that it was an apparatus for observing the
sunrise in May and August in one direction and the sunset in February and November in the
other. Sun’s declination, 16° N. or S.

The azimuths suggest that theodolite measures may show that the
Tregaseal stones might have been used in the same way; they, the
Longstone and Lanyon Quoit, are in nearly the same straight line, the
alignment, holed stones to Longstone and Lanyon Quoit, being N. 67° E.,
so that the May sunrise may have been noted in this way.

Photo. by Lady Lockyer.
Fig. 57.—The Mên-an-tol.

Several other monuments, e.g., Chûn Castle and Cromlech, are to be
found in the immediate neighbourhood of the Tregaseal circle and the
Longstone, but these will have to await further investigation as to their
character and antiquity before any conclusions concerning their
astronomical use can be deduced.

Fig. 58.—The Mên-an-tol. Front view and section, from Lukis.

Front view: Section:
D. Looking S.W., section of d.
scale 1 inch to 1 foot.

Not only do we find in this neighbourhood the nest of holed stones to
which I have referred, but the Mên-an-tol, the most famous of them all, in
England at all events. This, then, is the place to say a few words about
them. I have before stated my opinion that these stones, instead of being
used as slaughter stones or posts at which to tie up the victim before
sacrifice, or in any other similar employment, were really sighting stones to
enable an alignment to be easily picked up. As such these were, of course,
treated as sacred, and hence the folk-lore connected with them. This folk-
lore seems to be most complete in the case of the famous stone of Odin at
Stenness, so I condense Mr. Spence’s account of it.
Children brought to the stone at Beltaine and Midsummer, after being
carried sunwise round the holy well were passed through the hole as a
protection against the powers of the evil one. Marriage ceremony consisted

of joining hands through the hole, a vow held as sacred as the legal
marriage of to-day. Pains in the head cured by inserting the head in the
cavity, cure of palsy in children. Children and adults travelled many miles
to secure relief in this way.
At the Mên-an-tol the curative effects could only be obtained by crawling
through the aperture, which is of considerable size.
As a rule, however, the aperture is much more restricted. The general size
of the holed stone and the position of the aperture in it may be well gathered
from the fact that almost all of them have been used for gateposts, and are
now to be seen fulfilling that function. In some cases the old special use can
be inferred, but in others this is more difficult, as the stones have been
shifted or slewed round, or the ancient monument to which the sighting
stone was directed has disappeared.
The astronomical origin of the Mên-an-tol, which obviously has never
been disturbed, is quite obvious. Fig. 56 (from Lukis) shews that it was
arranged along the May year alignment, the advent of May and August,
February and November being indicated by the shadows cast by the stones
through the aperture on to the opposite ones.
To the south-west the alignment for the February and November sunsets
passes exactly over Chûn Castle.
The “Tolmen” near Gweek, Constantine, another famous holed stone 7
feet 9 inches high and with an aperture of 17 inches, is according to a
magnetic bearing I took last Easter parallel to the Mên-an-tol, and doubtless
was used for the same purpose.
[117] In Cornwall this is the name generally given to a monolith.

CHAPTER XXVII
SOME OTHER CORNISH MONUMENTS

Boscawen-un, N. Lat. 50° 5′ 20″
My wife and I visited Boscawen-un on a pouring day, when it was
impossible to make any observations. Mr. Horton Bolitho, who was with us,
introduced us to the tenant of Boscawen-noon—Mr. Hannibal Rowe—who
very kindly, in spite of the bad weather, took us to the circle and the stone
cross to the N.E. of it.
Lukis thus described this monument:[118]—
“The enclosed ground on which this circle stands is uncultivated and
heathy, and slopes gently to the south. Twenty years ago a hedge ran across
it and bisected the circle.
“This monument is composed of nineteen standing stones, and is of an
oval form, the longer diameter being 80 feet and the shorter 71 feet 6
inches. One of the stones is a block of quartz 4 feet high, and the rest, which
are of granite, vary from 2 feet 9 inches to 4 feet 7 inches in height. On the
west side there is a gap, whence it is probable that a stone has been
removed. Within the area, 9 feet to the south-west from the centre, is a tall
monolith, 8 feet out of the ground, which inclines to the north-east, and is 3
feet 3 inches out of the perpendicular.

Larger map
Fig. 59.—Photograph of the Ordnance Map.

“In 1594 Camden describes this monument as consisting of nineteen
stones, 12 feet from each other, with one much larger than the rest in the
centre. It must have been much in the same condition then as now. As he
does not say that the monolith enclosed within it was inclined, it is possible
that it was upright at that time.
“Dr. Stukeley’s supposition was that it originally stood upright, and that
‘somebody digging by it to find treasure disturbed it.’
“On the north-east side there are two fallen stones which Dr. Borlase, in
1749, imagined to have formed part of a Cromlech. It is more probable that
they are the fragments of a second pillar which was placed to the north-east
of the centre, and as far from it as the existing one is. There are instances, I
believe, of two pillars occupying similar positions within a circle. One of
the stones, that marked c in my plan, on the eastern side of the ring, was
prostrate in the Doctor’s time.
“At a short distance to the south-east and south-west there are cairns,
which have been explored.”

For this monument I have used the 6-inch map, as the circle lies nearly at
the centre, and all the outstanding stones are within its limits. The heights of
the sky-line were measured by Mr. H. Bolitho at a subsequent visit with a
miner’s dial; the resulting declinations have been calculated by Mr. Rolston.
A theodolite survey will doubtless revise some of them:—
Marks. Az. Hills. Dec. Star. Date.
1. F. Stone cross N. 43° 15′ E. 2° 7′ + 29° 26′ Capella 2250
2. P. Fine menhir N. 53 30 E. 1 15 22 58 Solstitial sun —
3. B. Blind Fiddler N. 54 30 E. 1 15 22 24 „ —
4. Two large menhirs N. 66 50 E. 1 0 14 55 May sun —
5. Stone cross N. 78 0 E. 1 0 (?) + 8 8 Pleiades (May) 1480
6. Stone S. 66 30 E. 1 0 (?) - 14 32 November sun —
7. Stone N. 83 30 W. 1 0 (?) + 4 36 Pleiades 2120
(September)

Larger chart
Fig. 60.—Showing azimuths in Lat. N. 50° for the summer solstice sunrise, with different heights
of hills for 1905 a.d. and 1680 b.c.

Vertical axis from bottom: Sea Level, 1⁄2°, 1°, 11⁄2°, 2°.
Horizontal axis, top, from left: 1905 a.d., 49° 20′-54° 20′.
Horizontal axis, bottom, from left: 1680 b.c. (Date of Stonehenge), 48° 40′-53° 40′.

I gather from a report which Mr. H. Bolitho has been good enough to
send me that modern hedges and farming operations have changed the
conditions of the sight-lines, so that 1 and 3 are just invisible from the
circle. This is by no means the only case in which the sighting stone has just
been hidden over the brow of a hill and in which signals from an observer
on the brow itself have been suggested, or a via sacra to the brow from the
circle; there are many monoliths in this direction which certainly never
belonged to the circle.
From the menhir P (No. 2) a fine view is obtained from N. to S. through
E., so that the Blind Fiddler and the two large menhirs, and almost the
circle, are visible. The curious shapes of 1 and 2 are noted, the east face
vertical and the west boundary curved, like several sighting stones on
Dartmoor.
The circle itself has several peculiarities. In the first place, as shown by
Lukis, it is not circular, the diameters being about 85 and 65 feet; the minor
axis runs through the pillar stone in the centre and the “fallen stones” of Dr.
Borlase towards the “stone cross” (which is no cross but a fine menhir) in
Az. N. 43° 15′ E. This would suggest that this was the original alignment in
2250 b.c., but against this is the fact that the two stones of the circle
between which the “fallen stones” lie are more carefully squared than the
rest. It is true, however, that this might have been done afterwards, and this
seems probable, for they are closer together than the other circle stones.
The one quartz stone occupies an azimuth S. 66° W. It was obviously
placed in a post of honour. As a matter of fact, from it the May sun was seen
to rise over the centre of the circle.
As there are both at Tregaseal and Boscawen-un alignments suggesting
the observation of the summer solstice sunrise, it is desirable here to refer to
the azimuths as calculated. For this purpose Fig. 60 has been prepared,
which shows these for lat. 50° both at the present day and at the date of the
restoration at Stonehenge.
My readers should compare this with Fig. 36, which gives the solstice
sunrise conditions of Stenness in Lat. N. 59°. Such a comparison will show
how useless it is to pursue these inquiries without taking the latitude and the
height of the sky-line into account.

“Stripple Stones” (lat. 50° 32′ 50″ N., long. 4° 37′ W.)
This is a very remarkable circle consisting of 5 erect and 11 prostrate
stones situated on a circular level platform 175 feet in diameter on the
boggy south slope of Hawk’s Tor on the Hawkstor Downs in the parish of
Blisland. The circle itself is about 148 feet in diameter, and the whole
monument is, in Lukis’s opinion, the most interesting and remarkable in the
country. Surrounding the platform is a ditch 11 feet wide, and beyond that a
penannular vallum about 10 feet in width. The peculiarity of the vallum is
that it has three bastions situate on the north-east, north-west, and east sides.
It is to the north-east bastion that I wish to refer.
Sighting from the huge monolith, which is now prostrate but originally
marked the centre of the circle, along a line bisecting the arc of this bastion
we find that the azimuth of the sight-line is N. 25° E.; the angular elevation
of the horizon from the 1-inch Ordnance map appears to be about 0° 22′.
From these values, proceeding as in the former cases, we find
Alignment. Decl. Star. Date.
Centre of circle to centre of bastion 35° 1′ N. Capella 1250 b.c.

indicating that this alignment was formed for the same purpose as that
which dominated the erection of the “Pipers.”

“Nine Maidens” (lat. 50° 28′ 20″ N., long. 4° 54′ 35″ W.)
In this monument we find a very different type from those considered
previously.
The Nine Maidens are simply 9 stones in a straight line 262 feet in length
at the present day; possibly, as suggested by Lukis, it may have extended
originally to the monolith known as “The Fiddler,” situated some 800 yards
away in a north-easterly direction. Measuring the azimuth of the alignment
on Lukis’s plan, and finding the horizon elevations from the 1-inch
Ordnance map, we have the following:—
Az. Hills. Decl. Star. Date.
N. 28° E. 0° 0′ 37° 47′ N. Capella 1480 b.c.

It may be remarked that here we have a date for the use of Capella
intermediate between those obtained for the “Pipers” and the “Strippie
Stones” respectively.

[118] Prehistoric Stone Monuments of the British Isles: Cornwall. W. C. Lukis. P. 1.

CHAPTER XXVIII
THE CLOCK-STARS IN EGYPT AND BRITAIN.

I have now finished my astronomical reconnaissance of the British
monuments. I trust I have shown how important it is that my holiday task
should be followed by a serious inquiry by other workers so that the
approximate values with which I have had to content myself for want of
time may be replaced by others to which the highest weight can be attached.
This means at each circle reversed observations with a six-inch theodolite
and determination of azimuths by means of observations of the sun if
necessary.
I propose in the present chapter to bring together the general results
already obtained in cases where the inquiry has been complete enough to
warrant definite conclusions to be drawn.
The first result to be gathered from the observations, and one to which I
attach the highest importance, is that the practice, so long employed in
Egypt, of determining time at night by the revolution of a star round the
pole, was almost universally followed in the British circles. This practice
was to watch a first-magnitude star, which I named a “clock-star,”[119] of
such a declination that it just dipped below the northern horizon so that it
was visible for almost the whole of its path.
Doubtless this same method of determining the flow of time during the
night watches was also employed in Babylonia,[120] but there, alas! the
temples, or, in other words, the astronomical observatories, have
disappeared, so that only the Egyptian practice remains for us to study.

Egypt.
Let us, before we proceed, consider some results which have been
gathered from the study of the Egyptian observations.
One of the earliest temples in Egypt concerning which we have historical
references to check the orientation results was built to carry on these night

observations at Denderah, lat. N. 26° 10′. The star observed was α Ursae
Majoris, decl. N. 58° 52′, passing 5° below the northern horizon; date
(assuming horizon 1° high) about 4950 b.c., i.e., in the times of the Shemsu
Heru, before Mena, as is distinctly stated in the inscriptions.
After α Ursae Majoris had become circumpolar in the latitude of
Denderah, γ Draconis, which had ceased to be circumpolar, and so fulfilled
the conditions to which I have referred, replaced it. Its declination was 58°
52′ N. about 3100 b.c., and it, therefore, could have been watched rising in
the axis prolonged of the old temple in the time of Pepi, who restored it
then, no doubt on account of the advent of the new star, and is stated to
have deposited a copy of the old plan in a cavity in the new walls.
Here, then, we have two dates given by orientation of a clock-star temple
entirely agreeing with the most recent views of Egyptian chronology.
In Dr. Budge’s History of Egypt (iii. 14) the story of the rebuilding of the
temple at Annu by Usertsen (2433 b.c., Brugsch) is given from an ancient
roll. Supposing this temple built parallel with the faces of the remaining
obelisk, γ Draconis would rise in its axis prolonged 2500 b.c., proving that
Usertsen did at Annu what Pepi previously did at Denderah, and that the
same reason for restoration and even the same star were in question.[121]
When the clock-star ceased to be visible in the chief temple other
subsidiary temples were subsequently built to watch it. Thus γ Draconis was
watched at Thebes from 3500 b.c. to the times of the Ptolemys by temples
oriented successively from that of Mut Az. N. 72° 30′ E. to 68° 30′, 63° 30′,
and 62°.[122]
It is worth while to show that what we know now of the Egyptian
methods of observation enables us to carry the matter further, while we
gather at the same time that in consequence of the difference of latitude the
method employed in Egypt could not be followed in Britain.
I showed in the Dawn of Astronomy that several ancient shrines consisted
of two temples at right angles to each other (see Fig. 13), one axis pointing
high N.E. to observe the clock-star—the worship of Set—the other low
N.W. to observe either the sun by itself, or in association with some
important star of the same declination as the sun.
The temples of Mut and Menu (or Min), and of Amen, with the
associated temple M. of Lepsius, at Karnak, are the best extant examples of
this principle of temple building.

There is evidence that both at Annu and Memphis the same principle was
followed, but at Annu one obelisk alone remains, and at Memphis one
temple; from these, however, Captain Lyons and myself have obtained
sufficient data to enable the original directions of the temple-systems to be
gathered.
At Denderah, if such a N.W. temple ever existed it has disappeared, but
as the monument stands there are still two temples at right angles to each
other, but the second one faces S.E. instead of N.W.
This premised, I will now give, in anticipation of another one dealing
with the British monuments, a list of the most ancient star temples in Egypt,
with their azimuths and the first-magnitude clock-stars which could have
been observed in them at different dates. These dates have been
approximately determined by the use of a precessional globe, an horizon of
1° elevation being assumed. As I have shown, the present views of Egyptian
chronology and the inscriptions carry us back to α Ursae Majoris, at
Denderah. But there is a suggestion at Luxor, and perhaps also at Abydos,
that Vega was used before that star, though there are, so far as I know, no
temple traces of Arcturus.
α
N. Az. N. Arc- γ
Temple. Vega. Ursae
Lat. N.E. Decl. turus. Draconis.
Majoris.
Annu 30° 10′ 14° 0′ 57° 25′ 6250 5550 *5200 *2500
Memphis 29 50 12 45 58 20 6450 6000 5000 2850
Denderah 26 10 18 30 58 52 6550 6200 *4950 *3100
Thebes (Mut) 25 40 17 30 59 46 6700 6700 4800 *3500
Tell-el-Amarna 27 40 13 0 60 12 6800 6800 4750 3700
Nagada 26 10 12 0 61 16 7000 7400 4600 4000

There is a very great difference between determining the date of a temple
erected to the rising or setting of a particular star, and of one erected to the
rising or setting of the sun on a particular day of the year. In the latter case
no date can be given unless we have reason to believe that both the sun and
a star rose or set at the same point of the horizon at the same date; in other
words, the sun and star had the same declination, and the rising or setting of
both could be seen in the same temple.
I assumed, without historical data, that this view was acted on in Egypt,
at the temple of Menu; Mr. Penrose found, with historical data, that it was
actually acted on in Greece at the Parthenon. To show that we are at all
justified in this view we must study the association of gods with temple

worship, and look for temples in different azimuths erected at different
times if the god is a star; and we can run the star home if the dates fall in
with the star’s precessional change. Thus there is reason for supposing that
the god Ptah and the star Capella were associated. There is a temple of Ptah
at Memphis, Az. N. 77° 15′ W., hills 50′, decl. N. 11°, star Capella, date
5200. In the rectangular system at Memphis, then, α Ursae Majoris was
watched in one temple and Capella in the other at that date. There is also
evidence that the god Menu was associated with the star Spica. In the
temple system of Mut at Thebes, in 3200 b.c., γ Draconis was used as a
clock-star in one temple, while the setting of Spica was watched in the
other.
If a temple is erected to the sun with no specially named cult, it may be a
sun-temple pure and simple, not connected with star worship because there
was no star with the proper declination at the time.
In Greece temple-building was carried on at a much later time, so late
that perhaps water clocks were available, so that we should not expect to
find many clock-star temples in that country. As a matter of fact there is
only one, of which the data, according to Mr. Penrose, are as follows:—
N. Decl. Star. Date.
Thebes, The City of the Dragon +54° 28′ γ Draconis 1160

It will be seen that the star used in Greece was the last clock-star traced
in the Egyptian temples.

Britain.
I now come to Britain. So far as my inquiries have gone, these clock-star
observations were introduced into these islands about 2300 b.c.
In my statement concerning them I will deal with the astronomical
conditions for lat. 50° N., as it is in Cornwall that the evidence is most
plentiful and conclusive.
In that latitude and at that time Arcturus, decl. N. 41°, was just
circumpolar with a sea horizon, and therefore neither rose nor set. Capella,
decl. N. 31°, when northing was 9° below the horizon, so that it rose and set
in azimuths N. 37° E. and N. 37° W. respectively; it was therefore invisible
for a long time and was an awkward clock-star in consequence.

Fig. 61.—Arcturus and Capella as clock-stars in Britain.
AB = sea horizon.
A′B′ = horizon 3° high.

Fig. 61 represents diagrammatically the conditions named, the
circumpolar paths of Arcturus and Capella being shown by the smaller and
larger circle respectively. A B represents the actual sea horizon and A′ B′ a
locally raised horizon 3° high, whilst the dotted portion of the larger circle
represents the non-visible part of Capella’s apparent path.
What the British astronomer-priests did, therefore, in the majority of
cases was to set up their temples in a locality where the N.E. horizon was
high, so that Arcturus rose and set over it and was invisible for only a short
time, as shown in the diagram by the raised horizon A′ B′.
The two lists following contain the names of the monuments where I
suggest Arcturus was used as a clock-star. In the first, the angular elevation
of the sky-line as seen from the circle in each case has been actually
measured, and the date of the alignment is, therefore, fairly trustworthy; but

in the second list the elevations have been estimated from the differences of
contour shown on the one-inch Ordnance map, and the dates must be
accepted as open to future revision.
ARCTURUS AS A CLOCK-STAR.

I.

Position. Date
Monument. Alignment. Az. Hills. Decl. N.
Lat. N. Long. W. b.c.
Tregaseal 50° 8′ 0″ 5° 39′ 20″ Circ. to Carn N. 12° 8′ E. 4° 0′ 42° 33′ 2330
Kenidjack
The Hurlers 50 31 0 4 27 20 S. circ. over N. 11 15 E. 3 24 41 38 2170
cent. circ.
Cent. circ. over N. 14 18 E. 3 24 41 9 2090
N. circ.
N. circ. over N. 18 44 E. 3 24 40 6 1900
N.E. barrow
Merrivale 50 33 15 4 2 30 Circ. to remains N. 15 0 E. 3 1 40 36 1990
of cromlech
Direction of N. 24 25 E. 5 0 39 55 1860
smaller
avenue
Fernworthy 50 38 30 3 54 10 Direction of N. 13 0 E. 1 15 39 7 1720
Avenue N. 14 20 E. 1 15 38 51 1670
Stanton Drew 51 22 0 2 34 20 Cent. of Gt. N. 17 59 E. 2 33 38 38 1620
Circ. to
Quoit
Fernworthy 50 38 30 3 54 10 Direction of N. 15 45 E. 1 15 38 34 1610
Avenue
Merry Maidens 50 3 40 5 35 25 Circ. to stone in N. 11 45 E. 0 12 38 27 1590
the road
Stanton Drew 51 22 0 2 34 20 S.W. circ. to N. 19 51 E. 1 44 37 30 1420
centre of Gt.
Circ.

II.

Position. Date
Monument. Alignment. Az. Hills. Decl. N.
Lat. N. Long. W. b.c.
Trowlesworthy 50° 27′ 30″ 4° 0′ 20″ Direction of N. 7° 0′ E. 2° 52′ 41° 24′ 2130
primary
avenue

Direction of N. 12 0 E. 2 52 41 6 2080
final avenue
Longstone 50 8 10 5 38 20 Longstone to N. 9 0 E. 1 43 40 39 2000
(Tregaseal) Chûn
Cromlech
Lee Moor 50 26 30 3 59 40 Direction of N. 22 0 E. 2 28 38 17 1500
avenue

In some cases, for one reason or another, this arrangement was not
carried out, and Capella, in spite of the objection I have stated, was used in
the following circles:—
CAPELLA AS A CLOCK-STAR.
Position. Date
Monument. Alignment. Az. Hills. Decl. N.
Lat. N. Long. W. b.c.
I.
Boscawen-un 50° 5′ 20″ 5° 37′ 0″ Circ. to Stone N. 43° 15′ E. 2° 7′ 29° 36′ 2250
Cross
Merry 50 3 40 5 35 25 Circ. over the N. 38 26 E. 0 20 29 58 2100
Maidens “Pipers”
II.
The Nine 50 28 20 4 54 30 Direction of Nine N. 28 0 E. 0 0 33 47 1480
Maidens Maidens row
Stripple 50 32 51 4 37 35 Centre to N.E. N. 26 0 E. 0 22 34 38 1320
Stones bastion

At the Merry Maidens, however, with nearly a sea horizon, when
Arcturus ceased to be circumpolar and rose in Azimuth N. 11° 45′ E., it
replaced Capella, and was used as a clock-star after 1600 b.c.
In this system of night observation we have the germ of the use in later
times of an instrument called the “night-dial,” specimens of which, dating
from the fourteenth century, can be seen in our museums. The introduction
of graduated circles permitted the employment of circumpolar stars, and the
“guards” of the Little Bear or the “pointers” of the Great Bear were thus
used. There was a disc with a central aperture through which the pole star
could be observed; the disc could be adjusted for every night in the year; an
arm was then moved round so that the direction of the pointers (or the
guards) with regard to the vertical could be measured; on a second
concentric circle the time of night could be read off.

Fig. 62.—A “night-dial.”

[119] Dawn of Astronomy, 1894, p. 343.
[120] Jensen, Kosmologie der Babylonier, p. 147.
[121] Dawn of Astronomy, p. 215.
[122] Ibid., p. 214.

CHAPTER XXIX
A SHORT HISTORY OF SUN TEMPLES

The Original Cult
I have given detailed evidence showing that the first circle builders in
Britain worshipped the May-year sun, whether they brought it with them or
not. This year was used in Babylon, Egypt, and afterwards in Greece. In the
two former countries May was the harvest month, and thus became the
chief month in the year. The dates were apt to vary with the local harvest
time.
The earliest extant temple aligned to the sun at this festival seems to have
been that of Ptah at Memphis, 5200 b.c. I have already referred to this
temple in relation to the clock-star observations carried on in it.
This approximate date of the building of the temple is obtained by the
evidence afforded (1) by the associated clock-star (see p. 298), and (2) by
the fact that the god Ptah represented the star Capella, since there is a Ptah
temple at Thebes aligned on Capella at a later time, when by the
processional movement it had been carried outside the solar limit. There
was also a similar temple at Annu (Heliopolis, lat. N. 30° 10′), but it has
disappeared. The light of the sun fell along the axis when the sun had the
declination N. 11°, the Gregorian dates being April 18 and August 24.
Another May-year temple was that of Menu at Thebes, Az. N. 72° 30′ W.
(lat. N. 25°; sun’s declination N. 15°; Gregorian date, May 1).

Larger plan
Fig. 63.—Layard’s plan of the Palace of Sennacherib discovered in the
mound of Kouyunjik. The temple axis, XXXVI., XXXIV., XXIX., XIX.
(XXII. is on a lower level), faces the rising of the May sun.

As we have seen (p. 299), Spica had this declination in 3200 b.c., and the
coincidence may have been the reason for the erection, or, more probably,
the restoration, of the temple,[123] especially as γ Draconis came into play as
a new clock-star at the same date.

Larger plan
Fig. 64.—Layard’s plan of the Mound at Nimrood showing its equinoctial orientation.

The researches of Mr. Penrose in Greece have provided us with temples
oriented to the May-year sun. I shall return to them afterwards, as they are
later in time than the British monuments.

Larger map
Fig. 65.—The Temples at Chichen Itza.

The explorations of Sir H. Layard at Nineveh, lat. 36° N., have shown
that the temple in Sennacherib’s palace, which may have been a restoration
of a much older temple, was also oriented to the May sun.
It is a pity that our present-day archæologists do not more strictly follow
the fine example set by Sir Henry Layard in his explorations of Kouyunjik.
When he had unearthed Sennacherib’s palace (700 b.c.) he was careful to
give the astronomical and magnetic bearings of the buildings and of the

temple which seemed to form the core of them. The bearing is Az. N. 68°
30′ E., giving the sun’s declination as N. 16°.
I am enabled by the kindness of Mr. John Murray to give copies of the
plans which Sir H. Layard prepared of the excavations both at Kouyunjik
and Nimrood, showing the careful orientation which enables us to claim
Sennacherib’s temple as one consecrated to the May year, while at Nimrood
(Babylon) the equinoctial worship was in vogue as at the pyramids.
In association with these plans of Layard’s, I give another by Mr.
Maudslay of the as carefully oriented temples at Chichen Itza (N. lat. 20°)
explored by him. In these temples, of unknown date and origin, the
azimuths of two show that the May year was worshipped.[124]

The May-Year Monuments in Britain.
In the first glimpses of the May year in Egypt we have dates from 5000
b.c. It does not follow that it did not reach Great Britain before about 2000
b.c. because monuments made their appearance about that time. It is clear,
also, that with the possibilities of coastwise traffic as we have found it, it
might as easily have reached Ireland by then; 2000 b.c., therefore, is a
probable date for the May worship to have reached Britain arguing on
general principles; we now come to a detailed summary of the facts
showing that it really reached Britain earlier.
Alignments in British monuments designed to mark the place of the sun’s
rising or setting on the quarter-days of the May year have been found as
follows:—
Position. May and Aug. Feb. and Nov.
Monument.
Lat. N. Long. W. Rising. Setting. Rising. Setting.
Merry Maidens 50° 3′ 40″ 5° 35′ 25″ * * *
Boscawen-un 50 5 20 5 37 0 * *
Tregaseal 50 7 50 5 39 20 *
Longstone (Tregaseal) 50 8 10 5 38 20 *
Down Tor 50 30 10 3 59 30 *
Merrivale 50 33 15 4 2 30 *
The Hurlers 50 31 0 4 27 20 *
Stonehenge 51 10 40 1 49 30 * *
Stanton Drew 51 22 0 2 34 30 * ?
circle avenue
along to
avenue circle
*

Stenness 59 0 10 3 13 40 * * *

I have already shown that it was the practice in ancient times for the
astronomer-priests not only to watch the clock-stars during the night, but
also other stars which rose or set about an hour before sunrise, to give
warning of its approach on the days of the principal festivals.
Each clock-star, if it rose and set very near the north point, might be
depended on to herald the sunrise on one of the critical days of the year, but
for the others other stars would require to be observed. This practice was
fully employed in Britain.
—The following table gives the stars I have so far noted
May Warnings.which were used as warners for the May festival.

Date or dates
Monument. Star.
b.c.
Stonehenge Pleiades (R) 1950
Merry Maidens Pleiades (R) 1930
Antares (S) 1310
The Hurlers Antares (S) 1720
Pleiades (R) 1610
Merrivale Pleiades (R) 1610

„ 1420
Boscawen-un Pleiades (R) 1480
Tregaseal Pleiades (R) 1270
Stenness Pleiades (R) 1230

Longstone (Tregaseal) Pleiades (R) 1030
(R) = rising. (S) = setting.

It is convenient here to give a list of the May warning stars found by Mr.
Penrose in Greece, as it shows that the same stars were observed for the
same purpose.
Decl. Day.
Year.
b.c.
Archaic temple of Minerva Pleiades (R) + 7°50′ April 20 2020
Hiero of Epidaurus, Asclepieion „ (R) + 9 15 „ 28 1275
Hecatompedon „ (R) + 9 58 „ 26 1150
Older Erechtheum Antares (S) - 14 31 „ 29 1070

Temple of Bacchus Pleiades (R) +10 35 „ 29 1030
Corinth Antares (S) - 16 0 May 6 770
Aegina „ (S) - 16 45 „ 7 630

The warning stars at Athens were the Pleiades for temples facing the east,
and Antares for temples using the western horizon.
—Sunrise at the August festival was heralded by the
August warnings.rising of Arcturus, which, as we have seen, was also
used as a clock-star. The alignments and dates given in the Arcturus table
therefore hold good for August. At the Hurlers, where the hill over which
Arcturus was observed fell away abruptly, we find Sirius supplanting
Arcturus as the warning star for August in 1690 b.c.
November warnings.—So far I have discovered no evidence that any star
was employed to herald the November sun. There may be two reasons for
this. In the first place the November festival “Halloween” took place at
sunset and the sun itself could be watched, no heralding star being
necessary.
Secondly, the atmospheric conditions which prevail in Britain during
November would not be conducive to the making of stellar observations at
the horizon, and only risings or settings were observed with regard to the
quarter-days.
—In the same way that Arcturus served the double
February Warnings.purpose of clock-star and herald for the August sun,
so did Capella serve to warn the February sun in addition to its use at night.
The alignments and dates given in the Capella table will therefore hold
good for its employment at the February quarter-day.

The Solstitial Year Monuments.
In Egypt generally, the solstitial worship followed that of the May and
equinoctial years. The religion of Thothmes III. and the Rameses was in
greatest vogue 2200-1500 b.c.
We find little trace of it in Greece proper, though Mr. Penrose has traced
it in Calabria and Pompeii, and in some of the islands.
The solstitial cult was born in Egypt; it is a child of the Nile-rise. I have
shown in my Dawn of Astronomy that the long series of temples connected

with the solstice may have commenced about 3000 b.c.; but for long it was
a secondary cult; it was parochial until the twelfth dynasty, say 2300 b.c.
Egypt’s solstitial “golden age” may be given as 1700 b.c., and her influence
abroad was very great, so that much travel, “coastwise” and other, may be
anticipated. It is for some centuries after the first date that the introduction
of the solstitial worship into Britain may be anticipated. It, for instance, is
quite probable that the pioneers of this worship should have reached
Stonehenge in 2000 b.c.
The solstitial alignments found by Mr. Penrose in Greece are as
follows:—
Temples. Decl. Day. Year.
b.c.

June.
Athens, Dionysus (Upper Temple) Antares (setting) - 11° 2′ June 20 1700
Pompeii (Isis) β-Geminorum - 16 44 „ 19 750
December.
Metapontum (setting) β-Geminorum + 29° 38′ Dec. 21 610
Locri „ + 29 40 „ 21 610

We find plentiful evidence that the worship of the solstitial sun such as
was carried on in Egypt at Karnak and at other places[125] was introduced
into Britain some time after the May-year worship was provided for in the
monuments.
Although some of the alignments already discovered are in all probability
solstitial, the variation of the sun’s solstitial declination is so slow and takes
place between such narrow limits that a most careful determination of the
actual azimuths and of the angular heights of the various horizons must be
made before any definite conclusion as to dates can be arrived at. The
necessity for this care is illustrated in the paper on Stonehenge[126]
communicated to the Royal Society by Mr. Penrose and myself in 1891,
where, after taking the greatest precautions, the resulting date was in doubt
to the amount of 200 years in either direction.
So far Stonehenge is the only temple at which these observations have
been made, so that for the other alignments contained in the following list
no dates can yet be given.

Decl. Date
Monument. Alignment. Az. Season.
(provisional). b.c.
Stonehenge Direction of avenue N. 49° 34′ 18″ E. 23° 54′ 30″ N. Summer 1680
(R)
Boscawen-un Circ. to fine menhir N. 53 30 0 E. 22 58 13 Summer
(R)
Circ. to Blind Fiddler N. 54 30 0 E. 22 24 12 „

Tregaseal Circ. to row of holed N. 53 20 25 E. 22 53 26 Summer
stones (R)
Circ. to two barrows N. 50 0 0 E. 24 7 0 „
900′ distant
Longstone Mèn-an-tol to S. 50 30 0 W. 24 33 0 S. Winter (S)
(Tregaseal) Longstone
The Hurlers N. circ. to S.E. stone S. 50 50 0 E. 24 17 20 S. Winter (S)
Stanton Drew Gt. Circle to N.E. N. 51 0 0 E. 23 48 46 N. Summer
circle (R)

Stenness Circle to Hindera Fiold N. 39 30 0 E. 24 3 15 N. Summer
(R)
Barnstone to N. 41 16 0 E. — „
Maeshowe
Circ. to Ward Hill S. 41 0 0 E. — Winter
tumulus (R)
Circ. to Onston S. 36 30 0 W. — Winter (S)
tumulus
Circ. to tumuli N. 37 0 0 W. — Summer
(S)
(R) = rising. (S) = setting.

I cited an alignment at the Hurlers which marked the rising point of
Betelgeuse. This star warned the summer solstice sunrise at about the
Hurlers’ date. So far, however, I have not yet found any suggestion of its
use elsewhere.
At Shovel Down and Challacombe on Dartmoor there are avenues
pointing a few degrees west of north. The sight-lines along these avenues
would mark the setting-point of Arcturus at the time that that star (setting)
warned the rising of the sun at the summer solstice; but this use cannot be
considered as established, as Arcturus would scarcely set before its light
was drowned in that of the rising sun. The absence of darkness in high
summer in these latitudes and the bad weather in the winter may both be
responsible for so few alignments for the solstices.

The Equinoctial Year Monuments.
The equinoctial pyramid and Babylonian cult in vogue in Egypt in the
early dynasties (4000 b.c.), with the warning stars Aldebaran (March) and
Vega (September), was represented in Greece at a much later period. The
facts for Greece, according to Mr. Penrose, are as follows:—
Decl. Day. Year.
b.c.

March.
Nike Apteros Spica (setting) + 6° 10′ Mar. 17 1130
Juno Lacinia (near Croton) α-Arietis + 7 27 „ 28 1000
Paestum (Neptune) Spica (setting) + 3 5 „ 22 535
Gergenti (Hercules) „ + 2 30 „ 30 470
September.
Rhamnus (Themis) Spica (rising) + 6° 0′ Sept. 17 1092
Tegea (Minerva) „ „ + 5 51 „ 18 1075
Syracuse (? Minerva) „ + 4 30 „ 20 815
Athens (dedication unknown) „ + 4 17 „ 23 780
Rhamnus (Nemesis) „ „ + 4 5 „ 22 747
Bassæ (Apollo) „ „ + 3 57 „ 22 728
Ephesus (Diana) „ „ + 3 57 „ 25 715
Syracuse (Diana) „ „ + 2 22 „ 26 450
Ephesus (Diana) (re-orientation) „ — Oct. 6 355

In Britain equinoctial alignments are not wanting, but so few have been
traced that I have reserved them for future inquiry.
[123] See Dawn of Astronomy, p. 318.
[124] The temple conditions are approximately as follows:—

PALENQUE.
Azimuths. Decl.
N. 21° 30′ E. 60° 15′
N. 18 0 E.
S. 27 0 W.
62 36
56 17
}
Stellar temples. Clock-stars.

S. 66 0 E.
S. 73 0 E.
23 0 Solstice
16 0 May }
Solar temples.

CHICHEN ITZA.
Azimuths. Decl.
N. 26° 0′ E. 59° 0′ Stellar temple. Clock-star.
S. 70 0 E. 19 0 (?)

N. 70 0 W. 19 0 (?)
N. 67 0 W.
N. 72 30
22
16
0 Solstitial
0 May } Solar temples.
[125] Dawn of Astronomy, p. 78.
[126] Proc. Roy. Soc., vol. 69.

CHAPTER XXX
THE LIFE OF THE ASTRONOMER-PRIESTS

The facts contained in the preceding chapters have suggested, at all
events, that whatever else went on some four thousand years ago in the
British circles there was much astronomical observation and a great deal of
preparation for it.
In a colony of the astronomer-priests who built and used the ancient
temples we had of necessity:—
(1) Observatories, i.e., circles in the first place; next something to mark
the sight-lines to the clock-star for night work, to the rising or setting of the
warning stars, and to the places of sunrise and sunset at the chief festivals.
This something, we have learned, might be another circle, a standing stone,
a dolmen, a cove, or a holed stone.
A study of the sight-lines shows us that these collimation marks, as we
may call them, were of set purpose, generally placed some distance away
from the circles, so far that they would require to be illuminated in some
way for the night and dawn observations. When there was no wind, one or
more hollows in a stone, whether a menhir or a quoit, might have held
grease to feed a wick or a pine-wood torch. But in a wind some shelter
would be necessary, and the light might have been used in a cromlech or
allée couverte. Stones have been found with such cups, and débris of fires
have been found in cromlechs.
It must not be forgotten that here there was no oil as in the Semitic
countries whence, as we have seen, the immigrants came; and it was not a
question of a light on the sight-line alone. If wood were used, it must have
been kept dry for use, and whether wood or animal fat were employed the
most practical and convenient way of lighting up would have been to keep a
fire ever burning in some sheltered place.
(2) Dwellings, which would be cromlechs or many-chambered barrows,
according to the number of astronomer-priests at the station. These
dwellings would require to be protected against the invasions of the local

fauna, very different from what it is now, and for this a small, and on that
account easily blocked, entrance would be an essential.
These dwellings would naturally suggest themselves as the shelter place
for the ever-burning fire or the supply of dry wood. Tradition points with no
uncertain sound to the former existence of life and light in these “hollow
hills.” Mr. MacRitchie’s book[127] contains a mine of most valuable and
interesting information on this subject.
(3) A water supply for drinking and bathing, which might be a spring,
river or lake, according to the locality.
Given a supply of food we have now provided for the shelter and
protection of the astronomer and the man.
But the man who brought this new astronomical knowledge was, before
he came, astrologer and magician as well, and, further, he was a priest;
hence on account of his knowledge of the seasons, he could not only help
the aboriginal tiller of the soil as he had never been helped before, by his
knowledge; but he could appeal in the strongest way to his superstitious
fears and feelings, by his function as the chief sacrificer and guardian of the
sacrificial altars and fires. Hence it was that everything relating to the three
different classes of things to which I have referred was regarded as very
holy because they were closely associated with the astronomer-priests, on
whom the early peoples depended for guidance in all things, not only of
economic, but of religious, medical and superstitious value.
The perforated stones were regarded as sacred, so that passing through
them was supposed to cure disease. Whether men and women, or children
only, passed through the hole depended upon its size. But a hole large
enough for a head to be inserted was good for head complaints.
The wells, rivers, and lakes used by the priests were, as holy places, also
invested with curative properties, and offerings of garments (skins?), and
pins to fasten them on, as well as bread and wine and cheese, were made at
these places to the priests.
The fact that the tree on which the garment was hung was either a rowan
or a thorn shows that these offerings commenced as early as the May-
November worship.
The holed stones, besides being curative, were in long after years, when
marriage had been instituted, used for the interchange of marriage vows by
clasping hands through the opening.

The cups for the light would also be sacred objects; and many of them
have been since used for holy water.
The cursus at Stonehenge and the avenues on Dartmoor may be regarded
as evidences that sacred processions formed part of the ceremonial on the
holy days, but sacrifices and sacred ceremonials were not alone in question;
many authors have told us that feasts, games and races were not forgotten.
This, so far as racing is concerned, is proved, I think, by the facts that the
cursus at Stonehenge is 10,000 feet long and 350 feet broad, that it occupies
a valley between two hills, thus permitting of the presence of thousands of
spectators, and that our horses are still decked in gaudy trappings on May
Day.
Nor is this all. It is hard to understand some of the folklore and tradition
unless we recognise that at a time before marriage was instituted, at some of
the sacred festivals the intercourse of the sexes was permitted if not
encouraged. This view is strengthened by the researches of
Westermarck[128] and Rhys.[129] Given such a practice, the origin of
matriarchal customs and of the couvade is at once explained; and it is clear
that the charges against the Druids of special cruelty and impurity must be
withdrawn. Their sacrifices and customs were those common to all
priesthoods in the ancient world.
I have shown that some circles used in the worship of the May year were
in operation 2200 b.c., and that there was the introduction of a new cult
about 1600 b.c., or shortly afterwards, in southern Britain, so definite that
the changes in the chief orientation lines in the stone circles can be traced.
To the worship of the sun in May, August, November and February was
added a solstitial worship in June and December.
The associated phenomena are that the May-November Balder and
Beltaine cult made much of the rowan and may thorn. The June-December
cult brought the worship of the mistletoe.
The flowering of the rowan and thorntree in May, and their berries in
early November, made them the most appropriate and striking floral
accompaniments of the May and November worships, and the same ideas
would point to a similar use of the mistletoe in June and December.
The fact that the June-December cult succeeded and largely replaced the
May-November one could hardly have been put in a cryptic and poetic
statement more happily than it appears in folklore: Balder was killed by
mistletoe.

This change of cult may be due to the intrusion of a new tribe, but I am
inclined to attribute it to a new view taken by the priests themselves due to
a greater knowledge, among it being the determination, in Egypt, of the true
length of the year which could be observed by the recurrence of the
solstices, and of the intervals between the festivals reckoned in days.
However this may have been, all the old practices and superstitions were
retained, only the time of year at which they took place was changed. As the
change of cult was slow, in any one locality the celebrations would be
continued at both times of the year, and for long both sets of holidays were
retained.
Since I have shewn that the solstitial worship came last, traces of this, as
a rule, would be most obvious in places where it eventually prevailed over
the cult of the May year. In such places the absence of traces of the May
festival would be no valid argument against its former prevalence. In other
places, like Scotland, where the solstitial cult was apparently introduced
late and was never prevalent, we should expect strong traces of the May
worship, and, as a matter of fact, it is very evident in the folk lore and
customs of Scotland; even the old May year quarter days are still
maintained.
Between the years 2300 b.c. and 1600 b.c., whether we are dealing with
the same race of immigrants or not, we pass from unhewn to worked stones.
The method of this working and its results have been admirably shown to us
by Prof. Gowland’s explorations at Stonehenge.
From the tables, given in Chap. XXVIII, it can be seen that, so far as the
present evidence goes, there was a pretty definite time—about 2300 b.c.—
of beginning the astronomical work at the chief monuments; Cornwall came
first, Dartmoor was next.
Almost as marked as the simultaneous beginning are the dates of ending
the observations, if we may judge of the time of ending by the fact that the
precessional changes in the star places were no longer marked by the
marking out of new sight lines.
The clock-star work was the first to go, about 1500 b.c. The May-
warning stars followed pretty quickly.
We may say, then, that we have full evidence of astronomical activity of
all kinds at the circles for a period of some 700 years.
What prevented its continuance on the old lines? It may have been that
the invention of some other method of telling time by night had rendered

the old methods of observation, and therefore the apparatus to carry them
on, no longer necessary.
On the other hand, it may have been that some new race, less
astronomically inclined, had swept over the land.
I am inclined to take the former view. It is quite certain that for the clock-
stars other observations besides those on the horizon would soon have
suggested themselves for determining the lapse of time during the night.
The old, high, bleak, treeless moorlands might then in process of time have
been gradually forsaken, and life may have gone on in valleys and even in
sheltered woods, except on the chief festivals. When this was so astronomy
and superstition would give way to politics and other new human interests,
and the priests would become in a wider sense the leaders and the teachers
of the more highly organised community.
It is clear that in later days as at the commencement they were still ahead
in the knowledge of the time. “Hi terrae mundique magnitudinem et
formam, motus coeli ac siderum, ac quod dii velunt sciere profitentur” is
Pomponius Mela’s statement concerning them.[130] From 1500 b.c. to
Cæsar’s time is a long interval, and yet the astronomical skill of the so-
called Druids, who beyond all question were the descendants of our
astronomical-priests, was then a matter of common repute. Cæsar’s account
of the Druids in Gaul (Bello Gallico, vi. c. 13, 14, 15) is extremely
interesting because it indicates, I think, that the Druid culture had not
passed through Gaul and had therefore been waterborne to Britain, whither
the Gauls therefore went to study it.[131]
Simultaneously with the non-use of the ancient stones, we may imagine
that the priests—of ever-increasing importance—no longer dwelt in their
cromlechs, but, rather, occupied such buildings as those which remain at
Chysoister, and from this date it is possible that burials may have taken
place in some of the mounds then given up as dwelling places. As sacred
places they were subsequently used for burials, as Westminster Abbey has
been; but burials were not the object of their erection.[132] This new habit
may have started the practice of cist burial by later people in barrows
thrown up for that special purpose.
I cannot close this Chapter without expressing my admiration of the
learning and acumen displayed by Dr. Borlase in his treatment of the
subject of the Druids in his History of Cornwall, published in 1769; I find
he has anticipated me in suggesting that the hollowed stones were used for

fires. It is clear, now that the monuments have been dated, that the
astronomical knowledge referred to by Cæsar and Pomponius Mela was no
new importation; if, therefore, the present view of ethnologists that the
Celtic intrusion took place about 1000 b.c. is correct, it is certain the Celts
brought no higher intelligence with them than was possessed by those
whom they found here; nor is this to be expected if, as the inquiry has
suggested, the latter were the representatives of the highest civilisation of
the East with which possibly the former had never been brought into
contact.
[127] The Testimony of Tradition.
[128] History of Human Marriage, Chapter II.
[129] Celtic Folklore, ii., 654.
[130] Pomp. Mela, Lib. II. c. 2. I have already (p. 52) quoted Cæsar’s testimony to the same
effect.
[131] “Disciplina in Britannia reperta, atque in Galliam translata esse existimatur.”—C. Bell.
Gall. lib. vi. c. 13. This “discipline” also included magic according to Pliny.
“Britannia hodie eam (i.e. Magiam) attonite celebrat tantis ceremoniis, ut eam Persis
dedisse videri possit” (lib. xxx. c. 1.)
[132] Bertrand and Reinach, Les Celtes et les Gaulois dans les Vallées du Pô et du Danube, p.
82. Tregellis, “Stone Circles in Cornwall.” Trans. Penzance Natural History and
Antiquarian Society, 1893-4.

APPENDICES

I. Details of the Theodolite Observations at Stonehenge
The instrument chiefly employed was a six-inch transit theodolite by
Cooke with verniers reading to 20″ in altitude and azimuth. Most of the
observations were made at two points very near the axis, which may be
designated by a, b. Station a was at a distance of 61 feet to the south-west
of the centre of the temple, and b 364 feet to the north-east. The distance
from the centre of Stonehenge to Salisbury Spire being 41,981 feet, the
calculated corrections for parallax at the points of observation with
reference to Salisbury Spire are:—
Station a + 4′ 12″.
„ b - 25′ 20″.
(1) Relative Azimuths.—Theodolite at station a—

Salisbury Spire 0° 0′ 0″
N. side of opening in N.E. trilithon of the external ring 237 27 40
Tree in middle of clump on Sidbury Hill 237 40 20
Highest point of Friar’s Heel 239 47 25
S. side of opening in N.E. trilithon 240 14 40
Middle of opening in N.E. trilithon 238 51 10

(2) Absolute Azimuths.—All the azimuths were referred to that of
Salisbury Spire, the azimuth of which was determined by observations of
the Sun and Polaris.
(a) Observation of Sun, June 23, 1901, 3.30-3.40 p.m.

Mean of observed altitudes of Sun 41° 26′ 35″
Refraction - 1′ 4″
Parallax + 6 }0 0 58

True altitude of Sun’s centre 41 25 37

Latitude = 51° 10′ 42″. Sun’s declination = 23° 26′ 43″. Using the
formula
sin 1⁄2(Δ + c - z) sin 1⁄2(Δ + z - c)
cos2 1⁄2 A =
sin c . sin z

where A = azimuth from south, Δ = polar distance,
c = co-latitude, and z = zenith distance,
we get

Azimuth of Sun S. 75° 30′ 30″ W.
Mean circle reading on Sun 84 38 35
Azimuth of Salisbury Spire S. 9 8 5 E.

(b) Observations of Polaris.—June 23, 1901. Time of greatest easterly
elongation, calculated by formula cos h = tan φ cot δ, is G.M.T. 1.34 a.m.
Azimuth at greatest easterly elongation, calculated by the formula
sin A = cos δ sec φ
is 181° 57′ 0″ from south.

Observed maximum reading of circle 256° 33′ 0″
True azimuth of star 181 57 0
Meridian (S.) reading of circle 74 36 0
Circle reading on Salisbury Spire 65 28 0
Azimuth of Salisbury Spire S. 9 8 0 E.

The mean of the two determinations gives for the azimuth of Salisbury
Spire S. 9° 8′ 2″ E. This result agrees well with the value of the azimuth
communicated by the Ordnance Survey Office, namely, 9° 4′ 8″ from the
centre of the circle, which being corrected by +4′ 12″ for the position of
station a, is increased to 9° 8′ 20″.

Hence, from the point of observation a, 9° 8′ 20″ has been adopted as the
azimuth of Salisbury Spire.
We thus get the following absolute values of the principal azimuths from
the point a:

Highest point of Friar’s Heel 239° 47′ 25″
-9 8 20
230 39 5
or N. 50 39 5 E.
Middle of opening in N.E. trilithon 238 51 10
-9 8 20
229 42 50
or N. 49 42 50 E.

The difference of 81⁄2′ between this and the assumed axis 49° 34′ 18″ is so
slight that considering the indirect method which has necessarily been
employed in determining the axis of the temple from the position of the
leaning stone, and the want of verticality, parallelism and straightness of the
inner surfaces of the opening in the N.E. trilithon, we are justified in
adopting the azimuth of the avenue as that of the temple.
Next, with regard to the determination of the azimuth of the avenue as
indicated by the line of pegs to which reference is made on p. 65. The small
angle between the nearest pegs A and B (which are supposed to be parallel
to the axis of the avenue), observed from station a, was measured, and the
corresponding calculated correction was applied to the ascertained true
bearing of the more distant peg B.
Thus

True bearing of peg B = 238° 35′ 0″
Calculated correction to peg A = 0 12 8
True bearing of line AB 238 47 8
Bearing of Salisbury Spire 189 8 20
True bearing of a line parallel to the axis of near
part of avenue N. 49 38 48 E.

The mean of the three independent determinations by another observer
was 49° 39′ 6″.
The calculated bearing of the more distant part of the axis of the avenue
determined in the same manner by observations from station b is 49° 32′
54″. The mean of the two, namely, 49° 35′ 51″, justifies the adoption of the
value 49° 34′ 18″ as given by the Ordnance Survey for the straight line from
Stonehenge to Sidbury Hill.
(3) Observation of Sunrise.—On the morning of June 25, 1901, sunrise
was observed from station a, and a setting made as nearly as possible on the
middle of the visible segment as soon as could be done after the Sun
appeared.
The telescope was then set on the highest point of the Friar’s Heel, and
the latter was found to be 8′ 40″ south of the Sun.

Sun’s declination at time of observation 23° 25′ 5″
Elevation of horizon at point of sunrise 0 35 48
Assuming 2′ vertical of Sun to have been visible at
observation, we have apparent altitude of Sun’s
upper limb 0 37 48
Refraction - 27′ 27″
Parallax + 0 9 } -0 27 18
True altitude of upper limb 0 10 30
Sun’s semi-diameter 0 15 46
True altitude of Sun’s centre -0 5 16
From this it results that the true azimuth of the
Sun at the time of observation = N. 50° 30′ 54″ E.
And since azimuth of Friar’s Heel = 50 39 5
2′ of sunrise should be N. of Friar’s Heel 0 8 11
Observed difference of azimuth = 0 8 40
Observed - calculated = 0 0 29

The observation thus agrees with calculation, if we suppose about 2′ of
the Sun’s limb to have been above the horizon when it was made, and
therefore substantially confirms the azimuth above given of the Friar’s Heel
and generally the data adopted.

II. Hints on Making, and Method of Reducing, the Field Observations.
It will probably be found useful if I give here a few hints as to the
precautions which must be taken in making the field observations and an
example of their reduction to an astronomical basis.
For the azimuths of the sight-lines the investigator of these monuments
cannot do better than use the 25-inch, or 6-inch, maps published by the
Ordnance Survey. Their accuracy is of a very high order and is not likely to
be exceeded, even if approached, by any casual observer having to make his
own special arrangements for correct time before he can begin his
surveying work.
In some cases, however, it may be found that the Survey has not included
every outstanding stone which may be found by an investigator on making
a careful search; many of the stones are covered by gorse, &c., and are not,
therefore, easily found.
In such cases the azimuth of some object that is marked on the map
should be taken as a reference line and the difference of azimuth between
that and the unmarked objects determined. By this means the azimuths of
all the sight-lines may be obtained.
When using the 25-inch maps for determining azimuths it must be borne
in mind that the side-lines are not, necessarily, due north and south. The
Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, Southampton, will probably on
application state the correction to be applied to the azimuths on this
account, and this should be applied, of course, to each of the values
obtained.
If for any reason it is found necessary or desirable to make observations
of the azimuths independently of the Ordnance Survey, full instructions as
to the method of procedure may be found in an inexpensive instruction
book[133] issued by the Board of Education. The instructions given on p. 49,
§ 3, are most generally applicable, and the form on p. 76 will be found very
handy for recording and reducing the observations.
In making observations of the angular elevation of the horizon a good
theodolite is essential. Both verniers should be read, the mean taken, and
then the telescope should be reversed in its Ys, reset, and both readings
taken again. One setting and reading are of little use.

The Ordnance Survey maps may also be employed in a preliminary
reconnaissance to obtain approximate values of the horizon elevations. This
may be done by measuring the distances and contour-lines shown on the
one-inch maps. This method, however, is only very roughly approximate
owing to the fact that sharp but very local elevations close to the
monuments may not appear on these maps and yet be of sufficient
magnitude to cause large errors in the results.
Where trees, houses, &c., top the horizon, they should, of course, be
neglected and the elevation of the ground level, at that spot, taken. Should
the top of the azimuth mark (stone, &c.) show above the actual horizon, its
elevation should be recorded and not that of the horizon.
Having measured the angular elevation of the horizon along the sight-
line, it is necessary to convert this into actual zenith distance and to apply
the refraction correction before the computations of declination can be
made.
The process of doing this and of calculating the declination will be
gathered from the examples given below:—
Data.
Monument:—E. circle Tregeseal, lat. 50° 8′ N. i.e. colat = 39° 52′.
Alignment. Centre of circle to Longstone.
Az. (from 25″ Ordnance Map). N. 66° 38′ E.
Elevation of horizon (measured) 2° 10′.
Reference to the May-Sun curve, given on p. 263, indicates that this is
probably an alignment to the sunrise on May morning. Therefore, in
determining the zenith distance, the correction for the sun’s semi-diameter
(16′) must be taken into account, allowing that 2′ of the sun’s disc was
above the horizon when the observation was made.
Zenith Distance:—
Zenith distance of true horizon = 90°
„ „ local „ = 90° - 2° 10′ = 87° 50′
Bessel’s tables show that refraction, at altitude 2° 10′, raises sun 17′. If 2′
of sun’s limb is above horizon, sun’s centre is 14′ below.
∴ True zenith distance of sun’s centre = 87° 50′ + 17′ + 14′ = 88° 21′.
Declination:—

Having obtained the zenith distance, and the azimuth, the latitude being
known, the N.P.D. (North Polar Distance) of the sun may be found by the
following equations:—
(1) tan θ = tan z. cos A,
where θ is the subsidiary angle which must be determined for the purpose
of computation, z is the true zenith distance, and A is the distance from the
North point.
(2) [134]
cos Δ = cos z . cos (c - θ) ,
cos θ
where Δ is the N.P.D. of the celestial object, and c is the colatitude (90° -
lat.) of the place of observation.
In the example taken this gives us—
(1) tan θ = tan 88° 21′ . cos 66° 38′

θ = 85° 50′ 45″

(2) cos Δ = cos 88° 21′. cos (39° 52′ - 85° 50′ 45″)
cos 85° 50′ 45″

Δ = 73° 57′ 50″

Declination, δ, = (90° - Δ) = 16° 2′ 10″ N.

Reference to the Nautical Almanac shows that this is the sun’s
declination on May 5 and August 9. We may therefore conclude that the
Long-stone was erected to mark the May sunrise, as seen from the
Tregeseal Circle.
Had we been dealing with a star, instead of the sun, the only modification
necessary in the process of calculating the declination would have been to
omit the semi-diameter correction of 14′.
Having obtained a declination, we must refer to the curves given on pp.
115-6 in order to see if there is any star which fits it, and to find the date.
Take, for example, the case of the apex of Carn Kenidjack, as seen from
the Tregeseal circle—

Az. = N. 12° 8′ E.; hill = 4° 0.′ lat. = 50° 8′.
This gives us a declination of 42° 33′ N., and a reference to the stellar-
declination curves (p. 115-6) shows that Arcturus had that declination in
2330 b.c. From the table given on p. 117, we see that at that epoch Arcturus
acted as warning-star for the August sun.
In cases where the elevation of the horizon is 30′, or in preliminary
examinations, where it may be assumed as 30′, the refraction exactly
counterbalances the hill, and therefore the true zenith distance at the
moment of star-rise is 90°. Hence the N.P.D. of the star may be found from
the following simple equation—
(3) cos Δ = cos A cos λ
where Δ and A have the same significance as before and λ is the latitude of
the place of observation.
[133] Demonstrations and Practical Work in Astronomical Physics at the Royal College of
Science, South Kensington. Wyman and Sons, 1s.
[134] cos (c - θ) = cos -(c - θ).

INDEX

A.
Abydos, clock star at, 297.
Africa, sacred stones and trees, 235.
Aldebaran, see Tauri α.
“Allée couverte,” 41, 317.
“All Hallows,” 187; Irish and Welsh equivalents, 195.
“All Souls,” change of date, 186.
Alsia well, 227.
Altar stone, Stonehenge, 81; Aberdeen type, 36.
Amen-Rā, 2; temple of, 55, 297.
Amplitude, 10, 111.
Animals, sacrifices of, 197.
Annu, temples at, 296, 297, 304.
Antares, see Scorpionis α.
Antiquaries, Society of, 69, 133.
Antrobus, Sir Edward, 49, 69, 94.
Apollo, 52.
Arabia, sacred stones and trees in, 235.
Archæology, relation to astronomy, 4.
Arcturus, see Boötis α.
Aries, 15, 315.
Armenia, calendar in, 29; fire festival in, 191.
Aryans, 40, 236.
Ascension Day, 185, 231.
Asherah, 245, 257.
Ash Wednesday, 182.
Assacombe, 158.
Assyria, sacred trees, &c., 245.
Astronomer-priests, procedure of, 110, 316.