It is commonly believed within western society that megalithic monuments point at some simple event such as sunrise or sunset on a day such as a solstice or an equinox. Occasionally this happens to be true but mostly it is not. In any case, why would anyone bother to expend all that energy to mark a two minute event and nothing else? They did not. They were far more clever than that.
Whole Horizon Analysis demonstrates quite clearly that all prehistoric monuments were built in places where the relationship between sky and horizon shape marked and mapped the whole luni-solar pattern. Axial alignments are therefore a secondary characteristic, properly understood only within the context of place.
Suppose we believe that a particular monument has an association with the equinox and we wish to be there for it. How do we know when to be there? We consult calendars and clocks of some sort. In other words, we are dependent on the knowledge of experts. In the case of modern society this would (ultimately) be astronomers and scientists. We then rush to be there for a short time.
Suppose we are a prehistoric person and also suppose that our society had an equinoctial festival / gathering. How would we know where to go and when to go there? Word would come to us from those with knowledge. They would be the priests / astronomers / navigators. The festival would probably last some time, maybe a couple of weeks, perhaps a whole moon on special occasions and we would be given sufficient notice for timely arrival. However: it seems unlikely that we, as normal people, would have any understanding of the placing or alignment of the monument.
It also seems unlikely that such a public event would happen at a monument site. Close to one perhaps. Why do I say that? Because people are messy. They break things, they lose things, they light fires and trample the ground. Yet excavated megalithic ritual sites have yielded little in the way of finds and have been totally devoid of occupational debris. I would therefore suggest that the monuments were reserved for the priestly class and their nightly devotions. Yes, nightly. From sunset to sunrise with particular attention to the rising and setting positions of sun and moon but everything else as well. The stars obviously, because the stars are the ultimate reference when attempting to understand the heavenly powers that control our earthly existence.
So how would these priestly navigators know when a significant event would occur and when to call the people to it?
By observations from the monuments and the vicinity of them. Places particularly chosen because there was significant relationship between landscape profile and celestial rising / setting positions at that exact place that enabled understanding of celestial patterns. Additional relationships between monument architecture and significant orientations frequently occur as well, possibly as a sacred requirement but more likely a practical one.
This research project shows that all prehistoric monuments were sited and designed with an understanding of the annual solar pattern, the moon's 18.6 year lunistice cycle and the relationship between them that enabled eclipse prediction. By observing rises and sets from any megalithic monument they could know exactly where they were in the approximately nineteen year luni-solar cycle and thus predict coming events.
How can I say this with certainty? Because I have surveyed the whole horizon from a large number prehistoric sites. These surveys are more accurate than current computer models, particularly at shorter distances and the shorter distances have proved to be important. In particular, it may be said that the surveyed fit between sky patterns and local (c.20m) landscape has always proved to be significant and greater precision may possibly specify the exact placement of individual features.
By comparing standardised data from many sites it is possible to begin to see just what our prehistoric ancestors were doing. Statistical analysis of this data clearly demonstrates a non-random relationship between horizon and sky but the understanding of it requires close study of many examples as well as time spent watching sun, moon, sky and landscape in real time. Because this is a different way of looking at the natural world. You don't just stand there and say "it missed the mark", you can move and measure the difference.
"What about the trees?" I hear you say!
Yes, the difference between modern and prehistoric tree cover does need to be considered but do try to forget your preconceptions. The differences are potentially computer model-able and can in fact be estimated by an eye guided by knowledge of the previous colonisation of a territory. Consider the evidence presented in this website and begin to see another way of looking at the real world:
Have you ever payed attention to the way the shape of the horizon changes and the way its relationship with the sky alters as you change your own place? To exactly where monuments are sited in relation to the views from them? Probably not; but it is a useful and learnable skill that once gained is both revolutionary and unforgettable.
At all prehistoric ritual sites surveyed in this study:
- There is always some distant horizon where presence or absence of trees is not significant. These distant views, originally chosen perhaps for the usefulness of their particular horizon profiles, would then have helped to define a general area of practical / religious interest for colonisation, tree clearance and the siting of a formalised sacred place because even quite large variations of local position have little effect on a distant view.
- There is quite often some local horizon which, after an initial clearance of the general area, followed by the necessary observations,
would have been been usefully fitted to the overall pattern.
This local profile would therefore have fixed the exact location of the sacred site because small variations of position become very significant when local horizons or intersects are involved and
it has become apparent during this research that best all-round fit was an essential requirement for a prehistoric site to be sacred.
The extent of tree clearance necessary to achieve the required views of further horizons plus near / far intersects gives a guide as to minimal territorial requirements. (An organised bunch of young men with axes, combined with herds of goats and sheep are capable of significant landscape modification in quite a small time). - Middle-ground varies between the two extremes, being landscape that is not distant, yet is beyond the likely scope of local control. In practice it seems that monument sites were frequently chosen so that middle-ground landscape segments would occupy the central solar zone where less precision was acceptable. In many cases, exact profile may have depended on what clearance had previously been done by others, as well as the practical reach of the current group.
- Generally, an undisturbed forest would follow the landscape profile fairly faithfully but at a somewhat higher altitude than modern naked pasture. Deciduous trees make better markers in winter. Dead trees do it all year round. Gaps are very noticeable as well.
- Many early sites have no middle ground at all, being sited on high ground where limited clearance gives distant views with some local horizon.
We can only look at what they did, estimate the overall patterns and guess the details. More survey data and better computer models will help our understanding but the evidence presented here clearly shows that the prehistoric monuments of north-western europe were astronomically sited.
They mapped the tropical rise and set patterns of the sun and of the lunistices of the moon Lunistices are the most northerly and southerly moons of the month. The lunar equivalent of solstices. More. plus the true north-south axis of celestial rotation. Never perfectly but with some artistic / technical scoring system of acceptability that we may hope to recover.