The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation 9781407316802, 9781407355771
In this book, David A. Fisher combines methods including Geographic Information Systems (GIS), GPS, computerised three-d
197 62 44MB
English Pages [195] Year 2019
Polecaj historie
Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Previous Archaeo-astronomic Research
3. Approach – Methodology
4. Computing the Neolithic Sky
5. Changing Environmental Landscape
6. Model Construction
7. Topography
8. Investigative Models
9. Society and the Stones
10. Interpretation
11. Conclusion
Glossary
Bibliography
Appendices
Index
Citation preview
David A. Fisher is a retired Executive Consultant and Chief Information Officer, now applying his business re-engineering analytics to the investigation of the Archeoastronomic possibilities of Megalithic sites of the Neolithic period. He earned a PhD in this discipline from the University of Wales, Lampeter St David. As a fellow of SEAC and member of the American Astronomical Society, he has published a number of papers in their annual conference proceedings.
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
In this book, David A. Fisher combines methods including Geographic Information Systems (GIS), GPS, computerised three-dimensional modelling and astronomical formulae in order to reconstruct the world as it was seen by the builders of Scottish megalithic sites within the region of Argyll and Mull. These sites have no associated archaeological artifacts that allow us to determine the dates of their construction. Through the employment of these methods, however, the sites’ astronomical orientations may be visualised and used to predict a feasible date range for their construction more accurately than has been possible in past research. New discoveries made via computer simulations/animations showing 3D recreations of the sites through the course of a single year, or over millennia (available as a digital download accompanying this book), show that the sites are 800 to 1000 years older than previously stated, and new hypotheses as to how the sites were employed are also suggested. For the first time, the author offers the definitive conclusion that stars formed an important part of megalithic history.
FISHER
‘The book’s computer simulations, which should be of interest both to specialists and to the general public, are significant contributions to the field of archaeoastronomy.’ Dr J. McKim Malville, Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado
BAR 647 2019
‘Not only is [this] the first in-depth use of highly detailed and contextualized 3D reconstructions to gauge connections between prehistoric sites, landscapes and skyscapes, but the methodology … will give scholars in the fields of archaeoastronomy, archaeology, anthropology and history food for thought regarding the use, meaning and shape of standing stones.’ Dr Fabio Silva, Institute of Archaeology, University College London
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation David A. Fisher BAR BRITISH SERIES 647
2019
L E A IN N L IO ON IT D L D IA A ER AT
M
BAR BRITISH SE RIE S 647
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation David A. Fisher BAR BRITISH SERIES 647
2019
Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 647 The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation © David A. Fisher 2019 Cover Image Summer solstice sunset 3500 BCE. Inset: Ballochroy. The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.
ISBN 9781407316802 paperback ISBN 9781407355771 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407316802 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
BAR titles are available from: Email Phone Fax
BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, ox2 7bp, uk [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com
History with its flickering lamp Stumbles along the trail of the past, Trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, And kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. Sir Winston Spencer Churchill (Eulogy of Neville Chamberlain, 12 November 1940)
Acknowledgements With an archaeological background in deep-water artefact recovery and conservation, the topics of isostasis and plate tectonics, were somewhat, foreign material to me; therefore, I wish to give special thanks to Tim Harris (Senior Lecturer in Geography, Staffordshire University) in placing me on the initial path of research into isostasis. I was also directed to appropriate sources by Professor David E. Smith and Dr Peter Fretwell (Oxford University Centre for the Environment) Their Gaussian trend isobase plot data, combined with, isostatic/eustatic models, provided by Drs. Dick Peltier and Rosemarie Drummond (Dept of Physics University of Toronto), help set the approach to developing the time based isostatic uplift formulas. The implications of vegetation in determining the time frame over which the study was to be performed, could not have been achieved without Mike Walker’s (Archaeology Department, Lampeter University, Wales), direction, who set the parallel research path into the vegetation of the late glacial period for Scotland. Grateful thanks goes to Jean Meeus author of Astronomical Algorithms who straightened my thoughts about the shifting calendar date of the solstices over time. The proposed research approach is that of experimental inductive-deductive development utilising software modelling, incorporating non-standard archaeological material. Accordingly, I wish to give specific thanks to Dr Paul Rainbird in his acceptance of my research proposal and Dr’s Malville, Silva, Brady, and Campion for their support in reviewing the diverse material. My research required that I travel 5000 miles from my home in the sub-tropics, where the ocean temperature is 85ºF, to Scotland where the average temperature was rarely above 60ºF. Wrapped in Icelandic sweaters and rain gear my field assistant, my wife, Dr. Laetitia Fisher, shivered through hours of drenching rains, diligently recording field notes shouted at her through the squalls. Furthermore, I owe her my special thanks for her insight, and immeasurable support and encouragement on all aspects of my work. Copyright reproduction permissions for figures 5-1, 8-29a, 8-24b, 8-55 and 8-64, were graciously granted by Garmin®, for figures 8-31 and 8-37 by Kist publication, ESR® for figures 7-1 and 7-2.
Contents List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................................x List of Tables......................................................................................................................................................................xiii Abstract...............................................................................................................................................................................xv 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Astronomical Archaeology of British Monuments ....................................................................................................1 1.2. Thom’s Research Methodology .................................................................................................................................2 1.3. Visualising the Past ....................................................................................................................................................3 1.4. Software Considerations ............................................................................................................................................3 2. Previous Archaeo-Astronomic Research........................................................................................................................5 2.1. Sites under Investigative Consideration .....................................................................................................................5 2.2. Specific Research of Sites under Investigation ..........................................................................................................7 2.3. Investigation into Similar Software Virtual Environments ........................................................................................8 2.4. Research Approach.....................................................................................................................................................8 2.5. Dating the Sites ..........................................................................................................................................................9 3. Approach – Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1. Evaluating a Model ..................................................................................................................................................12 3.2. On Site......................................................................................................................................................................12 3.3. In the Computer Laboratory .....................................................................................................................................13 3.4. Mapping ...................................................................................................................................................................14 3.5. Equipment Employed ...............................................................................................................................................14 4. Computing the Neolithic Sky ........................................................................................................................................17 4.1. Positioning the Celestial Objects .............................................................................................................................17 4.2. Stellar Motion...........................................................................................................................................................18 4.3. Positional Change of Celestial Objects over Time...................................................................................................18 4.4. Planetary Data ..........................................................................................................................................................18 4.5. The Sun ....................................................................................................................................................................19 4.5.1. Precession .........................................................................................................................................................19 4.5.2. Date Representation .........................................................................................................................................19 4.6. Stars ..........................................................................................................................................................................20 4.7. Heliacal and Acronychal Stars .................................................................................................................................21 4.8. The Moon .................................................................................................................................................................22 4.9. Lunar Limits .............................................................................................................................................................22 4.10. The Planets .............................................................................................................................................................25 5. Changing Environmental Landscape ...........................................................................................................................27 5.1. Holocene Environment.............................................................................................................................................27 5.2. Foliage ......................................................................................................................................................................27 5.3. Detailed Pollen Investigation ...................................................................................................................................28 5.4. Climate .....................................................................................................................................................................29 5.5. Human Activity ........................................................................................................................................................31 6. Model Construction .......................................................................................................................................................33 6.1. The Process of Generating a Model .........................................................................................................................33 6.2. 3-Dimensional Modelling of the Stones ..................................................................................................................33 7. Topography .....................................................................................................................................................................39 7.1. GPS and the British Mapping System......................................................................................................................39 7.1.1. Incorporating the Plate Tectonic and Isostatic Motions ...................................................................................42 v
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
7.2. Celestial Programming .............................................................................................................................................43 7.3. Ray Tracing ..............................................................................................................................................................44 7.4. The Process of Assembling the Components ...........................................................................................................44 7.5. Animation .................................................................................................................................................................45 7.6. Overall Accuracy......................................................................................................................................................45 8. Investigative Models ......................................................................................................................................................47 8.1. Site Interrogation Using 3-Dimensional Models .....................................................................................................47 8.2. Ballochroy ................................................................................................................................................................48 8.2.1. Modelling Considerations ................................................................................................................................48 8.2.2. Previous Research into Ballochroy ..................................................................................................................48 8.2.3. Land Movement ...............................................................................................................................................50 8.2.4. General Site Investigation ................................................................................................................................51 8.2.5. Solar Simulations .............................................................................................................................................51 8.2.5.1. Winter Solstice..........................................................................................................................................51 8.2.5.2. Summer Solstice .......................................................................................................................................53 8.2.6. Lunar Simulations ............................................................................................................................................54 8.2.6.1. Minor Northern Limit ...............................................................................................................................54 8.2.6.2. Major Northern Limit ...............................................................................................................................55 8.2.6.3. Minor Southern Limit ...............................................................................................................................55 8.2.6.4. Major Southern Limit ...............................................................................................................................56 8.2.7. Stellar Considerations.......................................................................................................................................56 8.2.7.1. Stars at Summer Solstice ..........................................................................................................................56 8.2.7.2. Stars at Winter Solstice Sunset .................................................................................................................56 8.2.7.3. Stars at Winter Solstice Sunrise ................................................................................................................56 8.2.8. Planetary Considerations ..................................................................................................................................58 8.2.9. Ballochory Site Discussion ..............................................................................................................................59 8.2.10. Dating Ballochory ..........................................................................................................................................60 8.3. Nether Largie ...........................................................................................................................................................61 8.3.1. Modelling Considerations ................................................................................................................................62 8.3.2. Land Movement ...............................................................................................................................................64 8.3.3. Solar Simulations .............................................................................................................................................64 8.3.4. Lunar Simulations ............................................................................................................................................64 8.3.4.1. Stone 1 Northern Major Limit Setting......................................................................................................65 8.3.4.2. Stone 1 Southern Minor Limit Setting .....................................................................................................65 8.3.4.3. Stone 1 Northern Major Limit Rise ..........................................................................................................66 8.3.4.4. Stone 1 Southern Minor Limit Rise..........................................................................................................66 8.3.4.5. Stone 1 Southern Major Limit Rise ..........................................................................................................66 8.3.5. Stones 2 & 3 .....................................................................................................................................................66 8.3.5.1. Stones 2 & 3 Northern Limits ..................................................................................................................66 8.3.5.2. Stones 2 & 3 Northern Major Limits Moon Rise .....................................................................................68 8.3.6. Stones 2 & 3 Northern Major and Minor Limit Settings .................................................................................68 8.3.7. Stones 2 & 3 Southern Minor Limit Moon Rise ..............................................................................................68 8.3.8. Stones 4 & 5 .....................................................................................................................................................68 8.3.8.1. Stones Numbered 4 & 5 Northern Limits.................................................................................................68 8.3.8.2. Stones Numbered 4 & 5 Southern Limits.................................................................................................70 8.3.9. Q Stone Views ..................................................................................................................................................70 8.3.10. Stone 6 ............................................................................................................................................................71 8.3.11. Stellar and Planetary Considerations ..............................................................................................................73 8.3.12. Nether Large Discussion ................................................................................................................................73 8.3.13. Dating Nether Largie ......................................................................................................................................75 8.4. Beacharr ...................................................................................................................................................................76 8.5. Ballymeanoch...........................................................................................................................................................77 8.5.1. Previous research into Ballymeanoch ..............................................................................................................77 8.5.2. Modelling Considerations ................................................................................................................................78 8.5.3. Ballymeanoch Discussion ................................................................................................................................78 8.5.4. Ballymeanoch Avenue ......................................................................................................................................79 8.6. Brainport Bay ...........................................................................................................................................................82 8.6.1. Previous Brainport Bay Investigations .............................................................................................................83 8.6.2. Modelling Considerations ................................................................................................................................83 vi
Contents
8.6.3. Land Motion .....................................................................................................................................................85 8.6.4. Solar Events......................................................................................................................................................85 8.6.5. Brainport Bay discussion .................................................................................................................................88 8.6.6. Dating Brainport Bay .......................................................................................................................................89 8.7. Dunamuck Farm .......................................................................................................................................................90 8.7.1. South East Pair .................................................................................................................................................90 8.7.2. Solar Simulations .............................................................................................................................................91 8.7.2.1. Winter Solstice..........................................................................................................................................91 8.7.2.2. Summer Solstice .......................................................................................................................................91 8.7.3. Quarter Days.....................................................................................................................................................92 8.7.4. Lunar Simulations ............................................................................................................................................92 8.7.5. North West Trio ................................................................................................................................................92 8.7.6. Stones D and E .................................................................................................................................................93 8.7.7. Stellar Considerations.......................................................................................................................................94 8.7.8. Dunamuck Discussion ......................................................................................................................................95 8.7.9. Dating Dunamuck.............................................................................................................................................97 8.8. Carnasserie ...............................................................................................................................................................98 8.8.1. Solar Considerations ........................................................................................................................................98 8.8.1.1. The Northern Stone ..................................................................................................................................98 8.8.1.2. The Southern Stone ..................................................................................................................................99 8.8.2. Lunar Considerations .......................................................................................................................................99 8.8.3. Carnasserie Discussion .....................................................................................................................................99 8.8.4. Dating Carnasserie .........................................................................................................................................100 8.9. Escart ......................................................................................................................................................................101 8.9.1. Modelling Considerations ..............................................................................................................................102 8.9.2. Solar ...............................................................................................................................................................102 8.9.3. Lunar ..............................................................................................................................................................102 8.9.3.1. Southern Limits ......................................................................................................................................102 8.9.3.2. Northern Limits ......................................................................................................................................103 8.9.4. Stellar and Planetary.......................................................................................................................................103 8.9.5. Escart Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................103 8.9.6. Dating Escart ..................................................................................................................................................104 8.10. Tiraghoil ...............................................................................................................................................................106 8.10.1. Land Motion .................................................................................................................................................107 8.10.2. Modelling Considerations ............................................................................................................................107 8.10.3. Solar Simulations .........................................................................................................................................107 8.10.3.1. The Quarter Days..................................................................................................................................107 8.10.3.2. Solstices ................................................................................................................................................108 8.10.4. Moon Over Mull...........................................................................................................................................108 8.10.4.1. Northern Moonrise ...............................................................................................................................108 8.10.4.2. Southern Minor Limit Moon Rise ........................................................................................................108 8.10.4.3. Southern Major Limit Moon Rise ........................................................................................................ 111 8.10.4.4. Moonset ................................................................................................................................................ 111 8.10.5. Stellar and Planet .......................................................................................................................................... 112 8.10.6. Tiraghoil Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 112 8.10.7. Dating Tiraghoil ........................................................................................................................................... 112 8.11. Kintraw ................................................................................................................................................................. 114 8.11.1. Previous Kintraw Investigations................................................................................................................... 114 8.11.2. Kintraw Site Survey Data ............................................................................................................................. 115 8.11.3. Plan of Kintraw............................................................................................................................................. 115 8.11.4. Modelling Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 116 8.11.5. Land Motion ................................................................................................................................................. 117 8.11.6. Solar Interrogation ........................................................................................................................................ 117 8.11.7. Discrepancies with Other Research .............................................................................................................. 118 8.11.8. Viewing Station ............................................................................................................................................120 8.11.9. Lunar.............................................................................................................................................................120 8.11.10. Stellar and Planetary ...................................................................................................................................122 8.11.11. Kintraw Discussion.....................................................................................................................................122 8.11.12. Dating Kintraw ...........................................................................................................................................122 8.12. Torbhlaran ............................................................................................................................................................123 vii
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
8.12.1. Modelling Considerations ............................................................................................................................123 8.12.2. Solar .............................................................................................................................................................123 8.12.3. Lunar ............................................................................................................................................................124 8.12.4. Stellar ...........................................................................................................................................................124 8.12.5. Torbhlaran Discussion ..................................................................................................................................124 8.13. An Car ..................................................................................................................................................................125 8.13.1. Modelling Considerations ............................................................................................................................125 8.13.2. Solar .............................................................................................................................................................126 8.13.3. Lunar ............................................................................................................................................................126 8.13.3.1. Southern Major Lunar Limit ................................................................................................................126 8.13.4. An Car Discussion ........................................................................................................................................127 8.13.5. Dating An Car...............................................................................................................................................127 9. Society and the Stones .................................................................................................................................................129 10. Interpretation .............................................................................................................................................................131 10.1. Does the Approach Meet MacKie’s Test Criteria? ...............................................................................................131 10.2. Dating Summary ..................................................................................................................................................131 10.3. General Observations ...........................................................................................................................................133 10.4. Isostasis and Plate Tectonic Motion .....................................................................................................................135 10.5. Modelling Advantages .........................................................................................................................................135 10.6. New Viewing Perspectives ...................................................................................................................................136 10.7. Self-Indicated or Inferred Positioning..................................................................................................................136 10.8. Shaping the Stones ...............................................................................................................................................137 10.9. Shadows ...............................................................................................................................................................138 10.10. Solar Summary: Equinoctial Orientations .........................................................................................................138 10.11. Lunar Summary ..................................................................................................................................................138 10.11.1. Eclipses and the Lunar Limits ....................................................................................................................139 10.11.2. The Moon’s Perturbation and Land Motion ...............................................................................................140 10.12. Hill and Dale, Sun and Moon.............................................................................................................................140 10.13. Stellar Summary .................................................................................................................................................141 10.14. Planetary Summary ............................................................................................................................................143 10.15. Non-Astronomical Stone Orientations ...............................................................................................................143 10.16. Cairn Association ...............................................................................................................................................143 10.17. Parallels with the Archaeological Record ..........................................................................................................145 10.18. The Spatial Nature of the Landscape .................................................................................................................145 10.19. The Scottish Neolithic Peoples and the Stones ..................................................................................................146 10.20. A Final Word on Statistical Analysis ..................................................................................................................146 10.21. Process Interpretation .........................................................................................................................................148 11. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................151 11.1. Future Opportunities for This Type of Research ..................................................................................................152 11.2. Archaeological Propositions .................................................................................................................................152 11.3. Future Investigations of Megalithic sites .............................................................................................................153 11.4. The New Hypotheses............................................................................................................................................153 Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................................155 Bibliography .....................................................................................................................................................................157 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................................165 A Radio Carbon Date Conversion .................................................................................................................................165 Land Motion Example...................................................................................................................................................166 OSGB Maps Used .........................................................................................................................................................167 Solar Julian Calendar ....................................................................................................................................................168 Lunar Minimum and Maximum Limit Dates ................................................................................................................169 Morning and Evening Twilight .....................................................................................................................................174 Index ..................................................................................................................................................................................175
viii
Contents
Chapters 1–5 make reference to plate tectonic and isostatic land motions and how these may impact site orientation. Despite the fact that since 3500 BCE the landmass has rotated approximately 160 metres to the northeast and the land has rebounded by 8 metres on average, this has had a negligible impact as far as any single observation of a celestial event in association with the Scottish horizons is concerned. A fuller discussion of these land movements has been provided as a downloadable appendix, available at: https://www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html Also available for download via the same web address are animations generated from the computer simulation runs that were performed as part of the research underpinning the analyses presented. The file names of the individual animation files have been indicated in footnotes where relevant.
ix
List of Figures Figure 2-1. Location of sites under investigation................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2-2. Fallen central stone at Dunamuck II.................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3-1. Comparison of GPS electronic compass versus theodolite reading................................................................. 11 Figure 3-2. Ray tracing diagram......................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4-1. Coordinate systems.......................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4-2. Precession over 6000 years.............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 4-3. Monthly northern limits................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 4-4. Moon’s limit year declination comparison....................................................................................................... 25 Figure 5-1. Pollen investigation reference site locations.................................................................................................... 28 Figure 5-2. Pollen record.................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 5-3. Humidity levels................................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 6-1. Photograph scale correction technique............................................................................................................. 34 Figure 6-2. Setting base dimensions................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 6-3. Setting the footprint of the base....................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 6-4. Creating the frame............................................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 6-5. Setting the dimensions..................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 6-6. Shaping the model............................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 6-7. The final model................................................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 7-1. ArcMap projection image of Kilmartin Vale.................................................................................................... 40 Figure 7-2. Geographic image of the Kilmartin Vale......................................................................................................... 40 Figure 7-3. Ensuring correct alignment using directional markers..................................................................................... 42 Figure 7-4. Exaggerated isostatic movement...................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 7-5. Oblate spheroid................................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 8-1. Ballochroy........................................................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 8-2. Plan of Ballochroy stones................................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 8-3. Western edge view of winter solstice............................................................................................................... 52 Figure 8-4. Winter solstice sunset at Ballochroy over eastern shoulder of stone B............................................................ 52 Figure 8-5. Summer solstice sunset 3500 BCE.................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 8-6. Minor northern limit over stone A.................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 8-7. Ed. Lhuyd 1699 drawing of Ballochroy........................................................................................................... 55 Figure 8-8. Southern minor moon set over stone B............................................................................................................ 55 Figure 8-9. Path of major southern limit............................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 8-10. Beta Aquarius at point of stone C, 2650 BCE................................................................................................ 57 Figure 8-11. Venus setting at its turn around point in 2500 BCE....................................................................................... 58 Figure 8-12. Ballochroy orientation findings...................................................................................................................... 59
x
List of Figures Figure 8-13. Nether Largie as seen from parking area....................................................................................................... 61 Figure 8-14. Nether Largie................................................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 8-15. The fifth Q stone............................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 8-16. Stone 1 northern major limit.......................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 8-17. Stone 1 southern minor limit rising of the moon........................................................................................... 67 Figure 8-18. Nether Largie, stones 2 & 3........................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 8-19. Stones 2 & 3 northern limit setting moon...................................................................................................... 69 Figure 8-20. Stones 2 & 3 looking toward minor southern moonrise................................................................................ 69 Figure 8-21. Stone 4 & 5 northern minor limit moonset.................................................................................................... 70 Figure 8-22. Stone 4 major northern limit moonset............................................................................................................ 71 Figure 8-23. Southern major limit from QE looking towards stone 5................................................................................ 72 Figure 8-24. Day before major southern limit QE looking to stone 5................................................................................ 72 Figure 8-25. Northern major moon rise over stone 6.......................................................................................................... 73 Figure 8-26. Final lunar orientations for Nether Largie..................................................................................................... 74 Figure 8-27. Beacharr Farm – Thom’s view station?......................................................................................................... 76 Figure 8-28. Ballymeanoch................................................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 8-29. Isostatic flooded basin of Ballymeanoch........................................................................................................ 80 Figure 8-30. Brainport Bay looking north east................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 8-31. Plan of Brainport Bay site.............................................................................................................................. 83 Figure 8-32. Upper platform view to the north east............................................................................................................ 84 Figure 8-33. Stone shadows on view station boulder, 3500 BCE on left; 1500 BCE on right........................................... 85 Figure 8-34. Brainport Bay summer solstice sunset, looking toward the easterly outlier stones....................................... 86 Figure 8-35. Winter solstice sunrise viewed from easterly outlier toward rear stone and outcrop..................................... 86 Figure 8-36. Winter solstice meridian sun pyramid stone shadow..................................................................................... 87 Figure 8-37. Brainport Bay orientations............................................................................................................................. 89 Figure 8-38. Eastern pair of Dunamuck stones................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 8-39. Dunamuck (Achnaschelloch) at Bridgend map............................................................................................. 91 Figure 8-40. Dunamuck I.................................................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 8-41. Dunamuck solstice sunrise............................................................................................................................. 93 Figure 8-42. Dunamuck north western pair, 3rd centre stone projected into position........................................................ 93 Figure 8-43. Summer solstice sunrise with Dunamuck stone C – 3500 BCE.................................................................... 94 Figure 8-44. Sequence image of Aldebaran & the Pleiades equinoctial setting down stones D & E................................. 95 Figure 8-45. Dunamuck directionals for stones C, D, & E................................................................................................. 96 Figure 8-46. West faces of the Carnasserie stones.............................................................................................................. 98 Figure 8-47. Plan of the Carnasserie stones........................................................................................................................ 99 Figure 8-48. Carnasserie’s northern stone.......................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 8-49. Summer solstice sunrise at Carnasserie....................................................................................................... 100 Figure 8-50. Escart, with boulder built barn and wall...................................................................................................... 101 Figure 8-51. Escart plan.................................................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 8-52. Escart winter solstice sunset......................................................................................................................... 104
xi
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Figure 8-53. Perspective view of Escart stones................................................................................................................ 105 Figure 8-54. View to the northeast from Tiraghoil........................................................................................................... 106 Figure 8-55. Map of Tiraghoil area with ML34 Suie and Tiraghoil stone........................................................................ 108 Figure 8-56. Imbolc sunrises – bisected horizon and day count....................................................................................... 109 Figure 8-57. Summer solstice sunrise at Tiraghoil circa 3500 BCE................................................................................. 109 Figure 8-58. Winter solstice sunset at Tiraghoil............................................................................................................... 110 Figure 8-59. Northern major moon rise limit at Tiraghoil.................................................................................................111 Figure 8-60. Moon setting at northern major limit............................................................................................................111 Figure 8-61. Tiraghoil plan............................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 8-62. Kintraw menhir above Loch Craignish........................................................................................................ 114 Figure 8-63. Kintraw line of sight..................................................................................................................................... 116 Figure 8-64. Jura obscured by 30 metre trees as viewed from Kintraw........................................................................... 117 Figure 8-65. Unobscured vista of Jura & knoll from Kintraw, winter solstice sunset 2600 BCE.................................... 118 Figure 8-66. Kintraw line drawing.................................................................................................................................... 119 Figure 8-67. 3500 BCE equinox from viewing station..................................................................................................... 120 Figure 8-68. Moon setting at southern minor limit........................................................................................................... 121 Figure 8-69. Northern minor limit moon set, Kintraw...................................................................................................... 121 Figure 8-70. Cup marked stone of Torbhlaran.................................................................................................................. 123 Figure 8-71. Torbhlaran plan diagram.............................................................................................................................. 124 Figure 8-72. An Car stone................................................................................................................................................. 125 Figure 8-73. An Car plan.................................................................................................................................................. 126 Figure 8-74. An Car lunar directions................................................................................................................................ 127 Figure 10-1. Sunrise at Dunamuck with landscape de-emphasised.................................................................................. 134 Figure 10-2. The Moon, the horizon and the stone........................................................................................................... 137 Figure 10-3. Combined sun with hilltops......................................................................................................................... 140 Figure 10-4. Ballochroy star positions 2010 CE............................................................................................................... 142
xii
List of Tables Table 4-1. Computed solar Julian dates used in the simulations........................................................................................ 20 Table 4-2. Equinox and solstice dating formulae................................................................................................................ 20 Table 4-3. Julian date examples.......................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 4-4. Greatest changes in star positions due to 6000 years of proper motion............................................................ 21 Table 4-5. Moon’s hourly declination changes at the limits............................................................................................... 23 Table 4-6. Two years of lunar limit declinations................................................................................................................ 24 Table 5-1. Setting the foliage time frame............................................................................................................................ 32 Table 7-1. Site OSGB grid north to true north convergence values................................................................................... 42 Table 7-2. Programmes written in PovRay......................................................................................................................... 44 Table 8-1. Ballochroy survey data...................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 8-2. Change in Azimuth and Altitude of the Sun due to Land Movement for Ballochroy....................................... 50 Table 8-3. Land movement................................................................................................................................................. 51 Table 8-4. Ballochroy celestial timeframes........................................................................................................................ 60 Table 8-5. Nether Largie field survey data.......................................................................................................................... 63 Table 8-6. Nether Largie quarter day azimuths................................................................................................................... 64 Table 8-7. Nether Largie lunar rise/set azimuths................................................................................................................ 65 Table 8-8. Ballymeanoch site survey data.......................................................................................................................... 78 Table 8-9. Brainport Bay survey data................................................................................................................................. 84 Table 8-10. Viewpoints and computed outlier positions..................................................................................................... 84 Table 8-11. Dunamuck (Achnashelloch) site survey data................................................................................................... 91 Table 8-12. Carnasserie survey data................................................................................................................................. 100 Table 8-13. Escart site survey data................................................................................................................................... 103 Table 8-14. Tiraghoil site survey data............................................................................................................................... 107 Table 8-15. Tiraghoil solar horizon bearings.................................................................................................................... 107 Table 8-16. Tiraghoil lunar azimuths................................................................................................................................ 110 Table 8-17. Kintraw site survey data................................................................................................................................ 115 Table 8-18. Kintraw survey data comparison................................................................................................................... 116 Table 8-19. Modelling derived solar azimuth readings.................................................................................................... 120 Table 8-20. Torbhlaran site survey data............................................................................................................................ 123 Table 8-21. An Car site survey data.................................................................................................................................. 126 Table 8-22. An Car lunar azimuths................................................................................................................................... 126 Table 9-1. Monuments and life style of the middle to late Neolithic............................................................................... 130 Table 10-1. Reponses to MacKie’s model, test questions................................................................................................. 132 Table 10-2. Summary of site date ranges.......................................................................................................................... 132 Table 10-3. Summary of site orientations......................................................................................................................... 133
xiii
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 10-4. Principle star position comparison................................................................................................................. 142 Table 10-5. Archaeological dates...................................................................................................................................... 144 Table 10-6. Radiocarbon dates of Argyll monuments....................................................................................................... 145 Table 10-7. A stone’s astronomical weighting inference.................................................................................................. 147 Table 10-8. Orientation results of individual stones......................................................................................................... 148
xiv
Abstract Many megalithic sites in Britain have no associated archaeological artefacts accompanying the site to aid in determining the possible original dates of construction: the orientation of the monoliths, the landscape within which they reside, and any accompanying celestial events that have been utilized for that purpose. The hypothesis postulated in this dissertation was to determine whether or not incorporating 21st Century technology such as a virtual reality approach would elucidate any new data, heretofore, undiscovered for the megalithic sites of Argyll, Scotland. Therefore, this research combined the disciplines of: computerised 3-Dimensional modelling, computer animation, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), astronomical formulae, light-ray tracing, glacial isostatic rebound data, plate technology and palynology data. The original task of dating the sites astronomically was performed before the sciences of plate tectonics and glacial isostatic rebound had been formulated, Therefore, these time-related changes (116m in the movement of the Argyll Peninsula and 6-8m in isostatic rebound) were incorporated into the modelling tools to determine whether or not that data had any impact on the astronomical orientation of the 12 Argyll Megalithic sites under current investigation. Employing a cross-discipline inductive-deductive reasoning approach, allowed for experimentation across the millennia, permitting the tentative straightening of menhirs, to their perceived upright position, and re-instating stones that had fallen or were missing. Additionally, it enabled visual investigation into astronomical phenomena, without any site disturbance or the constraints of bad weather. The virtual reality approach has the ability to experiment across a wider date range of data than that previously determined by other methodologies. These results open up the possibility that the orientations of the Argyll sites investigated strongly indicate that they are between 800-1000 years older than previously determined, dating to the mid third millennium BCE- circa 2550. In the course of this research it was determined that the currently accepted viewing perspective along the face of the stones may be modified and expanded to include observations orthogonal to those faces or across the deliberately shaped stone tops that form false horizons. Such features were noted to exist across multiple Argyll sites – indicative of cultural grouping. The overarching aspect that the Neolithic peoples appeared to be concerned with was the phenomena of the rising and setting of the sun, moon and stars, rather than a singular horizon point. These differences could only have been observed by the method of computer animation employed. In order for other researchers to investigate these fascinating phenomena, more details of the methodology employed are submitted in order to allow other researchers to replicate or test the resultant data.
xv
1 Introduction Astro-archaeology, encompass[es] the study of astronomical principles employed in ancient works of architecture and the elaboration of a methodology for the retrieval and quantitative analysis of astronomical alignment data. The alternative term, archaeoastronomy, came to embody, the study of the extent and practice of astronomy among ancient cultures. – Anthony Aveni (Aveni, 2001: 2).
circumspection. The contemporaneous perception of a singular point upon the horizon may well be considered, but any investigation must not be restricted to only this point of view. Therefore, the phenomena of the rising or setting of a celestial object or the association of multiple celestial events should not be excluded or indeed, anticipated.
This research initially focuses on the methodology of the former definition within the quotation above, that of astroarchaeology, sometimes referred to as statistically based, or green astroarchaeology (Aveni 2008; 8). The main impetus is to visualise accurate 3-dimensional virtual reality representations of 12 megalithic sites of Argyll, Scotland, within their topography by developing and utilizing software tools to test for any celestial orientation for each site. Subsequent to the astroarchaeological interrogation of the sites, the focus shifts to the alternative term in the quotation above, that of archaeastronomy, referred to as ‘brown’ or archaeoastronomy (Aveni 2008: 8), by leveraging the visually demonstrative images within a wider cultural context, to aid in the furthering of archaeological hypotheses. Followed by a discussion of cultural context as it relates to the builders of the site; thereby providing a posteriori data to assist archaeologists in expanding the accumulative, archaeological record.
In the early 20th century the astronomer Norman Lockyer, discussed the potential of the alignment of celestial bodies to ancient stone monuments, with his paper Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically Considered (Lockyer, 1906b). Lockyer introduces his hypotheses regarding the rising and setting of stars as date indicators, and on the possible solar alignment at Stonehenge. In addition, he initiated modern day investigative methods by providing surveying techniques that consider celestial orientations, in his Surveying for Archaeologists (1909). Alexander Thom (1955) an Oxford professor of engineering conducted extensive site surveys throughout Britain and Europe, employing such techniques.
1.1. Astronomical Archaeology of British Monuments
Alexander Thom’s studies did not permeate to the general-public, until Gerald Hawkins of the astronomy department of Boston University, introduced the topic to the public with his publication Stonehenge Decoded (1965) and subsequent television programme. The work of each of these individuals dealt with the mechanics of the alignments, with very little consideration for the anthropological aspects, and fell within the definition of astroarchaeology. Lacking the cultural context, it failed to enter the mainstream of the archaeological world. In fact this statistical approach to setting both the date of construction for the structure and stipulating the purpose of the megaliths as astronomical sites, without supporting archaeological evidence, rankled the established archaeological community. The disciplines of astronomy and archaeology continued to remain separate until advances in techniques and technologies, from sciences outside these fields, enabled archaeologists to delve more deeply into the analysis of archaeological sites, and interdisciplinary site investigations began. A synopsis of the divergent viewpoints that arose is best portrayed in the introductory chapter of Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland compiled by Clive Ruggles (1999: 1-11).
This is an innovative, novel approach, employing multiple software tools, a style that falls within the realm of experimental astroarchaeology, therefore, initial results can only be considered preliminary, requiring further expansion into other sites and refinement of measurements, to verify or refute any determinations made. Any positive astronomical findings, however accurate, without written record to support them, can only be considered conjecture as to the Neolithic peoples’ intentions for these megalithic sites. Using modern day tools and technology must never separate us from the archaic time in question. The perspective of the era under review must be maintained, as if the computerized images created, enable us to be the eyes of the herdsman who sat night after night, with one eye scanning for predators, and the other observing the heavens above. Our contemporary understanding of the cosmos explains how an event may be interpreted, but as investigators and researchers, we must attempt to suspend theoretical disciplines such as geometry or celestial mechanics and instead, attempt to envisage the Neolithic peoples’ perspective in recording celestial observations in stone. If not, the derived results would have to be treated with
The works of Thom and Hawkins were the foundation of a new discipline in evaluating ancient sites that ranged from European megaliths to American Indian mounds. An almost encyclopaedic and concise historic record of 1
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation and where to exclude. The decision must always be a matter of personal opinion and is influenced by the viewpoint and the other lines with which, at all times, it is being compared’ (Thom: 1979, 96). By this very statement the ‘horizon point’ was subjective, and to argue, for or against any orientation, researchers, such as Ruggles, et al (1984), followed the same investigative path, to either support or refute any arguments. Thom also employed his subjective method of selection of an horizon point, via personal choice, and calculated high precision alignments with the megaliths at sites outside of Britain; for example, the prehistoric site of Carnac (1972). However, Thom’s conjectures of mathematical precision in construction and alignment, generated reservations, dissension and circumspection initiating further interrogation to verify or refute his claims. Investigations into Thom’s assertions followed his publications, creating academic argument both for (MacKie: 1977a) and against (Ruggles: 1999, Patrick: 1979). In fact, the die was literally cast, as Thom’s approach of assessing astronomical orientation along the sides of stones in conjunction with his date of ~1750 BCE became the driving criteria that future researchers employed.
investigations into the astronomy of sites worldwide is provided by Kelley and Millone (2011). Within the Americas, investigations continue into the astronomical significance of archaeological sites, aided by the availability of ethnographic and historic records (Aveni: 2008). Ruggles’ (1999) publication provided a comprehensive analysis of astronomically linked sites throughout Britain but similar contemporaneous investigations have diminished appreciably. There continues to be reluctance on behalf of archaeologists to accept astroarchaeological research, unless it is accompanied by some cultural assessment; that being said, the dates derived for the sites by Thom’s methods permeated into the body of archaeological text. Thom’s generalised dating of Neolithic sites in Britain (1978: 44) to around 1750 BCE, is utilised in several publications, targeted to the anthropological and cultural perspective of those sites. The publication of John Wood utilising this dating schema (1980: 84-85), is such an example. British megalithic sites have been investigated by interested parties since the first attempt to analyse Stonehenge in the 17th century. An interesting aspect of the Scottish sites is, the larger the quantity of stones, the greater the enquiry they generated over the centuries. There are a multitude of surveys and plans starting in the 18th century, for sites such as the Ring of Brodgar (Averil, 1974), and Callanish (Callender, 1856). Whereas, the majority of sites that contain the lesser quantity of megaliths have received significantly less documented attention. Campbell and Sandeman (1964) undertook to record all possible archaeological sites within Argyll Scotland. Their effort resulted in a document used, to this day as a reference, by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS). However, the extensive work that became the foundation of in-depth research as to any astronomical aspects to these megalithic sites was that of Alexander Thom (1967, 1978).
Aveni (1988: 442) describes Thom’s method of collecting copious field measurements, from which ‘…first find the solstices, then, if successful, look for the lunar limits’ as the ‘Thom Paradigm’. Aveni felt that Thom’s premise and high precision conjecture, lacked archaeological records to substantiate or refute his findings. His major concern was how Thom’s paradigm had been employed in the Americas where archaeological, verbal and written records do exist in determining whether celestial events would have been part of the culture. This is a reasonable concern on Aveni’s part. Unfortunately, verbal and written records for prehistoric times in Britain, which reflect cultural aspects of life, do not exist; even archaeological records in association with the sites are limited. This very lack of written or verbal record is a primary driving force behind determining whether or not, astronomy was a part of the cultural life of prehistoric Britain, and whether that astronomical involvement, is recorded in stone as suggested by the title of the book in which Aveni’s paper appears.
1.2. Thom’s Research Methodology Thom’s first papers in the middle of the 20th century (1955, 1961), were primarily targeted toward local archaeological groups and professional audiences, but, as stated previously, came to the attention of the general public after Gerald Hawkins publication (1965), and subsequent television programme, Stonehenge Decoded. At this time, Thom applied his engineer’s perspective to site design and astronomical ‘alignment’, publishing his interpretation in Megalithic sites in Britain (1967) and Megalithic Lunar Observatories (1978), offering the public a perception of scientific accuracy.
A variation upon Thom’s approach was undertaken by Gerald Hawkins (1965) in his computerized analysis of Stonehenge, whereby he used the positional data of the stones to determine orientation between the stones and either a solar or a lunar event. When such computed alignment occurred, it was thus concluded that this stone or site must have astronomical intent. To borrow from Aveni, I refer to this approach as the ‘Hawkins paradigm’. Since Thom’s dating assessment of these sites, the advent of plate tectonic investigations, and an improved quantification in the land uplift due to isostatic movement, may modify or negate his dating. This research will determine the amount of land motion incurred by these sciences, as described in online chapter A1, and investigate
Thom’s extensive surveying of megalithic sites, engendered interest in the less prominent and smaller arrangements. When assigning an orientation to a stone, Thom stated that, ‘the most difficult part of the whole investigation is to decide which horizon point to include 2
Introduction the implication, if any, of both tectonic and isostatic movement as each site is modelled, and examined through simulation.
research may disclose such instances. Interestingly enough, a single ‘observer’ could also act as a gnomon, the shadow caused by the individual – becomes the event to be observed by everyone else. • Locations from which to observe celestial orientations as they relate to the megaliths are not marked or identified, or no longer exist; therefore, opportunities are made available to test for viewing points re-created in ‘pristine’ epoch conditions, which only simulation can provide. • Many sites’ purported alignments are with distant horizons or mountain slopes, which on a flat piece of paper seem feasible. The use of Global Information Systems (GIS) will incorporate the 3-dimensional aspects of the surrounding countryside resulting in a more deterministic and realistic evaluation.
1.3. Visualising the Past Several undertakings using computers to re-create buildings and archaeological sites have been conducted to aid in visualising how the sites may have appeared in their original guise. Following are three examples: roman villas have been re-created, and an impressive representation of Egyptian tombs in the Valley of the Kings have also been generated in 3-D, under the guidance of Dr. Kent Weeks of the Department of Egyptology at American University in Cairo (Theban Mapping Project 2008, accessed 21st January 2009, ). Under the direction of John E. Hancock, professor of Architectural History at University of Cincinnati, a reconstruction of the Ohio Valley, as it may have appeared centuries ago, was produced. (CERHAS, the Center for the Electronic Reconstruction of Historical and Archaeological Sites, in the College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning at the University of Cincinnati 2007, July 2008) Thirdly, Houdin, & Brier (2009) modelled the Great Pyramid at Giza to test the hypothesis of an internal ramp as a means of construction.
A driving impetus of this research was to examine whether one or more of the aforementioned factors might be demonstrated, as well as the development of an approach in experimental astroarchaeology that may be repeated and therefore tested by other researchers. The reconstruction of the vista of the Neolithic sky may move us closer to gaining an insight into how people in the distant past regarded themselves within their natural surroundings. Consideration was given to provide statistical analysis, similar to previous researchers; however, such statistical analysis was limited, due to the following reasons:
The purported, astronomical alignment of megalithic stone rows, judged by viewing the supposed alignment along the flat surface of a stone, is necessarily restricted to the observation by a single observer looking directly at the astronomical sphere as it rises above, or sinks below the horizon. This is indeed a viable means of observing as far as the planets, stars and Moon are concerned, but more difficult with the Sun due to its brightness. Whereas, using the shadow and bright light lines cast by the Sun is a practical way of ‘drawing’ straight lines in nature. For a specific orientation, all any observer needs to know, is the day upon which the delineating bright light-shadow line may be observed, thereby, avoiding looking directly into the glaring Sun. At enclosure type-sites, such as Newgrange, and Dowth in Ireland (O’Kelly 1983, Eogan 1986, Brennan, 1994), at the time of the winter solstice, the Sun may be observed indirectly as its light falls within a chamber.
• Researchers such as Thom (1979: 102) and Ruggles, et al (1984, 1999) employed histograms of horizon bearings in association with stones across the sites they investigated. They included possibilities of those bearings having significant mathematical high precision, accurate orientations, to a pre-selected and therefore, subjective, horizon point, where a celestial event may occur. The research approach within the present book however, conducts the reverse methodology by examining mathematical high-precision celestial events in association with the landscape and a site’s horizon, then through modelling, posits questions such as, are there any indications that a stone has any potential orientation? A clearer, demonstrative ‘yes’ or ‘no’, results thereby, minimizing the need to resort to statistical interpretation. • The limited number of 12 sites modelled in this research – does not permit a broad enough sample for statistical testing.
Another aspect to consider at the rising or setting of an object, is what portion of the sphere is observed above the horizon; the upper limb, the centre, or the lower limb, which may indicate whether the sites were constructed to a solar or lunar event.
1.4. Software Considerations
To summarise, some identifiable benefits of this computerised approach are:
This section serves as a summary introduction to the software selected; additional in-depth details are given in chapters 3 and 6.
• It allows for the testing of theories, when local conditions may make on-site testing impossible. • A singular observation point implies a singular observer. Whereas, phenomena that may be viewed by multiple observers implies a broader viewing perspective, the
As the main impetus of this research was to visualise an accurate 3-dimensional representation of the sites and the topography in which they are located. The acquisition and display of topographic data and the re-creation of the megaliths set the selection and procedure of execution, 3
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation for the required software. A search for software to meet these requirements was undertaken. Certain limitations within existing software packages, forced the re-creation of already accurate and well-respected celestial display systems. For example, star projecting software such as Skymap© and Solarium© may permit the inclusion of a user’s selected horizon line but they are unable to incorporate or interface with, a 3-dimensional landscape. This restriction forced the same star projection function to be independently programmed by me. Fortunately, these already well functioning packages could be used as a verification of accuracy in the independent programme. However, the selection of the appropriate software language, that the programming had to be created in, was restricted by the need to marry all aspects together.
Chapter 9 (Society and the Stones), discusses models of the society that constructed the megaliths for the purpose of setting a framework for the analysis of the results from the models presented in chapter 10. Chapter 10 provides an interpretation of the results by combining the empirical data derived from the investigations and analysis of chapters 7 and 8 respectively, with societal aspects presented in chapter 9. The multitude of time related simulations, accompanied with a summary of findings, allows for all site survey data to be collected together, enabling site comparisons, and subjective interpretations ascribed. Conclusions are then drawn in chapter 11.
Tools to model the stones were also evaluated from the industry de facto computer aided design (CAD) standard Autocad® to that of tools specifically targeted to generating computer games. Again, limitations reduced the selection to a fast and accurate 3D modelling tool – AC3D™ – developed by Andy Colebourne from the computing department of Lancaster University. Accurate rendering of the visual models created, was a major concern. One tool with this requirement was PovRay (Persistence of vision Raytracer), which came with other advantages: i) a programming language in which the celestial computations could be written and incorporated, ii) the ability to import the AC3D created models and iii) the ability to incorporate the 3-D topographical maps. Other software tools to refine the process are discussed further in chapter 3. The foregoing topics are addressed in the following manner. Underlying background information of previous works, and the approach they influenced, is presented in Chapters 2 (Previous Research) and 3 (Approach). As the approach to the investigation is to consider a range of time across several millennia, the aspects of celestial mechanics, environmental conditions, and the location of the monuments through land movement, over that date range, are presented in chapters 4 (Computing the Neolithic Sky), chapter 5 (Changing Environmental Landscape) and the online chapter A1 (Changing Geographic Landscape) respectively. How the models are created and combined with the data from chapters 4, 5, and A1 is described in chapter 6 (Model Construction). In preparation for conducting the interrogations via computer simulations, issues relating to modelling the topology, are addressed in chapter 7, before describing the placement of the models in the topographical landscape. With the models constructed for each site the experimental research was then undertaken. Chapter 8 (Investigative Models), describes the detailed interrogation into each of the sites selected, with an expansion on background research data where applicable, and the resultant objective empirical data, derived from such interrogations.
4
2 Previous Archaeo-astronomic Research It could be said that astronomer Norman Lockyer, in the early 20th century used a computer – albeit a mechanical device (1909: 97). He incorporated metal plates, into an old-fashioned globe, which allowed him to change the position of the globe’s pivot points; permitting him to visualize the night sky over the 25,800 year precessional cycle of the Earth. The approach taken in this research differs from that of Lockyer, in that he was viewing the celestial events from an exterior perspective, looking down on the globe; whereas, this research employed the computer, to view those same events from the globe looking out toward the heavens.
For the following decade, archaeoastronomic research (be it green, or brown archaeastronomy) into British sites diminished significantly, with a few exceptions, for example, Martlew & Ruggles (1991, 1992, 1993) examinations of sites in Mull, and Ó’Naillain’s examination of megalithic sites in southern Ireland (1988). More recent examination of megalithic sites have been conducted by Henty (2016) investigating recumbent stone circles of northeast Scotland. In addition, the work of Thomas Gough (2013) who pursues Thom’s proposition that some sites purported to contain lunar orientations that record the Moon’s 9’ wobble. While interest in assessing celestial orientations diminished within Britain, such research expanded within the Americas. To quote Harding, et al (2006: 27), ‘It is therefore unfortunate that archaeoastronomy remains marginalized in most accounts of Neolithic Britain’.
Lockyer’s mechanical globe was a scientific model, a means to apply quantitative observations about the world. In this research, electronic scientific models are being generated, for the purpose as Silvert (2001: 61) states, ‘in the hope of seeing aspects that may have escaped the notice of others.’ Silvert is talking about the ability to analyse the area of interest, and not the aesthetical reconstruction of what the structure may have originally looked like. The provision of computer software alone is insufficient to articulate its usefulness, there has to be a demonstrable benefit.
It was not until the late 1990’s that a small resurgence began to appear, when John North (1996) proposed that aspects of the construction of the barrows of Wessex allowed for the observation of specific stars, such as Rigel, across the barrow tops. In addition, the interpretations of Sims (2013: 242), that when paired correctly, the stones within ‘the Avenue’ at Avebury, the Sun or Moon may be seen to rise out of, or descend into the tops of the stones.
Over the years, researchers from Burke (1875) to Ponting (1988), provided line drawings, tables, and histograms to illustrate their findings, and Thom (1967: 92) argued that it was necessary, ‘…to adopt the simple visual demonstration of plotting histograms’ to illustrate hypotheses and help the reader in visualising their perspective. The intention in this book is the reverse, to leverage 3-dimensional software to provide a visually demonstrative image to aid in the research and development of hypotheses.
2.1. Sites under Investigative Consideration Site selection was twofold, sites were first chosen based on previous work by Thom, where alignments of either the Sun and/or Moon had been stipulated to occur with horizon features, identified as the foresight. Secondly, additional sites were selected where no detailed alignments had been found in previous research, in order to determine if indeed alignments occur, but had been unobserved by previous researchers.
Thom put forward 4 main propositions, i) a megalithic yard, ii) a 16-month calendar, iii) alignment of stones to horizon points demarking specific celestial events and iv) high precision recording of the Moon’s 9’ libration or wobble (Thom 1967,1971). Much criticism has been advanced for each of these areas, and is best summarised by Ruggles (1999). This book does not address the first or second of Thom’s propositions but does involve aspects of Thom’s third and fourth propositions. Thom’s process of investigating stone alignments required the use of the long flat surfaces of stones as indicators. This process influenced future research, continued by archeoastronomers such as Ruggles, et al (1984), who extrapolated the approach to 300+ sites within Scotland. During the 1970’s and 1980’s research efforts were spent examining Thom’s findings (MacKie: 1974, Patrick: 1979). Very little original research, other than employing Thom’s approach, has been conducted with such sites.
Thom’s (1967, 1978) extensive plotting of the sites in the mid-20th century proved to be exceedingly useful whilst conducting the field survey work, as they could be used to indicate ‘disturbance’ over the past 50 years. For example, the menhir at Kintraw is now upright, but was leaning when Thom documented his visit. These changes in some of the sites cause the results from the simulations to be more suggestive than deterministic. Any such findings are expressed in the individual site interrogations in chapter 7. The sites under consideration are located in the north west of Scotland, both on the mainland and offshore Isles. It was disappointing that some sites to be investigated, initially 5
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation identified from either Thom’s publications or the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) are no longer viable. For example, the menhir at Dunadd in Argyll is now lying flat on the ground and would require archaeological excavation to enable accurate re-creation. As indicated in Figure 2-1, the resulting lists of sites under consideration in this research were:
12. Torbhlaran There are interesting features of the sites visited. First, the only mainland site that has the possibility of bidirectional Sun alignment (e.g. using the same stones for viewing both sunrise and sunset) is Dunamuck (Achnaschelloch); the others are restricted by terrain to a limited number of aspects. Secondly, with the exception of single menhirs such as Tiraghoil on Mull, all sites have at least one stone with a distinctive sloping top. This could be a result of nature – cracking and splitting or the stone was of irregular shape at both ends. However, the site at Dunamuck has a fallen stone (see Figure 2-2) where the base, (were it in the ground), is flat, and yet, if the stone were in an upright position, the top would be slanting or deliberately set. This being the case, what significance did the builders place on the slanting top, and is there any consistency between the sites as to the direction or angle of the slope? The locations of the sites in the Argyll area are indicated in the map below, which
1. An Car 2. Ballochroy 3. Ballymeanoch 4. Beacharr 5. Brainport Bay 6. Carnasserie 7. Dunamuck 8. Escart 9. Kintraw 10. Nether Largie 11. Tiraghoil Farm on Mull
Figure 2-1. Location of sites under investigation (Garmin Mapsource).
6
Previous Archaeo-astronomic Research
Figure 2-2. Fallen central stone at Dunamuck II.
are identifiable by the alphanumeric from the above list. National Grid reference data, and the latitude and longitude for each site, are supplied in their respective section within the interrogation chapter.
works being undertaken by local enthusiasts such as Gladwin (1978) at Brainport Bay. What is interesting is Thom only supplies us with three actual stone directional’s, i) the 315.5° at Ballochroy and ii) two at Nether Largie oriented toward 317° and 319° (Thom 1967). All other directions given by Thom are mean values of stone arrangements.
Even within the sites investigated, some stones lay prostrate on the ground, their collapse may be attributable to the presence of sheep and cattle grazing in the field in which the stones stand, and pressing against the stones for protection, in inclement weather, or to a shallow footing of the stone itself.
Ruggles, et al (1984), in their extensive survey, applied statistical analysis to test Thom’s hypotheses of stone alignments to distant foresights, using Thom’s four levels of precision, i.e. ±1° of accuracy at level 1, ±0.25° at level 2, 9 arc-minutes at level 3, and even finer resolution at level 4. Ruggles’ (1999: 49-67) investigation disclosed the ±1° of accuracy may be attainable, but the minutes of arc accuracy, as professed by Thom, were not feasible. Ruggles (1999: 25) also found a 10° deviation potential when viewing the winter solstice sunset at Ballochroy, depending on whether the phenomenon was viewed from the left, or right side of the arrangement of stones.
Many sites are named after the farm property in which they reside, for example, Dunamuck. However, farm names are not prominent within the area. In preparation for the visit, to locate the sites in question, it was necessary to review the RCAHMS records, accessible via their website using CanMAP. It was then required to translate the site location into local map reference material, and record the latitude and longitude as a waypoint within the GPS unit. 2.2. Specific Research of Sites under Investigation
The single stone and stone row sites within this research that have been astronomically investigated (Ruggles, et al, 1984; MacKie, 1974; Gladwin, 1985; Thom, 1969), are those of Ballochroy, Ballymeanoch, Brainport Bay, Kintraw, and Nether Largie. However, for the other sites under this investigation, An Car, Beacharr, Carnasserie, Escart, Dunamuck, Torbhlaran and Tiraghoil, currently, there appears to be very few references, and any consideration for them to be associated with astronomical
For Scottish sites, analyses ranged from singular site investigations such as MacKie’s (1974) inspection of Kintraw and Ballochroy. Patrick’s (1971) comparison of the Barbeck arrangement with that of Nether Largie, or the extensive in-depth investigation, into Thom’s work conducted by Ruggles, et al (1984), resulting in a survey of 300+ Scottish sites; the majority of archaeological 7
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Republic, resting at over a depth of 1,800 feet, I devised a means, utilising this technology, not only to aid in the reconstruction of the wreck, but also to record each object and artefact in situ. Similarly, Naylor and Jones’s (2012) are utilising computer technology in their undertaking of remodelling the hull-form of a medieval ship discovered in Newport, Wales.
orientations is minimal. Academic archaeoastronomy research into British sites appears to have diminished following Ruggles et al, 1984 paper, and there remains a paucity of research publications on the topic. 2.3. Investigation into Similar Software Virtual Environments
Harding, et al (2006: 27) raised the issue, that the most prominent problems preventing the investigation of astronomical relationships, are the technical complexity of astronomy and lack of available tools. Harding endeavoured, with some success, to reconstruct the environment of the Thornborough henges, by manipulating images that where generated by the astronomy programme Skymap, and marrying them with manually generated panoramic horizon images. The co-joining of the various tools within this research (as previously outlined), addresses both the prominent problems that Harding and company raised as well as the programme integration issues they encountered.
Initially, investigation into virtual reality and animation, as they may be applied to archaeology, found a broad spectrum of speculative reports, paper proposals and suggestions. One paper discusses virtual reality in archaeology by the interdisciplinary combination of (GIS), and 3-dimensional software (Barceló, Forte and Sanders; 2000). However, to date, very little is available for actual application. One such usage was a virtual reality model of Stonehenge, which is no longer available and has since been withdrawn. This model was interesting from the perspective of being able to simulate ‘walking’ or ‘flying’ around the model Stonehenge site, but its accuracy was unknown, and certain desired attributes were lacking. As an example, shadow lines were obviously drawn from the first point of contact of a stone nearest to the light source. The shadow would appear to pass beneath the stone, reappearing midway on the other side of the stone, misrepresenting the intersection of light and stone; presenting an inaccurate pictorial representation between Sun and monument.
2.4. Research Approach The approach taken in this research allows for the astronomical object under investigation to dictate, at the epoch in question, what aligns and what does not. The software simulation allows for precise positioning of the celestial object, be it Sun, Moon, planet, or star, in relation to the landscape; thereby permitting an objective aspect to the investigation, by removing the subjective nature of sightline selection criteria, as expressed by Thom, and an issue raised by Heggie (1982: 6). This research methodology permits an objective determination regarding what arrangements exist, allowing the subjective aspects to be applied to why such an arrangement was made. This, new approach, addresses the issue expressed by Ruggles (1982: 92); by considering all celestial possibilities in a site’s potential orientations, whether it is the stars, planets, Sun, or the Moon.
The majority of references pertaining to re-constructive modelling of archaeological sites were concerned with using aerial photographic approaches (Driver: 2001), or satellite imagery such as the discovery of the city of Ubar (Williams: 1992). The next category of references involved the re-creation of buildings or sites, such as the evaluation of building alignments at Chaco Canyon by utilising GIS and Brunel University’s 3D Measurement & Virtual Reconstruction of Ancient Lost Worlds of Europe project (Cosmas; 2003), which reflects how a site may be envisaged in its original state, and full grandeur. 3-dimensional cameras and software have been used by the Canadian National Research Council to image artefacts. Curt Roslund had an interesting image creation for a particular alignment at Stonehenge involving stone 56. In addition, Lionel Sims adds animation to the investigation in his solarisation of the Moon.
In their analyses of 300 Scottish sites, Ruggles et al, elected that only a southern direction of orientation be considered for any given megalith (1988: 235). Whereas, the approach taken in this research utilises computer simulations to determine whether a megalithic orientation to a celestial object in conjunction with the topography may, or may not, exist in any direction. Although the premise of determining whether celestial events are recorded in stone is the same as Thom’s, the method of approach is quite different. By employing a full spectrum of celestial events, plus an objective orientation approach, this research, like all methodologies, is open to both negative as well as positive findings; both will be stipulated accordingly. This approach however, does open up the potential for, what I termed in chapter 1 the Hawkins paradigm – i.e. the existence of an orientation automatically suggests an intention by builders. Therefore, vigilance in relation to any supposition of alignment was maintained.
There has been a limited amount of research activities involving celestial alignments, which combine the interdisciplinary use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS), and 3-dimensional, computerised, modelling software. Even fewer are used for examining and analysing how sites may have been employed. One example, is available at the Avebury-World (The Avebury Project, accessed 18th November 2011, http://www.avebury3d. co.uk/) by Macdonald (2007). Currently, in order to aid the archaeological record, 3-dimensional modelling is beginning to be employed in representing sites as they appear. In 2004-5, while serving with Odyssey Exploration, in order to facilitate stratification of the shipwreck S.S. 8
Previous Archaeo-astronomic Research The disagreements, as discussed above, by Heggie, Ruggles, Aveni and others with Thom’s approach have been noted; however, to establish a base upon which any findings in this research can be compared and contrasted, Thom’s material will be used. Where the research demonstrates deviations from Thom’s works, these deviations will be discussed in the appropriate section. As will be illustrated, some unexpected results were uncovered through this method of experimental astroarchaeology, which requires an expanded investigation to determine whether the results are appropriate or not. These new results would have been completely missed if i) Thom’s methods and high-precision alignment paradigm had been employed, or ii) would have restricted the investigation in a pre-determined subjective direction. The impetus of this investigation is not to be directed by any prior influential perceptions that exist; instead, the proposal is to allow the celestial elements and the landscape, to dictate the paths to follow – a more natural approach, and one that the megalith builders may well have taken. With this orientation it should be possible to address the issue raised earlier, regarding Kintraw (section 2-1), where there is misunderstanding of what may or may not, be seen from the site. Additionally, if new viewing perspectives are uncovered in the interrogations, these perspectives must be tested at other sites, either to confirm, or refute such discoveries. 2.5. Dating the Sites Once Thom set his construction dates for Scottish sites of 1700-1800 BCE, this became the de facto standard for setting the date of further astroarchaeological research analysis. Further investigations questioned his methodology and statistical analyses as to whether highprecision astronomical alignments were either true or false. None questioned the date, just the orientation and precision. The land motion of plate tectonics and glacial isostasis raises the issue as to whether these dates are indeed correct. As such, all sites interrogated, will also have their date of construction tested; firstly, by assessing factors to determine a viable date range in which the sites could have been constructed, and in addition, by applying the land motion to both the simulations, and the objective celestial orientations.
9
3 Approach – Methodology and horizon points, as well as the bounded area of the site itself. Similarly the techniques employed for the inward looking approach have typically been used to look outward as well; this was generally achieved by using the same surveying equipment – theodolite and the modern Total Station; capturing directional readings of horizon points, which were then incorporated into the site orientation. The theodolite approach was employed by Thom to sight along a flat surface of a stone, to determine both the bearing of the stone and its orientation toward an horizon point (1978: 122).
The research contained in this paper is one of experimentation, as such, documentation of an experiment, by definition, has to enable others to reproduce the work. To meet this expectation, this paper follows the scientific procedures of describing the equipment used and providing the methods executed. The software tools employed, allowed for the examination of each site under investigation to be expanded to a full 360º examination of the undulating horizon, allowing for i) the rising and setting locations for the Sun’s solsticial and equinoctial points, ii) the lunar limits and iii) the heliacal stars at the time of the solar events to be determined.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the potential subjective problem that may occur when employing a theodolite. To the left in the figure, the mapping GPS unit, set to compass output (with an error potential of ±5°), provides a singular objective reference for the stone. The theodolite approach, (to the right of the figure), can error in several ways, based on:
If found appropriate, stellar and planetary investigations are conducted for the site, with each site section finishing with its own discussion, in conjunction with a conclusion upon the construction date, adjustment potential, for the site. The Neolithic peoples devised their knowledge of survival, by their senses, and awareness of the environment surrounding them. Using cause and effect, observation and replication, they were able to develop rudimentary classification systems to explain the world around them. They were part of a system – as Hall and Fagan (1956: 18-28) expressed it ‘...a system is a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes’. Employing this systemic view, helps to frame the cultural attributes of the peoples of the time, which supports Gumerman and Warburton’s perspective “...that in order to understand the nature of a prehistoric culture it is important to view in it a truly systemic or holistic context...” (2005:16.) It is only from taking this viewpoint will it help in limiting us from tainting the data with our own 21st century perspective.
• the distance to the horizon • the length of the side of the stone itself • the potential alignment problem of using the leading or trailing edge of the stone in association with locating the theodolite itself, and • any subjective injection of alignment by the observer to the horizon. Thus, influencing an horizon point selection and ‘finding’ a bearing with the theodolite that suits, as Thom states, the subjective personal opinion (1979: 96). In all previous documentation there are no reports referring to the actual physical location of the theodolite itself, when measurements were being taken.
Some cultural attributes of the Neolithic may be determined by the archaeological record. Employing the complexities of computers, for the simulation of this ancient environment, allows for the potential expansion of our knowledge of those cultural attributes. Any cosmological findings may expand aspects of the ideological characteristics of constructors of the monuments under investigation. As Gumerman and Warburton state “...to truly comprehend a culture we must have some sense of its cosmology...” (2005: 15). Most archaeological site surveys are inward looking, that is to say, they are only concerned with a bounded area within which the excavation is to be performed. Sites, considered to be associated with celestial orientations, are outward looking, concerned with the surroundings
Figure 3-1. Comparison of GPS electronic compass versus theodolite reading.
11
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Although still based on magnetic fields, the electronic compass within a GPS mapping unit, has built in features, such as magnetoresistive sensors (Tokarz, & Dzik, 2009: 77) that detect and evaluate the Earth’s minimum and maximum magnetic field variations, in two orthogonal directions. Combined with amplifiers and software computations, the GPS unit can provide an acceptably accurate true north reading.
a week of measuring the orientations of Greek temples via a theodolite, however, clouds persisted and not a single measure resulted. This led Hoskins to capture site ‘alignments’ by standing in the centre of doorways and using a handheld magnetic compass, a technique that was open to subjective error and magnetic interference by the surroundings. 3.1. Evaluating a Model
If an objective celestial-landmass orientation is proposed for a site in this research, a return visit to the site with a total station is recommended to ascertain a bearing accuracy greater than that of the electronic GPS compass, to either confirm or contest the induced and now subjective orientation associated with the stones at that site.
Primarily, a model is evaluated, by its consistency to empirical data; any model inconsistent with reproducible observations must be modified or rejected. Other aspects to which the model should conform are the ability to: • explain past observations • predict future observations • minimise the cost of use, especially in combination with other models • provide an estimation of the degree of confidence in the model • comply with Ockham’s razor of simplistic, or aesthetic appeal (Gauch, 2003; 324).
The theodolite was not employed in the site surveys conducted for this research, for several reasons. First, to avoid what many critics to Thom’s work, have identified as any subjective measurements being taken between stone and horizon, see Figure 3-1 that illustrates a potential problem. The second reason for not utilizing theodolite measurements is the employment of Digital Terrain Model data (a digital representation of ground surface topography or terrain), resulting in actual utilisation of the land form itself. Thereby, leveraging the Ordnance Survey accuracy, allowing the celestial modelling to dictate what horizon orientations may exist, and not injecting modern perceptions of what we believe should exist.
In developing the model and in evaluating the model in terms of archaeological value, I leveraged MacKie’s (1974: 169-190) series of tests, namely: • Have the alignments been identified objectively? • Are the horizon notches and mountain peaks, which have been selected as the foresights, visible from, and used at any given stone, self-indicated or inferred? • Are they the most likely and the only ones, to be seen from the sites concerned? • Have any of the alignments been chosen because they were expected in a particular place? • Does the archaeological dating of the structures (inferred to be part of such alignment) fit the fairly, precise dates given to them on astronomical grounds? • Are there features at individual sites that the astronomical interpretation requires to be present that can be checked by fieldwork and excavation? • Can the astronomical inferences be correlated with i) the cultural groupings – seen in the stone circles and henge monuments, and ii) site plans, and associated pottery and artefacts? • Does the astronomical theory involve equipment and techniques, which a Neolithic technology is unlikely to have been able to produce? • Does it involve the storing of knowledge of a type, and in a manner, for which there are no known parallels among non-literate societies?
Within the simulations, the computations for positioning the celestial objects have an accuracy of 0.0002° (0.72 arcseconds), in effect acting as the theodolite between celestial object and the landmass, allowing visualisation to suggest where, and to what purpose. This new approach is a far more definitive and objective determination of celestial-horizon orientations, (or the lack thereof), than an onsite, subjective interpretation of the landscape features aligning with some portion of an orthostat. Lastly, additional theodolite surveying to compensate for foliage, or structures that may now inhibit a line of sight, need not be undertaken, as was necessary for Thom (1978: 48), as no structures or foliage would be incorporated within the reproduced 3-dimensional landscape. Instead, for each site, the latitude and longitude location of each stone was determined using a Garmin 76csx mapping GPS unit, and the surface bearings were measured (as illustrated in Figure 3-1 above), with both a magnetic and electro-magnetic GPS compass; thus, avoiding any lengthy surveying effort to circumvent any modern day obstructions.
3.2. On Site
Employing the Ordnance Surveys Digital Terrain Models, with their inherent accuracy, in conjunction with GPS readings, allows for less dependency of such tools as the theodolite and the danger of mis-alignment; or the lack of sight line due to current foliage, mist, fog, or rain. In comparison to an approach adopted by Michael Hoskin (2001: 12) whilst he visited Sicily for
To ensure consistency of nomenclature, and enable cross-referencing of material, stone identification of the sites, mirror that of Thom’s published data (1967, 1978). Actions taken at each site were systematic. A template was generated that allowed for the entry of: 12
Approach – Methodology • the bearing of each face of each orthostat, where possible • dimensions of the sides and height of each stone were recorded • GPS location for each stone • Record of where the GPS reading was taken in association with the stone • associated photographs of each face of the orthostats and the surrounding horizon/s.
representation, after taking natural curves and bumps into consideration; the GPS unit was then placed against the level. The compass reading within the GPS unit was taken in both directions (the resolution of the GPS compass being to ±1º), with the average being recorded. In some instances, the faces of the stones converge to an edge, resulting in no flat surface from which to take a bearing, or any measurement for that matter. Where possible, distance measurements from stone to stone were recorded in conjunction with the bearing between the selected points. This step was taken for either i) additional data to be used for verification and final adjustment purposes during the re-construction in the 3-dimensional models and ii) in those instances when GPS reception was deemed erratic and the readings potentially unreliable; instead, requiring a tape survey to be conducted. The reader will find the data collected for each specific site being considered, located in the interrogation section of this paper.
This data was collected for each site in the following manner. At each site the GPS was re-calibrated according to the unit’s requirements1, and set to the OSGB latitude, longitude output, along with enabling the WAAS/ EGNOS capability, as there is a ground based EGNOS site in Glasgow approximately 50 miles away2 (the unit automatically converting from the WGS84 spheroid geo-referencing of the satellites). Satellite GPS readings are usually in the international standard of WGS84, all readings taken at the sites were checked to ensure they either conformed to the National Grid, or were converted to national grid positioning from WGS84. For an explanation of the differences in these values, the reader could do no better than to review the Ordnance Survey’s guide to coordinate systems in Great Britain (HMG Ordnance Survey. 2007). The GPS was set to sense satellite positions every second and average the resultant readings. It was then positioned at one corner of a stone and left in situ in order to average the position readings. At least 100 readings for each stone were taken. This number of readings was sufficient to observe that the averaged value no longer changed, and was determined therefore, to be stable and complete.
3.3. In the Computer Laboratory Several software tools were employed in the laboratory. Prior to site visits, extensive work was performed on the accurate generation of the positioning of the celestial elements to match the time period involved, in order to test both the correctness in calculations and the ray tracing software Pov-Ray. The 3-dimensional tool known as AC3D was utilised to build the stone models to the dimensions recorded in the field. Both these techniques are detailed in the section that describes the modelling process. Computer graphics ray tracing (not to be confused with, ray tracing, used in physics), is a technique for generating an image by tracing a light path. Rather than paraphrase the functional description, the following quotation from the introduction of POV-Ray (Persistence of Vision – Ray tracing) software programme should suffice.
Whilst the GPS was performing its task, each face of each stone was photographed and measured, both in the length of the base of each face of the stone, as well as an indicator for height. All measurements were made in inches. The height of most stones does not permit direct measurement. Not wishing to lean ladders, clamber on the stones, or in any way deface them, the height of each stone was determined by employing a standard measure placed on a chosen face, photographed, and then, during the modelling reconstruction phase, using the standard measure to set the correct scale. The total height was then extrapolated with acceptable ±1-inch accuracy. The technique is presented in more detail in chapter 6.
The basic idea of raytracing is to ‘shoot’ rays from the camera towards the scene and see what does the ray hit. If the ray hits the surface of an object then lighting calculations are performed in order to get the color of the surface at that place. Figure 3-2 shows this graphically. First, a ray is ‘shot’ in a specified direction to see if there is something there. As this is solved mathematically, we need to know the mathematical representation of the ray and the objects in the scene so that we can calculate where does the ray intersect the objects? Once we get all the intersection points, we choose the closest one.
To determine the true bearing (not magnetic) of each face, a constructor’s level was held flush against the face of each stone, in a position that was determined to be the best
After this we have to calculate the lighting (ie. the illumination) of the object at the intersection point….3
1 One of these calibrations is the setting of the GPS internal compass which was found to be essential. First the GPS compass reading was compared to a magnetic compass, followed by the GPS compass calibration, and then a second comparison made between the two; finally, setting the GPS unit to output true north. This action proved the GPS calibration was a necessary function to perform at every site. 2 WAAS/EGNOS is a network of ground based positioning stations linked into the satellite (primarily established for flight navigation), but when incorporated with a GPS allows position accuracy with 3 m (10ft).
3
13
http://www.povray.org/documentation/view/3.6.0/126/
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 3-2. Ray tracing diagram (Pov-Ray).
One of the advantages of using a 3-dimensional landscape is the avoidance of what Gordon Moir (1980: 37-40) expresses as ‘a potentially dangerous procedure’; that of developing flat horizon profiles from 2-dimensional maps. This is a common occurrence, with a resultant problem. To illustrate this problem, I will use as an example a report conducted by Douglas Scott for what is termed ‘the project gallery’ on the Durham University Antiquity website (Antiquity. Accessed January 2011 ) where he suggests that the winter solstice Sun rising directly above the point of stones 4 and 5 at Nether Largie, is observable from the larger of the two cairns at Temple Wood; a flat horizon computation for sunrise would indeed give this indication. However, the Sun is required to rise approximately 3 degrees to reach the raised southeasterly horizon. As the Sun does so, it also changes its azimuth, and in fact, by the time the Sun has risen to be visible, the two stones and the ‘alignment’ as suggested, does not occur.
In the case before us, that of modelling the solar system back 3500 to 5500 years, plus the employment of multiple software programmes and data sources, the selection of these tools had to minimise the inaccuracies of the computations, in order to remove any doubts as to the viability of the simulation from that regard. To meet the principle of accuracy and to minimise any concerns, at least to the celestial computations, data and formulae incorporated into the software construction for such computations are within a fraction of an arcsecond over the full time period being examined. 3.4. Mapping The digital terrain maps of Great Britain are supplied electronically by the Ordnance Survey (OSGB) to the British University network, which is accessible for download through the University network via EDINA. These data are available as a series of predefined ‘tiles’ or by arbitrary selection. Tiles of a 1:10,000 scale, each tile covering a 5 km x 5 km area, were selected, as these can be converted and used judicially to minimise computational needs. These tiles are supplied in a user application neutral format referred to as NTF’s which, by definition, required that they be converted into a format usable by the selected geographic software tool suite, ArcGIS; a product that is available to the market from ESRI. More detail on the process and the steps required to adjust these maps to a functional use will be presented in chapter 6.
3.5. Equipment Employed Below is the list of equipment employed in both field and computer lab. In the field • • • • • • •
Laptop Computer Garmin 76 XCS Mapping GPS unit Projection maps both digital and paper 120 foot steel tape 6 foot forensic tape Surveying pegs Orienteering compass for comparison with built-in GPS compass • Poor-mans clinometer (circular protractor with monofilament line and weight) • Constructors Level • Canon EOS Xti Digital Camera.
The map tiles according to the Ordnance Survey have an inherent accuracy of ±1 metre. This amount will only have an effect on site interrogations as one stone may relate to another, and not on any distant foresights. The physical shift of land, through isostasis and plate tectonics of the viewing position within the simulations will demonstrate any affect. The mapping tiles used for each site are listed in the appendix. 14
Approach – Methodology be supported or conversely, raise questions as to their validity.
In the lab In addition to the standard Microsoft Windows Office tools, the following software tools were employed to fulfil the task.
This chapter has served as an outline regarding the tools and tasks undertaken to create the simulation software. However, these tools have to incorporate the issues of environmental changes of climate, plate tectonic and isostatic land motions; as well as the night sky slowly changing over the course of the millennia. These issues are addressed in the next 2 chapters and online chapter A1.
• 64-bit computer workstation to run simulation software • AC3D version 6.5.28, © 1994-2010 Inivis Ltd., used for creating correctly scaled 3-dimensional models of each stone surveyed • Pov-Ray™ for windows version 3.6.2 (64-bit) ©19912010 ray tracing software, selected specifically for its ability to render models and trace a mathematically accurate light ray line • ArcGIS Desktop version 9.2 © ESRI’s to manipulate the digital terrain maps • Landserf version 2.3 © Jo Wood Dept of Information Science, City University – employed to fill the gaps where ArcGIS failed • Garmin Map Source Version 6.10.2, combined with Topo Great Britain V2.0, for recording the waypoints of each individual stone • Edina Digimap download service which provided access to the OSGB Digital Terrain Maps, listed in the appendix • Vrml2pov.exe © 1998-2004 by Paul Thiessen a converter package required to bring the outputs of ArcGIS into the Ray-tracing environment • Macromedia Flash Version 5, to construct a time sequenced animation. Testing of a different nature; that of the software computations themselves was also conducted, by means of: • matching the results with the computational samples given in the reference materials of Meeus (1998) for the stellar and solar positioning; Bretagnon (1986) for planetary and Chapront (1991) for lunar positioning • comparison with well-established publically available software such as Stellarium, Skymap and HNSKY (Hallo Northern Sky) • alignment of the Digital Terrain Model topography with the Ordnance Survey based map, made available through the Garmin GPS PC mapping software. More details are given in chapter 6 on how this was confirmed. The tools and techniques presented in this chapter were employed in an inductive-deductive cycle of research, whereby simulations conducted have the potential of exposing new perspectives on viewing a site hitherto unforeseen; thus, generating hypotheses that required further simulation testing at other sites to either support, or refute the new hypotheses. This being the case, the originating hypothesis that a virtual realty approach may aid in growing the archaeological data bank will be supported. Although it is not a direct intention, as these tests proceed, any previous researchers’ hypotheses may 15
4 Computing the Neolithic Sky The stars of the night sky, although appearing from year to year as a seasonally constant cosmos, change their locations with time. In part this change is due to i) the tilt of the Earth which has diminished slightly over the centuries, and ii) the Earth’s precession about its ecliptic path. Combine these shifts with currently know proper motion of the stars, and that starry night panorama differs from century to century. This chapter describes those changes that were incorporated into the software computations in order to allow an accurate simulation to be generated.
Figure 4-1 illustrates these different coordinate reference systems. The Moon has its own particular circumstances of relationship with the Earth. Computations employing the celestial reference criteria were conducted to determine the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars, back into the Neolithic era. As we are contemplating predecessors standing at a particular spot on the Earth, these positional data have to be related to the visible horizon of those predecessors. Positional coordinates of celestial objects from a location upon the surface of the Earth are expressed as azimuth (az), the number of degrees clockwise from true north, and altitude (alt), height above or below the horizon. Therefore, the computed positions of the stars and planets have to be translated from their respective coordinate schema to the horizon coordinates of altitude and its azimuth, as they relate to an observer at the particular location of the site under investigation. As the day progresses, with the rotation of the Earth, these coordinates will change, therefore the time of day also has to be taken into consideration.
Within the chapter, some terms are introduced, such as proper motion and precession these terms are explained and expanded upon, later in the chapter or defined in the glossary. 4.1. Positioning the Celestial Objects The Earth and planets rotate about the Sun, basically, all in the same plane, the ecliptic; their positions are expressed in terms of latitude (lat) and longitude (long). In the case of the planets, their elliptical paths about the Sun are inclined at angles ranging from ±1.3º for Jupiter to ±7º for Mercury. A planet’s inclination and five other elements are employed in computing their individual positions as they relate to the Sun. The stars on the other hand, are referenced as they relate to the rotation of the tilted Earth – the equatorial plane – with their locations expressed by the terms of right ascension (ra) and declination (dec).
All calculations made to determine the location of a star (including the Sun), planet, or even the Moon, are related to the Earth’s centre. In the case of the stars, their location is not impacted by any significant value by the difference from the centre of the Earth, to the geographic position of the observer on the Earth’s surface. However, the planets and the Moon are impacted by their relative closeness to the Earth. The positions of the Sun, planets, and Moon have to be adjusted for this difference, referred to as
Figure 4-1. Coordinate systems.
17
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation i.e. circular orbits of planets, rather than their actual elliptical orbits, these simplified models result in the calculation of a mean heliocentric location from a predetermined absolute position. These absolute positions are specified for an epoch, which is currently set for the planets and the stars as the 1st of January 2000.
parallax. Similarly, as the celestial objects approach the horizon the effects of atmospheric refraction comes into play, this too is incorporated into the computations. 4.2. Stellar Motion The night sky would have appeared somewhat differently to the Neolithic than it appears to us today. These changes in positions are due to two factors, i) the Earth’s precession; and ii) proper motion of the stars through the heavens. Precession is an accumulative effect due to the long-term changes in the polar axis of the Earth as it relates to the ecliptic path of the Earth about the Sun. Resulting in, changing the position of the equatorial pole on the sky. Proper motion is the movement of the individual stars due to the expanding nature of the universe. There are a number of stars visible to the naked eye whose positions, identified by their right ascension and declination, have moved quite significantly over the past 6000 years; as a result, of precession and proper motion.
The second step in the process is the translation of these mean values into actual true positions, as they relate to the actual workings of the solar system. These true Sun centred (heliocentric) calculations are made through the VSOP87 standard; they are then adjusted to Earth centred (geocentric) values. The gravitational influences of the planets with each other, known as perturbation, along with precessional shifts, are integral to the VSOP87 formulas and data set, and therefore need not be added to the sequence of calculations. Thom provides significant interpretation to site alignments by considering perturbation of the Moon (Thom: 1978, 46-47). The aforementioned embedding of perturbation within the formulas prohibits the ability to perform definitive comparisons with Thom’s interpretations.
In reviewing the site alignments this star motion over the course of the millennia has to be taken into consideration.
Lastly, the third step is a series of adjustments for where the object actually appears in front of the observer, based on:
4.3. Positional Change of Celestial Objects over Time Our calendar reflects an annual Earth cycle of 365.25 days; that 0.25 giving us the leap day every 4 years. In fact, the actual time that it takes for the Earth to return to the same position is 365.242191 days; referred to as a tropical year. This difference is significant, and will be discussed later.
• the object’s distance from the Earth, and its speed and direction. In addition, the speed of light, and the aberration caused by the motion of the Earth about the Sun • Nutation, that is due to a shorter-term variation of the orientation of ecliptic and equator. The effect is not exactly small, but unlike precession it does not accumulate over hundreds or thousands of years • The observer’s latitude and altitude (height above sea level), combines with temperature and barometric air pressure; to influence the refraction of light through the atmosphere. As the actual conditions are not known for the period in question, standard values of 10ºC and 1009 millibars of atmospheric pressure were used throughout these computations.
The computations to derive the coordinates, as they relate to the observer’s position, fall into one simple principle and three basic steps, outlined in the following sections. The principle is that of accuracy – how accurate the results have to be. The steps are driven by the reference material that is required to fulfil the computation and the accuracy principle. These steps are defined in the following section. 4.4. Planetary Data To compute the planetary positions, data was obtained from the VSOP87 (French: Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires 1987). The Secular Variations of the Planetary Orbits is a semi-analytic theory that describes the long-term changes in the position of each planet. The theory was developed and is maintained at the Bureau des Longitudes in Paris, France. Accuracy is to 1 second of arc over 4000 years, before or after epoch 2000, and only drops away slightly by a further 1 second of arc for an additional -2000 years. These data are accessible over the internet from the Bureau. This 1 arcsecond, 0.000278o, pre-determines the principle for accuracy for the planet positional computations.
These features of the third step combine to change what has been computed as the object’s true location, to where it is perceived or apparent to be, when observed from the Earth. Each of these steps will be explained in more detail in the following sections.
• Calculate planet position VSOP87 • (accuracy 2’ -6000 to +8000) • Light Travel time • • Calculate aberration • Calculate nutation • Calculate refraction • PROCESS STEP 1
The first of the 3 basic computational steps, to determine the position of a selected planetary object, is based on theoretical operating models of the solar system. These models are simplified representations of the solar system 18
using
Computing the Neolithic Sky
Figure 4-2. Precession over 6000 years.
4.5. The Sun
North Pole leans. Both features contribute to the different climatic conditions of the time, more sunlight during the summer for example.
There are two aspects to be taken into consideration when investigating the positioning of the Sun over the 2000 year time period under review, i) that of the effects of precession and ii) the date representation in the results.
4.5.2. Date Representation In the search for what was visible to the Scottish Neolithic, there is one additional step that may be taken into consideration, namely modern day calendar time. To date, I have not, identified a researcher, in the archaeological studies of astronomical alignments, to have actually stipulated this step, even though they may have taken it into their calculations. That step is – whether or not, to associate our modern day calendar with the computation of celestial events of yesteryear. All celestial formulas are based on a Julian year of 365.25 days, not the true tropical year (365.242191) of the Sun, as noted above. The discrepancy between calendar year and tropical years over 3800 years amounts to 19 days. By definition, the vernal equinox, when the Sun is due east-west (90°–270o), sets the celestial calendar for the year.
4.5.1. Precession Solstice standstill and equinoctial events 5000 years ago were different from today. It happens that the Earth’s current position in its precessional path along its ellipsoidal migration around the Sun, places winter when it is almost at perihelion see Figure 4-2. The wobble of the Earth’s pole that causes the precession, takes approximately 25,780 years to complete a full cycle. The solstices occur when the Earth’s pole is either leaning to, or away from the Sun, and it is at these times that the Sun appears to be almost stationary for 4-5 days. Whereas, at the time of the equinox, the Sun in comparison, is ‘racing’ its way to its opposite limit, and therefore the equinox is fleeting, giving only a day to mark the times of the year, when daylight and night, are of equal length. 5000 years ago, winter came later in the ellipsoidal path, half way between perihelion and aphelion.
Table 4-1 illustrates the Julian dates used within the software to correspond correctly will the celestial events.
Figure 4-2 illustrates the seasonal shift, the North Pole orientation, and the change in the length of the seasons, due to the Earth’s precession around the ecliptic path over 6000 years. Summer becomes 3.5 days shorter, due to the point of perihelion occurring at the time of the autumnal equinox, rather than the winter solstice, as it does today. The figure also illustrates the direction in which the
To adjust the celestial Julian dates to that of the Gregorian tropical calendar dates, one employs the formulae from Meeus (1998; 178) for calculating the equinoxes and solstices; as presented in Table 4-2. As an example, use of the formulae in Table 4-2 delivers the Julian dates in Table 4-3. 19
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 4-1. Computed solar Julian dates used in the simulations Year BCE
Winter
→
Imbolc
→
Vernal
→
Beltane
Samhain
←
Autumnal
←
Lugnasa
←
Summer
3500
17 Jan
30 Nov
2 Mar
21 Oct
19 Apr
30 Aug
30 May
24 Jul
3400
16 Jan
30 Nov
2 Mar
21 Oct
19 Apr
30 Aug
30 May
23 Jul
3300
15 Jan
29 Nov
1 Mar
20 Oct
18 Apr
29 Aug
29 May
22 Jul
3200
15 Jan
28 Nov
28 Feb
19 Oct
17 Apr
28 Aug
28 May
21 Jul
3100
14 Jan
27 Nov
28 Feb
18 Oct
16 Apr
27 Aug
27 May
20 Jul
3000
13 Jan
26 Nov
27 Feb
18 Oct
15 Apr
26 Aug
26 May
20 Jul
2900
13 Jan
26 Nov
27 Feb
17 Oct
15 Apr
26 Aug
26 May
19 Jul
2800
12 Jan
25 Nov
26 Feb
16 Oct
14 Apr
25 Aug
25 May
18 Jul
2700
11 Jan
24 Nov
25 Feb
15 Oct
13 Apr
24 Aug
24 May
17 Jul
2600
10 Jan
23 Nov
24 Feb
15 Oct
12 Apr
23 Aug
23 May
16 Jul
2500
10 Jan
22 Nov
23 Feb
14 Oct
11 Apr
22 Aug
22 May
15 Jul
2400
9 Jan
22 Nov
23 Feb
13 Oct
11 Apr
22 Aug
22 May
15 Jul
2300
8 Jan
21 Nov
22 Feb
12 Oct
10 Apr
21 Aug
21 May
14 Jul
2200
8 Jan
20 Nov
21 Feb
12 Oct
9 Apr
20 Aug
20 May
13 Jul
2100
7 Jan
19 Nov
20 Feb
11 Oct
8 Apr
19 Aug
19 May
12 Jul
2000
6 Jan
19 Nov
20 Feb
10 Oct
8 Apr
19 Aug
19 May
11 Jul
1900
5 Jan
18 Nov
19 Feb
9 Oct
7 Apr
18 Aug
18 May
10 Jul
1800
5 Jan
17 Nov
18 Feb
9 Oct
6 Apr
17 Aug
17 May
10 Jul
1700
4 Jan
16 Nov
17 Feb
8 Oct
5 Apr
16 Aug
16 May
9 Jul
1600
3 Jan
15 Nov
16 Feb
7 Oct
4 Apr
15 Aug
15 May
8 Jul
Table 4-2. Equinox and solstice dating formulae Vernal Equinox QtrJD = 1721139.29189 + 365242.13740*Y + 0.06134*Y2 + 0.00111*Y3 – 0.00071*Y4 Summer Solstice QtrJD = 1721233.25401 + 365241.72562*Y – 0.05323*Y2 + 0.00907*Y3 – 0.00025*Y4 Autumn Equinox QtrJD = 1721325.70455 + 365242.49588*Y – 0.11677*Y2 – 0.00297*Y3 + 0.00074*Y4 Winter Solstice QtrJD = 1721414.39987 + 365242.88257*Y – 0.00769*Y2 – 0.00933*Y3 – 0.00006*Y4 The value ‘Y’ in the above formulae is the year in question, divided by 1000.
first reviewed. The calculations of the star positions over time are similar to that of the planets. However, they also require the values known as annual proper motion and radial velocity to be taken into account. It was found that the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Star Catalog 2000 contained a more complete set of stars, and included the radial velocities and annual proper motion required. Thus, the reference data within the SAO Star Catalog was incorporated into the programme.
Table 4-3. Julian date examples Year
Vernal
Summer
Autumnal Winter
4500 BCE
28-Apr
29-Jul
27-Oct
24-Jan
3800 BCE
22-Apr
24-Jul
22-Oct
19-Jan
1800 BCE
6-Apr
9-Jul
8-Oct
4-Jan
2000 AD
21 Mar
21 Jun
21 Sep
21 Dec
Any dates displayed in computer-generated images will be the Julian date and not the more familiar, Gregorian calendar.
The SAO Star catalogue lists 258997 stars, but as we are concerned with visible stars of only magnitude 5.9 (assuming excellent eyesight) or brighter, this reduces the count to 4478 which are in the visible range. From these 4478 stars, we only need those stars visible in the northern hemisphere, specifically visible from the Scottish latitude of North 55º. This would reduce the count even further to 2157 thereby, further reducing computations.
4.6. Stars To generate the celestial software programme, the fifth edition of the Yale Brightstar Catalog (BSC, 1991) was 20
Computing the Neolithic Sky Table 4-4. Greatest changes in star positions due to 6000 years of proper motion Letter
Constellation
2000AD RA_degs
2000AD Dec_deg
Proper Proper 4000BCE motion in RA motion in DE RA_degs
4000BCE Dec_degs
16Alp
Bootes
213.915
19.1825
-1.093
-1.998
139.559
52.7942
41Gam
Serpens
239.113
15.6617
0.312
-1.281
-188.306
45.5253
70
Ophiucus
271.364
2.49944
0.266
-1.093
-158.108
21.5519
61Sig
Draco
293.09
69.6611
0.6
-1.738
-72.243
59.719
61
Virgo
199.601
-18.3114
-1.07
-1.065
126.658
12.6497
30Mu
Cassiopeia
17.0683
54.9203
3.424
-1.596
-52.9021
28.8941
61
Cygnus
316.728
38.7458
4.136
3.203
-106.823
27.4306
72
Hercules
260.165
32.4678
0.137
-1.041
-150.973
52.6525
9Alp
Canis Major
101.287
-16.7161
-0.553
-1.205
37.9689
-25.5942
10Alp
Canis Minor
114.825
5.225
-0.71
-1.023
39.1792
-0.015618
Del
Pavo
302.182
-66.1819
1.207
-1.131
-176.835
-48.4497
Zet
Tucana
5.01792
-64.8747
1.705
1.164
-166.493
-72.7194
40Omi2
Eridanus
63.8179
-7.65278
-2.242
-3.414
-3.08372
-28.1939
Eps
Indus
330.84
-56.7861
3.961
-2.538
-150.698
-50.683
36
Ophiucus
258.837
-26.6014
-0.491
-1.133
-179.89
-1.06053
36
Ophiucus
258.837
-26.6028
-0.458
-1.142
-179.93
-1.03216
Sun since the time period being considered, I needed to take into consideration the apparent positions of the stars as they relate to an observer 5000-6000 years ago. The Earth’s precession has to be incorporated, as performed for the planets. Once determined, the sequence outlined for the Sun and planets was followed.
However, before including or excluding stars that fall within the northern hemisphere, stars may have crossed the hemispheric divide due to proper motion for the timeperiod under consideration; so all 4478 were incorporated in the programme. The stars with the most significant movement are listed in Table 4-4. Those stars that have transgressed the equatorial boundary and changed the hemisphere, from which they were viewable, are highlighted.
4.7. Heliacal and Acronychal Stars The heliacal rising of a star, or other body, such as, a planet or a constellation, occurs when it first becomes visible above the eastern horizon for a brief moment just before sunrise, until sunlight renders the star invisible. As Lockyer states, ‘…was the star the heliacal rising of which heralded the sun’, (Locker; 1906b, p 58). The heliacal setting of a star is the reverse; the star becomes visible in the evening twilight just before setting. Whereas, the acronychal setting of a star on the western horizon occurs in the morning twilight, setting just as the Sun rises. The reverse being true for an acronychal rising. Stellar investigations within this research were limited to heliacal risings or settings, as they relate to possible indicators of the Sun. Norman Lockyer, in discussing stars as they relate to stone circles, refers to such stellar indications as ClockStars (1906a: 465-472) and the simulation approach taken here, fits his model of stars being employed as calendric markers.
Proper motion of the stars is considered linear movement, in the expanding universe, and therefore, extrapolation from their stated positions in the catalogue, that is, from epoch 2000, may be computed linearly over time. This calculation places the stars in their absolute location, but the Earth having precessed a quarter of its way about the Star position using SAO ↓ Proper motion ↓ precession Nutation
When investigating the potential observation of stellar events, these events will be in association with an horizon, therefore, with the heliacal rising, or setting, the effects of twilight and atmospheric extinction, have to be accounted for. Whereby, the denser atmosphere at the horizon restricts the visibility of stars below a specific magnitude of brightness.
Aberration Refraction PROCESS STEP 2 21
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation In considering the three twilights, astronomical, nautical, and civilian, when the Sun is below sea level by -18º, -12º, and -6º respectively, it is the civilian twilight whereby, stars other than the brightest, disappear from view; and defines the limiting point of heliacal rising or setting. In other words, the heliacal time-period is when the stars move from appearing during ‘nautical’ twilight to that of ‘civil’ twilight, at one end of the time scale, to daylight at the other. Graphical illustrations of these twilights are given in appendix F for various latitudes within Britain (50º-56º), where it can be seen that winter and not summer is an appropriate period to investigate. The values for these twilights are incorporated within the simulation, automatically diminishing the stars brightness. To determine the limiting magnitude of which stars, could or could not be seen on the horizon, due to atmospheric conditions, Schaefer’s (1986: S37) publication, Atmospheric Extinction Effects on Stellar Alignments, was first employed. During testing, some discrepancies occurred. Remedy was found in Rozenberg’s publication, Twilight (1966: 160), whereby, I discovered a typographical error in a formula within Schaefer’s paper and after speaking with the author the necessary mathematical correction was made.
around its orbit (27.21 days). In the 27 days, the Earth has moved around the Sun, the Moon requires an extra 2 days to ‘catch up’, as it were, with the Earth, to be in a similar position for the Moon to achieve the same illumination as it had a month before i.e. for the Moon to complete a lunation.
4.8. The Moon
The archeoastronomical record use of the term ‘standstill’ is to indicate the lunar limits. It is often misinterpreted to mean that for several days the Moon may be seen at the same declination, in the same manner that, the Sun at the time of the solstices appears to rise or set, at the same location for five days in a row. The lunar orb however, as described above, trans-locates from a northern setting, or rising to its southern equivalent in a course of approximately 14 days, and only then returns back to almost the same declination; meaning that these lunar ‘standstills’ are separated by approximately 28 days. To avoid any misinterpretation during the investigation, these limiting boundaries will be referred to as the major and minor limits.
The animation starts with the Moon in the position of its northern maximum limit, 14 days later it attains the southern maximum. A further seven days has the Moon ascending through the point of a node (the ascending node); with this presentation, the crossing of the nodes is at the time both nodes are in the same plane as the Sun’s ecliptic path, and a lunar eclipse will occur. The animation continues for a full year, primarily to illustrate the rapid motion of the Moon, in comparison with the slow retrograde motion of its orbit and associated nodes. After 9.3 years the tilt of the Moon’s orbit will be in the opposite direction, this reversal of tilt is what causes the oscillation between maximum and minimum limit declinations of the Moon. The progress toward these limits is noticeable by observing the rising and setting points of the Moon through the course of the year. These limits are frequently referred to as standstills.
It was not my intention to provide an extensive description of solar system mechanics, because this is well covered, for example, by MacKie in his The Elements of Astronomy for Surveyors (1978) and Aveni in his Skywatchers (2001). However, for events that became evident during the site interrogation simulations, it is necessary that an introduction be given regarding lunar motion. Of all the celestial movements in the sky the most complex, is that of the Moon. To aid in describing this motion a lunar rotation animation1 has been provided. In the animation are three coloured orbs; yellow, blue and white which represent the Sun, Earth and Moon respectively. The animation contains three other features, a black line to represent the line of the equinox, a green disk that outlines the 5° tilted orbit of the Moon, and a pair of small orange spheres that indicate ‘nodes’, the points where the Moon’s orbit meets with the plane of the Earth’s ecliptic.
4.9. Lunar Limits Another computational issue, which has been taken into consideration in this research, is the tilt of the Earth (known as the obliquity of the ecliptic) which changes over the millennia. Between 3500 BCE and 1500 BCE, the obliquity changed from 24.06° to 23.88°. When considering the Moon’s movement for this time frame, variations in the angle of the major and minor limit declinations occur, due in part by the amount of the change of the obliquity of the ecliptic. When interpreting a landmark such as a notch on the horizon to be a marker of the rising or setting Moon, the change in the Moon’s declination is automatically incorporated into any simulation.
The two primary motions of interest are, the Moon’s clockwise rotation (prograde) about the Earth, and the anti-clockwise (retrograde) precessional motion of its orbit (like the Earth, the Moon has a wobble causing this precession). This anti-clockwise motion of the Moon’s orbit takes 18.61 years to complete one cycle, at a rate of 19° 21’ per year. We are familiar with the 29.54 days it takes for the Moon to travel about the Earth (and Sun) to complete a lunation, whether it is a new Moon-to-newMoon, or full Moon-to-full Moon. However, this is 2 days longer than it takes for the Moon to attain the same point 1 www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; lunarrotation/MooncycleF.exe
file
One cannot simply take a declination measurement of a feature upon the horizon and then apply one of the Moon’s limit declinations, and, if the values then match, state that this is a point to which the centre of the Moon aligns on the day of that limit. We are reminded by Jean Meeus (1998: 337) that the Moon moves 1.7 arcseconds in 3 seconds of
name:
22
Computing the Neolithic Sky in azimuth of 1.5° is equivalent to three Moon widths. Some portion of the Moon may appear at the specific horizon feature of interest, and remain an outstanding and discernible visual phenomenon; however, the highprecision orientations sought by Thom should not be an aspect that archeoastronomers should be seeking. These facts are reinforced by the following quotation from Sims:
time, which equates to the Moon progressing across the sky at a rate of 34 arcseconds an hour. This progress across the sky is also an indicator of its progress from its monthly northern limit, to its southern limit, and back again. This increase or decrease in the Moon’s limit southern or northern declination is not from one day to the next, but from one month to the next. Therefore, in terms of change in declination the Table 4-5 illustrates the daily rate of change in declination, between the monthly limits at the time of the major and minor Limits. The issue this raises is if the actual limit lunar limit is reached 12 hours before the Moon attains the position of the horizon feature of interest, the Moon’s declination from its limit would have changed. In the case of a minor limit, by approximately 1.3° and in the case of a major limit, it would have changed by a factor of approximately 2.1°.
However, the limit geocentric declinations of the standstill Moon occur, almost invariably, during its transit in the heavens before or after the time it sets on the horizon. And as, unlike any other body in the sky, the Moon is constantly changing its declination value but almost invariably at some lower level. (Sims, 2006b: 191-207) One further point about the timing of the lunar Limits is illustrated in Figure 4-3, which contains two vertical lines, bounding an eleven months spread of lunar limit declinations. The declination range over these 11 months is 29.26° to 29.42° a difference of 0.16°. Taking into account the hourly change in declination raises the question, which month is being ‘marked’ on the horizon at the time of the limit?
Translating these variations in declination, to variations in horizon azimuth presents a lunar setting range from 0° to 1.5° deviation in any considered orientation; possibly even more depending on the horizon profile. This variation fits with Ruggles assessment of a low precision accuracy in megalith lunar orientations of ~1°, as discussed in chapter 2. Furthermore, the maximum possible variation Table 4-5. Moon’s hourly declination changes at the limits Limits
Northern declination
Southern declination
Total range
major
29.42948°
-29.43285°
minor
18.87884°
-18.86804°
Average change in declination daily
hourly
1/2 day
58.86233°
4.2044521°
~0.4°
2.1022260°
37.74688°
2.6962058°
~0.11°
1.3481029°
Figure 4-3. Monthly northern limits.
23
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation horizon azimuth reached by the lunar sphere as it sets. By comparing the dates in the table, it can be seen that on occasion the greatest horizon setting does not occur on the same day as the computed value, and may vary by a day either side. If the computed limit value was transposed to the horizon then the last column in Table 4-6 identifies the horizon delta in degrees that would occur from that transposition, as opposed to the actual setting position. The delta ranges from 3 arc-minutes to more than 0.5 of a degree, or a complete Moon diameter.
Thom hypothesised that the astroarchaeological record does indicate to us that a lunar limit was being ‘recorded’ by the limit being marked by a Stone’s edge indicating a notch on the horizon into which the Moon sets (Thom; 1978). However, marking the exact point for the singular date upon which the event happens has several issues. If indeed the Moon’s limit was being marked, it would seem that it is the year that is being recorded, rather than a single lunar event. For a single event in that year to be significant, it is possible that some other event is required to be occurring at the same time.
To provide a visual representation of the declination values given in Table 4-6 they are graphically displayed in Figure 4-4 (the coloured circles in the graph match the highlighted items in the table). The blue line in the graph represents the maximum computed declination from Table 4-6. Whereas, the pink line, is the actual declination at the time the Moon reaches the horizon (penultimate column of Table 4-6), the dashed line in the graph, marks the two greatest setting declinations, and visually illustrates how close these setting declinations are, even though they are a little over five months apart. This five month separation is an important point, which will be returned to shortly.
To test this argument further, a series of horizon settings for a year of lunar southern maximum was simulated. An arbitrary location was selected with no particular orientation to an orthostat, so as not to confuse the issue. The lunar year animation shows how the Moon’s setting position, moves to and fro, along the horizon for a year in which the Moon’s southern limit declination is reached. The animation illustrates that there is virtually no difference in the lunar position from that of the 23rd of May to that of the 2nd of November, which in fact is the date of the maximum limit. The question then becomes, what ‘calendric’ event is being marked the day or the year? If indeed, a calendric event is being marked at all. Table 4-6 identifies the computed lunar limit declination, compared to the actual declination at the horizon displayed in the simulation, in which the Moon’s altitude was controlled to the same value of 0.725°.
With the disparity in declination between the blue and pink graph lines, we might be concerned that it would be fruitless to consider any orientation between the Moon, an orthostat, and the horizon. The difference in azimuth between these two setting locations is 0.021° or 1.26′, a delta between the maximum declination (light green), and greatest setting declination (red) of 0.152° or 9.12′. The average deviation of actual to computed declination values, in this instance 0.276° amounts to 1° in azimuth,
The yellow highlighted value in Table 4-6 indicates the calculated maximum negative declination for the year, whereas, the red highlight indicates the actual greatest Table 4-6. Two years of lunar limit declinations Year -3485
Computed lunar southern major limit
Horizon setting value
Month
Day
Azimuth
Altitude
Declination Month
Day
Azimuth
Declination
Horizon Δ Degrees
4
26
297.45
-49.9079
-29.3459
26
205.913
-29.0883
0.2828674
4
-3485
5
23
297.611
-49.9228
-29.3176
5
23
205.128
-29.2609
0.0622835
-3485
7
16
298.641
-50.1184
-29.1129
7
16
206.952
-28.8800
0.2554714
-3485
8
13
299.26
-50.393
-29.1367
8
13
205.799
-29.0127
0.1360687
-3485
9
9
299.649
-50.6766
-29.2703
9
8
205.68
-29.1525
0.1293511
-3485
10
6
299.76
-50.8283
-29.4022
10
6
205.893
-29.0458
0.391372
-3485
11
2
299.79
-50.8087
-29.4129
11
2
205.107
-29.2379
0.1922670
-3485
11
30
300.019
-50.736
-29.2922
11
29
205.978
-29.0536
0.2619474
-3485
12
27
300.565
-50.7925
-29.1518
12
27
206.72
-28.8710
0.3080359
-3484
1
23
301.268
-51.0445
-29.116
1
23
206.020
-28.9164
0.2189650
-3484
2
19
301.816
-51.3621
-29.2079
2
19
206.74
-28.9386
0.2955087
-3484
4
14
301.935
-51.5123
-29.3957
4
13
205.723
-29.1015
0.3231072
-3484
5
11
301.904
-51.3544
-29.3261
5
10
206.227
-28.9145
0.4517609
-3484
6
8
302.182
-51.2591
-29.1759
6
7
206.812
-28.8000
0.4123138
-3484
7
5
302.804
-51.3705
-29.0521
7
4
206.976
-28.7102
0.3748278
-3484
8
1
303.543
-51.6813
-29.0433
7
31
207.605
-28.5477
0.5431089
-3484
8
28
304.062
-52.012
-29.1417
8
27
206.879
-28.7700
0.4076439
-3484
9
25
304.171
-52.1324
-29.2375
9
23
206.62
-28.8734
0.3995007
24
Computing the Neolithic Sky
Figure 4-4. Moon’s limit year declination comparison.
which has to be taken into consideration when using horizon orientations for the Moon. For the particular year chosen for the example, these two points are separated by more than 5 months, the time it takes for the Sun to realign with the nodes, which now will be a reversal of the prior nodal arrangement.
of 4.8′. These variations have to be taken into account and compensated for in site surveys and astronomical projections. 4.10. The Planets There is nothing to indicate that the ancient Britons consider the planets as part of their environment, but if they did, out of the 5 planets visible to the naked eye, Venus is the most likely planet to have been observed and have stones erected to mark its passage through the sky, for the following reasons:
There are 4 determinations that can be drawn from this discussion: • the Moon’s angular diameter, based on its varying distance to the Earth, ranges from 29.3′ to 34.1′ (0.48º – 0.53º) therefore, the declination deviation is within the visible size of the Moon, and for any orthostat orientation not even a full tilt of the head would adjust for such variation • it may be the year of the phenomenon that may be just as important as the event itself, and not necessarily the exact day of the ultimate limit • an error of ±1° in orientation of an orthostat bearing to an horizon setting, has to be considered acceptable (if not likely) • Thom, proposed the constructors of the monuments considered the Moon’s perturbation of 9′ had been included in the orientation of the stones at some megalithic sites is unsupportable (Thom: 1978, 46-47).
• it being the third brightest element in the firmament after the Sun and Moon • its retrograde wandering action, as it relates to the stars in the sky, looping back on itself • its disappearance in the night sky, only to reappear in the morning some days later, and …. • the planet’s cycle repeats itself after a period of eight years. The cycle between maximum elongations lasts 584 days. Since 5*584 = 2920 is equivalent to 8*365, this means that Venus returns to the same point in the sky every 8 years (minus 2 leap days). This synodic period was known as the Sothis cycle in ancient Egypt, and it was familiar to the Maya (Aveni; 2001, 186).
These determinations demonstrate that if any site might be considered via statistics to mark the 9′ wobble in orientation, it may well be the variation in the setting declination, (as illustrated above), and not the wobble that is being detected. It would be impossible to definitively state that a site marks the 9′ wobble, due to this separation in lunar setting declination (as exampled by the 9.12′ above) compounded with the variation in angular size
From an opposite perspective, there are several issues to consider, that restrict Venus being judiciously marked at the latitude of Scotland. The Limits, unlike those of the Sun or the Moon, are not consistent during its eight-year cycle. The declination Limits range on the horizon by 0.75º to 1.75º in azimuth. During the full 8 year cycle there are eight northerly and eight southerly Limits until the cycle repeats itself, with these 16 minor variations in such a small 25
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation declination range combined with the undulating Scottish horizons, orientations would fall into the category of the Hawkin’s paradigm (there is an orientation consequently the Neolithic intended it). However, a second aspect of the orbit of Venus that warrants investigation is the retrograde motion. For some sites, tests will be conducted during simulation runs for the Venus ‘loop back’ points. Having now established the computational and testing criteria to reflect the Neolithic sky it is necessary to develop the 3–dimensional landscape and reconstruction of the megaliths.
26
5 Changing Environmental Landscape Over the millennia, mountains have risen and had their peaks eroded by rain and ice. The tectonic plates, upon which land masses’ sit, have also moved during this period. When the glaciers retreated, sea levels rose, land masses either moved up, through the release of pressure, or down, due to greater eustatic pressures from the world’s oceans. To determine the reference frame within which the sites may have been constructed, and establish the base for testing the hypothesis, four factors have to be considered, those factors are:
plain and hillside, however, he does not provide a timeframe for this statement. Burgess (2003: 28) recognises that the prehistoric landscape was not covered by ‘a sea of virgin forest.’ Some foliage maps, such as those given by Birks, Deacon, & Peglar (1975), extend to northern Britain and incorporate Scotland, demonstrate pine coverage in the north eastern Highlands, and small amounts of oak and birch distributed equally, primarily in southern Scotland. Birks also required more palynological data from Argyll to be more definitive for that area (1975: 91). In concurrence with Birks, more specific vegetation details are required regarding the megalithic sites, under consideration for this research.
• is the limiting boundary of the last ice age at one limit, with historic time at the other? • the climatic environment from a human perspective; that is, a climate that is conducive to living, and able to provide adequate sustenance for a body of people that would be required to construct the megaliths • foliage and forestation i.e. might trees about the site constrain the viewing capability or affect the altitude of foresights • any archaeological records that may exist to definitively set the dates for the sites in question.
Descriptions about the vegetation in Argyll, the coastal region of western Scotland, tend to be broad and conflicting, with some authors having sparse vegetation and others such as Noble (2006: 7), having interpreted data from Tipping and Edwards, such as, Scotland being cloaked in trees. Tipping however, specifically states that the cloaking of trees may have been sparse woodland of low trees (1994: 13). He expressly states that coastal areas were omitted from his study – the specific geographic area this research is currently focused upon. Tipping also highlights the inexplicable areas of omission from the pollen analysts’ records, citing the Clydesdale region in Argyll. He also questioned the uneven quality of the pollen data to hand, stipulating that providing a comprehensive view of Scottish woodlands in pre-historic times is far from likely with the current data.
Rather than restrict the modelling of the sites to subjective time frames, such as using Thom’s (1978: 37) 1700 ±50 BCE, it was considered more thorough to set a date range that encompasses such time frames. Once this reference frame is established, the geodetic changes of plate tectonic movement and isostasis may then be considered. 5.1. Holocene Environment
As the sites being researched reside mainly in the Kintyre and Argyll coastal regions, generalised statements of Scotland being cloaked in trees have to be afforded diminished weight. Another occurrence that appears in the recording of pollen distribution is the broad spectrum, manner, in which maps are drawn, and subsequently interpreted. As an example, using a hypothetical 1000 square mile area on a map may be seen to illustrate the abundance of Oak, Birch and Hazel. However, the visual effect of a blocked out area on a drawing of a map, leads one to interpret that the whole area was covered with Birch, Hazel and Oak. Whereas, the correct interpretation is the predominant tree pollens found in this zone were Birch, Hazel and Oak, which does not mean that the trees per se, blanketed the area in its entirety.
The factors listed above will naturally fall within the Holocene time-period, a period that starts at the end of the last great ice age, 10,500 BCE through to the present day. Within this time period for Scotland, there has been a slow transition of bare rock, scarfed and scarred by glacial movement, being returned to soil coverage, which began approximately 9000 BCE; sufficiently enough that it would support plant life and human habitation. To determine the recovery of Scotland to an habitable environment, research was conducted of the palynological nature of the western Highlands; specifically, on the Isle of Mull (Walker, & Lowe: 1982), Islay (Dawson, Dawson, & Edwards: 1998), Isle of Lewis (Birks, & Madsen: 1979), and Oban (Macklin et al: 2000). 5.2. Foliage
For this investigation, clear statements of reference to the sites being investigated are required, in order to determine a distinct perspective, as to whether or not, forestation would interfere with the vistas. For the purpose of this modelling approach, the extent of
Extensive outlines are written regarding the vegetation aspects of southern Britain. For example, Burl (1981: 39) has the British countryside dense with forests in valley, 27
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation material was examined such as, Platers, et al (2000), diatoms examination from sediment, and Langdon, & Barber’s (2004), identification of pollen and Radiocarbon 14 dating. Their examination of the pollen deposits found in peat layers was also able to leverage volcanic tephra, found in the borehole extractions, to help solidify their date ranges. One question that needed to be answered was, what differences if any, occurred in the environment, from the western Isles (Lewis, Jura, Mull for example), across Scotland, and on to the Orkneys? To address this question, source material was drawn from various researchers, the locations of their research, along with the researcher’s name, is illustrated in Figure 5-1, below.
vegetation that has the potential of eliminating the view of the horizons, or change horizon elevations, as they do today, has to be understood in a fuller context. In order to conduct a systematic review of the vegetation reports, it was necessary to examine the details available, and formulate an understanding of the extent that foliage would, or would not, interfere with viewing perspectives from the orthostats, thereby, negating any consideration toward astronomical orientation. An investigation into the pollen distribution was undertaken, to develop a view of the foliage in Argyll during the Neolithic period. Including the perspective of i) air currents flowing from the offshore islands to the windswept coastal regions of the mainland and ii) identifying the distribution of trees across the plains and hilltops, surrounding the megalithic sites under investigation. 5.3. Detailed Pollen Investigation
The difficulty with the interpretation of any pollen analysis is reconstructing the spatial extent of different vegetation types from pollen analytical records, as there are a number of factors to be taken into account, these include:
Taking the foliage and forestation factor first, the primary source of determining the foliage evolution during the Holocene period is derived from radiocarbon dating of pollen, extracted from bore-holes. A multitude of source
• Pollen production – not all plants produce the same amount of pollen, and therefore some will be overrepresented in the pollen records, while others will be under-represented.
Figure 5-1. Pollen investigation reference site locations (Garmin Mapsource).
28
Changing Environmental Landscape • High pollen producers may have a low propagation rate. • Pollen dispersal – anemophilous pollen (windtransported) are more far-travelled than entomophilous (insect/animal transported). • Far travelled grains – some pollen (e.g. pine) can travel over enormous distances. • Pollen preservation – some grains are more robust than others’ and preserve better in the fossilised form. As a consequence, these will be over-represented in the records than the more fragile grains. • Atmospheric levels of CO2 causing growth rate and pollen creation differences between current plants, and those found in the core sample, may result in false analogistic comparisons.
then double the number of trees just because their pollen count has doubled (pine, for example, has a 1:4 ratio of trees versus pollen production). If however, the pollen diagrams are corrected, then, twice as much, tree pollen on the mainland, would translate to equal twice as many trees. Even with the ‘worse-case’ interpretation, it is still determined that trees were primarily located in protected areas (e.g. gullies, foot of hills), and alluvial fan zones, prior to deforestation, with heath the predominating coverage for hillsides. With this said, from a foliage perspective it may be concluded: • that distant hilltops and mountain ranges, used as foresights, had no tree coverage that needs to be accommodated for in the modelling process • tree coverage on the isles, is of minimal concern from 7000 BCE, to the nearer limit of the time period under investigation • on the mainland, tree coverage need only be considered as a potential sightline obstruction, when sites are positioned in the lea of hills or located in an alluvial fan.
Researchers such as Lowe, & Walker (1986) and Walker et al (1988; 1982) have demonstrated that during the early Holocene period i.e. 11,000 – 7,000 BCE the vegetation development was broadly similar across the western Isles and mainland Scotland. Whilst Bunting (1994) determined for the Island of Orkney that, after substantial tree growth, circa 8900 BCE, this growth pattern was largely lost by 5700 BCE.
Note: the mainland dates on the left are a linear time progression; the dates to the right are exponential. Ashmore investigated peat slippage and resultant overlay dating issues. The dating to core depth followed an expected exponential curve with one exception, to compare ‘apples with apples’ that exception has been adjusted for in this diagram. (David and Tipping; 2004, Ashmore; 2000)
Works that addressed the later Holocene period, Birks and Madsen (1979), Fossitt (1996) and Ashmore, et al (2000) determined that minimal woodland existed from 5000 BCE until the current time, both on the Islands, as well as within the mainland. Bohncke (1988: 460) states that the woodland on the Isle of Lewis and Harris was finally cleared at Callanish at 3500 BCE coinciding with the projected construction time of Callanish. However, as there is no corroborating evidence of the date for Callanish construction, this gives the appearance of circular reasoning. Birks & Birks (1980: 52) reassessment of pine stumps in peat bogs on the Isle of Lewis, estimated that they grew and died between 2500 to 2000 BCE. From the perspective of being inclusive rather than exclusive, such contradictions as these, from a foliage perspective, cause the 3-dimensional modelling boundary, to be set at the earlier time.
One may also conjecture that if the erectors of the megalithic sites could manipulate and position 3-4 metre long stones, weighing several tons, it would not take much to fell a tree or two, if any did indeed, obscure their view. The results in this determination correlate closely with those of Skinner and Brown (1999) who performed a palynological investigation into the north western part of Britain, specifically in Cumbria, a coastal region slightly south of, but with a similar coastal exposure as Argyll.
Figure 5-2 illustrates, that the foliage coverage for the mainland and Outer Hebrides, very much followed the same time regime. The figure also illustrates a high degree of correlation between the mainland investigations of Davies & Tipping (2004) and those of the Outer Hebrides conducted by Ashmore (2000). Regrettably, the data from Davies and Tipping does not show pollen records for dates as far back as Ashmore’s. However, if the correlation is accepted, then we may conclude that the foliage coverage during the timeperiod of 6000 BP (4000 BCE) to 4000 BP (2000 BCE) was low in trees, and high in grass and herbs. Further complications arise in this analysis, due to the fact that, neither Davies nor Ashmore stipulate whether the pollen diagrams are corrected, or remain uncorrected, according to correction factors outlined by Andersen (1970). If it is assumed they are not corrected, we cannot
5.4. Climate As with vegetation, climatic conditions could influence the viability of astronomical observations, extinction angles for stars might be increased, or water in the terms of clouds, or water vapour could reduce visibility, or impact light refraction negating viable orientations. Therefore, a brief excursion is necessary to articulate the weather conditions, and understand if the environment could support the day-to-day observations required to determine a solstice point. A similar situation arises here, as it does with the vegetation growth patterns of the time, in understanding the influence of climatic conditions in that, climatic statements are broad in nature, whereas a narrower, millennia by millennia understanding, is required for this research. 29
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 5-2. Pollen record. Left: after Davies and Tipping, West Glen Afflic mainland (heath and shrub combined). Right: after Ashmore; Barra, Outer Hebrides.
Milankovitch (1998) has identified three major Sun-Earth based cycles that influence the climatic conditions on Earth quite dramatically, these are:
to winter, the Earth was further from the Sun as it travelled along the elliptical path, with its tilt away from the Sun, making winter more severe and potentially less moist, and changing light refraction through the atmosphere. Summer on the other hand, would be warmer. John Kutzbach states that the ‘values for the precession and obliquity of the Earth 9000 years ago indicate that the global average solar radiation for July was 7 percent greater than at present’ (1981: 59), identifying clearly, the impact that precession had upon weather conditions. Kutzbach also goes on to identify, that the temperature peaked around 4000 BCE and was stable for 200 years.
• the Earth’s eccentricity – a 100,000 year cycle, influencing glaciations • the axial tilt (obliquity) of the Earth – a 41,000 year cycle • and precession – 25,780 years to complete its cycle. Each aspect influences the amount of solar radiation that impacts the Earth, and hence the climatic conditions, with precession an additional influence, that of changing the duration of the seasons.
Higher radiation and elevated temperatures, would at first, lead us to think that the moisture levels would also be higher (higher temperatures allow the air to retain more water), but Kutzbach maintains that, the higher rainfall was directed toward the African and Indian continents. Various models have determined the conditions for the Earth in pre-historic times. The data from Macklin’s et al (2000) specific research in Scotland, Figure 5-3, indicates that the humidity levels from 3500 to 1300 BCE (55003300 BP) were, in the main, lower than they are today,
An overview to the seasonal aspects of precession was addressed in chapter 4. To reiterate; today, perihelion occurs in January, close to our winter solstice. The Earth’s North Pole is tilted away from the Sun at this time, reducing slightly the solar radiation to the northern hemisphere, resulting in the winter period for that hemisphere. However, 5500 years ago perihelion occurred in September, when the North Pole was at right angles to the Sun (see Figure 4-2). Therefore, autumn was about the same, but when it came 30
Changing Environmental Landscape
Figure 5-3. Humidity levels, present day is base 0 (after Maklin et al; 2000).
making for clearer skies in the British Isles, and thereby enabling greater celestial observations than are possible today.
BCE, with cereal pollen increasing dramatically at that time. The change from tree to cereal pollen is a consistent model used to indicate the transition from foraging to farming. However, land clearance was also required for the husbandry of animals, an activity that would indicate a grass or scrub-land environment, and not necessarily containing cereal pollen.
5.5. Human Activity A further aspect of setting the ‘range of dates’ under investigation is by researching any archaeological record that identifies human activity within the area. There are certain factors that need to be taken into consideration when setting the time base for human activity, such as:
Any period identified as, tundra in form, is not recognised as potential farming activity, as Tipping suggests, this absence of evidence could indicate pastoral farming. A more tangible form of evidence has been found in southern England, specifically Wessex, where markings that are the result of ploughing in the late fourth millennia through the action of oxen (Burgess 1980: 29), demonstrates that animal husbandry would also have been present. We have been shown by Burgess that woollen clothing was developed and worn by the Neolithic in the fourth millennia, and milk products may well have been consumed even if the animals were not. This means that human activity could well have occurred prior to cereal plantings, particularly in areas where pastoral farming is better performed than arable farming, i.e. the rolling wind swept hills and alluvial plains of western Scotland.
• the time it takes for soil redevelopment after glaciation • sufficient development of vegetation, in order to provide conditions for hunting, gathering and farming. For many years the caves in the Oban region of Scotland set the timescale of regular occupancy to be circa 4700 BCE. However, radiocarbon dating of bone artefacts has shown occupancy extending back to at least 6350 BCE (Macklin 2000: 110). Recent studies on the Isle of Skye have shown that humans were active in the western isles and mainland of Scotland in 7500 BCE. Richard Gregory, et al (2005: 948), have demonstrated, by analysing charcoal deposits from a ‘fire pit’, that humans were active on the Isle of Harris in the Outer Hebrides around 7980 ±50 BCE (converted from the radio carbon data of 7060 BCE, using the chart in the appendix derived from the programme CALIB developed by Stuiver, Reimer, & Reimer).
Schulting and Richard (2002: 155), in the same geographic area as Maklin in Figure 5-1, determined subsistence diet by performing stable isotope analysis of bone collagen, and demonstrated, surprisingly, a stable diet of land based protein and very little, if any seafood; again indicating an occupancy of the Carding Mill Bay area of 5000 BCE. The protein diet determined by this research, reinforces Macklin’s deforestation theory, and supports a strong indication of farming for both livestock, as well as cereal
On mainland Scotland, investigations made in the Oban area by Macklin et al (2000: 113) give an indication when the transition from foraging to arable farming, and serious deforestation began in earnest, around 3500-3000 31
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 5-1. Setting the foliage time frame Period
BP
BCE
Condition
Iron Age
2450
500
wet
Foliage
Early Bronze Age
4050
2100
Dry moving to wet Increase in trees
Evidence Increase pine pollen
5500
3550
dry
Heath, shrub,
5650
3700
dry
deforestation
Early agriculture
6500
4550
Wet moving to dry Land clearance
Cereal pollen present probably pastoral
7400-6800
5450-4850
wet
Pine
Low levels of charcoal
Mesolithic foraging
8100
6150
dry
9010-8600
7060-8600
Warm Oceanic
Hazel (corylus)
Burnt hazel in fire pit
Late Neolithic farming
growth. Further occupation data is given in Graham Ritchie’s in-depth study of the Archaeology of Argyll (1997: 45) where he reports on the carbon dating of fire hearths within the houses of early farming communities, to range from 3699 to 2500 BCE. Assembling the foregoing information of the three topics of foliage, climate and human intervention for the Argyll area, into a table, helps to hone in on the conditions and target dates, to set the study range for the western Highlands; and if time permits the Orkneys and Outer Hebrides. Table 5-1 summarises this information. The megalithic sites would require a population large enough to have both a communal justification for construction, in addition to the necessary man power. Therefore, the elected date to bound the furthest epoch for analysis, is 3500 BCE, the time when deforestation, farming both animal husbandry (heath and shrub), and cereal production, was beginning in earnest. The other end of the date range should encompass the period beginning with the tree expansion from 3475 to 2350 BCE. The population growth calculation of Burgess (2003: 234) supports the premise that adequate resources would be available in this time range. In addition, with Thom’s dating of 1770 BCE for some sites, a safe lower date to set the range would be the beginning of the Iron Age resulting in a testing date range of, 3500-1500 BCE. Current values set by several authors regarding the dates of site construction, all fall in the 1750 to 1650 BCE, are primarily derived from Thom’s (1978: 44) publication. Therefore, the determined date range for this research not only encompasses existing projections comfortably, but also extends the earlier time-period to that of the cairn construction within the Kilmartin Valley of Argyll. The climatic conditions, for this date range also indicate that astronomical observations may well have been with clearer skies, which means no adjustments beyond what would normally be employed for such artefacts’ as refraction and extinction angles have to be taken into consideration. In fact, using the adjustments that are required for today’s environment means that the simulations err on the side of conservatism.
32
Heavy cereal pollen
6 Model Construction The research approach, in examining archaeological sites, is a scientific experiment as a determination of its stated goals therefore, as in any scientific endeavour, it is necessary to document the procedures that were followed, in a manner consistent with an experimental approach, which permits others to examine, repeat, or challenge the results and the conclusions drawn. This section enters into the details of the creation of the 3-dimensional models. To that end, a detailed systematic explanation regarding the model construction process is presented, herewith.
manner. Ideally, each photograph of a stone’s face is taken from the same distance and perpendicular to that face. However, it is not always possible to achieve this, due to another stones location, or the severe angle at which the stone may be leaning, resulting in one or two face photographs needing adjusting to scale. Fortunately, any adjustments can easily be made in Photoshop® and still maintain the integrity of the model. The adjustment to the photographs is achieved by locating identifying points, in two or more of the images that can be aligned. The limits – top and bottom – are not used, particularly in the case of leaning stones, as perspective would distort the relationships. Points within the ‘trunk’ of the stone are sought. In most instances there is only one image that requires scaling in this manner. Figure 6-1, illustrates how the same feature in different photographs are aligned with each other. Once adjusted for consistency, a single image is created from the individually aligned images, of each side of the stone.
6.1. The Process of Generating a Model To create the 3-dimensional models of each site, multiple stages are undertaken; the following bullet items, outlines those stages that are described in detail within this chapter: • Site survey actions • The modelling of the stones themselves • The development of the site topography using GIS map data • The marriage of the stone models to the correct position and orientation • Development of the time related movement of the celestial objects (chapter 4) • The time related adjustment of the land mass (chapters 5 and 6) • Experimentation, testing observational alternatives.
The next stage in the process is the employment of the 3-dimensional modelling software. The package used in this instance is AC3D, available from Inivis (http://www. inivis.com). As the measuring equipment used in the field was based in inches, the normal ten unit major grid separation within the modelling tool was carefully adjusted, so that each major grid separation represented one foot, and each minor grid mark represented one inch. The accuracy was verified by employing a photograph of a CSI (crime scene investigators) measuring tape as a background image within the tool.
The final stage of performing the reiterative, experimental investigation, into what the Scottish Neolithic people were feasibly observing, at each site, will be discussed in chapter 7. 6.2. 3-Dimensional Modelling of the Stones
With the modelling system set, the first step is to add bars representing the dimensions of the base of each face, which are drawn to scale; a colour code was employed for ease of applying the dimensional bar to the appropriate face of the model (stone). Two copies of these dimensional bars are generated, and the ‘true’ bearings obtained during the site survey are then applied to one set; which are used in arranging the final orientation of the stone, whilst the second set is used to set the base dimensions – rendering a footprint, as it were.
Modelling the stones comprised: • Required site visit and survey • Dimensionally correct wire-frame model (using AC3D software) • The mapping of the photographic image of each face to each stone • Extrapolated height measurements for each stone from the model • Positioning the stones of each site by bearing and distance to each other, using measured and computed distances.
There is a sound reason for using two sets of marker bars. Due to the non-uniform nature of the stone itself, the bearing at the base of the stone may not reflect the compass bearing taken of the corresponding face. For this reason, the base ‘footprint’ markers are joined at the corners, as point-to-point measurements were taken. Conversely, the
To create a model of each stone that is an accurate representation, photographs, measurements and bearings taken during the site survey are utilised in the following 33
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 6-1. Photograph scale correction technique.
Figure 6-2. Setting base dimensions.
34
Model Construction
Figure 6-3. Setting the footprint of the base.
Figure 6-4. Creating the frame.
markers used for the faces do not necessarily have their corners joined, but the bearings are maintained to ensure as accurate a re-creation as possible.
The single image created in the first step is then loaded as a background into the modelling tool, and scaled to the dimensional bars, for both height and the base measurements, as shown in Figure 6-5. Any scaling errors made in the initial image adjustment, will become obvious, and that step can be revisited to make the appropriate corrections to the image.
A box comprising a wire mesh 4 x 4 x 12 units is then created (see Figure 6-4) and shaped to the footprint generated in the previous step. 35
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 6-5. Setting the dimensions.
Figure 6-6. Shaping the model.
36
Model Construction
Figure 6-7. The final model (stone 4 of Nether Largie).
The mesh is now sized to the background image and the shape derived by adjusting the position of the vertices within the mesh (blue dots in Figure 6-6). The overall height can then be extrapolated and entered into the survey data tables (in red). Once the shape has been derived the, single image generated in the first step, and used as the background, is then applied like a skin, wrapping it around the wire frame, resulting in a 3-dimensional representation of the stone, set to correct scale and current appearance. See Figure 6-7. As a last step, the model is rotated to a compass bearing of one of the faces, so that the correct orientation is incorporated. The model is then exported to the format acceptable for input to the ray-tracing software, used for the full site interrogation. Spin animation of the completed model may be found at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.htm file name stone4/stone4.exe
37
7 Topography With the models of each stone completed, the 3-dimensional landscape is then created. Various considerations had to be taken into account, to ensure an accurate rendition of the topography into which the megaliths reside. Those considerations are presented in the following sections.
Digital Terrain Model (DTM) tiles. These tiles were to be used within ESRI’s geographical information system suite of software tools, ArcGIS. The ArcGIS suite comprises ArcCatalog, ArcMap and ArcScene. The individual OSGB files are made available in a non-proprietary format (NTF), requiring conversion to the selected software tool. In order for the tiles to be accessible within the ESRI’s tool suite, the ESRI NTF converter was initially used for the purpose.
7.1. GPS and the British Mapping System The British mapping system, from which the digital topographic data is derived, uses a different geodic reference system representation of the Earth (Airy, 1830), than the geoid that best suits the globe in general (WGS84). A full explanation of this difference can be found in the OSGB publication ‘A Guide to Coordinate Systems in Great Britain’ (2010).
The individual tiles relating to a particular terrain pertinent to a site under investigation, are not combined into one large topographic set, but are kept separate, after the fashion of a jigsaw puzzle. This separation served several purposes. First, to facilitate tectonic plate rotation and isostatic uplift adjustments, to be made independently. Secondly, when using foresights that might be several kilometres away, separation was maintained allowing for the different rotation and uplift occurring, in accordance with the distance separating of the foresight from that of the site itself. Lastly, ESRI’s 3-dimensional package ArcScene has limit difficulty in managing large data files therefore, separating the files into smaller packages was absolutely necessary.
All Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware, utilises the arrangement of the American global satellites, which employ the WGS84 (equivalent to the European etr89) reference system (a geocentric system and globally consistent within ±1 m). As presented in chapter 3, OSGB map tiles are used; therefore GPS readings require transformation from WGS84 values to the OSGB values. There are standard formulas to achieve this transformation with high accuracy, and they are incorporated within the GPS unit employed in the site surveys and need not be presented here. These formulae are also available in the form of a spreadsheet from the Ordnance Survey web site. One set of formulas, as they relate to geographic positioning that does warrant highlighting, are those used to determine distance based on two latitude and longitude readings. The formulas of Vincenty (1975) were employed to verify GPS readings, bearings and distance measurements taken on site, or in some instances, to determine the distance if tape measurement was not possible.
Two major issues require thorough explanation to expose fully the limiting accuracy of the resultant models. The first major issue is the inability of ESRI’s ArcScene, to convert effectively the DTM tiles from their inherent 2-dimensional paper map projection representation, into 3-dimensional geographic representation, without the use of arbitrary manipulation. I considered this arbitrary adjustment to be unacceptable and unsupportable in any legitimate discussion on orientation to landscape features, within the model; therefore, a different method had to be found for an effective use of the 3-dimensional projection maps. How this was achieved will be presented shortly.
The GIS mapping of the site is the next stage of model creation, which comprises:
The second major issue is a result of the first. Geographic coordinate maps are aligned to Earth’s true north, the point to which all bearings of celestial objects and the megaliths themselves are connected. Whereas, projection maps are aligned to a pre-determined north that facilitates ease of paper map generation and reading, see Figure 7-1. This pre-determined north is known as grid north – indicated by the black arrow in the figure, the red arrow indicating true north. The difference between these positions is termed convergence and differs for each tile; in fact it differs from the western edge of a tile to that of its eastern counterpart. The blue arrow in Figure 7-1, denotes a direction between two features within the 2-dimensional map.
• selection of the appropriate Ordnance Survey maps • conversion to industry standard viewing software (ESRI ArcGIS) • distances and location verification • export 3-dimensional views (from ESRI’s ArcScene) of the topology to VRML • convert to the ray tracing format. To facilitate the accurate representation of the 3-dimensional terrain upon which the sites stand, as mentioned earlier, use was made of the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain’s (OSGB) National Grid collection of 39
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 7-1. ArcMap projection image of Kilmartin Vale as laid out by Ordnance Survey (ESRI).
Figure 7-2. Geographic image of the Kilmartin Vale (ESRI).
The same Kilmartin vale that is shown in Figure 7-1 is illustrated in Figure 7-2 with the correct geographic rendition applied; the blue arrow is a copy from Figure 7-1, the lime green arrow showing the shift in landscape, when viewing the same landmark from the same location.
Adjustment to the computer generated topographic map is therefore, needed for correct interpretation of horizon events. Coordinates of celestial objects have to be transposed from the geocentric (Earth centred) standard, to the observer’s location, whether that transposition is to a right ascension, declination, or altitude and azimuth. 40
Topography To address these issues and the aforementioned limitations of the ESRI’s ArcGIS suite, another software tool was sought. Landserf© available for free download from Jo Wood at City University London, was found to be effective in reading the OSGB tiles directly, without needing an external converter. Furthermore, it required no arbitrary settings to generate the 3-dimensional geographic projection. However, in exporting the file for use within the ray-tracing software POV-Ray (required to combine the site models) it exhibited a similar handicap as that of ESRI. That is, the ray-tracing software requires point references in Cartesian coordinates x,y,z, whereas, the point references generated in the exported geographic projection format, by both ESRI and Landserf, are given as latitude and longitude. Therefore, another conversion would have to be performed. Each tool however, exports to a virtual reality format, referred to as VRML. A standard conversion routine exists that reads VRML files and converts them to POV-Ray format, whereby the projection map “point reference” output, of each tool, is made in the desired x,y,z format. However, there are two ways to identify this point data within VRML, as a height field from a defined grid, or as a coordinate point. Landserf exports height fields, ESRI exports coordinate points. The converter recognises coordinate points and not height field, so reluctantly Landserf was only employed for the 3-dimensional creation, which was then imported into ArcScene for the final landmass conversion to VRML.
In either case, true north is the starting point of each of these coordinate systems. As the celestial objects and the bearings of the stones are aligned to true north, the investigator is presented with two alternatives: • adjust the coordinate system for the celestial objects and the bearings of the stones, to match the grid north orientation, or • adjust the landmass, to match the true positions as determined by the coordinate system. As the landmass was being adjusted for isostasis and plate rotation, consistency and maintaining only a single point for any errors that may be induced dictated that alternative 2 be taken. Please note that Figure 7-2 illustrates, along with the shearing effect of the topography, that the landmass appears compressed from top to bottom, in comparison with the paper map projection of Figure 7-1. This compression comes into discussion when attempts are made to date some of the sites. Positioning of the landmasses therefore, is of concern, particularly when they are ‘detached’ from the site in question, such as the Isles of Jura and Islay.
Building the 3-dimensional Map Download Profile DTM tiles for best resolution and height parameters
The delta, convergence, that exists between the grid north and true north, can be computed for any location within Great Britain. To make the adjustment, the tiles that represent the landmass upon which the site sits, and the surrounding tiles, were rotated by the convergence value in the appropriate direction, for each site. For example, Nether Largie resides within the map area referenced as nm89nw. The convergence value (delta from grid north to true north) for Nether Largie is 2.9°. To affect the convergence, each tile was rotated about the site centre by this amount. However, this rotation is conditional; the rotation is only required when viewing horizon events that are other than equinoctial. For the sites being considered in this examination, the convergence values for each of their locations are:
ESRI’s MapManager converts NTF files to ESRI format Start ArcMap and ensure the initial ‘Layer’ has a spatial reference set to Ordnance survey National Grid Add the OSGB tiles of the region in question Add new layers. One for each landmass or subset for use in ArcScene
In the approach taken to ensure accurate representation within the model, the tile alignments were verified by selecting a prominent point that would be visible from the site, determining that points true azimuth from the site, and then placing an object within the programme at the specific true north based coordinates of the point selected. The appropriate convergence value from Table 7-1 for each tile, was applied according to the direction the observer was viewing the scene. To be specific, if an equatorial event was being modelled, no convergence rotation was applied, even in projection maps – east is east and west is west. However, if a lunar limit, or solar solstice rise or set, was being modelled, the appropriate convergence value was employed to rotate the tile, to achieve an accurate horizon profile.
Use Spatial Analyst to Generate TIN files for height rendering and required data format for export. Save as layer for import into ArcScene In ArcScene import layers. Export individual layers to 3-D vrml format. Convert Vrml files to POV ray format PROCESS STEP 3 41
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation resulting accuracy achieved is within a fraction of a degree. For landmasses detached from the main site, a separate rotation was also tested, for example, the isles of Jura, Islay and Gigha were rotated by 2o, 3o and 3.5o respectively; the most accurate rendition being employed in each site interrogation. For simulation purposes, the vista being examined was run with both of the modelling conditions. That is, with convergence rotation turned on, and with it turned off, any significance between the two conditions being noted in the investigative report for the site. The areas where this convergence rotation would exhibit the most effect is in situations where an horizon feature would be deemed a foresight, or an orientation marker of a celestial event. Only simulation will tell the extent of the potential impact.
Figure 7-3 demonstrates this approach in the case of the Isles of Jura and Islay. Directional markers, lines and circles, in the figure, depict specific angles: the long line represents 270o from the site, the short line 280o and the dot in the middle on the image (marked by a red circle) just above the mountain top indicating the coordinates of the prominent point selected. Within the model, the landmass was rotated to adjust for any minor discrepancies; Table 7-1. Site OSGB grid north to true north convergence values An Car
-2.83°
Ballochroy
-2.98°
Ballymeanoch
-2.89°
Brainport Bay
-2.90°
Carnasserie
-2.89°
Dunamuck (Achnaschelloch)
-2.87°
Escart
-2.84°
Kintraw
-2.9°
Nether Largie
-2.89°
Torbhlaran
-2.85°
Tiraghoil (Mull)
-3.56°
7.1.1. Incorporating the Plate Tectonic and Isostatic Motions As the land moves, so go the stones, resulting in the actual latitude, longitude and elevation of the site and the menhirs within it, changing in concert with these effects. This means, these effects have to be taken into consideration when computing the positions of the celestial objects. Incorporation of isostatic (as illustrated
Figure 7-3. Ensuring correct alignment using directional markers.
42
Topography
Figure 7-4. Exaggerated isostatic movement.
in Figure 7-4) and plate tectonic movement, to reposition the site and landmasses, was computed for the epoch in question, and applied dynamically to each model. Figure A1-7 within the online material regarding plate tectonics, illustrates the rotational aspects of plate tectonics. The further away from a megalithic monument the foresight is, the greater the potential that land movement is implicated in any orientation consideration. Conversely, if the foresight is a hillside close to the megaliths, the rotational aspects would have minimal, or no impact.
Figure 7-5. Oblate spheroid.
The preceding processes with ESRI were arduous, frustrating, time consuming, and were performed incrementally for each area; should anyone wish to execute a similar examination it is highly recommended that an alternative method be considered. It is very disconcerting to see many months of laborious work synthesised into a few paragraphs.
The effect for isostatic movement is complicated by the difference in distance that the foresight and the monument have from the ‘epicentre’ of the glacial pressure. The result is a change in the celestial objects altitude, for it to appear at a specific foresight. A different altitude infers a different azimuth, possibly indicating a different epoch in which the celestial alignment to the horizon actually occurred.
One final consideration, in accurately rendering a 3-dimensional Earth, is the Earth’s physical shape, that is, the globe is an oblate spheroid not a sphere, see Figure 7-5. Therefore, an investigation as to whether the Earth’s oblate shape would have any implication in generating the 3-dimensional representations was undertaken. However, with the flattening effect of the Earth’s rotation, the local zenith for the observer differs slightly from the observers stated latitude (Φ – Φ’ in the figure). Experimentation in the modelling software proved that no visible effect could be detected, and therefore, any adjustment to allow for the non-spherical Earth, was unnecessary.
Incorporation of plate tectonic and isostatic movement, to the position determined for the time period being examined, was then a matter of an additional rotation by the calculated angle, and transferring the landmasses and stones downwards, by the computed amount. Simulations are able to be conducted incorporating either, or both, land movements, providing the capability to compare and contrast, if either, or both land motions, actually made any difference. The time based tectonic and isostatic formulas to make the land movement adjustments, determined in the previous chapters, were incorporated into each of the topographical tiles.
7.2. Celestial Programming With all the foregoing concerns outlined, there are a variety of tasks that have to be performed, before the analysis may begin. First and foremost, the accurate computation, of the positions of the celestial objects, as they relate to the time period under consideration was undertaken. The first sojourn into programming celestial objects was to employ Peter Duffett-Smith’s popular book Practical Astronomy with your Calculator (1988) but the time span for which the formulae are accurate is limited to ±2000 years from its base of 1950. The same limitation was found with the US Navy’s Astronomical Almanac (1990). However, both texts were useful in the testing and verification of the developed programmes.
Having achieved the sufficiently accurate topographical layouts and positions of each site under review it is now necessary to prepare the layouts for use in POV-Ray, the mathematical ray-tracing tool to be used for testing alignments. POV-Ray utilises a triangular network to represent 3-dimensional objects, such as the stones and landmasses. To generate compatible format files ESRI’s ArcScene was employed. Unfortunately, there is no direct export from ArcScene to POV-Ray (only exports to VRML – a web-based file format) so an intermediate step had to be taken. Finally, a VRML to POV-Ray converter, created by Paul Thiessen1 (a chemist with a requirement to represent DNA and molecular structures in 3-dimensions), was utilised.
1
The quintessential text for positioning celestial objects was found to be Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus (1998) for all areas except the Moon, for which there is none better than the work of Michelle Chapront-Touzé and Jean Chapront (1991). The planetary positions were also verified via the Planetary Programs and Tables of Bretagnon and Simon (1986).
http://www.chemicalgraphics.com/paul/vrml2pov/
43
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 7-2. Programmes written in PovRay Main Object
Content Description
Sun/Earth
Geocentric computation of the Earth-Sun relationship. Based on Meeus.
Moon
Geocentric lunar-Earth relationship, based on Meeus and Chapront
Planets
1 for each visible planet.
Stars
All visible stars of 5.5 and brighter filtered from the Yale Brightstar catalog. Movement over time computed using Meeus.
Solar Macro’s
Commonly used routines for aberration, nutation, parallax, refraction, coordinate conversions, placement of celestial objects.
Environment
Routines to control landscape grass colour, sky, lighting the scene and animations. 46 megalith models.
Sites
11 site routines controlling the site control point, access to the correct mapping tiles and stones appropriate for the site. Plus the isostatic and tectonic related formulas.
Land Tiles
70+ tiles that cover Argyll, Kintyre, Isle of Jura, Orkney and Mull.
Main
Control routine for scene variables and selecting appropriate sub programmes based on scene variables.
had to be made so that they would not appear in front of the planets; likewise the Sun and Moon. Once this first level of scaling was set, the sizes of the celestial objects were then scaled to represent accurately their angular diameter, as viewed from the Earth. This was achieved by setting markers at the exact diameter of the Sun, and the object representing the Sun scaled to fit those markers. This scale factor was then employed for the remaining celestial objects.
Each programme routine was written in the native language of POV-Ray. In the case of the 3-dimensional stone models and the ordnance survey tiles which were converted to POV-Ray. Rather than put full explanations of every aspect of the programmes, the programmes themselves are reasonably well documented; therefore, just a brief outline of each programme is given in Table 7-2. The culmination of the foregoing work occurs at the stage where each of the individual portions of the model: topography, stone models, and celestial programming for planetary and stellar positioning, are combined into a single package, this occurs within the Ray-tracing software.
7.4. The Process of Assembling the Components For every site to be interrogated, the necessary GIS files were assembled. An assessment of the various aspects to be initially tested e.g. solar orientations was then determined. Types of events to simulate for consideration into the interrogation:
7.3. Ray Tracing As the computation for the image to be generated is made pixel by pixel, this is not a speedy task, particularly as selecting a large pictorial output, provides both a greater accuracy, and a larger pixel count. Further advantages of ray tracing are; the freedom with which a light source, a viewing location, and the direction in which to look, may all be treated as variables, and thereby, may be modified as needed. In this instance, the light source is positioned at the exact location of the computed geocentric position of the celestial object being analysed, and then translated to its apparent location, as perceived by the observer. The resultant output is an image, as if a camera were placed at the viewing location, and a photograph taken for that instant in time. Being able to view an image, which represents the topology, and ray of light that depicts the viewable line of a celestial object, becomes the lynchpin of this research.
• Daily, monthly, annual and periodic rise/set sequences of the Sun, Moon, Planets and possibly stars • Specific date rise/set sequences (e.g. solstice, equinox) • Observation points • Interaction between observed celestial object and site object – e.g. stones with sloping tops (false horizon). These events would involve: • Incorporating ancillary artefacts for the model (e.g cairn at Ballochroy) • Setting interrogation date and loop cycles for movie generation • Setting the viewing position • Running test loops • Generating computerized site images.
POV-Ray has several limiting factors to contend with, for example, there is a 107 limit in the object placement within the model, with all dimensions being set in metres, the positional values for most celestial objects exceed this limit. Therefore, scaling had to be achieved so that celestial objects would display correctly. Stars for instance could simply be made closer, but adjustments
To facilitate the ease of image interpretation, the obser vation point was set, in the majority of case, at 5 metres from the object being observed. The exceptions to this standard are either i) a perceived viewing marker, such as those at Nether Largie, dictated the observation point or, ii) when the top of a menhir is being considered to coincide 44
Topography with a hill, the stone’s height and the land surrounding the stone, determines where to set the observer’s position.
Model data, used for generating the topographic outline of the landscape, is stated by the Ordnance Survey to be accurate to ±1 metre. At distances to foresights greater than a few hundred metres, this variance has no impact to the outcome.
At this point in the process, algorithms could have been written to assess automatically the possibility of orientations for each site. That approach was deliberately avoided for two reasons. First, the premise stated earlier, was to visualise what the Neolithic witnessed, and possibly sense the same issues that they did. Secondly, not to have a computer ‘dictate’, what is and is not, an orientation, vis-à-vis Hawkins (1965). Therefore, once the initial interrogation aspect had been determined, each site was painstakingly explored manually. By this method, interesting and unexpected events arose which would not have been detected through computerised algorithms. After the initial inductive investigations, new perspectives were deduced, instigating the re-setting of the observation point for further investigation, and understanding of any of its implications.
GPS values were compared with site locations reported by RCAHMS, however, the RCAHMS data rarely stipulates any physical object within the site to which that data may relate. With a major portion of the variables addressed within the modelling process, the setting of the compass bearing to the surfaces of the stones, and the GPS readings, have the potential for the greatest impact; particularly when relating one orthostat with another, within the site itself. This proves, at least with the sites selected, not to be a point of great concern, as few orientations uncovered require dual orthostat alignment. Several points need to be reinforced regarding the model construction. First, the calculated positions of celestial objects are oriented to the latitude and longitude of the location of the site in question. These values of latitude and longitude, by the very nature of the tectonic movement, have changed slightly; although minor, the necessary adjustments have been incorporated in the models for positioning the landmasses, the placement of the orthostats, and computing the position of the celestial objects.
7.5. Animation The final step, before analysis could begin in recreating the celestial world of the Neolithic of Argyll, was the animation of the individual images created. This was achieved by establishing time loop sequences within the programme (a similar effect as time-lapsed photography), where a new image would be created on each pass through the loop. A programme loop could be made for minutes, hours, days or years, with the loop using both a set increment in time, together with a count of the number of iterations within the loop, to produce the requisite number of images. This final step is a compute intensive activity. Depending on the complexity of the site, to generate a set of 35 images to construct an animation sequence, the time taken may vary from 4 to 14 hours on a reasonably fast computer.
Secondly, to reiterate, a lunar limit does not necessarily occur at a full Moon, and even if it did, the maximum declination need not occur on the horizon, but at any time during the day in question. The time, then taken by the Moon to reach the horizon, will diminish its declination, and therefore, the ‘mathematical’ limit, need not necessarily, be reflected in any orientation toward an horizon feature. With this said, no attempt was undertaken to verify or dispute Thom’s (1978:47) speculation, as to whether the Neolithic could determine the Moon’s wobble.
With the sequential images generated, it was a matter of selecting which of the many tools to display the sequence. Macromedia Flash™ was selected, which allows for the addition of control buttons, to enable the animation to be stopped, paused, or stepped, both forward and backwards. Just as importantly, it also allows for incorporating the relevant data that was pertinent to the generation of each image, within the animation being displayed.
A third issue arises, whether to consider the lunar limit, or the limit to which a full Moon was able to reach along the horizon, and was this actually of concern to the Scottish Neolithic. This forces any consideration for any lunar orientation, to be in a declination range and not necessarily to a specific point. Simply put, taking a declination reading of an horizon point and seeing if it matches the computed declination of an limit, should not be taken as definitive, but only used as a close approximation, recognizing that some portion of the lunar sphere may be visible in that general direction.
7.6. Overall Accuracy The measurements taken at the base of each stone were with an accuracy of ¼” or 6mm. The method outlined in the section describing the 3-dimensional model creation of the stones, results in no more than 2-5 cm discrepancy. For all modelling computations, and GPS correlation to the GIS software, true north is a desired reference reading, without having to resort to conversion from magnetic readings. Therefore, for bearing measurements, the GPS unit was used. The resolution of either the orienteering or GPS compasses were to ±1 degree. The Digital Terrain 45
8 Investigative Models associated with the time period (Bernfeld: 1963, 19). Plus, an angle of view was utilized that best represents that of the human-eye, unless otherwise stated. To permit others to reference and verify dates for which the animations where created, these dates are specified as Julian calendar dates, i.e. those required for celestial formulae, and not the Gregorian calendar with which we are familiar, in specifying such days as the solstices or equinox.
To investigate and report upon the effects of isostatic and tectonic movement within the sites under investigation, would normally consume pages of tables, mathematical formulae, and reams of explanation, to present the various conditions at each site. However, a less tedious and more tactile approach, in presenting the information to the archaeological community, is in pictorial form. Therefore, the pictorial form will be the method of presentation of the output from the computer, aided by 3-dimensional modelling, and by that means, masking the complex, behind-the-scenes, numerical calculations. What follows is the description of the visual (tactile) inductive-deductive investigations, by means of images and computerised animations of each of the sites, from both a land movement perspective, and a general site interrogation, in an attempt to reproduce the environment of the determined time period, and to visualise what the Scottish Neolithic witnessed.
8.1. Site Interrogation Using 3-Dimensional Models Each site is investigated individually with a more indepth description, accompanied with a table containing the survey data. Values highlighted in grey in the tables are computed numbers not survey data. There are two types of computed data i) height of the stones and ii) the distance and azimuth between selected stones. The computed heights, as stated earlier, are derived from the model creation, whereas, the distance and azimuth are derived from Vincenty’s Direct and Inverse Solutions, of Geodesics Formulae (1975). These formulae convert the latitude and longitude of two points into the distance, and the bearing between those points.
As Aveni states in Skywatchers (2001: 75) ‘we must constantly try to view such events through their [ancestors] eyes.’ Their eyes may be considered to have two components, i) their physical eye and ii) their mind’s eye. Once the investigation into the land movement has been modelled – ‘the physical eye’, alternative viewpoints and perspectives about the sites were developed to examine the phenomena that reflect – ‘the mind’s eye’.
The material in this section is presented in a systematic, manner. Pursuing this approach however, allows for the exposure of the unique features, similarities and differences, for each site; permitting a more fulfilling context to be applied in chapter 9, in which these features are interpreted, in the larger landscape of Argyll.
The viewpoints employed to create all images during the simulation runs, are set with a body height of 5’ 6” (1.68 metres), a height that corresponds to human remains
47
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation 8.2. Ballochroy
site all have one thing in common, they all use Thom’s material (1967: 37) as a reference point, either by way of the description of use, or for the determination of the construction date by a particular solar alignment; as an example, Brown (1976: 203), paraphrases Thom’s material.
NR 7309 5242 Latitude 55º 42’ 43.32” Longitude -5º 36’ 45.18” Entrance to the Ballochroy site is from a farm track immediately on the A83, made via a farm gate, next to which is a pole with a ‘Beware of the Bull’ sign (the location is best programmed into a GPS, as it is easy to pass the gate). Follow the track to the barn to access entrance to the field. The Site stands on an open hillside that slopes down to the sea from east to west, see Figure 8-1.
8.2.1. Modelling Considerations The primary alignments expressed by Thom for the site are: • Winter solstice sunset • Summer solstice sunset • Heliacal setting of Castor at the time of Lammas (1966: 10)
On the hillside above the site, and to the north, are stands of pine, which obscures any view of the hilltops (such as Cnoc Donn) that partially encircle the site, with the exception of the southeast. Jura is easily observable to the northwest, but the visitor must be aware that the Isle of Jura is the first raised land that the westerly air mass encounters, having traversed the sea. As a result of the moisture laden air being pushed into the cooler atmosphere, the Paps of Jura are frequently covered in cloud. The Isle of Islay is visible to the west-southwest and Cara to the southwest.
One noticeable anomaly for this site is the 3rd stone – Stone C, it is needle-like in shape, whereas the other two stones are slab-like. Its dimensions are almost square, and it seems to be set to ensure that its sides could not be considered ‘oriented’ to any specific foresight. Therefore, the question becomes, why is Stone C part of the arrangement, if the other stones seem to have astronomical orientation to a foresight?
The three stones, of mica schist, are still quite upright despite the soil erosion around their base. The top of the centre stone slopes down from east to west; at the base of the centre stone, resting at its south west corner, is a large rock fragment, which could be a portion of the top broken off, or, just a boulder. The various texts that describe this
8.2.2. Previous Research into Ballochroy Thom considered this site and that of Kintraw as being of major significance due to the vernier accuracy of the sightlines; for Ballochroy he states:
Figure 8-1. Ballochroy.
48
Investigative Models With the backsights so beautifully arranged as they are at Ballochroy a vernier device was available for observing the midsummer setting Sun. …. The general line of the stones and the kist showed the midwinter Sun setting over Cara Island. … more important is the fact that the flat face of the large centre stone is orientated exactly on Ben Corra in Jura, 19 miles distant. The right-hand slope of the mountain is slightly steeper than the path of the setting midsummer Sun, so that when the declination was between 23°52’ and 23°55’ the Sun viewed from the centre stone would appear to vanish near the top of the peak, but would reappear briefly further down the slope (In 1800 b.c. the obliquety of the ecliptic was 23°54’.) Perhaps the observing technique was for the observer to stand at the limit north-east stone and watch the Sun vanish at the top of the slope. When it reappeared lower down he could move along the line of the stones keeping the edge of the Sun just visible on the slope till he reached an limit position and the Sun vanished. (Thom, 1966: 17)
of Thom’s analysis by identifying that, at the latitude of Ballochroy, the angular difference between the winter and summer solstitial settings is 90° and therefore a single stone will, by coincidence, indicate both events. However, Burl does not take into account, either, an uneven horizon that may negate the 90° angular difference, or fails to consider that the stones themselves are not necessarily 4-sided, and when they are, they rarely have corners that equal 90°. This uneven shaping of the stones is well illustrated by the central stone at Ballochroy. Even with Thom’s engineering background, it has been demonstrated that his theodolite readings were prone to error, by up to 5°. As illustrated in Liz Henty’s (2016) SEAC 2010 paper and supporting reports made by the RCAHMS. As this research proceeds, if any discrepancies occur, it is not intended to go into deep analysis of them, only to highlight them for future investigation. Bringing such discrepancies to our attention further demonstrates the value of virtual simulation. In reviewing the survey data in Table 8-1 the initial finding that stands out, is the inconsistency from Thom’s theodolite bearings of 316º for stone B – highlighted in grey, to that of placing a constructor’s level flush to the face, and laying a compass against the level, that resulted in an angle of 311º.
Despite the date of 2000 BCE given by Thom for Castor alignment, his later publications have the date set to 1860 BCE. Then finally, Thom drops this projection completely and selects 1750 BCE as a date for the site’s construction, utilizing the summer solstice sunset along the edge of the northern most Pap of Jura as his determinant (1978: 44). As to Ballochroy being, ‘a precision instrument to make fine (vernier) adjustments, my investigation will demonstrate that this is not the case.
To facilitate the re-construction of the stones at Ballochroy the dimensional and directional measurements, taken on site, are listed in Table 8-1. GPS recorded latitudes and longitudes are British National Grid readings, automatically converted from WGS84 by the Garmin Mapping GPS unit. All bearings are true north and dimensions are in inches. A plan of the site is given in Figure 8-2.
Disagreements arose between several archaeo-astronomers in reference to the sites being investigated. Ruggles opposed (2000) MacKie’s (1977b, 1997) derivation of a social priesthood from Thom’s astronomical hypothesis of Ballochroy. An exchange of criticisms also occurred between Patrick (1981) and MacKie (1981) concerning the purported viewing station at Kintraw, discussed further below. Burl (1998: 143) expressed his reservations
The investigation will determine if this has any implication or not. It brings to mind the 5° error in Thom’s records as presented earlier, recall Henty’s (2016) discovery of a 5° error in Thom’s theodolite measurements mentioned in chapter 2. A second inconsistency is the implied straight-
Table 8-1. Ballochroy survey data
location
Distance
NE face SE face SW face NW face
Stone A
Stone B
Stone C
Long
-5 36.754
-5 36.755
-5 36.757
Lat
55 42.723
55 42.721
55 42.720
Corner
West
West
West
Length
82” to B
149” sw to nw of C
126 feet To centre of Cist
bearing
217º to B
219º to C
222º To Cist
Height
68”
132”
142”
bearing
306º
311º (Thom 316°)
343º
base
36”
56”
18.75”
bearing
41º
230º
338º
base
13”
7.25”
20”
bearing
302º
294º
318º
base
33”
54.5”
25”
bearing
18º
No Flat Edge
208º
base
10”
6”
15.75”
49
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-2. Plan of Ballochroy stones. Table 8-2. Change in Azimuth and Altitude of the Sun due to Land Movement for Ballochroy Tectonic and Isostatic Changes in degrees
Delta In degrees
In minutes
In seconds
224.0668463750
0.001176771
0.070606272
4.23637632
-0.2071779904
0.0000002135
0.00001281
0.0007686
Decl
-24.0653178410
Azimuth Altitude
line alignment in Thom’s diagram, in association with the text quoted above, the term general line as it relates to the western edge of the stones, with the cist. This orientation has been suggested by Thom (1978: 37) to indicate the winter solstice sunset. Where in fact, the western edge of the stones average a bearing of 218º whilst a bearing from stone C to the cist, is an additional 3º (221°) approaching that of the bearing for the sunset of 223.7° in 3500 BCE, to 224° in 1500 BCE; coinciding with the orientation of the long side of the cist.
results in a physical shift of 103 metres (338 feet) to the southwest. Computed isostatic change over this same time period ranged from -5.95 metres (-19.5 feet) in 3500 BCE to -4 metres (-13 feet) in 1500 BCE. The OSGB topographical maps to effect the re-creation for Ballochroy, Jura and pertinent island landscapes, are extensive in number, and are therefore, listed in the appendix. The isle of Jura, being the foresight in question, is an additional 30 km’s from the Euler Pole about which the Eurasian plate rotates; therefore, Jura has a rotational movement that is higher by a slight margin than that of Ballochroy.
8.2.3. Land Movement The table in appendix B contains plate rotation and adjusted latitude and longitude values, due to the plate movement by century, beginning at 1500 BCE to 3500 BCE. These values were refined for Ballochroy, see Table 8-2, and used to position the land and stones, to determine if any impact from land movement occurs, prior to deeper investigation into the site. As a reference, the GPS latitude and longitude reading taken of the centre stone (B) is, 55.7120º latitude, W5.61258º longitude. The delta caused by plate rotation between the surveyed latitude and longitude, to that of 3500 BCE is 25.5’ in latitude and 4.5’ in longitude, which
The simulation runs, to test the land movement, proved that even the greatest shift of 103 metres (338 feet) to the southwest and 6 metres (19.7 feet) in isostatic compression for 3500 BCE, elucidates only a minor discernible difference with respect to the celestial settings (see Table 8-3). The impact looking toward the Paps of Jura is a matter of second’s difference in both time, and angle, and it should be noted that a similar impact could occur, due to changes in atmospheric conditions. This may in part be due to the 30+ kilometre distance the foresights are from 50
Investigative Models Table 8-3. Land movement 3500BCE
Isostatic depression Distance moved
Angle of rotation In degrees
In minutes
in seconds
Ballochroy
7.34m
116m
0.0013455
0.08073000
4.8438
Jura
5.96m
140m
0.0014355
0.08613000
5.1678
the site itself. Winter solstice setting over Cara has a more discernible change, but is still not impactful, compared to that of Jura; the isle being closer by some 20+ kilometres may contribute to this more discernible change. Sites such as Nether Largie or An Car, where their foresights are within a kilometre or two, may prove to have a more noticeable difference through isostatic movement, rather than movement through plate tectonics.
over time. As a result, this orientation cannot be used to date the site, only to verify that the setting of winter solstice Sun was marked by the island. MacKie however, states that viewing along this edge ‘…the stones indicate a point some way east of the eastern end of the island’ (1974: 177), which can be seen to be verified in Figure 8-3. Switching the viewpoint to the eastern edge of the stone arrangement, presents a much more meaningful perspective with the Sun’s setting, at an azimuth of 223° as can be seen in Figure 8-4. A viewing stance seems to be indicated by a shoulder on the centre stone B. The shoulder is quite pronounced, and from the current land level, this notch is 6 feet off the ground. For this viewing point to be viable the ground level was either higher (currently there is a one-foot deep channel, worn away by sheep); in fact standing beside stone A is an appropriate distance and location. Additional data regarding standing next to a stone, as a viewing location, is described in the section dealing with stone C and the southern major lunar limit.
Having determined any land motion implications to my satisfaction, general site investigations could now be considered. 8.2.4. General Site Investigation For the sake of consistency, even though isostasis and plate movement are not considered impactful for Ballochroy, the facility within the simulation software was left enabled, to maintain a truer representation of the landmasses and orientations, at the times selected for the investigation. The first of the investigations that would seem obvious to make, are those of the stated ‘alignments’ of the winter and summer solstices; simulations for these were run for the time period 3500 BCE to 1500 BCE.
Figure 8-4 shows the Sun setting down the western slope of the hill that sits in the centre of the island. A few minutes prior to this event, the view is of the full orb resting on the top of the hill; in this position, the Sun is directly over the Cist. To witness the event the edge of stone B can be used as a sight protection, masking the sphere as it sets.
8.2.5. Solar Simulations The western horizon with its impressive undulating outline of the Isle of Jura, leads us to consider this direction as an obvious orientation to mark any celestial event, be it the positions of the Sun, stars, Moon or planets. After running the simulations that investigated Thom’s solstitial perspectives, additional perspectives were considered, other than the sides of the stones directing the line of sight, for example, by orienting the tips of the stones to the peaks of the Paps of Jura. It was found that the eastern side of the stones provide a better orientation across the top of the cist towards Cara, where the winter solstice Sun sets.
Ruggles (1999: 25) reiterates MacKie’s (1974: 177) statement that the cairn may well have been built prior to the stones being erected. The statement stipulates that with a cairn placed over the cist, the winter solstice sunset would be obscured. In the case stated above, using the shoulder in the eastern edge of the central stone as a much more viable viewing perspective, the presence of the cairn becomes increasingly problematic. The question still remains, which came first: the stones or the cairn. If the stones came first, constructing a ‘monument’ to a member of the community, at the point of the known, final diminishment of the dying winter sunset, leads one to ponder what high degree of respect and reverence such an individual may have commanded, whereby his entombment, was allowed to obscure this ‘vital’ view. As Burl (2005: 54) states, this cist alignment with the stone, could be more symbolic than scientific. Continuing this line of conjecture, if the cairn blocked the view of the setting winter solstice Sun in this manner, was stone C erected to compensate for this blocking effect, and if so, how was it employed? Further analysis to expand on this thought process will be discussed later.
8.2.5.1. Winter Solstice The Winter Solstice is suggested by Thom, to be indicated by the Sun’s disk sliding down the slope of the island of Cara (1978: 37). The stated point of observation to view the event is along the western edge of the stones as they ‘approximate’ a straight-line. However, as can be seen in Figure 8-3 there is quite an offset without any ‘interaction’ with the stone arrangement. Simulating the setting solstice Sun for 3500-1500 BCE demonstrates the same visual descent. The only variation is that of the amount of the Sun being visible, increases 51
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-3. Western edge view of winter solstice. Insert at bottom right is a close-up of the island.
Figure 8-4. Winter solstice sunset at Ballochroy over eastern shoulder of stone B.
52
Investigative Models As to specifying the date of construction by the winter solstice setting, as Thom described, it may be seen that the solar disc migrates slowly to the east as we move the clock back to 3500 BCE, and a slight tilt of the observer’s head keeps the viewing orientation intact. The Sun’s appearance, whether full sphere, sitting upon the isle’s horizon, or the vanishing flash of its limb, aligns to several features of the island, and therefore, is a phenomenon where the changing orientation could be easily accepted over the course of millennia. The winter solstice sunset, over Cara island , is an interesting phenomenon to witness, but cannot be used to date the site. Raising the question, whether or not, the winter solstice sunset over the island of Cara should be considered at all, regardless of the viewing stance chosen.
the peak of Beinn Shiantai. From 3500-1500 BCE it does not disappear and reappear from behind the mountain. Instead it is visible down the full length of the right hand slope, and the Sun’s half orb sits in the Col south of Ben Corra, before it sinks behind the Isle. It would appear, that the orientation angle that Thom gives, is that of the Sun, when it reaches the sea level horizon, with no adjustment for elevation; this is shown in the simulation, within which, the Isle of Jura is made semi-transparent. An hypothesis derived from the simulations is, that it is the top of the mountain and not the side of the mountain that is indicated. To view the event, the observer stands back from the centre stone and allows the tip of the stone to obscure the Sun, as the Sun sets. The viewer would then move to the left, and up the slope, that is to the east of the stone, until the peak of Ben Shiantai, and the tip of the central stone and the Sun coincide. Using this viewpoint the summer solstice Sun appears to sit upon the top of both stone B and Ben Shiantai (see Figure 8-5), for a period ranging from 3500 BCE to 2200 BCE. Even with this perspective, the Sun setting being marked in this manner, one should not set a date of construction by this orientation alone.
8.2.5.2. Summer Solstice This is where major discrepancies between Thom’s date, foresight projections, and the virtual reality simulations occur. As stated above, Thom prescribed a date for the site of 1750 BCE, by the summer solstice Sun, whereby, its top, brushes the top of Ben Corra on Jura, then to disappear, reappearing with the edge of the Sun visible on the northern slope. A full sequence of simulations was run, with dates ranging from 3500 BCE to 1500 BCE. The simulations induce the first point of concern that, this event actually occurs with Beinn Shiantai not Ben Corra, with only subtle changes over the complete time period of 3500 – 1730 BCE. For the earlier dates, the Sun’s position is higher on
The second issue raised by the simulation, returns us to the point of the 5° difference in measurement in the bearing of stone B, 311º vs. Thom’s 316º (Table 8-1), whereas the Sun sits atop Ben Shiantai at a bearing of 313° from Ballochroy. This suggests that the flat face of the stone
Figure 8-5. Summer solstice sunset 3500 BCE.
53
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation direction in which stone A leads us to look. In 3494 BCE (nearest minor limit to 3500 BCE) the top quarter of the orb of the Moon appears in the dip, one minute later the tip of the Moon disappears fractionally to the right.
may only be used as a general indicator, and not a precise pointer. It would seem that although Thom conducted ‘precise’ angle orientation from the site to Ben Corra, it could be argued, that his survey was conducted to fit a subjective model. Considering the hypothesis that the marriage of the tip of the stone and the mountain peak are the intended orientation, precise bearings are not necessary only a general direction would be required.
Whereas, at the other end of the date range at 1521 BCE, more of the Moon is exposed in the dip, with the final glimpse shifted well to the right, disappearing into the hill, and not the Col. Thus suggesting, that if the orientation of stone A is to be considered, it would be more indicative of an earlier Neolithic period, rather than a later date for construction. No mention is made by Thom, Ruggles or MacKie as to stone A’s orientation.
8.2.6. Lunar Simulations The Ballochroy site, has not been considered to contain lunar associations, therefore all eight lunar Limits were simulated for verification purposes. The data revealed was quite surprising, and enlightening; setting the stage for additional simulations at all other sites, to determine if the events at Ballochroy are idiosyncratic, or are these events repeated at other Scottish sites, and have simply not been considered before?
The Lhuyd drawing of Ballochroy, in Figure 8-7, made in 1699, now in the British Library, although rough in rendition, nevertheless, appears to indicate that stone A was taller, and suggests that stone A has diminished in height, through erosion or breakage over time. Some amount of stone sits at the foot of stone A, and may well be pieces that have broken off from its top (could also be field boulders just collected and placed at its base), now possibly a metre or so less in height, reducing the stone to about half of its original stature. Combining a figuratively restored stone A to its ‘original’ height (with this somewhat obvious orientation), it could be strongly argued that this orientation was deliberate. Again, like stone B, using the pinnacle of a stone as an indicator and not a flat surface. Unfortunately, without any evidence as
The first noticeable aspect from the site survey is that of the orientation of stone A at 302º, which is the direction of the minor northern lunar limit. Selecting this as a starting point, the remaining Limits were investigated. 8.2.6.1. Minor Northern Limit The dip between two peaks on the isle of Jura, those of Dubh Beinn to the south and Glas Beinn to the north, is the
Figure 8-6. Minor northern limit over stone A.
54
Investigative Models to the original height of the stone any modelling would be purely arbitrary. 8.2.6.2. Major Northern Limit No major northern limit indicator, either rise or set, could be determined through the computer simulations of this site. 8.2.6.3. Minor Southern Limit There is no better way to describe the setting of the lunar sphere at its minor southern limit, than to watch the southern minor moonset for 3494 BCE. It was a total surprise, to find the curve of the top of Stone B, replicating the curve of the Moon’s path. Since the Moon’s path may have shifted slightly over the years, a left hand tilt of the head would be sufficient compensation to continue observing the phenomenon. In fact, the position is self indicated that in order to be in the correct viewing location, the observer has to select a position, whereby, the Moon brushes passed the tip of the stone. At 23:32 in the animation, the Moon separates slightly from the stone, at a point where stone B appears to have broken. Even so, this point on stone B is also the point where the Moon reaches the horizon and would place an upper limit on the height of stone A, as discussed above, in order i) not to obscure the Moon or ii) to be the final indicator of the setting point on the horizon, see Figure 8-8.
Figure 8-7. Ed. Lhuyd 1699 drawing of Ballochroy (Courtesy British Library).
Figure 8-8. Southern minor moon set over stone B.
55
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation as β Aquarius (3.1 magnitude) sits atop Stone C. This arrangement could explain the non-linear spacing of the stones, and why the third stone, as described earlier, is needle-like in shape, not a slab.
8.2.6.4. Major Southern Limit With the awe-inspiring sight of the Minor limit orb, rolling down the top edge of Stone B, the next simulation is just as stimulating. For almost 2 hours the Moon, when at its major southern declination, also rolls, but this time as if it were a marble rolling along the southern horizon (Figure 8-9 shows an abbreviated form of the animation). The positioning against one stone to view a phenomenon occurring with a second stone, as described, for the winter solstice sunset is repeated here. With a viewing position selected to witness this phenomenon, that simulates one’s back resting against stone B, we discover that the eastern face of stone C establishes the line of sight to where the Moon sets. This site could have easily been chosen for this phenomenon alone, regardless of the other available features.
The position from which to view the phenomenon meets MacKie’s (1974: 169-190) requirement of self-indicating i.e. no ground marker is needed. This is achieved by the stars, through the course of the year ‘migrating’ each night toward dawn, and will only begin to be visible close to the date of winter solstice. Then, stepping forward or backward, so that the star β Aquarius, which is to the right, appears above stone C, and thus determines the viewing point – no marker was needed to indicate where to stand. Having acquired the correct viewing location – if α Aquarius appears as twilight commences, at the aforementioned point, it marks the days of the winter solstice.
Having established the likelihood that this site has lunar implications, we now have to consider, that directing the viewing orientation along the flat surfaces of the megaliths is too narrow a perspective. Viewing across the tops of stones should now be considered as the phenomena the stones indicate, more than just horizon events. Future testing for similar phenomena at other sites is essential, to either corroborate such orientation, or to define these orientations at Ballochroy as pure coincidences.
The determination of the viewing position, dictated by the stellar event, has a secondary and profound effect; it prolongs the time period, over which, this particular observation may be made. If the viewing position was fixed by a ground marker, then the value of the orientation has a life span of about 100 years, and would cause us to reject the thought of orientation to such a stellar event. However, as the viewing point moves slightly over the centuries, the determining factor for the life span of the orientation is the period of time these particular stars of Aquarius appear as heliacal stars. In considering the heliacal rising of the stars, the difficulty here is how to judge twilight for this particular location, as Ballochroy’s eastern horizon is at an altitude of 8º, permitting morning stars to be visible for a little longer time period, than if the horizon was at sea level.
8.2.7. Stellar Considerations Thom (1966: 10) suggested that Castor had a declination of 29.4º that caused it to set in the same general direction as Ben Corra, without stating any specific time of the year for this event. Stellar investigations, including that of Castor, were limited to their heliacal risings or settings, as they relate to possible indicators of the Sun.
The limiting magnitude for the beginning of civilian twilight was determined by employing the atmospheric extinction effect programme, discussed in chapter 4. Although the climate, as demonstrated earlier (see Figure 5-3), was drier than the current Scottish climate, as a conservative move, modern climatic conditions were used in the programme. The determining result is a limiting magnitude of 4.8 for the horizon altitude in question. Regardless of this, to further err on the conservative side, the standard twilight period, and only stars of 3 magnitude or greater, were retained within the simulation.
8.2.7.1. Stars at Summer Solstice Due to the very northern aspect of Ballochroy, the Sun is only below the horizon during the summer, for a period of approximately 4 hours, with half of this time being twilight; heliacal indicators would seem impractical, and simulation tests proved this to be so. 8.2.7.2. Stars at Winter Solstice Sunset The four cardinal directions were tested for noticeable heliacal events for the winter solstice sunsets, for the entire date range, and no stellar indications were found.
What is now required, is to determine in which century does the effect stop occurring, this determination would at least give a potential construction date range, if indeed, this effect was actually being observed. The most likely determining factor would be when α and β Aquarius are in the required positions as described above, and the Sun no longer has a negative altitude (below the horizon). The century of this occurrence is 2200 BCE.
8.2.7.3. Stars at Winter Solstice Sunrise Figure 8-10 shows the culmination of the heliacal rising1 animation of the constellation of Aquarius, which demonstrates α Aquarius (3.2 magnitude) appearing at the junction of the side of Stone B, and the eastern horizon,
The earliest date when α and β Aquarius meet the criteria of rising during twilight is 3100 BCE. Therefore, if these stones were constructed to be an indicator of the day of the
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: AqrRising/Bally2650.exe 1
56
Investigative Models
Figure 8-9. Path of major southern limit.
Figure 8-10. Beta Aquarius at point of stone C, 2650 BCE.
57
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation winter solstice, we have a maximum date range of 3100 to 2200 BCE, and a minimum of 500+ years earlier, than the previously proposed construction date of 1750 BCE. The simulation approach taken here fits Norman Lockyer’s model of stars being employed as calendric markers (1906a: 465-472) as discussed in chapter 4.
limits as presented in chapter 4. It was found that Venus sets at its ‘lowest’ northerly limit for the year of 2500 BCE and for a further 800 years in the identical location as that of the Sun. At its ‘highest’ northerly limit, Venus sets above Stone A, the most northern stone. For the southern negative declination settings of Venus, a stance was taken to the northeast of the Ballochroy arrangement, looking in the direction of the arrangement of stones and cist. Repeating the approach of testing the band of declination limits, no definitive orientation could be found.
8.2.8. Planetary Considerations The starting point in determining if planetary observations could have been considered at Ballochroy was the setting of Venus at its greatest declinations – looking toward the isle of Gigha in the south, and Jura to the north. Simulations were run for either end of the full date range, with the viewing position stood to the east of the stone arrangement. The initial viewpoint selected was the same as that used whilst viewing the Sun setting above the peak of Beinn Shiantai, and the centre stone B, in 3500 BCE; simply for the reason of capturing all three stones in the simulation to create an image for deeper interrogative purposes. Although no definitive orientations could be found, some interesting events did occur in the research that are worthy of mentioning, but are not offered as proof that such events were observed, let alone built into the arrangement of the stones, they are intriguing all the same, and are briefly discussed, next.
In considering alternatives, an investigation into the ‘turnaround’ loops was undertaken. The most southerly point has no discernible marker nor the turnaround point itself over the Isle of Gigha, though it was found that at the end of the loop, when the planet returns to the regular path, Venus sets in the identical location as the setting Sun, down the slope of Cara, which is illustrated in Figure 8-11. A date range from 2500 BCE for 1000 years, indicates that Venus sets where, i) the eastern point of Cara meets the ocean and ii) on a western slope of Gigha (see Figure 8-11 insert). For these southern settings, no orientation with the stones is necessary, and the place to stand can be quite arbitrary within the vicinity of the site itself, not needing any ‘marker’. With a magnitude of -3.9, an extinction angle due to a normal atmosphere need not be considered. As stated earlier, these are interesting phenomena, coinciding with the solar setting points, but it cannot be
To simulate the Venus settings for any millennia selected, dates also had to be varied based on the band of the planet’s
Figure 8-11. Venus setting at its turn around point in 2500 BCE.
58
Investigative Models The blue arrow and the blue triangle denote the viewing perspective with the observer next to stone A and stone B respectively.
determined that they were ever taken into consideration by the Scottish Neolithic. 8.2.9. Ballochory Site Discussion
These new perceptions change stone C from being an anomaly, to being the lynchpin for the site:
A question arises, why adapt two distinctly different approaches to indicate the same event? As discussed earlier in this section, stone C, the 3rd stone, seemed to be an anomaly as it was not needed for any of the normally considered orientations. Also, discussed earlier in this section was the fact that any cairn constructed over the cist, would obliterate the direct observation of the winter solstice sunset, and if one cairn wasn’t enough, Lhuyd’s diagram (Figure 8-7) indicates three in total. It is likely that the second and third cairns are beyond the brow of the slope, upon which the first cairn stands, and thereby hidden from view. One can therefore, speculate that the builders of the cairn/s knew that the sunset would be obscured by at least one of them, requiring an alternative determiner of the event. With that thought in mind, it could be considered that stone C was added at the time the cairn was built. Plus, continuity from the first observation perspective to the second is achieved by placing the south eastern corner of stone C, in alignment with the initial orientation – a kind of subliminal connectivity with the deceased. One can only wonder, what high ranking, respected position, within the society of the time, the individual interred in the cist must have commanded, for this effort to have been expended on their behalf.
• The tip of the stone is used in conjunction with stone B to mark the morning of the winter solstice • The stone’s eastern face demarcates the setting point of the major southern lunar limit • The stone’s placement in the row is such that it aligns with stone B so as not to interfere with the winter solstice sunset view along the eastern edge, instead, to be incorporated within the view. These newly identified features of stone C, not only supply a viable reason for the existence of the 3rd stone, but may also help apply the sequence and dating of the construction of the stones and cairns. Stones A and B being placed any time from 3500 BCE, with the cairn and third stone added between 3100-2200 BCE. Radiocarbon dates established in the general Argyll area, such as Temple Wood 40003500 BCE, and across the Kintyre peninsula at Achnasavil of 3500-3000 BCE (Ashmore, 1996: 44), when combined with Hadingham’s (1976: 107) statement that the collective burial remains contained within the cist dates to before 3000 BCE, the hypothesised timeline certainly fits. The Moon rolling down the hill at the time of its limit southerly declination would seem to be an event that could be observed not only at Ballochroy, but at other locations as
The more complete set of possible orientations are all illustrated in the figure that follows.
Figure 8-12. Ballochroy orientation findings.
59
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation well; with that thought in mind, the same effect will have to be examined at other sites. The interesting aspect for Ballochroy however, is the leveraging of the hillside that mirrors the Moon’s path, rather than constructing a ‘false’ horizon over which the Moon is to sweep as with stone B.
from one of its functions, namely that of the Sun setting over Cara, than by building a cairn to obstruct the view; in effect converting the site to a pure lunar observatory. Single cist style interment, is the style that the Ballochroy cairn is consistent with, and is typical of the late Neolithicearly Bronze age – which matches from an astronomical time line perspective; this is further discussed in the section, dating the site, below.
One of the considerations tested in my initial premise was whether observations were made by an individual or a group. The phenomenon of the Moon rolling down the hill could not only be viewed by multiple persons; if the individual moved slightly to and fro across the hillside, the Moon could be made to appear to be in constant ‘contact’ with the hill; the simulations leading to the conclusion that both are possible at Ballochroy.
As to Venus and its setting over Beinn Shiantai, to reiterate a statement made in the section that introduced each site; Jura and Islay are the first masses of land that the air travelling over the Atlantic encounters, and the atmospheric uplift of this air causes the Pap’s more often than not, to be shrouded in cloud. Although, as presented in the climatic section, the climate five thousand years ago was warmer and drier in general, causing one to question the viability of Venus being observed in the manner outlined. Yet the confluence of the Sun and Venus being marked at the same point, in like manner, has to leave one pondering; was this intentionally observed, or not?
The data has shown that Ballochroy is a site that is related more toward lunar events than events associated with the Sun, as first proposed by Thom. We may continue to consider, i) the role that the winter solstice seems to play, with or without, the heliacal rising of Aquarius, and ii) the summer solstice, even with its association with the hill top, rather than with an alignment with a flat surface of the centre stone.
8.2.10. Dating Ballochory
Taking into account the date range of the summer solstice Sun setting over stone B and Jura, combined with the dating of the stellar event for the winter solstice, we have a time period that overlaps. This evidence would suggest that the site is older by at least 500 to 1000 years than Thom’s final choice of 1750 BCE for a construction date. For a site that can be considered to be associated with both the winter and summer solstices, it is interesting that with the stone configuration as it exists today, the simulations found no evidence of equinoctial orientation within the site.
Summarising the findings for the observations above, and leveraging the stellar events described, the feasible astronomical date range in which the site could have been constructed and utilised is 3100-2200 BCE, and this supports Ruggles (1999: 21) assessment, that Ballochroy was active as a site in the third millennia BCE. We can even include the planetary aspect of Venus, which would stretch the lower end of the date range to Thom’s dating of the site to around 1700 BCE. The potential orientations for Ballochroy that this research has uncovered are modifications to the Sun’s winter and summer solstices. Additionally, the lunar phenomena of:
In addressing incongruities put forward by Thom and MacKie, in the proposed mix of one of the three stones at Ballochroy having an orientation, whilst the others have not, Burl states, ‘In other words, the north stone has no astronomical significance. Nor has the pillar at the south of the row, even though it is the tallest. It seems undiscriminating to ignore these stones, but to accept the convenient orientation of their fellow.’ (MacKie, 1980: 192) I have now shown that all three stones have astronomical orientations. It seems surprising, that MacKie, concentrated so intently on investigating Thom’s reported solar alignment, identified the orientation of stone A as 19° 53’ (1974: 176), but then did not seem to have considered the potential for the northern lunar minor limit, that occurs at this orientation.
1. Minor northern limit setting over stone A 2. Minor southern limit setting down the sloping top of stone B 3. Major southern limit running along the horizon to set at the southeast face of stone C 4. and the stellar event of, the heliacal rising at the time of the winter solstice of α and β Aquarius It may be noted from bullet items 1 through 3, that as the lunar commemorating event is observed moving south, so does the use of the observation stone move from A, to B to C. Table 8-4. Ballochroy celestial timeframes
If the third stone at Ballochroy was part of the original construction, then the discontinuance of the heliacal rising of α and β Aquarius, synchronising with the setting Sun during the winter solstice, could be the beginning of the diminished use of the site for solar observation. Burgess expresses that ‘if celestial observation is involved it is likely to have been for magico-religious rather than practical reasons’ (2003: 343). What better way to negate, a magico-religious belief or ritual than to disconnect, a site
BCE
3500 2500 1500
Stars
3100 2200
Moon Sun winter summer 3500 2200 1730 Venus
60
2600 1700
Investigative Models 8.3. Nether Largie
(stones 2 and 3), unlike stones 4 and 5, do not align with each other. Their southwest faces, however, possess the same bearing of 316º. The northwest face of stone 2 is significantly curved, and therefore can have no directional value. Any directional indicators for this pair would consist of alignments via stone 1 to stones 4 and 5, or maybe between them. The sixth stone, off to the north west, leans significantly, it too has a slanting top – were it upright – the orientation of the top would be the same as that of the central monolith, i.e. slanting down to the northwest.
NR 8282 9760 Latitude N56º 7’ 18.1” Longitude -5º 29’ 43.1” Just 1.5 km south of Kilmartin on route B8025, is a convenient parking lot from which the road is crossed to the gated footbridge enabling access across the fields to the Nether Largie site, and that of Temple Wood NOTE: several authors such as Thom and Wood (1980) refer to Nether Largie as Temple Wood.
The surrounding slopes have copses of mixed woods that obscure the view to the hilltops in all directions, see Figure 8-13. Fortunately, the earlier investigation into the foliage disposition of the area indicated that such coverage did not exist 3-5000 years ago. Also, due to the OSBG topographical mapping, and the modelling technique, foliage can be excluded from the simulations and does not interfere with this analysis.
Nether Largie comprises five main stones, a southern pair, one central, and a northern pair; the southern pair, stones 4 and 5, lean, from the vertical, toward the northeast, by 11º and 13º respectively. The southwest-northeast, faces of the southern pair of stones, align with each other. There is a sixth stone to the northwest, close to the cairn known as Temple Wood. The RCAHMS description of the site, reports that there may have been a stump of a seventh stone found to the south east of the main group, but it is no longer evident.
Thom (1978: 46) expresses two primary lunar alignments to set his dates for the Nether Largie site. The first lunar alignment is the Moon’s northern major limit, appearing at a notch to the northwest of the hilltop known as Lady’s Seat, at a bearing of 317º (see figure 8-14). The second lunar alignment being the Moon’s southern major limit, looking southwest from stone 1 to stone 4 and thence to the slope of Cnoc Reamhar, beyond Bellanoch. It is also a site whereupon Thom extends his investigation into the possibility that the Scottish Neolithic were able to detect
The central stone (stone 1) has a top that slants down from the southeast to the northwest. The centre stone is encircled by small stones at its base, four are reported to have existed, but now one appears to be missing, or is buried under the turf. The group of stones lying between the centre stone and the southern pair, labelled by Thom as group Q (1978: 45), is still complete. The northern pair
Figure 8-13. Nether Largie as seen from parking area.
61
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation the Moons 9 arc-minute wobble. Thom’s diagram, Figure 8-14, indicates his main thought process regarding the orientations the stones at the site have. In fact, Thom states in his publication, Megalithic Lunar Observatories for Temple Wood ‘In both [Nether Largie and Ballochroy], the eye is directed across the line by the individual slabs pointing to the required foresight in the north-west and in both, the direction of the alignment itself shows the required foresight to the south-west’ (1978: 48).
on the other hand, with its bi-directional leaning would suggest that it has sunk at its Southeast corner, resulting in a potential rotational effect. Note that this rotation would make any bearings for stone 3 suggestive rather than accurate. Depending on the direction the view was being taken, adjustment of the map tiles for convergence varied. Testing determined that horizons close to the site, those northwest, west, north east, east and south east, required zero adjustment, but the longer distance to the south west, which lay within a different map tile, did require an adjustment due to the distance.
8.3.1. Modelling Considerations As mentioned in the brief introductory section for the site, Stones number 4 & 5, lean toward the northeast. When analysing the alignment of this pair of stones, Thom, made no direct reference to these stones, and it is not evident, from Thom’s original work, if these stones were leaning or not.
All aspects of Nether Largie appear to be Lunar related; research results for each stone will be presented in the numerical sequence identified in Thom’s diagram, Figure 8-14.
Before the 3-dimensional computer simulations were conducted, stone 5 was set upright by 8º, stone 4 by applying a 10º correction, and stone 6 by 25°; with an assumption that the southeast and northwest faces were upright. The straightening of stone 6, required a substantial value, the greatest value needed to set other stones upright was 12°. An archaeological excavation would be necessary to determine how deep into the ground stone 6 is set, and to what extent it actually leans.
The tall uprights (S1 through S5) surveyed without an error on both the first and second visit. However, on the second visit, whilst surveying the group referenced by Thom (1978: 46) as the Q stones, the GPS satellite readings were erratic and would not settle to allow for accurate readings, so a transit survey, using tape and compass of the Q stones was conducted. Vincenty conversion formulas were then employed to derive the latitude and longitude positions, in order to associate the stones within the Ordnance survey map, as they related to stone 1. Table 8-5 contains the onsite survey.
In adjusting the models of these three stones to their upright (‘original’) position, without excavation, consideration had to be given to the location of the pivot point about which the stones have ‘rotated’, either from their very base, or whether a buried rock may act as a fulcrum. Examination of Stones 4 & 5 gives no indication of a fulcrum point to cause the stones to twist, as their northeast surfaces are consistent with each other, whereas, Stone 3 does give the appearance of having twisted. Rather than speculate as to the pivot point of each stone, or the depth of the stone beneath ground level, the models were assumed to have rotated about the point where the exposed face of the stone makes contact with the soil, in the direction in which they lean, without any change in compass orientation. Stone 3,
To distinguish the four Q stones from each other, the cardinal directions as they relate to their location i.e. QN, QE, QW, and QS were applied. Published references made to the Q stones typically number them as 4 in quantity, but there may be a fifth, if indeed it belongs with the group. This fifth stone lies flat in the turf about a metre to the north of QS as indicated by the red ellipse in Figure 8-15. Alternatively, perhaps it is the fourth stone that used to be at the base of the central menhir. Thom’s main perspective at this site seems to be, to connect the arrangement of stones with the Temple Wood
Figure 8-14. Nether Largie (after Thom 1978: 46).
62
Investigative Models Table 8-5. Nether Largie field survey data Nether Largie Location
Height
NE face SE face SW face NW face Distance
Stone 1
Stone 2
Stone 3
Stone 4
Stone 5
Stone 6
Long
-5 29.647
-5 29.63
-5 29.635
-5 29.663
-5 29.66
-5 29.764
Lat
56 7.305
56 7.322
56 7.324
56 7.289
56 7.286
56 7.371
Corner
South
South
South
South
South
West
measured
8’ 3”
63”
91
96
59
at point
E Corner
S Cnr
E Cnr
E Cnr
E Cnr
computed
109”
102”
92”
104”
103”
77”
bearing
320º
302º
325º
300º +- 3
298º
311º
base
36”
36.5”
40.5”
28”
22”
bearing
10º
56º/236°
49º/229°
21°/201º
59º/239°
base
7.5”
20”
12”
31”
9”
7”
bearing
137°/317º
133°/313º
148°/328º
138°/318º
130°/310º
136°/316º
base
36”
35”
51.6”
12”
30”
22”
50°/230º
53°/233º
70º/250°
16”
19”
11”
bearing
-
49º/229°
73º/253° (curved)
base
-
15.5”
15”
22’ 11.25” to Q1
127”
125”
92’ 3” to Q1
Figure 8-15. The fifth Q stone.
cairn to the northwest; even to the extent of defining a notch as a foresight above the cairn (1978: 49). The difficulties with this perspective are, i) it pre-supposes the orientation, and ii) the cairn, when viewed from any of the stones, is difficult to discern in its situation at the base of the hill and 3) J.G. Scott’s excavation of
the Temple Wood arrangement illustrates that there were two cairns within the circle of upright stones (1988-9: 57-59). Additionally, if one imagines the grassy mounds the original cairns would have been, it would be almost impossible to distinguish the cairns from the hillside, resulting in determining any correlation from the cairns 63
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation to the horizon above it very difficult, and any celestial synchronisation very subjective.
Table 8-6. Nether Largie quarter day azimuths 3494 BCE
Initial review of the field survey data, Table 8-5, reveals a few differences from Thom’s conclusions. For example, Thom’s has the Moon’s azimuth at 317.3º and intimates that both stones number 4 and 5, are oriented in this direction. Whereas, bearings obtained in the field survey for the northeast faces of stones 4 and 5, ranges between 297-300º. As the faces on these two stones are in a northwesterly alignment with each other at 298°, it would seem to be the more likely orientation. Stone 4 does have a distinct ‘kink’ within its south western face; causing the western section of this face to have its own distinct bearing of 318º, complying with Thom’s projected azimuth of 317.3° (Thom, 1978:47). Whereas, the eastern section of the face has a bearing of 314º. Further discussion on this inconsistency will be included in the discussion below.
Horizon outline
Half way point
Sunrise
Sunset
Sunrise
Sunset
Winter Solstice
145°
218.6°
Imbolc
136°
268°
Samhain
131.5°
238°
117.5°
244°
Summer Solstice
55.8°
309.0°
Beltane
76.5°
291.0°
Lugnasa
69.0°
289.0°
72.9°
289.5°
Scott (Scott: 2010) suggests a solar sunset observation from stone 1 to a now non-existent stone 7 (RCAHMS Canmore records designates the position of this stone as Slockavullin NR 8252 9761), at the time of the equinox. From the perspective that Scott suggests, a case could be posited to observe the equinoctial Sun setting down the sloping top of stone 1 in the direction of stone 7. However, the observation point would not be square to the northeast face of stone 1, which has a bearing of 320°. The equinoctial Sun sets at 265°, resulting in a non-intuitive viewing point, with a 55° offset angle to the northeast face. Whereas, to be demonstrated shortly, the Moon’s azimuths when setting at the said limit is 230° placing the observer square to the face 320º – 230º resulting in a difference of 90° therefore, the simulation interrogation run, does not support, Scott’s suggestion of equinoctial orientation between stone 1 and 7.
8.3.2. Land Movement Plate tectonic movement of the site from 3500 BCE to 1500 BCE, has been to the northeast, with a shift amounting to some 100+ metres to 74 metres (approximately 330 – 250 feet), respectively. The land is closer to the ‘epicentre’ of the glacial load than Ballochroy hence, the land depression is greater, with a maximum depression in the range of 8.7 metres (approximately 28.5 feet). Convergence (grid north to true north) for the sites’ location, amounts to 2.9°, which is the amount of rotation employed for viewing any horizon related event, other than the equinoxes.
In the same article Scott (2010), has an image of the midwinter sunrise viewed from the Temple Wood circles, looking toward stones 4 and 5. Although the bearings of these two stones do not permit such a straightforward orientation when close up, distance may be a different matter. Unfortunately, the stated latitude and longitude in the article is a generalisation for the whole area, therefore the RCAHMS site data was employed to identify the coordinates, and run simulations from the Temple Wood cairn vicinity. The simulations for viewing stones 4 and 5 from the RCAHMS recorded location, demonstrate that when the Sun reaches the horizon at an altitude of 1.5° it is at an azimuth of 141.16°, and no alignment with the stones may be demonstrated. It would appear that Scott fell into the flat map trap; a sunrise of 0.5° at a sea-level horizon would give Scott’s specified indication, but not for the raised horizon that exists, or from the locations obtained through RCAHMS.
8.3.3. Solar Simulations There does not appear to be any orientations that mark the solstices or the equinoctial events, there is neither an horizon point, nor any stone bearings, marking the phenomena of the orb rising or setting. Listed in Table 8-6, are the horizon azimuths of the two approaches to addressing the Sun’s ‘quarter days’, as outlined in the Neolithic cosmology section, that is, halving the day count between solstices and equinox, and the bi-sected point between the two. Due to the nature of the horizon, the values for these physical halfway pointers were determined by conducting simulation runs with the Sun’s centre being on the horizon. Values for both are listed in the table below. None of the horizon azimuths in the above table proved to be of particular interest, save that of Imbolc, as the point where the Sun rises in 3494 BCE, which is virtually identical to that of the minor lunar limit that occurs that same year; Stone 1 being the ‘marker’ that identifies both events. With the Sun rising at an azimuth of 136° at the tip of Stone 1 and the southwest face of the stone having a bearing of 137°, equal to that of the lunar minor limit rising, is described in more detail later in the section for the Moon.
8.3.4. Lunar Simulations The raised landscape has a significant impact on the rise and set times of any celestial object, and subsequently on the azimuths of the lunar Limits. Azimuth variation over the time period 3500 BCE to 1500 BCE however, is less than 0.5º. It does not therefore, warrant listing the angles, or for that matter, running simulations to test orientations over the full date range, as they will, with the ±1° accuracy
64
Investigative Models
Figure 8-16. Stone 1 northern major limit.
setting2. The sighting position to generate the image is stepped back from the menhir further than necessary, merely to prevent the menhir from dominating the image, but it can be seen that the left, southwest face of the stone, is in-line with the setting point of the Moon, reinforcing Thom’s calculations. The same effect is visible when stood beside the stone that rests at the eastern base of the menhir, less than one metre away, which is hypothesised, to indicate to the observer where to stand.
Table 8-7. Nether Largie lunar rise/set azimuths Approximately 3500 BCE Rise
Set
Northern Minor
69.2°
297.8°
Major
38.3 – 42.5°
320.14°
Minor
136.13°
232.0°
Major
155.0°
205.0°
Southern
8.3.4.2. Stone 1 Southern Minor Limit Setting
in field survey bearings, in effect, be the same. The azimuths are listed in Table 8-7.
At Ballochroy, the phenomenon of the setting Moon appearing to ride down the sloping top of the stone, is repeated here at Nether Largie. An even more impressive aspect of this event is displayed as the Moon rides down3 the top of Stone 1, at the time of the southern minor limit. The viewing position is obtained by locating the lower right corner of the sloping top of stone 1, with the notch on the horizon. This not only positions the observer to witness the Moon riding down the slope, but it simultaneously indicates the point on the horizon where the Moon dissolves from view into the notch, at an azimuth of 232° and a declination of -18.86°.
8.3.4.1. Stone 1 Northern Major Limit Setting The first lunar simulation undertaken was to examine Thom’s stated alignment to the western horizon, for the northern major limit. The directional bearing of the southwest and northeast faces of stone 1 (317º to 319º respectively) do coincide, with what could be described as a depression on the western horizon, at 319º. The Moon however, slides down the hillside for 1º of azimuth, from the time it touches the horizon at 318º, until it disappears at its limit declination of 29.017º (319.8º, equal to onsite bearing of 320º for the northeast face) passing by Thom’s (1978: 46) identified point on the horizon. This is illustrated in Figure 8-16, or through the northern major
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: NLNmjrSet/NLNmjrSet.exe 3 See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: Ridesdown/NLSmnrSet.exe 2
65
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation 8.3.4.3. Stone 1 Northern Major Limit Rise
8.3.4.4. Stone 1 Southern Minor Limit Rise
The initial reaction in considering the southern minor limit is whether, if an observer were to stand on the opposite side of stone number 1 and look in the reverse direction, is it at all likely that the event of a rising Moon of the northern major limit would be seen riding up the slope of the stone’s top? Given that the angle of the incline of the rising Moon, in this northern limit, will be different to that of the setting Moon in the reverse direction, at the southern limit; it might be considered unlikely. However, with the elevation of the north eastern horizon raised higher, by 3+ degrees, than that of the southern horizon, the difference in inclination is somewhat nullified’ Indeed by judicious placement of the viewing position, the rising Moon can be seen to ride up the top of the stone. For this Stone 1 lunar animation4 however, there does not appear to be an easily discernible, self-indicated, or inferred viewing position. This could be due in part, to i) the fact that the model of the stone is not an exact replica of the stone itself, or, ii) we might just consider this phenomenon as speculative. Evidence of the three other orientations for this stone would suggest a deliberate action, however tentative. Multiple locations could be determined for viewing this phenomenon, depending upon whether:
The final direction indicated by the central menhir to be considered, is to the east, or more precisely, in the direction of the southern minor Moon rise. The lunar orb reaches the elevated horizon, at an altitude of approximately 6° in this direction, with a resulting azimuth of 138°. By placing the observation point at the location of the stone that lies at the northwest base of the menhir (an action that repeats the suggested marker positioning for viewing stone 1 and the Moon in the opposite direction), the event shown in Figure 8-17 is generated. Refer to the discussion earlier regarding the Imbolc sunrise. 8.3.4.5. Stone 1 Southern Major Limit Rise At the time of the southern major limit, the Moon rises from the low hillside to the southeast, at an azimuth of 154.7°, with no indication in the arrangement of any of the stones, marking the event. The Moon then travels low on the horizon, but does not ride along the horizon as it does at Ballochroy, until the last 15 minutes5 it is in the sky, when it slides along the top of the escarpment and sets behind the mountain. Still an impressive sight low in the sky, although not generating quite the same amount of awe as the event at Ballochroy creates. Figure 8-14 above would suggest that this may be viewed from stone 4, but stone 1 would block the view.
• the full length of the slope is considered • the mid sections as indicated in the animation, or • just the tip of stone 1 being the point of interest.
8.3.5. Stones 2 & 3
If indeed this viewing aspect was intended to be an observed phenomenon, the remnants of a marker stone in the ground, lying somewhere between QW and stone 1, would be indicative, enabling the aspect to be less implied, and more definitive.
The pair of stones designated as 2 and 3, do not have any form of surface alignment that suggests that the flat faces of the pair are to be used in unison for sighting either, in the south easterly, or in the north westerly direction; there is a spatial separation along their main axis plane, preventing such facility. With no particular orientation having been associated with this pair of stones, the initial task of simulation was thought to be more of proving the non–orientation perspective, as much as anything else. However, having uncovered the additional perspectives associated with stone 1, the same systematic sequencing of computer simulations was an obvious procedure to repeat, producing the following data results.
Within the section describing the use of the electronic map projection convergence from the map’s grid north, to actual true north, was discussed. The convergence value at this latitude and longitude is -2.9°. If this correction is not applied during the simulation, the Moon can be witnessed rising perfectly along the ridge line from the Col, and could easily seduce the researcher to misconstrue this as the phenomenon to view. However, for this effect to actually be valid, with the convergence applied, a viewpoint further to the west would be necessary, and not with Stone 1. The Moon rising in this general direction, with its path following the line of the hill does cause one to hypothesise, that a viewing position further to the west would have the possibility of actually observing the Moon, in conjunction with the Col itself. The one stone located in such a position is stone 6. This hypothesis will be explored later in this section.
8.3.5.1. Stones 2 & 3 Northern Limits The shaping of these two stones, one with a ‘saddle-back’ top, the other, even with its broken section, see Figure 8-18, is reminiscent of the rounded top of one of the stones of Carnasserie or at Dunamuck, that when viewed from the side, ‘cups’ the rising Sun at its peak (see the interrogations for each of these sites for details). This strongly suggests that some similar effect may take place when viewed in the direction of the northern Major limit.
4 See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: Stone1Lunar/Stone1Lunar.exe
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: 15minute/SthMjrSet.exe 5
66
Investigative Models
Figure 8-17. Stone 1 southern minor limit rising of the moon.
Figure 8-18. Nether Largie, stones 2 & 3.
67
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation horizon, at an azimuth of 137° are presented to us. The difficulty here however, is stone 3’s possible twisting toward the southeast, and what would seem to be, a large chunk of rock split from its easterly edge.
8.3.5.2. Stones 2 & 3 Northern Major Limits Moon Rise Through intense experimentation, placing the observation point at a multitude of locations, I was able to derive several views of the Moon’s rising, in association with each of these stones. However, no self-determining orientation to the horizon could be extracted from the imagery created through the 3-dimensional simulation. Any of these observation points, without a secondary indicator as a means of ‘confirmation’ may only be considered as coincidental. No such ‘cupping’ of the orb as suggested earlier could be ascertained; leaving this researcher to continue to ponder why these tops are shaped the way they are.
There are two views of interest, mainly due to their similarity in style to that of the northern lunar setting, vis-a-vis; i) the Moon rising between the stones, without a deterministic feature to indicate where to stand and ii) is a repeat of the action employed in viewing the north westerly direction, with these two stones. Standing again at arms-length, this time with stone number 2 on the left, and looking along the northeast face of stone number 3, the lunar sphere rises at the junction point of the stone and the horizon. This second perspective is arbitrary, and has nothing to support it to substantially state that they were intentional, but it is presented here for the duality of the situation; which will become more evident in the discussion that concludes this section on Nether Largie. Plus, as presented earlier, with what appears as a slight twisting lean to the southeast, if the stone were to be straightened, the bearing would reduce even further, suggesting that this orientation may be coincidental.
8.3.6. Stones 2 & 3 Northern Major and Minor Limit Settings The northeastern face of stone number 2 is quite curved, and therefore, does not avail the observer with a viable surface along which to sight. It is the south western face of this pair of stones that provides the observer with any form of directed sightline. The bearings of the south western face of this pair is directed toward 310-320° and the northern minor limit setting azimuth for the Moon, being just short of 300°. Therefore, there is no discernible orientation toward this minor Moon setting position.
8.3.8. Stones 4 & 5 8.3.8.1. Stones Numbered 4 & 5 Northern Limits
Regarding the setting Moon at the time of major northern limit, there are two ways to observe the event. The first approach is from the eastern edge of stone 3, the second is an adaption made due to the spatial separation of the two stones. The first viewing perspective demonstrated in the norther major setting animation6 (also see Figure 8-19), clearly shows that an observer could stand, sighting along the southwest face of stone 3, to witness the Moon descend to the horizon, and set at 319° with a declination of 29.1°.
The bearings taken of the northeast faces of stones 4 and 5, which would be the indicator towards the hillside, do not point to any pronounced notch, only a vague dip. However, we must remember that true topographic representation from the OSGB tiles is not represented in the models; compensation for convergence has been made but not the compression as illustrated in Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2. In conducting the computer simulations for the minor northern limit setting of the Moon, the centre of the Moon reaches the horizon at an altitude of 4.45º and an azimuth of 297.803º. That is, the bearings, as taken in the field, indeed match this azimuth, therefore, it could be said that these stones have an orientation in the direction of the Moon’s minor northern limit. However, Thom figure for the site (1978: 46 inset) depicts these stones as oriented to an azimuth e+i, toward the Northern major limit, a full 10º difference, as shown in Figure 8-21 (e-i, the Sun’s obliquity of the ecliptic {e}, minus the inclination of the Moon, {i}).
The second viewing perspective is intriguing, as the action may be repeated in the opposite direction, resulting in a duplicative effect. When stood by the side of Stone number 3, with the stone to the left, at an arm’s length away (the same distance achieved by the stones at the base of stone 1) the northern major limit of the Moon setting may be witnessed. This is best illustrated through a view between 2 and 37 in which, as viewed from along side stone 3, the Moon descends between the stones, and sets into the left hand side of stone 2. The reverse action will be described in the next section.
For the Northern minor limit, as noted in the introduction to Nether Largie, the southwest face of stone 4 has two bearings, that of 318° and 314°. The portion of the face nearest the western horizon possesses a bearing of 318º, possibly used by Thom to arrive at his alignment (1978: 45). However, the simulation does not disclose the top limb of the Moon being visible in the notch as Thom suggests, either with, or without, tectonic or isostatic movement. The simulation of stone 1 has demonstrated that the Moon actually sets at 320° not 318°, the
8.3.7. Stones 2 & 3 Southern Minor Limit Moon Rise In completing the systematic views of this pair of stones, with respect to the lunar events, two perspectives toward the south east, where the Moon rises on the elevated 6 See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: NorthmjrSet/NorthernMajorSet.exe 7 See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: tween2and3/between2-3.exe
68
Investigative Models
Figure 8-19. Stones 2 & 3 northern limit setting moon.
Figure 8-20. Stones 2 & 3 looking toward minor southern moonrise.
69
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-21. Stone 4 & 5 northern minor limit moonset.
orientation of the kinked surface of stone 4 becomes viable, with the Moon’s azimuth being 318.8° as can be seen in Figure 8-22.
were being investigated, curiosity regarding the relationship of the Q stones and the horizon towards stones 4 and 5 led to experimentation with the days surrounding the limit.
8.3.8.2. Stones Numbered 4 & 5 Southern Limits 8.3.9. Q Stone Views
The computer simulations for the Southern major limit, led to an intense investigation regarding viewing locations. If stood next to stone 1, the computer indicates a form of orientation, but these same simulations appeared to give some credence to considering the Q stones as observation points. In Figure 8-14, Thom identifies the Moon touching the horizon at 202º; this requires a slight adjustment, which will be described shortly. The animation shown earlier for stone 1 looking from stone 1 to stones 4 and 5, indicates that the Moon touches the horizon at 204.9º and then disappears behind Bellanoch Hill. But, the lunar sphere’s upper limb, does not reappear at the notch located at an azimuth of 208º as Thom conjectured – the computer simulation having the advantage that Thom didn’t have, namely, the ability to remove the trees that would have blocked his view. Again, we must bear in mind the mapping projection issue of convergence, as described earlier, and not dismiss completely Thom’s computation.
When first testing the Moon rise, in all cases, computer simulations are run for the days before and after the calculated limit date; to ensure that the time of maximum declination at the horizon, is simulated appropriately. When standing at the location of QE on the actual day of the limit southern setting of the Moon, the Moon can be seen to ride along the horizon until it sets into the hill. When looking at stone 5 from this location, the top right corner of the stone seems to act as a pointer, to align the stone with the horizon, in so doing it shows the path of the Moon. The event is indicated in Figure 8-23, but is more discernible in the computer re-construction8. If, on the other hand, the observation is made the day before, from the same QE location, the Moon appears from underneath the right ‘shoulder’ of stone number 5 and proceeds to set in the Col that sits between the pair of stones. This event is illustrated in Figure 8-24, as well as
The event just discussed, pales in comparison to the following discovery. Whilst these ‘viewing perspectives’
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: Reconstruction/QEonDay.exe 8
70
Investigative Models
Figure 8-22. Stone 4 major northern limit moonset.
stone 5 and stone 4 so that the width of the stones mark the day before, and the actual day of limit, is indicative that a strong argument may be made to imply that it was deliberate. The day after the limit has been reached, the Moon returns to the Col and could be used as a means of confirmation that the limit occurred the day before, from either viewing location.
a computer animation. The observable event occurring the day before9, reminds us of the ‘warning positions’ posited by Thom, with regards to the Ring of Brodgar (1982: 56). This perspective leads one to speculate, that the easternmost Q stone enables the determination, that the limit is indicated when the events happen in the appropriate sequence. This also leads to the question what are the other 3 Q stones for (Q5 having been identified in possible association with the northern Moon rise at Stone 1, as discussed earlier)?
As the observation of the limit is reinforced with the view from stone 1 to stone 4, the first question that comes to mind is – What is missing from the collection of stones that would complete the identification of what the Q stones were intended for? The converse side of the argument leads one to consider that perhaps the site is incomplete, because the site was either, still under development, or stones that were there initially, are now missing.
Experimentation for limit orientation of the other Q stones shows that the process of observing the day before, and the day of the lunar setting, is repeated. If stood at Q5, or with a slight shift in the recorded position at QN (recall that the GPS was not exactly cooperative), the same two events that occur between stone 5 and QE, are also observable, this time between QN and stone 4. With the shift in observation point, the Col now appears to the right of Stone 4. Is this perspective pure coincidence? For the Q stones to be positioned at the exact distance from
8.3.10. Stone 6 Stone 6 leans dramatically toward the east. As mentioned in the introduction to Nether Largie, to set the northwest and southeast faces to an upright position the stone was straightened by 25º. All lunar aspects were tested with this
9 See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: QEdayBefore.exe
71
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-23. Southern major limit from QE looking towards stone 5 (enlarged).
Figure 8-24. Day before major southern limit QE looking to stone 5.
72
Investigative Models
Figure 8-25. Northern major moon rise over stone 6.
stone, but only one orientation warrants presenting, that of the northern major Moon rise.
solstice sunset. All that can be presented here is that, with zero convergence programmed into the simulation, the Sun sets into the side of the mountain toward Cnoc Reamhar that peaks at 240m. With full 2.89° convergence configured into the simulation, the Sun rolls down the western edge of the mountain, and at 2° of convergence, the Sun sets directly over the peak. In any of these cases, it is a noticeable event, and by the very evidence that there is no stone to mark the event, that it has been deliberately ignored, or avoided at this site.
As visible in Figure 8-25, the northwestern corner of stone 6 is placed to coincide with the Col on the horizon. As the stone 6 animation10 demonstrates, the Moon then rises at the time of the northern major limit from the Col and rides along the top of the stone. As this simulation required a substantial correction of the stone into the upright position, this orientation may only be considered as suggestive. Until such time an excavation may be conducted to establish the original socket, into which the foot of the stone would fit. At which point the simulation could be repeated.
One spectacle that is difficult to discern, due to the issue of map convergence, but warrants mentioning, is the winter
By utilizing 3-dimensional simulation technology, it has been possible to ascertain more directional components to the site than previously considered. The simulations definitely benefit from the modelling capability to ‘remove’ large clumps of trees, both eliminating surveying tasks that Thom was forced to make, and by opening other vistas, to expose the additional orientations. This research has enabled refinements to Thom’s work, vis-à-vis the Moon as it brushes the horizon and rolls along it for a short period of time during the southern major setting, but not at 202º as he suggests (Thom: 1978, 46). Secondly, with the trees that blocked the view of the Temple Wood cairn removed, the subjective aspect of stone 4, indicating the setting Moon over Temple Wood at its northern major limit, has been shown not to be a definitive occurrence.
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: stone6/NLstone6.exe
This interrogation has determined Nether Largie to be a site with only lunar orientation. Within 5 kilometres we have a
8.3.11. Stellar and Planetary Considerations With the site demonstrations indicating a predilection for lunar orientations, it was considered unnecessary to examine the site for stellar and planetary occurrences. 8.3.12. Nether Large Discussion
10
73
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation second site, Dunamuck (at Bridgend) which, through this research appears to be a solar related site (section 9.7). Brother and sister sites, as it were, in the same alluvial plain, but dissimilar to Ballochroy, that has aspects of both solar and lunar phenomena embedded within it. Was it a cultural shift, or a freak of natural landscape, that allowed Ballochroy to incorporate the phenomena that this research uncovered through the use of 3-dimensional computer simulation?
though the land movement is slight, further nullifies the conjecture. Any other site where an investigation suggests an orientation of the upper limb of the Moon meeting an horizon point, needs to be re-examined to ensure the diminishing declination is taken into consideration. With all this said, regarding the newly disclosed orientations, the one word that comes to mind is – duality. Just about every aspect of orientation uncovered, within this site, occurs in pairs! This is illustrated in Figure 8-26. If one considers even the tentative orientations of stones number 2 and 3, we have:
Thom also presented two orientations associated with the upper limb of the Moon being briefly visible, in two notches on the horizon, one at 208º -(e+i) and the second at 318º +(e+i). The simulation demonstrates that neither of these events occurs over the 2000-year date range being investigated, but we may include the latter, if we are to accept that a full lunar sphere on the horizon, and not just half the sphere, is what may have been sought by the Neolithic people indigenous to the area.
two major northern limit risings two major northern limit settings two major southern limit risings two major southern limit settings two Q stone observations for the day before southern major limit setting • two sets of two stones • even the dual viewing aspects as discussed regarding stones 2 and 3.
• • • • •
Thom also suggested (1978: 48-49) an orientation to the south west, for the setting of the lunar major limit being viewed from stones 2 and 3 through stone 1 to stones 4 and 5. Physically, when on site this viewing perspective is very difficult to determine exactly where to stand; particularly as stone 1 intervenes. Viewing the southern major limit setting is better viewed from stone 1 or the Q group.
The exceptions being, the setting Moon at both the northern and southern minor Limits, with only one apiece, and a possible addition, yet tentative, northern major setting, with stone 4.
The simulations have also illustrated the issue raised in an earlier section, i.e. relating limit values to occur exactly on the elevated horizon. In all but rare cases, the limit declination for the Moon is reached anywhere up to 180º in rotation, away from the horizon point. As the limit only holds true for about 3 minutes of time, before the declination starts to diminish, when the Moon actually reaches the horizon ‘notches’ in question, the declination has diminished sufficiently to nullify Thom’s conjecture on the Scottish Neolithic detecting the Moon’s wobble. Combining this delta with the land movement, even
This duality does not end there. It would seem that the left member of each of the two pairs of stones, as viewed from the central stone (stone 1), are used as predictors of the major limit to come. That limit can then be observed via the centre stone in the southerly direction, or stone 6 in the northerly direction. These left-most stones, may also act as confirmation of the Moon-phenomena, reinforcing what is observed via stone 1; as they have the potential for being employed for observing the event on the actual day of the limit. If this were the case, it would require multiple observers; to use the Hopi Indians as an example,
Figure 8-26. Final lunar orientations for Nether Largie.
74
Investigative Models the event, it is evident that the builders were capable of creating their own horizon by sloping the top of a stone– begging the question – Is there a missing menhir or pair? The possibility of multiple observers both here at Nether Largie, as well as down the road, at the site of Dunamuck (aka Achnashelloch), could potentially reinforce the cultural perception of a priesthood as opposed to a Priesttribal leader. As priesthood is indicative of an advisory role to the leadership, and a separation of secular from spiritual, could this be the cultural case in this geographic location for this era?
their War Chief, on specific occasions, accompanied the Sun Watcher (Malville, 1980: 44). Two watchers at Nether Largie add to the duality of the site. Similarly, the rightmost stones of each of these pairs have close orientations to the opposite limit event, to that of its partner stone. The northern major limit setting viewable via stone number 4, versus the southern major setting for stone number 5, and the southern minor rise for stone number 3, versus the northern major rise for stone number 2. In addition, stones number 4 and 3, are similar in physical shape, as they have, to all intent and purpose, 5 faces each. The face away from the centre stone is divided in two, with the smaller and sharply angled face (leftmost face when stood outside the pair, looking toward the centre) having orientations to the northern major limit setting, and the southern minor limit rising. What do these observations mean? Many questions were left unanswered such as:
An adaptation of Thom’s original model, Figure 8-26, is employed to summarise the new orientations exposed by these 3-D simulations. The additional directional considerations indicated for this site, are as follows: • Those marked by red arrows are singular observations. • Green arrows are associated with the observance of a ‘rolling’ orb. • Solid arrows indicate orientations that are substantiated via a secondary feature supporting the viewpoint. • The dashed arrows illustrate orientations that were uncovered, but not substantiated, with a secondary aspect, in order to state categorically, that an orientation exists.
• What mental or cultural processes drove the desire that required the marrying of opposites, and the symmetry in this manner? • Do they reflect the duality of the Moon itself, new Moon versus full Moon, northern major limit with southern major limit or southern minor with northern minor?
Until this research, there had been no suggestion as to the purpose of the Q stones, or for that matter, the four stones that surround the base of stone 1. My research has shown that two of the Q stones and two of the base stones do appear to have a potential purpose. I believe that the remaining stones also served a purpose, but this research has been unable to discover what that purpose may have been. Perhaps as suggested earlier, stones are missing, and a thorough ground survey of the area is needed to find the stumps or sockets of any missing stones. Finally, the very nature of the central stone, Stone 1, with its 4 orientations, combined with those of the two sets of paired stones (2 and 3, 4 and 5) engenders a sense of axis mundi about it.
Even though stones 2 & 3 seem to align with landscape features for the limit observation, stone 3 would seem to have two or more features, on the horizon, which could possibly be determining factors of where to stand. Plus, with its apparent lean to the southeast, proper orientation could not be determined. If in fact the Q stones could be considered as viewing locations, logic would suggest that other viewing locations between stone number 1 and the northern pair would be likewise marked. As none are visible at this time, it might be an opportunity for an archaeological ground survey, to determine if markers had previosuly existed between Stone 1 and the northern pair; which would indicate viewing stations to witness the Moon setting over stone 1, as well as indicate the rising Moon over stone 3.
8.3.13. Dating Nether Largie Being a lunar site, the change in declination of the Limits over the time range being investigated, amounts to a ¼ of a degree. A value that is too small to make a time estimate, as a very minor shift – a centimetre or two – in the viewing position, would be all that was required to compensate for the Moon’s limit declination change. Moreover, as stated, the sightlines are not to the limit limits anyway, and would apply today if the trees were not obscuring the vista. With Nether Largie being in close proximity to Dunamuck (Achnaschelloch), a site that would appear to be its partner for solar observance I am inclined to place it at the same period of 2600-2200 BCE. If we were to accept the Imbolc sunrise as a criterion for the site, the same time period would also be acceptable.
Stone 6, at first would seem to be an afterthought, discovering that the Moon rises from the notch of the valley, and then rides up and along the hillside, is duplicated in the shape of the stone itself. However, if the duplicative nature of the site is to be considered, then it would seem to be part of the original configuration or plan. This duality seems almost to be unique in the British Isles the only other sites that I am aware of, that indicate a possible dual purpose/use are Etton and Staines discussed by Francis Pryor’s Seahenge (2001: 141). One factor remains puzzling, with all these added lunar viewing perspectives, what doesn’t appear to be observable at this location? Notably, the northern minor Moon rise, and the southern major Moon rise; another set of opposites. Even if there is no definitive horizon dip or notch, to mark 75
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation 8.4. Beacharr
before the hillside again rises steeply’ (1980: 78). Without exact location data for the platform, it was not possible to locate this platform as time, and weather conditions, did not permit the extensive search required. Unless back tracing of Thom’s suggested orientation to his viewing station was conducted, his conjecture could not be tested.
NR 6926 4330 Latitude 55° 37.712’ Longitude -5° 39.946’ Beacharr is a single menhir that stands atop an escarpment, which descends to the sea, to the west. It is situated between a deep hollow to the south, whilst the cairn to the north has its cist exposed. Thom reports a lunar alignment, visible from a platform, across the dell, to the south east, from which he took alignment readings of the menhir – ‘Behind the Beacharr farm … there is a level raised stretch
Simulations were run for all lunar and solar Limits, with and without plate tectonic and isostatic rebound, no correlation between these events and the stone, could be found.
Figure 8-27. Beacharr Farm – Thom’s view station?
76
Investigative Models 8.5. Ballymeanoch
8.5.1. Previous research into Ballymeanoch
NR8338 9641 Latitude N 56º 6’ 40.26”, Longitude -5º 29’ 9.6”
For Ballymeanoch, Thom (1978: 52) has three potential orientations; winter solstice sunrise, the Moon setting at its major northern limit, and the Moon rising at its most southerly limit. However, Thom states that additional stones need to exist at specific locations to solidify his findings (1978: 53). Archaeological excavations at Ballymeanoch have been conducted by Barber (1978: 104-111) and Abernethy (1995: 63-64) where they uncovered the position of additional stones. However, these positions align to the row of two stones and not to the required orientation to meet Thom’s specified locations. The implications of these additional stones are explored further in the discussion section within the Ballymeanoch interrogation.
The site is easily visible in a field west of the A816, approximately 4.5 km south of Kilmartin. Access is via the gate leading to the Dunchraigaig cairn, and thence by a fenced pathway across the fields. Two rows of stones, comprising 4 and 2 in number, A – D and E, F in Figure 8-28, are oriented in a southwest – northeast direction. The RCAHMS records (NR89NW 14) reports a third stone, said to have contained a hole that passed through it. This stone was originally offset, to the north west of the row of two stones, and is said by Barber (1980: 104-111), to have been placed in the drainage ditch near the kerb cairn (left of Figure 8-28), after his excavation. Time and weather conditions did not permit probing for the socket from which this third stone was extracted.
According to Thom (1978: 52), the four stone alignment at Ballymeanoch (which he refers to as Ballymeanach) indicates the rising Sun on the winter solstice, and the Moon setting at its limit northerly position to the northwest. He also states that the arrangement of the two stones to the west indicates the Moon’s most southerly rising position on the horizon. He further conjectures that stones are missing from this site, as he believes they are missing at Nether Largie. The simulations tentatively, do expose, one of the lunar orientations that seems to be missing from Nether Largie, that of the southern major Moon rise. However, caution has to be taken here. Searching for
The 2 stones, E and F, in the row furthest west, are leaning in dissimilar directions, with the result that no accurate discernible orientation between them could be ascertained. Stone C (see Figure 8-28) has a large flake at the base of its eastern face; this could have broken away from its northern edge. The kerb cairn to the south east, and its accompanying circle of short stones was not examined.
Figure 8-28. Ballymeanoch.
77
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 8-8. Ballymeanoch site survey data Stone A
Location
Height
Stone B
NE face SE face SW face
Stone D
Stone E
Stone F
-5°
29.065 -5°
29.07
-5°
29.1
-5°
29.102° -5°
29.07
-5°
29.073°
Lat
56°
6.675
6.677
56°
6.663
56°
6.665°
6.678
56°
6.680°
corner
NW
distance
84.0”
56° NW
NW 92.0”
56°
NW
NW
167.0”
91”
NW
measured 82.5”
49.5”
74.0”
80.0”
55.0”
at point
E face
SW Cnr
W
W face
150.0”
103.0”
102.0”
108.0”
103.0”
NW face
computed 147.0” NW face
Stone C
Long
bearing
no flat edge
no flat edge
no flat edge
no flat edge
213°
base
15.0”
11.0”
16.5”
10.0”
bearing
308°
329°
326°
323°
326°
284°
base
43.0”
80.5”
31.0”
20.0”
32.3”
bearing
167°
33°/213°
177°
199°
base
19.0”
11.3”
15.0”
09.5”
07.5”
bearing
310°
315°
310°
126º/306°
159°
212º/32°
base
49.5”
75.0”
35.0”
16.0”
34.0”
presupposed orientations would inject biased results into the simulation activities, rather than allowing orientations to speak of their existence through the results of the modelling activity. Table 8-8 lists the on site survey data for Ballymeanoch; numbers in red are values computed during the model construction.
However, unlike Dunamuck, there is no discernible secondary ‘marker’ enabling a self-indicating viewing position. 8.5.3. Ballymeanoch Discussion In reviewing Thom’s published survey data (1978: 52), I am led to an interpretive assumption; specifically, that the 4-stone arrangement has an orientation calculated as an engineer’s mathematical mean, of 320.7°. This assumption is based on the actual bearings taken in the field, of the northeast face of each stone, (see Table 8-8). It is the actual bearings of the faces in question, that are required, not the mean, or centreline, of a set.
8.5.2. Modelling Considerations Several stones are leaning; the most severe is Stone A, where, for modelling purposes, it was necessary to straighten to the upright position by 7º. As mentioned above, Thom stipulates (1978: 52) that the row of two stones does seem to indicate the southerly limit moonrise, the leaning of the stones causes the Moon to rise between them. The simulation runs to test the stated orientations, show agreement to a point. However, the two stones in this row are twisted and tilted, and any attempt at straightening them would be arbitrary, leading to uncertainty in any analysis. Until such time that an archaeological excavation of this pair, can reposition them in their original sockets, to categorically confirm their orientation, any interrogation at this time would only be speculative.
Again, the question needs to be asked ‘what isn’t indicated’. One obvious orientation, which appears during simulation, is the winter solstice Sun, setting in a distinct notch, to the southwest at 221.6°; yet there is no detectable orientation from an orthostat to this position. It is tempting to search for stellar and planetary orientations at this site, however, with the multiple configurations open to investigation, due to the two-on-four viewing options, some orientations are bound to occur statistically, and that is not a viable approach to undertake for this research. Due to the fact that, no astronomical events at this site could be deemed as definitive, a review of possible alternative explanations for this site’s construction was considered. Particularly as this is a fourth site that contains an arched top stone with a dip in the centre of its top (see interrogations of Carnasserie and Dunamuck).
On the other hand, the winter solstice sunrise, which can be seen to rise behind a knoll at an azimuth of 141°, is not oriented with the row of four stones. Neither is any indication given by either row, of the setting Moon at its northern limit. A perceivable orientation that does occur, is the 3 largest stones of the alignment mark the setting Sun of the summer solstice, along their south western edge. Some of the stones here at Ballymeanoch, as at other sites, do appear to have shapes that could fit them to the horizon. The second largest stone in the 4-stone arrangement, is shaped similarly to stone D at Dunamuck, with a rounded top within which is a central depression. Likewise, a position can be found to witness the equinoctial Sun, rising along the top and appearing within the depression.
In considering alternatives for the site, sacred-space is one that comes to mind, but sacred spaces have no predefinition, and tend to be a point of perception whether it is an enclosed area; for example, clearings in woods, or bodies of water. There are two locations, within the general area, that may be considered sacred space. First, about a ¼ mile 78
Investigative Models (approximately 400 m) to the north east, is the cairn known as Dunchraigaig, and secondly, sitting slightly off from the arrangement is a cairn, next to a stream. However, the openness of these stone rows just does not exude the sense of ‘sacred’, as the cairns do; they have an aura more of being ceremonial. One alternative hypothesis that ‘speaks loudest’ for consideration is that, these rows of stones marked a processional path, either from:
constructed to access the site passes by the Dunchraigaig cairn and runs along the edge of the land that slopes away, until it reaches the field in which the stone arrangement and the other cairn reside. One counter argument that could be considered against this stone arrangement being a processional to Dunamuck, or even to Dunadd Fort, is that the river Add intersects the hypothesised route, impeding the processional’s path. However, in defence of the hypothesis, documented research has shown that the ancient peoples were perfectly capable of constructing timber track-ways. As exemplified by i) the wooden bog paths such as the Hatfield Trackway (2008: 178) or ii) the Somerset Levels Sweet track (dating to around 3200-2930 bc, 4000 BCE), a Track-way availing the Neolithic peoples’ access to the natural resources of the reed swamps for the making of baskets, mats and thatch. Hence, a short bridge over the river Add is not out of the realm of possibility; assuming that a river existed, in its current location, 5000 years ago.
• the Dunchraigaig cairn to the other cairn next to the stream • from the solar site of Nether Largie to the lunar site of Dunamuck • from the landing point of vessels at the shoreline to the cairns and Nether Largie. This last alternative (3 above), requires further explanation. Directly to the south-south-east of the arrangement, there currently exists a salt marsh, which has been drained within the past 200 years. Modelling of this area shows that the isostatic level of the land was 4 – 6 meters lower than its current position. This salt marsh would have been a tidal basin in the era that the stones were erected; as a body of water this could be consider a sacred space, as expressed above. The top image of Figure 8-29 shows a Garmin MapSource11 rendition of the basin as it appears today. The lower image in the figure is the same rendition, representing this time the tidal basin with water filling up to the 10 metre line (unfortunately the MapSource data does not provide a clear indicator for a five metre level). The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate the point, namely, that of the water encroachment. The sites of Nether Largie to the north, and Dunamuck (Achnashelloch) to the south, are each indicated in the images with blue flags. Of additional interest to this area, are two standing stone groups (each marked with a blue box), which are situated upon raised ground within, or close to the edge of, the flooded zone. These two groups of stones align with the Southern major lunar limit, as viewed from Nether Largie. As they stand today amongst the tall salt grasses and vegetation, they are not visible from a distance, but in days when their backdrop would have been water, they may well have been easily visible.
8.5.4. Ballymeanoch Avenue To pursue the thought of Ballymeanoch being a processional way or avenue, we must consider three archaeological excavations. The first conducted by Terry (1999) in the Upper Nether Largie area, the second location, Barbeck, just to the south of Terry’s excavation, described by Patrick (1979: S78-S85), and the third by Noble (2006: 227) between Ballymeanoch and Dunamuck (identified in Figure 8-29 as Achnaschelloch). Terry in his investigation identifies an avenue of two near-parallel lines of pits, leading southwards from the South East corner of the main circle. This ‘avenue’ (as Terry refers to the arrangement of pits) would lead directly to the lunar site of Nether Largie. Patrick identifies an arrangement of 3 stones at Barbeck, with a more or less orientation being north-south, with two stones to the west, and the third separated from the first two by some 20 metres to the east; very reminiscent of the Ballymeanoch arrangement. To the south of Ballymeanoch, at the narrowest point of land between the River Add, or in the case of the flooded tidal basin as illustrated in the lower image of Figure 8-29, and the hillside to the east, Noble (2006: 163) has identified what he refers to as a ‘cursus’ of built up soil. Rather than standing stones at this location, a cursus helps perform a dual task, first to act as a berm against seawater encroachment, and secondly as a means of indicating the passageway to the solar site of Dunamuck [marked as Achnashelloch in Figure 8-29].
What these two images illustrate is that water craft would have had a selection of multiple landing spots, probably convenient for landing close to Ballymeanoch; as Burl reminds us ‘Kilmartin Valley is so close to an important sea route between Ireland and south-west Scotland …’ (1981: 72) lending credence to a possible scenario providing access to both Nether Largie and Dunamuck. If these stones are arranged to mark a processional avenue, then it would be expected that other stones also marked the route. It would be interesting to conduct a ground penetrating radar survey north and south of the area, to determine if stone sockets exist that could support the processional hypothesis. Particularly, as even today, the pathway
The premise of an avenue reaching from north of Kilmartin to Dunamuck is reinforced in an article written by Rev R.J. Mapleton Report on Prehistoric Remains in the neighbourhood of Crinan Canal, Argyllshire where, describing Ballymeanoch, he wrote (1870: 147): ‘Very great numbers of these interesting hoary stones are found in various localities about this district, and many
11 The software used in conjunction with the Garmin GPS unit employed in surveying sites.
79
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-29. Isostatic flooded basin of Ballymeanoch (Garmin MapSource).
80
Investigative Models more existed a few years ago. It is said that at one time an avenue of them extended from Lochgilphead, just below the largest group of petroglyphs, up to the spot near Kilmartin where there is a range of cairns. Several pairs of these are to be seen in this route, until we arrive at a field, in the very midst of burials, where seven are now standing [Ballymeanoch]; these seven cairns do not form part of a circle, but are arranged in three patches; four in one patch, two in another, and one by itself. They are very high and broad, and two of them are marked with pits and circles. The one standing by itself is perforated, such as are often called ‘Odin stones.’ Not far from these is another patch, if possible, more surrounded with burials.’ Processional avenues are not unusual in the ancient landscape; consider the Dorset Cursus (Lawson: 2007) or the area of Wessex, where an avenue (Kennet Avenue) connects the grand enclosure of Avebury to that of the Sanctuary, almost two kilometres in length (Burl: 1979, 4849). There are even similarities between the Avebury and Ballymeanoch avenues in how they each pass, for a short distance, along a path that is raised above a dale to one side, and runs beside a steep hillside on the other, whether or not this is coincidence of landscape, or deliberate selection of pathway, is a matter of pure conjecture. To conclude this section, I believe that this site is a processional and has minimal connectivity in itself, with celestial events. The one seemingly viable orientation, being that of the setting summer solstice Sun, which may be indicative of the time of year, and of the day, when the processional was employed.
81
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation 8.6. Brainport Bay
and restored in 1982 by P. Fane Gladwin (1978). The two viewing stations are approximately 66 feet (20m) and 200 feet (60m) from the stones, and align perfectly with them, see Figure 8-31. The forward of the two stones is easily visible from the rear viewing station with it appearing to sit on top of the rearward stone, furthest from the shoreline. The rearward stone sits cradled between two natural outcrops that form what is referred to as a V notch.
NR 9762 9510 Latitude N56º 6’ 20.7” Longitude -5º 15’ 17.7” What a fascinating site, snuggled in forestry commission land, along the shoreline of Loch Fyne, approximately a kilometre’s loch-side walk, from Minard Beach (A83). The ‘prominent’ features of this site being two stones, sat upon a ‘plinth’, aligned to the north east, with an orientation to the distant hills of Beinn Oss and Beinn Bubhcraig. The other discernible features are two potential viewing stations to the southwest of the plinth.
NOTE: the figure is compiled from Gladwin’s paper in the journal Kist, an addendum was added to the issue of Kist, in which the diagram was published, correcting the typographical error of the Midsummer sunrise from that of 54° to that of 45°.
The stones are diminutive in comparison to other sites, with the visitor ‘towering’ over them, rather than the stones towering over the visitor. The site was excavated
Regarding the viewing stations, the rear location could act as an ‘early warning alarm’. Once the Sun has reached a
Figure 8-30. Brainport Bay looking north east.
82
Investigative Models cairn. In the back of the larger boulder, I discovered a ledge, which, by placing the right foot onto the ledge, results in a natural supporting position for the other foot on the small boulder to the rear. In consequence, the body position achieved, affords an excellent stance for viewing the alignment of the two stones. This stance is in addition to the reported viewing position considered by Gladwin, where one stands between the two boulders and views the forward stones through a V in the top of the larger boulder. According to Gladwin, the main stones of this site were discovered to have been removed from their sockets and ‘strewn’ about the site. One stone was broken in three, and a replica made to the same size and dimensions. The stones were restored into what is considered their original locations. 8.6.1. Previous Brainport Bay Investigations Brainport Bay’s astronomical orientations were investigated by MacKie, at the behest of Gladwin (1978) who conducted the site’s archaeological excavation. To set the context for the site’s interrogation, MacKie’s findings will be presented in that section within chapter 7. Ruggles (1999: 29) informs us, that Archie Thom’s survey of the site assessed a declination of 22°6’ for the Sun. This declination does not fall within 15 days either side of the actual solstice. This appears to be caused by the employment of a subjective horizon point, rather than allowing the event to determine any stone orientation. Galdwin (1985) describes stones that are now embedded within the surrounding Forestry Commission plantation; these outlier stones are considered part of the site. Rain and quagmirish undergrowth made accurate GPS, or alternative surveying methods of these stones, a task for drier days. To incorporate these outlier stones in the analysis, a close approximation of their locations was determined from the reference material (Table 8-10), making the analytical investigations somewhat subjective. If the results prove interesting enough, revisiting the site in drier times may be in order. The top four items in Table 8-10 are illustrated in Figure 8-32 with the un-surveyed outlier positions denoted by a survey rod and marked by a red circle. 8.6.2. Modelling Considerations As mentioned above, the outlier stones were not surveyed; to plot a prospective position, Gladwin’s plan of the site was engaged to estimate their locations. This is a far more complex site than the eye first perceives. Gladwin’s extensive excavation highlights a variety of features within the lower platform, where the two main sighting stones rest. Galdwin identifies two other stones in the terrace area of the main alignment; one is referenced as ‘stone 3’ and the other as the ‘pyramid stone’ suggesting that in conjunction, these may mark the winter solstice sunrise. The survey data of the two central stones are given in Table 8-9. The additional ‘outlier’ stones comprise of 3
Figure 8-31. Plan of Brainport Bay site (compiled from Kist).
particular horizon point, it would be time to move to the forward viewing point, whereby, the observation would be repeated. The forward viewing station comprises two boulders, the boulder closest to the ‘plinth’ containing the stone arrangement, being larger than the other. Between these boulders, and the rear of the two uprights, lays a 83
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation in number, and their computed positions are based on their reported distances from the centre of the site. In positioning these stones for modelling purposes, it was assumed that the reported distances were orthogonal to the centre line; see Figure 8-32. When setting simulation views, the stones and boulders blend into each other, making it difficult to
distinguish one from the other, so, for the sake of clarity the rear stone of the ‘rifle sight’ is coloured in blue. The pyramid stone and stone 3 positions were extracted from Gladwin’s detailed diagram, see Figure 8-31 Figure 8-31and Figure 8-37. The locations of the lower and upper viewing stations are listed in Table 8-10, along with the computed positions (in red) of the outliers, derived from Gladwin’s site excavation data. One outlier referred to as the Oak Bank Stone by MacKie (1988: 221-224), which lays on the ground some 240m to the northwest was not included in this survey, as only a general location had been described, consequently, inclusion in this work would have been purely speculative.
Table 8-9. Brainport Bay survey data
location
Height
NE face SE face SW face NW face
Fore Stone
Rear Stone
Long
-5
15.298
-5
15.307
Lat
56
6.35
56
6.345
Corner
NE
NE
Distance
34’ 2.5”
measured
39.25”
34.75”
at point
NE corner
NE corner
computed
NA
NA
bearing
base
6.0”
bearing
44.5°
44.5°
base
19.0”
14.00”
bearing
4°
base
bearing
base
18.00”
14.00”
Table 8-10. Viewpoints and computed outlier positions Longitude
Latitude
BPB NW
-5 15.3245
30 metres to the north 56 6.3588 west of centre
BPB east
-5 15.2789
56 6.3487
25 metres to the east of centre
BPB west
-5 15.3149
56 6.3478
12 metre distance from centre
Lower view -5 15.319 point
56 6.338
Upper view -5 15.386 point
56 6.297
Comment
Figure 8-32. Upper platform view to the north east. Rear stone indicated in blue between the notch. Red circles mark the outlier stones.
84
Investigative Models 8.6.3. Land Motion
Brainport Bay then this shadow perspective has to be seriously considered. Gladwin also states (1978: 10-11) ‘…but it has been constructed to face back towards the ‘ritual’ boulder rather than towards the rising sun.’
The rotational direction of the tectonic plate is congruent with the summer solstice bearing of the primary observation, and therefore of minimal effect. The isostatic depression would potentially result in the platform upon which the primary pair of stones resides, occasionally becoming an island, should the water level of the loch rise, due to spring runoff. Even the ground, upon which the outliers sit, is raised above their surroundings, begging the question, which was of greater significance the raised land or the positioning of the site?
Gladwin’s conjecture about the pyramid stone marking the midwinter sunrise was tested (1985: 17), but no orientation was found to exist with the sunrise; more on the pyramid stone shortly. Employing the estimated position of the outliers, listed in Table 8-10, the location of the easterly outlier was selected as a viewing point to test for the summer solstice sunset, the result of which is illustrated in Figure 8-34. The computerised ‘survey pole’ in the image is situated at the estimated location of the north westerly stone, some 30 metres away from the centreline of the main arrangement. From the image generated, it is somewhat obvious, that a minor shift of approximately ½ a metre to the north, in either the viewing location, or that of the ‘survey pole’, would result in an acceptable orientation. Alternatively, if a stone were situated in the simulation in place of the survey rod, the stones natural size may well be adequate to indicate the solstice sunset. However, with the inaccuracy of the location of these ‘survey rods’, testing for a date range would be unfruitful.
8.6.4. Solar Events The summer solstice sunrise is an obvious first choice to test for any orientation with the Brainport Bay arrangement. Indeed this orientation of the stones does line up with the rising Sun (Figure 8-32). At the time of the solstice sunrise, the Sun’s azimuth from 3500 – 1500 BCE ranges from 44.75° to that of 44.92° (declination ~24°4’), a variation of a mere 0.17°. This amount is indiscernible, from an observer’s perspective, when looking in that direction. Indiscernible that is, unless a different perspective is taken. At the time of the solstice, if the observation is made by looking back at the lower viewing station, away from the Sun, the shadow of the two primary stones and that of the V notch, formed by the natural cleft in the outcrop, is cast upon the lower observation boulder. We can draw an assumption that the depression in the top of the boulder, as described by Gladwin (1978: 5), aligns with the shadow point cast on the boulder. It would be interesting to re-survey the site to determine if this assumption is correct. At the beginning of the date range, as the Sun approaches the full sphere on the horizon, the pair of stones cast a single shadow, Figure 8-33, but at the tail end of the date range, the 0.17° shift in the Sun’s orientation results in a separate shadow being cast for each stone. It is generally considered that the focal point of monuments is the largest element within that monument; as the boulder is the largest element at
MacKie’s 1988 analysis of the Oak Bank stone, 210 metres further to the northwest, questions whether it may have been used for the summer solstice sunset observation; or the two outliers may have been used in conjunction. A return visit to the site is necessary to determine accurately all outlier positions, to verify if the summer solstice sunset orientation does indeed exist. The reciprocal orientation of standing at the northwesterly outlier, looking toward the forward stone of the main pair, and the easterly outlier, was then tested, and was found to demonstrate no viable orientation. From the same northwesterly outlier, the Sun is seen to set over the mound that sandwiches the rear ‘sight’. Figure 8-35 highlights that no association with the rear sight (coloured
Figure 8-33. Stone shadows on view station boulder, 3500 BCE on left; 1500 BCE on right.
85
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-34. Brainport Bay summer solstice sunset, looking toward the easterly outlier stones.
Figure 8-35. Winter solstice sunrise viewed from easterly outlier toward rear stone and outcrop.
86
Investigative Models
Figure 8-36. Winter solstice meridian sun pyramid stone shadow. After Gladwin (1985).
the meridian Sun. Through the course of the year, the shadow of the forward pointer stone, from the meridian Sun, falls short of the pyramid stone, until midwinter is approached. At which time, the tip of the shadow begins to touch the pyramid, awaiting the winter solstice, whereupon the shadow, rests directly on the pyramid. In the computer simulation, the shadow of the forward pointer stone, almost reaches the tip of the pyramid, but does not go beyond it. If the pyramid stone was used in this fashion, it could only act as a warning, that winter solstice is about to happen, as the shadow coincides with the peak of the stone for a few days before and after the solstice.
blue for definition in the image), as i) a movement of the viewing location several metres to the south would be required, and ii) this movement would be in the opposite direction required, to satisfy the minor positioning correction for the summer solstice, presented earlier in this section. The setting of the Sun over the mound however, presents an uncertainty factor. The mound was not considered a vital feature during the site visit, and unlike the stones, was not surveyed. Consequently, in the model, the mound is drawn from photographs resulting in a rough and semi-realistic representation. If the peak of the mound were slightly to the left, conjecture could easily be made that it was part of the arrangement. Again, for dating purposes, either end of the date range gave very little separation in azimuth.
Figure 8-36, and two animations, the first animation, for the day of the solstice12 as the shadow moves across the stone. The second animation illustrates how the shadow creeps up the stone and down again during the ten days13 either side of the solstice. It must be repeated here that the positioning of the pyramid stone is only an approximation, a result of close estimation from drawings, and not from a site survey. Leaving one to ponder whether, by revisiting the site, to perform an accurate survey, would the shadow of the forward pointer stone reach the tip of the pyramid stone?
The pyramid stone is directly north of the forward pointer stone. Its particular shape and close proximity to the main arrangement espousing thoughts, that it has specific context within the arrangement. Gladwin informs us that the pyramid stone. Not only is it much larger and heavier than either of the “pointer” stones but it has been levered up into an extraordinary position at the limit SW edge of the main outcrop where it rests, delicately balanced on a small bed of packing stones which have been inserted beneath it (Gladwin, 1985: 17).
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: PyramidDay/BpBPyramiday.exe 13 See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: Tendays/pyramid20.exe 12
Being directly north, of the forward pointer stone, the only possible role that the stone could play, is that of marking 87
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Tests for all solar values from the location known as the upper viewing station were conducted, and no orientation of interest was disclosed. Even the view toward the summer solstice sunrise, although in alignment with the forward stones and viewing station, which suggests a continuation of the observations from below, is uninspiring (see Figure 8-32). Perhaps the role of this viewing location is that of an early warning system. Being higher in elevation, the computer simulation shows that 2-3 minutes earlier, the Sun will begin to emerge from the notch, or kink, at the base of the hill, to the left of the hillock, from which the Sun is seen to rise when viewed from the lower observation point.
would indeed be required. This supposition might be a moot point, if in fact, the eastern and north westerly outliers, in conjunction with the forward pointer stone, fulfil the summer solstice sunset as conjectured earlier (subject to confirmation as to the outliers’ true locations). Therefore, to search for a marker to the southeast might be considered fruitless. This surmises that the mounds surrounding the rear pointer stone need not be included as a sighting element, and the winter solstice sunrise over the mound, as illustrated in Figure 8-35, is merely coincidental. The dual shadow effects of winter and summer solstices on the pyramid, and observation boulder respectively, is very interesting. Just one occurrence makes it an intriguing phenomenon, two occurrences leads one to conjecture, whether or not, this was intentional behaviour. Another intriguing aspect of these two shadow effects is how they portray opposites. The opposites being, a V-notch is used to display the summer solstice Sun rise, whereas an upside-down V, in the shape of a pyramid, is engaged, to highlight the Sun passing the meridian, during the winter solstice. Almost as if the point of each V, indicates the direction (altitude) in which the Sun is about to embark for the next six months. Gathering measurements that are more precise and positioning data of all stones is necessary, before any affirmative position could be stated; yet, the thought of the shadow effect being employed in the manner expressed, is intriguing. To conclude this discussion:
8.6.5. Brainport Bay discussion With the forward pointer and pyramid stone association having a due north orientation, toward a mountainous horizon, circumpolar stellar testing was briefly undertaken. However, the hill is too expansive with no significant horizon points to mark a stellar event during the winter period. For summer orientations, the latitude does not present a dark enough sky to facilitate anything meaningful. Due to the fact that the solar phenomenon indicated by the site is deemed the primary investigative consideration, a further line of inquiry to assess lunar or planetary orientations was deemed unnecessary, and therefore, excluded from the investigation. It is interesting to discover, that a secondary viewing perspective for the outliers could be part of the arrangement, and that this secondary perspective is associated with the summer solstice sunset. Furthermore, this secondary perspective employs the same forward stone as the main alignment. Leaving one to question, did this phenomenon of physically linking the rising and setting of the summer solstice Sun, through the use of a common gnomon, play a role in any spiritual meaning?
• the ‘rifle sight’ of the two primary stones has been reaffirmed • an additional winter solstice Sun event MAY be marked by two outliers, probably in combination with the forward of the two primary stones • other than assisting as an early warning system, nothing else definitive could be said for the upper viewing station • where shadows fall, and not sightlines, MAY prove to be an intrinsic aspect of the site.
The lack of any built up structure at the eastern outlier viewing point (as there is at the main viewing station), could indicate several features about the site:
If we accept that the shadows are an intrinsic aspect of the site, then this is not only a new viewing perspective to consider in the research, but a new consideration into the psyche of the builders. Before committing to these very evocative ideas, the site requires revisiting, and an expanded survey conducted. To add to the summary findings listed above, Figure 8-37 illustrates the four potential orientations of the Brainport Bay site. These four orientations are: the summer solstice sunrise as a certainty, with tentative orientations of:
• the secondary location is less important • the primary viewing station, looking toward the ‘rifle sight’ is fortuitous, as has been conjectured, and not deliberately placed, but leveraged by the resourceful Scottish Neolithic people • By extrapolating the above consideration, the secondary location may be of equal importance. Some discussion has already been made about the mound, in association with the winter solstice sunrise. Thought might be given to the celestial opposite, that of summer solstice sunset. The land underfoot, falls away to the south east, and could well be deemed ideal, to look up over the mound toward the Sun, on the raised horizon, and no marker would be necessary, if the Sun was setting into a definitive horizon spot. However, Figure 8-34 shows us otherwise, indicating that a marker of sorts
• Summer solstice sunset • Summer solstice sunrise shadow, cast on main boulder, and • The winter solstice meridian shadow, cast on the pyramid stone.
88
Investigative Models
Figure 8-37. Brainport Bay orientations.
8.6.6. Dating Brainport Bay The two sightline orientations, those of the summer solstice sunrise, and the tentative summer solstice sunset, occur throughout the entire date range being tested. These events occur beyond the testing date range in either direction, thereby, not availing this investigation the opportunity to apply a construction date for the site. If we were to employ the shadow effects of the Sun on both the viewing boulder, and the pyramid stone, then a tentative date may be conjectured, that of an earlier period within the date range of 3500-2300 BCE. The foregoing date is given, after taking into account that charcoal found at Brainport Bay has been dated to the 2nd millennia BCE and the 1st millennia CE, which would seem to indicate periods when the site was utilized and need not necessarily be useful for setting an actual construction date for the site (RCAHMS: 2011).
89
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation 8.7. Dunamuck Farm
Green Circles mark the 2 sets of stones under investigation. The red circle marks a cairn. The purple marks the recumbent set of stones.
NR 8483 9248 Latitude N 56º 4’ 36.24” Longitude W5º 27’ 27.72”
Reference to Dunamuck is made in Thom’s paper (1966: 10), published in Vistas in Astronomy, he hypothesised orientations to the Sun and the star Deneb. Ruggles (1984: 267) also makes note of the site in his Megalithic Astronomy. However, as no definitive suggested alignments or orientations were presented, I selected this site as a form of ‘control’, to test the viability of this research tool as a vehicle to test for other possibilities.
Textual reference to this site is minimal, yet its location when driving north, along the A816 is visible from the road, just prior to the turnoff at Bridgend for Kilmichael Glassary, with a parking/picnicking area available on the west side of the road. This site is known more for its cairn, than the three separated groups of stones. Lying at the end of an alluvial plain, on the western side of the River Add, this site comprises two sets of standing monoliths 1/3 of a mile (0.5 km’s) apart. Additionally, another set of stones that are completely recumbent, lies on the ground near a cairn, and unfortunately in its current state does not warrant investigation (marked with a purple circle in Figure 8-39). It appears as if the River Add, at one time, had wended its way between the locations of the two upright groups of stones, by what appears to be the path of the old river bed. These two sets of stones are easily visible to each other and could be considered as a single complex, and yet their physical placement suggests a dual function, both are marked with a green circle in Figure 8-39.
8.7.1. South East Pair Both stones, of the south east pair, identified as stones A and B in Figure 8-40, are leaning somewhat from the upright position. In order to adjust the stones to an upright position for modelling purposes, they were straightened by 2° and 6° respectively. During the site survey, a depression in the ground was detected about half way between the two stones, suggesting the possibility of a third stone, similar to the northwest trio. In Figure 8-40, the central lighter grey colour, illustrates where a third ‘stone’ may have stood (believed to have been broken up, and employed at the edge of the field as a boundary marker).
The easternmost pair of stones has a southeast-northwest (138º – 318º) orientation, whereas, the western trio of stones holds a more south-north (168º – 348º) orientation.
The site survey bearings of the long surfaces of this pair, recorded in Table 8-11, initially suggest solar alignments, both midwinter sunrise and midsummer sunset. Stone
Figure 8-38. Eastern pair of Dunamuck stones.
90
Investigative Models
Figure 8-39. Dunamuck (Achnaschelloch) at Bridgend map (OSGB). Table 8-11. Dunamuck (Achnashelloch) site survey data Dunamuck Location
Height
Stone A
W face N face
Stone D
Stone E
Long
-5
27.462
-5
27.458
-5
27.605
-5
27.607
56
4.604
56
4.603
56
4.823
56
4.8237
Corner
SW Cnr
SE Cnr
SE Cnr
NW Cnr
measured
76”
61”
77.5”
85”
at point
SW Cnr
W Cnr
SW Cnr
SE Cnr
145.0”
99.5”
126.0”
computed 112.0”
S face
Stone C
Lat
Distance E face
Stone B
237”
to NW Cnr
Lying flat on ground
177”
bearing
318°
318°
349°
347°
156°
base ins
39”
57.5”
53”
35”
41” TOP
bearing
229°
344°,275
base
10”
16”
8.75”
18”
bearing
305°
323°
343°
349°
51”
52”
base
39”
bearing
171°
base
11”
75°
65”
26.5”
160° 5”
12”
A (north westerly stone of the pair in Figure 8-40) even indicates a possible midsummer sunrise, but without a secondary stone with which to sight, at first pass, this solar orientation seems more coincidental than deliberate.
21”
12”
For the Sun to reach the horizon in this general direction, its altitude has to be 3.8º and to reach this elevation, the azimuth attained, is approximately 147º which does not correspond with the field survey values of the stones that are aligned to 138-142º.
8.7.2. Solar Simulations
8.7.2.2. Summer Solstice
8.7.2.1. Winter Solstice
The northwesterly direction of the arrangement is turned too far to the north to indicate the summer solstice sunset and not far enough for a lunar orientation. As the field survey
Modelling the southeast arrangement of stones for midwinter sunrise, does not produce a viable orientation. 91
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-40. Dunamuck I (stones identified as A and B).
8.7.3. Quarter Days
identified (see Figure 8-40), a summer solstice orientation is possible, providing one looks toward the flat faces of the stones, and not along them. Before rejecting this pair as non-celestial in nature, recalling the Moon riding down the centre stone of Ballochroy, sunrise simulations of this pair were performed. Yet again, a surprise was in store. The summer solstice Sun is seen to ride up the sloping top of stone B. See Figure 8-41.
All quarter days were tested for this south east stone arrangement, but no orientation could be found to apply. 8.7.4. Lunar Simulations The alignment of these two stones, at 138°/318°, suggests that either the Moon’s southern minor limit rising, or the northern major limit setting, might be relevant. The test results for these orientations however, have the Moon rising at a bearing of 132.8° and setting at 321° for the half orb, and 320° for the full sphere resting on the horizon, for either end of the date range. Therefore, no lunar orientation could be applied to this pair of stones.
To view the sunrise event, the viewing position is selfindicating. The almost flat top of stone A is aligned with the ‘plateau’ to the northeast (black arrow in Figure 8-41). Note that the top of the stone mimics the shape of the ‘plateau’, when the ‘southern’ edge of stone A is aligned with a kink in the land. The viewpoint within the summer solstice animation14 was deliberately staggered so the similarity of the top of stone A to horizon may be seen. The solstice sunrise will then run up the sloping top of stone B. This viewing perspective causes the question to be asked; if a stone did sit in the depression between these two stones, as surmised in the introduction to this site interrogation, would its edge align with the rising point of the Sun on the horizon? Only an archaeological excavation could determine whether or not, this hypothesis is correct. It was not possible however, to demonstrate the reverse, i.e. the winter solstice sunset, so this is a singular perspective.
This trio of stones is set with an almost north-south orientation, which leads to the immediate conjecture that there is no rising or setting of either the Sun or the Moon, as indicated by the directional bearings, of the flat surfaces of this arrangement. If there is any celestial orientation, the bearing of these stones leads one to consider either, meridian marking of the Sun or, as suggested by Thom, circumpolar star observation (1996: 10). The centre stone of this trio has fallen, but its position is such, that the data taken during the site survey permits a reasonable reconstruction of the trio in their upright positions. These stones follow the same viewing perspective as the previous pair, that is, they need to be viewed from the side, and by doing so a few complexities are added to the investigation.
Unless a central stone did exist and played a role in determining the reverse viewpoint.
8.7.5. North West Trio Stone C, the northern most stone of the trio, when viewed from the side, demonstrates a solstice sunrise, with the Sun riding up the stone’s northern edge, until it appears to be cradled in the depression atop the stone; appearing almost
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: AchnaSumSol/AchnaABSumSol.exe
14
92
Investigative Models
Figure 8-41. Dunamuck solstice sunrise.
as a jewel in a crown. Yet again the viewing point could be self-indicated or inferred as per MacKie’s (1974) modelling requirements, in one of two ways. Within the rising summer animation15, the viewpoint is set so the stone’s southern edge is aligned to the hillock in the distance. Alternatively, the southern edge of the sloping top of the stone, is aligned with the slope of the distance landform, with the ‘shoulder’ of the slope, meeting the ‘dogleg’ bend of the horizon, as indicated in Figure 8-43. Likewise, the northern shoulder meets with the horizon. Thereby, no ground marker is required to indicate where to stand. The animation was run for 3500 BCE, and with the simulation conducted for 1500 BCE there is a fractional shift in this orientation, but none that is large enough to use as a discernible dating vehicle. What it does say, is that the site could be contemporaneous with the Nether Largie cairn, which dates to approximately 3000 BCE. This orientation again is a singular event. There does not appear to be a winter solstice orientation in the opposite direction with this stone. 8.7.6. Stones D & E The ‘reinstatement’ of stone E within the simulation, is a reasonably close approximation to its original position, Figure 8-42. Dunamuck north western pair, 3rd centre stone projected into position.
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: AchnaCDrise/CDrise3500.exe 15
93
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-43. Summer solstice sunrise with Dunamuck stone C – 3500 BCE.
based on site survey data. Its footing was quite shallow, but still is shorter in above ground height than stone D. These stones present a conundrum, their orientation and sloping tops suggest equinoctial viewing from their sides. Why have two stones, that appear to perform the same function, been placed next to each other? What follows is an investigation into each stone.
observe both, the equinoctial rising, and setting of the Sun. These equinoctial events could only be confirmed by physically raising the stone back into its socket, as the simulation is only suggestive not definitive. The configuration of stones D and E allows for the successful orientation to the equinoctial Sun, nevertheless, this arrangement with two almost identical stones, continues to be perplexing.
Stone D presents a problem. Upon examination through simulation, the equinoctial sunrise does indeed ride up the sloping top of the stone. The one point that provides a selfindicated, or inferred sighting location, is the flat area on the stone’s top, just before the top begins its slope upwards that may be aligned to the horizon. Thereby, determining how far back one has to stand. However, there is no secondary point that is evident, to indicate the left or right movement. This means observation of the Sun rising up the slope, may be made for a period of time either side of the equinox, without any other discernible restriction. Either a place marker on the ground is required, or could it possibly be that with Stone E in place, it would indicate the secondary horizon point? Otherwise, this orientation is potentially circumstantial. Standing on the other side of the stones and looking west toward the sunset, the same problem occurs, but this time there is not even a single point of self-indication or inference.
8.7.7. Stellar Considerations As with other sites, stellar aspects have been considered, with the obvious linear direction of 348º looking northsouth, as the first consideration. In the northern direction there is only one star that has a declination appropriate for this azimuth, namely Deneb (αCygni in the constellation Cygnus). Similar to other sites, heliacal rising and setting, were viewed as definitive indicators. By running the simulation through the centuries, one period becomes interesting. On the vernal equinox, as the star Deneb lowers in altitude, it disappears behind the row of stones, as it reaches the horizon, and then reappears on the horizon on the other side of the row, rising as an heliacal star. The date range however is very limited, to just a few decades around 2200 BCE. Despite the interesting phenomenon, this date range is so restrictive for the event it should not be considered a secondary reference point, for the site.
Stone E on the other hand, does have horizon points to easily determine a location from which to stand and 94
Investigative Models
Figure 8-44. Sequence image of Aldebaran & the Pleiades equinoctial setting down stones D & E.
The peculiarity of two stones having the same slope remained puzzling. With stone E having an equinoctial potential this was the next stellar perspective to be examined. The simulation conducted, presented yet another surprise.
If this were the case, the time period for which this event would be operational, is restricted to a century or two. By not accepting this second alternative, but accepting the first proposal, that of the pairing of stars with the tips of their respective stone, witnessing the stellar event would be extended by several more centuries. The observer would slowly migrate southward, maintaining a viewing perspective, compensating for precession movement, until such time that twilight occurs, before the stars run off the end of the stones, causing the spectacle to cease.
In the pre-dawn hours of the vernal equinox sunrise, if an observer stands to the east of the stone arrangement, looking toward the northeast faces of stones D and E16 the observer would then witness the cluster of stars known as the Pleiades, arrive at the tip of stone E, and then ride down the stone’s sloping top. At the same instance as the Pleiades ‘touches’ stone E, the observer would also witness Aldebaran, which is slightly higher in the sky, reaching the tip of stone D (the tallest of the three orthostats), whereupon, it too, rides down the sloping top of that stone, see Figure 8-44. The position to stand, yet again, is self-indicating as each set of stars touches the tips of their respective stone, at the same time.
8.7.8. Dunamuck Discussion On first visiting the site, it would seem self-evident that the constructors of these stones had no intention to set the orientation to the zenith (true north-south) or cardinal directions, due to the 348º alignment; an offset of 12° from direct north-south. However, in considering the Pleiades and Aldebaran effect, the ‘twist’ may be explained. The twist is required to permit the viewing of the combination of the stars, setting in one direction and the Sun rising in the opposite direction, whilst employing the same ‘device’, which appears to be the desired effect. Negating the normal orientation to true north-south, as required for an equinoctial observation. Due to this instance, it behoves researchers to continue hypothesising that true northsouth/zenith orientations may still play a part at other sites, but not at Dunamuck.
Alternatively, there is the potential of an implied location for the observer to stand, defined by the relationship of stones D and E, with the third menhir, stone C. The observer aligns the southern edge of stone C with the point, where the bottom of the hill in the distance, begins to slope up. This approach fixes the observation position. See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: stonesDandE/twinstars.exe
16
95
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-45. Dunamuck directionals for stones C, D, & E.
The task of watching the Pleiades and Aldebaran ride down the stones in one direction, followed by welcoming the vernal Sun in the opposite direction, could be achieved using two observers, one either side of the stones. Rather than two observers, the process of a single observer, moving from one side of the stones to the other, is also an appealing prospect. From an ethereal perspective, that individual is no longer merely an observer of the event, but rather, a participant within it – a more poignant experience. This perspective supplies us with further speculation, if not insight, into our ancestor’s involvement with the heavens.
As the third stone, stone C, is used to observe the summer solstice, why is it set in the same -12° offset, to match the alignment of the other two stones? Alignment of this nature would suggest that any emphasis in this arrangement is placed on the stellar orientation. This being the case, either i) the position along the alignment of the third stone, with its ‘dimpled’ top, in which the Sun is seen to appear, is dictated by the height of the stone, or ii) the height is dictated by its position in the alignment. With the self-indicated or inferred horizon orientation marker, suggested earlier in this section. The latter of the two options presented above, would take precedence. A significant degree of premeditation, on our ancestor’s part, would have been expended, in order to achieve these results.
The method employed by the Scottish Neolithic for this stellar and equinoctial stone tethering, is quite intriguing. The stones are not set square to the equinox, see Figure 8-45, but to the heliacal setting stars, of the constellation of Taurus. The declinations of The Pleiades and Aldebaran are slightly negative, compared to the zero declination of the Sun, at the time of the equinox. The stones are therefore, required to be angled toward the south by -12° to accommodate for this difference. Yet, this -12° does not apply across the same stones when needing to observe the equinoctial Sun rise in the reverse direction. The observation is made, not at 90° to the flat surface, as the stars are, but offset to 78° (90°12°). Were the builders aware that this offset causes a visual foreshortening of the stones, resulting in a 0.5° increase in the angle of the sloping top, when observing the Sun, thereby compensating for the slight variance in declination, or was it purely serendipitous?
The two sets of stones discussed here, addressing the summer solstice with the first set, and the equinoctial Sun with the second set, leads to the speculation that the third set of stones, lying recumbent in the field toward the Cairn, would be associated with the winter solstice. Archaeologically, replacing this third set of orthostats into their original sockets, would be the only option to i) test the hypothesis and ii) reinforce the findings of the experiments presented here. Should this winter solstice option with the 3rd set of stones prove to be the case, it is interesting to consider the similarity with Ballochroy, where the dying Sun’s point of ‘resurrection’ (starting its journey north again) is associated with those that have died, and lay buried in the Cairn. 96
Investigative Models The distant horizon nullifies tectonic and isostatic land movement, as the shift is only a matter of seconds in the time of rising and setting, therefore, it has no significant impact in any perceivable orientation. One should consider what is not observed at this location, and that is, there appears to be no evidence of Moon observations. With the site located at the junction of two fertile valleys, one can surmise that the symmetrical aspects of the Sun’s observation must have played a significant role for the farming community; particularly for the valley to the northeast, with its high ridges on either side, where penetrating sunlight is restricted by late sunrises and early sunsets. Further, with Nether Largie just to the north of this site, in the alluvial plane, this would suggest that the two sites were concurrent in usage, with no need to overlap functions. The Dunamuck complex of 3 groups of stones, seemingly tying land, sky and human together, each group with different orientations dispersed to fit within the landscape, leads me to conjecture, from an archaeological perspective, that this multifaceted site of menhirs, is of equal, if not more important value than Nether Largie. It is a shame that this complex site is literally falling into ruin. Steps should be taken to avert the site’s imminent demise! 8.7.9. Dating Dunamuck The dawn twilight, indicating the heliacal setting point of the Pleiades, may be considered to occur at three possible positions, presenting three dating scenarios: • when the cluster reaches the tip of the stone, approximately 2200 BCE • when the cluster slides off the end of the slope approximately 2400 BCE, or • when the cluster reaches the horizon approximately 2600 BCE. (In the animation of stone D & E, sun light may be seen to brighten the landscape, see frame 22.) In any of these cases, the observer would only need to move to the other side of the stones, particularly stone E, to witness the vernal equinox Sun rise. The day of equinox is confirmed by moving to the other side of the stone, to watch the Sun ride down the stones sloping top, 12 hours later. Logic would suggest that case 1 above, is the least likely, as the event of the stars riding down the stones is the required indicator. However, determining the date has to be a combination of when twilight occurs, and the location of the stars dictating the possibilities for setting the date. Consequently, all three cases must be considered. As such, these three stellar options render a date range for the site’s construction, between 2600-2200 BCE.
97
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation The southern stone is leaning extensively therefore, re-constructing this stone into an upright position was necessary in the modelling process. The site is situated at an altitude of approximately 110 metres, surrounded in all but the southeast directions, by hills. No record of any perceived astronomical orientations in the research material accessed (other than Thom’s weak orientation) could be found for this site.
8.8. Carnasserie NM8345 0078 Latitude 56° 9.035’ Longitude 5° 29.204’ The Carnasserie site, north of Kilmartin off the A816, comprises a pair of stones, shown in Figure 8-46, located approximately 100 metres to the southwest of the path that leads across the Eas Mor Pass, heading toward Loch Craignish from Carnasserie Castle. When approaching the stones from either Carnasserie Castle or Kilmartin, they are somewhat hidden behind a hillock. A GPS waypoint is best used to locate the stones, and to mark their position. The two stones are aligned with each other, and their flat surfaces are oriented approximately 30° to the west of the north-south meridian. Thom (1966: 9) suggests a weak lunar orientation due to this bearing.
8.8.1. Solar Considerations The summer solstice Sun, sets at an altitude of 6.6° with an associated azimuth of 304.3° therefore, there can be no orientation of either stone to this particular event. 8.8.1.1. The Northern Stone
There is an interesting feature that became evident when examining the photographs that were taken on site, see Figure 8-48. This feature is the shape of the top of the northern most stone, when viewed from the western side of the stones, which reflects the exact contour of the hill in the distance. Even to the point that in the centre of the stone’s top there is a depression or ‘notch’ that replicates the same ‘notch’ in the matching position in the peak of the distant hill. This has to be far from coincidental, and proves to be an interesting aspect exposed during this site interrogation.
The obvious starting point for solar considerations for the northern most stone, is the alignment of the notch in the top of the northern stone, with that of the distant hillside discussed earlier, (this distant hill directly overshadows the site known as Craigentairbh, which sits in a Col to the north east of the hill itself). Positioning the viewing location so that the top of the stone aligns with the hill (including aligning the notches up with each other), results in the conformation that, the Sun on the summer solstice rises out of the notch in the hilltop, and for that matter, it also rises out of the notch in the stone which
Figure 8-46. West faces of the Carnasserie stones.
98
Investigative Models
Figure 8-47. Plan of the Carnasserie stones.
can be seen in Figure 8-49. This occurs throughout the time period ranging from 3500-1500 BCE. Plate tectonic or isostatic uplift has no impact on this orientation and timing. Remaining with the experimentation with the northern stone, a second orientation is feasible. That is, the winter solstice Sun rising at an azimuth of 143°, which is in close proximity with the 146° bearing of the western face of this stone, but is not close enough to state that an orientation is defined by this western face.
Figure 8-48. Carnasserie’s northern stone.
8.8.2. Lunar Considerations All lunar limit orientations were tested for both stones of the site, but I could establish no lunar association with them, weak or otherwise, suggesting that none ever existed, see site survey data, Table 8-12.
8.8.1.2. The Southern Stone The top of the southern stone is also shaped, and could be considered to follow the outline of the hillsides, in either the easterly or the westerly directions, where either an equinoctial sunrise or sunset, might be indicated. No solar orientation to an equinoctial sunrise however, could be discerned. As to the equinoctial sunset, there is a perceivable orientation, but this perspective raises two issues.
8.8.3. Carnasserie Discussion Recalling the second site at Dunamuck, comprising three megaliths, where the northern most of the three, has almost an identical shape to that of the northern stone here at Carnasserie. In each location, the Sun rises out of the notch in the top of the northern stone, leading one to speculate, which site came first – Carnasserie or Dunamuck? It is proposed that Carnasserie came first, where the physical nature of the matching shape, is transferred to a site that is a full solar observatory. A site where the principle of orientation is carefully incorporated, disregarding the need of an existing horizon feature to match the shape. It is also interesting that it is the northern most stone of each arrangement that records the same summer solstice event in an identical manner. Consider further, that the centre and southern most stone at Dunamuck are commensurate with the equinoctial events. The usage made of these stones is cardinal, i.e. the northern stones are associated with the events that occur to the north. This is also reflected to some extent at Nether Largie. This orientation could be nothing more than purely logical association; nevertheless, it speaks to the logical processes that may have been employed by the Scottish Neolithic.
First, the shape of the stone does not follow the horizon outline exactly, as the northern stone does. This ‘mismatch’ as it were, could be attributed to deterioration of the top of the stone over time, or that there was no intention that a match occurred, and therefore, any perceived orientation is coincidental. The second issue, is when the Sun sets on an horizon with an altitude of close to 14°, what day constitutes the day of equinoctial setting? Is it the true date that the Sun is at 270° at a level horizon, or the day the Sun reaches an azimuth of 270° with an elevated horizon? These two issues tend to negate the possibility of equinoctial orientations at this site, that being the case that leaves us still with the tantalising question, what is that second stone for? 99
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 8-12. Carnasserie survey data
Location Distance Height W face S face E face NE face NW face
Carnasserie
Stone
NORTH
Stone
SOUTH
Longitude
-5°
29.204
-5°
29.203
Latitude
56°
9.035
56°
9.033
Corner
North
length
90.0” from S stone N point of to N Stone S point
measured
94”
96”
North
at point
Via image
Via image
bearing
333°
333°/153°
base
58.0”
28.0”
bearing
63°/243°
base
28.0”
15.5”
bearing
323°/143°
331°/151°
base
39.0”
29.0”
bearing
258°/78°
base
21.0”
bearing
Nose
base
-
16”
Figure 8-49. Summer solstice sunrise at Carnasserie. Insert is a close-up view of the top of the stone aligned with the hilltop.
8.8.4. Dating Carnasserie
the Dunamuck interrogation, then predating Dunamuck is an option. Using this assumption, the date may be set to the beginning of the range, to a date within an early part of the Dunamuck range, which results in a subjective construction date of 3500 – 2500 BCE.
The date of construction cannot be stated for certain, as the main event found, may be witnessed for the entire period under investigation. If the conjecture that Carnasserie occurred prior to Dunamuck, for the reasons discussed in 100
Investigative Models 8.9. Escart
faces, probably scoured upon them by passing farm traffic. The RCAHMS record reports that the centre stone has been tilted by a tree (a tree that is no longer evident at the surface). Stone D is tilted by the same amount as stone C, but in the opposite direction. In comparison with the other four, stone E is quite diminutive, and very ‘shale’ like in nature, possibly missing an upper portion, or maybe, it is itself the upper portion of another stone. This stone, in its present condition, could not play a role in astronomical alignment. So any analysis performed, is more in the nature of determining the likelihood of alignment, rather than any definitive results.
NM8460 6674 Latitude 56° 9.035’ Longitude -5° 29.204’ As recommended for Ballochroy and Carnasserie, this is another site whose position, for ease of locating, is best loaded into a GPS unit prior to driving the A83, south of Tarbert. The entrance to the site is a farm track to the east of A83, with a ditch-come-stream running along its southern edge. This site creates a few interesting problems. First, due to the farm buildings, woodland, and hills to the south and west, GPS positional and compass readings were variable, and unreliable. Even metal rails next to stone C caused a magnetic compass to behave erratically. Next, situated as the stones are, literally in a farm yard, there is no way of knowing if there were more than 5 in number, or how much, if at all, they have been disturbed, e.g. driven in to by farm equipment, nudged, scoured or rotated.
This site has been suggested by Thom (1978:59), to have both lunar and solar alignments, but the orientation and bearings of the stones do not, from initial inspection, fully support this conjecture. Ruggles (1985: S112) also states that some orientations are sinuous. However, bearing in mind the difficulty in obtaining reliable readings, in the interest of thoroughness and consistency of investigation, simulation models of horizon views of the main solar and lunar Limits were undertaken.
Stone A, the north-westerly most stone, has a 1 inch bore hole, approximately one foot (30cms) from the ground in its western face. An ideal leverage spot to place an iron bar to help rotate the stone in its socket, availing the farm traffic extra space to negotiate the turn necessary, to access the southern part of the barn, located to the north east, see Figure 8-50. RCAHMS (Canmore ID 39335) refers to this feature as a charge hole. Stone A, along with stones C and D, show horizontal score marks on some of their
The plan for Escart is illustrated in Figure 8-51 and deviates from the model that Thom proposed (1978: 60), in two respects. First, the centreline drawn in Figure 8-51 is based on the bearing of the northwest face of stone B of 213° and not Thom’s 208° alignment of stones B and C. The second, deviation will be explained, after the interrogation results from the examination are presented.
Figure 8-50. Escart, with boulder built barn and wall.
101
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-51. Escart plan.
8.9.1. Modelling Considerations
ocean, where the West Tarbet loch mouth opens to the Atlantic. The event occurs throughout the time period under investigation just touching the Dun Skeig peak17, approximately 13 km’s away, to the left of the firth, then the full orb rides down the slope of Dun Skeig and sets into the oceanic edge of the world, in 3200 BCE. At the lower end of the date range, in 2200 BCE the Sun sets into the peak of Dun Skeig and only a portion of the sphere rides down its slope.
The site survey data, presented in Table 8-13, indicates that the GPS readings taken on site were sporadic. These unreliable readings were replaced in the models construction, by employing the RCAHMS positional data that is on record; assuming the centre stone as the reference point. The tape and compass survey, conducted on site, was then applied to situate the stones. Should the determinations be indicative of astronomical use, then revisiting the site with a total station to perform a thorough survey would be warranted [note: this sites does not require portage of a TSM up hill and down dale, with the landowners permission, a vehicle may be parked next to the stones].
8.9.3. Lunar 8.9.3.1. Southern Limits The lunar sphere sets into a slight notch, across the loch, beyond West Tarbert, at the time of southern minor limit, with an azimuth of 232°. The east face of Stone D has a bearing of 230° so there is a potential for an orientation, but a very tentative one. However, if recording the southern minor limit was intentional, a better location within a hundred metres or so, further up the hill to the northeast,
8.9.2. Solar Simulation runs for the complete date range, to test for summer solstice and equinoctial points resulted in similar findings to those of the Moon, that is, in not having any definitive orientations. However, the winter solstice suddenly makes this site become alive. Viewing down the loch toward the southwest, the setting winter Sun can be seen to brush the peak of Dun Skeig and set into the
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: DunSkeigPeak/Escart.exe 17
102
Investigative Models Table 8-13. Escart site survey data Site Location Distance
SW face SE face NE face NW face
Site Location
Distance N face W face S face E face NE face
Escart
Stone A
Long
-5°
26.416
Stone B -5°
26.428
Stone C -5°
26.426
Lat
55°
50.77
55°
50.764
55°
50.763
Corner
SW
length
73” from SW A to N of B
Height
111”
128”
94”
bearing
base
05”
19”
bearing
240°
278°
31° (S face)
base
40”
47”
bearing
343°/163°
291°
base
10”
bearing
242°
213°/33°
211°
base
38”
50”
09”
S end 184” from S face of B to N face of C over wall
Escart
Stone D
Stone E
Long
-5°
26.434
-5°
26.43
Lat
55°
50.766
55°
50.763
Corner
NE cnr
SW
length
102” from SW of C to NE of D
80” from S face of D to NE edge
Height
74”
43”
bearing
195°
rounded
base
17”
10”
bearing
143°/323°
163°/343°
base
24”
30”
bearing
base
6”
8”
bearing
230°/50°
183°
base
19”
31”
bearing
4°
base
23”
NOTE: due to the angular rotation of stones D and E the compass direction of their surfaces are different to those of stones A, B and C. Hence the separation in the table.
toward the head of the loch, would cause the Moon to set in a more significant notch.
the stone’s western face, having a bearing of 323°, whilst the Moon sets at an altitude of 3° and an azimuth of 324°, but with no definitive horizon feature upon which to sight. These findings suggest that any correlation of a lunar limit event and any of the stones at Escart is more coincidental, rather than deliberate intent.
As to the major southern limit rising or setting of the Moon, some research has tentatively suggested orientation in this direction; however, the simulations demonstrate that due to the hill to the south of the site, the Moon, at any time during this period, is not visible from the Escart location.
8.9.4. Stellar and Planetary Due to the disturbed nature of the site, it was considered excessive to check for stellar or planetary events, as the required accuracy could not be attained.
8.9.3.2. Northern Limits The Moon’s Northern Limits are likewise, unlikely candidates for observation. The minor northern limit occurs at an altitude of 3.6° and an azimuth of 299.5°, no stone has a bearing set to this orientation. The major northern limit has a close association with stone D, this time with
8.9.5. Escart Discussion The trees surrounding the site of Escart, along with the farm house and outbuildings, is an excellent example of 103
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-52. Escart winter solstice sunset.
needing to leverage the advantages of modelling, whereby, the viewing obstructions may simply be removed. The problem of a wall situated between the menhirs that Thom (1978: 59) encountered, preventing direct determination of the winter solstice Sun, setting at Dun Skeig, has been eliminated via the simulation.
in Figure 8-51, mention was made earlier that the site plan differs from Thom’s in two respects, the second of which, is in the red arc that is drawn in Figure 8-51, representing a projection of a potential forecourt. An alternative viewing perspective is given in Figure 8-53 Perspective View of Escart Stoneswhere the black line is Thom’s engineer’s centreline, in contrast to the green line that depicts the western edge of stone B and the path of winter solstice sunlight, which would travel from the top right of the image. The curve of the suggested forecourt is shown in red.
The close match between stone D and the two potential orientations – southern minor and northern major Limits, leads one to hypothesise, that as the stone went through the process of leaning to the south, did it also rotate, thereby causing the bearings that were taken to be untrue? However, any attempt to rotate in one direction to initiate a correction, would cause one orientation to become more accurate, to the detriment of the other. With the only viable celestial orientation being the winter solstice, when only one or two stones are required to signify the event, what is the purpose of the other stones? The actual layout is reminiscent of a photograph in Stuart Piggott’s publication The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles (1954: 156) in which the image illustrates the forecourt of a chambered cairn in Galloway, by incorporating aspect from that image to the plot plan results with the depiction in Figure 8-53.
The boulders and stones, that once covered the monument, may now be incorporated into the stone wall that separates the remaining uprights, and probably constitutes a significant part of the outbuildings and barn used for storing farm equipment, as well as portions of the farmhouse itself. 8.9.6. Dating Escart Trying to date the site from purely astronomical results is fruitless, as the Sun is the only celestial object that could be used for the purpose. The phenomenon of the Sun setting into the mouth of the loch occurs over the full date range, as stated above. If on the other hand, we take the suggestion made within the Ballochroy discussion, that Ballochroy could have acted as the regional ‘clock’ for the laying out of passage tombs, then the date range
One conclusion that may be extrapolated from the site interrogation is that Escart is in fact, the remnants of a Clyde style cairn, where stones C, D, and E are part of the forecourt façade. Recalling the plan layout presented 104
Investigative Models
Figure 8-53. Perspective view of Escart stones.
becomes that of Ballochroy’s, vis-à-vis, 3200 -2200 BCE. In fact, if Escart was considered to be the remains of a multi-chambered burial cairn, then the site conforms to the earlier Neolithic burial practices which, by association, places Escart in the stipulated date range.
105
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation 8.10. Tiraghoil
of a cross, are also of the Christian era – the reverend’s ethnocentric bias being apparent (1863: 51).
NM 3532 2242 Latitude N 56º 19’ 12.54” Longitude W 6º 16’ 51.9”
In the vicinity of Tiraghoil, there are other menhirs, situated along the Ross of Mull, also conjectured by the Rev. McLauchlan to have acted as markers for a pilgrim’s way. It will be part of this research to determine if these other stones are visible to each other and indeed meet his non-prehistoric ruminations.
Tiraghoil is a single menhir, somewhat smaller than the menhir at Kintraw, located north of the A849, on the outskirts of the village of Fionnport, on the island of Mull. The menhir’s position does not appear as prominently as the Kintraw stone, as it is hidden in part, by a stone wall. The land, upon which the stone stands, slopes down from south to north. Any southerly viewpoint from the stone is completely blocked by hills; however, the vista from the southwest to the east is unimpeded. The photograph in Figure 8-54 was taken close to the autumnal equinox. Ruggle’s (1985: S128) makes reference to this stone, and reiterates the postulation, made in 1863 by Reverend McLauchlan (1863: 49), that it may well be an indicator for pilgrims on their sojourn to the Abbey at Iona. It could be considered that once having negotiated the pass, to reach the Ross of Mull, upon which this stone resides, the Ross being a narrow peninsula, in an east-west direction hardly needed ‘milestones’. The more likely location requiring such markers would be through the pass that accesses the Ross, from the east; leaving one to wonder how infrequently the path was trodden to require such directionals? It must also be mentioned that in the same paper McLaughlan felt that the arrangement of the Callanish stones, on the Isle of Lewis, being in the form
To investigate the milestone hypothesis of Reverend McLauchlan, the location of five of these stones that surround the Tiraghoil menhir, were plotted on the Ordnance Survey map of the area, employing the survey data obtained by Ruggles (1985). Out of the five orthostats, only one has a viable line-of-sight from Tiraghoil, identified by Ruggles as ML34 Suie (aka Suidhe); marked with a yellow flag in Figure 8-55. However, unless you know exactly where to look, the situation of ML34 Suie is such, that the surrounding terrain masks its location. If the traveller from bygone days was able to spot the upright stone, it would mislead them to the least desirable, marshy land, through which to traverse. There is one other aspect of Rev. McLauchlan’s proposal which is puzzling. The reverend supplies a diagram (1863: 48) that illustrates his menhirs leading to an old port, north of Fionnport, across from the island of Eilean nam Ban. However, the RCAHMS archive has no such menhirs, or their locations, identified in this direction; RCAHMS recorded standing
Figure 8-54. View to the northeast from Tiraghoil (shadow of stone in foreground).
106
Investigative Models Table 8-14. Tiraghoil site survey data Tiraghoil Location
Height
NE face SE face SW face NW face
Table 8-15. Tiraghoil solar horizon bearings Stone
Longitude
W 6° 16.870
Latitude
56° 19.212
Corner
South
measured
70”
at point
West Corner
computed
106.0”
bearing
159°/339°
base
3500 BCE Horizon outline (by day count) Winter Solstice
Sunrise
Sunset
139.2°
214.8°
Imbolc
122.98°
228.86°
Samhain
122.04°
229.9°
Equinox
92.8°
263°
20”
Beltane
64°
298°
bearing
63°/243°
Lugnasa
58°
304°
base
25.5”
bearing
326-330°
Summer Solstice
48°
317°
base
13”
bearing
33°/213°
base
25.5”
Bisected points Sunrise
Sunset
116°
238.9°
93.6°
265°
70.4°
290.0°
results in unusual differences, such as the equinox sunset azimuth, not being equal to 90º or 270°. 8.10.3.1. The Quarter Days
stone locations are south of the current Fionnport ferry departure point. See Table 8-14 for the sire survey data.
Either by day count, or bisected solstices, the quarter days, does not appear to have any orientation toward the Tiraghoil menhir. The rising Sun at the time of Beltane appears impressively out of a Col to the northeast at 64°, but there is nothing at the site that suggests this was marked by the stone for observation.
8.10.1. Land Motion The isostatic compression for this site is similar to the other sites in this investigation over the 5500 year time period, being 8¼ metres. Similarly, the tectonic movement is 116 metres, with the resultant effect of a few seconds of arc or time, thereby, being of no consequence.
Imbolc presents an interesting aspect of sunrise, which is portrayed in Figure 8-56, that illustrates the quarter day on the horizon, for the rising Sun, i) based on day count, and ii) based on bisected solstices. When employing the quarter point, based on day count, the Sun emerges from a terrace that is situated between two hills, a little over a kilometre away at 123°. At this time of year, the full sphere proceeds to ride up the side of a hill, the Sun on the right side of Figure 8-56. The bisected bearing option, for Imbolc sunrise is 116°, at an actual azimuth of 115.7° where the Sun welcomes the day, even more impressively, from the tip of a hill, the left hand Sun image in Figure 8-56.
8.10.2. Modelling Considerations Of the sites tested, the map convergence for Tiraghoil, is the largest of them all, at a value of 3.57°. Similar alignment tests were conducted as those performed at the other sites under investigation, to maximise accuracy. Some horizon aspects are at a considerable distance, and purely rotating the ordnance survey tiles to the correct orientation, for a particular landmark, does not necessarily result in, or represent, a truly authentic 3-dimensional view of the landscape. Although the positions of celestial objects remain correct, their relationship to the landscape may be fractionally off, as the landscape in the model, is in effect stretched, in comparison with the real world. The result of which, had the potential of affecting the rise or set times, of astronomical observations, and thus to any angular relationship between a surface bearing of the menhir, an horizon feature, and that of the celestial object under investigation. To cover all eventualities, each orientation was tested, using the timing sequence associated with building an animation – this modelling approach proved to be beneficial, which will be demonstrated shortly.
The rising of the Sun from the apex of the hill seems more of a statement than appearing from a Col or the flat terrace. There is no authoritative orientation from the menhir, just the intriguing notion that the Scottish Neolithic, had they wished to note the midpoint, using one or the other of the options of mid-point or mid-days count, both were available. However, as they are not recorded in stone bearings, one can interpret that these quarter days, probably, were not considered of major consequence. The setting of the Imbolc Sun, on the day count quarter day, could be seen to descend into a depression, in the side of the hill behind the site, but this is too nebulous to require further exploration. Samhain, from a day count, or bisected distance perspective, has neither a sunset, nor a sunrise horizon point of note.
8.10.3. Solar Simulations Table 8-15 lists the Sun’s azimuth, at the point the centre of the Sun is on the undulating horizon, which at times 107
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-55. Map of Tiraghoil area with ML34 Suie and Tiraghoil stone (Garmin MapSource).
northwest face may not play a part at all in determining the viewing direction.
8.10.3.2. Solstices The solstices on the other hand may be marked by the Tiraghoil menhir. In 3500 BCE the summer solstice Sun, rises at the exact point of the ‘mountain’ peak (Allt Airigh Nan Caisteal), that reaches a height of 430 metres to the northeast, see Figure 8-57. There is no specific bearing of the stone in this direction, but again, similar to Ballochroy, standing in such a position that places the tip of the stone in conjunction with the mountain peak, is sufficient to mark the timing. By 2600 BCE the barest glimpse of the upper limb of the summer solstice rising Sun is visible, at the point of the peak. After that period, the Sun rises, more from the southern edge of the peak, rather than the peak itself.
8.10.4. Moon Over Mull Table 8-16 lists the Moon’s azimuth attained on the horizon, for the major and minor limit, for the two ends of the date range being investigated. 8.10.4.1. Northern Moonrise There seems to be no distinctive indicator for the rising Moon at its northern minor horizon point. However the major moonrise at the lower end of the date range, rises at an azimuth of 32.4° within the ±1° acceptable error range, for the bearing (33°) of the northwest face of the stone. This orientation is shown in Figure 8-59, and it is enticing to think that perhaps there is more to this stone than previously considered. More details on how to judge the means by which this orthostat may have been employed, is presented in the southern Major Moon rise below. A brief animation of Northern limit rise18 is available to view.
In the opposite direction, the tip of the winter solstice Sun, in 3500 BCE, sets at 215.7°, (see Figure 8-58), a little beyond the bearing of 213° of the northwest face of the stone. If a fuller sphere is considered, rather than the disappearing tip of the Sun, then the Sun’s azimuth approaches the 213° bearing of the northwest face. This closeness in bearing is all that is required, acting as a general guide in telling the observer the direction in which to look. The simulations conducted for a date range beginning at 2400 BCE, to the end of the simulation date range of 1500 BCE (and beyond), illustrate that the winter Sun, sets behind the tip of the hill. Again, as in the summer solstice orientation, setting the tip of the menhir to coincide with the distant hill is sufficient to mark the foresight. The bearing of the
8.10.4.2. Southern Minor Limit Moon Rise Around 3500 BCE, an inconspicuous hillock, to the southwest at 129°, marks the point from which the See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: NorthMax/northMax1500.exe 18
108
Investigative Models
Figure 8-56. Imbolc sunrises – bisected horizon and day count. NOTE: The year is 3500 BCE, bisected sunrise on left is on the 18th of March; day count on right is the 3rd of March (Julian calendar).
Figure 8-57. Summer solstice sunrise at Tiraghoil circa 3500 BCE.
109
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-58. Winter solstice sunset at Tiraghoil.
appearance of the solar and lunar spheres on the horizon, is at the point where the centre of the orb meets the horizon, making half the sphere visible. Conducting the southern major rising19 sequencing for this direction and timeframe, produced an unexpected variance from this de facto standard (the viewing position, in the animation, is offset for illustration purposes). Timing a rising object is more intrinsically difficult to predict visually, versus a setting sphere, particularly as the Moon tends to brush along the horizon, as it rises at the time of the southern major limit. Deviating from the de facto standard for a moment, and deeming that the phenomenon of interest is the full orb resting on the horizon, the task of marking the horizon point, in order to commemorate the spheres location, becomes easier. With that said, a determination was undertaken, as to which centuries of the rising Moon, for both the major northern and southern rises, concur with the northwest, and northeast surfaces of the stone, azimuth of 33° and 159° respectively. Simulations demonstrated that the date range for both the northern and southern Moon rises, to meet the aforementioned criteria, is from 2300 to 1500 BCE.
Table 8-16. Tiraghoil lunar azimuths approximately 3500 BCE
approximately 1500 BCE
Rise
Set
Rise
Set
Minor
57.62°
304.53°
58.56°
304.0°
Major
31.07°
329.45°
32.0°
329.3°
Minor
129.48°
225.4°
127.7°
226.0°
Major
157.5°
190.3°
156.8°
191.3°
Northern
Southern
southern minor moon appears, as it rises. There is no face bearing of the stone that marks this direction. Positioning the tip of the stone with this hillock, does not lead one to believe any orientation is intended in this manner either. Likewise for the other end of the date range at 1500 BCE there is no indication that the Moon’s minor southern limit is recorded by the stone. 8.10.4.3. Southern Major Limit Moon Rise The major Moon rises at a southern azimuth of 157.5° at the time of 3500 BCE, leading to the northeast face of the stone, which has a site survey bearing of 159°, to be considered in commemorating this orientation. The horizon has a crease more than a notch, at an azimuth of 157.2° and the Moon gives the appearance as if to rise up, out of this crease. Taking a closer look at this situation, the de facto standard for identifying the azimuth for the
8.10.4.4. Moonset Having encountered the complete Moon, to be the more likely observation phenomena for the rising Moon’s Major Limits, a certain degree of exhilaration was to be See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: TiraMjrSrise/tiraMoonS.exe 19
110
Investigative Models
Figure 8-59. Northern major moon rise limit at Tiraghoil.
Figure 8-60. Moon setting at northern major limit.
111
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation expected when it came to testing the Moon at its two major setting Limits. The southern major limit Moon set, is unimpressive (and deflating), with the 70 metre high hillock just to the southwest of the site, preventing any viable lunar observation. The northern major setting limit is illustrated in Figure 8-60 (the menhir has been made transparent for ease of illustration) and, lo and behold, again the azimuth of the complete lunar sphere, sitting on the horizon, corresponds with that of the northeast surface of the stone, re-affirming the approach taken with the southern major Moon rise. As the Moon descends toward the horizon, the observer would simply keep half of the lunar orb situated on the edge of the stone. As the Moon descends, and moves to the right, the observer moves in the opposite direction, until such time the full sphere is sat on the horizon, resulting in the northeast face of the stone being no longer visible, only the edge that it presents to the spectator.
Figure 8-61. Tiraghoil plan.
marker exists, or as yet, has been found to have existed, along the proposed line of sight, would suggest that the rising Sun at summer solstice has significance over the setting Sun – if indeed we accept that the rising Sun was being marked by the menhir in the manner described. Due to the plate tectonic motion and the change in the Sun’s obliquity, even today, when one is stood by the menhir, the setting summer solstice Sun, may still be seen to ride down the right edge of the hillside. Another feature of the solar observations to be noted is that the Sun is associated with the peak of a hill – the Moon is not. This peak association is repeated elsewhere, and will be discussed in the chapter on interpretation.
Neither the southern minor limit, nor the northern minor limit Moon sets, appear to be marked either by a stone bearing, or a prominent horizon feature. 8.10.5. Stellar and Planet With the foregoing lunar discoveries, it was judged unnecessary to test for stellar or planetary connections for the Tiraghoil menhir. 8.10.6. Tiraghoil Discussion
The application of these modelling tools has produced some surprising and intriguing results, i) exposing the potential for the complete lunar orb to be the object of observation on the horizon, and ii) it may well be the edge of the stones themselves, acting as the line, that splits the sphere in half, and not the horizon. When this phenomenon is considered a little more, the logic becomes evident. Specifically, with the exception of a new Moon, there will almost always be a portion of the Moon’s crescent at its lower limb, therefore enabling the observer to more easily discern, when the crescent touches and begins to descend behind the horizon. This perspective turns the previously perceived observation method, through 90°, leading to a multitude of questions, some of which are:
If there were only a single instance of the tip of the menhir being made to coincide with the hillside in the distance, it could be said to be purely, speculative. However, having found that the tip of the menhir is employed at Carnasserie, Dunamuck and Ballochroy in the same manner, then the Tiraghoil stone may be used to correspond with the summer solstice sunrise and the winter solstice sunset. It then becomes more convincing, that the position of the tip of the stone, is deliberately set in relation to the Sun. The discovery that an orientation is arranged to the upper edge or apex of the stone, being a prominent sighting factor, and not just the surfaces, so long held as the sole aligning feature, continues to expand our understanding of the Scottish Neolithic culture that contrived these arrangements.
• Is this a one off phenomenon and needs to be discounted? • Do other sites on Mull demonstrate the same phenomenon? • Should sites already investigated elsewhere with the concept of the half orb on the horizon be revisited, to consider the full sphere as well? • How would the dating of other sites be effected, if they are related to the complete lunar sphere being the target of observation, and split vertically, rather than horizontally?
The summer solstice setting Sun, is not indicated by the Tiraghoil menhir, but an interesting aspect of the landscape surrounding this site is. From the location of the stone looking toward a terrace to the northwest of the menhir, the Sun is seen to set at the time of the summer solstice. If the builders were targeting the setting solstice Sun, as an observation, placing a marker on the terrace itself, would have provided the altitude necessary, to witness the Sun set into the peak of Barra Island, between the Isle of Coll and Tiree, (its neighbouring isle to the south); a somewhat more awe inspiring phenomenon. The fact that no such 112
Investigative Models Time only will tell, as further interrogations of lunar sites are conducted. As to the claim of Reverend McLauchlan that the stone is a marker for pilgrims heading to Inverness or Iona, it would appear that that claim may be erroneous. 8.10.7. Dating Tiraghoil In the chapter presenting the topics and issues relating to the topographic map conversions; one of those issues addressed the topographical compression that could not be incorporated into the model, this compression issue presents itself here. If it were possible to incorporate the compression, then the earliest date for the summer solstice sunrise would have to be brought forward by some centuries, from the simulation-determined date of 3500 BCE. Likewise, the ending date of 2000 BCE would require adjustment by a similar amount. This topographical compression has a less significant effect on the Sun setting, at the time of the winter solstice, due to the closer proximity of the hill, over which the Sun sets. A conservative beginning date to select the period in which the menhir was erected, using the Sun alone, would be that given by the winter solstice sunset, i.e. 2400 BCE with the use of the site going beyond 1500 BCE. In dating this site, there is somewhat of a dilemma, if we were to use the positioning of the stone, and the bearings of its northeast and southwest surfaces, in relationship to the Moon, then an early date is indicated; in fact, for ‘perfect’ orientation, a date prior to 3500 BCE would be necessary. If, on the other hand, the positioning of the tip of the stone, as it relates to the solstitial Sun is considered, this pushes the date to the latter end of the date range, presenting us with the issue of, which of the events were possibly intentional. If use is made of the full lunar sphere just sitting on the horizon, rather than the half orb as discussed above, then we have a range of dates that now overlap. Assuming that acceptance is made for both lunar and solar phenomena being jointly manifest by the megalith, limits the construction period to 2300-1800 BCE.
113
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation 8.11. Kintraw
not provide the necessary marker and subsequently, none could be discerned.
NM 8306 0497 Latitude N56º 11’ 17.64’ Longitude W5º 29’ 44.28’
8.11.1. Previous Kintraw Investigations
At Kintraw, the four metre (13ft) tall menhir is more easily observed when heading north on route A816, as the winding road forces the menhir into view. Conversely, it could easily be missed travelling the highway in the opposite direction. Parking is located on the grass verge, across from the gate that accesses the field in which the stone and its accompanying cairns are situated.
Thom’s main premise proffered for an astronomical orientation at Kintraw (1978: 37), is the observance of a sliver of the upper limb of the winter solstice Sun, appearing to the south west. Appearing between the two peaks Beinn Shiantaidh and Beinn Chaolais, on the Isle of Jura, at an azimuth of 223° at low altitudes this thin sliver often appears green, due to atmospheric refraction, and is referred to as the green flash. This event was calculated by Thom, to set the date of construction in the region of 1700 BCE. A location to observe the event suggested by Thom (1978: 39) and subsequently excavated by MacKie (1974: 181), is marked by two boulders on a ledge, across a ravine that runs to the north of the menhir.
The Kintraw stone stands on a prominence that overlooks Loch Craignish, with a view of the Isle of Jura 28 miles (approximately 41 kilometres) to the southwest. Thom suggests an orientation to a Col between two peaks of Jura, that are not directly visible from the menhir, and he suggests an observation point higher up the hill behind the stone (1978: 37-39). This viewpoint, that is a possible observation point, looks down on the menhir, but from this vantage point, the stone does not provide a sightline toward the stated sunset foresight. When viewing the menhir from the observation point, it could be considered, that the shadow line it produced would have delineated a sighting perspective. However, a secondary marker would be required to denote the correct orientation. The cairns do
Ruggles also examined Kintraw, demonstrating that when situated at the menhir or even the viewing station (if one accepts the viewing station) that witnessing the flash of the Sun is highly unlikely (1999: 28). This site has been contentious amongst archaeologists and archeoastronomers for decades, even to the point of photographs provided by MacKie being disputed by Patrick (1981: 213) as to their authenticity. The main contention being that, the observation of the spectacle, is made at a viewing station disassociated from the stone, across a ravine, at an elevation of 17 metres above the site itself. Additionally, this particular orientation cannot be viewed directly from the location of the stone, due to intervening tree-covered land. As Hadingham states ‘a ridge of land now covered over with trees, projects forward into the loch obscuring the view to the Paps by a matter of a few feet’ (1976: 111). Even here, there is misunderstanding of what may, and may not be seen. McCreary, Hastie and Moulds (1982) visited Kintraw six times through the course of 12 months, took many photographs, which they were unable to reproduce in print, nevertheless, they used them to illustrate the skyline, from the viewing station and the ledge upon which it sits. Their resultant series of line drawings represented various viewing perspectives along the ledge. This is where some discrepancies occur between their findings and the discoveries disclosed in this research. These discrepancies will be presented in the Kintraw interrogation discussion. Thom’s proposed viewing station (1978: 39) is on a ledge, to the northeast of the site, across a gorge from where the menhir is located. The ledge, that extends for about 500 metres along the side of the gorge has, in the intervening years, been converted into a route for power poles. By combining the potential of any electromagnetic interference effect from the power cables, with the forestry commission’s tall growth of pine trees, which covers the sloping hillside to the north of the viewing station, GPS readings should be considered provisional. At the time of the site visit, the heavy growth of leaf
Figure 8-62. Kintraw menhir above Loch Craignish.
114
Investigative Models Table 8-17. Kintraw site survey data Menhir location
Height NE face SE face S face SW face N face
Viewpoint 1
Boulder
Long
W 5°
29.81’
W 5°
29.724
W 5°
29.655’
Lat
56°
11.29’
56°
11.345
56°
11.399’
Corner
SW
at point
sw face
computed
159”
bearing
188°
base
7.5”
bearing
253°
base
14”
bearing
Rounded face
base
12”
bearing
197°
base
37.5”
bearing
284°
base
19”
covered trees, across the gorge from the viewing station, also prohibited any viable compass bearings to be taken, in order to triangulate an accurate location to verify the GPS readings.
this stone’s location would be needed to determine if this was ever upright and therefore, in need of consideration.
8.11.2. Kintraw Site Survey Data
Thom, (1978: 38) provides a plan for the site, in which he marks an upright stone (identified by Thom as S5). According to Thom, this stone is located 53 feet up the slope from the viewing station, in the now existing woodland, but no interrogation was made by Thom to determine any relevance of this upright. During visiting the site an attempt was made to locate this stone in the heavily wooded and steep area above the ledge, I could not locate the stone. However, in an area that flattens out, about 50 metres down from the top of the hill another stone was located, a large boulder, cubic in shape, with sides measuring approximately 1.75 metres. The boulder’s GPS position was recorded. Thom’s S5 is offset from any direct alignment with the viewing station and the menhir; however, the cubical stone is in direct alignment with these features. Again, due to the boulder being surrounded by trees, the GPS positional data should be considered with circumspection. To manoeuvre this large boulder into position on such a steep slope is questionable, and it may well be considered a glacial deposit, or have come to rest, having fallen from on high. With that said, the boulder makes a most perfect back rest to look out over the loch, toward the Paps of Jura, and will be considered during the site interrogation.Table 8-18 provides a comparison of Thom’s reported 6 digit national grid positional data for the site (1978: 38), to the GPS latitude and longitude readings taken during my visit.
8.11.3. Plan of Kintraw
Table 8-17 outlines the site survey data captured and used in the interrogation. The area in which the Kintraw menhir stands, is heavily disturbed, the menhir itself has been ‘restored’ after having fallen. Cowie’s paper (1980: 27-31) describes the effort of the ‘restoration’, providing confidence that the stone was restored to its correct position, in its socket, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The kerbstone cairn to the south east of the Kintraw stone is quite disturbed; the small stones may easily have been displaced by the sheep that roam the area. The second larger, kerbstone cairn, situated to the north east, also shows signs of disturbance, since the excavation Cowie conducted. A stone at the time of excavation, that lay flat in front of the cairn, is now lying on the ground at an obtuse angle; this disturbance however, would take more than sheep movement. About 30 metres to the northwest of the menhir, a stone over 1 metre in length, was found lying on the turf, and it is not known if it is a fallen part of the site arrangement. The stone’s location could be indicative of being used as a marker for viewing the menhir, and a south eastern event, but this stone was not included in the survey data, or interrogation. Whether this metre long stone is close to its original position, and whether or not, it is any part of an alignment could only be tested theoretically, as such could never be definitively interpreted. An excavation at
Translating Thom’s grid reference to a digital OSGB latitude and longitude location, results in placing the menhir 43 metres to the west, southwest, of the GPS satellite position, and the true location. However, 115
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation a rift runs through the middle of Scotland. Unfortunately, the exact location of the Kintraw menhir sits right in the centre of the 3-dimensional rift. After reporting the problem to the Ordnance Survey, it took several months before I was informed that a fix had been determined, and many months after that, before the new tiles became available through Edina’s Digimap. By the time the resolution was made available, a full year had transpired, frustratingly to discover, that the rift still existed.
diagrammatic renditions, locate the stone accurately. This demonstrates that, for on site visits the greater accuracy of the GPS providing the 4th digit for the map references, aids future researchers who are unable to visit the site (the blue dot in the diagram below represents Thom’s 6 digit map reference. 8.11.4. Modelling Considerations Cowie (1980) does not indicate to what degree of accuracy the re-erectors of the menhir, were able to achieve in 1979, when re-establishing this stone in its original socket, therefore, the reliability of the bearings taken, of each face of the menhir is uncertain. With that said, when initially considering the bearings of the faces of the stone, there are none that immediately guides one to an expectation of an orientation.
Providing simulation generated images, with a stone seemingly floating in mid air above the rift, appears a little incongruous, therefore, to adjust for the lack of land under the stone, a false platform was created in the model, to give it a sense of continuity in the landmass. The GPS survey data, and supporting software, provided the necessary altitude of the orthostat, thereby determining the position of the false platform. This platform has no impact on any orientation investigation, and exists purely to provide a visual correction. In any of the images or animations, the platform, when discernible, appears as a large ‘drum’ with the Kintraw menhir sat in its centre.
In constructing this site for 3-dimensional interrogation, the site proved to be challenging in more ways than one, and the results derived from the simulations makes it necessary, to expand on some of these challenges. First, the Ordnance Survey digital terrain maps for Kintraw exhibit a flaw when portrayed in 3-dimensions. This flaw manifests itself as if
The 3-dimensional topographical landscape, created from the ordnance survey maps, is bare of any foliage. Therefore, to test whether it is the landmass, or the trees, or both, that obscures the view to the foresight, simulated 30 metre tall trees were generated, and placed in the computer programme, where they would perform the necessary viewing interference. The height of 30 metres, to simulate
Table 8-18. Kintraw survey data comparison Latitude
Longitude
GPS (NM 8306 0497)
N56º 11.29’
W5º 29.81’
Thom (NM 830 050 )
N56º 11.3’
W5º 29.9’
Figure 8-63. Kintraw line of sight (Garmin MapSource). NOTE: OSGB indicates woodland using parallel horizontal lines.
116
Investigative Models
Figure 8-64. Jura obscured by 30 metre trees as viewed from Kintraw.
8.11.6. Solar Interrogation
the trees, was chosen to allow for less tall trees growing up the side of the knoll. In considering Figure 8-64, in which the ‘trees’ are coloured red for ease of identification, it is evident that it is the trees and not the landmass that obscures the view. In order to clarify to what extent the trees obscured the view, the ability to remove the foliage from the land proved most advantageous, as demonstrated in Figure 8-65. It can be seen in the image that the trees obscure viewing the Paps of the Isle of Jura, but they also obscure a knoll, which is to the west of the region of Dun Arnal; this knoll being a part of the mainland, and not of Jura.
Tests were conducted for all solar events, as listed in Table 8-17 Kintraw Site Survey Data. As with other sites, the first, and somewhat obvious orientation to examine, is the orientation expressed by Thom. In this case, the flash of the winter solstice Sun in the Col between the Jura Mountains (1978: 38). Examinations across the full date range were conducted; each examination used the standard (average) atmospheric refraction value for the Sun at sea level. Even with the isostatic depressions for Kintraw and the Isle of Jura disabled in the tests, (in effect raising the Sun’s altitude by the 9 arcseconds as described earlier), it was NOT possible to witness any part of the Sun in the Col between Beinn Shiantaidh and Beinn Chaolais, which are situated on the isle of Jura. By the time the Sun meets the required azimuth, it is too low for the simulation to demonstrate any flash, at the reputed location.
The ordnance survey tiles for Jura are quite detached from those of the site itself. As a consequence, tests were conducted for convergence, and adjustments made, to ensure the true bearings from the stone to the peaks of Jura were correct. 8.11.5. Land Motion Any tectonic motion differential does not affect the arrangement at Kintraw, as both the far foresight of Jura, and the site itself, are on the same northeast-southwest line, therefore, their rotation about the Euler Pole is in unison. The isostatic depression at Kintraw is the most pronounced of all the sites investigated, by an additional 2 metres; see online chapter A1, proportionally reducing the angular relationship between Jura and the mainland, by 9 arcseconds (0.153 arc-minutes). This angular delta could have an impact on dating the site.
However the removal of the trees, through simulation, as illustrated in Figure 8-65, exposes the knoll on the mainland that is part of Dun Arnal. From 2600 BCE onward, when viewed from the menhir, the tip of the Sun appears above the knoll20, and then disappears behind the mound. From 2400 BCE 1-2 minutes after the Sun See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: menhir1500/menhir1500.exe 20
117
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-65. Unobscured vista of Jura & knoll from Kintraw, winter solstice sunset 2600 BCE.
disappears behind the hill, the tip of the Sun reappears in the Col that is formed by the knoll and the Isle of Jura in the distance. The azimuth for these setting locations of hill top and Col are 221.8° and 222° respectively.
drawings have a distinct ‘plateau’ very similar to Krupp (1983: 35), Wood (1980: 87), Ruggles (1999: 28) and MacKie (1974: 180) versus the rounded knoll generated from the Ordnance Survey topology. In Figure 8-66 a simulation output has been overlaid by one of McCreary’s line drawings, the black lines in the figure representing McCreary’s surmised skyline (no scaling was attempted to completely marry the two images). The line drawings are McCreary’s best estimate of how the skyline may appear with trees removed, whereas the simulations are the actual skyline produced; this discrepancy does not however, have an impact upon the findings of McCreary, as the conclusions drawn are the same – i.e. no evidence to support Thom’s claim of an high-precision orientation. What it does illustrate though, is how current obstacles, taint our viewing perspective of the events at a site.
When conducting observations from across the gorge, at the point of the viewing station, the phenomenon changes somewhat. The Sun is slightly higher above the knoll and its upper limb passes down the western edge of the knoll, until it disappears in the Col to its right. The Col, when viewed from this location, is less defined than when seen from the menhir, due the elevated viewing position. In fact from this location, the extra seventeen metres in viewing height, moves the observance of this event back 200 years to 2600 BCE. These phenomena21 continue for the remainder of the date range, with the Sun appearing increasingly higher, over the course of the period, and thereby, setting a fraction further to the west as time progresses.
Due to the number of authors who have diagrams or images of this seeming plateau, it was essential to question the validity of the 3-D topography. It was therefore, necessary to consider a different view of the area to interrogate any possible discrepancy; therefore, the regular 2-dimensional contour map from a different source (Garmin Maps) was employed. The blue flag in the top right corner in Figure 8-63 Kintraw marks the position of the Kintraw menhir. In the opposite bottom left corner is the knoll in question, indicated by the elliptical contour lines which are close together. This closeness of contours (10-metre increments) denotes the steepness of the sides
8.11.7. Discrepancies with Other Research It was mentioned in the section describing research conducted previously by others, that certain discrepancies were detected. The first of these discrepancies is the line drawings of McCreary et al (1982). McCreary’s line See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: phenomena/vp2600.exe
21
118
Investigative Models
Figure 8-66. Kintraw line drawing (overlay from Heggie used by permission of Cambridge University Press).
of the hill. Just to the north east of the knoll is a flat area 20 metres (65 feet) lower than the knoll itself (in fact the area upon which the simulated red trees in Figure 8-64, are placed). The 10-metre separation in contour permits any height variation less than 10 metres in this plateau area, not to be indicated in the 2-D map (recall that the 3-D simulations employed 1-metre accuracy). Any trees could well give a false sense of landscape, particularly as they grow up the side of the knoll, thereby vindicating 3-D topography.
at sea level of 34 arc-minutes, its true altitude would have to be no lower than -17 arc-minutes (34 -16 for the Sun’s semi-diameter), resulting in 1 arc-minute of its limb being visible. However, the Sun’s apparent altitude is lower by 1 arc-minute, which is possibly why Thom suggested that it was the green flash that was observed in the Col, and not the Sun itself. The Sun’s altitude is also compounded by the additional isostatic impact of a further 0.153 arc-minutes, (discussed earlier under the land motion section). With this said, another factor to consider that further compounds the issue, is, lying just beyond Jura, and between Jura and the winter solstice Sun, setting on the sea-level horizon, is the Isle of Islay, with its own hilly terrain, providing physical interference to such low altitude, refraction effects. As the obliquity of the Sun’s orbit decreases over the centuries, it is not until some future date, if at all, that the Sun appearing in the Col on Jura becomes a remote possibility.
As may be seen from the last animation of the Sun descending behind the knoll, the mere distance from where the Sun meets the top of the knoll, to that of its neighbouring Col, is 0.2° in arc. For the Sun to attain the Col between Beinn Shiantaidh and Beinn Chaolais, on the Isle of Jura, from this winter solstice setting point above the knoll, would require an additional 2° of horizontal travel, but this additional horizontal motion generates an additional 0.9° (54 arc-minutes) in vertical descent. By the time the Sun has attained the correct azimuth its centre is 0.3° (-18 arc-minutes) below sea level. At the distance from the Kintraw site, the Jura Col is 34 arcminutes above the sea level horizon22. For the Sun to have any possibility of displaying the upper limb through the Col on Jura, with an average atmospheric refraction
All other solar dates, including quarter days, to match the azimuths in Table 8-19 Modelling Derived Solar Azimuth Readings, were tested from the location of the Kintraw menhir. It was determined that the high, almost mountainous terrain, to the east of the site, inhibits viewing the Sun in winter, until it has passed the meridian, appearing at an azimuth of approximately 184° There are no surface bearings of the orthostat, nor secondary markers to suggest a position to stand, to observe the winter solstice sunrise. Likewise, with the rising Sun, at
22 Angle = tan(opposite/adjacent) land height of 450 metres at a distance of 45 kms or tan(450/45000).
119
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation sunset over the knoll, from this location, has already been discussed. Sunrise is even more obscured by the eastern terrain, leaving the western horizon as the remaining solar perspective to examine.
the time of an equinox, or the summer solstice, there are no pertinent bearings, or secondary markers discernible. The virtual flatness of the horizon, in the western direction, also provided no evidence that an equinoctial or summer solstice event was commemorated by the location of the giant stone. Leaving one to conclude, that there are no solar orientations associated with the Kintraw menhir. It is now evident that Jura was not the point of interest of the builders, but more probably the nearby knoll.
At the time of the equinox in 3500 BCE the simulation image in Figure 8-67 illustrates the Sun setting into a notch on the horizon, at an azimuth 269° (the ‘rift’ caused by the error in the Ordnance Survey map can be seen just to the left of the Sun’s position – more detectable as a reflection in the water). The Sun setting in this notch, continues to occur until 2200 BCE when it begins to set into the escarpment of the hill to the north, rather than the notch itself. As the Sun’s declination is to all intent and purpose 0° at this point, the shift in orientation demonstrates the combined effect of the Earth’s precession, contracted to a minor extent, by that of plate tectonics.
8.11.8. Viewing Station Having exhausted the solar and lunar potentials for the stone itself, the next step initiated, was to examine these possibilities from the viewing station. The winter solstice Table 8-19. Modelling derived solar azimuth readings 3500 BCE
Horizon outline
Half way point
Sunrise Sunset
Sunrise Sunset
Winter Solstice
8.11.9. Lunar
221.8°
Imbolc
-
237.82°
Samhain
-
238.38°
Equinox
103°
268°
Beltane
-
295.18°
Lugnasadh
-
300.99°
Summer Solstice
59°
312°
-
246°
-
293°
All Lunar Limits were tested for the entire date range, from the position of the Kintraw stone, and there were no phenomenon disclosed to warrant any conjecture of orientation. With such an undulating foresight we are presented with a multitude of potential ‘targets.’ Ruggles demonstrated this same situation (1999: 63), whereas Thom identified two southern targets (1978: 38-39). Likewise, simulation runs for all lunar Limits, were conducted from the viewing station, which presented
Figure 8-67. 3500 BCE equinox from viewing station.
120
Investigative Models
Figure 8-68. Moon setting at southern minor limit.
Figure 8-69. Northern minor limit moon set, Kintraw.
121
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation only two results that do warrant discussion; only one of which corresponds with Thom’s conjectured foresights. First, the setting that corresponds with Thom’s conjecture is the Moon at its southern minor limit as it reaches a ‘pinnacle’ type hill, on the Isle of Jura, at an azimuth of 233°; which as Figure 8-69 indicates, is just too nebulous to be contemplated. The second result being, the Moon, at the time of the northern minor limit, setting into a notch formed at the base of a hill, to the west at 301.5°, Figure 8-69. With both these events, occurring throughout the complete date range, from 3500 BCE to the end of the tested range of 1500 BCE, there is nothing definitive about either the southern or northern minor settings.
The Second aspect that this interrogation reinforces is the potential viability of the viewing platform; in fact, the value of this viewpoint is strengthened by:
The setting point of the Moon’s northern minor limit is the exact same point as that of the Sun at the time of Lughnasa. The reader may recollect the discussion in the Nether Largie section, where, at the time of Imbolc, both the Moon and the Sun, at its southern minor limit, rise at the self same point. Again this would seem more of a coincidence in landscape and was not considered further.
With all this said, the question remains, was the event over the knoll even considered by our forebears? If it were, they would not have needed any marker stone, the simple act of the setting Sun migrating eastward, along the Jura skyline, until it reaches the knoll at its southern most limit, would be sufficient to mark the event. Whether the situation of the viewing station was deliberate, to enable these setting positions of the solar sphere to be observed, one does not know. All that can be stated from these results is that, they could well have been. Similarly, it can also be stated that the events are not commemorated by the Kintraw menhir.
• The addition of the Sun sliding down the side of the knoll • The potential of the equinoctial Sun setting into the lower point of the escarpment on the western horizon • Somewhat less definitive, the setting Sun into a depression, rather than a discernible notch, over Jura at the time of Samhain or Imbolc • The combined setting point of the Lughnasa Sun and the Minor northern limit.
8.11.10. Stellar and Planetary The peaks of Jura, on a clear night, offer such a tempting vista to mark both planetary and stellar phenomena. However, there were none that could be ascertained during this interrogation into the site, either from the menhir itself, or from the viewing station.
As to the matching horizon point for the Moon’s minor northern limit setting, in the same location as the Sun at Lughnasa, there are only two options open to us: 1. Coincidence – and nothing is to be considered from the co-location 2. That the co-location of the setting point has significance which is beyond the scope of this interrogation
8.11.11. Kintraw Discussion The results from this interrogation into the Kintraw site, update previously considered aspects in several ways. First, the ‘long-line’ vernier accuracy, suggested by Thom, is partially correct. There is indeed, a long-line orientation, by the combination of the edge of the knoll at Dun Arnal, less than a kilometre away, with that of Jura, forty kilometres in the distance. However, the orientation is generally observable, without any vernier precision. This orientation to the knoll also alleviates any issue associated with atmospheric water vapour obscuring the Paps of Jura, as the closeness of the knoll permits the observation of the winter solstice sunset, whilst Jura could be hidden by mist or low clouds.
It could be suggested that the Kintraw menhir may still have a celestial connection, due to the general bearing direction of the southeast face of the stone, to the winter solstice setting point, over the knoll, but this is tenuous at best. Combining the fact that, both lunar and solar effects were visible from the viewing platform, one can draw a reasonable assumption that the platform was indeed used for that very purpose. Accepting this assumption also reinforces MacKie’s (1974) investigation into the manmade nature of the platform itself.
Ruggles (1999: 29) did not support the concept, that the flash of the Sun was seen during winter solstice, this investigation concurs with Ruggles. The phenomenon of the Sun setting in an horizon position, marked by a peak, is reminiscent of the same phenomenon identified at Ballochroy and Tiraghoil. Any difference being, that the phenomenon at Kintraw occurs at the winter solstice, whereas, the event at Ballochroy marks the summer solstice, with Tiraghoil marking both solstices. However, on this occasion, the phenomenon is not indicated by the orientation of the stone with the mountain peak, just the interaction of the Sun with the landscape, which is observable from either the menhir or the viewing station.
8.11.12. Dating Kintraw The data derived from this interrogation, that may be employed to specify a date range, is that of the Sun setting over the knoll, which gives a potential usage range between 2600 BCE to 1500 BCE (and beyond). If the Sun appearing in the notch created by Dan Arnal and the Isle of Jura, in the background, is also considered, (ignoring atmospherics obscuring the island due to water vapour of any kind), there is the potential of aging the site even further back in the Scottish Neolithic period, by another 200 years.
122
Investigative Models 8.12. Torbhlaran
8.12.1. Modelling Considerations
NR 8640 9449 Latitude N 56º 5.723’ Longitude W 5º 26.064’
As this site had not previously been dated by any means, it was unnecessary to test deltas in orientations that may, or may not, have been generated due to isostatic or tectonic motion. The stone itself is leaning slightly to the north by 3° and was straightened for the purpose of modelling, to the upright position by that amount.
The stone at Torbhlaran is approximately 1.5 kilometres to the southwest of An Car, standing in a field to the left of the road. The hillsides to the east and west of the site tower above it, making direct sunlight into this point of the valley limited and only available, from mid morning to mid afternoon. The valley in which this stone is situated terminates to the southeast, at the point where the site of Dunamuck stands.
8.12.2. Solar Taking into consideration the height of the surrounding hills, and the angular orientation of the stone at 103°, the first solar orientation to be examined, was that of the equinoctial sunrise. Indeed, there is a form of orientation, whereby, the Sun can be seen to rise up the long face of the northern edge of the stone, and the shape of this edge could be judged to have been deliberately manufactured; either by stone selection or physical shaping. Unlike other orientations of this nature, uncovered in this research, this orientation is however, along the widest surface of the stone, rather than the narrowest. In fact, this viewing perspective makes this stone one of the few that conforms to the de facto standard, as discussed within the Tiraghoil section.
This site, with its single stone is somewhat enigmatic. Sat in a 500 metre wide valley, with hills on either side, ranging from 150 – 200 metres in height; with similar height hills sat at the head of the vale. The surrounding horizon provides interesting orientations that do not appear to be indicated by the stone, with one or two possible exceptions, which will be explained further. The site’s survey data and the plan are given in Table 8-20 and Figure 8-71, respectively.
The placement of the viewing position in the equinoctial rising23 is set back away from the stone, for ease of demonstration; otherwise all that would appear in the image would be the stone. The rising Sun does not ‘fit’ fully with the slope of the stone, which may indicate a stone that was selected, rather than structured; as such, it cannot be considered definitive proof of orientation. The second potential, for this location, is to observe the solar sphere at the time of the summer solstice sunrise, whereby, the Sun appears from the eastern face of an escarpment, and rises along the ridge of the horizon. There Table 8-20. Torbhlaran site survey data location
Height N face W face S face E face Figure 8-70. Cup marked stone of Torbhlaran. Note that this stone shows cup marks on both the long sides, in the lower region where the lichen and mosses have been kept clear, by the sheep rubbing against the stone.
Long
-5°
26.064
Lat
56°
5.723
Corner
North East
Measured at
South Face
computed
83”
bearing
103°/283°
base
51.0”
bearing
33°/213°
base
12.0”
bearing
105/285°°
base
51.0”
bearing
54°/234°
base
05.5”
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: TorbEqRise/torbEqrise.exe 23
123
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation is unable to add to the empirical record for archaeologists, as the only result is a reserved, maybe. There is one puzzling aspect about this stone, which warrants mentioning. That is, the shaped top as seen from the side, see Figure 8-70. The slightly undulating top is reminiscent of the shaped tops of stones at Carnasserie and Dunamuck, where the tops of those stones, were shaped to match the horizon. There are horizon features, about the site, for which the Torbhlaran stone top could be made to match. The suggestive nature of this feature would require the rotation of the stone about the vertical axis. Alternatively, if this feature did at one time, emulate the horizon, it could mean the stone had been moved; we will never know. Figure 8-71. Torbhlaran plan diagram.
are ways to position the stone in relation to the horizon, but the viewer is not square to the stone, and the positioning does not deliver that stamp of authority as would be expected; in consequence, this positioning must be taken as tentative, at best. 8.12.3. Lunar The next potential phenomenon that adds to the enigma of this site is that of the setting lunar sphere, at the time of the maximum southern limit, at which instant, the moon is seen to ride down24 from the small rise on the top edge of the stone, setting at an indistinctive hillock on the horizon. 8.12.4. Stellar When looking at the northern or southern faces of the stone, it suggests that there is no stellar perspective, due to the angular offset by 13° of the faces from the meridian, and this was reinforced in the simulation tests conducted. 8.12.5. Torbhlaran Discussion Being a high sided valley, suited for crop growing in the summer and harbouring livestock in the winter, it seemed that indicating seasonal timing would be a meaningful task. After all the tests, this stone remains an enigma. Does it truly mark the equinoctial Sun rise, or not? Does it mark the southern major lunar limit setting point, or not? There were one or two other possibilities regarding orientation, but they seemed contrived, and gave the sense of orientation hunting, rather than the celestial event stamping an authoritative ‘here I am’, thus, they were omitted from these results. There is insufficient evidence to merit placing a date on the site, even if the available evidence were used, a simple tilt of the observer’s head, would permit the two orientations discussed, to fit anywhere within the tested date range. This investigation
See www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html; file name: TorbMjrSet/torbSMjrset.exe
24
124
Investigative Models 8.13. An Car
Ruggles et al (1984: 37) Megalithic Astronomy: Statistical Study of 300 Western Scottish Sites, I find no references to this or the previous site, Torbhlaran. Situated in the same valley as Torbhlaran, 1½ kilometres to the northeast, where the valley widens and the horizon to the east is lower, the menhir has bearings that are more indicative of lunar and solar limits, worthy of testing.
NR 8757 9550 Latitude N 56º 6.297’ Longitude W 5º 24.974’ An Car sits in a valley to the east of the Kilmartin vale, the two valleys joining at the town of Bridgend, where the menhirs at Dunamuck farm are situated. The single menhir leans to the north, and gives the initial appearance of standing at the centre of a cairn. However, the RCAHMS record, informs the reader, that the stones at the base of the menhir are considered field clearings and not a cairn. The RCAHMS record also informs us, that the stone draws its name from the river bend, but the farm property in which it stands, is known as Lechuary, and derived its name from ‘Leac Gothfruidh’ – Godfrey’s stone.
8.13.1. Modelling Considerations Surrounding the base of the menhir is a collection of boulders, and broken rock. At first this ‘footing’ was thought to be the remnants of a cairn, but as mentioned above, they are now considered deposits picked up from the surrounding field. These deposits do at least perform a useful task, of holding the menhir up, if not upright, as it leans toward the north, however, these boulders also inhibit the ability to determine the true height of the menhir above ground level.
Hills surround the site, but those to the east are obscured by the trees that line the riverbank. Other than appearing in
Figure 8-72. An Car stone.
125
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 8-73. An Car plan. Table 8-22. An Car lunar azimuths
Table 8-21. An Car site survey data An Car Location Height SW face NW face NE face SE face
10 degrees lean to the north Long
5°
24.974
Lat
56°
6.297
Corner
South
computed
125” From boulder pile
bearing
134°/314°
base ins
36.0”
bearing
25°/205°
base
16.0”
bearing
137°/317°
base
37.0”
bearing
42°/222°
Approximately 3500 BCE
Approximately 1500 BCE
Rise
Set
Rise
Set
Northern Minor
63.6°
295.82°
63.76°
295.6°
Major
41.63°
316.79°
41.44°
316.93°
Minor
136.2°
231.73°
135.82°
232.23°
Major
196.29°
205.44°
195.8°
205.67°
Southern
site survey listed in Table 8-21, to that of the lunar rise and set times in Table 8-22, it may be seen that the northeast face has an orientation suited to both the southern minor Moon rise, and the northern major Moon set. To continue the comparison between the two tables, it can also be seen that the bearing of 42° of the stone’s south east face, coincides with the northern major Moon rise, and the southern minor Moon set. It would only be a matter of half a degree, to three quarters of a degree variation, for the full sphere to be sat on the horizon, as demonstrated in the section on Tiraghoil; which would still be within an acceptable orientation with the bearings of the four faces of the An Car stone.
For modelling purposes, the survey data Table 8-21, was employed, and the stone was straightened to an upright position to compensate for the 10° lean to the north. This straightening proved to be invaluable, as will be demonstrated. 8.13.2. Solar Solar events could not be found to exist with the menhir of An Car.
8.13.3.1. Southern Major Lunar Limit At the time of the southern major rise, the Moon’s altitude is so low at this latitude, and season, that it does not ‘rise’ in the regular sense of the term, rather, the Moon appears impressively out of the face of an escarpment – sideways. At the time of day that the Moon first appears from behind the escarpment, it is already on its descent from its
8.13.3. Lunar The Moon’s rise and set azimuths, listed in Table 8-21 above, were derived from the simulation model runs, with the Moon’s sphere bisected by the horizon. Comparing the bearings of the surfaces of the stone, as indicated in the 126
Investigative Models
Figure 8-74. An Car lunar directions.
maximum altitude, and will set in less than an hour. There is a remarkable similarity between the Moon’s setting here at An Car, to that of its southern major limit setting at Ballochroy, where the Moon has been demonstrated to ride down the slope of the horizon. The difference here at An Car however, is only the top portion of the Moon rides down the hill, finally disappearing from view at an azimuth of approximately 205°; which is the bearing of the northwest face of the menhir. Simulations with the isostatic movement enabled and disabled made little difference in the partial Moon skirting along the horizon.
northern major limit see Figure 8-60, this may very well have been intentional.
8.13.4. An Car Discussion
8.13.5. Dating An Car
The ability to represent the menhir in the 3-dimensional model, into the upright position, has availed this research with findings that otherwise would require physical intervention at the site, to perform the same task. Conversely, the conditions to warrant physical intervention, to straighten the menhir to its upright position, would not exist, if it were not for these findings. In all but the northwest face of the menhir, the lunar orb is seen to rise from, or set into, the face that has an orientation that marks the event.
The results demonstrate a pure lunar potential, as such the events (if the stone were upright), could be witnessed any time throughout the date range until today, therefore a specific construction date cannot be proposed.
Figure 8-74, summarises the orientations found for the stone at An Car, but leads one to wonder, where are the other stone/s that commemorate the other four lunar Limits? Not only are these orientations identical to those indicated by Nether Largie’s central Stone, but the location is specifically selected to allow horizon risings and settings, to be diametrical opposites, observable by leveraging a single surface.
*** With the completion of the individual site reviews, it is necessary to review them in unison, and to consider any consistencies across the sites, reflecting on the possible societal context.
The southern major Moon set, as previously outlined however, requires the Moon to be obscured by the stone itself, before the orientation comes into play – a somewhat un-intuitive perspective, and may suggest that the orientation is more coincidental than deliberate. It may equally be considered that with the three other faces indicating a lunar limit direction that this fourth face should also be accepted as intentional. Recalling the interrogation of the Tiraghoil stone however, and the Moon setting at the
127
9 Society and the Stones When it comes to artefacts resulting from archaeological excavation, there is the opportunity to speculate upon the environment in which people lived; what they ate, how they laid out their fields, and in the case of burials, some aspect of the religious behaviours applied to the deceased, and pertinent to the living. With regard to the astronomical ‘artefacts’ discussed in this research, we can only speculate upon the mythical and ideological world of the Neolithic, from the data derived in this case indicating the mythical world of the mid-Neolithic peoples of Scotland. This research may open discussion toward the cosmological side of Neolithic life, perhaps touch on both the sociological and pedagogical functions. Any conjecture has to be placed in the context of the known environment, and potentially, any knowledge of the Neolithic social context.
would have been required and motivated to build them. The date range determined for the sites examined, were established as between 3100-2200 BCE, placing them partly during the time of the first stage of Cherry and Webster’s social order, and solidly into the second stage (or one of the three alternative listed above). Assuming that the astronomical orientations are engaged to apply the spiritual connotation, the ‘theocracy’ upon which the power base resides, may well have driven the collective effort required to construct the standing stones. With the discontinuance of the astronomical events being observed, it could be conjectured that any sociological myths that had acted as validation and maintained certain specific social order became invalid. Such demise would mark an end to Cherry and Webster’s second sociological stage. Ronald Hutton (1993: 84-85) concludes that the cessation of the construction of megalithic tombs, long barrows, and cairns were congruent, circa the fourth to the third millennia BCE. The date range found to be appropriate for these Scottish sites, with lithic structure burials either occurred concurrently, or after the stones were erected, as indicated by this research, is some 500+ years later than Hutton’s cessation period; this non-concurrency is touched upon within the discussion section for Ballochroy. Hutton was speaking on the concentration of sites within southern Britain, it appears that the burial practices of the lithic structures located about the north-western area of Britain, continued beyond that of the those practices further south, and any transitional period of cessation of burials in the northwest, appears to have come at a much later date.
Sociologically, Bradley (1984: 73) summarises the 3 chronological stages of monument building theories of Cherry (1978: 411-437) and Webster (1976: 812-827). The first stage of monument building is a collective effort to bind together peoples into a coherent society, when they are at their formative state, which by its nature assigns power to the collective. An intermediate stage is formed by ‘theocracies’ where the power for the society is further drawn from the supernatural. The final stage occurs, bringing forward the elite, when it is necessary to rebuild the society as it has fallen into a decayed state, and where power is transferred to an individual. Bradley places a fragmentation of the social landscape toward the middle of the third millennia BCE (approximately 2250 BCE) which correlates to the hypothetical construction dates within this research.
History and archaeology has shown how Roman temples were co-located with local spiritual sites, and those temples were then replaced by Christian cathedrals (Bayliss: 2005). The reuse of ‘sacred’ sites over millennia is evident at many sites. The cairns at Dunachraigaig and Nether Largie, demonstrate this reuse principle, 40005000 years ago. For Nether Largie this is evidenced by two distinct reuse layers, the lower layer being of the Neolithic era whilst the upper layer containing beaker inhumation (Piggott, 1954: 177). This means we cannot necessarily associate cairns and standing stones to the same period, and reinforces the consideration at Ballochroy, that the cairn could indeed, have been established at a later time than the stones and therefore may represent a different social context.
A variation to the explanations of the three stages of Cherry and Webster could be: 1. the first stage is driven by a society that is already bound together by their oneness in daily life – hunting and gathering, as a uniform group, this group starts to break apart as 2. the second stage of specialisation; husbandry, crop growing, tool making, et cetera, emerges, but the social order needs to be maintained, whereby the theocracies develop through keeping the populace in harmony and in tune with the celestial order. Thereby, continuing to bind the group together, until the cosmological events change, forcing … 3. the third stage of emergent leaders.
Table 9-1 is my summary of the societal life styles of the Scottish Neolithic, the words in bolded capitals, stressing the predominant features of social emphasis, and monument styles, of the middle, to late Neolithic period.
The actual effort required for the construction of the sites tends to support the concept of a coherent society that 129
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 9-1. Monuments and life style of the middle to late Neolithic Life Style HUNTER/GATHERER (Where were those root crops last year?) Hunter/gatherer-HERDSMAN (Time to move to the upper pasture!) Hunter/gatherer-herdsman-FARMER (To harvest before it rains I must plant when?)
Social Emphasis PAST – Present – future Past – PRESENT – future
Leadership – Powerbase
Monument
Head of FAMILY
Collective Burial– respecting the ancestors brings the past IN to the present, through the knowledge of the dead.
Mythical Leader of the TRIBE Mystical
+ Passage graves, more open, like grazing land; controlled BY the environment
Leader of the CLAN/ + predictive Standing Stones, completely past – Present – SEPT open; control OVER the environment. Annual FUTURE resurrection Cosmological
There is no distinct delineation, or boundary between the categories in this table, they should be considered to overlap. In all three life style categories, life is a repetitive cycle, and the beliefs are additive from one stage to another, not supplanted. As life is a repetitive cycle, the progression from mere seasonal awareness, to a more thorough understanding of the cyclical nature of the heavens is possible.
power and prestige of the deceased to themselves; as the expression goes – ‘The king is dead, long live the king.’ That being the case, the burial act may also be considered as a presumptive power and control transfer. In terms expressed by Bradley, whilst discussing the progression from early to late Neolithic, he presents the case that: … the role of the individual became more evident; the scale of exchange increased; and control over the supply of special objects assumed a central position in society. All these changes had their roots in the past; but by the time that we can see them clearly, the ancestors had been overthrown and the living had come into their inheritance (1984: 37).
Burl states that ‘Analysis of entire groups might reveal that although the monuments do contain alignments, these were symbolic rather than scientific and were linked to death’ (1980: 191). This analysis might not have covered the entire group of sites within the area of Argyll, but the shared symbolism, is definitely beginning to be revealed. However, with both the astronomical rising and setting of both solar and lunar Limits, it would be more of the cycle of life, both that of death and birth (re-birth) that is symbolised and not just death, as Burl’s statement above would indicate.
It will be necessary in the interpretation chapters that follow, whether the archaeological record of the foregoing societal background of the Neolithic people, may be linked to the astronomical time line determined from the result of this investigation.
Bradley (1984: 75), reports a suggestion made by ParkerPearson (1982) that funeral rites can be a means of focusing the attention of the living on the status of the dead. Conversely it may also be conjectured, that in the second to third chronological stages of Cherry and Webster, it is a way of focusing the status of the dead onto the living. Bradley (1984: 75), Friedman (1979: 271) and Hedges (1984: 130-133) attribute a variety of aspects and merits, to the burial monuments, such as revering the ancestor, and association of long term ancestral ‘communications’ whereby, the living receive support from the dead through supernatural, cosmological powers. Another aspect to consider, that may also occur, at the time of burial, is the transference of powers to those directing the construction of the monument, and the interment of the esteemed deceased; those directing the activity, a priest or heir presumptive. The very nature of controlling the burial act, places those directing the activity in the position of ‘deferred’ authority, and in so doing, they are taking on a role that the deceased may well have held in life. As Julian Thomas (2000: 654) expressed it; a means by which elite groups sought to mystify their own position by association. Therefore, they are perceived to be transferring the 130
10 Interpretation Now that the in-depth interrogation of the selected sites is complete, it is time to attempt to place the results into the context of their environment, as well as in to context with each other. With the contextual aspects set, it will then be necessary to interpret the results into the societal meaning, as best as can be achieved.
fundamental issues of models having now been addressed, it is time to report the consolidated results, and to apply some non-anthropologistic questions and responses. 10.2. Dating Summary Objective: If the landscape adjustments alter the sightlines of the celestial objects, it is incumbent upon the investigator to recalculate the time period necessary to bring the sightlines back into alignment; thereby, adjusting the construction dates for selected research sites.
Results across the sites, which are similar, will be consolidated into their own section that reflects such similarities, along with questions posed regarding those consolidated results. Against some of these questions, speculative answers will be formed, with the anticipation that anthropologists will expand upon both questions and answers. Stated objectives of the research, identified in the introductory chapter, are addressed in individual sections, the objective will head that section, and its text will be in italics so the reader may ascertain whether the objectives have been met. As well as the objectives, lists of measures and targets were also expressed at the beginning of this dissertation. It is also time to determine whether, those measures and targets were met; if not, what steps, if any, could be taken in future efforts, to address them.
A major aspect behind dating megalithic sites by astronomical means, is the lack of cultural markers or archaeological artefacts, that permit radio carbon or chronological dating, as such, this research has endeavoured to determine whether or not, contemporary computer modelling techniques, could re-establish more closely, the construction dates of the ancient megalithic sites. Table 10-2 combines the discoveries from each of the sites investigated, and appears to affirm, that in order for the sites to have been ‘operational’ for a reasonable period of time, they were indeed, found to have been constructed earlier than Thom’s final assessment of approximately 1750 BCE. Unlike in Thom’s work, there is no attempt in this research to be definitive about a specific date, what is presented is a representative range in which the megaliths could have functioned as astronomical markers; if indeed, that is how they were employed.
The site interrogations produced empirical data that requires interpretation regarding the Neolithic inhabitants who constructed the investigated sites. I will attempt to respond to questions raised in each of the consolidated findings, with an eye on avoiding the ‘Hawkins paradigm’ (see section 2.3). However, as the experimental investigative approach was an original use of modelling, it is first necessary to address MacKie’s tests (1974: 169190) that measure models in general; then to proceed to the site investigations in greater depth.
The potential lowest end of the date range in which the astronomical orientations at these sites became ineffective, is 2200 BCE, as shown in Table 10-2. When considering that, with any site, first the indigenous people had to become aware of any recurring event, which they deemed sufficiently meaningful that they were compelled to record it in stone. This acknowledgement of a significant event could only occur after the earliest date for which the event began and the criteria that set the beginning of the research date range, as indicated in Table 10-2, that of 3500 BCE. With these aspects being taken into consideration, placing a speculative date of construction of 2500 BCE is a reasonable mid-point target date. With the exception of the last three sites in the table, these results push Thom’s proposed construction date back by more than 800 years. These last three entries in Table 10-2, would seem to bracket the general date range, where both Brainport Bay and Carnasserie have the earliest potential construction dates, whilst Tiraghoil is bringing up the rear. These deviations are discussed in the summary sections that follow.
10.1. Does the Approach Meet MacKie’s Test Criteria? Table 10-1 lists the test questions for models posed by MacKie, presented in chapter 3, with his questions in the left column, and my response located in the columns to the right, as to whether or not they were addressed in this particular research. As one can see in the above table, this research approach, conforms to MacKie’s test criteria. Heggie (1982: 4), makes reference to the statistical methods employed in assessing astronomical orientations, and hopes the statistical methods might be diminished by a site being found, ‘…on excavation, that decisively supports astronomical interpretation; thereby reducing statistics to a smaller role’. The evidence suggests that both Heggies hopes, and MacKie’s tests, have now been met. MacKie’s 131
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 10-1. Reponses to MacKie’s model, test questions MacKie Test Question
Response
Have the alignments been identified objectively?
Yes
Objective selection via computer simulation was the only method employed
Are the horizon notches and mountain peaks, which have been chosen as the foresights, visible from, and used at Yes any given stone, self-indicated or inferred?
peak of stone to peak of mountain, otherwise they were treated with circumspection.
Are they the most likely ones, and the only ones, to be seen from the sites concerned?
All orientations driven by the astronomical features viewable from the site
Have any of the alignments, been chosen because they were expected in a particular place?
Yes
Expectation suggests subjectiveness, only tested against previous theories.
No
If an alignment occurred it was the celestial feature that dictated the result. Maintaining the objective intent of the research. There are no archaeological dates available.
Does the archaeological dating of the structures, inferred to be part of such alignment, fit the fairly precise dates N/A given to them on astronomical grounds?
Are there features at individual sites which the astronomical interpretation requires to be present, which can be checked by fieldwork and excavation?
There can be no precise dates based on astronomical grounds, only a viable range for construction and use. This date range is what was determined.
No
There are no astronomical features that occurred millennia ago that occur now, (with the exception of comets), and
Yes
If site excavation, is performed, for example at Dunamuck, to conduct radiocarbon dating of plant material or terrestrial snail shells that may be found in the stone socket, now exposed due to the stones having fallen.
Can the astronomical inferences be correlated with the cultural groupings seen in the stone circles and henge monuments, and made on the basis of site plans and associated pottery and artefacts?
No
Dating these sites in the manner executed via this experimental approach is required, as there is no current archaeological record for the sites tested.
Does the astronomical theory involve equipment and techniques which a Neolithic technology is unlikely to have been able to produce?
No
Pure observation and the ability to shape stones
Does it involve the storing of knowledge of a type and in a manner for which there is no known parallels among No recorded non-literate societies? Table 10-2. Summary of site date ranges Site
3500 2500 1500
Ballochroy
3100 2200 Stars, Solstices
Escart
3100 2200
Ballochroy, Sun
Nether Largie
2600 2200
Moon, cairn’s archaeological record
Dunamuck
2600 2200 Stars
Kintraw
2600 1500 Sun
Ballymeanoch
Not possible to date by this method
Brainport
3500 2300
Carnasserie
3500 2500 Sun
Tiraghoil
1800 Sun and Moon
132
Means of dating
Sun shadows
Interpretation 10.3. General Observations
and knowledge in celestial events, as well as the ability in manipulating large stones. Even the plan-full nature of Brainport Bay, would suggest a later date than 3500 BCE, therefore, 3200 BCE may be a more realistic top end, for its feasible date range.
If we accept that the Scottish Neolithic intended that the sites examined in this investigation, were to observe astronomical events, they judiciously selected locations that allowed multiple use of the same stone or stones, minimising their physical effort required to construct the sites. Within this investigation, there is a definite sense of organisation to the multiple stones at the sites examined, with an exception perhaps of Carnasserie.
Table 10-3, summarises the astronomical orientations of the sites, as determined through the site interrogations. The propensity of orientations, are to the Sun. Even when stars are engaged in the orientation, they are used in relationship with the Sun. The reason for this could be that it is easier to track an annual event, than it is to track one, which takes 18.6 years to repeat. Perhaps this difficulty, as it relates to recording the Moon’s activities, is why there is only one site, that of Nether Largie, which thoroughly commemorates the lunar events.
The Carnasserie megaliths are situated in undulating terrain, ¾ of the way up the hillside to the Eas Mor Pass. Distributed around the area, are outcrops of stones from which the orthostats could have been obtained. With the Carnasserie arrangement located just behind a raised piece of ground, the stones could easily have been gathered from upper reaches of the surrounding area, and manipulated to the flatter piece of ground, rather than dragged for some distance, as would have been necessary for the sites in the alluvial plain of Kilmartin Glen. However, the stones at Carnessarie appear to be more serendipitously situated, as opposed to a more purposively sought after site, such as An Car.
Stone circles in the vicinity of the megalithic sites examined, are a relative rarity, these Argyll megaliths are singular, or when numbering two or more in quantity, have different arrangements from each other, but they are linear not circular. Some sites, originally identified as stone circles in this geographic area, are in fact incomplete or destroyed cairns. Those stones, that were considered circular in arrangement, are the remnants of kerbstones surrounding a cairn. As an example, Temple Wood is considered a circle with a cist (Burl: 1979, 160), if one were to consider that should all the boulders dispersed about the Temple Wood site be placed over the cist, internal to the circle of stones, a kerbed cairn would be a possible result.
The two potentially oldest sites, Brainport Bay and Carnasserie, are solar related; whereas, the lunar and stellar related sites, do not attain a feasible date range for at least another 400 years. The multiple stone rows examined, give the appearance of being plan-fully organised, this difference could be attributed to growth of both experience Table 10-3. Summary of site orientations Site
An Car
Shaped Solar Top Rise/ Winter Set R S
Lunar
Stellar
Southern
Northern
Equinox
Summer
Mjr
R
S
R
S
R
S
Mnr R
S
Mjr R
S
Mnr R
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yrise
Ballochroy
Y
Yh
YH
Y
Y
Ballymeanoch
Brainport Bay
Zenith?
Yh
?
Carnasserie
Y
YH
Dunamuck I
Y
YH
Dunamuck II
Y
Y
Y
Yh
Yset
Escart
Yh
Kintraw View Station
YH
Nether Largie
Y Y6
YY
YY
Y?
Y
Y Y6 YY?
Y
Tiraghoil
YH
Yh
Y
Y
Torbhlaran
?
KEY
H
definite hill association
h
possible hill association
a
artificial hill
Y
shaped top view
Y
stellar view
?
possible
133
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation the limits, possibly in conjunction with the equinox, rather than counting days, was a potential process employed, in determining the quarter day points. This being so, would change the azimuths to be considered for these solar events. As such, quarter year, rather than quarter day, may be a more appropriate term to describe these events.
The first item that stands out in Table 10-3 is the fact that the minor northern limit Moon rise is not recorded in any of the 5 sites that suggest lunar orientations, not even at Nether Largie. The reason behind this may be twofold, i) the rising of an object, unless supported by a previous event, such as α and β Aquarius at Ballochroy, is difficult to perceive, and ii) being a minor limit, difficult to differentiate from the normal movement of the Moon on its monthly sojourn. Without a broader spectrum of site research, via this modelling technique, it can neither be confirmed, nor refuted, whether this directional perspective, was ignored or not. This concurs with Ruggles, et al (1984), findings, in their analysis of 300 sites in Scotland. For the solar associations, the trend seems to be toward the Sun setting at the time of the winter solstice, and the rising Sun at the point of the summer solstice – true opposites.
One site that did not appear to have a solar-hill relationship is that of Dunamuck I. The initial interrogation for this site was focused on the shaping of the stone tops. In revisiting the modelling software for Dunamuck I, the coloration of the landscape to the northeast was modified, to distinguish it from the landmass nearby. This modification exposed a hill within the nearby topology that previously blended into the distant landmass in the original interrogation. This exposed hill is where the solstice Sun could be considered to rise, see Figure 10-1.
The next feature of note is, that the sites deemed associated with recording solar events, illustrate that 75% (9 out of 12) are connected with a hill. Two of the non-hill related orientations, are viewed via a false horizon, and the third by a distant island rising from the sea – in effect a hill. If we include these secondary horizons as hills, we have 100% correlation between Sun and hill. If the Sun’s Imbolc position, in Figure 8-56, is also considered, it can be seen that the bisected horizon, results in the Sun’s association with the brow of a hill. If it is accepted that this association was deliberately contrived, by the erectors of the stones, it should also be considered that bisecting
The emphasis for lunar markers is toward the setting southern Limits, whereas, the solar observations are associated with the northerly summer solstice. In fact, the paucity of winter solar events is surprising, which is at variance with Ruggles statistical findings (1984); this could be due to the significantly lower site count in this investigation. Shaped stone tops are not restricted to a specific celestial event, but are utilised for the rising and setting, of both, Sun and Moon; plus heliacal stars. Perhaps, at the time
Figure 10-1. Sunrise at Dunamuck with landscape de-emphasised.
134
Interpretation of the initial construction, the tops were not shaped, but it was the horizon point that was initially marked, by the edge of the stone. This aesthetic phenomenon feature could have been added at a later date. However, this argument does not stand when the stellar event of Dunamuck, and the equinoctial sunrise is considered. It is tempting to draw further conclusions from these results, but a fuller spectrum of site interrogations is required, before such an attempt could be made.
shaped the same, with their solid relationship to the heliacal setting of The Pleiades’ and Aldebaran, at the time of the vernal equinox. When Burnham in his Celestial Handbook (1978: 1813), discusses the constellation Taurus the Bull, in which Aldebaran is referred to as the Bull’s eye he states that the constellation is one of the earliest recognised and was ‘…probably named as early as 4000 BC when it marked the vernal equinox,…’. He continues to describe the large number of historic and prehistoric societies that worshipped the bull, including the Irish at Tara, north of Newgrange. Even if the constellation of Taurus was an unknown entity to the Neolithic Scots, it is not untoward, to consider that, the star Aldebaran could have been included in their seasonal, if not their religious, ceremonies.
10.4. Isostasis and Plate Tectonic Motion Objective: Compare and contrast, currently accepted sightline alignments of megalithic sites, to distant foresights, using today’s landscape, to those alignments that would have occurred once the landscape is adjusted for isostasis and plate tectonics.
For every enlightening view uncovered through this modelling technique, there have been scores of assessments tested, only to demonstrate that no orientation is feasible. These assessments, where no orientation may be demonstrated, are in their own way, positive results, making the modelling approach even more valuable. The alternative approach to discover the lack of orientation would be, to develop an hypothesis, then to visit the site, only to derive the same negative results. The ability to remove trees from blocking the view is an additional modelling advantage, as demonstrated at Kintraw and Nether Largie, enabling a new unobstructed perspective, to be made for the site; this ability reinforces the modelling approach, as a viable and valuable tool, for astro-archaeological research.
Objective: Determine if isostasis and/or plate tectonics has an impact on dating sites. My research has shown that, after an extensive, in-depth investigation, into the isostatic and plate tectonic motions, and then applying the combined motions in the models, these geographic features, when considering astronomical orientations of megalithic sites within the British Isles, have minimal impact. Therefore, Astronomers, and Archaeologists alike, need not incorporate these features into their calculations. Whereas, for sites within Scandinavia, where dramatic isostatic uplift approaches twice the amount of that encountered in Britain, it cannot be said with certainty whether isostatic and plate tectonic effect, needs to be taken into account. I am unaware of monument to horizon orientations within the Indian continent, where the plate upon which the continent resides, has a tectonic rotational component that is twice that of the European plate. These are the only two areas, which come to mind, where the potential of this research into land movement may be leveraged.
An advantage of the 3-dimensional topographic landscape, over the flat map, has already been presented in the solar simulations of Nether Largie. Other advantages have been revealed, such as, the Sun’s apparent association between the tops of hills, and the pinnacle of menhirs, being a more likely interpretation, rather than the sloping side of a hill. Only the sequencing of events through the time controlled computerised animations, enabled this fact to be uncovered.
10.5. Modelling Advantages Objective: Incorporate/adjust (determined by examining archaeological records), elements of the site/structure that are currently missing leaning or fallen, but may impact analysis based on their presence.
Due to the discovery that the phenomenon of the tip of an orthostat, could be associated with a distant hill, and considered as a solar indicator, a brief return (in the modelling sense), to Kintraw was instigated, in order to retest the menhir, to determine if the same phenomenon was present. Would the pinnacle of the menhir indicate the hill of Dun Arnal? In the test, no such stance could be found within the area of the menhir.
The modelling technique I employed for this research has shown to possess multiple advantages. Placing fallen stones into their upright position, or straightening them if they are leaning, has been successfully achieved with enlightening and sometimes surprising results. Reestablishing the An Car stone into its upright position opened new insights regarding the stone, and its use as a potential lunar marker.
The alternative viewpoint to consider was the ledge running behind the gorge, where the viewing station is located. However, the computerised visit determined that, to achieve the correct orientation and the appropriate height above the stone, in order to align pinnacle with peak, the location would also place the viewer above the gorge itself, again not permitting the association. Reinforcing a statement made previously that, like Beacharr, this stone,
After raising the recumbent centre stone of the Dunamuck trio, surprisingly, the re-established arrangement of the stones, uncovered a plausible explanation for two orthostats, in a single arrangement, having their tops 135
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation in its particular placement, has some role other than that of an astronomical orientation.
Further explanation of this interpretation is necessary. To help elucidate this topic we will revisit the animation of the setting of the southern minor Moon at Nether Largie. If the observation position is changed by half a step to the left, the stone will completely obscure i) the point where the Moon sets, and ii) the Moon’s path riding down the sloping top. The same effect would occur should the observer take a half step toward the stone. If a step is taken backwards, or to the right from the observation point, the Moon will i) ride higher above the sloping top, and ii) the corner of the stone, where the bottom of the slope meets the right hand edge, will no longer indicate the setting location on the horizon.
Yet another advantage of the modelling technique employed, is the objective ability for the environment to ‘dictate’ what is to be witnessed. The use of a predetermined land mass, by employing the Ordnance Survey Digital terrain maps, with their inherent accuracy, (with the exception of the Scottish rift), and the international GPS satellite system, allows for: • the theodolite becoming a secondary tool, • avoids the danger of misalignment, or the lack of sight line due to current foliage, mist, flat maps, buildings, and more importantly, • utilising the technique, moves the research away from subjective aspects of perceived alignments, to the objective discussion of relevance of any orientation.
Additionally, once the observer is stood in the appropriate location, orthogonal to the stone, the evidence is very compelling, allowing us to reflect, that this positioning was a deliberate act, rather than an arbitrary placement of the stone. This method of arranging the stone has distinct advantages over a marker placed in ground, which could be moved, or become overgrown and lost, in the course of 18½ years. Moreover, any variance in observers’ height is compensated for automatically.
10.6. New Viewing Perspectives Objective: Viewing points and exact centres are not marked or identified. As Ruggles (1999: 133) states ‘there is no archaeological evidence that the exact centre had any specific significance’. Therefore, opportunities are made available to test viewing points recreated in as ‘pristine’ epoch condition that simulation will provide.
Today we use ‘smoked-glass’ as a means to observe the Sun without damaging our retinas, the Scottish Neolithic could have blocked the Sun’s eye-searing light, by using the tip of the stone. Once blocked, the observer only had to move slowly as the Sun descends. This action continues until the Sun attains the top of a hill, and the marriage of Sun, stone, and top of the hill occurs; a simplistic approach. Each site tested, where this approach is possible, has the land sloping up and away from the stone, thereby allowing for the necessary height adjustment of the observer, as the Sun descends.
When allowing the celestial elements to interact with the horizon and the stones, a door opens to new perspectives on how these stones were utilised. Thereby, dictating the orientations to be examined, as opposed to deriving a subjective proposal, by testing through statistics and histograms. Standing at 90°s to the flat surfaces, and from some 5-10 metres away, looking across the top of the stone, is dictated by the celestial event. This orthogonal viewing position, also informs us how to witness this type of interaction, where, the location is not specifically marked on the ground. ‘Built-in’ self-indicating factors provide how to situate the viewer; this knowledge had to be passed on from one generation to another. As an example, to reiterate a somewhat awe inspiring sight, watching the Moon ride down the top of Stone 1 at Nether Largie, and set in the indicated notch is quite a magical experience. Simplistic in execution, yet what profound devotion and expenditure of effort, was required on the part of the Neolithic people, in finding a location for a single stone, where the viewing position is selected to indicate, not only this lunar orientation, but three other lunar orientations as well. With one of those orientations associated with the stones shaped top, to conform to the path of the descending celestial object being venerated.
The penultimate site tested, Tiraghoil, opened up yet another new perspective, this time for the Moon. That is, when it came to viewing the lunar orb. In the majority of cases, it is the centre of the Moon in association with the horizon and the edge of the stone that is considered the targeted orientation; with an occasional change from the lunar centre to that of the upper or lower limb. However, as the models for Tiraghoil suggest, a far easier observation may be made by employing the upright edge of the stone as the lower limb touches the horizon. See Figure 10-2 in which the green line represents the horizon and the blue line the edge of the stone; the stone in effect, would conceal half of the orb. The long held belief that it is the horizon that splits the orb and the orientation of a face of a stone, indicating the azimuth, seems to have been turned literally sideways, with the stone splitting the orb in half at the time the Moon’s lowest point ‘touches’ the horizon. This approach simplifies the viewing selection as, in the majority of cases, a portion of a crescent Moon (a new Moon being one exception), will exist along its bottom edge and the point of first ‘contact’ with the horizon automatically demarcates the sphere’s vertical centre line. The point is
10.7. Self-Indicated or Inferred Positioning Several situations arose in the interrogation of the sites, where it was specified that the observer was required to stand in a position identified as self-indicated or inferred. 136
Interpretation The initial speculation as to the sites containing stones with slanting tops, has now proven to be quite significant and enlightening, both in the manner in which these deliberately shaped stones, are designed to function, and in the fact that the same technique is employed for Sun, Moon and stars. There is a variety of different angles to the slopes of these tops. The driving factors behind the angle of the slopes are, the inclination of the celestial element being recorded based on the time of the year, and the latitude of the site itself. Hence, there are no specified, definitive angles for the stones. The stones tested, belong to sites all in a geographic area where, the latitude differs only by a slight amount, thereby, no major variation is indicated. Testing for similar effects at sites further afield, such as Stenness may shed more light on this topic. The question posited here is, did the Neolithic builders of these sites recognise that the Sun, and to a certain degree the Moon, all travel about the sky, striking the horizon at the same angle of incidence within a particular geographic region?
Figure 10-2. The Moon, the horizon and the stone.
then used to set the edge of the stone; again simplistic and logical. This lunar crescent ‘alignment’ approach, removes the necessity to consider only full moons, as the observable feature.
To further explore the creation of a sloping top of a megalith, and how it may have been manufactured to meet the criteria of creating a false horizon, along which a celestial orb could run, is approached with reasonable simplicity, yet required forethought and planning. The stone has to be set, so that one upright edge marks the setting point, whilst the stone is set to a depth that facilitates the top of the opposite edge, to mark the beginning of what is to become the false horizon. In order to create the necessary slope, it is a simple matter of dressing the stone, to the point on its edge, which meets the horizon. The declination of the Sun and stars would only require a reasonably straight slanting top. Whereas the Moon with its diminishing declination would, for absolute accuracy, require a slight curve to the top. Plenty of time will elapse before the next event occurs, allowing for engaging the next generation in not only, conducting the execution of this work, but also in transferring the knowledge of what is to be observed.
Due to the results extracted at Tiraghoil, a revisit to other lunar sites was required, in order to ascertain whether or not, this change in viewing perspective, which calls for an approximate variation in azimuth of 0.75°, would require revision in orientations already determined. The renewed visit to Nether Largie, demonstrated that, with this adjustment in azimuth, the southern minor moonrise, would occur at a bearing of 137°, the same bearing as the rising Imbolc Sun, and the southwest face of Stone 1. The somewhat circumspect orientation of Thom’s major northern moonset with one of the southwest surfaces of stone 4 may now be considered more strongly. For both Ballochroy and An Car what impacts there are, improves the orientations of the faces of the stones, to the azimuth of the lunar sphere; thus, reinforcing the concept of the lower edge of the Moon touching the horizon, being an acceptable point of demarcation, when there is no notch on the horizon, for the Moon to descend into.
Some shaping of stone tops, that were not hypothesised, but came to light in the course of this research, are those with a distinctively shaped top. Located at Carnasserie and Dunamuck; where the former is certainly shaped to the distant hillside; and the latter seems as if it were a carbon copy of the former, but with no hill in the distance to emulate. It was conjectured earlier, that a Dunamuck stone was a copy of Carnasserie, thereby, setting the dating sequence in which these sites were constructed. If this is indeed the case, then it must be pointed out, that despite the millennia date ranges identified for each site (Table 10-2) they overlap by only a single century. Which means Carnasserie need not be as old as the date range suggests, or the heliacal setting of stars at Dunamuck, should not be used as the only method for dating that site. If Dunamuck is dated using solar events, as well as the stellar range selected, then the overlap increases to a millennium, and does permit the continuity of philosophy of use, and the probability that Dunamuck could indeed be considered a copy.
10.8. Shaping the Stones Objective: Show whether or not, the distinctive line that delineates the shadow of a monolith falling within the site, or upon another object within the site, has any orientation value. The addition of viewing the stones across their central axis, as well as the original orientation associated with these megaliths, brings to mind John North’s research (1996) described in section 2, where he proposes stellar orientations across the tops of the Wessex long barrows. North’s star observations, run through the course of several months of the year, whereas, the findings of this research are tied to specific 1 year or 18.6 year cycles (Stones 1 & 6 at Nether Largie, and the centre stone B at Ballochroy are examples). 137
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation 1. day count, which requires both a counting scheme dealing with hundreds, and someone to be counting, 2. bisecting the limit points; for example, by taking the solstices and splitting the distance separating them, in order to resolve a close proximity to the equinoctial points. Likewise, taking the resolved equinoctial point and a solstice, and bisecting the two points once more, in order to determine the quarter days, or 3. meridian shadows, either length cast by a gnomon, or east-west straight line orientation for an equinox.
This shaping of the stone to match the distant hill, has been demonstrated by Burl (2005: 62) at Balquhain Aberdeenshire, where a hump at the centre of the recumbent stone artistically reflects the outline of the hill beyond. This stone shaping is a forerunner by some 4000+ years to the same act performed by the ancient Incas at Machu Picchu. Where shaping their Sacred Stone to that of the peak of mount Yanantin, to the northeast of the city, or as Johan Rienhard (2007: 71) conjectures, that the stone was shaped to an almost identical peak, in the opposite direction to the southwest, that of mount Pumasillo. It has been shown, that the hills in Scotland, and Machu Picchu with the mountain peaks in Peru, have a similar Sun association; rising, meridian, or setting.
In the interrogations both (1) and (2) above, were considered, and work equally well in areas where the horizon is flat, or has sufficient distance from the site, that has the effect of presenting a flat horizon. In the case where the horizon is not flat, at the time of one of these solar events, only the day count can function effectively. A detailed assessment of establishing an equinoctial orientation is given by Ruggles (1997).
One final and important point regarding the slanting tops, particularly as they relate to the Moon. The proper slant to the top, will compensate for the changing declination as the Moon rises or descends, thereby diminishing the issue raised in chapter 4 regarding the hourly change in the Moon’s declination.
For type (3) above, utilizing a menhir as a gnomon, determining an east-west straight-line shadow, with an undulating horizon is unpredictable, and thereby, unreliable. The more viable alternative, is to measure the gnomon shadow length when the Sun is on the meridian, by establishing the point of minimum (summer), and maximum (winter), shadow length, and bisecting the two points for a close approximation for the day of the equinox. Likewise, bisecting the points, a second time, would provide for quarter day/years. Other than Brainport Bay, in the current set of sites interrogated, there was no evidence of meridian shadow lines being employed. For sites such as Beacharr or Kintraw, which are found not to have any orientation to rising or setting points on the horizon, they may possibly be meridian gnomons, but with such disturbed sites, any shadow marker cannot be determined. This means that we cannot categorically state that, a single menhir of this nature, has no astronomical orientation, we may only stipulate that they were not used in conjunction with an horizon rising or setting point, for Moon or Sun.
10.9. Shadows Objective: A shadow line, or a shaft of light, on the other hand, is indicated accurately by where it falls, is far easier and more accurate to determine and observe. Objective: By simulating the light-shadow line, alignments may be verified with great accuracy even if an actual light-shadow line does not occur in nature, as would be the case with a star’s position. In this research, shadow lines, as a means of determining orientations and bearings, were not needed to verify alignments within stone rows, mainly due to the unexpected viewing stances that do not require an alignment between stones. There was one exception however, that of Brainport Bay, the shadow effects at this site need to be confirmed however, by resurveying i) the mound that creates the V notch and ii) the pyramid stone. Although they play little part in the stone row sites interrogated in this research, shadow lines may well have a roll to play in stone circles, and so they remain to be tested.
Of the sites examined, only Dunamuck demonstrates the possibilities of equinoctial orientation, and this observation is conducted in association with a stellar event. It is open to future interrogation to determine, if the seven sites, having equinoctial orientations, that Thom (1954: 398) identified, from the 300 western Scotland sites surveyed (as identified in his paper to the British Astronomical Association), whether they are i) equinoctial and ii) if so, whether or not, they have any stellar association.
A question was posited at the beginning of this paper, as to whether the computerised modelling approach could demonstrate sunrise and sunset observations without directly looking at the Sun’s orb. The thought, when this question came to mind was – could shadow lines be considered as a means to achieve the observation. It would appear through the evidence presented within this research, that the Sun’s orb was blocked by the menhirs to achieve the observation.
10.11. Lunar Summary Objective: Determine if viewing the events was a social event, thereby not a singular observer, implying a singular observation point.
10.10. Solar Summary: Equinoctial Orientations When it comes to equinoctial, or quarter ‘year’ orientations, there are three ways that we may envisage the Scottish Neolithic people’s determining these locations:
The occupational nature of the monument builders and celestial observers, or at least the different seasonal 138
Interpretation occupations for which different ceremonies are required (hunting by night, growing crops by day and seasonal husbandry of grazing animals) all needing the cooperation of the Sun and Moon. If this were the case, it could well be a driving force for commemorating astronomical events in stone. The northern maxima of the Moon, was important from the aspect of the light-giving quality of a winter full Moon, high in the sky, availing the local inhabitants the opportunity of nighttime activities, particularly whilst the Sun is low in its southern sojourn.
balls were formed with white quartz, perhaps a model of the Moon. 10.11.1. Eclipses and the Lunar Limits Ignorance of nature’s ways led people in ancient times to invent gods to lord it over every aspect of human life. There were gods of love and war; of the Sun, Earth, and sky; of the oceans and rivers; of rain and thunderstorms; even of Earthquakes and volcanoes. When the gods were pleased, mankind was treated to good weather, peace, and freedom from natural disaster and disease. When they were displeased, there came drought, war, pestilence, and epidemics. Since the connection of cause and effect in nature was invisible to their eyes, these gods appeared inscrutable, and people were at their mercy. But with Thales of Miletus (ca. 624 bc-ca. 546 bc) about 2,600 years ago, that began to change. The idea arose that nature follows consistent principles that could be deciphered. And so began the long process of replacing the notion of the reign of gods with the concept of a universe that is governed by laws of nature, and created according to a blueprint we could someday learn to read. (Hawking, 2010: 84)
On the other hand, the Moon’s southern maxima, is important from a different perspective. It has been suggested, that the 5 days of the Sun’s winter solstitial position was observed, for a need to witness the Sun’s ability to return to the north, and not continue on its path into complete darkness. The same could be said for the southern lunar maxima, as the Moon descends lower and lower in the sky; unlike the Sun, which seems to hesitate or pause, for the 5 days of the solstice period, before returning. The almost indecisive and erratic nature, of the Moon, in a southern limit year, could be more traumatic and disturbing, as to whether it will return to the north or not. This uncertainty might force the need for constant vigilance, and possibly ceremonies, conducted by the local inhabitants, to entice the Moon’s return to the north.
It is interesting to consider the fact, that we are as far removed from the time of Thales, in terms of years, as the constructors of these Scottish stone monuments, and it leads one to wonder, how much the builders contributed, either wittingly or unwittingly, to the decipherment of nature’s consistent principles as examined by Thales. Stephen Hawking’s quotation above starts with ‘Ignorance of nature’s ways’ but, certain natural events had to have been familiar to the Neolithic, even eclipses. In the case of an eclipse, they would also have been aware of the fearful chilling of the air temperature by approximately 19°C (35°F), as ‘bites’ are taken out of the Sun, as an eclipse occurred. Yet no evidence was derived from this research that could substantiate, that eclipse prediction was undertaken by the Neolithic Scots who built the sites investigated.
Employing an arbitrary horizon and viewing location, the computer animation utilised in chapter 4 illustrates the erratic nature of the Moon, at one of its limit years, demonstrating how indecisive the Moon can be as the setting orb, oscillates back and forth across the horizon. This ranging motion causes one to recollect the recumbent stone circles of northeast Scotland. At the southwest portion of these circles, a stone lays on its side, between two upright megaliths, presenting a flat horizontal surface, approximately two metres in length. Hadingham tells us that, ‘…they located nearly every recumbent “underneath” the Moon’s path as it swept out its maximum arc across the sky’ (1984: 65). Could the recumbent stone arrangement within the circle, indeed be capturing the same ranging motion, of the setting lunar sphere, as demonstrated in the animation? Leading one to posit several questions, i) was there coincidence in beliefs across Scotland, from one coast to the other, or ii) was there linkage in the two geographic areas, and the beliefs held at each location, and if linkage, which came first?
The pairing of solar and lunar events is discussed by Ruggles (1988: 234) and Sims (2006a: 4), in the context of the conflation of the solstice sunset, with that of a full Moon nearest a major lunar limit. If it were only the major southern limit that were being marked by the stones, then one could believe that it was the desire to return the Moon to its northern home, and not have it disappear into the southern horizon forever, as expressed earlier.
Another interesting conjecture is how did the ancients utilize the stone balls (Marshall: 1977), which have been found in close proximity to some recumbent stone circles? Is it feasible that they were placed atop the recumbent stones to mark the most southerly point to which the Moon ranges, until the Moon no longer sets between the uprights, as its setting point migrates back toward the west? As the placement of the marker migrates from the west to the south, and back to the west, the limit would be known to have occurred. This migration of the Moon, back and forth, to its most southerly point, occurs twice in an limit year. It is also interesting to note that some stones
As the results from this investigation demonstrate, both major and minor Limits were possibly being commemorated, at both An Car and Nether Largie. Particularly, as the stones at these sites indicate the opposing directions of the major Limits. As such, this suggests deliberateness of site selection for the stones; especially, as the sites have distinctly different horizon altitudes, in those opposite directions. Additionally, the sites indicate that the minor Limits were possibly being recorded as well, even with the difficulty in observation 139
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation most celestial observation over time. That exception is the conjecture presented by Thom (1978: 45-47) regarding whether the Scottish Neolithic attempted to measure the Moons wobble of 9 arc-minutes. This conjecture requires precise alignment of the foresight and associated megalith. The table in appendix B identifies the amount of movement in arc-minutes to the south-southwest, caused by plate tectonics, by century, from 1500 BCE to 3500 BCE. This movement of ~3 arc-minutes would have to be accounted for in any effort to determine if observations were indeed attempted. Plus, the further back in time one goes, as the land moves further to the southwest, the azimuth of the Sun increases toward the north, additionally impacting any orientation to an horizon foresight.
for such events. As such, this research suggests that the lunar limit and not the full Moon conflation are recorded. With only one site (Nether Largie) thoroughly addressing the almost complete spectrum of lunar limit observation (just two orientations missing), several pieces of evidence, are exposed: 1. The importance of the Moon to the Scottish Neolithic 2. Subsequently, the importance of the site in the eyes of those Neolithic people, and … 3. from an archaeological perspective, the site is incomplete in its stone arrangement. With such an important site, to complete the full spectrum of limit observations, for the want of another stone or two, (which would not take much more effort on behalf of the builders), it is hard to believe that it was not a fully functioning lunar indicator. This observation, begs the question, is the site incomplete from a construction perspective, or is it incomplete from an archaeological record perspective, i.e. sockets for missing stones have to date, not been located?
10.12. Hill and Dale, Sun and Moon The discoveries that the viewing stance is as much perpendicular to the stones, as viewing along their flat surfaces, as well as the deliberate use of the shaped tops, either as false horizons, or matching the horizon, are, in themselves, profound, but another consideration has to be marked. When it comes to the observation of the Sun in association with the horizon, as in the cases of Ballochroy, Kintraw, Tiraghoil, Carnasserie, and even Escart, it is the apex of a hill within the landscape, with which the phenomena is linked, see Figure 10-3. Even at Ballymeanoch, where no definitive orientation may be stated, the winter solstice sunrise, emerges from a knoll.
10.11.2. The Moon’s Perturbation and Land Motion The plate tectonic movement and glacial isostatic rebound, amounts to approximately 3 arc-minutes, as such, with one exception, they have minimal, perceivable impact on
Figure 10-3. Combined sun with hilltops.
140
Interpretation Conversely, as the Moon sets down the sloping top of the centre stone at Nether Largie, (or stone A at Ballochroy), it directs one to look at a Col in which the Moon sets. Even Tiraghoil, with the rising or setting of the full lunar sphere, at the Limits, the events either begins from, or concludes with, a depression or notch on the horizon. On occasion, the Moon may be associated with a flat horizon, but what can be stated is, it has been shown at these investigated sites, that the Moon is not associated with a hill.
silhouette of the hill against the Sun, as the curved tip of the Sun melds into the curved top of the hill, is both functional and poetic. Positing the question, is this a mythological act as the Sun sets, of implanting the energies of the Sun, into the mounds of a furrowed field, (or the fertile emergence of plants from the mounds as the Sun rises)? Exceptions to this setting scenario occur at Tiraghoil and Carnasserie, where the Sun is rising out of the top of the hill, not setting into it. Plus, as Kintraw marks the setting winter solstice, whilst Ballochroy marks the summer solstice setting, there is no correlation between setting or rising with a hill, only the fact that any solstice, be it winter, summer rising, or setting, is associated with a hill. Looking back over the discussion about the cairn at Ballochroy, the construction of which, would have hidden the winter solstice sunset, also manufactured a ‘hill’, into which the Sun could set; causing one to hypothesise, was this cairn’s construction conducted to emulate the SunHill relationship, as demonstrated by Ballochroy’s central stone, and other sites? Or, perhaps, the construction came later in the time span of Ballochroy, at a time when the central stone could no longer indicate the hill on Jura at sunset, and a substitute had to be found? I have no answer to these questions.
The association of Sun with hill is imprecise, by the very lack of a distinctive indicator, other than the rounded top of the hill and stone, which implies that the specific day of the solstice is not the feature of importance, but the 3-5 days terminus is actually being commemorated. This coordination of Sun with hill, and Moon with dale, of course is not proven a hard and fast rule, but the number of occurrences leads one to believe, that the association is not coincidental; that they appear to be deliberate acts, cannot be ignored. In fact, G. and M. Ponting observed that, the setting of the Sun, at the winter solstice, behind a mountain, is indicated by the avenue at Callanish (1984: 52). The hills and dales in these associations are not that prominent (with the exception of the Paps of Jura), therefore, this association, does not, like other cultures, Inca for example, lead one to think of ‘Sacred geography’, whereby the prominent geographic item itself is revered. There is obviously a connection between land and orb, but the emphasis appears to be placed on the lunar or solar limits, which the orbs attain and not the geographic feature.
10.13. Stellar Summary Objective: Specific communal dates were not necessarily pure solar or lunar events, but could be in combination with stellar events.
One’s curiosity is piqued as to why would these unions of Sun with hill, and Moon with dale, be important? Is it the dominance of one over the other? These relationships also emanate a sense of symmetry, separation, and opposites (a full Moon may be observed in the sky directly opposite the Sun), in the selection of horizon locations, that are as dissimilar, as the orbs of night and day. On the other hand, is it an allegory for fecundity. Archaeological records indicate that early farming techniques migrated from Old Europe (the Balkan regions), and it could be considered that the mystical and mythical beliefs, to encourage animal and crop fertility, travelled along with the farming techniques. Whereby, the notch or a Col into which the Moon sets, being associated with the female vagina. Gimbutas informs us of the Great Goddess of life, death and regeneration, the ‘Mother Goddess’ (Fertility Goddess), or Moon Goddess the ‘…giver of life and all that promotes fertility, and at the same time she was the wielder of the destructive powers of nature. The feminine nature, like the Moon, is light as well as dark.’ (1982: 152) The erect stone represents the male god’s phallus, archaeologically referenced as the bull or year-god, in association with an annual solar event; the hill association, possibly representing the impregnated swollen womb of the female. Is there a more practical and logical explanation?
The two sites of Ballochroy and Dunamuck demonstrating the observation of stellar events (other than circumpolar suggestions), are another enlightening insight into the site constructor’s approach to understanding celestial movement. The association of the time of year between Sun and stars had to have been recognised, in order for this association to be valued. The reverse condition, the disassociation between Sun and stars during other times of the year had to have been fully recognised. The aspect of the Pleiades with the stones at Dunamuck is particularly interesting, as Fabian states “What is remarkable about the Pleiades is how significant they seem to be in so many systems of native astronomy, especially as primary seasonal indicators” (2001: 60). Only further similar investigations as in this research will establish whether the Neolithic Scots have a native astronomy that would add them to the list. The cosmology section (chapter 4) of this paper, discussed the proper motion of the stars, and the changes in their relative positions over 5000 years; including how this movement may potentially affect the way in which the stars were viewed. Of all the stars examined, those that show themselves as being employed by the Scottish people of the Neolithic period, are listed in the table below. The table reflects the transposition of the current 2000 CE right ascension and declination, to that of the computed positions of the stars for 3500 BCE.
A logical explanation could be that a hillock is not needed to hide the light of the Moon; whereas by masking the Sun by a hill, the brightness is diminished. Observing the 141
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Figure 10-4. Ballochroy star positions 2010 CE. Table 10-4. Principle star position comparison Star #
const
RA2000
Dec2000
pmRA
pmDE
RA-3500
Dec-3500
Mag
Name
22 β
Aquarius
322.89
-5.571110
0.021
-0.008
-112.836
-13.1052
2.91
SadalSuud
34 α
Aquarius
331.446
-0.319722
0.020
-0.010
-102.580
-12.4114
2.96
Sadalmelik
87 α
Taurus
68.980
16.5092
0.063
-0.190
-3.19714
-8.13812
0.85
Aldebaran
The Pleiades 25 η
Taurus
56.8713
24.1050
0.019
-0.046
-16.0143
-3.25912
2.87
Alcyone
16
Taurus
56.2008
24.2894
0.011
-0.046
-16.6495
-3.18265
5.46
Celaneo
17
Taurus
56.2188
24.1133
0.019
-0.046
-16.6034
-3.35343
3.7
Electra
19
Taurus
56.3021
24.4672
0.018
-0.045
-16.5886
-2.99178
4.3
Taygeta
20
Taurus
56.4567
24.3678
0.020
-0.046
-16.4327
-3.06573
3.87
Maia
23
Taurus
56.5817
23.9483
0.021
-0.045
-16.2479
-3.45930
4.18
Merope
27
Taurus
57.2904
24.0533
0.018
-0.047
-15.6279
-3.24249
3.63
Atlas
◦◦ a shift in beliefs ◦◦ physical relocation ◦◦ death to the ‘keeper’ of the event, for failing in their duty • Disuse and separation from the site itself • A societal shift from a shaman leadership to a chieftain leadership, which is discussed later.
Figure 10-4 is a pictorial representation of two of the stars in Table 10-4, α and β Aquarius, as observed at Ballochroy in 2010 CE. When compared with Figure 8-10, the image clearly illustrates the change over time, in the apparent position of these two stars. With the stellar orientations uncovered in this research, the discontinuance of these events could have had repercussions, within the society of the time, such as:
Since the inception of the monument, and the recording of the event, as time has progressed, so might the social norms and beliefs. Whereby, the event no longer occurring
• A search for a new indicator • An omen that caused angst and possibly: 142
Interpretation may have passed unnoticed. Alternatively, the celebrations continue in rote fashion without knowledge of the original rationale behind them, having fallen into the ‘ham hock syndrome’1.
astronomical, that is lunar, orientation at the Barbreck site. It is unfortunate that field research-time did not permit a survey of either Barbreck, to ascertain any similarities in the alignment with that of Ballochroy, or a search for Thom’s platform at Beacharr.
10.14. Planetary Summary
10.16. Cairn Association
No solid relationship to planetary events could be determined at any location under consideration. With all the other knowledge of the heavens, demonstrated in just the few sites examined, it leads one, to comfortably infer that the Scottish Neolithic builders were aware of the planets. Yet, it would appear that planets did not play any role in the society of the time, at least, if a role was played by the planets, for the Scottish Neolithic, their significance did not warrant recording in stone.
To explore the cairns, associated with the stone arrangements, in an attempt to discover any correlation in time period, the aspects that the megalithic sites have in common, requires expansion: Beacharr, Kintraw, Ballymeanoch, Nether Largie, and Brainport Bay are coastal in their location. They each have 2 cairns in close proximity. Ballochroy and Dunamuck each currently have a single cairn that is located in close proximity. If we interpret Lhuyds diagram, Figure 8-7, there were two more cairns at Ballochroy. A second at Dunamuck could simply no longer exist.
10.15. Non-Astronomical Stone Orientations One can conclude from the interrogation into both Beacharr and Kintraw, with respect to astronomical orientation, that none exist in direct relationship to the stones themselves. The similarity in arrangement at the sites must lead to other conjectures as to the function of their respective menhirs. Each of these orthostats is situated between two cairns; each site overlooks the coastal waters; each with a view to the Isle of Jura. The main ‘long-cairn’ to the south of the Beacharr stone is chambered, the northern cairn is a single cist, differing from Kintraw’s single cist, and dual cist style cairns.
These cairns are all of the cist type of burial, which is typically a single burial2, not as the Clava cairns of Great Glen in Inverness-shire, (noted by Lionel Masters (1974: 35-37), whilst reporting on the second volume of Audrey Henshall’s The chambered tombs of Scotland, as representing the dominant tradition in the area). Or, the Clyde style cairns, each with their passages, or chambers, and multiple interments, which is the dominant Neolithic style of Argyll. Recall the Escart interrogation, describing the potential chambered cairn interpretation for the site. Also, see the comparison of archaeological dates in Table 10-5.
As alternative conjectures, the menhir could be i) a form of ‘headstone’, or ii) a marker for those at sea. However, as a marker, these stones are almost impossible to discern from the water, as they meld into the mountainous terrain, only becoming evident from below, (i) in the case of Beacharr, which is close to shore, or (ii) actually ashore at Kintraw, where their silhouette is formed against the sky. These two sites differ from the likes of the single stones at An Car, where the menhir is currently un-associated with any cairn; and recall, An Car does possess lunar orientations.
Nether Largie is somewhat enigmatic, as the site could be associated with the single cist cairn, at Temple Wood or the Clyde style cairn known as Nether Largie South (that also has a cist located just to its southeast). Earlier in this text, it was mentioned that these sites were primarily coastal, which reflects the MacKie (1977a: 52) notion, of a water born migration of people, but in his discussion, the cairns relating to his water born movement of peoples, were all of a passage or chambered type. With the exception of Escart, and the cairn north of the Nether Largie stone arrangement that is considered a passage tomb, the Argyll cairns, are of the single burial cist type. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion may be drawn, that the theocratic aspects of the multiuse chambered and passage tombs, associated with the recumbent circles of eastern Scotland, do not appear to require in-depth consideration for these Argyll sites, as they demonstrate their own specific cultural heritage, differing from other coastal parts of Britain and Europe.
Kintraw has a tested viewing station, which demonstrates the setting winter solstice Sun. Thom (1978: 61) reports a similar viewing station at Beacharr (untested in this interrogation), with a lunar sphere, at the time of the major northern limit, setting in a notch between the Jura peaks of Beinn Oir and Beinn Shiantaidh. Both sites are located in the vicinity of a stone alignment, Ballochroy to the north of Beacharr, and in the case of Kintraw, Barbreck to its north; although Patrick (1979: S84) claims that there is no 1 A child asked her mother “why do you break the end of the ham hock before you put it in the pot?” To which the mother replied, “I don’t know, because your grandmother always did it!” So when they visited grandmother they asked “why did you break the end of the ham hock before you put it in the pot?” To which the grandmother replied, “I don’t know, your great grandmother always did it, let’s go ask her”. “Great grandma why did you break the end the ham hock before you put it in the pot?” To which she replied “Oh, that’s simple dear, the pot wasn’t big enough!” Harris, T. 1969. “I’m OK you’re OK”. Harper Row, New York.
2 Dunchraigaig cairn next to Ballymeanoch has signs of burial on burial, but this appears to be an adjunct to its intended use – someone capitalising on the site, its aura, and mystique.
143
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 10-5. Archaeological dates BCE
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
--------------------------Round bottom pottery--------------------------------------------Pottery
Grooved ware--------------------------------------------- Beaker-------------------------------------------- Urns------------------------------------------Long Barrows----------------------------
Burials
-----Passage graves---------------------------------------------------------------Chambered tombs--------------------------------------------------------------- --Round Barrows-------------------------------------------Maes Howe Meldon Bridge Overton
Sites
Mount Pleasant Bedd Branwen --------------------Skara Brae
The date range expressed in the discoveries of this research, see Table 10-2, is conformant with the mid to late Scottish Neolithic period, i.e. the period of chambered and passage tombs, and not that of the Beaker cist period. Burgess however, suggests that – ‘It is now tempting to speculate that the cists, like the round mounds, were introduced long before Beakers, but it is a speculation at present without any positive evidence, and one which urgently requires checking by a programme of radiocarbon dating of unaccompanied cist burials’ (2003: 56). If we consider that the cairns and the stone rows examined here are concurrent, then the findings may well support this speculation of Burgess. The concept therefore, of Ballochroy, acting as a community ‘calendar’ for establishing the layouts for sites such as Escart, and similar chambered tombs, is not untoward. Conversely, we have to consider that the megaliths and the cairns, are of independent eras, and the later cairn builders just leveraged the sacred ground.
more stable the society became, the more individualistic were the burials. This drives the interpretation from the results presented in this book, that even the early Neolithic of Argyll, were a stable society, the nomadic nature being constrained within a territory. The change to individual cist burial could be considered a distinct indicator to the change in social norms. The single cist cairn at Ballochroy, may well be such a burial site, drawing on the aura of an ancient ‘religious’ site, and not necessarily concomitant with the erection of the three stones. If so, this reinforces the earlier statement, that burials in the northwest of Britain were indeed, well into the 3rd millennium, and not from the 4th millennium as Hutton states (1993: 85). If Ballochroy was used as a winter solstice monitoring ‘station’ for the surrounding area, members from the various groups, intent on using the solstice alignment to mark a cairns centreline layout, may have been present at Ballochroy, both as a delegate, and as a witness. The role of witness would have provided confirmation, upon returning to the group, or even perform the actual act of monitoring the event, negating the need for a priesthood. Yet this latter function is an initial step toward a priestly role. Pryor (2001: 153) considers this role of witness delegation, a potential behaviour at Maxey Great Henge, Cambridgeshire. Employing Ballochroy for this purpose, also supplies us with the rationale on both where the resources are drawn from, to enable the erection of heavy stones on the site, and why the site was erected in the first place.
Cairns in the Argyll area are a type with a palistat (kerbstone), surround. As a cautionary note; even with the proximity stated, it can only be said that these megaliths under investigation, and the cairns, are contemporaneous, purely from the spread of the several millennia over which it is known that both had been constructed. Bradley points out (1998: 145) it was during the Early Bronze age that disuse of many monuments began and the construction of mounds became the structures of choice. As with the discussion presented with Ballochroy, perhaps the cairns were created after the stone arrangements were situated, in order to draw vicariously upon the power and aura, of the site.
The investigation by Burgess into surviving settlements throughout Britain and Ireland, informs us that ‘… for the most part, the population of the Third and Second Millennia was organized in small settlements. These were farmsteads, hamlets and, at most, villages. They housed individual families, enlarged family groups, and, in the largest cases, small groups of related families, forming, perhaps, a sept or a clan.’ (2003:165). A shared burial belief across these family units of a tribe or clan, would be sufficient for each family unit, to supply personnel
Logic would reason, that collective burials or cemeteries, would be indicative of a static (non-nomadic) society, whereas, individual burials would more readily be associated with a nomadic existence (burials performed at the physical location of death); as transporting a body from place to place, until a return to the collective burial site, could seem impractical. Yet, the archaeological record, tells us that the supposedly more nomadic period is closest to the collective burial behaviours, whereas, the 144
Interpretation for the labour force, to construct the site, as well as, to insure the correctness in the ‘alignment’ of the stones. As to why stone instead of timber, stone acts as symbolic and functional permanency. The symbolic permanency of death, and the functional permanency of longevity of the ‘station’, allows for those resources needed for cairn construction, not to be distracted by being engaged in the replacement of timbers that would have rotted over time.
Table 10-6. Radiocarbon dates of Argyll monuments
Cairn construction is a planful act, particularly when one considers the passage and chambered tombs, where death is anticipated, rather than having just occurred, as a cist burial might be considered. If death is associated either, with the dying winter Sun, or with resurrection associated with the Sun returning to strength after the winter solstice, or both; construction of the cairn had to begin at the correct time of year, to ensure the appropriate orientation and auspices of the cairn itself. When it is considered that the orientation of the mouth of the tombs is to the winter solstice, what better mechanism than a monument, dedicated for that purpose, of determining the correct day (any one of 5 days) for the ‘ground plan’ of the cairn to be laid out.
Monument
Location
BCE
Error
Chambered Cairns
Monamore, Arran
3160
±155
Port Charlotte, Islay
3020
±90
Port Charlotte, Islay
2760
±70
Cists
Port Charlotte, Islay
2590
±70
Monamore, Arran
2240
±155
North Machrie, Arran
1955
±110
Kilpatrick, Arran
1885
±110
Kilpatrick, Arran
1840
±50
Traigh Bhan, Islay
1055
±145
Temple Wood, Kilmartin
1030
±155
Upper Largie, Kilmartin 1050
±65
Kentraw, Islay
±50
1560
What is noticeable in Table 10-6, is the seeming interruption and shift in burial practices beginning around 2200 BCE; this is the same era in which the celestial events ceased to be observable at the Argyll sites investigated (see Table 10-2). We may only speculate whether there is a connection between both cessations, with the subsequent passage of ~300 years for new norms and burial practices to be developed and implemented. Alternatively, are they just parallel occurrences? Yet, if we consider the social stages of Cherry and Webster (page 231) and their second theocratic stage being an astronomical theocracy of a harmonious populace, with the associated communal burial practice. The demise of an astronomical theocracy due to the cessation of celebratory astronomical events, would lead into the third stage of emergent leaders (and possible singular cist type burials).
Considering Ballochroy as the bell-weather ‘calendric’ marker, for communicating the solar day, upon which to set out the plan for the neighbourhood Clyde style, cairns, the next question is, are there monuments that are associated with the Moon? Burl in his Rites of the Gods believes the Clave cairns (chambered style) have just such a lunar orientation (1981: 68-69). Nether Largie, with its strong lunar association, could well act as the bellweather for lunar aligned burial monuments. The cairn known as Nether Largie South, is such a chambered cairn, with its passage oriented SSE-NNW, and is situated just a few hundred metres to the north of the Nether Largie arrangement. The cairn possesses a narrow gap to the south east, through which a visitor can view the distant horizon, where the southern limit Moon would rise (the visitors’ entrance to this cairn is presently made from the northwest). Such narrow entrances were used to pass the remains of the dead into the chamber. Other such cairns are somewhat distanced from Nether Largie, again as conjectured with Ballochroy, beacon fires, lit at the site, could be used to signal the timing of events.
It is also interesting to note that my interpretation of the Escart arrangement as that of a dismantled chambered cairn and the astronomical date range being from 3100 – 2200 BCE falls within the chambered cairn timeframe. 10.18. The Spatial Nature of the Landscape Objective: Investigate the hypothesis, that observations made in this manner, were not the domain of a single observer who looked directly at the astronomical object, but were a communal event, witnessed by all present.
10.17. Parallels with the Archaeological Record What remains to be answered is, are there any correlations between the societal aspects of the middle to late Neolithic, outlined in chapter 9, and the results of this interrogation. To do so, a more detailed look at the archaeological record than Table 10-5 is required. Ritchie (1997: 243283) provides an extensive table of radiocarbon dates for sites within Argyll; an extraction from Ritchie’s table that relates to stone monuments is given in Table 10-6. From this table a comparison between the archaeological timeline of the evidence as they relate to the megalithic structures and the timeline expressed in Table 10-2 for the sites investigated may be conducted.
How the Scottish Neolithic peoples may have perceived the landscape in which they lived, may be regarded either as, irrevocably lost, or irrelevant, or both. Tilley states ‘that the excavating archaeologist appears as if a mole, whose head hardly rises above the site itself to consider wider sets of relationships between the site, and the environment in which it is situated, or alternatively, surveys everything on the distribution map as if from an aircraft. This is even reflected in the form of published 145
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation • They were planners and organisers, the construction of cairns should tell us this, but the association of sites specifically built to mark celestial cycles being employed to ensure the correct orientation of said cairns is feasible • A sense of the poetic • To shape a stone that mirrors the distant hillside so that the Sun rises from out of the ‘dimple’ in the peak of the stone and hill is almost magical, even poetic • A sense of symmetry • having the ability to indicate four lunar events, with the four faces of an orthostat in the positioning and shaping of Stone 1 at Nether Largie and the menhir at An Car • The symmetrical nature of stone 2 through 4 of Nether Largie that was discussed previously in that site’s interrogation • A sense of an afterlife or another life, they were highly respectful and spiritual • Whether it is respect of the person’s abilities, be they positive or negative, but burying the remnants of members of their society in locations ordained by the celestial rising or setting points must have significance. It may only be speculated, whether that significance is an interpretation of resurrection, or spiritual association with and seeking celestial guidance from the departed. • A sense of ceremony • With the processional way of Ballymeanoch • They were aware of the repetition of nature.
aerographs in books and journals, which almost always tend to concentrate on the sites themselves to the exclusion of their surroundings’ (1994: 3). The office of these ancient predecessors was open space, not an 8x10 cubicle, or a basement laboratory therefore, it is incumbent upon us, to add the concept of space from an experiential perspective. What space is, depends on who is experiencing it, and how. Spatial experience is not naive and neutral, but invested with power, relating to age, gender, social position and relationships with others. Spatial experience can be both a mythical and mystical experience, whether it involves a cathedral, temple, mosque, or forest clearing. However, it can also be an Einsteinian space-time relationship of mysticism, such as the winter solstice sunrise, at the centre of Newgrange, Ireland. The constrained space at Newgrange is an experience for the few, whereas, the open monumental spacing in Argyll, may be the experience of the many. There are spaces such as Ballymeanoch that seem more ceremonial, than mystical. With the southern major limit motion of the Moon at Ballochroy, only one person may experience the orientation of the Moon, setting in alignment with the eastern face of stone 3. However, many persons were able to sit about the site and, for two hours witness the awe-inspiring sight, of the Moon seemingly rolling along the hillside. We behave in the same manner to this day. One person has the thrill and trepidation, of igniting the last fireworks for the finalé on Guy Fawkes Night, or the 4th of July Independence celebrations, but many persons in the surrounding locale, witness the phenomenon.
An unforeseen result of the technological approach and site examination within this research is the consideration that; it is not the direct fractional accuracy of lithic orientation with a celestial horizon event, but the aspect of phenomena that was commemorated in the stones. This discovery is repeated throughout the investigation; the association of Sun, hill and peak of stone, observing across the slanting tops, the visible aspect of the lower crescent of the Moon ‘touching’ the horizon, the two hour sequence of the Moon ‘rolling’ along the horizon at Ballochroy. Even if we wish to consider the moving shadow cast upon the pyramid stone at Brainport Bay – all may be considered phenomena observations.
The subjective nature, of these spatial type experiences therefore, would seem to be more mystical, empowering those who determined the value of the event, to ensure that the ‘many’ would engage in the construction of the monuments. Or, as Bradley states “...the planning of monuments, … often encapsulates a more general perception of space: one which is shaped by mythology as much as topography.’ (1998: 108). For locations to be purely architectural, as portrayed by Thom and others, in the calendric interpretation, seems to limit our perspective of a site. Whereas, the transformation from a singular astronomical event, to the phenomenon of stars riding down a sloping top, as an indicator, to then reverse the phenomenon, to witness the Sun rising up the same sloping tops, also should transform our understanding of the involvement with nature, the Scottish Neolithic people had. One wonders what further interpretations may be derived through the use of the computer screen as our ‘eye’ into rebuilding the past.
As the facet of phenomenology was not an initial concept to be tested within this investigation, but a serendipitous outcome, it is not possible nor appropriate to expand upon the subject here. More detailed analysis needs to be conducted within future research as to the archaeoastronomic discovered multiple phenomological aspects at the sites tested; it would seem that a base approach, as expressed by Sims (2009: 388-389) is now available from which interpretative ethnographic categories may be derived.
10.19. The Scottish Neolithic Peoples and the Stones
10.20. A Final Word on Statistical Analysis
What do the discoveries tell us about the peoples that constructed these sites?
A main premise behind Thom’s research is that of statistical analysis, employing histograms, to demonstrate his hypothesis of high-precision lunar and solar alignments. Others, as discussed in chapter 2, have tested these results
• They were aware of the association of the Sun and stars at certain times of the year 146
Interpretation and found them wanting. In all these cases however, there are some basic underlying assumptions, which in themselves are debateable.
in Stone, states the case most appropriately ‘One should really think, more generally, in terms of astronomical influences on the design, and placement of archaeological structures, rather than just about ‘alignments’ (1988: 246).
Those assumptions are:
To explore the question of statistical precision further, consider the Nether Largie findings. Here we have three stones: stone 1, stone 2 and stone 3, with spacing between them of ~35 metres. Each stone has been shown to indicate the setting of the Moon’s northern major limit. In fact, we could position a stone 50 metres, to the south or north of the Nether Largie arrangement, and still orient a stone to have a surface bearing, to point to the same horizon event. That being the case, the question must be posited, why place the stone arrangements where they are and not elsewhere, in the viable range? There must be a secondary intention, either shaping a stone to match an horizon outline, an alignment with other stones, or an orientation to a second or tertiary astronomical event, with the same stone. If we consider the profiles of a stone, we have stones with 3, 4, or sometimes 5 surfaces, (not counting the top), which could facilitate, up to 10 separate orientations. These combinations provide us with the astronomical inference in Table 10-7.
1. The point of reference employed, is the position of the centre of the orb in question, as it coincides with the horizon 2. The date of the limits, or solstices, used for the calculations are for the epoch of 1800 BCE 3. The lunar limit, be it minor or major, may be transposed to the point of reference 4. Either a very specific horizon land mark bearing, or a specific bearing from a face of a megalith is engaged as the azimuth in question. These assumptions, and any conclusions drawn via the statistical analysis upon which they are based, are questionable. As this research has shown, there is the potential, that it was the bottom of the lunar sphere, not necessarily the centre or upper limb, brushing the horizon, which was being recorded in stone. The angular descent of the Moon, can inject anything up to 0.75° in azimuth variation, depending upon the horizon profile. This research has also demonstrated that these sites could have been created anytime between 3200 and 2200 BCE, a period of 1000 years, in which, over 50 lunar limits for each major or minor, rise or set, have occurred. It was also shown in the cosmology chapter that the Moon, in most cases, does not rise or set at the time of any of these 50+ limit declinations. By the time the Moon reaches the horizon, the declination, and subsequently its azimuth, may vary by as much as 2° in the case of a major limit, or 1.3° for a minor limit.
If these inferences are applied to the individual stones at the sites interrogated, we have the results as depicted in Table 10-8. The table identifies the orientations for the individual stones at each site, with the exception of the stones of Ballymeanoch, which are omitted, because no relevant orientation could be found. A ranking has been added, to indicate the astronomical potential for the stone. A weighting system could be incorporated, for the collection of stones at a particular site. For example, one of the stones at Ballochroy has a low rating, but the other two have a high rating, indicating a propensity towards astronomical significance, which could raise the value of the stone in the arrangement, that has the low rating. In the majority of cases, the observations require, that the eyewitness be stood, at some distance from the stones themselves, the few exceptions that require a distance of a metre or so, are those related to the centre stone at Nether Largie. This distancing, even from a metre away, only requires a low-precision setting of the stones, as a minor shift in the stance of the observer of a centimetre or two, is all that is required to sustain any orientation. As such, only low precision orientations are feasible. Whereas, setting oneself up next to a stone, and peering along the surface of the stone itself, would require a high-precision arrangement of the stone. Ellegǻrd in his document (1981), supporting Thom’s theses, does an
Even if the effort were to be expended in computing the true horizon position, of every limit over the 1000-year period, for both the orbs base, and its centre brushing the horizon, for every site in question, we could only properly utilise either the mean or median values derived from the computations, for the purpose of statistical analysis. The result would be a potential accuracy range, no better than ±1° in azimuth, to a point on the horizon, therefore, an accuracy of 9 arc-minutes to detect the Moon’s wobble is not feasible. As Table 10-8 highlights, a single orientation that is employed in statistical calculation, even if the orientation is exact, is less reliable, in stating that the stone was placed for astronomical reasons, than a stone that performs multiple functions. A footnote from Ruggle’s paper in Records Table 10-7. A stone’s astronomical weighting inference # of Orientations
Intentional
Comments
Rank
1
Possible
Could be coincidental
L
2
Probable
Has the potential of being astronomically significant
M
3 or more
Definitely
Astronomically significant
H
147
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Table 10-8. Orientation results of individual stones Site
Stone ID First Orientation
Second Orientation Third Orientation
Fourth Orientation
An Car
1
N. major set
N. major rise
S. minor rise
Ballochroy
A
N. minor set
B
Summer solstice set S.minor set
C
S. minor set
Fifth
Rank H L
Stellar
Winter solstice set hill
H
S.major set
Stellar
Combined with B
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Brainport Bay 1
Aligned with 2
winter solstice Summer solstice rise Meridian
2
Aligned with 1
“
A
Shaped top
Shaped to horizon
Summer solstice rise hill
B
-
-
-
A
Shaped to horizon
Used to set stance
B
Shaped top
Summer solstice rise
C
Shaped top
Summer solstice rise
Ballymeanoch Beacharr
Carnasserie Dunamuck I Dunamuck II
1
H
hill
H
hill
H -
H -
H M
D
Shaped top
stellar
Vernal equinox
H
E
Shaped top
stellar
Vernal equinox
H
Escart
site
Winter Solstice set
hill
Kintraw
Stone
-
-
View pt
Winter Solstice set
hill
Nether Largie
1
N. major set
N. major rise
2
“
N. minor rise
M -
-
-
-
S. minor set
S. minor rise
Shaped top H
M L-M
3
“
“
4
N. minor set
S. major set
L-M
5
“
“
6
Shaped top
Shaped top
N. major rise
Tiraghoil
1
Summer solstice rise
Winter solstice set
N. major rise
Torbhlaran
1
equinox
Shaped?
N. major set
H M H N. major set
hill
H L
excellent job of describing the science of the solar and lunar motions, but the evidence from the investigation carried out here, shows that no ‘Stone Age Science’ or mathematics, as Ellegǻrd or Thom describes was required.
the phenomenon engenders. As the next major limit is not until 2025 the animation fills the research gap until then, and beyond, should cloud cover obstruct the view at the actual time of the next event. Inspirational definitely, which causes one to wonder, what myth or mystery, did the Scottish Neolithic attach to such phenomena? Likewise the pairing of the stars Aldebaran and the Pleiades riding jointly down the sloping tops at Dunamuck, as well as the Moon sliding down the central stone at Nether Largie and sinking into a distinctive horizon notch. These phenomena inspire awe in nature, admiration for the builders, and wonderment as to the mystique applied to the monuments by those ancient builders.
Archaeologists were sceptical of dates expressed via celestial orientation, treating previous dating attempts of megalithic sites, with justifiable circumspection; particularly, as the technique of, ‘there is alignment that coincides with a celestial event’, that could not definitively demonstrate what were the intentions of the constructors of the site. 10.21. Process Interpretation
Hill (1977, cited in Hole and Heizer, 1997: 251) states ‘that we are limited at present not so much by our data as by our theory and by our techniques for gathering and analyzing data.’ In attempting to emulate what the Scottish Neolithic witnessed when contemplating the heavens, I have, within this ‘simulation approach’ opened up new horizons for future research, utilizing various 21st century, computerized techniques for gathering and analyzing data.
Being able to witness, in the comfort of a researcher’s office, the Moon rolling along the horizon at Ballochroy, without the likelihood of physically visiting the site, only to have the vista obscured by the weather (as per Hoskin in Sicily – as previously mentioned, section 3-2) is most rewarding. I admit to re-running that particular animation several times, for the pure awe and inspiration 148
Interpretation As Krupp expressed, in an email quoted by Ruggles (1999: 151), in addressing our need to broaden the range of possible interpretations ‘one should make a point of being there.’ Simulating the environment via the aforementioned approach facilitates witnessing celestial events as the erectors of the sites may have seen them. This research disclosed new aspects on how to view the megaliths in order for a celestial event to be witnessed, by utilizing the employment of false horizons via sloping tops, in conjunction with tops that appear to be deliberately shaped to reflect the horizon, illustrating an obvious intention on the constructor’s part, as opposed to pure coincidence of alignment. Thereby, elucidating a more definitive date of construction. Therefore, I propose that these newly established viewing perspectives should be included within the toolbox of every landscape archaeologist and phenomenologist. If we accept these findings of the association of Sun with hill, and the deliberate shaping of the tops of stones, then these cosmological events that are recorded in stone, provide empirical data to meet Gumerman and Warburton’s requirement of supplying some sense of the cultures cosmology, to aid in comprehending the culture (2005: 15).
149
11 Conclusion A driving principle of this research was the value of virtual simulation and, whether or not, it could assist in expanding the knowledge base and identify discrepancies within the astroarchaeological record. In addition, I stated in the introductory chapters, the impetus of this investigation was not to be directed by any prior influential perceptions that currently exist i.e. predefined dates of construction or viewing perspectives. Instead, the proposal was to allow the celestial elements and the landscape, to dictate the paths to follow – a more natural approach, and one more fitting, in placing the research into a viewpoint that was closer to that of the megalith builders.
statistical histograms, moves the astroarchaeological nature of this research away from the pure mathematical ‘green archaeoastonomy’. Providing visual data to archaeologists and anthropologists that, in a sense is more ‘tactile’ than statistical histograms, which should be a greater aid in further assessing the ideology of the culture that erected the monuments – more in accordance with ‘brown archaeastronomy’. The viewing orientations that the research exposed also suggests that a degree of accuracy ±1°, is not only adequate, as Ruggles concludes (1999; 49-67), it also tells us that constructing statistical histograms, to test compliance to a high precision theory, would more than likely be non-productive.
The driving principle and investigative impetus addressed the issue raised regarding Kintraw (section 2-1), and exposed the potential of an 800-1000 year differential in possible construction dates from that of currently held date of 1750 BCE, to that of circa 2500 BCE. Additionally, the research opened the potential that the tops of some megaliths, considered to have their tops broken off over time, were in fact deliberately shaped by the Neolithic people to mark celestial phenomena.
A section within chapter 3 discussed surveying methodology, and introduced the topic of the accuracy of utilising compass bearings from a mapping GPS unit, as a method to determine the angular orientation of the stones, as compared to utilising a theodolite, or Total Station. When the Sun is associated with both, the peaks of hills and the tips of stones; the sides of a stone need only be, a pointer of reference in the general direction desired. This evidence indicates that taking high precision readings of GPS positioning and directional bearings of the stones are non-essential.
Burl states that ‘… although persuasive arguments have been made for individual sites, no astronomical case has been made for a group of monuments collectively.’ (1980: 191). I believe that we can safely say that, the foregoing research results, affords a case of persuasive arguments for astronomical consistency across a collective group of monuments within the Argyll area. Perhaps this collective case is only relevant to the Argyll area, and not beyond; with that being the case, the Neolithic of Argyll, appear to be ideologically differentiated from that of their neighbours, who employed stone circles and not stones rows. Only further investigation, similar to that conducted here, with sites more broadly distributed, would determine if these Argyll peoples, were a cult, as much as they were a clan.
When taking into consideration the plate tectonic movement that occurred, presented in online chapter A1, my research has demonstrated that even the GPS latitude and longitude readings need not be that accurate, since a 110 metre plate tectonic shift in the Scottish landmass, had no discernible impact of angular relationship with a singular celestial event on the horizon. However, when more than one orientation is associated with a stone then the stones location within its surroundings becomes an important factor as to the sites selection and the possible cultural ideology, requiring such placement. With the maximum azimuth shift, created by the combination of plate tectonic and isostatic movement of 0.5º, which equates to the average angular diameter of both the Sun and Moon, it might be considered that a significant implication concerning any orientations would be exposed. However, undulating horizons, and observations across the tops of shaped stones, have combined, to make any impact negligible. Yet conformance to mensurational accuracy must be continued, ensuring that scientific standards are maintained, and the data remains dependable. This 0.5º (30’) shift in azimuth, although having negligible impact within this research, may not be negligible when considering research, such as Gough (2013), who continues to examine the question whether the Neolithic
Heggie (1982: 4), in Archaeoastronomy in the Old World, makes reference to the statistical methods employed in assessing astronomical orientations, and hopes they might be diminished by a site being found, ‘…on excavation, that decisively supports astronomical interpretation; thereby, reducing statistics to a smaller role’. The form of excavation conducted in this research has provided a mechanism that aids in Heggie’s desired endeavour. Not only have concrete, empirical, astronomical, interpretable results been generated, with a good degree of accuracy, but also statistical analysis has been unnecessary. The demonstrative feature of the visual aspects of this research, rather than supplying 151
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation of Scotland were capable of, or intent upon, recording the Moon’s 9’ wobble.
requires expensive equipment, and in some cases, may not permit ease of recording, due to the location of some of the orthostats. Thereby, as an adjunct to a laser scanning device the more time-consuming, wire frame modelling technique utilised in this research, may still be necessary. Financial aspects notwithstanding, it is recommended that future projects of this nature, particularly projects dependent on a grant, leverage the laser scanner technique, allowing the investigator, more time on analysis, and less time in model construction.
Without the computer to reposition the stars to their relative positions over the millennia, it would not have been possible to isolate the potential stellar events, at either Ballochroy or Dunamuck, as the visual nature of the research was the trigger to such determination. It was also useful to demonstrate that planetary aspects could not be discerned at these sites in Argyll. As demonstrated in this research, the construction date of the sites is circa 2500 BCE, this epoch coincides with a drier, less foliaged, environment, thereby, removing any issues of poor visibility by either weather or forestation. Conversely, for the dates Thom originally stated for these sites, that of 1750 BCE, the conditions for that era may well have been wetter, and the land more thickly foliated, thereby, affecting viewing celestial events and subsequently the motivation for monument construction.
Subsequent to the commencement of this research, new 3-dimensional modelling software has come to the fore. By employing photogrammetry techniques, first employed in aeronautical examination of landmasses, the technology is now capable of compiling an accurate rendition of objects, using multiple, overlapping photographs. Eos Systems Inc. provides software that removes the requirement of spending hours building wire-frame models, and wrapping the wire-frames with photographs, as these steps are automatically incorporated in their software package, known as Photomodeler Scanner, (http://www. photomodeler.com/index.htm).
From a digital terrain modelling perspective introduced in chapter 6, the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain, is now providing digitised data, by a self-selectable area, as opposed to, individual tiles of areas comprising 5x5 kilometres. The ability to select whole areas in this manner may eliminate such problems as encountered in section 8-10 regarding the Kintraw site interrogation, that of a ‘rift’ running through the maps; as opposed to the resolution selected of substituting a fill-in landmass. The convenience of individual tiles however, permits testing whether or not, features within each tile are visible from the site being examined. Whereas, caution needs to be taken, to ensure all visible horizons from the site are included, when using the self-selectable style of digitised data. In addition, when employing the individual tiles, the modification of the landmass colour of a single tile proved to be advantageous; as in the case of the Dunamuck sunrise, in order to distinguish the hill that was masked, due to blending of the topography.
11.2. Archaeological Propositions There are several aspects that this research approach has identified as having potential for future archaeological investigation and value in affirming i) the dating of the sites and, by extrapolation, ii) the ideology of the culture that constructed them. Physical site excavation would be required to address these aspects, namely: • Soil micromorphology excavations, at sites where stones have recently fallen, such as Dunamuck, to confirm, or refute, dating values uncovered in this research. • Brainport Bay is an example, where the modelling approach also reinforces the value of computer simulation as a means to extend the archaeological record, without the initial expense of travel, provided that the original survey data has an acceptable degree of accuracy. With theories established by this method, a re-enforcing visit could then be conducted to survey the site to refine the data and adjust any hypotheses. • Test the hypothesis, that the recumbent stone circles of south east Scotland, are lunar oriented. • Broaden the research into other Scottish stone arrangements of Argyll, Orkney and Lewis – testing further the Sun-hill, Moon-dale associations, and establish a larger sample base. • The question of duality raised with Nether Largie, leads one to conjecture whether or not, the sites comprising dual stone circles, such as those in Ireland, have a dual purpose; one circle for solar and the other for lunar connections. This modelling approach would be ideal to test such an hypothesis. The continued expansion of sites, by examination and testing with the techniques employed here, will either reinforce or disprove the findings of such research.
Issues raised in chapter 6 regarding the ESRI software leads to two opportunities to enhance the package. That is, possible modifications that would present the 3-D landscape by i) automatically adjusting for map convergence and ii) utilizing the base map height, embedded within the Digital Terrain Model, to accurately represent the 3-D topography, when transferring the terrain model into ESRI’s ArcScene product. These enhancements would eliminate the extra steps taken in this research, to adjust the process of model building to successfully counteract these issues. 11.1. Future Opportunities for This Type of Research The wire frame modelling technique engaged in this research was effective yet time consuming. More sophisticated, laser scanning devices, may now be deployed in the field, which could well provide an accurate and faster means, by which the individual orthostats may be digitised. However, the laser scanner technique 152
Conclusion • Would the re-erecting of the recumbent stones near the burial cairn at Dunamuck indicate an association with the winter solstice, thereby completing the solstitial trio at the site, as well as raising the issue of the ideological association of winter solstice with the dead?
upright edge of the stone cuts the orb in half, was the sight to witness. • Dating of the sites investigated has been extended back by approximately 800 to 1000 years, to the mid third millennium BCE; impacting previously conceived construction dates. • The timeframe of the cessation of astronomical observations at the sites coincides with the ending of chambered cairn use.
11.3. Future Investigations of Megalithic sites As future site investigations develop, this research indicates that new procedures within the initial site survey need to be taken into account. These procedures need to consider the following aspects:
The discoveries within this simulation approach are not dependent on precise horizon orientation, yet the phenomena demonstrated have a combined strength to raise issues in regards to the ideology of the culture that erected the stones. In addition to these previously undetected features, these research discoveries highlight the following:
• Viewing the stones from all sides, to determine if a distant hill may orient with a stone’s top. • Is there a hill that may be generally indicated by the sides of the stones? Does the land slope up away from the stone, in the opposite direction to the potential stone-hill relationship? If so, the potential that solarhill orientation may exist increases. • Establish whether, there is a sloping top to a stone, if so consider an orthogonal viewing perspective. • If an orientation is suspected, but a hill is not involved, then the potential exists for a lunar event. Lunar events tend to be oriented to the bearing of the sides of a megalith, when no sloping top exists.
• It is unlikely that high-precision lunar orientations as Thom (1967: 121) proposed existed. It is the phenomena that are being recorded, not precise horizon setting or rising point. • Thankfully, there is no need for archaeoastronomers to consider plate tectonics or isostasy, when computing celestial orientations at British Neolithic sites. Martin Brennan (1994: 51) states ‘…it is also the strength of this method [modelling] that it presents a visualisable, impressive picture, to a person witnessing it…’ My original hypothesis, questioned whether, using 21st century technology, i.e. a virtual reality modelling approach, would elucidate, through visualisation, new data, heretofore, undiscovered for megalithic sites of Argyll, Scotland; whilst attempting to apply the perspective, what does astronomy tell us about the stones, and the people of the time who erected them. The advancement of the new hypotheses, as expressed above, broadens the theoretical base whereupon ethnoastronomers and ethnologists may reinforce their cultural analysis of the British Neolithic and affirms the original hypothesis of utilising virtual simulation has been successfully demonstrated.
In all the cases above, it must not be assumed that there is any astronomical significance with the site; these procedures only highlight the potential, requiring further scholarly investigation. 11.4. The New Hypotheses In the introduction, a quotation was taken from Silvert, who argued that modelling offered ‘…the hope of seeing aspects that may have escaped the notice of others’ (2001: 61). My research approach and methodology demonstrates that the sites within this investigation collectively indicate common astronomical cases exposing those aspects that had ‘escaped the notice of others’, specifically:
***
• Deliberately shaped tops to form false horizons. • Slanting tops to indicate the phenomena of the rising and setting of Sun, Moon, and stars. • A viewing perspective that is orthogonal to the stone faces, as well as, viewing along their faces. • Self-indicating positions signifying where to stand, in order to witness the phenomena. • Observations of stars, and linkage of the stellar observations to solar events. • The events that occur whereby the Sun is associated with hill, may have been of deliberate, yet of imprecise, intent. • Use of the stone faces as a directional indicator, are more associated with the Moon, whereas, the tip of the megalith is associated with the Sun. • It is possible that the base of the lunar orb (rather than its centre or upper limb) touching the horizon, as the
Great indeed are the things which in this brief treatise I propose for observation and consideration by all students of nature. I say great, because of the excellence of the subject itself, the entirely unexpected and novel character of these things, and finally because of the instrument by means of which they have been revealed to our senses. Galileo Galilei1
Galileo Galilei Venice 1610. The Starry Messenger. p1 Bard College, PO Box 5000, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504-5000
1
153
Glossary The following list contains definitions of some of the less familiar astronomical terms.
Inclination – the degree to which a planet or moon is tilted from its plane of rotation about its orbit.
Aberration – the apparent displacement of a celestial body from its actual geometric location, due to the combined effect of the speed of light (the time it takes for the light to have travelled from the celestial body), and the speed of the Earth.
Mean Sun – an imaginary celestial body, which moves at a uniform rate about the equator completing one circuit, in the same time as it takes the real Sun. Mensuration – the act, process, or skill of measuring something.
Absolute position – is the position of a celestial body, in relationship to the centre of the Earth.
NTF – National Transfer Format – a software, productneutral, file format, developed and used by the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain, to convey Digital Terrain Model data.
Acronychal – (acronical, or acronycal) when a star rises as the Sun sets, it rises acronychally. When a star sets as the Sun rises, it sets acronychally.
Nutation – a small periodic wobble of the rotation axis of planets.
Anemophilous – Plant pollination by wind blown pollen. Aphelion – the point in the orbit of a planet, asteroid or comet where it is farthest to the sun.
Oblate spheroid – Having an equatorial diameter, greater than the distance between poles; compressed along or flattened at the poles; considered to be caused by the spinning action of an object.
Apparent position – position of a celestial body in relationship to the topographic location of an observer, on the surface of the Earth, due to parallax and light refraction through the atmosphere.
Obliquity (obliquety) of the ecliptic – the angle between the Earth’s equator and the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun (ecliptic). Currently this angle has an approximate value of 23.5°.
Clock-Stars – a term used by Norman Lockyer to describe a means of determining time at night, by the revolution of a 1-magnitude star about the pole.
Palynology – Defines the study of pollen grains and other spores, particularly those found, in archaeological or geological deposits.
Entomophilous – Plant pollination by insects. Eustasy – a change of sea level throughout the world, caused typically by movements of parts of the earth’s crust, or the melting of glaciers.
Parallax – The difference between, a hypothetical observer, set at the centre of the Earth, to which all celestial objects are computed to be positioned (geocentric), to the actual position of an observer, on the surface of the oblate Earth.
FK5 – The fifth Fundamental Catalogue of high precision star positional data.
Perihelion – the point in the orbit of a planet, asteroid or comet where it is nearest to the sun.
Heliacal – when a star rises just prior to the Sun rise, it rises heliacally. When a star sets just after the Sun sets, it sets heliacally.
Perturbation – a disturbance of the regular and usually elliptical course, of gravitational motion of a celestial body that is produced by some force additional to that which causes its regular motion.
Heliocentric – positional determinations of celestial bodies as they relate to the Sun. Holocene – the period of time since the ice retreated after the last glaciation.
Precession – a combined effect of the Sun and Moon, that causes a slow retrograde motion of the position of the spring equinox, (known as the First point of Aries) about the equator.
Implicit-ice – a posteriori computation of the ice-mass equivalent of a volume of water within regions once covered by marine ice. 155
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Prograde – a rotational orbital movement, in a counter clockwise direction, when viewed from a vantage point above the Earth’s North Pole. Proper motion – Defines the angular motion of a star, due to its movement in space, as it relates to the solar system. Radial velocity – is the rate of change in distance, either toward, or away from the Sun. Retrograde – having or being a direction of rotation or revolution that is clockwise as viewed from the Earth’s North Pole. Synodic period – the time required for a body within the solar system, to return to the same, or approximately the same position, relative to the Sun, as seen by an observer on the Earth. Tephra – rock fragments and particles ejected by a volcanic eruption. True Sun – the actual position of the Sun, determined from finding the imaginary Mean Sun. Twilights Astronomical twilight has the Sun’s centre between 12° and 18° below the horizon. From the end of astronomical twilight in the evening, to the beginning of astronomical twilight in the morning, the sky is dark enough for all astronomical observations. Civilian when the Sun’s centre is only 6° or less below the horizon, and is the time when only the brightest stars may be seen. Nautical when the center of the Sun is between 6° and 12° below the horizon. It begins or ends the time, when seamen have the ability to navigate via the horizon at sea. WAAS/EGNOS (Wide Area Augmentation System /Euro Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service) – is a network of ground based positioning stations linked into the satellite (primarily established for flight navigation), but when incorporated with a GPS allows position accuracy within 3 m (10 ft).
156
Bibliography Abernethy, D. 1995. Ballymeanoch (Kilmichael Glassary parish), standing stones and henge, Discovery Excavations of Scotland pp. 63-64.
Bayliss, R. 2005. From Temple to Church: Converting Paganism to Christianity in Late Antiquity. Minerva 16(5), 45-47.
Altamimi, Z., P. Sillard, and C. Boucher, 2002. ITRF2000: A new release of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame for Earth science applications, J. Geophys. Res., 107.
Bernfeld, W.K. 1963. The physique of Neolithic man. Reports and transaction (Cardiff Naturalists’ Society) Vol. 91. Birks, H.J.B. and Birks, H.H. 1980. Quaternary Palaeoecology. The Blackburn Press.
Andersen, S.T. 1970. The relative pollen Productivity and Representation of Northern European trees and correction for tree pollen spectra. Geological Survey of Denmark, Series II.
Birks, H.J.B. and Madsen, B.J. 1979. Flandrian Vegetational History of Little Loch Roag, Isle of Lewis, Scotland. The Journal of Ecology, Vol 67 #3 pp. 825842.
Angel, L.J. (1984) ‘Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the eastern Mediterranean.’ In: Cohen, Mark N.; Armelagos, George J. (eds.) (1984) Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. Orlando: Academic Press. (pp. 51-73).
Birks, H.J.B., Deacon, J., and Peglar, S. 1975. Pollen Maps for the British Isles 5000 years ago. Proc. Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences Vol 189 N0 1024 pp. 87-105.
Argus, D.F. and R.G. Gordon, 1991. No-net-rotation model of current plate velocities incorporating plate motion model NUVEL-1. Geophys. Res. Lett., 18, 2039-2042. Ashmore P.J. 1996. Neolithic and Bronze Age Scotland. Batsford Ltd, London.
Bohncke S.J.P. 1988. Vegetation and habitation history of the Callanish area, Isle of Lewis, Scotland. In: Birks H., Birlts H., Kaland P., Moe D., eds. The Cultural Landscape-Past, Present and Future. Cambridge University Press, 445-461.
Ashmore, P., et al. 2000. Allochthonous and autochtonous mire deposits, slope instability and palaeoenvironmental investigations in the Borve Valley, Barra, Outer Hebrides, Scotland. The Holocene, C 10, pp. 97-108.
Bott, M. and Bott, J. 2004. The Cenozoic uplift and Earthquake belt of mainland Britain as a response to an underlying hot, low-density upper mantle. Journal of the Geological Society V 161 19-29.
Aveni, A. 1988. ‘The Thom Paradigm in the Americas’. Records in Stone: Papers in Memory of Alexander Thom. Ruggles, Ed. Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, R. 1984. The social foundations of prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power. Longman, London & New York.
Aveni, A. 2001. Skywatchers a revised and update version of Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico. University of Texas Press.
Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments. Routledge, London. Brennan, M. 1994. The Stones of Time: Calendars, Sundials and Stone Chambers of Ancient Ireland. Inner Traditions Intl., Rochester Vermont.
Averil, M. (Apr., 1974), Joseph Banks at Skara Brae and Stennis, Orkney 1772, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 28, No. 2 pp. 221-234.
Bretagnon, P. and Simon, J.-L. 1986. Planetary Programs and Tables from -4000 to +2800. William-Bell, Inc.
Ballantyne, C.K. 1997. Periglacial trimlines in the Scottish highlands. Quaternary Intl. 38 119-136.
Brown, E. 1979. The shape of Britain. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers. V 4, 4, 449-462.
Barber, J. 1978. The excavation of the holed-stone at Ballymeanoch, Kilmartin, Argyll Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland v109 pp. 104-111.
Brown, P.L. 1978. Megalithic Myths and Men: An Introduction to Astro-Archaeology. Harper & Row, New York.
Barceló, Forte and Sanders 2000. Virtual Reality in Archaeology. British Archaeological Reports International Series 843, BAR Publishing, Oxford.
Brown, P.L. 1979. Megaliths and Masterminds. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
Barnhardt, W.A., et al. 1995. Late Quaternary relative sealevel change in the western Gulf of Maine: evidence for a migrating glacial forebulge. Geology, 4.
Bunting, M.J. 1994. Vegetation History of Orkney, Scotland; Pollen Records from Two Small Basins in West Mainland. New Phytologist Vol 128, pp. 771-798. 157
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Burgess, C. 2003. The Age of Stonehenge. Castle Books.
Cosmas, J. 2003. 3D Measurement and Virtual Reconstruction of Ancient Lost Worlds of Europe. Brunel University.
Burke. W.St.G. 1875. Ring of Brodgar. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
Cowie, T.G. 1980. Excavations at Kintraw, Argyll, 1979. Glasgow Archaeological Journal v.7.
Burl, A. 1976. The Stone Circles of the British Isles. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
Crespi, M. et al. 2006. Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysics J Intl.
Burl, A. 1979. Prehistoric Avebury. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
Darvill, T. 2002. Prehistoric Britain. Routledge 178.
Burl, A. 1979. Rings of Stone: the prehistoric stone circles of Britain and Ireland. Ticknor & Fields, New Haven & New York.
Davies, A.L. and Tipping, R. 2004. Sensing small scale human activity in the palaeoecological record. The Holocene vol 14 p. 233.
Burl, A. 1980. Science or symbolism: problems of archaeoastronomy. Antiquity v54 pp. 191-200.
Dawson S., Dawson, A.G., and Edwards, K.J. 1998. Rapid Holocene relative sea-level changes in Gruinart, Isle of Islay, Scottish Inner Hebrides. The Holocene 8,2 pp. 183-195.
Burl, A. 1981. Rites of the Gods. J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd. Burl, A. 1988. Pi in the Sky. Records in Stone: Papers in Memory of Alexander Thom. Ruggles Ed. Cambridge University Press.
DeMets, C., R.G. Gordon, D.F. Argus, and S. Stein, 1994. ‘Effect of recent revisions to the geomagnetic reversal time scale on estimates of current plate motions’. Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 2191-2194.
Burl, A. 2005. Prehistoric Astronomy and Ritual. Shire Publications Ltd. Burnham, Jr. R. 1978. Burnham’s Celestial Handbook: An Observer’s Guide to the Universe Beyond the Solar System. Dover Publications, New York.
Dewey, J.F. 1982. Plate tectonics and the evolution of the British Isles, The geological Society V 139. Drewes, H., and D. Angermann, 2001.The Actual Plate Kinematic and Crustal Deformation Model 2000 (APKIM2000) as a Geodetic Reference System, AIG Scientific Assembly, Budapest.
Calais, E. 1999. ‘Evidence for a post 3.16-Ma change in the Nubia-Eurasia-North America plate motions’. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6825. Callender, H. (1856) Notice of the Stone Circle at Callernish, in the Island of Lewis. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Volume 2.
Driver, T. 2001. Aerial Survey for Archaeology: Report of a Working Party 1999 British Academy. Duffett-Smith, P. 1988. Practical Astronomy with your Calculator. 3rd Ed, Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, J. 1987. Mythos I. Joseph Campbell Foundation.
Ellegǻrd, A. 1981. ‘Stone Age Science in Britain’ Current Anthropology v22 pp. 99-125.
Campbell, J. 1991. The Power of Myth. Anchor Publishing. Campbell, M. and Sandeman, M. 1964. Mid Argyll: an archaeological survey, Proc Soc Antiq Scot.
Ellis, P.B. 1994. The Druids. Eeerdmans Publishing Co. Michigan.
Chapront, J. and Chapront-Touze, M. 1991. Lunar Tables and Programs from 4000 BC to AD 8000. Willmann Bell.
Fabian, S.M. 2001. Patterns in the Sky: an introduction to ethnoastronomy. Waveland Press, Long Grove Illinois. Fisher, D. 2016. ‘Re-Structuring the World of Scottish Megalithic Sites and Animating Astronomical Phenomena Through 3-D Computerisation.’ Astronomy and Power: How the Worlds are Structured, pp. 63-71. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2794, BAR Publishing, Oxford.
Cherry, J.F. 1978. Generalisation and the archaeology of the state. pp. 411-37, in Green, D., Haselgrove, C. and Spriggs, M. (eds), Social Organisation and Settlement. British Archaeological Reports International Series 47, BAR Publishing, Oxford. Ch’ng, E., Stone, R., and Arvanitis, T. 2004. The 5th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. ‘The Shotton River and Mesolithic Dwellings: Recreating the Past from Geo-Seismic Data Sources’. The Eurographics Association.
Fossitt, J.A. 1996. Late Quaternary Vegatation History of the Western Isles of Scotland. New Phytologist. Vol 132 #1 pp. 171-196. Fretwell, P., Peterson, I.R., Smith, D.E. 2004 The use of Gaussian trend surfaces for modelling glacio-isostatic crustal rebound. Scottish Journal of Geology v 40.
Cook, D.B., Fujita, K., and McMullen, C.A. 1986. Present-day Plate Interactions in Northeast Asia: North American, Eurasian and Okhotsk Plates. Journal of Geodynamics 6 33-51.
Friedman, J. 1979. System, Structure and Contradiction in the Evolution of ‘Asiatic’ Social Formations, National Museum of Denmark (Social Studies in Oceania and South East Asia 2), Copenhagen. 158
Bibliography Galileo Galilei, 1610. The Starry Messenger. Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY.
Structured, pp. 73-77. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2794, BAR Publishing, Oxford.
Gimbutas, M. 1982. The Goddessess and Gods of Old Europe. University of California Press.
Hibsch, C. 1995. Palaeostress analysis, a contribution to the understanding of basin tectonics and geodynamic evolution. Tectonphysics.
Gladwin, P. Fane 1978. Discoveries at Brainport Bay Minard, Argyll. The Kist v16 Natural History and Antiquarian Society of Mid Argyll.
Hill, J.N. and Gunn, J. 1977. Individuals and Their Artifacts: An Experimental Study in Archaeology. New York, Academic Press.
Gladwin, P. Fane 1985. The Solar Alignment at Brainport Bay Minard, Argyll. Natural History and Antiquarian Society of Mid Argyll.
HMG Ordnance Survey. 2007. A guide to coordinate systems in Great Britain v1.8.
Gough, T. 2013. ‘New Evidence of precise Lunar Alignments in Argyll, Scotland in the early Bronze Age.’ Anthropological Notebooks year xix supplement. pp. 157-176 Ed. Sprajc, I. and Pehani, P. Slovene Anthropological Society, Ljubljana.
Hole, F. and Heizer, R.F. 1977. Prehistoric Archeology: A Brief Introduction. Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Hoskin, M. 2001. Tombs, Temples and Their Orientation. Ocarina Books Ltd. Houdin, Jean-Pierre and Brier, Bob. 2009. The Secret of the Great Pyramid. Harper.
Gregory, R.A., Murphy, E.M., et al. 2005. Archaeological evidence for the first Mesolithic occupation of the Western Isles of Scotland. The Holocene 15, 7, pp. 944950.
Hutton, R. 1993. The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: their nature and legacy. Blackwell, Oxford.
Gripp, A.E., and R.G. Gordon, 2002. Young tracks of hotspots and current plate velocities. Geophys. J. Int., 150, 321-361.
JPL, Jet Propulsion Laboratory OASIS system, 2008. http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html.
Gumerman G.J. and Warburton, M. 2005. The Universe in a Cultural Context. Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations Across Time and Space. (Ed. Fountain, J.W. and Sinclair, R.M.) Carolina Academic Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Kelley, D.H. and Milone, E.F., 2011. Exploring Ancient Skies: A Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy. Springer. Kierulf, H. P., Plag, H.-P., and Kristiansen, O. 2003. Towards the true rotation of a rigid Eurasia. Publication No. 12, edited by J.A. Torres and H. Hornik.
Hadingham, E. 1976. Circles and Standing Stones. Book Club Assoc, London.
Kreemer, C., Holt, W.E., and Haines, A.J. 2003. An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation. Geophysics Journal Intl 154 8-34.
Hadingham, E. 1984. Early Man and the Cosmos. Walker & Co., New York. Hall, A.D. and Fagen, R.E. 1956. A Definition of System. General Systems Yearbook Vol 1. Society for General Systems Research.
Kreemer, C. et al. 2006. On the stability of a geodetic no-net-rotation frame and its implications for the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. Geophysical research Letters, 33.
Harding, J., Johnston, B., and Goodrick, G. 2006. ‘Neolithic Cosmology and the Monument Complex of Thornborough, North Yorkshire’. Archaeoastronomy v. xx. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Krupp, E.C. 1983. Echoes of the Ancient Skies: The Astronomy of Lost Civilizations. Harper & Row, New York.
Hawking, S. and Mlodinow, L. 2010. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York.
Kutzbach, John 1981. Monsoon Climate of the Early Holocene: Climate Experiment with the Earth’s Orbital Parameters for 9000 Years Ago, Science Oct 2 1981.
Hawkins, G.S. 1965. Stonehenge Decoded. Doubleday & Co. London.
Langdon, P.G. and Barber, K.E. 2004. Snapshots in time: precise correlation of peat based climate records in Scotland using mid-Holocene tephras. The Holocene 14, pp. 21-33.
Hedges, J.W. 1984. Tomb of the Eagles: Death and Life in a Stone Age Tribe. New Amsterdam, New York. Heggie, D.C. 1982. ‘Megalithic astronomy: highlights and problems.’ Archaeoastronomy in the Old World.
Lawson, A.J. 2007. Chalkland: an archaeology of Stonehenge and its region. Hobnob Press, Salisbury.
Hensall, A, 1972. The chambered tombs of Scotland. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Lerner, M. 2013. http://Giza Plateau Mapping Project/. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Henty, L. 2016. ‘Recumbent Stone Circles: Theory Overview Based on Fieldwork Conducted at Three Sites.’ Astronomy and Power: How the Worlds are 159
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Lockyer, J.N. 1906. On the Observations of Stars made at some British Stone Circles. Proc. Royal Society London. 77: 465-472.
Martlew and Ruggles. (1992). The North Mull Project at Ardnacross. Archaeoastronomy, no 17. JHA xxiii. Martlew and Ruggles. (1993). The North Mull Project at Ardnacross. Archaeoastronomy, no 18. JHA xxiv.
Lockyer, J.N. 1906b. Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically Considered. MacMillan, London.
Masters, L. 1974. The chambered tombs of Scotland. Antiquity v XLVIII.
Lowe, J.J. and Walker, M.J.C. 1986. Late glacial and early Flandrian environmental history of the Isle of Mull, Inner Hebrides, Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 77, pp. 1-20.
McCreary, T., Hastie, A.J. and Moulds, T. 1982. ‘Observations at Kintraw’. Archaeoastronomy in the Old World, pp. 183-190. McLauchlan, T. 1863. Notice of Monoliths in the Island of Mull Proceedings of the society of Antiquaries Scotland. v5 P46-52.
Macdonald, J. 2007. VE [virtual environment] modelling as a tool in testing the ‘astronomy’ of the Avebury monuments. University of York TAG07.
Meeus, J. 1998. Astronomical Algorithms. Willmann-Bell, Richmond Virginia.
MacKie, E.W. 1974. Archaeological Tests on Supposed Prehistoric Astronomical Sites in Scotland. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London.
Milankovic, M. 1998. Canon of Insolation and the Ice-Age Problem. Agency for Textbooks.
MacKie, E.W. 1977a. The Megalith Builders. Book Club Assoc, London.
Moir, G. 1980. Megalithic science and some Scottish site plans, Part I. Antiquity V 54, 37-40.
MacKie, E.W. 1977b. Science and Society in Prehistoric Britain, St Martin’s Press, New York, New York, U.S.A.
Morrison, L.V. 1980. On the analysis of Megalithic Lunar Sightlines in Scotland. Journal of History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy Supplement, Vol. 11 pp. S65-77.
MacKie, E.W. 1981. ‘Wise Men in Antiquity’. Ed. Ruggles and Whittle. Astronomy and Society in Britain During the Period 4000-1500 B.C. British Archaeological Reports British Series 88, BAR Publishing, Oxford.
Musson, R.W.M. 2007. British Earthquakes. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Assc. 118 305-337. Naylor, N. and Jones, T. 2012. ‘Three-Dimendional Recording and Hull Form Modelling of the Newport (Wales) medieval Ship’. Between Continents; Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, p319. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.
MacKie, E.W. 1988. ‘Investigating the prehistoric solar calendar’. Records in Stone: Papers in Memory of Alexander Thom. pp. 206-231. Cambridge University Press. MacKie, E.W. 1998. Continuity over three thousand years of northern prehistory: the ‘tel’ at Howe, Orkney. Antiquaries Journal 78: 1-42.
Nicki, J. [ed.] 2008. Thorne and Hatfield Moors. Conservation Forum Vol7, Whitehouse. Noble, G. 2006. Neolithic Scotland: Timber, Stone, Earth and Fire. Edinburgh University Press.
MacKie, E.W. 2002. The structure and skills of British Neolithic Society: a brief response to Clive Ruggles and Gordon Barclay. Antiquity 76. 666-668.
North, John 1996. Stonehenge: A New Interpretation of Prehistoric Man and the Cosmos. Harper Collins, London.
Mackie, J.B. 1978. The Elements of Astronomy for Surveyors. Charles Griffin & Co.
O’Brien, C. 1983. The Megalithic Odyssey. Turnstile Press Ltd., Wellingsborough.
Macklin, M., Bonsall, C., Davies, F., Robinson, M. 2000. Human-environment interactions during the Holocene: new data and interpretations from Oban area, Argyll, Scotland. The Holocene. 10: 109-121.
Ó Nualláin, S. 1988. Stone rows in the South of Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol 88c. Ordnance Survey. 2010. A Guide to Coordinate Systems in Great Britain. OSGB.
Malville, J. McKim. 2008. Guide to Prehistoric Astronomy in the Southwest. Johnson Books, Boulder Co.
Ordnance Survey RINEX data service 2007. http://gps. ordnancesurvey.co.uk/active.asp.
Mapleton, R.J. 1870. Report on Prehistoric Remains in the neighbourhood of Crinan Canal, Argyllshire Journal of the Ethnological Society of London v2, No 2. p146155.
Parker-Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study, pp. 99-113, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Marshall, D.N. 1977. Carved stone balls. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries Scotland.v108, 40-72.
Patrick, J. 1979. A Reassessment of Lunar Observatory Hypothesis for the Kilmartin Stones. Journal of History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy Supplement, Vol 1.
Martlew and Ruggles. (1991). The North Mull Project at Ardnacross. Archaeoastronomy, no 16. JHA xxii.
160
Bibliography Patrick, J. 1981. ‘A Reassessment of solstitial observatories to scientific astronomy in prehistory.’ Ed. Ruggles and Whittle. Astronomy and Society in Britain During the Period 4000-1500 B.C. British Archaeological Reports v 88.
Ruggles, C.L.N. 1997. Whose Equinox? Journal for the History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy Supplement, Vol. 28, p.S45. Ruggles, C. 1999. Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
Peltier, W.R. 2004. Global Glacial isostasy and the Surface of the Ice-Age Earth: The ICE-5G (vm2) Model and GRACE. Annual Rev. Earth, Planet, Sci. 32 111-149.
Ruggles, C. and Barclay G. 2000. Cosmology, calendars, and society in Neolithic Orkney rejoinder to E MacKie. Antiquity 74 62-74.
Peltier, W.R., Shennan, I., Drummond, R. and Horton, B. 2002. On the postglacial isostatic adjustment of the British Isles and the shallow viscoelastic structure of the Earth. Geophys. J. Intl. 148, 443-475.
Schaefer, B.E. 1986, Atmospheric Extinction Effects on Stellar Alignments. Archaeoastronomy No: 10. Schulting. R.J. and Richards, M.P. 2002. The wet, the wild and the domesticated: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition on the west coast of Scotland. European Journal of Archaeology 5.
Piggott, S. 1954. The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press. Plater, A.J. et al. 2000. Holocene tidal levels and sedimentation rates using a diatom-based palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. The Holocene 10.4, 441-452.
Scott, D. 2010. Recent astronomical observations at Kilmartin Glen, Argyll, Scotland. Antiquity, Vol 84 Issue 824 June. Scott, J.G. 1988-89. The Stone Circles at Temple Wood, Kilmartin, Argyll. Scottish Archaeological Journal.
Ponting, G and M. 1984. New light on the stones of Callanish. Stornaway.
Sella, G.F., Dixon, T.H. and Mao, A. 2002. ‘REVEL: A model for recent plate velocities from space geodesy.’ Journal Geophysical Research, 107.
Ponting, M. 1988. ‘Megalithic Callanish’. Records in Stone: Papers in Memory of Alexander Thom. Ruggles, Ed. Cambridge University Press.
Shennan, I and Horton, B. 2002b Holocene land- and sealevel changes in Great Britain. Journal of Quaternary Science. 17 511-526.
Pratt, D. 2001. ‘Problems with Plate Tectonics.’ New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 21, p. 1024.
Pryor, F. 2001. Seahenge. Harper Collins London.
Shennan, I., Peltier, W.R., Drummond, R. and Horton, B. 2002a. Global to local scale parameters determining relative sea-level changes and the post glacial isostatic adjustment of Great Britain. Quaternary Science reviews 21 397-408.
RCAHMS. 2011. Canmore ID # 40011, Archaelogical Notes NR99NE 10 976 951.
Silvert, W 2001. Modeling as a Discipline. in: Int. J. General Systems Vol. 30(3).
Reinhard, J. 2007. Macchu Picchu: Exploring an Ancient Sacred Center. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA.
Sims, L. 2006a. The ‘Solarization’ of the Moon: Manipulated Knowledge at Stonehenge. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16 (2) 191-207.
Ritchie, G. 1997, The Archaeology of Argyll. Edinburgh University Press.
Sims, L. 2006b. What is a lunar standstill? Problems of accuracy and validity in ‘the Thom paradigm’. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Special Issue 6(3) 157-163.
Prawirodirdjo, L., and Bock, Y. 2003. ‘Instantaneous global plate motion model from 12 years of continuous GPS observation.’ Journal Geophysical Research, 109.
Rozenberg, G.V. 1966. Twilight: a study in atmospheric optics. Plenum Press. New York.
Sims, L. 2007. ‘Lighting up dark Moon: ethnographic templates for testing paired alignments on the Sun and the Moon’ Lights and shadows in cultural astronomy: proceedings of the SEAC 2005: Isili, Sardinia, 28 June to 3 July, edited by M. P. Zedda and J. A. Belmonte. Associazione Archeofila Sarda, Isili, Italy, p.309.
Ruggles, C. 1982. ‘Megalithic astronomical sightlines.’ Archaeoastronomy in the Old World. pp. 83-106. Ruggles, C.L.N. et al 1984. Megalithic Astronomy: A new archaeological and statistical study of 300 western Scottish sites. British Archaeological Reports British Series 123, BAR Publishing, Oxford.
Sims, L. 2009. Entering, and Returning from, the Underworld: Reconstituting Silbury Hill by Combining a Quantified Landscape Phenomenology with Archaeoastronomy. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15, 383-408.
Ruggles, C. 1985. The linear settings of Argyll and Mull. Archaeoastronomy No 9, pp. S105-132. Ruggles, C. 1988. ‘Stone alignments in Argyll and Mull’. Records in Stone: Papers in Memory of Alexander Thom. Ruggles, Ed. Cambridge University Press.
Sims, L. 2013. ‘Monuments as Myths or Myths as Monuments?’ Anthropological Notebooks year xix 161
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation supplement. Ed. Sprajc, I. and Pehani, P. Slovene Anthropological Society, Ljubljana.
International Journal of Computers. Issue 1, Volume 9, 75-84.
Skinner, C. and Brown, A.G. 1999. Mid-Holocene Vegetation Diversity in Eastern Cumbria. Journal of Biogeography. Vol. 26 pp. 45-54.
US Navy. 1990. Astronomical Almanac. US Government Printing Office, Washington. Vincenty, T. 1975. Direct and Inverse Solutions of Geodesics on the Ellipsoid with Application of Nested Equations. Survey Review XXII 176, April 1975.
Smith, D.E., Cullingford, R.A. and Firth, C.R., 2000. Patterns of isostatic land uplift during the Holocene: evidence from mainland Scotland. The Holocene 10(4), 489-501.
Wahr, J. 1996. Geodesy and Gravity: Class Notes, Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Samizdat Press.
Smith, D.E., Fretwell, P., Cullingford, R.A. and Firth, C.R., 2006. Towards improved empirical isobase models of Holocene land uplift for mainland Scotland, UK. Phil. Trans. of the Royal Society 364, 949-972.
Walker M.J.C. and Lowe, J.J. 1982 Late glacial and early Flandrian chronology of the Isle of Mull, Scotland. Nature V 296, #5857 558-561.
Stephenson, F.R., 1997. Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation. Cambridge University Press.
Walker, M.J.C., Ballantyne, C.K., Lowe, J.J. and Sutherland, D.G. 1988. A reinterpretation of the late glacial environmental history of the Isle of Skye, Inner Hebrides, Scotland. Journal of Quaternary Science, 3, pp. 135-146.
Terry, J. 1997. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland. Council for Scottish Archaeology pp. 19-21. Thom, A. 1954. ‘The Solar Observatories of Megalithic Man’. Paper Communicated to the Association The British, Astronomical Association pp. 396-404.
Watts, A.B. 2001. Isostasy and Flexure of the Lithosphere. Cambridge University Press. Webster, D.L. 1976. On Theocracies. Anthropologist. 78(4), 812-827.
Thom, A. 1955. ‘A Statistical Examination of the Megalithic Sites in Britain’. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), Vol. 118, No. 3. pp. 275-295.
American
Wegener, A. 1968. ‘The origin of continents and oceans’. (translated from the 4th German version by John Biram with an introduction by B.C. King). Methuen, London.
Thom, A., 1962.The megalithic unit of length, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 125, 243-251.
Williams, R.J. 1992. In Search of a Legend – The Lost City of Ubar. In Point Of Beginning (P.O.B.), Volume 17, Number 6, pp. 10-20.
Thom, A. 1966. ‘Megalithic Astronomy: Indications in Standing Stones’. Vistas in Astronomy. vol 7. Pergamon Press.
Wood, J.E. 1980. Sun, Moon and Standing Stone’s Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Thom, A. 1967. Megalithic Sites in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Additional Reading
Thom, A. 1978. Megalithic Lunar Observatories. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1956. Stonehenge. Hamish Hamilton, London.
Thom, A. and Thom, A.S. 1972 The Carnac alignments. J. Hist. Astron. 3, 11-26.
Aveni, A. 1989. Empires of Time. Basic Books. Aveni, A. and Urton, G. [eds] 1982. Ethnoastronomy and Archaeoastronomy in the American Tropics. New York Academy of Sciences. New York.
Thom, A. and Thom, A.S. 1978. Megalithic Remains in Britain and Brittany. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Thom, A. and Thom, A. 1982. [D.C. Heggie, Ed.] ‘Statistical and Philosophical arguments for the Astronomical significance of Standing Stones with a section on the solar Calendar’ Archaeoastronomy in the Old World. pp. 53-82.
Bahn, P.G. (ed) 1996. Cambridge Illustrated History of Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Balfour, M. 1980. Stonehenge and its Mysteries. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
Thomas, J. 2000. Death, Identity and the Body in Neolithic Britain. Journal Royal Anthropological Institute 6 pp. 653-668.
Bauval, R. and Gilbert, A. 1994 The Orion Mystery. Three Rivers Press, New York. Branley, F.N. 1969. The Mystery of Stonehenge. Thomas Crowell Co., New York.
Tilley, C. 1994. Phenomenology of Landscape, Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg Publishers, Oxford.
Burl, A. 1987. The Stonehenge People. Guild Publishing, London.
Tipping, R. 1994. The form and fate of Scotland’s woodlands. Proc Society Antiquaries Scot, v124, 1-54. Tokarz, K. and Dzik, M. 2009. Adaptation of satellite navigation for pedestrians with electronic compass 162
Bibliography Burl, A. 1993. From Carnac to Callanish: The prehistoric stone rows and avenues of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany. Yale. London.
MacKenzie, D. 1996. Ancient Man in Britain. Senate. Marshack, A. 1972. The Roots of Civilization. McGraw Hill. New York.
Calvin, W.H. 1991. How the Shaman Stole the Moon. Bantam Books, New York.
Michell, J. 1989. A Little History of AstroArchaeology. Thames and Hudson.
Chamberlain, V.D., Carlson, J. and Young, M.J. 2005. Songs from the Sky: indigenous astronomical cosmological traditions of the world. Ocarina Books, Bognor Regis.
Newham, C.A. 1993. The Astronomical Significance of Stonehenge. Coates & Parker. O’Kelly, Michael J, August 1983. Newgrange: Archaeology, Art and Legend. Thames & Hudson.
Chipingdale, C. 1983. Stonehenge Complete. Thames & Hudson.
Paturi, F. R. 1979. Prehistoric Heritage. Purnell.
Clayton, P. 1976. Archaeological Sites of Britain. Book Club Assoc, London.
Renfrew, C. 1973. Before Civilization. Alfred Knopf, New York.
Crampton, P. 1967. Stonehenge of the Kings. The Scientific Book Club, London.
Rudgley, R. 1999. The Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age. The Free Press, New York.
Cunliffe, B. (ed) 1994. The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ruggles, C. 2009. Indigenous Astronomies and Progress in Modern Astronomy. Accelerating the Rate of Astronomical Discovery (Special Session 5), IAU General Assembly. Proceedings of Science.
Daniel, G. 1963. The Megalithic Builders of Western Europe. Penguin Books.
Ruggles, C. and Saunders, N. 1993. Astronomies and Cultures. University of Colorado Press.
Daniel, G. and Bahn P. 1987. Ancient Places, The Prehistoric and Celtic Sites of Britain. Constable, London.
Service, A. and Bradbery, J. 1979. Megaliths and their Mysteries: A Guide to the standing stones of Europe. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York.
Eogan, G. December 1986. Knowth and the PassageTombs of Ireland. Thames & Hudson.
Tomkins, P. 1971. Secrets of the Great Pyramid. Harper & Row, New York.
Fowles, J. and Brukoff, B. 1980. The Enigma of Stonehenge. Summit Books, New York.
Walker, C. (ed) 1996. Astronomy before the telescope. St Martin’s Press, New York.
Gauch Jr, H.G. 2003. Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press.
West, J.A. 1987. Serpent in the Sky. Julian Press.
Hancock, G. and Faiia, S. 1998. Heavens Mirror. Crown Publishers, Inc., New York. Hawkes, J. 1972. Atlas of Ancient Archaeology. McGrawHill. Hawkins, G.S. 1973. Beyond Stonehenge Harper. & Row, New York. Hogben, L. 1973. Astronomer Priests and Ancient Mariner. St Martin’s Press, New York. Hoyle, F. 1972. From Stonehenge to Modern Cosmology. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. Hoyle, F. 1977. On Stonehenge. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London. Ivimy, J. 1975. The Sphinx and the Megaliths Harper & Row, New York. Joussaume, R. 1988. Dolmens for the Dead: Megalith Building throughout the World. B.T. Batesford Ltd., London. Krupp, E.C. 1978. In Search of Ancient Astronomies. McGraw Hill, New York. 163
Appendices A Radio Carbon Date Conversion The following chart was derived from M. Stuiver, P.J. Reimer, and R. Reimer Calib v6.0 radiocarbon dating programme, and is used for reference, to convert from documented radio carbon dates, to those of BCE calendar dates, for consistency within the paper.
165
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Land Motion Example The following table, lists, the angular rotation and resultant distance moved, with the corresponding change in longitude and latitude, due to plate tectonic movement for Ballochroy, over the 2000 year period of study.
BC
Year BP
degrees
Angle of rotation in minutes
seconds
Delta in metres
Latitude
Longitude
-3500
5500
0.0014355
0.086130
5.167800
116.3
55.71126066
-5.611188974
-3400
5400
0.0014094
0.084564
5.073840
114.2
55.71127484
-5.611214962
-3300
5300
0.0013833
0.082998
4.979880
112.1
55.71128902
-5.61124095
-3200
5200
0.0013572
0.081432
4.885920
110.0
55.71130319
-5.611266939
-3100
5100
0.0013311
0.079866
4.791960
108.0
55.71131737
-5.611292927
-3000
5000
0.0013050
0.078300
4.698000
105.9
55.71133155
-5.611318915
-2900
4900
0.0012789
0.076734
4.604040
103.8
55.71134572
-5.611344904
-2800
4800
0.0012528
0.075168
4.510080
101.7
55.7113599
-5.611370892
-2700
4700
0.0012267
0.073602
4.416120
99.6
55.71137408
-5.61139688
-2600
4600
0.0012006
0.072036
4.322160
97.5
55.71138825
-5.611422869
-2500
4500
0.0011745
0.070470
4.228200
95.4
55.71140243
-5.611448857
-2400
4400
0.0011484
0.068904
4.134240
93.3
55.71141661
-5.611474845
-2300
4300
0.0011223
0.067338
4.040280
91.2
55.71143079
-5.611500834
-2200
4200
0.0010962
0.065772
3.946320
89.1
55.71144496
-5.611526822
-2100
4100
0.0010701
0.064206
3.852360
87.0
55.71145914
-5.611552811
-2000
4000
0.0010440
0.062640
3.758400
84.9
55.71147332
-5.611578799
-1900
3900
0.0010179
0.061074
3.664440
82.9
55.71148749
-5.611604788
-1800
3800
0.0009918
0.059508
3.570480
80.8
55.71150167
-5.611630776
-1700
3700
0.0009657
0.057942
3.476520
78.7
55.71151585
-5.611656765
-1600
3600
0.0009396
0.056376
3.382560
76.6
55.71153003
-5.611682753
-1500
3500
0.0009135
0.054810
3.288600
74.5
55.7115442
-5.611708742
166
New OSGB
Appendices
OSGB Maps Used The tables below list the Ordnance Survey map tiles used for the site interrogations. The map, in which the site resides, is identified in the table by the inclusion of the site name, in bold and italics, with the appropriate map. Tiraghoil, Mull nm26se nm25nw nm23nw
nm44se
nm54sw
nm33nw
nm33ne
nm43nw
nm43ne
nm53nw
nm33sw
nm33se
nm43sw
nm43se
nm53sw
nm53se
nm32nw
nm32ne
nm42nw
nm42ne
nm52nw
nm52ne
nm32sw
nm32se Tiraghoil
nm42sw
nm42se
nm52sw
nm52se
Brainport Bay nm91ne
nn01nw
nm91se
nn01sw
nn01ne nn11sw
nm90ne
nn10nw
nm90se
nn00sw
nn00se
nr99ne Brainport
ns09nw
ns09ne
nr99se
ns09sw
ns09se
nn10sw
Kintraw, Carnasserie, Nether Largie, Ballymeanoch, Dunamuck, An Car and Torbhlaran nm70ne
nm80nw Kintraw
nm70se
nm80sw Carnasserie
nm80se
nr79ne
nr89nw Nether Largie Ballymeanoch
nr89ne
nr79se
nr89sw Dunamuck
nr89se An Car Torbhlaran
nr78ne
nr88nw
nr88ne
nr76nw
nr76ne
nr86nw Escart
nr76sw
nr76se
nr86sw
nr75nw
nr75ne
nr85nw
nr99nw
Escart nr86ne
Ballochroy and Beacharr (the maps for the Isles of Jura and Islay, are too numerous to list) nr65sw
nr65se
nr75sw
nr64nw Gigha
nr64ne
nr74nw
nr64sw Carra
nr64se Beacharr
167
nr74sw
nr75sw Ballochroy
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Solar Julian Calendar Animations and computer generated images, within this paper, display the Julian dates, used to perform the simulations according to astronomical formulae, no adjustment was made to match the Julian dates to the Gregorian calendar, currently in use in the western world. The following table is given for cross-reference purposes. Year BCE
Vernal Equinox
Summer Solstice
Autumnal Equinox
Winter Solstice
Imbolc
Beltane
Lugnasa
Samhain
Today
21- Mar
21-Jun
21-Sep
21-Dec
1-Feb
1-May
1-Aug
1-Nov
3500
19-Apr
24-Jul
21-Oct
17-Jan
3-Mar
30-May
30-Aug
30-Nov
3400
19-Apr
23-Jul
21-Oct
16-Jan
3-Mar
30-May
30-Aug
30-Nov
3300
18-Apr
22-Jul
20-Oct
15-Jan
2-Mar
29-May
29-Aug
29-Nov
3200
17-Apr
21-Jul
19-Oct
15-Jan
1-Mar
28-May
28-Aug
28-Nov
3100
16-Apr
20-Jul
18-Oct
14-Jan
28-Feb
27-May
27-Aug
27-Nov
3000
15-Apr
20-Jul
18-Oct
13-Jan
27-Feb
26-May
26-Aug
26-Nov
2900
15-Apr
19-Jul
17-Oct
13-Jan
27-Feb
26-May
26-Aug
26-Nov
2800
14-Apr
18-Jul
16-Oct
12-Jan
26-Feb
25-May
25-Aug
25-Nov
2700
13-Apr
17-Jul
15-Oct
11-Jan
25-Feb
24-May
24-Aug
24-Nov
2600
12-Apr
16-Jul
15-Oct
10-Jan
24-Feb
23-May
23-Aug
23-Nov
2500
11-Apr
15-Jul
14-Oct
10-Jan
23-Feb
22-May
22-Aug
22-Nov
2400
11-Apr
15-Jul
13-Oct
9-Jan
23-Feb
22-May
22-Aug
22-Nov
2300
10-Apr
14-Jul
12-Oct
8-Jan
22-Feb
21-May
21-Aug
21-Nov
2200
9-Apr
13-Jul
12-Oct
8-Jan
21-Feb
20-May
20-Aug
20-Nov
2100
8-Apr
12-Jul
11-Oct
7-Jan
20-Feb
19-May
19-Aug
19-Nov
2000
8-Apr
11-Jul
10-Oct
6-Jan
20-Feb
19-May
19-Aug
19-Nov
1900
7-Apr
10-Jul
9-Oct
5-Jan
19-Feb
18-May
18-Aug
18-Nov
1800
6-Apr
10-Jul
9-Oct
5-Jan
18-Feb
17-May
17-Aug
17-Nov
1700
5-Apr
9-Jul
8-Oct
4-Jan
17-Feb
16-May
16-Aug
16-Nov
1600
4-Apr
8-Jul
7-Oct
3-Jan
16-Feb
15-May
15-Aug
15-Nov
1500
4-Apr
7-Jul
6-Oct
3-Jan
16-Feb
15-May
15-Aug
15-Nov
168
Appendices
Lunar Minimum and Maximum Limit Dates The following two tables list the computed astronomical Julian dates used in the simulations, to plot the position of the Moon. It should be noted that over 70% of the limits, fall in the 4th or 10th month of the year – the time of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. Lunar minimum limits Northern Limit
Year
Dec
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
18.87884
4
20
6
39.6
18.86251
4
20
14
26.2
18.86776
10
12
4
18.8592
4
30
20
18.8702
10
21
18.8902
4
18.86228
10
18.84745 18.84659
Southern Limit Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Dec
-3494
10
15
2
45.5
-18.86804
-3475
4
6
5
11.2
-18.8707
15.7
-3457
10
24
17
13.5
-18.86133
28
-3438
4
16
2
42.9
-18.86169
1
35.9
-3420
10
6
16
27.2
-18.90311
30
8
31.8
-3419
4
16
6
28.7
-18.87564
21
9
39.2
-3401
10
8
0
6.2
-18.8715
4
12
12
8.1
-3382
4
26
22
40.6
-18.84731
10
30
0
55.3
-3364
10
17
12
29.7
-18.83761
18.84001
4
22
11
9.8
-3345
4
9
21
2.4
-18.85587
18.84837
4
22
15
58.7
-3326
4
9
8
8.9
-18.84672
18.83787
10
13
9
50.5
-3308
10
26
17
32.1
-18.84283
18.84985
4
6
2
4.8
-3289
5
16
4
41.8
-18.88688
18.84327
10
23
21
15.8
-3271
10
9
2
5.2
-18.85479
18.84777
4
15
5
1.6
-3252
4
27
20
2.2
-18.84749
18.83288
4
15
15
14.7
-3233
4
29
0
46.6
-18.84962
18.84359
10
5
16
7
-3215
9
22
12
7.1
-18.88725
18.81844
4
24
3
28
-3196
4
11
10
21.2
-18.82197
18.82829
10
15
9
47.2
-3178
10
30
5
10.7
-18.83366
18.82355
10
15
11
3.5
-3159
10
2
12
34.4
-18.83659
18.81392
4
7
4
50.6
-3140
3
24
14
43
-18.84795
18.82047
10
26
4
5.6
-3122
10
12
0
7.7
-18.81056
18.81773
4
17
19
48.7
-3103
4
30
11
58.6
-18.82278
18.82604
4
17
16
2.5
-616.8
10
21
18
33.1
-18.83208
18.81226
10
8
19
57
-3066
10
21
19
51.7
-18.8186
18.81449
4
27
5
52.5
-3047
4
13
13
28.8
-18.80902
18.80725
10
18
6
58.6
-3029
10
5
6
44
-18.82437
18.81436
4
9
11
31.4
-3010
4
24
3
48.7
-18.80243
18.79786
4
9
8
15.2
-2991
4
24
0
0.1
-18.80811
18.80415
10
28
5
10.9
-2973
10
15
3
50.8
-18.78763
18.7822
4
19
23
13.3
-2954
4
6
5
30.7
-18.78781
18.80104
10
10
16
30
-2936
10
23
15
14
-18.79491
18.81015
10
11
17
15.6
-2917
4
15
20
1.2
-18.80782
18.80659
4
30
7
38.1
-2898
4
15
16
50.7
-18.78664
18.82636
9
23
2
25.9
-2880
10
6
8
19.9
-18.79453
18.78615
4
12
12
28.1
-2861
4
26
7
48.1
-18.79184
18.80457
10
29
22
18.3
-2843
10
17
0
48.3
-18.79269
18.80356
10
29
13
19.8
-2824
10
17
1
32.8
-18.77833
18.76579
4
22
1
48.3
-2805
4
9
7
59.8
-18.76351
18.76231
10
12
17
42.9
-2787
10
26
18
45.8
-18.7726
18.78248
5
1
17
36.6
-2768
4
17
20
18.5
-18.75914
18.79235
10
23
10
24.5
-2750
169
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Lunar minimum limits continued Northern Limit
Year
Southern Limit
Dec
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Dec
-2749
4
18
6
58.9
-18.78963
18.78051
10
23
9
45.4
-2731
10
8
14
47.1
-18.77084
18.75153
4
14
15
35.4
-2712
4
27
10
42.6
-18.77046
18.77385
10
5
17
30.3
-2694
9
21
20
57.1
-18.82313
18.77465
4
24
3
14.2
-2675
4
10
20
30.5
-18.77697
18.76455
4
23
14
38.7
-2656
4
11
0
52.7
-18.75016
18.74147
10
14
23
2.5
-2638
10
2
10
19.5
-18.75165
18.74079
4
6
13
38.6
-2619
3
24
15
14.6
-18.77075
18.75215
10
25
12
5
-2601
10
12
1
22.2
-18.74328
18.75689
4
17
6
23.7
-2582
10
11
9
48.8
-18.76243
18.7519
4
17
9
50.9
-2563
4
2
15
41.9
-18.75129
18.73815
10
8
18
26.5
-2545
9
24
1
35.4
-18.776
18.74545
4
27
6
41.5
-2526
4
12
22
21.2
-18.73768
18.75503
10
17
8
21
-2508
18.74299
10
17
16
55.5
-2489
10
4
22
19.8
-18.74067
18.71645
4
8
23
27.2
-2470
4
23
17
52.3
-18.72989
18.7332
10
26
16
32.8
-2452
10
14
2
34.7
-18.71792
18.71812
4
19
7
41
-2433
4
6
6
38.1
-18.72352
18.7405
10
10
1
0.7
-2415
-2414
4
5
14
52.1
-18.7319
18.73016
10
10
7
47.4
-2396
10
23
1
21.7
-18.74255
18.72165
4
2
19
48
-2377
4
15
7
59.7
-18.71541
18.71853
10
20
10
20.3
-2359
10
5
18
42.1
-18.72516
18.72313
4
11
13
58.1
-2340
4
24
16
36.7
-18.73382
18.71949
4
11
21
54.5
-2321
3
29
18
27.1
-18.72728
18.73486
10
29
8
50
-2303
10
16
16
5.2
-18.70606
18.69588
4
20
16
7.8
-2284
4
8
3
55.1
-18.69059
18.70203
10
12
3
24.1
-2266
10
26
18
11.5
-18.71793
18.71588
10
12
10
13.7
-2247
4
17
21
38.5
-18.70654
18.74172
10
22
19
24.5
-2229
-2228
4
17
5
54.4
-18.70143
18.7157
10
23
1
17.2
-2210
10
8
9
10.2
-18.69767
18.69204
4
14
12
24.3
-2191
3
30
17
45.4
-18.70715
-2173
10
18
12
21.4
-18.70885
18.71816
4
14
1
42.9
-2172
18.72932
4
24
4
47.8
-2154
10
18
18
59.8
-18.71527
18.69713
3
27
5
5.3
-2135
4
10
12
39.2
-18.68385
18.67676
10
14
16
33
-2117
10
2
3
4.1
-18.6842
18.67959
4
6
2
1.1
-2098
3
24
12
55
-18.70458
18.70192
10
23
21
25
-2080
10
11
2
5.3
-18.69551
18.68489
9
27
23
6.7
-2061
10
11
10
42.2
-18.67229
18.67751
4
16
22
22.8
-2042
4
2
13
9.5
-18.66955
18.68117
10
7
12
10.5
-2024
9
22
17
59.1
-18.71154
18.68966
10
8
5
32.6
-2005
4
12
10
44.8
-18.68139
18.67288
3
30
8
43.2
-1986
4
12
14
22.2
-18.67903
18.67685
10
16
17
40.6
-1968
10
3
7
51.4
-18.67435
18.65708
4
8
20
16.9
-1949
3
27
0
33.9
-18.67166
170
Appendices Lunar minimum limits continued Northern Limit
Year
Dec
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
18.67865
10
26
9
10
18.6678
9
29
1
1.3
18.6603
4
18
23
18.64849
10
9
18.65642
4
1
18.6661
4
18.66434
9
18.64268 18.65183
Southern Limit Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Dec
-1931
10
13
20
20.2
-18.66127
-1912
10
13
13
39.5
-18.67217
57.3
-1893
4
5
16
27
-18.64423
17
33.1
-1875
9
25
17
27.3
-18.65996
10
19.7
-1856
4
14
4
38.7
-18.65008
2
8
20.1
-1837
4
14
21
3.7
-18.67951
22
12
49.3
-1819
10
5
9
46.6
-18.65261
4
10
23
39.7
-1800
3
28
3
3.7
-18.65155
10
2
0
18.7
-1782
10
16
2
4.8
-18.65168
18.64855
4
20
12
0.6
-1763
4
7
18
26.2
-18.63961
18.64329
3
23
23
7.1
-1744
4
7
16
27.8
-18.63753
18.62953
10
11
18
50.8
-1726
9
28
21
1.3
-18.63238
18.66598
4
30
18
35.3
-1707
4
17
7
23.5
-18.6248
18.64745
10
22
11
47.7
-1689
10
8
8
31.8
-18.62563
18.6443
4
14
3
56.2
-1670
3
30
12
35.5
-18.64993
18.63339
4
14
0
29.2
-1651
3
30
7
34.7
-18.62674
18.68167
11
1
12
16.5
-1633
10
18
3
49.6
-18.63362
18.62943
3
27
6
26.5
-1614
4
9
21
23.3
-18.62383
18.6333
10
13
15
28.8
-1596
9
30
14
38.4
-18.64017
18.62374
10
14
4
45.7
-1577
10
1
16
58.8
-18.61459
18.65425
3
9
10
32.1
-1558
4
20
8
22.5
-18.62535
18.60945
9
26
7
17.2
-1540
10
10
12
23.2
-18.60018
18.60604
4
16
7
11.6
-1521
4
2
14
14.6
-18.59676
18.62446
10
7
0
22.1
-1503
-1502
4
1
23
52.2
-18.62287
Lunar maximum limits Northern Limit
Year
Southern Limit
Dec
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Dec
29.42948
4
28
17
17.4
-3503
4
15
11
18.5
-29.43285
29.42216
10
20
12
21.6
-3485
11
2
22
18.2
-29.41286
29.40042
4
12
6
12.3
-3466
4
25
2
3.3
-29.41789
29.39099
10
30
3
39.7
-3448
10
15
9
5.7
-29.38563
29.40101
10
30
15
6.4
-3429
10
16
2
51
-29.41041
29.41939
4
21
19
12.6
-3410
5
5
2
43.8
-29.40031
29.40583
10
11
21
49.6
-3392
10
25
21
42.1
-29.41202
29.42599
10
12
2
59
-3373
4
18
15
37.3
-29.41592
29.41682
4
30
21
36.4
-3354
4
18
8
38.3
-29.42893
29.4121
10
21
12
43.4
-3336
10
8
15
52.3
-29.40294
29.40094
4
14
7
36.5
-3317
4
28
3
48.2
-29.40607
29.38161
4
14
8
50.9
-3298
3
30
21
54.8
-29.36883
29.37561
4
24
1
27.4
-3280
5
6
19
19.2
-29.36753
29.39232
4
24
17
35.7
-3261
4
10
0
30.7
-29.38736
29.39288
10
15
0
11.6
-3243
10
27
22
15.8
-29.38105
29.37278
4
6
3
38.9
-3224
9
30
18
39.5
-29.35351
-3206
10
11
11
55.8
-29.37087
171
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Lunar maximum limits continued Northern Limit
Year
Southern Limit
Dec
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Dec
29.39422
4
6
6
2.5
-3205
29.40515
10
23
20
57
-3187
10
11
9
5
-29.40978
29.40175
4
15
9
57
-3168
4
30
2
19.9
-29.38809
29.36513
10
7
2
44.5
-3150
-3149
4
2
23
10.5
-29.35132
29.37118
4
26
3
23.2
-3131
4
12
12
16.3
-29.36786
29.35401
4
26
4
4
-3112
4
11
14
48.6
-29.37208
29.36794
10
17
18
28.9
-3094
10
2
23
26.2
-29.35103
29.36908
4
9
3
49
-3075
4
21
19
27.1
-29.37114
29.35878
10
27
16
58
-3057
10
13
12
7.1
-29.35537
29.34596
10
26
18
1
-3038
10
13
14
27
-29.36319
29.3895
4
17
23
12.4
-3019
4
5
7
18.1
-29.38371
29.37838
10
9
8
13.1
-3001
10
24
3
35.2
-29.37918
29.36445
4
28
5
15.5
-2982
4
15
12
37.5
-29.3686
29.34556
10
18
22
24.3
-2964
11
2
1
41.2
-29.33043
29.34263
10
20
0
33.2
-2945
10
5
18
38.8
-29.34594
29.3487
4
11
17
9.1
-2926
4
24
8
15.9
-29.34616
29.32893
10
29
12
39.3
-2908
10
14
17
36.9
-29.34522
29.34877
4
21
21
8.8
-2889
4
7
8
34
-29.33046
29.32884
4
20
23
39.7
-2870
4
7
9
46.5
-29.33126
29.29427
11
7
11
2.6
-2852
10
25
9
57.9
-29.33956
29.35432
10
11
2
36.4
-2852
9
28
4
7.7
-29.33257
29.35359
4
30
16
57.6
-2833
4
18
2
26.4
-29.37019
29.3513
10
21
2
48.9
-2815
10
8
14
42.2
-29.34525
29.30016
5
10
1
5.2
-2796
3
30
22
7.2
-29.29979
29.33269
4
13
20
9.7
-2777
3
31
0
16.6
-29.32227
29.2932
10
31
19
57.3
-2759
10
17
11
28.3
-29.33054
29.32041
4
23
12
0.4
-2740
4
8
18
33.6
-29.32469
29.31941
10
14
23
44.5
-2722
10
27
12
26.4
-29.30758
29.30757
10
14
5
10.1
-2703
9
30
4
56.3
-29.29263
29.32262
4
5
8
12
-2684
3
22
23
55.8
-29.29067
29.32965
10
23
19
43
-2666
10
10
23
51.2
-29.33697
29.34128
4
15
3
21.2
-2647
4
2
14
39.2
-29.32754
29.31089
4
14
21
3.2
-2628
4
2
1
31
-29.31016
29.30789
10
6
15
6.7
-2610
9
23
5
32.3
-29.27854
29.29696
4
25
15
53.7
-2591
4
11
16
48.4
-29.31729
29.29948
10
17
9
44.8
-2573
10
2
20
53
-29.28989
29.29465
4
9
0
14.5
-2554
10
2
8
46.5
-29.26877
29.2915
4
8
10
12.3
-422.5
10
12
0
41.1
-29.27846
29.2809
9
29
13
30.6
-2517
10
13
0
36.8
-29.29073
29.30788
4
18
0
48.7
-2498
4
4
19
49.3
-29.30285
29.30773
10
8
5
5.3
-2480
10
22
19
8.6
-29.30601
29.29843
10
8
17
53.9
-2461
9
26
4
8.8
-29.28346
29.28811
3
31
10
57.7
-2442
4
14
18
47.5
-29.29382
29.28409
10
18
10
56.7
-2424
10
4
22
18.5
-29.28673
29.28598
4
11
6
9.4
-2405
4
24
9
33.4
-29.28174
29.25311
10
1
22
41.8
-2387
10
14
14
10.2
-29.27303
172
Appendices Lunar maximum limits continued Northern Limit
Year
Southern Limit
Dec
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Month
Day
Hour
Minute
Dec
29.26512
4
20
18
39.5
-2368
10
14
3
36
-29.2596
29.26603
4
21
3
6.9
-2349
4
6
20
23.2
-29.27107
29.27623
10
11
6
10.7
-2331
10
24
20
23.6
-29.25763
29.26471
4
29
17
42.9
-2312
4
16
15
30.6
-29.28592
29.27705
10
20
22
44.9
-764.66667
4
17
12
21.4
-29.27566
29.26719
10
20
13
7.5
-2275
10
7
22
19
-29.27804
29.27337
4
12
6
38.3
-2256
3
30
3
54.9
-29.26407
29.22853
10
31
6
51.6
-2238
10
17
15
0.3
-29.26373
29.24606
4
23
1
41.3
-2219
4
8
18
29.6
-29.25705
29.23715
3
26
14
52.1
-2200
4
8
3
3.8
-29.24617
29.24934
10
14
7
5
-2182
9
29
16
41.1
-29.2378
29.21216
5
2
19
42.9
-2163
4
18
16
4.9
-29.24694
29.23941
10
23
22
53
-2145
10
10
10
53.9
-29.24801
29.25711
4
15
2
44.7
-2126
10
10
11
8
-29.25883
29.26589
4
14
12
14
-2107
4
1
23
57.8
-29.26903
29.25112
10
6
2
18
-2089
9
23
7
52.5
-29.22522
29.23069
3
28
21
0.9
-2070
4
11
20
52.4
-29.24786
29.22742
10
15
21
15
-2052
10
1
23
31.5
-29.22067
29.21379
4
8
15
32
-2033
3
25
4
4.8
-29.18201
29.23251
4
8
9
19.2
-2014
3
24
15
10.6
-29.21428
29.2199
9
28
16
34
-1996
10
11
11
54.7
-29.2264
29.22674
4
18
4
53.7
-1977
4
4
6
17.5
-29.2218
29.21739
10
8
7
21.8
-1959
9
25
1
12
-29.18585
29.24761
10
7
12
22
-1940
9
24
23
30
-29.23578
29.21616
4
27
7
23.1
-1921
4
14
18
14.1
-29.23998
29.21775
10
17
21
54.7
-1903
10
5
1
36.3
-29.21915
29.1778
10
17
23
38.4
-1884
10
4
3
11.5
-29.20348
29.2022
4
10
18
13.2
-1865
3
27
7
30.5
-29.20572
29.20109
10
1
9
10.8
-1847
10
13
21
47.2
-29.20189
29.19849
4
20
3
13.4
-1828
4
5
9
53.9
-29.20962
29.20444
10
11
9
55.7
-1810
10
24
7
35.1
-29.18314
29.19174
4
2
13
40.2
-1791
4
16
2
7.5
-29.19388
29.22299
4
1
15
52.4
-1772
3
19
21
28.2
-29.20545
29.21178
10
20
6
43.1
-1754
10
7
18
37.5
-29.22542
29.21232
4
11
19
33.3
-1735
3
30
4
58.7
-29.20605
29.1743
4
11
19
15.5
-1716
3
29
9
20.6
-29.18651
29.14901
3
26
7
21.1
-1698
4
8
22
27.4
-29.17669
29.18219
3
26
7
37
-1679
3
11
17
47.4
-29.14222
29.17924
10
14
3
59.5
-1661
9
29
8
58.3
-29.17518
29.13658
5
2
20
37.9
-1642
4
18
5
9.7
-29.17587
29.15481
10
23
2
54.6
-1624
10
8
21
18.8
-29.16448
29.15915
4
15
6
24
-1605
10
9
23
37.7
-29.18288
29.19992
4
14
9
27.4
-1586
4
1
17
2.9
-29.20669
29.15476
3
17
16
16.3
-195.875
10
19
13
10.9
-29.17963
29.15978
3
28
8
45.6
-1549
4
11
22
51.6
-29.1736
29.17046
3
28
9
47.3
-1530
4
11
2
11.2
-29.16716
29.15357
10
15
9
45.7
-1512
10
1
4
55.2
-29.16963
173
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation
Morning and Evening Twilight The following graphs illustrate the three morning and evening twilight times and the times of sunrise and sunset at 4 latitudes. It can be seen that during summer within the British latitudes of 50º to 56º astronomical twilight does not occur. At latitude 56º even nautical twilight does not occur, which indicates the delineation points for heliacal and acronychal stars cannot be discerned. Therefore winter would be the only time to consider such measurements.
Twilight colour code: Yellow: Sunrise/Sunset, Light Blue: civil, Dark Blue: nautical, Purple: astronomical. Data derived from Astronomical Almanac (1990).
174
Index A Abernethy 157 Aberration 21, 155 Aldebaran 135, 148 Algorithms iv, 43, 160 Altamimi 157 An Car 126, 127, 139 Andersen 157 Anemophilous 155 Angel 157 Aquarius 134, 142 archaeo-astronomy 1 Argus 157, 158 Argyll xv, 1, 2, 6, 32, 45, 133, 144, 145, 152, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Ashmore 59, 157 Astro-archaeology 1 Avebury 5, 8, 158, 160 Aveni 1, 2, 25, 157, 162 Averil 2, 157
Cereal 32 Chapront 15, 158 Cherry 129, 130, 145, 158 Cist 49 Convergence 42, 64 Cook 158 Cosmas 8, 158 Cowie 116, 158 Crespi 158 D Darvill 158 Davies 158, 160 Dawson 158 Dewey 158 Drewes 158 Driver 8, 158 Duffett-Smith 43, 158 Dunamuck 7, 95, 97, 124, 134, 148, 152, 153 Dunchraigaig 143 Dun Skeig 102, 104
B Ballantyne 157, 162 Ballochroy 7, 50, 101, 129, 134, 141, 146, 152 Ballymeanoch 77, 78, 80, 157 Barbeck 7 Barber 157, 159 Barceló 8, 157 Barnhardt 157 Bayliss 129, 157 Bernfeld 157 Birks 157 Bohncke 157 Bott 157 Bradley 129, 130, 144, 146, 157 Brainport Bay 7, 83, 88, 89, 143, 146, 152, 159 Brennan 3, 157 Bretagnon 15, 157 Brown 157, 162 Bunting 157 Burgess 60, 158 Burke 5, 158 Burl 81, 133, 138, 145, 158, 162, 163 Burnham 135, 158
E Edina 15, 116 Ellegǻrd 158 Ellis 158 Entomophilous 155 Escart 102, 103, 104, 105, 145 ESRI 39, 40, 152 F Flash 15, 45 Fossitt 158 Fretwell 158, 162 Friedman 158 G Garmin iv, 6, 15, 80, 108, 116 Gimbutas 141, 159 Gladwin 7, 82, 87, 159 Gough 5, 151, 159 GPS 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 101, 115, 116, 151, 156, 161 Gregory 159 Gripp 159 Gumerman and Warburton 11, 149
C Calais 158 Callanish 157, 161, 163 Callender 2, 158 Campbell 2, 158 Campbell and Sandeman 2, 158 Carnasserie 99, 101, 124, 133
H Hadingham 159 Hall 11, 159 Harding 5, 8, 159 Hatfield Moor 160 Hawking 139, 159 175
The Phenomena of Argyll Stone Rows Revealed Through 3D Computer Simulation Hawkins 1, 2, 8, 45, 131, 159, 163 Hedges 159 Heggie 119, 159, 162 Heliacal 21, 155 Hensall 159 Henty 5, 159 Hibsch 159 Hill 159, 161, 163 Hole 148, 159 Hoskin 159 Houdin 3, 159 Hutton 159
Nicki 160 Noble 160 North 5, 19, 20, 30, 42, 82, 84, 92, 93, 100, 123, 137, 145, 156, 158, 159, 160 NTF 155 O Obliquity 155 Orkney 157, 160, 161 OSGB 41, 91, 115, 116 Outer Hebrides 157 P Parallax 155 Parker-Pearson 160 Patrick 2, 5, 7, 114, 160, 161 Peltier 161 Perihelion 155 Perturbation 140, 155 Piggott 129, 161 Plater 161 Plate tectonics 158 Pleiades 141, 148 Ponting 5, 141, 161 Pratt 161 Prawirodirdjo 161 Precession 18, 19, 155 Prograde 156 Proper motion 18, 21, 156 Pryor 161
I Imbolc 134 Islay 145, 158 Isle of Lewis 106, 157 Isostasis 135 Isostasy 162 J Julian 19, 20, 163 Jura 44, 114, 118, 122, 143 K Kelley 2, 159 Kierulf 159 Kilmartin 145, 157, 160, 161 Kintraw 9, 114, 116, 117, 121, 122, 151, 158, 160 Kreemer 159 Krupp 159, 163 Kutzbach 159
R Refraction 21 Reinhard 161 Retrograde 156 Ring of Brodgar 158 Ritchie 145, 161 River Add 79, 90 Rozenberg 22, 161 Ruggles 1, 2, 3, 8, 83, 106, 114, 122, 138, 151, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163
L Langdon 159 Lawson 81, 159 Lockyer 1, 5, 21, 58, 155, 160 Lowe 160, 162 M Macdonald 8, 160 Mackie 160 Macklin 31, 160 Malville iv, 75, 160 Mapleton 160 Marshall 139, 160 Martlew & Ruggles 5, 160 Masters 143, 160 Meeus 15, 19, 160 Milankovic 160 Moir 160 Morrison 160 Mull 5, 160, 161, 162 Musson 160
S Schaefer 22, 161 Scott 63, 161 Sella 161 Shennan 161 Silvert 161 Sims 5, 23, 146, 161 Skinner 162 Smith 158, 162 Smithsonian 20 Stephenson 162 Stonehenge 1, 2, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163
N Nautical 156 Naylor 8, 160 Nether Largie 7, 61, 65, 71, 75, 97, 139, 143, 148 Newgrange 3, 163
T Terry 162 Theocracies 162 Theodolite 11
176
Index Thom 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 24, 49, 60, 74, 83, 104, 115, 116, 140, 152, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162 Thomas 5, 162 Tiles 14, 44 Tilley 162 Tipping 29, 158, 162 Tiraghoil 107, 110, 111, 112, 127, 141 Tokarz 12, 162 Torbhlaran 124 Twilight 22, 161, 174 V Venus 25, 58 Vincenty 162 W Wahr 162 Walker 159, 160, 162, 163 Watts 162 Webster 129, 130, 145, 162 Wegener 162 Williams 8, 162 Wood 2, 14, 15, 41, 59, 61, 62, 64, 73, 118, 133, 143, 145, 161, 162
177