Visualising Skyscapes

Material Forms of Cultural Engagement with the Heavens

Liz Henty, Daniel Brown

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138303614
• eBook ISBN: 9781351398787
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

Above the land and its horizon lies the celestial sphere, that great dome of the sky which governs light and darkness, critical to life itself, yet its influence is often neglected in the archaeological narrative. Visualising Skyscapes captures a growing interest in the emerging field of skyscape archaeology.

This powerful and innovative book returns the sky to its rightful place as a central consideration in archaeological thought and can be regarded as a handbook for further research. Bookended by a foreword by archaeologist Gabriel Cooney and an afterword by astronomer Andrew Newsam, its contents have a wide-reaching relevance for the fields of archaeology, anthropology, ethnography, archaeoastronomy, astronomy, heritage and cultural studies. The volume balances six chapters on theory and methodology which elaborate on the history and practice of the field with six other chapters focused on case studies from around the world.

Visualising Skyscapes captures the growing interest in the multidisciplinary study of skyscapes and will be of interest to academics, students and the general public, as well as having international appeal. It is topical, timely and relevant to current debates and will hopefully stimulate further interest in this exciting and relatively new area of investigation. The contributions showcase the work of distinguished academics in the field and the chapters are all enhanced by numerous photographs and images.

Part I

Skyscapes

Theory and methodology

1 Skyscape archaeology

The place of the sky in the academy

Liz Henty

Introduction

When we think about the sky, we can visualise an array of stunning skyscapes which can range from dark cloudy panoramas to glorious sunsets. The visual permutations are endless and are reflective of how different cultures view their own skyscapes. Skyscape archaeology seeks to discover this cultural aspect of skyscapes and their impact on material culture in a revisioning of the field which is usually the domain of archaeoastronomy or cultural astronomy. A combination of factors led to this cognitive and disciplinary revisualisation, not least the paper presented in 2011 by Clive Ruggles at the Oxford IX archaeoastronomy conference in Lima, Peru, which posed the important question of whether archaeoastronomers were still running around the same circles or branching out.

By this, Ruggles wondered whether, over the period of the last 30 years, archaeoastronomy had advanced its methodology or improved its interpretation (Ruggles 2011, 3). Given the long and occasionally difficult relationship between archaeoastronomers and archaeologists, this is an issue that archaeoastronomers would like the answer to. Nevertheless, Ruggles hinted that archaeoastronomy had branched out by entering the archaeological mainstream. Ruggles’ paper prompted me to ask two further questions: firstly has archaeoastronomy really entered the archaeological mainstream and secondly is there any evidence of branching out in the seven years following his paper. This chapter will attempt to find answers by taking a brief look at archaeoastronomy and archaeology’s history, as well as drawing a picture of recent developments in the field. Additionally, it will look at the impact of Ruggles’ retrospective and other factors which together have led to a rejuvenation of the field under the name of “skyscape archaeology”. The changing nature of British archaeoastronomy and its recent metamorphosis will be examined to show how various initiatives have combined in trying to push back the frontiers which have limited archaeoastronomy in the past, with the hope that the findings of this research can add to the wider disciplinary debate.

The historical background

Archaeoastronomy and archaeology are umbrella terms for two distinct fields of study which examine the cultural aspect of societies, yet from different perspectives. Although they are often concerned with the same monumental remains of past ages, archaeologists and archaeoastronomers contest each other’s results. In Britain both disciplines date back to early historical writings and the first archaeoastronomical text is believed to be that of Diodorus of Sicily (2005), written in the first century BC, in which he described the lunar nodal cycle in relation to a “temple of spherical form” found on the island of Hyperborea: a round temple which has been identified variously as Stonehenge (North 2007, 394–95) or Calanais (Burl 1993, 180). These and subsequent medieval writings by authors such as Geoffrey of Monmouth ([1136], 1966) and Hector Boece ([1575] 2014, Book II, 11) started a tradition of enquiry which continued during the three-century period of antiquarianism from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, in which the juxtaposition of British prehistory, astronomical cycles, astronomer-priests and metrology was a leitmotif of the archaeological and astronomical content in antiquarian writing. The antiquarians followed the theory that in some way prehistoric monument builders observed the cycles of the Sun, the Moon, the planets and the stars and incorporated them into their architecture in an intentional way. There were no divisive views; antiquarian tracts like those of William Stukeley (1740, 1743), John Douglas (1793) and Edward Duke (1846) showed these early researchers to be both archaeoastronomers and archaeologists, long before these separate disciplines acquired their names.

The first hint of discord came with Sir Norman Lockyer’s (1836–1920) treatises on the astronomy contained within the design of both the Egyptian pyramids (1894) and Stonehenge (1906). Lockyer had attempted to date the Egyptian temples from the position of certain fixed stars yet his ideas were heavily criticised, as can be found from Johnson’s list ([1912] 2011, 253) of some of the contemporary authors who objected to Lockyer’s argument. Lockyer’s version of Stonehenge was ignored by British archaeologists who remained tight-lipped on the subject. There is no mention of it in either of the two contemporary archaeology journals, the Archaeology Journal and the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia. Lockyer acknowledged the difference between astronomers and archaeologists, stating that the terms astronomer and archaeologist were not “as I think they should be, convertible terms” (Lockyer 1894, 416). He recommended archaeologists to collect the preliminary data and pass the computation on to others, in his guiding text Surveying for Archaeologists (Lockyer 1909). Lockyer’s ideas and astronomical methodology were taken up by Vice-Admiral Boyle Somerville (1863–1936) who, while describing himself as an orientationist, surveyed monuments in the Outer Hebrides, most notably Calanais. There he found that many alignments pointed to lunar risings which suggested a detailed prehistoric knowledge of the complex motion of the Moon during its Metonic cycle (Boyle Somerville 1912, 29). However, while the methodology might have been outside the experience of archaeologists and criticised by some, this is not to say that they were not willing to consider it. Contributors to the very first issue of Antiquity, founded in March 1927 by the eminent archaeologist O.G.S. Crawford, included Boyle Somerville (1927).

What started off as a fruitful collaboration between archaeoastronomers and archaeologists was ended abruptly with the publication of Alfred Watkins’ The Old Straight Track in 1925. Watkins visualised the prehistoric Britons, not as barbaric primitives, but rational traders who created straight pathways or ley lines as the easiest way to access materials they did not have locally. At first glance it would seem that the study of alignments or leys between sites on the ground has nothing in common with the idea that certain monuments were aligned to the events in the sky, but Watkins ([1925] 1974, 219–222) provided advice about surveying similar to that of Lockyer, and also noted leys aligned to the Sun. Watkins’ theories were immensely popular and were followed by a large band of ley hunters who conducted searches as a weekend activity, but they incensed the archaeologists. Watkins’ work was reviled by Crawford (1927, 2) who, in his editorials, reminded readers that “many best-sellers are written by quacks”.

The archaeoastronomers and archaeologists went their separate ways until archaeoastronomy was put back on the archaeologists’ agenda following the publication of Stonehenge Decoded by Gerald Hawkins in 1965. He controversially claimed that Stonehenge might have functioned as a computer-like device for the purpose of predicting eclipses. Glyn Daniel, then editor of Antiquity, invited the astronomer Fred Hoyle to critically examine Hawkins’ interpretation of Stonehenge (Krupp 1979, 101). Hoyle (1966) more or less confirmed Hawkins’ claims but the reviews by archaeologists were derogatory to both Hawkins and Hoyle, as can be judged by titles such as “Moonshine on Stonehenge” (Atkinson 1966) and “God in the Machine” (J. Hawkes 1967).

At the time Hawkins’ work was being widely publicised, little attention was being paid to Alexander Thom who had been working quietly in the background for 30 years, mainly at Scottish megalithic sites, following a programme of surveying a large sample of them and interpreting the solar, lunar and stellar orientations he believed they contained (see for example, Thom 1967, 1971). This work, which encompassed meticulous and detailed plans of hundreds of stone circles, deserved some respect. Although Burl added cursory archaeological details for many of the sites, Thom’s research did not integrate this archaeology with his astronomical methodology (see for example, Thom and Thom 1980). While Hawkins had named the field “astro-archaeology”, Thom’s work was called “megalithic science”. Thom did not actually employ this term, though his work contains many examples of his usage of “Megalithic metrology”, “Megalithic man”, “Megalithic astronomy”, “Megalithic yard”, “Megalithic fathom (two megalithic yards)” and so on. The descriptors megalithic science or megalithic astronomy were generally employed interchangeably by others when describing his work (see Heggie 1981, 1982). Thom’s research stemmed from his belief that the monument builders were versed in mathematics and astronomy, capable of measuring high-precision alignments, and that they based their plans on Pythagorean triangles, measuring them out in standard megalithic yards. The archaeologists scrutinised his claims but, after joint conferences and long debates, finally dismissed them (see for example, Atkinson 1975; MacKie 1976; Moir 1980). This did not mean that archaeoastronomy’s methodology was faulty but that the interpretations drawn by Thom did not fit into the archaeologists’ view of prehistoric humankind.

There followed an uneasy hiatus in the relationship between the two disciplines, punctuated by the publication of Ruggles edited tribute to Thom, Records in Stone (1988). Ruggles surveyed numerous sites in Britain to hone Thom’s methodology to bear scientific scrutiny but his numerous papers were published in the Journal for the History of Astronomy (JHA), which was probably not top of the archaeologists’ reading list. This was at a time when astronomical studies were being renamed as archaeoastronomy following a suggestion by Euan MacKie in 1971. On 28 January, 1971, to be precise, MacKie’s review of Thom’s Megalithic Lunar Observatories was published in The Listener under the title “Archaeoastronomy”. This term reached a wider audience with Elizabeth Baity’s seminal paper of 1973, entitled “Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy So Far”. The work Thom accomplished was of immense value ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Foreword: facing the sky by Gabriel Cooney
• Visualising skyscapes: an introduction
• PART I Skyscapes: theory and methodology
• PART II Skyscapes: case studies
• Afterword by Andrew Newsam