Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically ConsideredLockyer, Norman, Sir
History
Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically Considered
Lockyer, Norman, Sir
Druids and Druidism; Great Britain -- Antiquities; Stonehenge (England); Sun worship; Temples
“I may repeat my conviction that if the prevalent beliefs and traditions
concerning Stonehenge were true, and the “bluestone” circles were
transported from some distant locality, either as trophies of war or as
the sacred treasures of a wandering tribe, it is quite inconceivable
that they should have been hewed and chipped, as we now know them to
have been, and reduced in some cases to half their dimensions, _after
having been carried with enormous difficulty over land and water, and
over hills and valleys_. On the other hand, in the glacial drift, which
once probably thinly covered the district, the glacial deposits dying
out very gradually as we proceed southwards, we have a source from which
such stones might probably have been derived. It is quite a well-known
peculiarity of the glacial drift to exhibit considerable assemblages of
stones of a particular character at certain spots, each of these
assemblages having probably been derived from the same source.
“I would therefore suggest as probable that when the early inhabitants
of this island commenced the erection of Stonehenge, Salisbury Plain was
sprinkled over thickly with the great white masses of the sarsen-stones
(‘grey wethers’), and much more sparingly with darker coloured boulders
(the so-called ‘blue-stones’), the last relics of the glacial drift,
which have been nearly denuded away. From these two kinds of materials
the stones suitable for the contemplated temple were selected. It is
even possible that the abundance and association of these two kinds of
materials so strikingly contrasted in colour and appearance, at a
particular spot, may not only have decided the site, but to some extent
have suggested the architectural features of the noble structure of
Stonehenge.”
If we grant everything that Prof. Judd states, the question remains--why
did the same men in the same place at the same time treat the sarsen and
blue stones so differently?
I shall show subsequently that there is a definite answer to the
question on one assumption.
I next come to (2). The important point about these stones is that with
the amplitude 26°, at Stonehenge, a line from the centre of the circle
over the N.W. stone would mark the sunset place in the first week in
May, and a line over the S.E. stone would similarly deal with the
November sunrise. We are thus brought in presence of the May-November
year.
Another point about these stones is that they are not at the same
distance from the centre of the sarsen stone circle, which itself is
concentric with the temenos mound; this is why they lie at different
distances from the mound. Further, a line drawn from the point of the
Friar’s Heel over the now recumbent Slaughter Stone with the amplitude
determined by Mr. Penrose and myself for the summer solstice sunrise in
1680 B.C. cuts the line joining the stones at the middle point,
suggesting that the four untrimmed sarsen stones provided alignments
both for the May and June years at about that date.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account