Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
Download details:
IP Address: 154.127.49.183
This content was downloaded on 21/09/2016 at 12:33
Please note that terms and conditions apply.
An introductory view on archaeoastronomy
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
2016 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 685 012001
(http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/685/1/012001)
Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience
An introductory view on archaeoastronomy
Daniel Brown
Nottingham Trent University, School of Science and Technology, Clifton Lane,
Nottingham, NG11 6NS, UK
E-mail: daniel.brown02@ntu.ac.uk
Abstract. Archaeoastronomy is still a marginalised topic in academia and is described by the
Sophia Centre, the only UK institution offering a broader MA containing this field, as ‘the
study of the incorporation of celestial orientation, alignments or symbolism in human
monuments and architecture’. By many it is associated with investigating prehistoric
monuments such as Stonehenge and combining astronomy and archaeology. The following
will show that archaeoastronomy is far more than just an interdisciplinary field linking
archaeology and astronomy. It merges aspects of anthropology, ethno-astronomy and even
educational research, and is possibly better described as cultural astronomy. In the past decades
it has stepped away from its quite speculative beginnings that have led to its complete rejection
by the archaeology community. Overcoming these challenges it embraced full heartedly solid
scientific and statistical methodology and achieved more credibility. However, in recent times
the humanistic influences of a cultural context motivate a new generation of
archaeoastronomers that are modernising this subject; and humanists might find it better
described as post-modern archaeoastronomy embracing the pluralism of today’s academic
approach to landscape and ancient people.
1. Introduction
In the first instance Archaeoastronomy is a word created by combining archaeology and astronomy.
As such this subject area might initially be described as involving the comprehension of stars, Sun and
the Moon as they move through the sky from the perspective of an astronomer using the material
remains of people whose culture can be described as ancient and that does not exist anymore.
However the given outline of archaeoastronomy is quite problematic very simplified and ignores many
other facets of this subject [1, p. 226 note 93].
First it is necessary to describe some examples that acted as motivation towards the development of
this field. A classic example is the Stonehenge monument in the south of England that will allow
exploring aspects of archaeoastronomy. The impressive stone circle is a combination of several rings
of stones and ditches [2]. Looking beyond the central moment the entire surrounding is littered with
ancient remains such as burial mounds and other monuments [3]. Most importantly it includes a
processional avenue that enters the central Stonehenge monument from the northeast (see figure 1).
The orientation of the avenue is one example of an astronomical orientation included in the structure.
The Sun will rise at midsummer in the direction of the avenue when viewed from the centre of
Stonehenge. It also will appear to set behind the centre of Stonehenge at midwinter when walking
along the avenue. Discovering and exploring such astronomically motivated alignments is the brief of
archaeoastronomy. That this is not a trivial task becomes clear when realising that Stonehenge was
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
constructed during the late Neolithic. The people of this era did not use any written records and their
culture has not survived into modern day. Therefore no written records exist that document any
discovered alignments or describe their intention. For example, to understand which direction might
be the intended one for the avenue, it is essential to place the monument into its landscape and realise
that the midsummer orientation might be impressive, but is only visible to a few that find space in the
monument itself. However, the reverse midwinter alignment offers a large procession the view on the
setting Sun behind Stonehenge. Additionally, the avenue slopes up towards the centre of Stonehenge
allowing people that move up the slope to experience an apparent standstill of the Sun behind
Stonehenge and acting as a potential symbolic and powerful symbol of how such a ritual procession
might lengthen the days and hasten the coming summer season [4]. There are far more proposed
alignments that will not be discussed here. The avenue will suffice to illustrate possible astronomical
motivation in many other ancient monuments in England, described in more detail by Ruggles [1].
But there are far more such examples scattered all across the world illustrating that astronomical
knowledge and such motivated alignments were recognised and valued by many different cultures.
The passage grave in New Grange Ireland has its entrance lined up towards the rising midwinter Sun.
Only once a year will the Sun's rays illuminate the back of the burial chambers [5]. In Germany the
palisade ring at Goseck 4,900 BC, possibly the oldest solar observatory in the world [6], includes
openings that allow the Sun to be seen at midwinter [7, 8]. Additionally, several temples and burial
sites in America include astronomical orientations, for example buildings in Chaco canyon include
possible solar and lunar orientations [9].
These examples are only few but show quite well the need for a subject area that tries to explore
astronomical meaning in monuments. As briefly mentioned above, this subject might be called
archaeoastronomy. But this name is not unique and is understood quite differently by many members
of this community. For example, combining the words astronomy and archaeology might also result in
astroarchaeology. The two variations on the name are seen as a distinction between either
archaeologists working in the field of astronomy or astronomers working on the topic of archaeology.
This case is ideal to illustrate that the subject area is sometimes seen as an area one cannot specialise
in. Either one is an astronomer or an archaeologist. Or even blunter, the subject area is classed as a
service subject that has no own identity [10; 11, p. 336]. This mistake might result from the extreme
interdisciplinary character of the subject. It includes also aspects of anthropology, sociology and
pedagogy which led Ruggles and Saunders [12], Ruggles [13] and Iwaniszewski [14] to use the term
cultural astronomy to stress the additional aspects. Research might now include astronomical beliefs of
current people exemplified in the recent 2012 Mayan apocalyptic prophecy and its contemporary
reactions [15]. Silva and Campion [16] in the field have coined the term skyscape archaeology as
describing their work. Here the term stresses the importance of the conjunction of monument,
landscape, people and the sky above. This final realization of how these components interact will
allow understanding an astronomical alignment.
Figure 1. The structure of the central
Stonehenge phase 3 monument as well as the
avenue approaching Stonehenge are shown.
The main axis is indicated oriented towards
midwinter sunset and midsummer sunrise.
Additionally landscape contour are pointing
out the slope the avenue runs up to
Stonehenge.
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
2
These different attempts show that this subject contains many researchers with a very different
background that do not feel they are using archaeoastronomy as a way to gain further insight of their
own field. Such varied discussions related to many disciplines illustrates that archaeoastronomy is a
subject of its own that thrives on the complexity of the different subjects contributing and defining it.
In the following section, some key concepts of the main contributors of the field: archaeology,
anthropology and astronomy will be outlined. This will be followed by a description of how
archaeoastronomy grew as a topic and highlights the challenges it had to face given its
interdisciplinarity. These challenges are the fires out of which something is rising that the author is
terming modernised. Some have called their work modern archaeoastronomy due to the instruments
used and the removal of old misconceptions leading the researcher to see their own reflection in
ancient people and their beliefs [17]. The author however sees this newly emerging field as
modernised. It fully embraces rational scientific facts and reasoning exemplified by Thom’s [18] and
Ruggles’ [19] work making it modern from the point of view of a humanist. But it also now introduces
the dimension of meaning explored through new methods and embracing anthropological ideas.
2. Key concepts
Archaeoastronomy’s main three contributing fields of research are Archaeology, Anthropology and
Astronomy. The following will describe some basic concepts as perceived by the author that are
required to understand the development of archaeoastronomy and its current status. By no means are
they or can even attempt to summarise the complete context and entire background in these areas.
They set the stage for the following other contributions in these proceedings putting them into context
and allowing the reader to see the greater picture into which the narrative of each paper fits.
2.1. Archaeological context
Archaeology as a discipline has undergone a long development until it arrived at the status we are
familiar with today. These developments impacted upon dating, archaeological theory used to
understand the material record and finally also upon the picture of the people that created the material
record [20].
Firstly, the material record analyzed in archaeology does not come with an associated time of
creation. Each artifact or monument has to be seen in its context of associated finds to derive a
probable date or period during which the artifact was created or the monument erected [20]. Therefore
in some instances only a reliable time sequence can be determined for a site without being able to
determine an absolute age. From such work the three periods of Stone, Bronze and Iron Age were
derived as periods spanning times from several 100,000 years up to only decades after the birth of
Christ. The periods are as their names suggest based upon the predominant material used. However,
such a dating method is flawed in a sense that for example stone tools were not immediately dropped
in favor of bronze. The usage of materials undergone a subtle change that also very much depended
upon the location of the area of interest [20]. But such a dating system is still in place as an easy
reference and table 1 gives an overview over the periods from the end of the last Ice Age up to the
arrival of the Romans in Britain for the British Isles. Additionally, figure 2 illustrates the coastline in
western Europe during the end of the last Ice Age and just before Britain became detached from main
land Europe.
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
3
Table 1. Periods, dates and associated key events for the British Isles from [21]
Period
Date (years)
Key events
Stone Age
Palaeolithic
500,000 BP
First humans in Britain
End of Ice Age
Mesolithic
10,000 BP
Britain becomes detached from mainland
Europe 5,900 BC
Neolithic
5,000 BC
Early farming
Causewayed enclosures and long barrows
Stonehenge and Avebury
Bronze Age
2,150 BC
Iron Age
750 BC
Ends with the arrival of Romans 43 AD
The advent of carbon dating brought a new approach to dating artifacts that contain organic
remains and allowed to introduce absolute dating [22, pp. 65—96]. However this brings with it a
whole new set of challenges such as the influence of modern atomic tests distorting the isotopic
reference of today as well as having to ensure that the sample has not been polluted. The method also
requires the presence of organic remains at a site. This specific remain can be dated and its context
with regards to either monument or artifact of interest.
There are other contemporary methods [22] that use magnetic rearrangement within the material
caused by fire or the luminescence of material to determine the amount of time the sample has been
buried and removed from sunlight. Overall the challenges remain the same and give us a probable date
including a more or less broad range of error.
Secondly, also the theoretical standpoint upon which archaeology is based, has undergone
Figure 2. The approximate distribution of
coastlines from their current location to 20,000
BC including the rough location of the remaining
icecaps at the end of the last Ice Age. Note that
until 6,900 BC Britain was still part of the
European mainland.
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
4
significant changes from the early times of the development of this field. Archaeology was born within
the realm of collectors and ‘treasure’ hunters not too different from the Indiana Jones depicted in
Hollywood movies [20, p. 21]. The focus lay upon creating a map and list of the entire world within
the Victorian idea of natural history [23]. This included treasures often displayed in cabinets of
curiosity [24]. This approach left little interest upon how the site actually looked like, the context in
which the artifact was found and the conservation of the actual site. Some classical examples of what
is called antiquarians of these times were individuals such as Thomas Bateman [25, 26] and Hayman
Rooke [27] that excavated many ancient monuments across the Peak District in England during the
end of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century. But archaeology moved on; the
creation of site plans, as well as the realization that the sequences of deposits within a site can allow
for a relative dating, made this field become what we are used to see at modern excavations. The
theoretical concepts to interpret the material record were described from the 1860 onwards as Cultural-
Historical [28 p. 235]. Each culture was identified by distinct methods and symbols used in their
craftsmanship. Cultures would then evolve when ideas diffuse from one group of cultures to another.
Vere Gordon Childe expanded on this idea of diffusion by adding the concept of revolutions that for
example introduced farming to ancient people (Neolithic Revolution) [29]. As can be imagined such a
cultural fixation lent itself to nationalistic approaches to explain the superiority of one country or race
especially given definitions of culture in that period, for example Raymond Williams’ proposal of
culture as civilization [30]. Eagleton states that it still remains a challenging and complex word to
define [31]. Different aspects of this problematic idea are exemplified in the extreme by the Third
Reich and their obsession with the Arian race or through the imperialist and colonial views of Britain
illustrated for example in the first interpretation of Great Zimbabwe and its origin not being African
but from middle eastern cultures [32]. From 1960 a new kind of archaeology was promoted which
called itself new-archaeology or processual archaeology [33]. It based its work strongly upon new
scientific analysis introduced into archaeology such as carbon dating. The idea of the scientific method
was applied to archaeology. Archaeology started to rely heavily upon testing hypothesis with scientific
facts. It also became clear that the emphasis had to move away from general culture towards the
people themselves, since anthropology had shown that different ethnics groups cannot always be
discerned using the material record. From the 1980 onwards the extreme reliance upon scientific
method alone was starting to be criticized. Individuals such as C Tilley, I Hodder, M Shanks and D
Miller called for a change to a new theoretical approach which they called post-processual
archaeology now known as interpretative archaeology [34]. The absolute objectivity of the researcher
interpreting the scientific facts is questioned and the importance of self-reflection is highlighted.
Interpreting a site becomes self-interpretation and a realization of the prejudice an archaeologist brings
with them when interpreting the material record, for example the realization that the male perspective
of interpretation needs to be dropped. As such they stress that there is no single interpretation of the
material record but many that depend upon the researchers stand point.
The last shift in archaeology can be seen in how ancient people were described by archaeologists.
In the early periods of archaeology, prehistoric cultures were described as primitive and basic
containing no complex rituals or the ability to conceive complex buildings. In this picture dominant
during the Victorian period the light of civilization expressed through farming was brought to the
brutes in Europe from the East [35]. Overall, pre-Neolithic people were seen as barbarians. However,
our current understanding is quite different to this picture drawn in Victorian times. The excavations at
Göbliki Tepe in Turkish Mesopotamia uncovered the oldest stone temple erected [36]. It has been
dated to 9,000 BC and consists of several ellipsoidal stone sanctuaries built by a hunter gatherer
society, ie pre-Neolithic. The impressive T-shaped stones used for the buildings as well as the
complex symbols used for decoration belie the image of barbarians. Even though this is a singular
monument and not sampling people from the geographic region discussed here, the sheer existence of
the monument and its complexity illustrates the mental and physical ability of such ancient people.
Furthermore, anthropology has also strengthened the idea that such pre-Neolithic societies had
complex belief systems based upon a lunar template [11]. Overall, the notion of brutes and barbarians
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
5
has to be abandoned that describes ancient people predating the period labeled Neolithic Revolution
that are the focus of the papers in these proceedings.
2.2. Anthropologically influenced context
Gosden states that ‘Archaeology is Anthropology or nothing’ [37], illustrating how close these two
subjects are linked. Gosden lists contributors to archaeology being archaeology, social/cultural
anthropology, physical anthropology and linguistics. Therefore the influence of anthropological work
in archaeoastronomy has to be substantial. Given such a vast subject area the author can only focus on
some for him and the proceedings relevant areas that allow speculating upon the meaning of
monuments for ancient people. More specifically it supports the existence of a complex belief system
as described previously. It allows exploring and explaining how lunar rituals embed into hunter
gatherer societies outlined by Sims [38] and based upon ideas of sex strike and dark Moon [39]. It also
helps to shed light into the transition from lunar to solar beliefs associated to the Neolithic Revolution.
This is also referred to as the agricultural revolution and expresses the change from hunting and
gathering to agriculture [40]. Especially the idea of the Neolithic Revolution and its impact will be
described here in more detail since it is part of several narratives in these proceedings.
Initially it was thought, the people moved in from the East as shown in figure 3 bringing farming
and civilisation into the area to become the British Isles that was just becoming habitable after the last
Ice Age. They were to find either an empty land or few barbaric uncultured people. In a sense, V G
Childe argues that they found a clean slate onto which new rituals and beliefs could be inscribed [41].
It has been demonstrated through DNA research that such a simple explanation is incorrect and a
result of outdated DNA analysis methodology. Modern DNA methods can trace the lineage of the
people of Europe to several regions. One does indeed include a people originating from the middle
east, but there is also a lineage apparent of a people that originated from a Franco-Cantabrian region as
shown in figure 4 [42, 43, 44], therefore illustrating that the true picture is far from simple. This is
further underlined by current research showing that there is a third lineage from a west Siberian
population that has been added as well [45].
These results are important since the Franco-Cantabrian region has been identified as one of several
refugia of the last Ice Age 20-25,000 years ago [46]. The people of the late Palaeolithic would have
been able to survive in these regions and then repopulate Europe bringing with them their whole
complex cultural belief system and culture. Therefore, Europe would have been already populated by a
cultivated people and would have not represented V G Childe’s clean slate. The existence of refugia
has also been supported by the analysis of the material record through Clive Gamble and his S2AGES
project; it has determined the same region from which 19,000 years ago Europe was repopulated [46].
Combining all this evidence Frank [47] developed a narrative that describes the European culture
drawn from its ancient Palaeolithic routes which survived the last Ice Age and she coined this
Palaeolithic Continuity / Refugia Theory.
The resulting impact upon archaeoastronomy was outlined by Silva and Frank [48] and criticises
the interpretation of the Neolithic Revolution as either a replacement of people or their ideas. Neither
were the people in Europe replaced by eastern people proficient in farming, nor were their beliefs
(probably based upon a lunar mind set) simply replaced by solar orientated beliefs through a one-way
acculturational process. What is put forward is rather a smoother continuous change that included the
adoption of farming in a slow process including setbacks and adaptations. It also incorporated the
gentle merging of the two belief systems to a new set of beliefs that can be supported for example
through the pottery introduced into Mesolithic Scandinavia still containing patterns previously popular
[49] as well as by anthropological research of colonized peoples that show elements of the world view
of colonisers and colonised to merge [50]. This means overall, that megalithic remains in Europe are
not the evidence of a sudden change in culture but illustrate old ideas using new methods to express
them [51].
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
6
2.3. Astronomy
To uncover belief systems of ancient people within the material record for example in monuments
such as Stonehenge, several astronomical key concepts are needed that can point out lunar, solar, or
stellar alignments. Many of the key concepts of astronomy related to archaeoastronomy will be only
briefly outlined since it is assumed that the reader will have a general understanding of astronomy.
First the idea of alignments will be described including its problems; this will be followed by dates
that structure the yearly rhythm of the passage of the Sun for example Solstices and Equinoxes. An
overview of the movement of the Moon will be given mentioning the idea of lunar standstills. Finally,
stellar events are outlined described as stellar phases.
The concept of alignments is a fundamental idea within archaeoastronomy and has shaped the
development of this field. It is one way of including astronomical meaning within a monument.
Alignments most commonly point out a direction towards the horizon where a celestial body, for
example Sun, Moon or a star, rises or sets. An alignment is defined by a minimum of two objects, a
straight wall or a constricted view from a defined location. In general it can point towards two equally
valid directions 180 degrees apart in azimuth. However this duplicity can be clarified given the context
of the setting, for example a burial chamber with a single straight entrance passage will have only one
alignment pointing out of the chamber, with its narrow opening defining a range surrounding this
alignment. The determination of the azimuth of the alignment, most commonly carried out using a
magnetic compass, needs to take into account the local magnetic North as well as possible other site
specific deviations. However, the value of azimuth will not allow comparing alignments between
different sites since it points to rising and setting directions on the local horizon. Therefore, the
geographic latitude of the site needs to be taken into account as well as the contours of the local
horizon. These parameters allow the transformation of an azimuth into a declination of objects that rise
or set in this direction for the site of interest. The knowledge of the horizon profile is essential since an
error of 3 degrees in horizon altitude at our latitudes can lead to an error of 5 degrees for the rising or
setting of the Sun at its Solstices illustrated in figure 5. Furthermore, other aspects such as lunar
parallax (regarding the lunar alignments only) and atmospheric refraction can also alter the exact
declination associated to an azimuth [1, p. 22].
Alignments allow tracking the passage of celestial objects such as the Sun as their rising and setting
locations on the local horizon change during the seasons. Such observations allow developing a
calendar identifying important times during the year. The extremes (Solstices) and symmetry points
(Equinoxes) of the solar movement are especially of interest. Solstices occur midwinter and
midsummer when the declination of the Sun reaches its minimum or maximum respectively. The
Equinoxes occur initially due East or West independent of geographic location but can vary given the
local horizon profile. The finer details regarding non equal separation of the year in time by the
equinoxes or the introduction of quarter days is left to the reader to investigate and will not be relevant
for this paper [1, p. 54]. However it is worthwhile pointing out the slow change of the obliquity of the
ecliptic that has led to a general decrease in obliquity to the current value degrees. A
typical value for 2,000 BC is and for 4,500 BC (taken from Laskar [52]).
A similar pattern could be determined for the movement of the Moon along the local horizon.
However, the lunar orbit is tilted to the ecliptic by degrees resulting in the Moon’s extremes
varying each month. Therefore, we can only determine a most northern major or minor limit when the
Moon has a declination and respectively. A similar definition can be done for the
most southern major and minor limits when the Moon has a and respectively.
The overall declination of the Moon is given in figure 6 and follows an envelope wave with the upper
and lower envelope showing a period of 18.6 years and the wave itself showing a period of 27.3 days.
Analysing the lunar movement to high precision can allow determining eclipses. But the precision
required is of the order of arcminutes and needs to take into account further lunar nutations and
refraction. Additionally it requires the observation of full Moons at the extremes [53]. All these
constraints make such a practice highly challenging and very unlikely [1, p. 49].
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
7
An established alignment can point out not only the Sun or Moon but also denote the rising or
setting position of a star on the local horizon. This might initially seem as if we have a plethora of
possible positions of stellar significance, however the amount of stars visible while rising on the
horizon is very small. Assuming a local horizon has possible altitudes of not more than 2 degrees and
extremely good viewing conditions comparable to modern observatory sites such as the Cerro Tololo
Inter-American Observatory, only the rising or setting of stars with a visible magnitude brighter than 1
mag can be observed [54, p. 34]. This limits the amount of possible stars to sixteen of which only nine
stars can rise or set at latitudes typical to the British Isles. Given that alignments were established
several millennia ago the effect of precession would have to be taken into account that can alter the
declination of the rising and setting positions considerably [55]. But even if a date for the alignment
was known, varying atmospheric conditions would alter the effect of refraction by several degrees; as
well as transparency impacting on visibility [54, p. 36]. Therefore, using possible stellar alignments as
a dating method is not trustworthy [1, p. 52]. It should be mentioned though, that stellar alignments
can still be of interest when drawing a precise date from other methods. Then the use of certain stars
can be included in the narrative describing the meaning of the monument.
Furthermore, a stellar narrative can be included in a belief system through its naked eye
observation that does not require any alignments but expresses the general visibility of the star.
Ptolemy described different visibility patterns of stars as star phases. A description by Brady [56] is
outlined as follows: At our latitude the visibility of stars can initially be classified into three
categories: the star is never visible, it is always above the horizon ie circumpolar, or its apparent
movement across the sky includes rising and setting. However, Brady points out that the latter group
of rising and setting stars can be further classified into two groups. The first group displays a long
period of invisibility in the night sky typically weeks or months, which starts with its final setting just
after sunset and ends with its first rising just before sunrise. The beginning of the long period of
visibility is usually labelled as heliacal rise; Ptolemy called this star phase Arising and Laying Hidden
(ALH, [57, p. 5]). A common misconception, as Brady continues, is that this is the only star phase
possible for a rising and setting star, but as Ptolemy describes there is a second group that never has a
long period of invisibility at night. Rather it will either be visible all night or set in the evening and
rise in the morning of the same night. This star phase is labelled Curtailing Passage (CP, [57, p. 5—6])
and stars that show this behaviour lie in declinations between ALH and circumpolar stars. For a more
Figure 5. The impact the local horizon
altitude has upon transforming measured
azimuths into declinations. Two different
landscape profiles are indicated with an
altitude difference of 3 degrees between
each other. The Sun’s disc is indicated for
the same azimuth but clearly two different
azimuths.
Figure 6. The motion of the Moon in declination
over a period of 18.6 years illustrating the envelope
wave apearance of its motion and the definition of
Major and Minor standstills.
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
8
detailed definition of this star phase see Brady [56, p. 79]. Brady point out that the CP has been
overlooked and ignored starting with Ptolemy himself in his further work but also includes current
researchers such as Ruggles [58] and others. One reason could be the difficulty and confusion arising
from naming the different rising and setting possibilities for star phases. Brady [56] introduces a more
systematic nomenclature and highlights in more detail the impact of overlooking CP star phases; she
interprets Old Kingdom Pyramid texts as containing a narrative based upon star phases including ALH
and CP. This is especially interesting since it adds a larger variety of naked eye stellar observations
beyond the heliacal rising, classically exemplified in ‘When the Pleiades (...) are rising, begin to
harvest’ from Hesiod’s Works and Days [59], therefore offering the basis for a greater richness in a
stellar narrative.
3. A developing field
Having now an overview of the basic concepts essential in understanding archaeoastronomy, the
historic development of this field of research can be described. This will in some parts mirror
previously mentioned developments in archaeology, but most importantly illustrate the large rift
between the two disciplines of astronomy and archaeology that had to be to some extent overcome. A
description of the first solution of this disciplinary divide will then be briefly outlined that has initially
led archaeoastronomy to be termed modern. However some outstanding issues still remain unsolved
and more recent attempts solving these issues will be introduced making this field (from the
perspective of the author) modernised.
A detailed introduction to the development of what was to become archaeoastronomy can be found
in Ruggles [1, pp. 3—10] and will be summarised here. Initially the subject of prehistoric astronomy
was only touched upon by early British antiquarians that were amazed by the intricate structure of
stone circles and their widespread distribution throughout the British Isles dating back as far as the
beginning of the eighteenth century. Some of the key figures were William Stukeley first proposing a
midsummer alignment at Stonehenge [60], John Wood postulating a lunar alignment at Stonehenge
[61], and John Smith describing Stonehenge as having a complex astronomical layout [62]. All these
statements were only loose descriptions without accurate measurements. This changed in 1906 with
Sir Norman Lockyer when he published a book on his detailed survey of several megalithic sites
proposing alignments with the Sun, Moon and several stars [63]. Archaeologist in general responded
rather sparsely to these discoveries and if at all were not unsympathetic to the ideas of such alignments
[64, 65, 66]. However, the upcoming problems were already apparent through Childe’s critique of
early works by Thom [67] in which he expressed doubts that primitive cultures could include complex
astronomical knowledge given their ‘primitive subsistence-farming’. Apart from hints that the general
concept of prehistoric people at that time did not allow for such advanced skills to set up alignments, a
further problem was appearing. Childe comments that archaeologists dealing with astronomical data
and explanations of alignments felt intimidated by the mathematical formulism used [68].
Astronomers on the other hand seemed to ignore the framework upon which a social framework had
been developed by archaeologists.
At this point the scene was set for the publication of a book that had wide reaching impact upon the
field in general but also how it was perceived by the general public. It was the key trigger for more
than twenty years of intense debate and still impacts the current perception of archaeoastronomy. In
1965 Gerald Hawkins published Stonehenge decoded [69]. This booked claimed to have solved all the
mysteries of Stonehenge using the then rare and powerful help of computers to support the claims of
solar and lunar alignments. Its impact was immense given its use of computer to link ancient
monuments to space, at a time where the society was mesmerised by the race to the Moon. It also was
published during a time when the ‘alternative movement’ emerged and archaeology with its strict
scientific methodology had become dry and removed from the people it was analysing [70].
Stonehenge with its possible alignments as well as prehistoric astronomy became something the
general public got involved in. This led to a need for archaeologist to respond. Richard Atkinson did
so in a strong and passionate manner, condemning Hawkins work as arrogant and unconvincing [71].
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
9
In general, responses from the archaeology community were rhetorical or nonexistent. The large
public interest however required a more detailed debate and this opportunity was created by Glyn
Daniel the editor of Antiquity, inviting both Atkinson and Fred Hoyle and hoping both would criticise
Hawkin’s work. However, Hoyle supported the findings of Hawkin and further developed the ideas
using more complex mathematical methods [72, 73]. At this point it became clear that Stonehenge had
become the focus of a clash between astronomy and archaeology clearly expressed by leading figures
in these fields.
With the work by Thom [18] on megalithic sites in Britain, the focus swiftly moved away from
Stonehenge and to general stone circles. Thom’s work was different in that it used a large sample of
monuments and removing the most common issue raised so far that one example of a theory does not
prove its validity. But Thom’s work only further strengthened the idea of ancient people being highly
versed in geometry and using well developed units. This became even more problematic when Thom
outlined the arcminute precision of lunar alignments [74] illustrating that ancient people had
knowledge quite similar to seventeenth and eighteenth century astronomers. The statistical basis Thom
placed his work on was seen as a strong argument by some that ‘Thom’s evidence that megalithic man
observed the Moon is so strong that it may be accepted without hesitation’ [75]. But the debate raging
after Hawkin’s book was published a decade earlier still showed that there was no real communication
and constructive debate between astronomers and archaeologists. Hawkes argues that many
archaeologists saw the idea of the megalithic people being adapt in astronomy and geometry as seeing
your own reflection in the past [76].
Only in the mid seventies and early eighties did the rift slowly close. Researchers had noted that
Heggie [75] had raised some points regarding accepting high precision alignments and international
meetings were organised bringing together both British and American researchers discussing not only
prehistoric astronomy but placing it into a worldwide context including pre-Columbian and indigenous
American astronomy. At this time the term archaeoastronomy was coined. Both fields started
constructively criticizing each other including researchers in their field. Most importantly
anthropology was included in the interpretation developed by archaeoastronomy especially through
what is known as ‘brown’ (american) archaeoastronomy for which ethnographic or ethnohistorical
material exists. Only now after more than 20 years, collaboration and critical analysis started to join
both fields and develop a rich interdisciplinary subject area. An area initially called archaeoastronomy
saw aspects of ethnoastronomy and more inform its discipline that led it to be termed cultural
astronomy by for example Ruggles and Saunders [12].
The resulting contemporary discipline of archaeoastronomy is marked through a substantial
technological advance in equipment and a rigid use of archaeological fieldwork. It acquires and
analyses digital landscape models to help assess local horizon profiles [77] or uses GPS equipment to
survey sites and alignments. It is also based upon a very rigid foundation of statistics in which only
large samples of similar monuments can yield the answer to the question: is a discovered alignment
towards a certain azimuth or declination intended or not [1, p. 76]. Overall it includes the
archaeological context of surveyed sites. In its attempt of interpretation it is also wary of making old
mistakes again and finding our society reproduced in ancient people. Examples of such modern
methodology based upon large samples are: The analysis of the recumbent stone circles of Scotland
carried out by Ruggles [78], covering an area of 4,000 square kilometres and containing 100 surviving
monuments of which 64 were included; as well as the survey of Hoskin [79] of over 1,500 Dolmens
across the Mediterranean with subsamples in Iberia based on river basins or modern political
provinces.
However, this archaeoastronomy has now reached a point at which prominent figures such as
Ruggles are finding that it has still not managed to ground itself in a solid theoretical framework
including testable hypothesis of interpretative anthropology. In short it seems to be ‘running around
the same circles’ [80]. It appears to controversially only be useful as a service discipline for
archaeology [1, p. 11] which is made easy since archaeoastronomy steps back from stating possible
meanings of its findings; an understandable result given the previously outlined reactions caused by
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
10
over interpreting findings. But, this frame of mind is unfortunately equally problematic since we again
project our own prejudices and experiences into the past [1]. Including meaning and basing this
explanation in anthropology was a call raised by Ruggles himself [81] years before. The need to
include meaning has become far more prominent and complex now since aspects such as genetics and
linguistics have illustrated that we have to seek the origins of beliefs of ancient European people in the
Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers; and common sense interpretations usually including calendrical theory
based upon the debatable idea of the Neolithic Revolution, as described previously, are insufficient. In
many cases this contemporary archaeoastronomy has been a success in hunting for alignments only
relying on the rational scientific machinery. An alignment, azimuth or declination is just a bare
number that cannot express by itself what celestial object was the target and gives no indication of the
narrative expressed by its instatement. It also still assumes levels of precision and of observation
similar to a naked eye astronomer today, ignoring that experiencing, watching and anticipating are also
key factors of engaging with the monument, landscape, and celestial bodies in the sky above. And
most importantly this contemporary archaeoastronomy only accepts findings resulting from statistical
analysis and drawn from sample, making the analysis of single monuments very difficult or impossible
[77, 82].
The described challenges, a result of what humanists would understand as modern
archaeoastronomy, can be overcome by truly modernising archaeoastronomy and have been outlined
in Sims [11]: All theories relevant to prehistoric monument building cultures need reviewing to
complete a thorough scientific process. Furthermore, initial research and its resulting debate in the
wake of Hawkin’s work have to be included and discussed, for example lunar standstills and their
meaning as debated by Heggie [83]. And finally, leading figures, allowing the rift in
archaeoastronomy to be bridged and developing this modern discipline, have to support the inclusion
of overlooked issues that should characterise a modernised archaeoastronomy and humanists might
then understand as post-modern embracing the pluralism of today’s academic approach to landscape
and ancient people. These should be not only theoretical issues allowing an engagement with the
broader archaeological record, but also four key methods stated by Sims:
(Land/Sky)-scape Phenomenology: This can be described as the experience of the land/sky-
scape and how it engages with a viewer [84]. It is one
approach to analysing land/sky-scapes and allows
explaining the location of a site of archaeoastronomical
relevance.
Monte Carlo Simulations: In this context it is used as a statistical approach to draw at
random possible positions for a monument of
archaeoastronomical relevance within its local land/sky-
scape. Thereby, it creates an artificial sample of possible
monuments and enables an explanation of why a unique
monument was located in such a way in its land/sky-scape
[85]. It also can allow the calculation of the probability of a
random alignment and compare them with actual
alignments in the monument.
Computer Modelling: Creating a fully three dimensional computer model of a
monument, its landscape, and the sky above enables the
researcher to test different hypothesis [86]. This approach
includes for example the appearance of the monument and
celestial bodies when approaching the monument using
different paths. One might be reminded of the effect of
approaching Stonehenge along the Avenue.
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
11
Explaining Special Features: Singular unique monuments or monuments within initially
similar groups might show detailed features. A possible
hypothesis put forward to explain the meaning of a
monument might not be able to incorporate this and will
allow testing for an astronomical property [1, 87, 88].
Tying all these approaches together and presenting a new way forward to break out of running around
in circles is proposed by Silva [77] who has called for a Skyscape Archaeology. This approach is a
reaction upon the challenges archaeoastronomy still faces and acknowledges, as Brown outlines, the
importance of meaning and including the entire monument, landscape, and sky together with the
viewer into an overall skyscape experience [82].
Over half a century archaeoastronomy has come a long way and has defined a field that is
interdisciplinary in nature. It has become a modern discipline through embracing modern
technological advances and to a certain extent advancing its theoretical standpoint. However, recent
researchers are now shaping an archaeoastronomy that has become modernised from its basic roots of
theoretical grounding up to its applications in archaeological fieldwork. It therefore realises
phenomenology and other approaches typical to the pluralism of today’s academic engagement with
landscape and ancient people, shifting it towards what humanists would define as post-modern. As a
scientist the author feels that at this stage archaeoastronomy has become fully modernised.
4. Conclusions
While introducing the notion of a modernised archaeoastronomy, the author has given some attempts
at outlining what the term archaeoastronomy means, including its description as cultural astronomy
and skyscape archaeology. The different names for this field derived from the realisation of the
multiple disciplines and methodologies included. Stonehenge was used as a blueprint towards
understanding archaeoastronomy and highlighting some of the challenges the discipline has faced in
its past and is still struggling with, mentioning for example that alignments are by themselves
meaningless pointers towards an abstract declination and need to be filled with astronomical meaning.
To develop a better understanding of the historic developments in this field and its problems, a set of
key concepts were introduced covering aspects of archaeology, anthropology and astronomy, followed
by an overview of the development archaeoastronomy has undergone. The emphasis was placed on the
rift between archaeology (a humanist discipline) and astronomy (a science discipline) that then led on
to being bridged but only to a certain extent. It is argued, that to create a discipline that has its own
identity and does not function as a pure service discipline, it should include the interpretation of
meaning into its remit. Having been burnt through the past experience of over interpreting alignments
and astronomical motivated features, archaeoastronomy has shied away from this challenge. As an
initially modern discipline it has focused more upon alignment hunting and establishing a strict
statistical approach with sometimes debatable sample composition. Sims [11] and Silva [77] have
offered a promising new approach described by the author as truly modernising archaeoastronomy. It
includes not only testable theories originating from interpretive anthropology and a solution to the
unique monument problem, but also aspects of phenomenology and experiencing skyscape.
Several Authors such as Brown, Armstrong, Pritchard and others have also successfully included
these methods and approaches into their archaeoastronomical research [89]. Additionally recent
national and international meetings of archaeologists have included contributions and sessions
illustrating the opportunities of this new approach to archaeoastronomy. Its appeal has not only led to
the publication of Skyscapes: The Role and Importance of the Sky in Archaeology [16] and the
establishment of the Journal of Skyscape Archaeology [90], both dedicated to skyscape archaeology. It
also led to the inclusion of a special session dedicated to archaeoastronomy at the National Astronomy
Meeting 2014 of the Royal Astronomical Society with several contributions contained in this volume.
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
12
Overall these responses exemplify the scientific validity and success that this truly modernised
archaeoastronomy has achieved.
References
[1] Ruggles C L1999 Astronomy in prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Astronomy in prehistoric Britain and
Ireland (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press)
[2] Pearson M P and Pearson M P 2012 Stonehenge: a new understanding: solving the mysteries of the
greatest stone age monument (Workman Publishing)
[3] Gaffney C et al 2012 The stonehenge hidden landscapes project Archaeological Prospection, 19(2),
147—55
[4] Cleal R, Walker K E, Montague R and Allen, M J 1995 Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century
excavations (Vol. 10) (London: English Heritage)
[5] O'Kelly M J 1982. Newgrange: archaeology, art and legend (London: Thames and Hudson) pp 123—4
[6] Bertemes F, Biehl P F, Northe A and Schröder O 2004 Die neolithische Kreisgrabenanlage von Goseck,
Ldkr. Weißenfels Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt 2 137—45
[7] Biehl, P F 2011 9 Meanings and functions of enclosed places in the european Neolithic: A contextual
approach to cult, ritual, and religion Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association 21.1 130—46
[8] Ridderstad, M 2009 Orientation of the northern gate of the Goseck Neolithic rondel preprint
arXiv:0910.0560
[9] Marshall M P and Sofaer A 1988 Solstice project investigations in the Chaco District 1984 and 1985:
The technical report. Ms. on file, Laboratory of Anthropology (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
[10] Ruggles C L 2011 Archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy: Building bridges between cultures
International Astronomical Union Symposium (Vol. 278) ed C L Ruggles (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)
[11] Sims L D 2012 Where is cultural astronomy going? Stars and Stones: voyages in archaeoastronomy and
cultural astronomy – a meeting of different worlds ed F Pimenta et al (Oxford: BAR International
Seried 2720) pp 336—40
[12] Ruggles C L and Saunders N 1993 Astronomies and cultures Proceedings of the III «Oxford»
International Symposium on Archaeoastronomy ed C L Ruggles and N Saunders (University of
Colorado, Department of Fine Arts) 1—31
[14] Iwaneiszewski S 1995 Archaeoastronomy and Cultural Astronomy in Archeologia e Astronomia:
Esperienze e Prospettive Future (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei)
[15] Campion N 2013 The 2012 phenomenon in context: Millenarianism, new age and cultural astronomy,
Ancient Cosmologies and Modern Prophets Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the European
Society for Astronomy in Culture ed I Sprajc and P Pehani (Ljubljana:EBSCO publishing) 15
[16] Silva F, Campion N eds. 2015 Skyscapes: The Role and Importance of the Sky in Archaeology (Oxford:
Oxbow)
[17] Hawkes J 1967 God in the machine Antiquity 41(163) 174—80
[18] Thom A and Thom A 1967 Megalithic sites in Britain (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
[19] Ruggles C L 1984 A new study of the Aberdeenshire Recumbent Stone Circles, 1: Site data Journal for
the History of Astronomy Supplement 15 55
[20] Stiebing W H 1993 Uncovering the past: a history of archaeology (Oxford University Press) pp 20-5
[21] Pryor F 2003 Britain BC: life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans (HarperCollins Publishers)
[22] Taylor R E and Aitken M J 1997 Chronometric dating in Archaeology Advances in Archaeological and
Museum Science 2
[23] Gates B T 2007 Introduction: Why Victorian Natural History Victorian literature and culture 35(02) pp
539—49
[24] Bredekamp H 1995 The lure of antiquity and the cult of the machine: The Kunstkammer and the evolution
of nature, art, and technology (Markus Wiener Publishers)
[25] Bateman T and Glover S 1848 Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire (JR Smith)
[26] Bateman T 1861 Ten Years' Diggings in Celtic and Saxon Grave Hills, in the Counties of Derby, Stafford,
and York, from 1848 to 1858: With Notices of Some Former Discoveries, Hitherto Unpublished, and
Remarks on the Crania and Pottery from the Mounds (JR Smith)
[27] Rooke H 1780 An account of some druidical remains on Stanton and Hustle Moor in the Peak,
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
13
Derbyshire Read at the Society of Antiquaries, April 6, 1780 (Gale ECCO)
[28] Trigger B G 1989 A history of archaeological thought 2nd edition (Cambridge University Press)
[29] Childe V G 1936 Man makes himself (London: Watts & Co.)
[30] Williams R 2006 The analysis of culture. Cultural theory and popular culture: A reader 2 p 48—56
[31] Eagleton T 2013 The idea of culture (John Wiley & Sons)
[32] Bent J T and Swan R M W 1893 The ruined cities of Mashonaland (Longmans, Green and co)
[33] Willey G R 1962 Philip Phillips1958 Method and theory in American archaeology (Chicago:University
of ChicagoPress)
[34] Hodder I 1991 Postprocessual archaeology and the current debate Processual and Postprocessual
archaeologies: multiple ways of knowing the past (Southern Illinois Univ) 30-41
[35] Renfrew L C 2011 Before civilization (Random House)
[36] Schmidt K 2000 Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey: A preliminary report on the 1995-1999 excavations
Paléorient 45—54
[37] Gosden C 1999 Anthropology and archaeology: a changing relationship (Psychology Press)
[38] Sims L D 2012 Out of Africa: The solarisation of the Moon Stars and Stones: Voyages in
archaeoastronomy and cultural astronomy – a meeting of different worlds ed F Pimenta et al (Oxford:
BAR International Seried 2720) pp 200—6
[39] Knight C, Power C and Watts I 1995 The human symbolic revolution: a Darwinian account. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 5(01) pp 75—114
[40] Bocquet-Appel J P 2011 When the world’s population took off: the springboard of the Neolithic
Demographic Transition Science 333(6042) pp 560—1
[41] Childe V G 2013 The dawn of European civilization (Routledge)
[42] Richards M, Corte-Real H, Forster P, Macaulay V, Wilkinson-Herbots H, Demaine A, Papiha S, Hedges
R Bandelt H J and Sykes B 1996 Paleolithic and Neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial
gene pool American journal of human genetics 59(1) 185
[43] Richards M 2003 The Neolithic invasion of Europe Annual Review of Anthropology 135—62
[44] Soares P, Achilli A, Semino O, Davies W, Macaulay V, Bandelt H J, Torroni A and Richards M B 2010
The archaeogenetics of Europe Current Biology 20(4) R174—83
[45] Lazarides I et al 2014 Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day
Europeans Nature 513 409—13
[46] Gamble C, Davies W, Pettitt P, Hazelwood L and Richards M 2005 The archaeological and genetic
foundations of the European population during the Late Glacial: implications for ‘agricultural
thinking’ Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15(02) 193—223
[47] Frank R M 2008 Evidence in favor of the palaeolithic continuity refugium theory (pcrt):" Hamalau" and
its linguistic and cultural relatives INSULA: Quaderno di cultura sarda 4 91—131
[48] Silva F, Frank R M 2013 Deconstructing the Neolithic myth: The implications of continuity for European
late prehistory Ancient Cosmologies and Modern Prophets Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the
European Society for Astronomy in Culture ed I Sprajc and P Pehani (Ljuljana:EBSCO publishing) p
223—36
[49] Tilley C Y 1996 An ethnography of the Neolithic: early prehistoric societies in southern Scandinavia
(Cambridge University Press) pp 108,109
[50] de Matos Viegas S 2012 Pleasures that differentiate: transformational bodies among the Tupinambá of
Olivença (Atlantic coast, Brazil) Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18(3) 536—53
[51] Silva F 2012 Cosmologies in Transition MA dissertation (University of Wales)
[52] Laskar J 1986 Polynomial expansion of the planetary secular terms Relativistic and lunar perturbations.
Relativity in Celestial Mechanics and Astrometry. High Precision Dynamical Theories and
Observational Verifications 114 85—92
[53] Thom A 1971 Megalithic lunar observatories (Oxford University Press)
[54] Schaefer B E 1986 Atmospheric extinction effects on stellar alignments Journal for the History of
Astronomy Supplement 17 34
[55] Cooke J A, Few R W, Morgan J G and Ruggles C L 1977 Indicated declinations at the Callanish
megalithic sites Journal for the History of Astronomy 8 130
[56] Brady B 2015 Stars phases: The naked eye astronomy of the Old Kingdom pyramid texts Skyscapes: The
Role and Importance of the Sky in Archaeology ed F Silva and N Campion (Oxbow) in press
[57] Ptolomy C 1993 The phases of the fixed stars (Berkley Springs, WV: The Golden Hind Press)
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
14
[58] Ruggles C L 2005 Ancient astronomy: an encyclopedia of cosmologies and myth (Abc-Cliop) 180
[59] Hesiod 2006 Works and days, Theogony and the shield of Heracules (New York: Dover Press) p13
[60] Stukeley W 1740 Stonehenge, a Temple Restor'd to the British Druids (Forgotten Books)
[61] Wood J 1747 Choir Gaure. Vulgarly called Stonehenge, on Salisbury Plain
[62] Smith J 1771 Choir Gaur: The Grand Orrery of the Ancient Druids, Commonly Called Stonehenge, on
Salisbury Plain, Astronomically Explained, and Mathematically Proved to be a Temple Erected in the
Earliest Ages, for Observing the Motions of the Heavenly Bodies
[63] Lockyer N 1906 Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments: Astronomically Considered
(Macmillan and Company, Limited)
[64] Childe V G 1971 Prehistoric communities of the British Isles (Greenwood Press) p 109
[65] Piggott S 1949 British prehistory (Oxford University Press) p 119
[66] Hawkes J 1962 Man and the Sun (Cresset P) p 168
[67] Thom A S 1995 Walking in all the squares (Argyll publishing, Glendaruel) pp 175, 201,217,314
[68] Thom A 1955 A statistical examination of the megalithic sites in Britain Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society. Series A (General) p 293
[69] Hawkins G S and White J B 1965 Stonehenge decoded (Garden City, NY: Doubleday)
[70] Chippindale C 1994 Stonehenge complete. Stonehenge complete revised edition (Thames and
Hudson/Cornell University Press)
[71] Atkinson R J C 1966 Decoder misled? Nature 210 1302
[72] Hoyle F 1972 From Stonehenge to modern cosmology (W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd)
[73] Hoyle F 1977 On stonehenge (London: Heinemann Educational) 1
[74] Thom A 1971 Megalithic lunar observatories (Oxford University Press)
[75] Heggie D 1972 Megalithic lunar observatories: an astronomer's view Antiquity 46(181) 48
[76] Hawkes J 1967 God in the machine Antiquity 41(163) 174
[77] Silva F 2014 A Tomb with a view: New methods for bridging the gap between land and sky in megalithic
archaeology Advances in Archaeological Practice: A Journal of the Society for American
Archaeology 2(1) 24—37
[78] Ruggles C L 1984 A new study of the Aberdeenshire Recumbent Stone Circles, 1: Site data Journal for
the History of Astronomy Supplement 15 55
[79] Hoskin M A 2001 Tombs, temples and their orientations: A new perspective on Mediterranean prehistory
(Oxbow Books Limited)
[80] Ruggles C L 2011 Archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy: Building bridges between cultures
International Astronomical Union Symposium (Vol. 278) ed C L Ruggles (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)
[81] Ruggles C L and Saunders N 1993 Astronomies and cultures Proceedings of the III «Oxford»
International Symposium on Archaeoastronomy ed C L Ruggles and N Saunders (University of
Colorado, Department of Fine Arts) 15
[82] Brown D 2015 The experience of watching, “Land, Sea and Sky: a ’3-scape’ approach to archaeology” in
Culture and Cosmos 17.2, Fabio Silva (Editor) (Bristol: Culture and Cosmos) pp 5—24
[83] Heggie D C 1981 Megalithic science. Ancient Mathematics and Astronomy in Northwest Europe
(London: Thames and Hudson)
[84] Tilley, C Y 1994 A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths, and monuments (Oxford: Berg) p 10
[85] Sims L D 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(2) 386—408
[86] MacDonald J W 2007 New Media applications and their potential for the advancement of public
perception of archaeoastronomy and for the testing of archaeoastronomical hypotheses Archaeology
and Archaeometry 6(3) 181—84
[87] North J D 1996 Stonehenge: Neolithic man and the cosmos (London: HarperCollins)
[88] Sims L D 2006 The ‘solarization’ of the moon: manipulated knowledge at Stonehenge (Cambridge
archaeological journal) 16(02) 191—207
[89] Silva F eds Special issue on Landscape, Seascape and Skscape Culture and Cosmos 18.1 (Bristol: Culture
and Cosmos)
[90] Silva F, Henty L eds Journal of Skyscape Archaeology (Equinox Publishing Ltd)
http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/JSA
Modern Archaeoastronomy: From Material Culture to Cosmology IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 685 (2016) 012001 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012001
15