|
Taken together, the three monuments of Woodhenge, The Sanctuary, and Stonehenge, display an evolution of geometrical skill that can only be interpreted as
proto-Pythagoreanism, and while it may be possible to infer that astronomical usage was the principle concern, it appears clear that symbolism and reverence for circles was uppermost in the builder's minds. It could be
considered likely that this circular symbolism manifested itself through the observation of the movements of the heavens, and transposed itself symbolically into geometric patterns on the ground. This does not however
fully answer the question of why they would choose to work with such apparent mathematical exactitude. Could there be something that we are missing? If the scientists and astronomers are correct in their
assertion that the Aubrey circle was an astronomical marker, it might force us to tentatively conclude that the same applies at The Sanctuary, where the row of 43 post-holes matches the position of the Aubrey circle. It
is equally clear that the geometrical position of this circle is important, but not the number of holes lying on the circumference. Clearly the ratio of Sarsen circle to
Aubrey circle that appears both at Stonehenge and at The Sanctuary
leads to the conclusion that the two are directly related. What could this relation be? Well some have observed that the Station Stones, which form an approximate rectangle bordering the Sarsen circle, is sized in a Pythagorean triangle of ratio
5 : 12 : 13. Firstly the positioning of the Station Stones is such that the rectangle they form does not touch the Sarsen Circle on both sides. A better fit can be made by
using the nearest Aubrey Holes to the Station Stones, yet even a cursory measurement determines that this ratio is nearer 5 : 12.4 : 13.4, which seems too inaccurate to be
anything other than accidental. One thing appears certain; the Station Stones were erected many centuries after the Aubrey Holes were dug and filled in. There is no guarantee that when these Stones were erected that the
position of the Aubrey Holes was evident. Indeed when John Aubrey discovered them it was only due to the good luck of an extremely parched summer that made the more moist holes stand out. It is entirely possible that
the Station Stones were positioned to satisfy some deep reverence or cult memory of timber posts that had satisfied an earlier significance, but whose position was only generally known. If that is the case then the
astronomical alignments attributed to the Station Stones could well have been an accident, due to their being in proximity to earlier works that may have had earlier astronomical significance. Moreover the general
synthesis of ditch, bank and Sarsen circle, indicates the probability that prior to erection of the Sarsen Stones, an earlier, presumably timber structure, had stood in exactly the same place. The most problematical
features are now seen to be the `Z' and `Y' holes, which do not seem to be discernable at The Sanctuary. This of course fits in with
the archaeological data, which indicates a much later sequential date for the `Z' and `Y' holes, but does not explain why they were seemingly retrofitted to the
overall Stonehenge plan. Most scientists are uncomfortable with the notion that our distant ancestors understood sufficient Pythagorean geometry as to construct such an elaborate plan, but it clearly exists. They have
no such problem in attributing a deep knowledge of astronomy to our ancestors. Archaeologists on the other hand, are dismissive of anything connected with either astronomy or Pythagoreanism. So we have two extremes. The
former generally are scientific pragmatists whose view of religion is hindered by their analytical training and modern worldview, and the latter, whose view of science is that it had no bearing on the primitive cultures
of the time. Yet for those not encamped in either discipline the probability that the earliest Stonehenge builders operated with both astronomical and religious imperatives is a more viable solution. Why else for
example, would the Heel stone be positioned one Aubrey Circle diameter from the Grand Trilithon? A fact commented upon by John North, who could only add, `…it is hard to see any significance in this´.
1
Yet this Astro-religious imperative would appear to have been restricted to the earliest of building phases, as astronomical alignments connected with the later works have always been difficult to determine. You will
recall that archaeological evidence suggests that the site was abandoned around 2600 BC, which has been connected with the grooved ware cult, just prior to the time of Beaker pre-eminence. It would not be difficult to
contend that this was the result of a schism, and I use the word entirely in its religious context, between the original culture and a newer one of not necessarily lesser intellect, but one that valued symbolism over
practicality. Many centuries down the line this cultic imperative may well have resulted in an attempt to pay homage to the unfathomable ideas of their predecessors by re building the monument to its perceived former
grandeur. Such building works would appear to have lacked precision and testify to a degeneration of understanding that resulted in the haphazard arrangements of later times. However it is clear that demonstrating
the geometric sophistication of Stonehenge and the contemporaneous nearby monument of The Sanctuary does nothing to explain its presence. So are we observing a freak of Neolithic sophistication or the remnants of a
forgotten and almost alien mathematical heritage? The late Alexander Thom undertook groundbreaking research that indicated the presence of precise geometric forms within the many monuments that make up the Neolithic
landscape of Great Britain, but despite their varying complexity none of them mirrors the sophistication of these Wiltshire monuments. To postulate that this was an isolated example of a localized cult and therefore
unique within the context of Neolithic history, ignores the evidence for wide scale interaction of different cultures within the timescale of the prolonged megalithic works. But to do otherwise is to run headfirst into
the brick wall of Stone Age obscurity and the perceived wisdom of current chronologies. It is equally clear that if this geometric knowledge was more than a freak of pre-history, then there should be some evidence
further afield. In searching for this `needle in a haystack´, we are hampered by the indeterminate size of the haystack, and an incomplete understanding of the shape of the needle. We cannot therefore adopt a
mathematical approach and attempt to re-trace the evolutionary footsteps of these distant geometers, for in truth their `footsteps´ form no recognizable path. Yet we do have some clues, for the sophistication and
similarity of the Stonehenge and Sanctuary geometries implies a conceptual plan existed that was rigidly followed by up to three different sets of people, over a period of up to 1500 years. It seems clear that if the
archaeological timeframe has been correctly interpreted, then our choices boil down to two: either to dismiss this geometry as illusory happenstance, or to consider that it is the visible presence of a long lasting,
religious, social or astronomic rite which eludes us. Moreover we would have to tackle the thorny subject as to whether this geometric puzzle originated in Wiltshire or was part of a wider diffusion of early megalithic
experience. In short we are at the crossroads of archaeological thought torn between the prevailing blank wall of orthodoxy and the diffusionist heresy of the past. |
