Archaeological Journal, 49 (1892), 136–154 + fold-out table
{136}
STONE CIRCLES OF BRITAIN1
by a. l. lewis, f.c.a.
1 Read at the Monthly Meeting of the Institute, April 6th, 1892.
The questions—“Who erected the stone circles of Great Britain?” and “Why did they do so?” have been so fully discussed by antiquaries during the last two centuries that it might be thought that no fresh light could be thrown upon them, but so much of this prolonged discussion has been caused, especially of late years, by the discovery of fresh facts regarding the antiquity of the human race and regarding the existence of monuments of a similar description in other parts of the globe, that it may be worth while, from time to time, to reconsider the prevailing opinions upon the subject, and to see how far they are justified by ascertained facts and by probabilities.
Fifty years ago it was generally believed by antiquaries, as well as by others, that man had not occupied the earth for more than a few thousand years, and that the people whom the Romans found here were the earliest inhabitants of the country, and the erection of the stone circles and other rude stone monuments was therefore reasonably enough generally attributed to them, though some writers thought it the work of Romans, Saxons, or Danes. When, however, it was found that the first appearance of man in Britain dated back to a far distant and unknown period, and that long intervals had passed between the introduction of stone, bronze, and iron tools and weapons, and that some at least of the dolmens had probably been erected before the introduction of bronze, a sort of reaction set in, and the mere suggestion that any of the rude stone monuments were erected by the “Druids”—that is to say by the immediately pre-Roman inhabitants under the direction of their priests—was resented with a ferocity which seemed to embody almost as much racial antipathy as antiquarian zeal, and everything in the shape of a {137} dolmen or circle was, as Mr. Fergusson has expressed it, “relegated to the misty haven of prehistoric antiquity.” It was pointed out that circles and dolmens were found in countries where neither Celts nor Druids could be supposed to have existed, it was declared that all alike were places of sepulture, or at least memorials of the dead, and it was even said that Aubrey and Stukeley were the sole inventors of the idea that they ever were anything else. Mr. Fergusson did indeed attempt a diversion of the authorship of the rude stone monuments from the “misty haven of prehistoric antiquity” to the comparatively recent period between the end of the Roman domination and the accession of the Saxon kings to the government of a considerable part of the island, but his views did not find much favour.
The age of these monuments may, it may be supposed, best be judged from the articles (if any)) found in them, but this may be affected by the fact that most of them have been ransacked at an early and unknown period, when metal articles would probably be taken and stone objects left as being useless; and by the further fact that stone implements were used for semi-religious purposes (such as circumcision and opening bodies for embalming) long after bronze and perhaps even after iron had come into use, and that they may therefore also have been buried with bodies, although bronze and iron were being used for the ordinary purposes of life.
Of forty-six dolmens in Algeria investigated by M. M. Feraud and Bourguignat only eight appear to have contained metal objects (Dr. Topinard, Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, July, 1873) and of one hundred and seven dolmens and similar monuments explored in Brittany (being all those of which I have the details) seventy-five contained stone weapons, implements, or ornaments, nine contained iron articles, seven bronze, and one copper. The particulars of these were given by me in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute for Nov. 1885; and, subject to the qualifications already mentioned, this division may be taken as an indication of the proportion in which those monuments belonged to the stone, bronze, and iron periods, taking the two latter to date from the first introduction of bronze and iron respectively into Brittany. I do not of {138} course mean to suggest that the people who were buried in Brittany were those who made the British circles, but I do not think the evidence afforded by British monuments would be materially different, except perhaps as regards the iron period. There have indeed been attempts to show that a dolmen building race came from one quarter, and that a circle building race came from another quarter, but there is no evidence to support this notion; nor is there anything about the construction of a dolmen which might not occur to any people anywhere, and which may not in fact be supposed to have occurred to many people at many times and places, if we may judge from the wide separation of the countries in which dolmens are found and the local differences which exist (as for example between those of Holland, of Central France, and of Brittany.) Neither is there anything in the mere setting up of stones in circles to prove community of race, or influence from a common centre upon various races; but, as I shall presently show, there are other similarities in many of the circles which can only be accounted for by a common influence.
While then it appears, from the wide area over which circles and dolmens are spread, that if they originated with one race it must have been a very early race, which also appears from the objects found buried in and about some of them, it seems also probable, from objects found in and about others, and from traditions connected with them, that their use was continued by some of those later races which conquered the earlier ones, and particularly by the so-called Celtic populations of Gaul and Britain up to their conquest by the Romans, and I, for one, should be quite prepared to believe that the trilithons which distinguish Stonehenge from all other circles were added to it after the departure of the Romans from Britain.
I come therefore to the consideration of the second question—why were the circles constructed?
Few archæologists now doubt that nearly all the dolmens were tombs and nothing else, and many say that all circles, allignments, avenues, and menhirs were also nothing but places of sepulture, or at least memorials of the dead. The latter proposition has no evidence to support it except where sepulchral deposits are actually found, {139} and, if the circles and allignments were nothing but burial places, sepulchral deposits should be found in all of them, and not merely in some of them; but there are many in which no trace of burial has been found, which shows that though sometimes used, like our churches, for interments, yet, as with the churches, interments were neither their sole nor their principal object; and it follows therefore that, even as regards circles where interments are found, those interments were not necessarily the sole or the original object of those circles. Notwithstanding these very obvious considerations Mr. Lukis has said (Proc. Soc. Antiq., 21st May, 1885.) “There is much … to favour a belief that the large monolithic circles in England served the same purpose as the outer ring of monoliths of the Scotch monuments, i.e., that they constituted the stone fence surrounding a family burial place. There is further some reason to believe that the intervals between the large erect stones of this fence were originally filled with a dry walling of small stones, by which means the enclosed sacred area was rendered secure against the intrusion of animals.”1
1 This view had been suggested by Mr. Blight in 1868.
The latter suggestion, except perchance as applying to some insignificant circular arrangement of stones, I know not where, has not a particle of evidence to support it, and we cannot but ask what can possibly have become of the vast masses of dry walling required for such circles as Abury, Arberlowe, Stanton Drew, Long Meg, and Stonehenge, not to mention smaller ones in desolate places where the stones are not in the least likely to have been removed to be made use of?
The Scotch monuments, to which Mr. Lukis alludes in the passage just quoted, are chiefly those of the district round Aberdeen, which differ materially from most others, concerning which there is more structural evidence than in other cases that their primary use was sepulchral, and yet concerning which we have the best preserved tradition that it was not solely sepulchral. Some of these particular circles have a cist in the middle, covered with a low tumulus with stones set round touching each other, a few feet outside which is a circle of larger stones with intervals between them; these stones usually diminish in size from {140} south to north, and between the two largest, at the south side, is a stone set on its longest edge, and occupying the, whole space between them, and in this latter particular these circles differ from all others.
In Vol. 1 of Archæologia, p. 312, is published a letter read before the Society of Antiquaries on 4th December, 1766, but written on 15th June, 1692, to Aubrey by Dr. James Garden, Professor of Theology in King’s College, Aberdeen. This letter is of the greatest importance, not only on account of the manner in which it is authenticated, but because it proves that, although these particular circles seem to have been constructed with a specially sepulchral purpose, the general tradition concerning them two hundred years ago was “that they were places of worship and sacrifice in heathen times,” and that the stone at the south already mentioned was at that time called the altar stone, and that these traditions were communicated to Aubrey on excellent authority, and not, as Mr. John Stuart and others have said, invented by Aubrey without any evidence to support them. We may indeed, on the other hand, reasonably suspect that Aubrey picked up many local traditions about the stone circles in England, which have since been irretrievably lost. Dr. Garden’s letter proves also that, while one of the circles which he describes is now almost destroyed, the other has suffered but little since it was first constructed, having been protected by the superstitious fears of the populace up to Dr. Garden’s time, and being then in much the same condition that it is in now. This is of itself almost a sufficient answer to those who would have us believe that the circles as they now stand are but skeletons which were originally clothed with “dry walling.” The preservation of a well-defined tradition of the connection of these circles with worship and sacrifice also tends to show that, however old these monuments may be, ceremonies of some kind were carried on in them up to the introduction of Christianity, for no tradition of what happened in a pre-Celtic period would have been likely to survive till Dr. Garden’s time. The arrangement of these circles, with a burial or burials in the centre, and a wide path suitable for processions between the inner and outer circles, is favourable to the idea that worship of, or regard for, ancestors entered largely into {141} the ceremonies carried on. There are circles in the Cumbrian Lake District which have also central interments and outer circles, but they have nothing like the “altar stones” of the circles round Aberdeen.
When we turn our attention to the circles of England and Wales we find less evidence, either in the shape of interments within them or of traditions about them, and must therefore enquire what use is suggested by their construction.
At Stonehenge, there have no doubt been interments in the centre, but probably long after the original construction of the circles. Standing inside the circles, we find the largest stones and the so-called altar stone to the south west, and the avenue with its two detached stones to the north-east, and those who stand by the “altar” to see the sun rise on the longest day find that it rises over or close to the detached stone known as the “Friar’s Heel.” It has been said that the stone now prostrate between the circle and the “Friar’s Heel” was formerly upright and would have hidden the “Friar’s Heel” from the circle, but if that were so, it would, I presume, occupy the same position as between the circle and the rising sun that the “Friar’s Heel now occupies, and even if both stones were removed, the whole construction of the circle and avenues would still direct our attention unmistakably in the same line.
At Avebury (by far the most important of the stone circles), no interments have, so far as I am aware, been discovered, though many skeletons are said to have been found at the smaller circle of Overton Hill, a mile from it; there is, however, nothing to support the suggestion that the great circle at Avebury or its inner circles were either sepulchral or memorial. These circles were surrounded by a high bank of earth so that outlying stones could not be seen from them, and would have been useless, but three stones inside the northern inner circle formed three sides of an enclosure which has been called a “cove,” the fourth and open side of which is open to the north-east, and a similar arrangement appears to have existed in the centre of the large circle at Arberlowe in Derbyshire, which like that of Avebury is surrounded by a high bank of earth with a ditch inside it. One part of the bank at Arberlowe has been converted into a sepulchral tumulus, probably {142} when the circle was no longer used for the purpose for which it was originally designed, but I do not know that any burials have been found within the circle itself.
At the Roll-Rich, a circle of the same diameter as Stonehenge, though in every other respect inferior to it, we find an outlying stone (the “Kingstone”) in a north-easterly direction, though not quite at the same point as at Stonehenge, and in some other small circles we also find outlying stones in a north-easterly direction.
At Stanton Drew, three separate circles are arranged in a north-easterly direction one from another, while at Penmaenmawr there are two outlying stones in line in a north-easterly direction, which being down in a valley would not at first sight seem to be of much use, but they direct the eye to a group of three hills over the summit of one of which the sun would probably rise at Midsummer. The observation of this fact led me to notice that, in mountainous districts, hill tops appeared to take the place of outlying stones, and, if the outlying stones had anything to do with the relative position of the sun and the circles, prominent hill tops would certainly be in every respect superior to them, if the circles were so placed that they could be utilised. I also began to see that three summits were often found to the north-east while only single summits appeared in other directions. This is the case at the circles at Swinside and Keswick, in Cumberland, at the Stripple Stones circle in Cornwall and at Penmaenmawr, while at Mitchellsfold (Shropshire), there is a hill to the north-east, on the other side of which, in the same line, and at the same distance, there is a circle called the Hoarstone, beyond which again are three low hills in the same line, and that line is in precisely the same direction as is the “Friar’s Heel” from the “altar stone” at Stonehenge. These facts respecting the relative position of the circles and the hills, though verified by my own observations, and I believe first pointed out by me, are not attested by my statements only, they are proved by the ordnance maps, prepared by officers of the government before I took up the subject at all.
The north-east is, of course, not the only quarter in which outlying stones or prominent hill-tops may be seen when standing inside a circle, and the Diagram or Table at p. 148 is intended to show at one view {143} the various directions in which such objects may be observed. In the first column are the names of the English and Welsh circles which I have investigated, including, I believe, all the principal ones; they are twenty-six in number, and are arranged in geographical order, so that any local peculiarities may be more readily detected. When standing in the centre of a circle, and looking round, a more or less circular horizon is naturally in view from it, and as all circles are theoretically divided into 360 degrees, the rest of the diagram is divided into 360 spaces for each circle, and in these spaces are shown the direction of any special feature in the construction of the circles, and of any striking objects outside them, so that by following the space assigned to each degree from the top to the bottom of the diagram, every coincidence in the direction of such features and objects is at once noticed. As there are only 26 circles and there are 360 degrees, the chances would seem to be great against any such coincidences occurring, but what do we find? Starting from the north west and going round by the north, we find at 55 and 56 degrees north from west in three instances, the most prominent hill round about, and at 70 degrees north from west we find coincidences in the structures of Abury and Stonehenge and possibly of Dance Maen. At north, and within five degrees west from it, we have five cases, two in the Lake district—entrances to circles—and three in Cornwall—the most prominent hills round about. At from ten to fifteen degrees east from north we find six instances, all in Cornwall, and four of them the most prominent hills. Between this and north-east we have eight cases of groups of three hills, which naturally cover many degrees, and two cases of sets of three lines as between the centres of adjoining circles, which may have an affinity to the lines from three different hills, and to other triplicate arrangements connected with the circles. At north-east, and within five degrees from each side of it, we have thirteen instances, which could not possibly occur in only twenty-six circles without a definite purpose. From twenty to thirty degrees north from east we have eight cases—ten degrees north from east, two cases—and three between east and five degrees north of it; besides three which I have marked provisionally as being uncertain.
{144} At or about ten degrees south from east we find four cases, besides a doubtful one, but from this point to south we have only scattered indications twelve certain and six uncertain. At due south we see hills in two or perhaps three instances, and between that and south-west practically nothing. At south-west and five degrees west from it are four instances, which may be said to belong equally to the north-east, depending as they do very much upon the standpoint taken for observation. Five degrees further west there are two cases, to one of which the same remark applies; from that point to west we find only one certain and two uncertain indications, while at west and five degrees on each side, we have five instances, and from them to north-west nothing certain.
We find, therefore, that, as I had previously said, the great majority of indications clusters round about the north-east, and that the north and its immediate neighbourhood on the one hand, and a point halfway between northRead north-east? (cf. next sentence) and east on the other hand, seem to have possessed the next greatest interest for the circle builders, while the western half of the horizon was almost entirely neglected.
The sun at midsummer in this country crosses every point of the horizon from north-east to south, and round to north-west, and any special object anywhere between those points may, therefore, have a reference to the sun at some part of his career, but those at or near the north-east evidently point to his first appearance (or in some cases it may be to the first appearance of the dawn rather than of the sun himself) at Midsummer-day, while those halfway between north-east and east point to the sunrise on May-day, and both Midsummer and May-day are well-known Celtic festivals. It may, however, be said that startling as some of the coincidences shown by my diagram may appear, they are not as a whole sufficiently precise to have an astronomical purpose or origin. In reply to this I would point out that the differences of latitude and of the level of the horizon must be taken into account, so that the actual point where the sun first appears on any given day at any particular circle can only be fixed by observation on the spot, and exact uniformity cannot therefore be looked for. Again, it may be suggested that the number of objects scattered about at other points {145} shows that chance (if not delusion) enters very largely into the results I am endeavouring to demonstrate. In reply to this I may say, firstly, that, for the very purpose of eliminating accidental coincidences, I have put into the diagram many things that I might fairly have passed over, and so have rather weighted the scale against myself; and, secondly, that it is probable that, if the circle builders found a suitable site with some hills in the direction they wanted, and others in directions they did not want, they would, as they could not remove the latter, simply ignore them, but that I, for want of perfect knowledge of their intentions, and of what this investigation may lead to, have put them all down instead of ignoring them.
There still remain to be dealt with the points round about the north, which cannot, in most instances, have anything to do with the sun, and which might be largely added to from the circles near Aberdeen; but with respect to these I am fortunate in having the assistance of Professor Norman Lockyer, who has been confronted with a similar problem in Egypt, where he has found that numbers of the temples were so constructed as to be practically observatories for the point of sunrise at a certain time in the year, and stand nearly east and west, while others are at right angles to them, giving a point for observations directed toward the north; and his suggestion with regard to these is that they were for observing certain stars, or, in other words, that some of the Egyptian buildings were “sun-temples,” and that others were “ star-temples.”1
1 See Nature 16 April, 11 May, 4 June, 2 July, 1891, and January and February, 1892.
This suggestion of Professor Norman Lockyer, although I believe not fully accepted by Egyptologists, I am glad to to be able to adopt with regard to some of our stone circles; I cannot believe that the position of the Keswick circle with regard to Skiddaw and Blencathra is accidental, or dictated merely by an appreciation of natural beauty, but I can well believe that the “great bear” circling round the pole star in the space between those gigantic sentinels might become an object of adoration as well as of observation to a sun and planet observing priesthood and people. In like manner I cannot believe that so many of the Cornish circles were placed just where a carn, the most {146} prominent object round about them, rises abruptly in a more or less northerly direction from them, without some particular intention; especially as we find so many coincidences between the different circles in the direction of the carns and other hills from them. It also appears to me that, while in Egypt some buildings were sun temples and others star temples, in this country the same circles in many cases served for both purposes. I say in many cases, for, while the reference to the north or star quarter appears to be more prominent than that to the north-east or sun quarter in Aberdeenshire, in Cornwall, and perhaps in Cumberland, it seems to be generally absent in the midland counties of England and in Wales. This might be because the people of the first named districts were more occupied in navigation, and had a greater need for star gazing than those of the other districts, or it might be that they represented different immigrations.
With regard to the “Great Bear,” I may mention that some groups of cup markings on rocks in Brittany appear to represent that constellation, while the few circles there are in Brittany seem to have the north-easterly or sun reference. We have the testimony of Cesar that the Druids “discussed many things concerning the stars and their motion,” and Pomponius Mela has recorded that they professed “to know … the form and motion of the heaven and the stars,” and it has, I think, been argued that inasmuch as the circles seemed to be devoted to the worship of the sun and not of the stars, and inasmuch as the Druids, according to the classic authors, paid more attention to the moon and stars than to the sun, they could not have had anything to do with the circles; but, if it should be found from what I have brought before you that some at least of the circles did refer to the stars, this argument—never very forcible—loses what little point it ever possessed.
It must not be forgotten that those who hold that the circles were merely burial places have no explanation whatever to offer about the outlying stones, or the relative positions of circles to each other, or to hills; those are facts which can only be explained by the theory that the circles, though sometimes tombs, were almost always something more.
{147} In further confirmation of the view that our stone circles were intended primarily as places of worship or sacrifice, and secondarily only as places of interment, I have collected a considerable amount of evidence in support of the following propositions and suggestions:—
1. Circles of stones in other countries have been and are used as places of sacrifice or worship, whether standing alone or close together, or even intersecting each other. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the British circles were used in a similar manner.
2. The worship of the sun has been associated with circles as well as with other temples, and the position of other temples has been arranged with reference to that of the sun, and with reference to different seasons or purposes, the east and north-east being especially associated with sun worship. It is therefore reasonable to suppose, that the facts shown by my diagram indicate that different ceremonies were carried on or different gods worshipped in the British circles at different seasons.
3. Hills and mountains have been associated with sun worship and with temples in other countries. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that they have been similarly associated in this country, especially in view of the facts which I have already stated, and which are summarized in my diagram.
4. Tradition is in favour of the use of our own circles as places of worship or sacrifice, and connects them with a period which cannot be considered distantly prehistoric; they have indeed been used in various ways within the historic period, showing a habit of use.
The evidence in favour of these propositions consists chiefly of detached statements of fact, and may therefore more suitably be printed as an appendix than read at length on the present occasion; but I do not suppose that the propositions require much demonstration, or that the suggestions I found upon them will be seriously disputed, and in that case it will follow that it is most likely that the antiquaries of the last century were not so wrong as has since been thought in pronouncing our stone circles to be the temples of our sun and star worshipping ancestors and their Druidic priesthood, although there may be no absolute proof that such was the case.
{148}
Key to Diagram or Table.
Showing the directions in which outlying stones, prominent hills, and other special objects are seen from certain circles in England and Wales.
1 Arborlowe. Entrance to circle at N.W.
2 Keswick Circle. Top of Skiddaw, 34 deg. W. from N.
3 Stripple Stones. Top of Hawk’s Tor, 34 deg. W. from N.
4 Boskednan Circle. Top of Carn Galva, 35 deg. W. from N.
5 Abury. A line between the centre of the Southern inner circle to that of the Northern inner circle would run 20 deg. W. from N.
6 Stonehenge. A line through the centres of the tumuli, inside the ditch, and through the centre of the circle, would run 19 deg. W. from N.
7 Dance Maen. A holed stone used as a gate-post, is 20 deg. W. from N., but may not be in its original position.
8 The Hurlers. The Cheesewring (the most prominent object near) is 5 deg. W. from N.
9 Keswick Circle. The entrance is due N.
10 Gunnerkeld Circle. The entrance is 3 deg. W. from N.
11 Fernacre Circle. Top of Rough Tor due N.
12 Stripple Stones. Top of Rough Tor visible over top of Garrow, both due N.
13 Trippet Stones. Top of Rough Tor and Leaze Circle in same line, 11 deg. E. from N.
14 Boskednan Circle. Slight hill not named on map, 10 deg. E. from N.
15 Tregaseal Circle. Cain Kenidjack (the most prominent hill near) is 10 deg. E. from N.
16 The Hurlers. The lines between the centres of the three circles are 12, 15, and 18 deg. E. from N. respectively.
17 Leaze Circle. Rough Tor is 12 deg. E. from N.
18 Stripple Stones. Brown Willy is 16 deg. E. from N.
19, 20, 21 Penmaenmawr Circle. The Great Orme and two other prominent hills forming a group of three. At 21 two stones are in line between the circle and the hill, 3 deg. E. from N.E.
22 Stanton Drew. A line from the centre of the south circle through the centre of the great circle to the stone called Hauteville’s Quoit is 20 deg. E. from N.
23 Trippet Stones. Brown Willy is 26 deg. E. from N.
24 Long Meg. Another circle or circles, now destroyed, 30 deg. E. from N.
25 Keswick Circle. The apparently triple peak of Blencathra is 35 deg. E. from N.
26, 27, 28 Swinside Circle. A group of three small hills 30, 50, and 64 deg. E. from N. respectively.
29 Roll-rich Circle. The Kingstone is 35 deg. E. from N. from the centre of the circle.
30 Leaze Circle. The top of Garrow is 33 deg. E. from N.
31, 32, 33 Stripple Stones. Catshole Tor and two other hills, forming a group of three, are respectively, 35, 45 and 65. deg. E. from N.
34 Abury. The “Cove” in the centre of the Northern circle faced N.E.
{149}
35 Winterbourne (Dorset). An outlying stone to N.E. (see Warne’s Ancient Dorset.
36 Leaze Circle. Brown Willy N.E. from circle.
37 Boskednan Circle. Three small hills about N.E. from circle.
38 Dance Maen. The two stones called the “Pipers” are in line 40 dog. E. from N. from the circle, but are now hidden by stone walls, &c.
39 Hoarstone. A group of three hill tops about N.E.
40 Mitchellsfold. Stapely Hill and Hoarstone Circle in line, 5 deg. E. of N.E.
41 Arborlowe. The “Cove” in the centre of the circle faced 5 dog. E. of N.E.
42 Stonehenge. The Avenue and “Friar’s Heel” are 5 deg. E. of N.E. from the circle.
43 The Hurlers. A line from the two detached stones to the north circle would be 5 deg. E. of N.E.
44 Stanton Drew. A line from the “Cove” through the centre of the great circle to the centre of the northern circle is 9 deg. E. of N.E.
45 Mount Murray Circle. The entrance to the Avenue (which winds round the north of the circle to the N.W.) is 31 deg. N. of E. from the circle.
46 Long Meg. A small circle (with central cist now destroyed) is 27 deg. N. of E. from the centre of Long Meg.
47 Stannon Circle. Rough Tor is 26 deg. N. of E. from the circle.
48 Leaze Circle. Catshole Tor is 24 deg. N. of E. from the circle.
49 Trippet Stone. Hawk’s Tor is 27 deg. N. of E. from the circle.
50 Winterbourne (Wiltshire). Two outlying stones E.N.E. (Rev. W. C. Lukis).
51 Stanton Drew. The Avenue from great circle is 20 deg. N. of E. from the centre of the circle.
52, 53 The Hurlers. A line from the two outlying stones to the centre of the middle circle is 22 deg. N. from E. The line in which the two stones stand would, if prolonged, strike the southern edge of the middle circle—direction 11 deg. N. from E.
54 Trippet Stones. The Stripple Stones are visible 11 deg. N. of E. from the Trippet Stones.
55, 56 The Stannon and Fernacre Circles are in line with the top of Brown Willy about 2 deg. N. of E. from them.
57 Tregaseal Circles. The two circles are E. and W. from each other.
58 Keswick Circle. The oblong enclosure inside the circle covers part of the circumference from E. to 20 deg. S. of E.
59 The Roll-rich. The “Five Knights “ are 12 deg. S. of E. from the centre of the circle, but may have no connection with it.
60 Stanton Drew. The Avenue from the northern circle is 7 deg. S. of E. from the centre of that circle.
61 The Hurlers. A line from the two outlying stones to the southern circle is 10 deg. S. of E.
62 Keswick Circle. The largest stone in the circle is in line with a hill-top 3 deg. E. of S.E. from the centre of the circle.
63 Arborlowe. Entrance 1 deg. S. of S.E. from centre of circle.
64 Abury. Kennet Avenue and Hakpen Circle S.E. from great circle.
{150}
65 Stannon Circle. The top of Garrow is 35 deg. S. of E from the circle.
66 Fernacre Circle. Butterstor is 55 deg. S. of E. from the circle.
67 Stanton Drew. The “Cove” faced 60 deg. S. of E.
68 Boskednan Circle. Barrows in line 60 deg. S. of E. from circle.
69 Winterbourne (Wiltshire). A large stone S.S.E. (Rev. W. C. Lukis.)
70 Abury. A line from the centre of the northern inner circle to that of the southern inner circle would be 20 deg. E. from S.
71 Stonehenge. A line through the centres of the tumuli inside the ditch, and through the centres of the circles would be 19 deg. E. from S.
72 Leaze Circle. Hawk’s Tor and the Stripple Stones are 17 deg. E. of S. from circle.
73 Penmaenmawr Circle. The top of Tal-y-fan is S. from the centre of the circle.
74, 75, 76. Mitchellsfold. Corndon Hill, the highest hill near is 10 deg. E. of S. from the circle. The Whetstone, a monument of some kind now destroyed, and which may have had no connection with the circle was due S. from it, and two outlying stones are 5 deg. W. of S. from it.
77 Abury. Silbury Hill, the largest artificial mound in existence, is due S. from the great circle.
78 Fernacre Circle. The top of Garrow is due S. from the circle.
79 Keswick Circle. A prominent hill-top, is 7 deg. W. of S. from the circle.
80 Long Meg Circle. The entrance and Long Meg stone are S.W. from the centre.
81 Swinside Circle. Black Combe (the most prominent hill near) is S.W. from the circle.
82 Hoarstone Circle. Stapeley Hill and Mitchellsfold Circle are in line 5 deg. W. of S.W. from the Hoarstone.
83 Abury. Long Stone Cove and avenue 10 deg. W. of S.W. from the great circle.
84 Stanton Drew. A line from the centre of the northern circle through that of the great circle to the “Cove” runs 9 deg. W. of S.W.
85, 86, 87, 88 The Hurlers. Lines from the three circles to the two outlying stones are respectively 40, 22, and 11 deg. S. of W. and 10 deg. N. of W.
89 Stripple Stones. The entrance and the Trippet Stones Circle are 11 deg. S. of W. from the centre of the circle.
90 Keswick Circle. A pointed hill-top is due W. from the circle.
91 Winterbourne (Wiltshire). Stukeley said there was a stone (now lost) W. from this circle.
92 Fernacre Circle. London Hill (a very slight eminence) is 3 deg. N. of W. from this circle.
93 Tregaseal Circles. These two circles are E. and W. from each other.
94, 95 Dance Maen. The Longstone is 5 deg. S. of W. from this circle. Two fallen stones in the same field as the circle are 20 and 25 deg. E. of S. from it.
96 Penmaenmawr Circle. The hill of Penmaenmawr is 35 deg. N. of W. from the circle.
{151}
97 Swinside Circle. A prominent hill is 40 deg. W. of N. from this circle.
98 Swinside Circle. The entrance and a prominent hill-top are 39 deg. S. of E. from the centre.
99 Gorwell. Two stones are 10 deg. E. of S.
100 Boscawenun Circle. The central stone leans N.E., and remains of another stone appear to be in the same line.
APPENDIX.
1. Circles of Stones in other countries have been and are used as places of sacrifice or worship, whether standing alone or close together, or even intersecting each other.
Col. Forbes Leslie (“Early Races of Scotland”) says:—A Hindoo fane recently used to sacrifice a cock to Betal1 was twenty-seven feet in diameter, and consisted of twenty-three stones, three upright and fixed in the ground at the west and facing the east, being three feet high, the others from eight to twenty inches high, placed loosely round at equal distances; one to the east was moved twelve feet back to make an entrance opposite the three fixed stones; three smaller stones were outside, and to the south-west a single stone, but no opening; the inner sides of the stones were whitened and tipped with a red spot. He also says several stone circles close together, and even intersecting each other, and lately erected to the same object of worship—Vetal—may any day be seen in secluded places near the towns and villages of the Deccan in India.
1 Betal or Vetal, a local agricultural god.
[The setting back of a stone to the east may have a reference to the sunrise, like the outlying stones in some of our own circles. The fact that circles close together, and even intersecting each other, are used for sacrifice in India is a sufficient answer to a suggestion by Mr. Lukis, that certain circles in England could not have been temples, because they were so close together.A.L.L.]
Col. Forbes Leslie also describes an arrangement of small stones in lines used in the same way as the circles which may suggest a parallel with the lines of stones in Brittany.
Col. Meadows Taylor stated that rocks with circles round them were used as places of sacrifice by shepherds at Sorepoor in the Deccan, India. Journal Ethnol Soc. Lond., N.S., vol. i, pp. 162-8.
Mr. Walhouse (Journ. Anth. Inst., vol. vii, p. 32) mentions circles on the highest eastern Nilgiri summit, where the Irŭlas twice a year worship Vishnu under the name of Rangaswann.
A description is given in the “Academy,” 18 Nov., 1876, of some small circles used as places of worship by Arabs near the first cataract of the Nile.
Major Conder (“Heth and Moab”) says, the circle is a sacred enclosure, without which the Arab still stands with his face to the rising sun.
{152} Pausanias speaks of circles of great stones near Hermione, within which the mysterious rites of Demeter were performed.
Hecateus also speaks of a circular temple, which has been thought to have been Abury.
2. The worship of the sun has been associated with circles as well as with other temples, and the position of other temples has been arranged with reference to that of the sun, and with reference to different seasons or purposes, the east and north-east being especially associated with sun-worship.
Mr. Thorns (Chinese Vases) says, offerings to heaven were made by the ancients on a round eminence, and to the earth on a square eminence also to the sun, moon, and stars in different apartments of the palace, and at different seasons.
A Correspondent of the “Daily News,” 7 Jan., 1873, describing the official religion of China, says, the Temple of Heaven, at which sacrifices are offered at the winter solstice, is on the south side of Pekin, but the Temple of the Earth is on the north side. The altar of the sun, on which sacrifices are offered at the vernal equinox, is on the east side of Pekin, and, that of the moon, on which sacrifices are offered at the autumnal equinox, is on the west side of Pekin. The heaven represents the male element and the earth the female element.
Herodotus says of two statues in the temple of Vulcan at Memphis, one of these looks to the northward and is adored by the Egyptians under the name of summer, and the other facing the south is altogether neglected and goes by the name of winter (Euterpe cxxi).
Mr. Le Page Renouf says (Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch., xii, 356), the two earths do not signify upper and lower Egypt, but the earth as traversed and divided by the sun; Osiris, both in his own name and that of Apuat, is Ap-sat-tau, divider of the earth. Apuat of the north is the director of heaven, Apuat of the south is the director of the earth.
Mr. Bonomi (Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch., iii, 422), describes a cylinder on which Nechtharhebes is represented, making libations before an altar to the deities of the four cardinal points or quarters of the land.
Many articles have appeared in “Nature” during 1891 and 1892 by Professor Norman Lockyer, showing the relation of Egyptian temples to the rising of the sun and stars, and by Mr. Penrose on similar relations in the oldest Greek temples.
Lieutenant Maurice (Indian Antiquities) says, all ancient temples of the Sun and Vesta or elementary fire were circular. Cadell also gives particulars of various circular temples in Italy—mostly to Vesta.
Professor Sayce (Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch., iii, 210) says, the Assyrian names of the several periods of the moon seem to have been derived from the quarter of the heaven in which the moon was observed and which was assigned to the dominion of some special deity; thus in W.A.I.H. C. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, iii, 56, 52, we are told that on the fifteenth day the moon and the sun draw near to Anu. (The moon was in Anu 1st to 5th day, in Hea 6th to 10th day, and in Bel and Hea 11th to 15th day).
Sargon called one of the two eastern (that is according to the Chaldean orientation—north-eastern) gates of his new city of Dur Sakin (Khorsa bad), the gate of Samas i.e., the gate of the sun (Records of Past, xi, 24).
Layard (Pop. Account of Discoveries at Ninevah, p. 182) gives an {153} account of the temple of the Yezidis, called the sanctuary of Sheikh Shems or the Sun, and so arranged that the first rays of that luminary should as frequently as possible fall upon it. Also of their reverence generally for the rising sun.
Ezekiel, viii, 16, saw at the door of the temple of Jehovah, between the porch and the altar, about five and twenty men with their backs toward the temple of Jehovah, and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east.
Major Conder (“Heth and Moab”), says, the circle is a sacred enclosure, without which the Arab still stands with his face to the rising sun. [In the same position, apparently, as the men spoken of by Ezekiel.A.L.L.]
3. Hills and mountains have been associated with sun worship and with temples in other countries.
Sir C. Warren (“Temple or Tomb”), quotes the Talmud to the effect that all the walls of the Temple were high except the eastern wall, which was lower, so that the priest who burned the heifer might stand on the top of the Mount of Olives and look straight into the door of the sanctuary when he sprinkled the blood. [This refers to an annual procession from the temple to the Mount of Olives and sacrifice on the latter, and taken in conjunction with the vision of Ezekiel of the worship of the sun, as seen from the Temple rising over the Mount of Olives, already quoted, is extremely suggestive.A.L.L.]
The Rev. J. L. Porter found remains of a circular enclosure, 180ft. in diameter, on the top of Mount Hermon1, and Dr. Robinson, an American traveller, says of the ruins of the Temple at Hibbaryeh, it fronts directly upon the great chasm, looking up the mighty gorge as if to catch the first rays of the morning sun rising over Hermon.
1 Baal Hermon, Judges iii, 3, and 1 Chron., v, 23 (showing that the mountain was associated with the worship of Baal or the Sun).
Mr. J. T. Bent (Journ. Anth. Inst., May, 1886) says, the highest peak in every Greek island is dedicated to Elias, as of old to Apollo, and Elias is an obvious transition from Helios, for the Eastern Church always tried to combine the ancient name and attributes with the modern worship as nearly as possible.
[The highest mountain in Alaska is called Mount St. Elias, but Alaska was a Russian possession, and the name was probably given to the mountain in accordance with the practice of the Greek Church mentioned by Mr. Bent, because it was the highest mountain.A.L.L.]
In a work called St. Patrick’s Confession or Epistle to the Irish, said to be translated from Latin MSS., 800 and 1000 years old, the Saint is made to say “The same night, however, as I was sleeping, Satan sorely tempted me, which I shall remember as long as I shall be in this body. It was as though a huge stone fell over me and my limbs were wholly powerless, but it occurred to me from what I know not in the Spirit to call Helias, and in the meantime I saw the sun rise in the heavens, and while I cried Helias, Helias, with my might, lo, the brightness of the sun shone upon me and dispelled all my heaviness.” [A delightful, because probably unconscious confirmation of the transition from Helios to Helios remarked by Mr. Bent. The early Celtic Church, it will be remembered was rather Greek than Latin in its affinities.A.L.L.]
{154} Mr. Pollard (Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch., xiii, 290) says, the mountains also were Baalim, the worship of the sungod on the mountain peak being transferred to the peak itself.
Col. Meadows Taylor gives a picture of an isolated natural pile of rock, not unlike the CheesewingCheesewring, surrounded by a circle of stones near Tooljapore in India (Journ. Ethn. Soc. N.S., vol. i, p. 171.)
Abbe Collet (Bull Soc. Polymathique du Morbihan) says, there is a local superstition that the sun rising over the Pic de Malabri, on Trinity Sunday, presents the appearance of three discs which afterwards unite in one.
Triple peaks have frequently been regarded with special reverence. Dr. Phené exhibited to the Congress of Orientalists (London, 1891), a picture of a triple mountain in Japan, surrounded by a number of images of animals.
4. Tradition is in favour of the use of our own circles as places of worship or sacrifice, and connects them with a period which cannot be considered distantly prehistoric.
The letter of Dr. Garden to Aubrey has been mentioned in the paper, and the details need not be repeated here, but it is a very strong piece of evidence.
The Councils of Arles in 452, and Tours in 567, the Archbishop of Bourges in 584, Childebert in 554, Carloman in 742, and Charlemagne all condemned the superstitious regarding of stones, fountains, trees, &c., and enjoined the destruction of the venerated objects. Patrick, Bishop of the Hebrides, desired Orlygus to found a church wherever he should find standing stones.
Arnobius, an early Christian writer (300 A.D.), says before his conversion he was accustomed to revere and pray to a stone which had been anointed with oil.
Mr. J. Miln (Researches at Carnac) says, to this day certain ceremonies akin to phallic worship are performed in the night of the full moon at the base of the menhirs in sonic parts of Brittany. On the summit of some of these menhirs we have remarked a cross either in wood or stone, probably placed there by the clergy to hinder idolatrous practices.
Several instances of the worship of stones might be added, but the following will perhaps suffice:—Herodian (Book V) says the Phoenicians had a magnificent temple to the sun, whom they called Heliogabalus, but there was no image except a large conical black stone, and that the Emperor Heliogabalus was high priest in this temple before he became emperor.
The names locally given to various circles—Sunken Kirk (Swinside circle), &c.—indicate a belief that they belonged to a dead and buried form of religion.
Circles were used as courts as lately as 1349 and 1380, and encampments were occasionally held in them. (Aberdeen Chartularies and Moray).
Menhirs are found built into the churches at Le Mans and Corwen, and closely adjoining that at Rudston (on the north-east side).
The orientation of churches and inclination of chancels to the northeast are certainly not derived from Rome, but are probably derived from the orientation of the stone circles.