| Abstract: |
Papers stem from a conference in March 1980 and are introduced by the editors. A S Thom (pp 13-61) summarizes methods used and conclusions drawn over many years' research, answers some of the criticisms made, and presents the most recent evidence for accurate lunar observatories. Continued work at Callanish is presented by M & G Ponting (63-110) who suggest several ways in which accurate solar and lunar observations could be made at what they regard as this crucial site. Inter alia they are recording the whole horizon and other data for each site to provide proper statistical bases. E W MacKie (111-52) further develops his hypothesis of an astronomer-priest élite and examines the nature of some colleagues' reactions to this: Kintraw, Cultoon, and Brainport Bay sites are offered as support to the hypothesis. The 'megalithic yard' is also reconsidered. The next four papers challenge the idea of 'scientific' astronomy at this date: C Ruggles (153-209) presents a detailed archaeological, astronomical, and statistical analysis at four levels of the Thoms' evidence for lunar observatories. This demonstrated a degree of subjective bias that spoils the case for high precision astronomical recording by the megalith builders, though the Thoms' pioneering identification of an interest in celestial bodies is important. R Atkinson appends some archaeological observations. J Patrick's examination (211-19) of the Kintraw and Ballochroy evidence fails to support Thom, while G Moir (221-41) draws a careful distinction between 'scientific' and 'ritual' astronomy and finds little evidence of Neolithic 'science'; indeed many of the claimed sites are quite unsuitable for precise observations. A Burl, re-emphasizing (243-74) the requirement to examine whole groups of related monuments, demonstrates how the azimuths of numerous tombs, notably the Clava group, indicate a concern with the major and minor cycles of the moon; but it is the dead who are thus brought into relation with the moon, not the living who are making 'scientific' observations. A review of some ethnographic evidence by I J Thorpe (275-88) reveals numerous non-'scientific' astronomical practices, not necessarily associated with highly regimented societies. B Startin and R Bradley (289-96) investigate the work investment needed for the different types of Neo monument in Wessex and find (pace Renfrew) that not even the large henges made an excessive demand on regional workforces, nor was there a continuous evolution of labour investment. The communal effort was being replaced in early 2nd millennium by a more individual-centred organization. Lastly, A Whittle (297-342) offers detailed argument against ethnic interpretation o the Beaker phenomena, identifying these instead as part of a wider competition for resources and individual status which replaced the earlier communal cohesion demonstrated in the earlier monumental earthworks. In such a context Neolithic astronomy was merely one element in a complex social framework. |
