Archaeologists Versus Astronomers - The Stones and the Stars: Building Scotland's Newest Megalith - page 2

1. Archaeologists Versus
Astronomers
I looked out over the Moss and tried to imagine life in those
days, almost four millennia ago, 200 generations of men away
from us. From air photos, I knew that apart from the stone
circles, the Moor was covered with hut circles; the whole
area must have supported a largeish community of fishermen,
hunters and primitive farmers. And at night, the only illumi-
nation would be the stars and the Moon and the fires before the
huts. No TV, no adverts…. Perhaps for the first time I began to
appreciate the appeal these stones, the long cultural echoes of
the ancient people of Arran, could have.
- Archie Roy, Deadlight [ 1 ] .
In archaeology, the idea that ancient standing stones and cir-
cles were astronomically aligned - and accurately so - is extremely
controversial, if not rejected outright. Among astronomers, if
not universally accepted, the idea is at least treated with greater
sympathy. Members of the public, who are perhaps more gener-
ally interested in things astronomical than in the relatively staid
work of archaeologists, may be surprised to learn that prehistoric
astronomy is not viewed by all scientists as proven fact. Many
people may believe, wrongly, that the Druids built Stonehenge;
guess that they are up to 3,000 years old; may not even know that
there are other such sites; and yet are in no doubt at all that Stone-
henge and the pyramids were observatories of some kind. In argu-
ments about “gods from outer space,” or UFOs, it's virtually taken
for granted that the ancient sites relate to the sky.
The opposing views gained prominence in 1967; 10 years
later, the argument had not been settled, but was continuing with
growing heat. In 1980, fuel was still being added to the flames.
Meanwhile the Glasgow Parks Department's “Astronomy in the
Parks” project was not intended as a contribution to the debate so