Megaliths, Myths and Men: An Introduction to Astro-Archaeology

Johanne.

PROLOGUE

In modern times, epoch-making discoveries in astronomical science are invariably made via the information received through the very largest optical and radio telescopes. Most of these fundamental discoveries concern bizarre stellar objects lying at the farthest regions of the Universe at distances measured in megaparsecs—a unit so large that its magnitude is beyond normal human comprehension.¹ Likewise, in archaeology significant discoveries in more modern times are usually the net result of painstaking excavations conducted by a group of specialists after several seasons of methodical digging at a site.

It was a general surprise to all then, when in 1963, the science magazine Nature carried an article evocatively entitled: ‘Stonehenge Decoded’ in which the British-born American astronomer Gerald Hawkins claimed to have solved the long-standing astronomical riddle of Stonehenge—the most famous ancient monument in the whole of Britain. Hawkins claimed that the monument, whatever else it might be, also represented a sophisticated Neolithic observatory, built not simply to mark the point of sunrise of the summer solstice (an idea which had long been held) but also to keep track of the complicated vagaries of moonrise and moonset.

This was not the first time that Stonehenge had figured prominently in the pages of Nature. Sir Norman Lockyer—an early investigator of Stonehenge—had been its first editor, and in the early years of the twentieth century much had appeared in its pages concerning this enigmatic Megalithic structure. But Hawkins had been more fortunate than the earlier investigators, for he had at his disposal a powerful electronic computer; this combined with a few inspired scientific hunches indicated that numerous alignments to the Sun and Moon could be interpreted in the various stone arrangements of the monument.

However, unknown to Hawkins, a British amateur astronomer, C. A. Newham, had sometime earlier been working on the same problem independently, and without the assistance of a computer he had arrived at very similar results. Newham had already published his preliminary report—second-hand—via the Science Correspondent of the Yorkshire Post, on 16 March 1963; Hawkins’ paper did not appear in Nature until 26 October 1963. Newham’s discovery announced through the British provincial press attracted no comment, and apparently not a ripple of interest. Hawkins’ announcement via the established scientific press triggered one of the most publicized scientific controversies in modern times. . . .

In addition to Newham’s work, the publication of Hawkins’ paper brought to the forefront the work of Alexander Thom, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Science at Oxford. Thom had quietly been plugging away for several years without publicity in a long-term programme involving the survey and interpretation of solar, lunar and stellar orientations of a whole complex of Megalithic monuments (but not Stonehenge) which extend throughout the western half of the British Isles from Cornwall to the northernmost tip of Scotland and beyond.

Following a second paper in Nature by Hawkins which laid dramatic claim that one of the features of Stonehenge might have functioned as a computer-like device, the cult of so-called Megalithic astronomy suddenly came into full blossom in the mid-1960s. With it several astronomers stepped into the arena to offer their own interpretations of the newly published data. Fred Hoyle, better known as a cosmologist amid the realms of the megaparsecs, believed he could detect a level of sophistication in the Neolithic builders of Stonehenge which went much beyond the ideas of Hawkins. . . .

Meantime the archaeologists, stunned at first by the impact of the new astronomical findings, soon found their voice in R. J. C. Atkinson, one of the greatest living authorities on Stonehenge. In his review of Hawkins’ work he considered that its results were ‘unconvincing, tendencious, and slipshod’. Part of the initial antagonism created in the archaeologists was certainly caused by Hawkins’ misinterpretation and sometimes blatant disregard for the achaeological evidence. But in part it was also owing to the archaeologists’ traditional distrust for astronomical interpretations in alignments at Stonehenge and elsewhere—a distrust justified by some of Lockyer’s hyperspeculative theories surrounding the purposes of British Megaliths.

The contentious Stonehenge debate has intrigued the layman and specialist alike. The field evidence is both conflicting and ambiguous; while not all archaeologists are unresponsive to the astronomical theories, not all astronomers are uncritical of them. Nevertheless, what is clear to all is that Stonehenge—designed and built two millenniums before the Romans set foot on British soil—is something specially unique in the history of mankind.

Stonehenge—at midwinter sunset.

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays the astronomical interpretation of archaeological monuments and other material has come to be known as astro-archaeology—for want of a better name. The amalgum of ancient astronomy and archaeology as a hybrid discipline may be traced back to the time of Napoleon’s great scientific expedition to Egypt, and perhaps earlier to Isaac Newton’s studies in ancient chronology. It was not, however, until Sir Norman Lockyer began his pioneer researches in Egypt and then in Britain that the English-speaking general readership, through his books The Dawn of Astronomy (1894) and Stonehenge and other British Stone Monuments (1906), were made aware of the wide possibilities of a novel approach to solving some of the puzzling problems inherited from the ancient world.

Criticism has been raised against the naming of the new interdisciplinary approach to ancient astronomy and archaeology. Some have considered astro-archaeology a rather ugly and misleading name; others have suggested an even uglier name ‘archaeo-astronomy’. Some have rejected both hybridizations and refer to it as the astronomy of archaeology, astronomical archaeology, or the archaeology of astronomy—while in a fit of pique an anonymous archaeologist reviewer in the Times Literary Supplement once referred to it as ‘astro-melodrama’.

In specialist studies confined to North-West Europe, the term Megalithic astronomy has wide usage. ² Nevertheless, whatever its merits, the name astro-archaeology has now become generally accepted as the scientific activity which examines the nature of early astronomical knowledge via the interpretation of ancient monuments and other relevant archaeological data. A suggested sub-discipline, ethno-astronomy (although a more exact name would be proto-astronomy), covers a closely allied field of research, but its purpose is that of specifically exploring the role which astronomy, myth and associated ritual played in historic societies and in neoprimitive societies such as those now found in Africa, Australia and Polynesia. But clearly the two approaches have considerable overlap.

This highlights the point that astro-archaeology is more than a simple amalgum of astronomy and archaeology. It represents an interdisciplinary approach which utilizes geology, anthropology, mythology, folklore, philology, paleography, ethnology, prehistoric and neoprimitive art, prehistoric and classical scholarship, biology, botany, geochemistry, nuclear physics—even pseudology—and a host of other ologies and arts. Each branch of learning has, of course, a bias towards its own special interests which may bring about a conflict of ideas, and this is nowhere more true than in relation to the problems of interpreting Stonehenge. . . .

The word megalith appears in the English archaeological vocabulary about the middle of the nineteenth century. It comes from the Greek words megas and lithos meaning ‘great’ and ‘stone’. In 1912, when T. Eric Peet wrote his short minor classic Rough Stone Monuments, he posed the question of what defines a Megalithic monument. Throughout the world there are many monuments and structures of widely differing ages that can rightly be called ‘megalithic’. In the widest sense a Megalithic structure embraces any structure or building made of large or very large stones, which would include Hadrian’s Wall, the pyramids and the Great Wall of China, etc. Peet himself, however, limited its archaeological usage to a series of tombs and buildings constructed in certain areas of Western Asia, Africa and Europe.

European Megalithic tombs of the Neolithic and early Bronze Age are found predominantly in the lands bordering the Atlantic and the North Sea—in Spain, Portugal, France, Britain, Ireland, Holland, Germany, Denmark and Sweden. They do not occur in Central, East or South-East Europe or—apart from Palestine—in the east Mediterranean. In the west Mediterranean, except for Spain and France, they are not widely found. Ancient Megalithic structures in south Italy and the Balearic islands are of a later date.

Apart from those areas mentioned above, Megalithic structures also occur on several Pacific islands and in Central and South America. Whereas the Egyptian pyramids are Megalithic structures, the contemporaneous Babylonian ziggurats are not, since they are constructed of man-made brick. For this reason the term Megalithic may sometimes be confusing in its astronomical context when discussing a particular period in history. This is why in contemporary astro-archaeology its usage generally has been restricted to monuments and structures of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Western Europe and the Mediterranean. The monuments and structures involved in Old World Megalithic astronomy are broadly of three kinds: chambered tombs; single standing stones (menhirs or monoliths); and grouped standing stones. In the older literature these monuments and structures were frequently referred to under a Welsh-Breton nomenclature which nowadays has largely fallen out of fashion. In this older literature chambered tombs are often described as dolmens (from dol or tol ‘table’ and men ‘stone’); single standing stones as menhirs (from men ‘stone’ and hir ‘long’); grouped standing stones as cromlechs from crom ‘circle’ or ‘curve’ and lech ‘place’.³ These descriptions were frequently interchangeable and confused, and not all antiquarians were in agreement with their precise definition.

Archaeologists have now divided chambered tombs into several categories. Chambered tombs and their architectural subdivisions may be very significant in solving astro-archaeological problems—since apart from the fact that many are probably (solar) orientated in some way, they provide more positive evidence than stone circles do about the social and cultural practices locally in vogue. The French word alignement is used to describe standing stones arranged in rows to form long ‘processional’ avenues. However, in British usage the term Avenue is often preferred, and ‘alignment’ is usually restricted to describe the azimuth direction between two stones or other features. Nevertheless, some archaeologists use the term as a synonym for ‘arrangement’. The term Cursus (Latin for racecourse) is a name applied to a prehistoric earthwork with moderate-sized parallel banks. This term dates from the eighteenth century when it was introduced by the British antiquarian Stukeley, who is one of the key historical figures in the interpretation of British Megalithic monuments.

1 The Trethevy Quoit, Cornwall. Megalithic funerary chambers of this kind are usually referred to as ‘dolmens’, but sometimes they may be referred to as ‘cromlechs’ or ‘quoits’. Locally they often carry more colourful names such as ‘the Devil’s Den’, ‘the Druid Temple’, or ‘the Druids’ Altar’, etc.

A henge monument may be a ‘hanging’ monument conceived like Stonehenge where the stone lintels are carried by stone uprights which comprise a circle or curve. The name Stonehenge probably derives from the Anglo-Saxon name for ‘place of hanging stones’ . However, it is likely that other ‘ghost’ henge monuments were probably Megaxylic—constructed with timber members now long rotted away. The usage of ‘henge’ is a misleading and unsatisfactory term, for it includes sites with no stones and / or no lintels, and in archaeology a henge monument has generally become known as a circular or oval enclosure surrounded by a bank and ditch with entrances. The British archaeologist Atkinson has introduced several henge classifications. In short: Class I henges have only a single entrance (Stonehenge, Phase 1); Class II henges have two or more entrances (Avebury); a Class II subgroup have a surrounding bank with a ditch both inside and outside.

Scattered round the British Isles are probably close on a hundred or more henges and hundreds more enigmatic earth-ring features—most of them only visible via the medium of air photography. Stone circles or ovals are found with or without an associated bank-and-ditch henge. Some smaller stone circles are known as ‘hut circles’, others are known as ‘cairn circles’, and these are likely associated with burial cairns no longer extant.

In Britain the names barrow and tumulus are names freely and indiscriminately applied to all manner of prehistoric and historic burial mounds whether they be long barrows, round or oval barrows, or earth-covered chambered tombs; descriptions by archaeologists are usually much more specific. Stone cists, or kists (the name is derived from the Welsh cistraen), are boxlike, slabbed stone structures and were made to house the remains of the dead; they are frequently found under cairns. Cists vary in size; they may be covered by cap stones and may be large enough to house a fully extended burial, but others are smaller and were only intended for cremations or crouched-attitude burials.

Note: Dates used throughout this book (with some minor exceptions) are expressed according to astronomical usage so that dates BC and AD are indicated by the signs—and + respectively, viz—1200 instead of 1200 BC. The plus sign is omitted from dates after + 1000.

CHAPTER I

Before the Megaliths

The archaeological record shows that in the immediate prehistoric period, civilizations developed in several centres. We can say that several societies can be recognized at this period: Sumer, Egypt, Anatolia, the Indus Valley, Shang China, Middle America and Peru. In this context civilization is accepted within the definition that a community has at least two of three things: towns of more than 5,000 inhabitants, the possession of a system of writing, and complex ceremonial centres. In the so-called Megalithic period of North-West Europe only the last ingredient is known to have been present. Certainly there were no towns of the order of 5,000 or more inhabitants, and as far as we can tell, writing was unknown. Yet if we interpret the nature and purpose of the complex British (and French) stone-built ceremonial centres correctly, we have civilized communities at work whose level of intellectual ability was little different from that of more contemporary societies.

The story of the British Megalithic culture begins with the first colonization of Britain by the Neolithic (stone-using) farmers before - 4000. Until recently it has always been fashionable for prehistorians to write about our Neolithic forebears as barbarians and savages. Gordon Childe, the great European prehistorian, always referred to pre-Roman northern and western Europeans as barbarians—perpetuating the myth put out by the imperialist Roman propagandists who chose to ignore the rich and complex native Iron-Age culture. This same blinkered view was adopted by European settlers in both the New World of the Americas and the New New World of the Antipodes.

The Neolithic farmers who colonized Britain in the fifth millennium were relatively sophisticated products of a long evolution of genus Homo dating back at least three million years. Richard Leakey’s find of the so-called ‘1470’ man and the finds of the joint French-American expedition in Northern Ethiopia carry man back in time long before the onset of the Pleistocene Ice Age.

The Pleistocene epoch, through which man evolved in his Paleolithic Stone-Age culture, marked a period in the Earth’s geological history when at least four great ice sheets in turn advanced and then retreated. At times these ice sheets covered almost a third of the present land area of the Earth. In the late Pleistocene, during the last ice advance in Europe, the culture of Stone-Age man flowered as never before. This advanced Upper Paleolithic culture reached its peak between – 30,000 to – 10,000 and contains the earliest known art of prehistoric man. While a great deal is missing from the record of the prehistoric past, its art—with its classical simplicity and beauty—provides a firm past-to-present cultural bridge for Homo sapiens to seek out his roots.

During the nineteenth century the chronology of man’s prehistoric past was based on a simple three-age system of stone, bronze and iron, taking into account the successive utilization of these materials for weapons and tools. The stone period was subdivided into the tripartite division of Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic, or the Old, Middle and New Stone Ages. From late Victorian times, when the Upper Paleolithic became accepted for inclusion as part of the overall reckoning of prehistory, these cultural divisions provided convenient chronological datum pegs to which ideas and theories might be related.

The Upper Paleolithic in Britain is generally assumed to range from c. – 50—30,000 to c. – 12,000; the Mesolithic from c. – 12,000 to – 4000 and the Neolithic c. – 4000 to c. – 2000. Elsewhere the demarcation between the Mesolithic/Neolithic may go back several millenniums earlier.

However, with the advance of archaeology this simplistic picture of culture sequences could not be maintained. Subsequently the three-age system has been subdivided and elaborated into a complicated and interrelated chronology which obscures a sharp, in-focus panorama of European prehistory. Fortunately for the purpose of establishing a relative chronology we can still fall back on an unobscured, broad-outline picture of the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic cultures based on a sequence established in caves and rock shelters in South-Western France (below).

An even simpler history of man is the two-frame picture of man first as a hunter and food gatherer, and then from c. – 10,000 man as a pastoralist and food-crop raiser. These two periods are sometimes referred to as the Paleolithic food-gathering stage and the Neolithic food-raising stage. The change-over from hunting and gathering to agriculture has considerable significance for astro-archaeological studies. It was the adoption of farming and crop raising that stimulated a requirement for accurate calendrical devices in order that man might know when to sow and harvest his crops to best advantage.

The question has often been raised whether the proto-hominids possessed the innate ability to make use of celestial bodies in orientation in a similar way to that observed in several animal species which have been studied.

Some species of birds are uncanny masters of celestial orientation, but this innate ability seems motivated by evolutionary factors dictated by breeding and seasonal food supply. Some birds make journeys of several thousand kilometers, some even from the subarctic regions to subantarctic regions, and back again. Pigeons have been shown to have an innate ability in both directional and destination (target) orientation, and they may choose either the stars of the night sky, the Sun or the lines of magnetic force of the Earth—depending on which mechanism is most convenient in a given situation.

Orientation in its biological sense is of course a necessary feature with all creatures. Among the hominids, however, there appears to be little evolutionary stimulus to develop abilities to navigate long distances as occurred with birds, fish and sea mammals, since hominoid migrations are more limited in geographical range. Modern man generally needs a sextant, almanac and compass to find his way, but man in the primitive does possess high abilities in direction finding (see note 1).

Studies of neoprimitive societies such as the Australian Aborigines, and in particular the Polynesians, have revealed how these peoples made use of the Sun, Moon and stars for practical purposes. The Polynesians, without writing, instruments or charts, evolved an elaborate pre-scientific system of navigation which was superior to that of the Europeans who first encountered them. However, this was in no way an instinctive orientation art, but one learnt by the process of trial and error and applied to transoceanic navigation since their ancestors first set out on their Pacific voyages at the beginning of the first millennium BC.

Captain Cook, no mean navigator himself, was astonished at their skill and wrote in his Journal: ‘These people sail in those seas from Island to Island for several hundred Leagues, the Sun serving them for a compass by day and the Moon and Stars by night; all the stars of which they distinguished separately by name and they know in what part of the heavens they will appear in their horizons; they also know the time of their annual appearance and disappearing with more precision than will readily be believed by any European astronomers.’

It is well to bear in mind this kind of proved achievement for neoprimitive man and be alerted to the probabilities that European Neolithic societies (and even earlier Upper Paleolithic societies) likely made good use of the Sun, Moon and stars.

Whether Homo sapiens has retained a biological vestige of a lunar-tidal rhythm inherited from his distant fish ancestors is conjectural. The rotation of the Earth in relation to the Moon occurs once in 24 hrs 50 mins; the Moon revolves round the Earth providing variable light and tidal conditions in 29·5 days; while the Earth and Moon revolve round the Sun in about 365¼ days. Because of these fluxional influences, the evolution of man and animals has been disciplined by the diurnal and seasonal (short-and long-term) changes brought about, and biologically man was adapted to these rhythmic cosmic influences long before he was able to take the first steps to intellectualize them.

It seems more than coincidence that the female menstrual cycle, on average, follows the monthly interval of the lunar cycle. It is true, however, that this menstrual range is now extended either side of the interval (in extremes of 20 to 120 days), and the female cycle as such does not any longer follow the phases of the Moon, but this in no way invalidates its likely evolutionary time-structured origins.

Several species of marine creature depend on the tidal rhythm and variable nocturnal light for successful breeding. The females of the Atlantic fireworm (Odontosyllis) shed their eggs, and the males rush in to fertilize them in an 18-hour lunar-dictated, time-factored slot. This occurs once a month on the night before the Last Quarter of the Moon. The ever-observant Aristotle noted the swelling of the sea urchins’ ovaries at time of Full Moon. Among land animals, hares, long associated with the Moon in mythology, have a sexual cycle closely regulated to the phases of the Moon. The work of Soviet biologists has shown that if the period of the New Moon (dark nights) coincides with the innate sexual cycles in hares, it may radically upset the sexual process and appreciably increase sterility.

That man, albeit psychotic man, retains some affinity with the periodic swing of the Moon is still reflected by the influx of patients to psychiatric hospitals at time of Full Moon. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, medical discourses were sometimes written at great length about relationship of illness to lunar changes. A discourse by a certain Richard Mead ‘Concerning the Action of the Sun and the Moon on Animal Bodies’ was typical of the genre in which actual cases were described in vivid style: ‘. . . The Girl, who was lusty full Habit of Body, continued well for a few days, but was at Full Moon again seized with a most violent Fit, after which, the Disease kept its Periods constant and regular with the tides; She lay always speechless during the whole Time of Flood, and recovered upon the Ebb. . . .’

Although archaeologists and astronomers would agree in principle with Pope’s dictum that the proper study of mankind involves man, in archaeology, the reconstruction of a society begins with artefacts. These are the basic materials, but with artefacts there is the inherent danger in reading into them evidence beyond what is actually shown or what was intended to be shown. Indeed, speculative interpretation of artefacts is frequently the cause of a sharp division of opinion between those seeking proto-scientific-cum-notational content and those who only see in the same artefact ritualistic or abstract symbolism or other more mundane, pragmatic socio-economic information.

The earliest artefacts that might conceivably record cyclic processes in nature—recorded by man—date back to the Upper Paleolithic, to the period when cave art blossomed in several locales including North-West Europe. Many scholars have looked closely at Upper Paleolithic art for mythological and seasonal representations. Two kinds of art have been widely recognized: representational and non-representational. Representational art is considered unambiguous and easily recognizable for what it is. In cave art, animals are well represented: bulls, mammoths, rhinoceroses, lions, horses, goats, deer, bears, whales, fish, snakes, and birds frequently occur. In addition there are flowers, trees and plants. Non-representational art poses more difficult problems of interpretation, particularly the mystical Pan-like anthropomorphic figures and the various so-called signs and ‘decorative’ symbols. In addition to the representative cave and wall art we also have what their nineteenth-century discoverers lumped together and called ‘fertility’ symbols, which are represented characteristically by the buxom Venus goddess figurines of the Upper Paleolithic. These are generally agreed to be the proto-type sky—earth-mother or nurse goddesses of later archaeological periods.

Animal depictions have been widely attributed to cults involving hunting magic and fertility, but plant depictions may also involve fertility. Species identification by morphological detail provides an interesting guessing game for specialists, but this activity does not generally lead to a more significant understanding of Upper Paleolithic man, except that when a species is included in a seasonal representation, it provides clues to the parts of the year significant in the calendar—particularly so when known migratory species are cited.

The study and interpretation of Upper Paleolithic art is important in its possible influence in astronomical and mythological ‘art’ of later periods—shown in the seals of Sumeria, and so-called boundary stones (kudurra) of Babylonia, and the polychrome mosaics and vases depicting legend and mythology in the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizations. The Çatal Hüyük, Cretan and Mithraic bulls and the Egyptian Cow-goddess Hathor most likely derive from their Upper Paleolithic proto-types represented in the magnificent cave paintings of Lascaux. These paintings, discovered in 1940, are among the best publicized, and rightly so, since they represent the supreme height of Upper Paleolithic art in the representational form of ‘seasonal hunting magic’. These animal depictions in cave and wall paintings of the Upper Paleolithic, particularly the bulls and bisons, may also represent the proto-type celestial images that later blossomed in Near Eastern zodiacs. Perhaps even more significant are the reindeer antler bone batons.

2 Representative prehistoric cave art. A leaping cow and horses from Lascaux, Dordogne, France.

The reindeer horn batons have always been puzzling artefacts and subject to much speculation. No one has ever quite decided whether their prime function was practical or ceremonial. Over the years many theories have been put forward about them. Among suggestions ideas run to handles of slings, maces, tent pegs, dress fasteners, check-pieces of horse bits, instruments for dressing skins, magic sceptres or staves for ceremonial or sorcery, and shaft or arrow straighteners. For a long time they have been known in archaeological literature as ‘bâtons de commandement’ . It is probably significant that the perforation of the holes in the reindeer horn has generally been the last operation in the manufacture of the artefact, since it frequently mutilates some of the overall decoration pattern.

As a possible dress fastener they appear to be much too clumsy. If they were non-practical and ceremonial in purpose, a great many seem to be broken at one end. Indeed, the suggestion that they were employed as some kind of shaft or arrow straightening tool is more likely, for the perforated holes show distinct frictional wear. This idea is strengthened by comparison with analogous artefacts employed by modern Eskimoes to straighten arrow shafts.

3 Batons de commandement (based on a photograph).

One of the most interesting compositions engraved on a broken baton is from Lorthet (Hautes-Pyrénées). This composition is made up of three deer, two of which are stags crossing a river in which several fish are leaping. The image has been interpreted as seasonal and probably intended to show the time of summer or autumnal salmon run and the time (in the summer) when stags leave the hinds. But the most intriguing part of the composition are the lozenge-shaped objects depicted above the back of one stag (Fig. 4).

It has been generally agreed that both are schematic representations; but what they are intended to represent is another matter. Opinion has ranged from the Sun and Moon—‘the two eyes of the sky’—to various stellar-solar combinations and fertility symbols in the form of schematic representations of a vulva or the breasts of a mother goddess.

4 Antler bone from Lorthet, Hautes-Pyrénées. inscribed with two intriguing lozenge-shaped objects which may have astronomical significance.

5 Prehistoric engraving from Fratel, Portugal, depicting two stars (or suns).

To an observational astronomer, symbolism of this kind could easily represent a configuration of two bright stars in close proximity (or two planets in conjunction). Such a stellar example is provided by the celestial Twins Castor and Pollux (Alpha and Beta Geminorum) possibly setting in the summer evening during the period in question. The choice of Castor and Pollux would not be without connections with fertility symbols in the ancient world, for twins have long been associated with this idea. On later Babylonian boundary stones celestial ‘Twins’ are frequently depicted, and in earlier times the twin stars were often considered ‘the eyes of the night’ as opposed to the Sun and the Moon ‘the eyes of the day’. However, these ideas are no more than speculations; astronomically speaking they might also represent the flight of two brilliant meteors or fireballs; on a more mundane level they might perhaps be no more than a hunter-artist’s representation of crude, flint-headed spears or arrows. Star asterisms,