Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:36:05.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A SURVEY OF THE BARBROOK STONE CIRCLES AND THEIR CLAIMED ASTRONOMICAL ALIGNMENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2011

R.P. Norris
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
P.N. Appleton
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access

Summary

Abstract The Barbrook stone circles and their outliers have been the subject of a total of 16 claimed astronomical alignments (Thom 1967, Barnatt 1978). We have re-surveyed the sites in order to test these claims. In choosing alignments we have adhered to rigidly defined selection criteria, and we have applied the test of Freeman and Elmore, together with pseudo-random simulations, in order to test the significance of our results. We conclude that there is no evidence of any deliberate accurate astronomical alignments, although there is marginal evidence for rough astronomical alignments which may have been constructed for ritual purposes.

Introduction

The valley of Barbrook on Big Moor in Derbyshire was the site. of a major prehistoric settlement (Radley 1966, Burl 1976). The moor contains the remains of a number of stone circles, earthen enclosures, standing stones and cairns, some of which have been shown by Lewis (1966) to have existed in Neolithic and Early Bronze age times. One of the stone circles, Barbrook 1, has been claimed by Thom (1967) and by Barnatt (1978) to have been used by prehistoric man for astronomical purposes. In addition, Thom (1967) has suggested that Barbrook 1 and another nearby stone circle Barbrook 3 (also known as Owler Bar) were constructed according to an accurate geometrical method (Thom type B circles).

In order to make an objective assessment of the astronomical and geometrical claims two projects were carried out:

  1. (i) We have accurately surveyed possible sightlines following the criteria suggested by Cooke et al. (1977) and have assessed their significance.

  2. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×