Gary Nobles Background

2.0 Background

This section is divided into the core themes of this type of study aiming to provide the reader
with a robust yet brief background to the study, this includes returning to first principles of
vision in relation to its physics and psychology. From this the reader is moved beyond the
physical mechanics of sight to the psychology of the mind and the perception which comes
from this. The last part of this section places the reader into the context of this study
summarising the history and archaeology of the study, this displays the current archaeological
theoretical climate and the road of thought and discussion which has led to this study.

2.1 Vision

The main argument which will be born from this paper is what is the visual perception of
circularity? To begin to answer this one must define vision and perception; the ability and
method of vision can differ from species to species, for instance the human eye inverts light
through the lens and this light chemically stimulates receptors in the retina. In essence sight is
the capture of light waves; in order to do this human’s utilise the visible spectrum, this ranges
from protons with a wavelengths of between 400 to 700 nanometers (Fellman 1986a:40). The
eye is the organ which captures reflected photons; this process is demonstrated in figure 1.

Figure 1. The Mechanics of the Eye

From http://www.spec2000.net/images/eyeball.jpg

2
Gary Nobles Background

Other creatures have different ways of obtaining data for sight, arthropods use a compound
eye which consists of receptive tubes called ommatidia (Gibson 1979:61) others such as bats
and whales use echolocation for the same purpose and thus composing a different mental
composition of their surroundings. This has been defined as a result of evolution and a factor
of affordance, sight has developed as a method for interpretation of the environment and for
assigning meaning to features.

Returning to human sight, once the information from the light is captured it is relayed from the
retina to the brain, within this system processing, interpretation and analysis takes place. It is
in this stage where perception becomes relevant, it is not possible to obtain all of the
perceptual data from an area in a static image or instance as perception is a continuous process
of collecting data from the ambient array of light (Gibson 1979:147). Palmer defines the
ambient array as:

“Gibson's alternative is an ecological theory of optics and visual perception.

Its central concept is the ambient optic array. Each of the words in this term
has a particular meaning that contrasts with the orthodox theory. Light in the
environment is unlike the simplified focused rays of radiant energy studied by
physicists. The nature of light in the environment is ambient. Light may begin
as radiant energy from the sun, but it is scattered by the atmosphere and
reflected by surfaces to such an extent that it becomes omnidirectional or
ambient. This reverberation of radiant light is so extensive that even shelters
not open to the sun or sky can be illuminated.”(Palmer 1986:69)

The eye or eyes are not without restrictions, they are bound within the human body ultimately
limited by the skull, which too can move and is limited by the neck, which in turn is tied up
with the entire body. The field of view is of an ovoid nature, however certain properties are
only applicable to definable zones within that field of view, Drefuss (1959) illustrates these
complexities in figure 2. It is the body in which one is contained

3
Gary Nobles Background

Figure 2. Basic Visual Data (from Dreyfuss 1959)

4
Gary Nobles Background

and restricted by, this form is a means by which one can relate to, perceive and understand the
surrounding environment (Tilley 1994:14).

2.1.1 Perception

The perception of a landscape is subject to various contributing and continuously varying

factors. One major variance is the reflection of light, which is dependant upon the energy
source, the object and the atmosphere. One’s perception of an environment can alter
dependant upon the angle of the light source and the atmospheric conditions in which the light
is travelling. Distance is also a large factor in this, the further away an object is the less
reflected light is being captured so this alters our resolution of the object and can affect our
recognition. This is also affected by the atmosphere as light can be blocked, diverted, scattered
or directed. For instance the water molecules in fog or mist can absorb and reflect light
particles, and hence hindering the passage of light.

The distance can affect our perceptions of objects and features within a landscape, for instance
it is said that one can see a sheep at a distance of seven eighths of a mile or a sheppy (Adams
and Lloyd 1983:122); these objects are defined within the retina through a process of lateral
inhibition which can enhance the borders between objects, these objects can be highlighted
further through saccide eye movements (Felleman 1986a:45-46). It is these objects which are
then open for interpretation; for instance the images in figure 3 can be manipulated by the
retina to show either an old lady or a young woman or a vase or two faces.

To leave sight at this point would be a gross over simplification, vision is one sense which
links with all of the others, in some cases vision and perception can be enhanced by the other
senses. In practice it is extremely difficult if not impossible to isolate a single sense to analyse
its affect upon a person, moreover it is an amalgamation of the senses which aid in the
perception and cognition of the world ‘as we know it’. A person’s perception of the world can
be altered though their cultural understandings, values and beliefs. Emotion can also affect the
way the world is physically seen, pupil dilation through feelings of fear or contentment alters

5
Gary Nobles Background

the quantity of light entering the eye. Vision can also be altered with the use of chemicals such
as food or drugs altering our mood and the speeds of information through the synapses, so
ultimately the way the brain processes or utilises the data.

Figure 3. Optical Illusions

From http://officespam.chattablogs.com/archives/oldgirl.gif,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_illusion

Figure 4. The sensory homunculus, an illustration of how the surface of the body is represented in the
somatosensory cortex. Larger areas of the cortex are devoted to the more sensitive parts of the body,
such as fingers and lips. From Ingold (2000: 284)

6
Gary Nobles Background

Currently in the western world vision has emerged as the primary tool for communication,
however auditorial communication is still highly prominent. Our dependency upon the five
senses is varying, one sense, touch, is illustrated in Ingold’s sensory homunculus (Figure 4.
2000: 284). This reliance on sight may not have been the case in the past, to other
communities such as the Aborigines’ and Inuit’s vision is not so dominant. Carpenter observes
that for the Inuit communities ‘The binding power of the oral tradition is so strong as to make
the eye subservient to the ear’(1973:33) this is most likely to be due to the widely featureless
tundra in which they live, it is also the case that they are surrounded by darkness for most of
the year (Rodaway1994:119).

2.1.2 Getting out of your mind

It is a common conception that the brain is solely a processor acting in essence as a computer,
receiving data and manipulating it. Levi Strauss saw the brain as a container for the mind
which accesses data from the senses. Bateson however viewed the mind as reaching beyond
the body and interacting with the world, he drew upon an analogy from a blind man:

“Do we draw a boundary around his head, at the handle of the cane, at its tip, or
halfway down the pavement?” (Ingold 2000:18, Bateson 1973:434)

By relating this to vision, the eyes can project the mind to the limits of the landscape in
which the person is situated, therefore the limit of mind is restricted by the horizon and
encompassing the whole of the visible environment. This is a logical extrapolation, as
with the cane, vibrations or energy passing through materials containing information
about the surfaces textural and structural composition. Light waves also contain this
information in the visible spectrum, the particles which are not absorbed by the target
are reflected in the ambient array, some of which are detected though the eyes of the
perceiver. This is a concept which together David Wheatley, Mark Gillings and Tim

7
Gary Nobles Background

Ingold agree (2000:6; 1997:31), as the horizon is at the limits of perception. However
this author would have to argue that it is possible to perceive beyond the horizon, this

Figure 5. Levi-Straus vs. Bateson

From Ingold 2000:18?

is achieved through memory. Areas which have been thoroughly explored or

remembered by a person or society can have a non visible element to its perception;
the knowledge that over the horizon lays a settlement or an area of interest can alter
this visual boundary. For instance rather than associating part of the horizon as an
extent, it could be associated as part of a route through the landscape and thus emoting
the memory of this previous journey, therefore extending the mind beyond the horizon.

8
Gary Nobles Background

2.1.3 On the edge of possibility

This was briefly examined at the end of the last section, however this needs further
investigation. The term horizon is definable as the line between the ground and the sky, in
reality this does not exist, there is no line demarcating between the land and the sky. More
generally horizons do not have to be between the ground and the sky, it could be between two
portions of land, one being behind the other, and this would create a near horizon. This study
is only examining the far horizon and from hereon in the term horizon is in reference to this.
From a static single position in a landscape the horizon appears as a solid entity, however
depth perception can aid in the deconstruction and categorisation of the landscape. In fact
more often than not the horizon is comprised of several undulating areas which could be
perceived as converging, this creates segments of horizon within a 360˚ view.

From a single point perception can be hindered, as Bateson states ‘information only exists
thanks to the movement of the perceiver relative to his or her surroundings… …stable features
of the world remain imperceptible unless we move in relation to them’ (ingold 2000:18). In
plan the horizon can be defined and quantified as a series of segmented lines seen from a
certain point, however if the observer moves then the horizon changes. The horizon is not a
solid boundary it is constructed through the arrangement of various areas; these are located at
relatively high elevations or distant vistas. Furthermore it is the limit of the visible
environment from a single point. Having said this it is not entirely the case as they are not
static entities; they are dynamic, ever-changing and seen differently by every person who
observes them.

By standing stationary at a certain point you observe the world from a defined angle; certain
areas are not in view, these being obstructed by the occasional building, tree, animal or any
number of additional obstructions. Consequently as one moves beyond this point the world
unfolds, passing and opening; from one step to the next the world changes in form and
substance. Yet one is able to see beyond this single view to a totality of view, as Merleau-
Ponty poses one does not have a fixed image of a house rather the house is fixed and the

9
Gary Nobles Background

observer revolves around ‘in varying the point of view while keeping the object fixed’ (Ingold
2000:226; Merleau-Ponty 1962:91).

The horizon is seen through the visual perception of the observer; to view a horizon a journey
must be conducted from a place to another place, the observer can not be positioned at a single
location. The observer has memory of the journey to their current position; also it is possible
that the location could have been visited at multiple times in the past, either full or partial
memories could be in use to aid in way-finding with locations linked to memorable advents.
This memory does not have to be created by the observer, but it can be transmitted through
social activities; if the observer was told there was a village between two peaks then that
person can imagine it is there. This could be even more relevant for societies where the
boundary of their territory has not been fully explored. It could result in stories of mythical
creatures beyond their territory or the location of the land of the gods or the afterlife. These
areas may have been only explored by Shamans using their minds in out of body experiences
through the use of drugs or meditation. This can then be relayed to the rest of society through
speech or rituals. Returning to physical journeys; these journeys creates paths of observations
which are a continuous route through a landscape, the character of the landscape can not be
defined as ‘seen at this moment’ or ‘seen from this point’ moreover it is definable ‘what one
perceives is an environment that surrounds one, that is everywhere actually clear, that is in-
the-round or solid, and that is all-of-a-piece’(Gibson 1979:195-7). Therefore to perceive an
environment or a landscape one is not restricted by the body but by life and experience. Life is
the element of time and experience is simply activities which have been undertaken, observed
or taught within this time.

2.1.4 Through the eye of the camera

It is common to compare the eye with a camera; essentially they are performing the same task:
data collection. A camera is bound by a case and has a line of sight at 90 degrees from its
casing; the eye does not do this as its normal line of sight when standing is at 10 degrees
below this, so the images we see from a camera are not the same as the images captured by a

10
Gary Nobles Background

human. As a result when in an area with a level horizon there is a tendency for humans to see
two thirds of the area below the horizon and one third above (Fellman 1986a:40-42).

The result from a camera, be it in a printed or digital format, can provide the eye with the
same or similar stimulation as the subject would have done (Gibson 1971). However:

“A picture is not an imitation of past seeing. It is not a substitute for going

back and looking again. What it records, registers, or consolidates is
information, not sense data.” (Gibson 1979:280)

Pictures do not duplicate, they provide a visual representation of the subject (Palmer 1986:71),
in the modern world the majority of cultures have been introduced and trained in this picture
skill. In a culture where this picture skill hasn’t been introduced the adults were shown
pictures of local animals, they ‘sniffed at them, licked them and explored them manually as
well as visually, showing no signs of recognition of the items represented in them’ (Serpell
and Deregowski 1980; Palmer 1986:71). Having said this, in cultures where this picture skill
exists then they ‘could provide useful information for landscape simulation and assessment’
(Palmer 1986:71). However it must be kept in mind that a single picture cannot characterize
the visual impact of a landscape as the light from which the visual element is created is ever
changing as with the seasons. As the Earth rotates on its axis different quantities and qualities
of light contribute to the ambient array.

2.2 Stone Circles with a recumbent stone

Recumbent stone circles have various names dependant upon their geographic location, they
were formerly all under the term Recumbent Stone Circle (Somerville 1909), however
Ó Nualláin proposed the term Cork-Kerry Stone Circle to differentiate between their subtleties
(1975:83-131), Clive Ruggles definition also differs as he describes them as Axial Stone
Circles due to their astral alignments (1999:99-101); most recently Aubrey Burl has used the
term Multiple Stone Circle (Burl 2000). For mere simplicity and as not to confuse the reader, I

11
Gary Nobles Background

Figure 6.

Elevation Model Copyright University Of Manchester/University College London Year 2001

12
Gary Nobles Background

shall refer to these stone circles from here on in as Recumbent Stone Circles, especially as
these circles are all defined as having a horizontal monolith; the recumbent stone.

Recumbent Stone Circles (RSCs) are a particular form of stone circle; they are located
predominantly in the N.E. of Scotland and the S.W. of Ireland, the links between these areas
architecturally at least have been identified for some time. The link was firstly recognised by
Somerville when he compared the stone circle of Drombeg, Co. Cork, to the RSCs in N.E.
Scotland (Somerville 1909:105). This comparison was strong when comparing the
architecture, however culturally there has been some debate due to the 500 miles of separation
(Burl 1972:24). Initially there appeared to be no sites linking the two areas until Aubrey Burl
identified the stone circle of Torhousekie, Wigtownshire located in South-west Scotland; to be
a derivative of the Kincardine RSCs which lie to the south of Aberdeenshire. This was not an
isolated case with other variant RSCs located between North-east Scotland and the South-west
of Scotland, furthermore two other sites, Croft Moraig and Fortingall show similar features to
the RSCs of N.E. Scotland and:

“As both Croft Moraig and Fortingall stand on Loch Tay route leading from
N.E. Scotland to the shores of the Irish Sea (Scott, 1951: 35; Stewart, 1959),
the possibility that they, like Torhousekie, are modified representations of the
RSCs of Aberdeen and Kincardine is strengthened” (Burl1972:30).

Burl suggests that these circles were probably developed in eastern Ireland, dispersing and
becoming established over two thousand years (Burl, 2000: 215).

RSCs get their name due to the horizontal stone, which is flanked by two vertical monoliths
(Bradley et al. 2002:840). These flankers are part of a stone circle which can be graded in
height; they generally contain a cairn as found at Tomnaverie, Aberdeenshire (Bradley et al.
2000:465). Table ? displays the differences between the RSCs from NE Scotland and SW
Ireland, the nature of the recumbent alters between these two zones, many of the differences
appear to be mirrors or opposites except for the position of the recumbent, essentially the

13
Gary Nobles Background

Table 1. Comparisons between RSC’s, from Burl 1972:25

Traits Aberdeen-Kincardine Cork-Kerry
Recumbent Stone A massive block A thin slab
Circle-stones graded in height Tallest at S.W.-S., and stand Tallest at N.N.E.-E., and stand
against the recumbent stone opposite the recumbent stone.
Cupmarks On or near recumbent On Drombeg recumbent
Quartz Pebbles At Castle Frazer by the At Mushera Beg by the
recumbent. ‘entrance.’
Central Cremations In 13 of the 14 excavated sites. In all 3 large RSCs excavated.
Not in the 2 small sites
Diameters 68’ average. 30’ average near coast, 9’ inland.
No. of stones 10-17, average 12. 11-22, average 14.
Orientation 156°-230°, average to S.S.W. 189° -268°, average to S.W.
Positions Commonly on hillsides with wide Commonly on hillsides with
views to the E. views to W.

RSCs are created using the same elements just in different arrangements. These differences
could be a result of the cross-cultural nature of the two areas, being divided by the natural
barrier of the Irish Sea and the vast distance.

The chronology of RSCs is limited, as many of the sites were excavated in the early 20th
Century before the advent of C14 dating. Aubrey Burl dates the monuments between 2500 and
1750 BC where as Ian Sheppard suggests c.3000 BC (Ruggles 1999:91), realistically the
carbon dates which have been calculated were taken from secondary deposits such as the cairn
or later cremations.

Stone Circles are one of the many monuments which were constructed by a population under
change; this change was probably one of cultural diversion opposed to one imposed by
occupation or invasion. The gradual transition between the life of a nomadic hunter gatherer
and the sedentary life of an early farmer brought various ideological conflicts, the hunter
gatherers lived within a ‘natural world’ and the farmers were within an ‘artificial world’. By
this one means that the hunter gathers had little permanent impact upon their environment and
were part of the natural dynamic processes, however they could have made or maintained
clearings and had special places for ritual activities. Whereas the farming communities cleared
areas for farming and more permanent structures, and thus drastically altering the landscape,

14
Gary Nobles Background

this was achieved with the construction of earthen bank and stone monuments as well as
settlements.

There have been many interpretations for the use of these stone circles, they could be
monuments or houses for the dead; being a place of memory with the stone resembling a
living memory which will last for generations and provide the following generations with an
attachment to the past and the local landscape, a sense of identity. Some circles are part of a
larger complex linked through natural features and artificial constructions. This can be seen at
sites such as Stonehenge and Avebury. Stonehenge is linked to the river via the avenue; if one
follows this upstream this is connected to the newly discovered avenue which leads through
the eastern entrance of the Henge Monument of Durrington Walls which contains a series of
timber circles (Parker Pearson et al 2005). Avebury also has connections from the Sanctuary
the West Kennet Avenue leads up to the henge monument of Avebury, a Henge Monument
containing three stone circles; this has a second stone row leading towards the Beckhampton
Enclosure (Gillings and Pollard 2004).

2.2.1 Beyond the Earth towards the Cosmos

The study of the Stone Circles and their relationship to the wider landscape was examined by
Lewis from 1883 onwards he considered the relationship between the hills and sites to be of
importance as well as their alignments (Burl 2000:19). In 1906 Sir Norman Lockyer suggested
that a solar calendar had been created by prehistoric societies so to celebrate sunrise in May
(Burl 2000:19, Lockyer 1906:366-8). This work was continued by most notably Alexander
Thom in the 1960s. Most recently Clive Ruggles and Aubrey Burl have continued this line of
investigation. In relation to RSC’s of northeast Scotland, he looks at the horizon through the
portal which is formed by the recumbent or axial stone and the flanking monoliths; he notes
that the distance to the horizon through this portal is moderately distant and concludes that this
could be so that a large angle of view could be observed for the passing of celestial bodies.
Also the recumbent stone lies below the horizon with the flankers ‘boxing off’ the horizon and
thus partitioning it from the remainder of the landscape. He states there is a hint of correlation

15
Gary Nobles Background

between the orientations of the monument and the movement of the moon, or they could be
orientated upon the winter sun. However Ruggles identifies that at Midmar Kirk (57) the
horizon is at an altitude which would obscure the full moon at midsummer. In contrast he
identifies the RSC’s (or ASC’s) of southwest Ireland to have no overall relationship with any
astronomical bodies (Ruggles 1999:91-101).

Within the circles there are occasionally secondary phases such as a cairn and Human
cremation deposits (Bradley 2002:130, Burl 2000:215-233, Ruggles 1999:91). The current
interpretations for the use of these sites are limited, they are not domestic, defensive, or
industrial nor are they used as cemeteries. Therefore inevitability they are seen as ceremonial
and ritualistic in their use (Ruggles 1999:91).

2.2.2 Traditional and inherited explanations

Alternative explanations relate to the local myths which surround these monuments, they
usually relate to King Arthur, Merlin the Magician, Giants, and the slaying of Dragons. Many
Legends also relate to the healing properties of these sites where they bring good luck and
fertility, some legends also regard that on the destructing of a stone circle the perpetrator
would suffer bad luck and ultimately death. These legends also offer an explanation for the
creating of some of the sites; for Stanton Drew in Somerset:

“Years ago, a couple held their wedding reception in a meadow outside

Stanton Drew. It was a Saturday, and the drinking and dancing went on
until midnight, when the piper, who was a devout man, refused to play any
more. The bride was so furious that she swore she would find another piper,
even if she had to go to Hell to fetch him. At that moment, an old man
appeared and offered to play… …But their piper turned out to be the Devil,
and the faster he played, the faster they danced, an no-one could break the
spell. By dawn, when he returned to Hell, the entire party had been reduced
to a troop of grinning skeletons. And when the villagers of Stanton Drew

16
Gary Nobles Background

came to the field in the morning, they found that even these remains had
been turned into the stones that stand there today” (Readers Digest
1973:36).

And Stonehenge in Wiltshire:

“One story says the stones were originally transported from Africa to Ireland
by a race of Giants, and were later brought to the Plain by Merlin and the
Devil, who flew with them across the Irish Sea” (Readers Digest 1973:36).

These stories may have been originally based in truth but due to the continual reinterpretation
through the generations and the evolution of language and society these are less likely to refer
directly to the true events especially since they are also a resulting factor of this reinvention,
which one could call the Chinese whisper effect.

2.3 Circularity of landscape

The idea that Neolithic monuments are located within basins with an encompassing horizon
was jointly posed by Colin Richards and Richard Bradley (1996:190-208; 2006: 122, 116-131;
1998 122, 116-131). Colin Richards tackles the question of place, and why certain places were
used for monumental architecture, he notes that in Northern Britain these places have a high
degree of visibility being situated within the base of natural bowls or basins (1996:190). He
draws on an example from Mainland in Orkney; an area in the west of Mainland forms a
natural bowl, within these confines are the monumental constructions of Maeshowe, Stones of
Stenness, Barnhouse and the Ring of Brodgar. Richards suggests that the architecture of the
monuments located within this region is influenced by the surrounding topography. The Ring
of Brodgar which is defined as a Henge Monument as it is composed of an inner ditch

17
Gary
Figure Nobles
7. The Ring of Brodgar and its environs, From Richards (1996:191,204) Background

bounded by an exterior bank which reflects the surrounding topography. The ditch is believed
to have held water which Richards parallels with the two surrounding locks and the encircling
bank resembling the more distant topography. He also defines the standing stones as a

18
Gary Nobles Background

landscape metaphor, the stones over look the Neolithic dwellings of Barnhouse as does the
topography.

Bradley identifies the need to explore the impressions of monuments beyond their localities
and with the broader surrounding landscape (2006:121). He notes that many neolithic
monuments were built on sites which had been used before and he suggests these areas
epitomised an area with circular perception (ibid: 122). It is this perception which he believes
is articulated through the construction of these monuments as they represent the qualities of
the surrounding area (ibid:122). He uses causewayed enclosures as an example, these are one
of the few Neolithic monuments which do not have a generic plan, some resemble circles
whilst others are ovoid or irregular. Also Avebury is within an area which is largely bound by
hills, Bradley suggests that a completed monument would provide a metaphor for the
surrounding landscape or it could even suggest their perception of the world (ibid: 123).

2.4 The Structure of Landscape and Horizon

Tadahiko Higuchi (1988:4) broke the structure of vision down into 8 categories; these are seen
in figure 8. This study is measuring predominantly three of these attributes, those of
inclination, elevation and distance (2, 3 and 6). These three attributes play a vital role in the
construction of a horizon; figure 9 illustrates how the inclination can remain the same whilst
the remaining attributes can change. In this can if the elevation increases then the distance of
the horizon has to also increase to keep the same inclination. It is the variation of these three
attributes which will be assessed within this study and how they relate to the perception of
circularity of the far horizon.

19
Gary Nobles Background

Figure 8. Index for Visual Structure (From Higuchi 1988:4 )

1. Visibility or invisibility. This concerns the fundamental question of what

can be seen and what cannot be seen from a given viewpoint.

2. Distance. This has to do with the changes that take place in the appearance
of an object as the distance between the observer and the object varies.

3. Angle of incidence. When a landscape is conceived of as a concatenation

of surfaces, the angle at which the line of vision strikes each surface
determines to a large degree what can be seen of it. This index evaluates the
comparative visibility of the various surfaces in a given landscape.

4. Depth of invisibility. This gauges the degree of invisibility in terms of the

depth of the unseen section with respect to the line of vision.

5. Angle of depression. This clarifies the viewer's sense of position as he

looks at a scene from above.

6. Angle of elevation. This indicates the nature of the upward view and the
limits of visible space.

7. Depth. This clarifies the degree of three-dimensionality of the landscape

as it unfolds before the viewer.

8. Light. The appearance of a landscape changes drastically in accordance

with the manner in which the light strikes it. This index has to do with the
transformations that take place as the position of the source of light moves
from front to side to back.

Figure 9. The interaction of inclination, elevation and distance.

20