A Guide to Ley Lines - My identification rules and theory regarding the classification of alignment markers
 |
| The "Two Lads" on Wider's Moor, Winter Hill (SD 6553 1329) |
Ley-Line (or "alignment") enthusiasts are often met with a mixture of bemusement and disbelief when they tell people about their particular interest. The mathematically minded of those people point to the fact that a straight line can be drawn from any point A to any point B (as postulated by Euclid) and that the sheer number of ancient monuments (AKA alignment markers) in the British Isles means that many alignments are the subsequent result of pure coincidence. Alternatively, the anthropologically minded of those people may refer to the phenomenon of Apophenia (the experience of seeing patterns or connections in seemingly random data) and note that us humans are programmed to seek understanding and order from such random information, even when there is none!
However, I say to those people that when ancient monuments are connected by something other than just purely a straight line, when they are connected perhaps functionally, visually or etymologically, the probability that those monuments are aligned by pure coincidence diminishes (admittedly, the probability doesn't disappear!).
In order to discount some of the arguments that purport pure coincidence, I apply the Golden Rules established by Watkins in his book The Old Straight Track (1925) to the alignments that I investigate. That is:
However, I say to those people that when ancient monuments are connected by something other than just purely a straight line, when they are connected perhaps functionally, visually or etymologically, the probability that those monuments are aligned by pure coincidence diminishes (admittedly, the probability doesn't disappear!).
In order to discount some of the arguments that purport pure coincidence, I apply the Golden Rules established by Watkins in his book The Old Straight Track (1925) to the alignments that I investigate. That is:
- Alignments must start and end on hill points (I slightly augment this to other natural formations - such as natural rock formations, waterfalls, etc.); and
- They must have a minimum of four relevant marker points (as outlined in great detail below) upon the alignment.
It can be shown that the probability of an alignment with less than 4 relevant marker points is more likely to be the result of pure coincidence. However, the probability of an alignment with 4 or more relevant marker points being the result of coincidence is much less probable; indeed, Guy Ragland Philips notes in his book Brigantia: A Mysteriography (1976), that a twelve marker alignment has the odds of 1,000 million millions to one of being a result of pure coincidence... that is 1,000,000,000,000,000 : 1!
In addition to the "Watkinsian" Golden Rules, I add one further rule of my own:
- There needs to be some logical and practical theory, supported by evidence and / or observation, that can be prescribed to the alignment (such as it's functional, commercial, or religious significance, etc.).
Adding this further rule does nothing to reduce the probability of coincidence, as the theory itself will be largely un-substantive - but it does hopefully provide some logic to the existence of the alignment, which may help to dispel some criticism.
Categorising Marker Points - Geomancy, foresight by earth... identifying the relevant markers points and patterns of alignments...
Geomancy as an art is theorised to have its origins in the Arabic Middle East, although the lack of historical records prevents any measure of certainty. In the Islamic tradition, a man named Khalaf al-Barbari (who it is said was converted to Islam by the Prophet Muhammad himself) explained that he was tutored in the arts and that the pre-Islamic prophets knew geomancy, and that by learning geomancy, one may "know all that the prophet knew".
In more recent times, being the 16th Century, Dr. John Dee (the mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occultist, imperialist and adviser to Queen Elizabeth I, who also devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination and hermetic philosophy) noted in his book, The Mathematicall Praeface to Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570):
"For the true mathematical science is that which measureth the invisible lines and immortal beams which can pass through clod and turf; hill and dale. It was for this reason, it was accounted by all ancient priests the chiefest science; for it gave them power both in their words and in their works."
I believe that "ancient priests" did indeed survey alignments over vast distances, using all their mathematical expertise, and marked these alignments with marker points - I categorise these marker points into three distinct groups:
- Natural Markers;
- Secondary Artificial Markers (sub-categorised into Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age); and
- Subsequent Artificial Markers (sub-categorised into Roman and Christian).
Finally, I always try to look at the etymology of place names in order to help identify clues as to the original purpose of that location. This may shed some light upon what the area was originally used for, before it was developed into its modern use - an example could include "Halliwell" in Bolton, being derived from the place being known as containing a holy-well. Another example could be the place name "Turton", with "Tur" coming from "Tor" meaning "Hill" or "Tower" in Old Welsh, etc. Other practical examples are place names including a reference to a colour, such as "Black" to indicate a beacon fire, from the root "blæc" in Old English meaning "dark", originally from Proto-Germanic "*blakaz" meaning "burned", with an ultimate Proto-Indo- European root "*bhleg", meaning "to burn, gleam, shine, flash"...
There are so many examples that I can give... but I wont go into it in any more detail here, as etymology is unique to each word (obviously) and as such it is appropriate to leave until we discuss specific place names on future blog posts (such as Winter Hill!). One observation that I will make is that the study of etymology can also help establish the layering of different cultures and languages on a particular place, which can help identify similarities or evidence of the changing function of the place over time (an example being the place name "Pendle Hill"... originally being "Penhul" in the 13th Century, coming from "Pen" which means "Hill" in Old Welsh, "Hyll" which means "Hill" in Old English... so ultimately meaning "Hill Hill Hill"). I will note at this point that I am not a linguistic expert, my study of the etymology of place names and words comes directly from google and Wikipedia!
To follow is a detailed study into the above outlined categorisation method of alignment marker points. This method will form the basis of the observations contained in my future blog posts, concerning the particulars of identified alignments... so here goes...
Natural Markers - the fixed beginning and ending!
 |
| View to the Pike from above Pike Cottage (SD 6494 1317) |
Firstly, there are Natural Markers. These existed long before anyone decided to use them for any particular purpose, and they will exist long after. They are fixed, immovable and are therefore more likely to indicate the start and finish points of an alignment. They can include any prominent natural feature in the landscape; most commonly being hill points, the direction of sunrise and sunset, natural rock formations, or water features such as natural harbours, springs or river confluences, etc.
You may justifiably ask: should an alignment only ever include two natural marker points and no more? (that is, one at the start and one at the end of an alignment). I would suggest that the inclusion of more than two natural markers upon an alignment would more likely be the result of coincidence, as opposed to being planned and surveyed (but I am not saying that it is not possible, just improbable!).
Thinking logically, I believe that the linking of two natural markers by an alignment would have originally been for functional and perhaps survival purposes. Ancient man, much like modern man, has reason to find the most efficient route between two points of interest. As noted by Philips (1976):
"[in a] book... about... travels in the Ivory Coast of Africa [it was written]: At last we got to the steep mountain side. The natives went straight up even when it was so steep we had to go on all fours... as far as these native paths are concerned... they don't snake their way in curves to follow the slope like ours do, but are as straight as a die."
Watkins (1925) also noted that, since pre-historic man traveled only on foot, the quickest way between any two points was generally a straight line. Furthermore, practically speaking, moving from high-ground to high ground whilst migrating over terrain has obvious strategic and defensive purposes, not to mention that high-ground also provides better conditions for one to survey the 'Ley-of-the-Land' (emphasis added to the use of the word 'Ley').
These straight paths were surveyed by some distant inhabitant of the British Isles (as well as other parts of the world), the age of which is now impossible to ascertain. I would surmise that they are of a most ancient age, perhaps Mesolithic (approx. 20,000 BC to 10,200 BC) or even Paleolithic (older than 20,000 BC).
Secondary Artificial Markers - the tombs, standing stones, stone circles and earthworks built by successive and varying peoples
 |
| Round Loaf Burial Mound - Anglezarke Moor (SD 6380 1821) |
Next, there are those marker points that are purely artificial, built specifically by some pre-historic peoples to mark a surveyed alignment (between two natural markers). These can include standing stones, marker stones, stone circles, notches in the land, burial mounds, tombs, or various other earthworks, etc. These will be referred to as "Secondary Artificial Markers" and were more likely placed with the implicit knowledge that the alignment existed between two natural markers; however, it doesn't necessarily follow that they were all built by people who possessed a complete knowledge of the original reason for the alignment, or knowledge of who originally surveyed the alignment, etc.
As Philips (1976) notes, successive waves of different Celtic peoples in pre-historic Britain may have found existing alignments and re-built or modified them for their own purposes.
When it comes to secondary artificial markers, I sub-categorise these into their likely construction periods, being: Neolithic markers (approx. 10,200 BC to 3200 BC); Bronze Age markers (approx. 3200 BC to 600 BC); and Iron Age markers (approx. 600 BC to 100 AD) - I don’t include any marker points built post the Romanization of Britain in the definition of secondary artificial marker, they largely fall under the third category of subsequent artifical markers, below.
I theorise that the Neolithic secondary artificial markers are more likely to have been built by the ancestors of the original alignment surveyors (who were most likely amongst the oldest indigenous peoples of the British Isles - although, I don’t know who these people were nor whether any of us today are descended from them!?!). The primary reason for establishing these Neolithic marker points may logically have been to mark the route (probably with locally sourced marker stones, some decorated with cup and ring marks noted to have originated in the early Neolithic period). The secondary reason for establishing these Neolithic marker points could have logically been a result of the formation of Pagan religious belief systems, arising in relation to the natural markers upon the alignment (such as the path / direction of the Sun, the elevation of hills, sources of water, the journey of life from birth to death, etc.); this could be manifest in the placing of Neolithic Chambered Cairns. I think that it is safe to say that the basis of any primitive religion is most likely due to the success of the peoples ancestors in relation to their environment. Subsequent belief systems would form in relation to the alignment that protecting their ancestors from harm, or guided them to a particular resource; this would engrain a need to thank the gods (which may have included the alignment itself at this point) and to guarantee continued future successes (we are all creatures of habit and driven by incentives to survive!).
I believe that the original alignments were surveyed and built by peoples who were as ancient and mysterious to the pre-historic peoples of the Bronze and Iron Age, as they are to us today. Accordingly, I theorise that those Bronze and Iron age secondary artificial markers are more likely to have been built as a result of use of the known alignments by people who were far removed from the original surveyors; perhaps this was by a great number of years (centuries or even millennia), or perhaps even by cultural difference, due to successive waves of Celtic migrations from the Continent into the British Isles (as evidenced by the various religious and social changes that occurred with the coming of the Beaker People in the early Bronze Age - as detailed further below). These uses of the alignment would likely have been for commercial, advanced religious or continued Pagan spiritual purposes. It may also be possible at this point that other alignments were built upon the existing alignments using the same markers, but due to different or changing belief systems (such as creating a new alignment based upon a different god / earth deity, such as the moon, etc.), thus creating the "Spider's Web" effect of distorted alignments, as noted by Philips (1976).
I believe the differentiation between users of alignments is evidenced by the plethora of folklore tales that are attached to many alignment markers across the British Isles. (note - Before you discount a folklore tale being referred to as evidence, remember that our word "history" in itself comes directly from the Middle English word "story"!). The characters involved in these tales usually come in juxtaposed forms of either a Giant, or an Imp!
Starting with giants, Geoffrey of Monmouth in his amazing pseudo-historic book "The History of the Kings of Britain" (circa. 1136 AD) tells how Britain was first inhabited by a race of giants before the coming of modern man (incidentally who were led to Britain by Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas, Prince of Troy). Folklore tales concerning many alignment markers talk of them being thrown by some giant (usually mid-combat with some other rival giant), and that this is evidence is visible in the finger print impressions left on the stones themselves (markings that we now call cup-and-ring marks). These folklore tales are also backed-up by the colloquial name of many of these markers referring to a giant in some way - an example being the "Hanging Stone" on Turton Moor (SD 681 183), otherwise known locally as the "Giant's Stone", as noted by Hampson in "Horwich: Its History, Legends, and Church" (1883), on account of it being "thrown by a certain giant upon a certain occasion from Winter Hill... they fancy that certain little hollows in the stone are the impressions made by the giant's hands...". What I find interesting about this little description is that it indicates some gem of old knowledge that links the stone not only to being placed by a "giant", but also to it being linked somehow to a hill (being Winter Hill in this case); I wonder whether this is a memorial-relic of its original use, as marking an alignment to or from Winter Hill? This example is not uncommon, there are many other examples that I could quote... but those are for a future blog post...
Turning our attention to the other imp-like character type typical in our folklore tales... Fairies, Hob-Goblins, or Elves are usually described as a spirit of various levels of intent (from good to evil) manifested in some type of small magical-being. The story normally goes that a fairy lives on a mound in the hills, or in a waterfall in a valley, or they dance around the stones making fairy rings... etc. I am pretty sure that no one has ever seen this actually happen in modern memory... but I do believe that this is an example of folklore describing some ancient relic-memory, augmented by various generations of spoken word to the relatives of the people who originally observed something of that sort happening. When the Celts invaded / migrated from the Continent to Britain (beginning with the Beaker People circa. 2700 BC, continuing throughout the Bronze Age, and culminating with the larger migrations in the early Iron Age) they will have encountered the existing inhabitants of the British Isles. They most likely observed their strange and secretive customs. They probably noted that these people didn't look like they could erect such monuments (much as we do now when we look back and think of how these things were built!) and so perhaps they were built by some ancient giants (because they would be big enough to move those stones, right?) - perhaps even those existing inhabitants told them that giants built them!?! With the arrival of the Beaker People in Britain, we see vast changes in the religious practices of the land - from the introduction of inhumation in burial mounds, as opposed to earlier practices of excarnation (also known as defleshing), to changes in the practices involving no longer working with large stones (as noted in the later stages of the construction at Stone Henge).
Things changed in Britain when these new people arrived and they probably regarded the existing aboriginal people of Britain as a strange and peculiar people; people who might have been smaller in stature than these new Continental types were? and who most likely spoke a different language (although probably some form of proto-celtic). The folklore tales of fairies and other similar spirits probably came from these new Celtic observers, in reference to the old-folk. Of course, the origins of fairies could have come in a similar sense, but much later, from the observations of the Anglo-Saxon invaders, who arrived in Britain after the withdrawal of the Romans, in the 5th Century AD. They would have found a post-Romano Britain in decay with the remnants of its inhabitants scattered across the land, some living in the ways of the old gods, and some living in the early-Christian way of the new God. However, I would surmise that the appearance of the British to the Anglo-Saxons would not have been that remarkable as to give rise to tales of them being small, magical-like folk... but you never know...
The difference itself between the tales of giants who built the monuments and fairies who inhabited them, may further indicate some evidence as to the difference between the original builders and subsequent users of alignments. An inevitable result of the layering of successive peoples in Britain, mystifying the old alignments and markers into folklore.
Many historians link the British giant legends to the Romans, being a large and formidable force who conquered the British and engaged in massive infrastructure projects the likes of which the existing British could not have matched. However, this does not account for the proven antiquity of the alignment markers bearing giant references; these markers invariably pre-date the coming of Rome to the British Isles.
There may also be crossed-wires here regarding the folklore memory of alignments and the more recent (but still ancient) memory of the Romans; an example of which involves "the Great Stone", in Old Trafford, Manchester. This massive stone was reputably thrown by Tarquin the giant at another giant who lived in Stretford, due to a quarrel - Tarquin was apparently a foreigner who lived in Castlefield, Manchester (the site of the old Roman Fort of Mamucium)… and two depressions on the side of the Great Stone are said to be the marks of the giant's thumb and forefinger (does any of this sound familiar!?!). Another version of this story was that Tarquin's enemy was indeed the good Sir Lancelot, of Arthurian fame; according to Blitcliffe and Hoare in their book The Spine of Albion (2012), the story of a stone-throwing foreign giant battling with a British (Arthurian) hero could very well be a distant memory of the Brigantian tribe's (a Celtic tribe who in pre-Roman times controlled the present day North of England) fight with the Romans. I believe that this is a memory of Roman conquest overlaid with a much older memory of a stone marker being erected by some other unknown (but perhaps equally formidable) ancestor... or it may all just be some old fairy-tale!
Subsequent Artificial Markers - places in modern usage... founded indicatively, but unknowingly, upon those natural and secondary marker points
 |
| The "Angel Stone" Manchester Cathedral (SJ 8388 9874) |
Finally, there are marker points that have developed subsequent to those natural and artificial markers; built by later generations with no implicit knowledge of the original alignment. These I will refer to as "Subsequent Markers". These would predominately be built post Romanisation of Britain. They include cross-roads, perfectly straight portions of existing roads, town and market centers, Christian churches, etc.
The Romans first tentatively arrived in the British Isles in 55-54 BC, as part of an offshoot campaign of Julius Caesar's larger Gallic campaign. In 43 AD they invaded more substantially, led by Aulus Platius in the reign of Emperor Claudius.
I am sure that when people today think of the British Isles pre-Roman invasion they think about a wild and dangerous wilderness of ancient woodland covered in thick mist... populated by vicious Britons who painted themselves blue and danced around their fires and stone circles... this view isn't helped by many major Hollywood movies depicting the same!
In reality, when the Romans came to Britain, they would have found a relatively ordered society, organised into tribes of Celtic kingdoms presided over by chieftain elites and Druidicial classes. These ruling classes knew of the Roman activities on the Continent (primarily through the large scale tin trading that Britain was involved in throughout ancient times (the Greeks referred to the British Isles as the "Cassiterides", or "Tin Islands")) as well as through the alignment and integration of the British and Continental Druids (they might have even been one and the same body of priests); as noted by Julius Ceasar in his Gallic Conquests, one of the reasons for him continuing into Britain was to stop the British Druids aiding their Gaulish cousins against Rome.
The British knew that the Romans were coming! The British were very resistant, but they could not stop the leviathan that was Rome. And so cultural invasion followed. This invasion took the form primarily of infrastructure construction; being roads, aqueducts, viaducts, bridges, municipality buildings, etc.
Historians originally attributed the building of straight roads across the British Isles solely with the coming of the Romans. However, this theory is now largely rebuffed, with the consensus being that the Romans found existing ancient straight track ways in Britain, many of which they adapted and altered to transport large numbers of troops and goods. They also would have found indigenous towns, cities, markets, works (such as mines and fisheries) and built their infrastructure in congruence with these places.
The reason for them doing this is logical: firstly, the existing indigenous places would most likely be located in the most economically efficient place; secondly, subjugation of the indigenous peoples would have been more easily achieved with the replacing of their existing infrastructure with that of Roman; and finally, the assimilation of the indigenous peoples culture (religious, social, and economic) would be smoother by taking their existing institutions and beliefs and subsuming them into the new Roman way of life (this is most obvious with the Romanisation of existing British deities into the Pantheon of Roman gods).
For our purposes, we will focus on Roman roads, as these would most likely have been built either directly in relation to, or perhaps generally based upon, the preexisting British alignments that linked important places. To evidence this, one may look to Ireland, where the Romans never ventured, and they will find long straight ancient roads and track ways as proof that it wasn't only the Romans who built perfectly straight roads over great distances (however, they were probably the best at doing so!). I refer to these marker points as "Subsequent Roman Markers"
As further evidence, an interesting account of ancient road building can be found written by Geoffrey of Monmouth (circa 1136 AD). His account notes that an ancient ruler of Britain called Dunvallo Molmutius established the so called Moltumine Laws, circa 400 BC. According to Geoffrey, these laws contained the following that:
"the temples of the gods and the cities should be so privileged that anyone who escaped to them as a fugitive... must be pardoned... when he came out... [and] the roads which led to these temples of the gods and the cities should be included in the same law" [emphasis added].
The account goes on to mention Belinus and Brennius, the two sons of Dunvallo Molmutius, who ratified their fathers laws (after initially battling between themselves) and, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth:
"[Belinus] summoned workmen from all over the island and ordered them to construct a road of stones and mortar which should bisect the island longitudinally from the Cornish Sea to the shore of Caithness and should lead in a straight line to each of the cities on the route. He then ordered a second road to be built, running West to East across the kingdom from the town of St Davids on the Demetian Sea over to Southampton and again leading directly to the cities inbetween" [emphasis added]
The above account is extremely interesting, as it seemingly identifies that pre-Roman straight roads existed in the British Isles, and these roads directly connected cities and temples together, in straight tracks... I believe that this is a description of our ancient alignments! Here also we have the birth of what Philips (1976) called the "Belinus Line"... but that needs to be the subject of a future blog!
The Romans leaving the British Isles precipitated the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms in the 5th and 6th Centuries AD. Then began the major Christianisation of the British Isles during the 7th Century AD, followed by the Viking invasions and Danish settlements in the 9th Century; which then formed the basis of the unification of Britain under the hegemony of the House of Wessex through the 9th and 10th Centuries, before the Norman Conquest in 1066 AD - a lot of history to fit into one paragraph!
Focusing on the Christianisation of Britain in the 7th Century, we find many examples of the sanctification of pre-existing places of worship to bring them under the Christian orthodoxy. This was a matter of policy not dissimilar to the previous Roman policy of cultural assimilation. Early Christian missionaries would travel across the lands finding Christian flocks, baptising people using the very pools, springs and temples they have been gathering around and worshiping at for thousands of years prior. This Christiansation took the form of either the sanctification of an existing monument (such as the re-dedication of a spring or well to a Christian Saint (typically St. Helen in the North), the re-carving of a standing stone into a the form of a cross, or the carving of a Christian icon / mark of a cross onto a marker stone), or the establishment of a new building over the top of an existing Pagan sacred site (such as the establishment of a church atop a large barrow, or incorporating a stone circle into a church, etc). This would have the effect of auto-Christianisation of the existing Pagan population with little need for change. It is interesting to note that so many of the old Pagan rituals still survive in the practices of the Church today as a result of this, such the Easter festival (coming from Ēostre, celebrated by Pagan Anglo-Saxons to mark the dawn, the beginning of new life) and Christmas (coming from the observation of the Winter Solstice, being the Pagan celebration of Yule and the Roman Saturnalia, signifying the end of life and reincarnation, death and rebirth) - there are so may other examples...
As a result of this Christianisation of earlier sacred places of worship, we find that many alignments are marked by churches and other Christian-based signs or monuments (such as carved crosses, cross marks) - I refer to these marker points as "Subsequent Christian Markers".
Closing comments...
Please don’t hesitate to contact me directly or to comment if you have any questions or observations... your thoughts are very much welcome!
