Heaven and Earth are not Two, or how to make a case for celestial alignments by Fabio Silva

For most of the last forty years, research into the alignment of architectural structures to celestial events was split along two distinct methodologies: the so-called brown archaeoastronomy, common in the New World, focused on ethnographic and historic sources to support, and make sense of, claims of alignments; whereas green archaeoastronomy, predominant among those who studied prehistoric Europe, relied on the measurement of large numbers of similar structures in the search for patterns that may betray intentionality. Recently, the line that separates these two has blurred significantly, leading several authorities to claim that the divide no longer exists (Henty 2022).

With recourse to recently published work it will be argued that, despite blurring, the field is still stuck in a dichromatic rut, seeking either ethno-historic confirmation of intentionality or alignment-hunting to support those already identified. To break free from this it is necessary to re-evaluate the very assumptions underlying this type of work – assumptions about how a society’s skyscape relates to their material remains, i.e. how that which is above relates to that which is below.

The ethnographic and historical record indicate that most societies conceive reality as fundamentally relational. The skyscape, in particular, finds itself embedded in relational webs with all aspects of the natural and social world(s). Drawing inspiration from such ethnographic examples (e.g. Fabian 1992, Lévi-Strauss 1979) as well as from the most theoretically developed relational ontology in the world – Far Eastern thought (e.g. Han 2023, Jullien 2004)– it will be argued that archaeoastronomy needs not to blur, but to break out of the brown/green divide by embracing relationality. Using Stonehenge as a case study (Ruggles and Chadburn 2024), this talk will discuss how the entire breadth of the archaeological record must be considered, thereby proposing a novel, entirely relational, way of constructing arguments in favour of celestial alignments.