Ancient Mysteries no. 17, October 1980  (continuation of Journal of Geomancy)

{8}

TERRESTRIAL ZODIACS:
a morphological approach

Philip Heselton

{9}

It has only been in the last ten years or so that there has been much of an awareness of the terrestrial zodiac as a phenomenon, and that the Glastonbury Zodiac was perhaps not as singular as had been thought.  Until Nigel Pennick publicized the Nuthampstead Zodiac in 1969 (1) there was still a widespread feeling that there was only one terrestrial zodiac, the work of Lewis Edwards (2) at Pumpsaint having faded into obscurity. 

Since 1970 the number of claimed zodiacs has burgeoned until there are now references to at least 60.  For many of these no information is forthcoming, even for those which are now quoted in all the books (3), such as Banbury, Wirral, Anglesey and Edinburgh.  They prove strangely elusive when one tries to track them down.  However, there are certainly some 20 or so that have been documented in sufficient detail for some sort of map to be prepared showing the various figures. 

Some people are, understandably, cautious about this growing number which are hinted at without the detailed corroborative evidence being forthcoming.  Mary Caine illustrates this point well.  She has done more than anyone else in recent years to record in amazing detail the geography and folklore of the Glastonbury Zodiac and her own discovery at Kingston.  She has commented forcibly (4) on the need for commitment to the work and for a long period of apprenticeship and she lists eight points, or criteria, for testing zodiacs.  These, in summary, are that figures should be in the same proportion to each other as those at Glastonbury, heads (except Virgo) dovetailing in to the centre of the zodiac; they should be oriented similarly to Glastonbury; the circles should be about ten miles across; they should correspond with the zodiac stars; the figures should be contoured, with rivers and streams running round and partly outlining them; they should be at the {10} nodes of ancient leys; there should be significant place-names, local legends and character-correspondences; and there should, perhaps, be a Christ-head in Gemini. 

The above list is very useful, and certainly most of the items do appear in the majority of zodiacs.  I would submit, however, that it is much too early to set up such a list as a test of the veracity of any zodiac, as the size of the figures and the circles and their orientation so clearly does not apply in many zodiacs. 

There is an alternative approach, which is to accept, temporarily, all the zodiacs that are put forward for scrutiny, to study their form, as a phenomenon, and then see whether any conclusion can be drawn.  I would still, however, be most reluctant to discuss any zodiac purely on grounds of its apparent lack of correspondence with others.  We are dealing with an unfamiliar phenomenon and any attempt at orthodoxy in assessing it is, in my view, mistaken, and, in any event, premature. 

Robert Forrest (5) has tackled the statistical problems inherent in any approach to claimed landscape figures.  The analysis of even such a seemingly simple phenomenon to define as the ley is far more complex than it first appears and is only now, after 15 years, beginning to bear fruit.  When one turns to consider terrestrial zodiacs the problems seem overwhelming.  Instead of the straight line we are faced with strange forms of mythical beings arranged in a diversity of ways and in a multitude of shapes and sizes, or so it would appear.  Any statistical approach seems unlikely to succeed.  We are forced back to crude generalizations and references to the famous Rorschach test * of our ability to see patterns in random natural occurrences, so well illustrated recently by John Michell (6).  {11} The folklore and place name approach is a crucial one to the whole phenomenon, and many researchers such as John Billingsley (7), Michael Burgess (8) and Steve Hamilton (9) are developing the groundwork so ably laid by Katherine Maltwood and Mary Caine.  Many valuable insights have been obtained in this way. 

My own field is that of the geographer – the study of place and how and why its character varies over the surface of the globe.  My intuitive concept of terrestrial zodiacs as being the response to an awareness of the variation of subtle energies in the natural landscape has led me towards a morphological approach to their study, in other words looking at the form of landscape features and the differences between them.  If the zodiacs in some way, and in some part, marked landscape variations then the study (geography) and the subject (terrestrial zodiacs) might be a fruitful combination, the zodiac being seen as a reflection, stylized to some extent, of varying character: precisely what the geographer is looking for. 

A morphological approach to the geography of terrestrial zodiacs would entail a study of the following:

The first essential is to obtain good quality maps of the zodiacs with which to work.  These are in some cases difficult to obtain, but I now have information on some 20 terrestrial zodiacs in sufficient detail to be able to plot them on 1:50 000 maps in order to provide a base for the analysis.  {12} The spatial distribution of zodiacs is still to some extent a reflection of the locations of the various zodiac researchers.  It is an uneven distribution and there are many more yet to be discovered.  Apart from two zodiacs, there is another interesting phenomenon which is rather interesting – they do not overlap!  This could either be the result of an unwritten philosophy among zodiac researchers that you do not go looking for a zodiac where one has already been found, or a genuine characteristic in landscape terms.  Indeed, they don’t even seem to be adjacent, but to be separated by a few miles in each case. 

The 52°N parallel was mentioned in earlier writings and, although the Nuthampstead, Pumpsaint and Preseli zodiacs do fall on this, together with the presumed position of the Banbury Zodiac, its significance does lessen when all the zodiacs now claimed are plotted on the map. 

Another supposed pattern is the “British Zodiac Circle”, postulated by Kathryn Preston (10).  This circle is of 95 miles radius, centered on the Forest of Arden, and passes through the zodiacs of Glastonbury, Winchester, Alton, Kingston, Ongar, Bolingbroke, Hebden Bridge and The Wirral.  This may well be a significant phenomenon, but again it loses some effect when one plots all the zodiacs to scale. 

Paul Screeton mentioned some years ago that the zodiacs were arranged in 12 sectors of a circle radiating from Arbor Low, and that these sectors could each be assigned to a particular zodiac figure.  I remember that the Holderness Zodiac was supposed to fall in the Leo sector.  This looks a fruitful idea with which to assess differences between zodiacs and may be connected with the figureless zodiac in the Peak District discovered by John Barnett (11). 

Nigel Pennick (12) takes this idea {13} further by suggesting that the country could have been divided into geomantic provinces, each of which contained a zodiac.  He remarks that the known zodiacs fit present ecclesiastical dioceses to a remarkable degree and speculates that the zodiacs may have functioned as the equivalent of cathedrals.  The proximity to “three shire” points has also been noted in relation to the positions of zodiacs, which seems to tie them in with the “Patchwork Principle” of David Adams (13). 

My own work has not so far reached a stage that will bring forward a ‘grand theory of the distribution of terrestrial zodiacs’, but I will mention two points for consideration.  Firstly, at least 5 zodiacs are very close to the St Michael “geomantic corridor” from Cornwall to East Anglia.  Secondly, the centres of some zodiacs correspond very closely to major watersheds.  Work is proceeding in this direction.  Finally, the apparent dearth of zodiacs in the whole of the midland counties ** of England shows up well on a map.  Time will tell whether it is of any significance. 

When we look at the individual zodiacs we are struck both by a similarity and a variety.  They can be studied in terms of content, size, shape, orientation and internal arrangement and the individual figures can be looked at in the same way. 

The average size of zodiacs seems to be somewhat larger than the Glastonbury one, say about 10 miles by 15 miles.  If plotted on a distribution curve there does seem to be a fairly even progression from the smaller ones, such as Glastonbury, Wedmore and Ongar through the average-sized ones, such as Bury St Edmunds and Holderness, to the largest ones (in increasing order of size) of Bristol, Bolingbroke, Stonegate and Pendle. 

The highest concentration seems to be north of London, on the Chiltern Hills and surrounding area, where the Bury St Edmunds, Nuthampstead, Ongar, Cuffley, Harpenden and Chiltern Hills {14} zodiacs are situated.  These also seem to be the most even in size and to be separated by roughly the same distance of a few miles. 

It is in the north of England that the greatest variety in zodiac form is seen.  Not only do we have the largest grouped zodiac at Pendle (32 miles across), but within a few miles of this we also have the smallest zodiac so far discovered, at Hebden Bridge (just 6 miles across) and, in the other direction, the only known linear zodiac, Lamanche, which is 60 miles long. 

The shape of zodiacs, apart from the linear one just mentioned, tends towards an elongated, fitting in many instances the vesica piscis quite well.  With regard to orientation, the pattern seems to be either similar to that at Glastonbury, with Aquarius to the north and Leo to the south, or else reversed as at Holderness and Ongar.  This pattern seems to hold good, except of course for the linear zodiac. 

The internal arrangement of the grouped zodiacs is roughly for the figures to be formed into a circle, with the traditional zodiacal characters arranged in the correct order anti-clockwise.  The Libra figure is frequently at the centre of the group, and in most circles at least some of the figures are touching each other.  In Pendle, they are very much interlocked with in some cases three figures occupying in part the same area of ground.  In many zodiacs there is an area in the middle of the circle with no figures. 

It is with the shapes of the figures that perhaps the most difficulties lie.  It is here that sceptics are most vehement that they do not look like the animals, etc. that they are supposed to represent.  There may be some truth in this, but the profile of an animal is not as familiar to us as are its photograph and drawing.  A silhouette of a horse may not from some {15} angles look particularly horse-like for example, but may well be reminiscent of the horse figures from the zodiacs.  Their creators may have known more about what the animals looked like than we do! 

The other aspect is that they are not just outlines.  In only a few zodiacs has any attempt been made to fill in the interior of the figure with detail lines ***.  If this is done, an apparently somewhat shapeless mass may begin to disappear as the real figure as it was originally depicted begins to emerge.  Mary Caine’s work with aerial photographs of the Glastonbury Zodiac shows what can be done. 

The last aspect to look at is the relationship between the figures and the landscape, which can be approached from at least two angles. 

The geographical approach would take, say, the Virgo figure in each of perhaps a dozen zodiacs to look for the distinguishing features and whether there are any particular geographical similarities.  A preliminary investigation of Virgo figures shows, for example, that there is in all cases a prominent stream which flows around two sides of the figure, usually the hem of her dress and her back.  The land slopes towards this stream in gentle curves.  Woods are uncommon and any settlements are restricted to the edge of the figure.  The sheaf of corn is always held out to the right of the figure which is always towards the centre of the circle.  The outline of the sheaf of corn is never a stream, but always a track or road.  A prominent ‘Roman’ road cuts through or near the sheaf.  This is just an example of a preliminary exercise into the type of work which might yield valuable results. 

The second aspect of this study of the relationship between the figures and the landscape is an astrological one.  Each of the 12 zodiac signs have a particular character type associated with them, which is nearly always presented in human terms.  It will be necessary to translate these 12 different character pictures into types of landscape, or to obtain {16} 12 different characteristic landscapes and assign them to the different signs of the zodiac.  This cooperation between geographer and astrologer may yield valuable results in terms of our understanding of the landscape. 

In conclusion, as well as the study of folklore and of the detail of terrestrial zodiacs, there are advantages to be gained in seeing them as a geographical phenomenon and applying traditional geographical techniques to their investigation.  The additional application of astrological knowledge to such a study may bring further awareness.  This is not intended to supplant the approach through folklore, place name and legend, but to provide an additional means of investigation.  Ultimately, the intuitive approach must take priority.  Of its nature it must be experienced directly.  With its help we may well be able to achieve a new insight into the traditions of geography and ecology and thereby become more sensitive to the earth as a living being and to the sense of place – the ‘genius loci’ – which the terrestrial zodiacs, in their own way, are revealing to us. 

REFERENCES

EDITOR’S NOTES