TOWARDS A GENERAL THEORY OF TERRESTRIAL ZODIACS

by Philip Heselton

It is sometimes useful in investigating an unfamiliar phenomenon such as Terrestrial Zodiacs to set up some form of working hypothesis, there to be challenged, certainly, but which could perhaps provide a clue to lines of enquiry which may prove fruitful. So, the following is nothing more than an attempt to present in sequence one line of thought on the subject.

We may start with the concept of formative forces, or earth energies, more subtle than the physical but which underlie and play their part in shaping physical form. In Pagan terminology, they are represented by the various gods and goddesses and spirits of place. The ancient Sanskrit texts refer to the Devas (by which name they are also known at the community of Findhorn in Scotland). This life-force energy has, in more recent times been referred to by many names – Reichenbach’s odic force, Wilhelm Reich’s orgone energy, to name but two. It is the energy which may well underlie the phenomena now being recorded by the Ley Hunter Dragon Project at Rollright.

These are the formative forces behind living beings and are responsible for the shape and character of each species and individual.

They are also responsible for the form of the landscape, seeing the Earth itself as a living being.

The energies vary in character and strength over time in a cyclical way and with their location on the Earth’s surface.

These energies work on the landscape and give it form, in a similar way to the action of a magnetic field in a scatter of iron filings. The analogy is not exact, but should convey the method of operation.

The traditional role of water (and, to some extent wind) in the shaping of the landscape has been well documented by geomorphologists over the years. The subtler energies act in a similar way and may help to explain the particular location of landscape features, such as river valleys, hill peaks and variations in the dip of rocks. Whilst geomorphology can explain the general form of the landscape, the reason for the precise location of features is imperfectly understood, and is generally explained in terms of variations in the weakness of rock etc. Whether the subtle energies could be responsible for these variations is, of course, not taken into consideration.

By implication, the earth’s surface may therefore at least partly be the result of the action of the subtler energies and there may thus be likely to be areas where these energies are, or have been, stronger than elsewhere, or where they have greater variety. This may then be reflected in a consequently greater variety in the landscape itself, which can only partly be explained in traditional geomorphological terms.

At some indeterminate point in history, people became aware (or became aware that they already were aware) of these areas of increased energy activity, as they could in some way tune in to it, as so-called ‘primitive’ peoples today still can, and as we can no longer, except in particular circumstances and under particular conditions. The people proceeded to mark this energy. Over the world, this took a variety of forms. In the land which is now known as Britain, it appears to have been marked, at least in part, by Terrestrial Zodiacs.

The zodiac, as a concept, can therefore be seen (as in modern astrology) at least partly as an attempt to classify character into types. Although usually used today for individuals, it is equally applicable to landscape, leaving the way open to the possibility of landscape classification. If the people living in an area became aware of the character variations in their local landscape and could, by correspondence, classify these in zodiacal terms, then the next step of marking the actual zodiac character on the ground by diverting streams and paths and creating earthworks etc., as a conscious act, does not seem a particularly great one. {21}

The integration between the zodiacal figure representing a particular character structure and the corresponding physical form of the landscape in the equivalent part of the terrestrial zodiac as laid out on the ground may well be so great that only relatively small physical works may have been necessary to complete the figures. There can thus be seen a resolution of the conflict as to whether the zodiacs are largely natural or artificial in construction and they can be seen as being the response to an awareness of the variation of natural forces in the landscape.