CRITIQUE

Following the NW-SE band — better vice versa, as I begin to retrace my steps —from Jaizkibel II, Oianleku N, the Gatzarrietas, the Agiñas, Amargungo Zeharra, Pagolletako Gaña placing Sirius or Antares – or both, like at Oianleku N – (not mentioning but taking account of groups like Egiar or Errenga), we can say that, although not physically present, these stars were marked by noteworthy witnesses. In a first coherent approximation, which would be the umpteenth if I counted the mistaken ones, I cleared away the vegetation at the Elorrieta stone circle group at the foot of Mount Auza. The group is next to one of the sources of the River Bidasoa and continues west first towards Mendaur and then toward Abedi Gurutz, in other words, linking Orhi and Ernio to the path of stars by means of a change of direction of which I only make mention. Following the band from Orhi to Auza and from Orhi to the Valle de Hecho, I could probably also say a lot, but it’s still too soon; I don’t know. I do know, however, that I am not mistaken when I say that apart from other alignments of stone circle groups, there is a strip of monuments — most of which look out towards Pico de Orhi — running NW from Orhi to the sea, and SE toward the Valle de Hecho, matching stars mainly from the two ends of the Milky Way and stars from the already mentioned doors of the souls.

On attempting to imagine a starting point for the overall construction of the stone circles stretching from Orhi to the sea, Okabe takes on particular importance. It is from here that one group can be linked to another, and the location is unique in that it has no rival when marking Orhi’s Peak as a pyramid.

For years circles 1 and 2 were identified with Procyon and Gomeisa, — the witness of the stone circles seemed to have come to an agreement — and later with Sirius and its herald, Mirzam. I eventually discovered that the position of Gomeisa relative to Procyon and the position of Mirzam relative to Sirius were not correct and did not match up geometrically with the lower stone circles, numbers  24, 25 and 26. Therefore, influenced by the concepts expressed at Ibi Untxi and Gera Suge I opted to associate the two with Arneb and Rigel. This change renders the position of both circles faultless. It seems that the principal witnesses in both stone circles are now broken and have been moved: in circle 1, what is apparently the most important witness has fallen and, in my opinion, has been moved, oriented at 140°, when it would have been more illustrative with the solutions put forward to see it at 128° pointing towards Orhi. Moreover, in the middle of this circle there is a large triangular stone lying on the ground which seems to have come from the periphery and could very well have been a north or west reference. Circle 2, presumably Rigel, now has no witnesses marking its rising or setting or passage over Pico de Orhi. In contrast, the E-W axis seems to have been well represented, since at 89° there is a good anthropomorphic-looking witness, and facing Errozate at 280° is the cut 24 x 28 cm base of what could have been a menhir, which is now lying on the ground at 230-240 degrees. One also gets the feeling that the builders of this stone circle wanted to point out a bow, poorly drawn from 280° to 339°. My notes say that at 294° there is a ‘regular’ witness and at 226° a ‘broken, leaning, geometric’ stone. The amount of subjectivity in all of these observations is interesting; I have confirmed that small details vary from one visit to the next, making me think about the solutions found. In any case, I cannot help but think that the builders must have studied an entire stellar sequence rather than one specific position of the firmament.

The idea of a rising Sirius and Antares, from one end of the Milky Way to the other, reflected at the beginning of the Hesiod Group sequence and at the end of the Alignment of the Heavenly Doors of the Souls sequence is quite convincing to me at Okabe; in fact, I see it as a prelude to what we find, more or less in the same direction and at least in the same band, on the other side of the geographical space at Agiña I, in the two secant stone circles at Oianleku and Jaizkibel II, and in the opposite direction with the Valle de Hecho  and its more than two hundred circles.

Monuments 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are built differently and appear even more blurred. (stone circles in a gaseous state?) Mere excuses. Quite the opposite, I would say that stone circle 21, in line with the already mentioned Rigel and Antares, can only belong to Ursa Major — or to Corona Borealis, which would be a different story (the story of Ariadne?), which is situated in the path of both. I have therefore chosen its h, Alkaid, because it is closer, just as it is on the field, to Antares. The alignment of the three chosen stars, Antares, Alkaid and Rigel, to represent the ends and the pivot point, intersects the ecliptic where it hurts me most in this story: the stretch from Taurus to the Twins. This alignment with geometrical correction very naturally leads to Aldebaran, El Nath and Alhena, stone circles 24, 25 and 26, respectively. The story, considered on another level, was written in different handwriting — I’m used to varied forms of tumuli given that we are dealing with planets, the ecliptic and its neighbours — as were monuments 22 and 23 which underline the story, the former with a star from Cepheus, in the centre of the Milky Way and the latter with a star from the Whale, at the other end of the ecliptic and in front of Aries, equinoctial constellation of the time.

The axis, or better yet the band — like the zodiac band — running from Okabe to ‘Oianleku north’, perhaps from Millagate to Jaizkibel II, or even from Orhi or Petrechema and the Valle de Hecho to Peñas de Aia, is the a and w of the Pyrenean stone circle on the Atlantic slope. I would go even further and say that the first two, Okabe and ‘Oianleku north’, are the Sistine Chapel, the former of which principally houses Canis Major with stellar additions of the three-headed goddess, and the latter a deceitful Scorpio of grandiose design but in deplorable state.

Okabe is an awful lot of Okabe! Although it would be a good idea to deal with certain points in greater detail, I think it’s better off left to mature and leave room for new opinions.

up