Thursday, 16 June 2016

Prehistoric Calendar Revealed at Stonehenge - Press Release

LONDONJune 16, 2016 /PRNewswire/ --
Summer solstice is fast approaching, and on the 20th June over 20,000 people are expected to gather at the world-famous Stonehenge to celebrate and watch the sun rise above the Heel Stone and shine on the central altar. For those of us in the northern hemisphere, this is a time when the sun's path stops moving northward in the sky, the days stop growing longer and will soon begin to shorten again.
Over 5000 years old, Stonehenge was built in three phases between 3,000 B.C. and 1,600 B.C. Its full purpose remains unknown yet the mystery that surrounds Stonehenge is so enduring and popular that last year over 1.3 million visitors flocked to this ancient monument. There are even several man-made copies of the world-famous heritage site have been built around the world, including an impressive full-scale replica at the Maryhill Museum in Washington, USA.
Stonehenge famously aligns to the solstices, but for the rest of the year it seems strange that these ancient builders would not be aware of the current day, or for that matter how many days remained to the next solstice event. However, a new theory has been presented that suggests Stonehenge was used for more than just marking the winter and summer solstices, or as a sacred burial site.
Recently, Lloyd Matthews (scale modelling expert based in the UK) and Joan Rankin (a retired historian living in Canada), have made an ambitious attempt to rethink the purpose of Stonehenge. Their conclusion, after three years of extensive and laborious research, is that the entire structure was, in fact, a complex and significant prehistoric calendar that could actually count the individual days in a year. Not only did Stonehenge act as a solar calendar, similar to the western calendar used today, but it also acted as a lunar calendar and was important for a developing agricultural society to successfully plan for the seasons.
Lloyd Matthews spent 6 years meticulously researching and constructing two scale models of Stonehenge for display at The Maryhill Museum of Art. The models show Stonehenge as it stands today and as it would have originally looked when built.
During its construction, Mr Matthews identified three distinct carvings on three of the large stones known as Trilithons. Curiosity piqued, Mr Matthews approached several experts at the time who were unable to provide an explanation as to what these symbols meant. Dissatisfied with the responses, Mr Matthews decided to continue his research into this ancient puzzle with the help of Joan Rankin, an authority in prehistory.
Together, they may have not only successfully cracked the mystery of these three symbols but also discovered the original purpose of 56 unusual holes that were dug around Stonehenge during the very first phase of its construction, famously known as the Aubrey Holes. It appears that these holes could likely have been used as a calendar counting system used to keep track of each passing day, with six and a half revolutions around Stonehenge marking a full year, and using the rising of the Summer Solstice sun as a way of astronomically marking the starting point of each new year.
As for the mysterious shapes carved into the Trilithons, they have shown how these symbols may have been deliberately positioned to allow the ancient astronomers at Stonehenge keep track of other significant astronomical cycles, including its use not only as a solar calendar but also as a lunar calendar.
Dr Derek Cunningham, an established archaeological expert has even embraced this new theory himself, saying that "the idea is based on some solid observations. Not only can Lloyd now explain his three shapes, Joan's ideas help explain the layout and also the number of Aubrey Holes seen at the site. Neither had been satisfactorily explained before."
Dr Cunningham goes on to say, "Further work is expected, but it now appears that Stonehenge may finally be giving up some of its secrets."

SOURCE The Office of Lloyd Matthews
(Note - I haven't read or studied all the source material or claims and to their credit they supply a lot of material but some of the conclusions from details such as the "carvings on the stones" seem far fetched to me.) 

34 comments:

  1. Lloyd and Joan are just great people with impeccable intent and a demonstrative motive to 'know'. We've exchange innumerable emails and forum posts with regard to this theory, and I confess that some of it is intriguing. Lloyd's model is absolutely first rate and I urge the readers here to follow the provided link to see it.

    There Do appear to be markings where their theory predicts there should be, but - as I have emphasized to them - any correspondence between the Stones and the Aubrey Holes would be remote in my opinion. These features are separated by centuries and by the time the Circle went up, I have a feeling that the Aubreys were no longer in use for ... anything. I speculate that they may even have been forgotten.

    Cremations were going out of style and hadn't been used in the Holes for some time, and with the erection of the Stones, emphasis at the site switched from Moon to Sun - rendering the Holes obsolete as a calendar.

    Now - all is not lost for our heroes, as the markings they note may have had to do with either the sun or even the cardinal directions in one sense or another.

    They note the "Eye" on the back of S-52 (East Trilithon), the "Compass" on the back of S-53 (South Trilithon), the sculpted spines on fallen S-59 (North Trilithon), and certain ambiguous markings on S-58 (West Trilithon). It may be argued that a line drawn between pairs of opposing stones create rough alignments with Winter Solstice Sunrise or Summer Solstice Sunset. Maybe / maybe not.

    But whatever the marks are, I don't think they create a calendar, nor find any influence from the Aubrey Holes.

    I await the final report.

    Neil

    ReplyDelete
  2. Neil, I don't think you have actually read our paper because if you had you would know that the alignments we are talking about are between day counts on the Aubrey hole circle and the carvings we have shown on the monument. These carvings have nothing to do with alignments with objects in the sky. We did not say that the carvings created a calendar. We said the Aubrey hole circle was used as a calendar counting device.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Neil, there is no proof that the emphasis changed from Moon to Sun. That is only some archaeologists speculating.

    The Aubrey hole calendar was in use long before the monument in the middle was created and they would have had no problem counting a Solar year and a Lunar year on the circle. They were well aware of the Solstices and Equinoxes long before the stone monument was built in the centre. They could have divided their year into eight parts before they had the Aubrey hole circle by just using Orion, Hercules,the Southern Cross and possibly wooden posts at the Station stones, positions 91 and 93 will give alignments for two Sunrises and two Sunsets which are the cross quarter days.

    If you read our paper, you will see that this may have been a calendar keeping device which evolved over time. The 56 Aubrey holes just allowed them to fine tune the tracking of every day of the year. Solar and Lunar. Because the calendar resets after each cycle things like predicting eclipses becomes easier.

    As for the Aubrey holes going out of use, no one can say when that was. It's possible that even the Druids used it to keep their calendar. It would not have stopped people from moving their markers on the Aubrey hole circle just because the monument in the centre was there or a ruin for that matter.

    We have proposed that these people could also have kept track of the cycles of the planets which means that they may have been practicing a version of astrology which was very popular in 3000 BCE.

    Another things which I just finally figured out is the Heel stone. Sometimes it is called the Friar's Heel stone but this may come from Freyja's He-ol or Heol stone. Freyja is Venus just as Inanna was. In Welsh He = to sow and ol = track and Heol = road. So the Heel stone is Venus' to sow track or road.

    Our calendar started on Summer Solstice 3154 because many things happened that day which would have been prime for calendar keepers. To find all these things together was quite a feat. The answer for that is in our paper. However on that day Venus rose as the Morning Star at the Heel stone where she appears every eight years on Summer Solstice. Next event Summer Solstice 2019. You heard it here first!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Neil, I don't think you have actually read our paper because if you had you would know that...

    This may not the best strategy given the good write up that Neil had given. The casual reader will know that both Neil and Tim are very knowledgeable when it comes to Stonehenge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir, your comment is patronizing. Since you know nothing about me, you have no idea how much I know about Stonehenge.

      Delete
    2. Madam, if you wanted to comment anonymously, you should have used an anonymous identity rather than linking to a site in which you apparently identify yourself as a Ms Joan Rankin and then go on, through various posts, to describe exactly how much you know about the monument.

      As an example, you say "I haven’t been to Stonehenge, so never had a chance to have a good look at the stones. Like most people who are interested in Stonehenge, I knew about the carvings of the axe heads and the Mycenaean knife but knew nothing about the carvings Mr. Matthews showed me."

      The "Mycenaean knife" is not enclosed in inverted commas. When combined with the first sentence, this sort of statement does not inspire confidence.

      Your dedicated servant

      Delete
    3. I wasn't trying to hide my identity since anyone could check out my blog and find out. Just doing a bit of advertising.

      Delete
  5. Lloyd, or whomever ...

    When I wrote the above comments concerning WSSR / SSSS re: the opposing Trilithon Stones I was merely glancing at a drawing I had before me and perhaps thinking out loud - in error, it appears. On checking closer it seems there is no cross-site correlation between the four discrete markings and those solar events, so in this regard, you're right.

    I actually haven't heard anyone say a word about the transition from a Moon to Sun emphasis at Stonehenge. I thought it was my Own idea ...
    I believe that if you review everything that Stonehenge was before the Stones, and then after, you'd most likely agree with me.

    I don't think I alluded to the markings alone being a kind of calendar. I did follow you on the Aubrey / stone-markings thing. It's just that I don't agree with it. Yes, I believe the Aubreys Were a lunar calendar back in the day. The Entrance Posts were Lunar. Hole-F was Lunar. Stone-D was probably Lunar, and Stone-97 (which, if I recall, I introduced you to) doubled with the Sun and Moon.
    Lots of Lunar stuff - but all swept away when the Stones were raised ...

    Did you know that there's a foot-shaped depression on now-recumbent S-14? This was also once known as the 'Heelstone' (Don't get me started on what some people have interpreted as the Altar Stone!)
    The provenance for the name can be traced, more or less, to several different sources, and some of these are certainly apocryphal. But there's no way any type of mythology or oral tradition can have transitioned down the ages intact. At the outermost fringe of credulity we might be able to track a term, idea or thought-process back to 50 or 100 BC, but before that all nuance remains a blank entry in history's ledger.

    With the savvy use of technology we can project the heavens back to 6-zillion years ago or what have you, and we'll no doubt find some pretty interesting things. Apparently you have done this. Kudos. But craven are those who can construct a mythos around such an event and transfer it's significance to the present day.

    I Do have your paper, and it is a well-presented send-up. But I feel it overlooks some pretty important things to be found at the site with regard to Purpose, and - dare I say it? - may ignore others.

    I wish you well, sir/madam
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
  6. Quote: "However on that day Venus rose as the Morning Star at the Heel stone where she appears every eight years on Summer Solstice. Next event Summer Solstice 2019. You heard it here first!"

    Well, no!
    An archaeoastronomer would make it their first target to check this claim. As a starter, I checked Appendix E, but double-checked against this claim you make here following your post. Venus does not rise at the Heelstone. It rises variably at the local horizon. Assuming all astronomically important visibility conditions were absolutely perfect on the date quoted, not to mention the weather itself, it might have been seen to rise at an azimuth of 54°.6054, at an altitude of +0°.6126, at closest to the Heelstone.

    So that's 3.5 degrees east of the Heelstone and it would have been behind Sarsen upright 1. In 2019 it will rise at 53°.6482, still 2.5 degrees east of the Heelstone.

    Secondly, there was no eclipse, of any kind, visible from Stonehenge on that day.

    This suggests that the correct local horizon profile for visibility from the centre of Stonehenge has not been used. Also it may be that the correct time correction algorithm for DeltaT has not been used. I have no experience using CyberSky so I can't comment as to what selections for various factors it has to offer. All I can say is that these two specific claims are not supported by my check.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone in our group also had a problem with the partial eclipse, could not see it either. This was due to settings. My field of view was 100 degrees 00' 00" and their's wasn't set at that. We checked both Cybersky 5 and Stellarium and the partial solar eclipse showed up on both.

      We are using the groundplan of Stonehenge from the Ancient Monuments branch. On that the Heel stone takes up almost 2 degrees along the horizon as seen from the centre of Stonehenge.

      From 3170 to 3114 BCE Venus did rise at the Heel stone. Then I checked 2019 CE and it was there again at the Heel stone.

      You are correct of course, since Venus' rise on Summer Solstice every eight years drifts from ~48 degrees to ~58 degrees.

      It is just unfortunate that I found Venus rising there for 56 years and then again in 2019. This made me assume that it always rose there every eight years on Summer solstice.

      One should never assume anything. Thank you for pointing that out.

      However, this part about Venus is not in our paper The Stonehenge Carvings.



      Delete
    2. With respect, the field of view setting has nothing to do with whether an eclipse occurred in 3154 BC. On that day the Moon and the Sun were at close conjunction but not eclipsing. At closest - limb to limb (not centre to centre) - they were in the order of 0.6 of a degree apart, that's more than the average apparent diameter of either of them, and so there was no eclipse of any kind anywhere on that date, yet alone visible at Stonehenge.

      Again, a line through the centre of the Heelstone is at a bearing of 51°.18 (rounded to 2 decimal places)from the Aubrey centre, as best as can be determined without a theodolite survey - unless you have that data available. Between 3170 BC and 3114 BC, Venus rose at azimuths 55°.2136 and 53°.2921, respectively - decreasing by some 0.3 degrees at each 8-year interval.

      So the maths is pretty straightforward, as to whether Venus ever rose at the Heelstone in the time period claimed.

      There's no "problem" with these calculations, so I suggest that you should have taken note of what the member of your group was telling you!

      Equally, this is not a forum for discussing these issues. Tim's Blog only allows for limited comments. I've made mine, so it's up to you to take them on board and deal with them in the context of amendments/corrections needed to the paper.

      Cheers,

      Richard

      Delete
  7. I think the Aubrey Circle calendar they propose may have already been elucidated in earlier work...i.e. Stonehenge Unhinged. Proposing a start date for the calendar stirs echoes of Bishop Usher on a Mayan holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the Aubrey Circle calendar they propose may have already been elucidated in earlier work...i.e. Stonehenge Unhinged. Proposing a start date for the calendar stirs echoes of Bishop Usher on a Mayan holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In reading the abbreviated article on their claim, I note a glaring miscalculation that throws their little monument of cards into a bit of a 56 card pickup (Tarot, anyone). The heart of their count is the 6 times around (336 days) ending between Aubrey Holes 27/28. They add the last 29 days of the year to this and, using modern math, come up with the final day between 55/56. The last time I checked, 27 + 29 = 56 which, by their logic, means the final day would be between 56 and 1 which throws there entire model into disarray. Sigh...

    ReplyDelete
  10. In reading the abbreviated article on their claim, I note a glaring miscalculation that throws their little monument of cards into a bit of a 56 card pickup (Tarot, anyone). The heart of their count is the 6 times around (336 days) ending between Aubrey Holes 27/28. They add the last 29 days of the year to this and, using modern math, come up with the final day between 55/56. The last time I checked, 27 + 29 = 56 which, by their logic, means the final day would be between 56 and 1 which throws there entire model into disarray. Sigh...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our claim states that it is 6.5 x 56 = 364 + 1 = 365.

      There is much more detail in the original paper.

      Delete
  11. Still, a count ending symmetrically between 55 and 56 is not the same as a count ending between 56 and 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, by our logic and counting 6.5 x 56 = 364 which will put you between 55 and 56.

      You have to wait 1 day there for it to be 365. The morning after that will be Summer Solstice and that evening your counter goes back between 27 and 28. This counts as day one. The Summer Solstice is day one of the year and the counters are moved every day at Sunset.

      Delete
    2. In the paper I read there is no mention of this. No matter how you slice it, the only way you can reconcile a repeating, symmetrical day count is by holding out one day (I believe it was the WS) which makes the calendar repeatable infinitely. 56 x 6.5 = 364 and the extra day cannot be counted at either end or in the middle no matter how you slice it.

      Delete
    3. In the paper I read there is no mention of this. No matter how you slice it, the only way you can reconcile a repeating, symmetrical day count is by holding out one day (I believe it was the WS) which makes the calendar repeatable infinitely. 56 x 6.5 = 364 and the extra day cannot be counted at either end or in the middle no matter how you slice it.

      Delete
    4. I just explained it to you. 6.5 x 56 = 364 you will be tween 55 and 56. You will wait in that spot one day so you will be there the evening before Sunrise of Summer Solstice. When the eveing of the day of summer Solstice comes round the marker goes back to between 27 and 28 this counts as day one.

      Delete
  12. Still, a count ending symmetrically between 55 and 56 is not the same as a count ending between 56 and 1.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Neil,
    “I actually haven't heard anyone say a word about the transition from a Moon to Sun emphasis at Stonehenge. I thought it was my Own idea ..”.
    Would you reconsider your statement, there are plenty of well known archaeologists that have put forward theories on this change of emphasis and I think my bits of speculation on the lunar alignments and symbolism in stage 1 ( SRP) or Phase 2 (Cleal et al) may have given you some ideas to pursue.
    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter,
    The remark was perhaps a bit of editorial hyperbole on my part of course, and I apologize for any misdirection it may have caused.

    Hawkins, Burl and several others have certainly suggested elements of these things, but it was really Your entrance posthole work that set my wheels a-churnin.

    The thought-progression was as follows: Hawkins and his Eclipse Predictor, Burl with the Station Stones, Dunn and his entrance post alignments, (a real breakthrough!) Mike Pitts with his outer stone thinking, and Roz Cleal with her rather astute summation. (Bits of Thom float around in there too, though not by name.) All pretty linear - but without this previous work, I'd no doubt still be bashing my head against the wall!

    That said, I extrapolated the switch from Moon to Sun based on probable site abandonment and a later return with new ideas. Then the stones went up, the Sun became premiere, and the Moon was relegated to background status.

    But I also suggest that the switch was Intentional rather than just random re-calibration by a new people, with certain Lunar components continuing to play a role. Repositioning the Heelstone almost certainly killed the Standstill observations. Conversely, punky S-11 is situated in an obviously moon-oriented location, in addition to the number of Circle Stones themselves.

    "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants", I credit you and the others by name on the page of my book in which this theory is illustrated and amplified.
    (Page 17 of the revised edition, if memory serves.)

    Best wishes,
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In our paper, The Stonehenge Carvings, we show that the Station Stones were where Orion stood on the horizon between 91 and 92 and Hercules was kneeling on the horizon between 93 and 94. They were indicators of the Solstices. The Southern Cross' appearance above the southern opening was an indicator of the Equinoxes. The alignment between SS 91 and SS 93 give two Sunrises and two Sunsets. With these few tools our astronomers at Stonehenge could divide the year into eight parts.

      Delete
  15. I'm sure you've done the calculations for those important constellations and their locations at certain times. This is important.

    However ...

    The Station Stones marked Lunar Standstills, and the only stone among them with a solar reference is SS-93, which, when viewed across the Henge to Hole-H will witness the WSSR and conversely SSSS. Additionally, this line crosses through the Great Trilithon at the Solstice Axis and infers that those stones were placed specifically to accommodate it.
    Within tolerances, it still does this.

    The Aubreys divide the year into 8 parts using the Cardinals and the Solstices.

    There is no solar alignment between SS-91 & -93. Equinox is many degrees away from that sightline.

    The, by then ancient, Southern Gap through the inner embankment was an exit, which I believe was intended for the departing dead. By the time of the stones this may have been out of use for metaphoric purposes. I won't dispute the observance through it to the Southern Cross, but it was placed where it is to be as close to cardinal south as the builders were capable of determining at that early time.
    With later methods of observation it's demonstrated that the North/South line didn't truly bisect the Gap, and skimmed the west side of Aubrey-20, rather than cross it - which is, in my opinion, what was intended when the Aubreys were laid out.

    Neil

    ReplyDelete
  16. From SS 93 you can see two Sunrises at SS 91. From SS 91 you can see two Sunsets at SS 93.

    These are the 4 cross quarter days which fall between Solstices and Equinoxes.

    The first person to mention this was Sir Norman Lockyer.

    If you are using the centre of a circle and have a good horizon all around, you can determine N/S every day by marking where the Sun rose and the Sun set.

    The Egyptians used a similar technique only using stars rising and setting in the Northerly sky.

    Those builders were more capable with their astronomy than 99.9% of our population today.

    You don't know what was intended, not with the southern gap or when the Aubrey holes were laid out.

    I won't bother getting into the departing dead, that's all drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Neil, I'm not sure why you would think the departing dead would use the southern entrance.^^ In circle casting traditions, everyone enters by the south portal. Once the circle is closed, if someone were to die inside the circle, a portal would be opened in the north.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thoth,
    I just re-read your remarks of 22 June, 00.50.
    By the wording I believe I can be forgiven for misinterpreting what you said to indicate that stones -91 & -93 mark a SOLSTICE alignment.
    I see now that you merely meant 'some random Sunrise/Sunset'.
    Apologies ...

    My remarks concerning the departing dead are hardly pulled from thin air. The idea is a derivative of the physical construction of the henge and its the cemetery attributes, the emphasis on the moon, what was going on elsewhere at the time, and the cultural environment, among others.

    Assigning a single motivation to the placement of the Station Stones is unwise, considering the other, key-note things they either do, or represent. You are clearly aware of some, yet others seem not to have been explored.

    I do not pretend to be the final arbiter of things Stonehenge, by any means. There are many other people who know it and its context far better than I. But we are all part of the same community. Several disagree about some pretty basic things, but most of us are friends. Believe me when I say: if your kite has been shot down by This squad, it's a very hard landing indeed! (I have the lumps to prove it.)

    Many of the things your fine team of researchers profess are salient to the issue. I have enjoyed the previous interplay of information between myself and Lloyd, for example, and consider us to be simply un-met friends.

    Pardon the dues-paid vanity, but when you come on this well-regarded blog and declare, with little investigation, that ND Wiseman spouts 'Drivel', you're not gonna win a lot of support.

    Just sayin ...

    I wish you well,
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm really puzzled about your theory that the southern entrance or exit was for the departing dead.

      Stonehenge is wide open to the sky and had a good entrance or exit in the NE.

      All the ancient burials there were cremations, so I think the dead had departed long before the burial of their ashes.

      Just sayin......

      Delete
  19. The problem with the way this comes across if that you're stating a fact but inferring that the fact was applied by the people who built the monument. Stonehenge faces the solstice horizon event at its 'standstill' and many assume that, because of its major axis alignment, that this was a design intent of the builders. Buckingham Palace, by contrast, has far more alignment indicators which face the Moon's minor standstill horizon event.

    Though a reasonable working assumption, the fact that an indicator exists is no proof of intent.

    From a design perspective, the hypothesis then runs into trouble. To show intent, a specialist building investigator would next be required to show that the design features correspond with intent (that is to say that the constructors apportioned their design and construction efforts as would be expected from any reasonably competent builder). However, the indicators of design effort being spent on the activity that the paper appears to assign to it are almost entirely absent: We know that the builders spent a lot of design effort on the internal features of the sarsen circle and virtually no worked effort on the outliers.

    Unfortunately, and without any other sort of developed explanation as to purpose, this makes the paper look as if it has cherry picked features which fit the hypothesis. By comparison, the dead and the living thing is a fairly well know hypothesis put forward by one of the world experts on Stonehenge: This 'association with death' type of hypothesis does not require rely on utilitarian design features and therefore does not need to show design intent (albeit accepted that a similar hypothesis could be put forward to imply a culture of the "lesser moon" for the design intent of Buckingham Palace).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Stonehenge was a cemetery, as some hypothesize, it is very odd that so many people were buried in the outer part of the bank and ditch.

      We don't normally bury our dearly departed under the sidewalk or road adjoining the cemetery.

      Experts are human, they make errors also, just like the rest of us peasants.

      Delete
    2. Thoth v Ibis,

      Some of the remains found in at least several Aubrey Holes are 1- or 200 years older than the henge itself. These were obviously curated, and most (though not all) came from Western England and possibly Wales.
      Other depositions are in keeping with its extant timeframe.

      It's felt that some of the remains in the Ditch or Bank are late interments, while others are, curiously, clustered around certain alignment points at the perimeter.
      I feel that these 'cluster-points' (for lack of a better term) were intentional and went on until shortly before the Stones were raised.

      Stonehenge eventually became several layered things as time went on, but it was originally a cemetery where big-shots and their families were interred.

      My interpretation of the evidence suggests that the edifice originally 'watch-dogged' the Moon, keeping a close eye on its short- mid- and long-term movements.
      Why? Well, the Sun brings warmth, light and life, but the Moon rules the cold of night, darkness and probably death.

      So the two must be separated - warmth and life kept in; dark and death prevented from entering. The Ditch then becomes the gulf of death, and that peculiar inner Embankment is the barrier between the two.

      Light arrives from the east, and the death of light is to the west. North is a constant, articulated by one unmoving position. South is where the memories of, or memorials to, the dead are kept. As they finish their lives in the 'World', they exit to those memorials, but are prevented from re-entering Sun's domain by powerful spirit-wardens, in the form of auroch skulls (also curated!) placed in the Ditch, on either side of the Southern Gap.
      They weren't greeters or ticket-takers. They were security.

      In the beginning, Stonehenge was a cemetery overseen by the Moon, with certain solar notations. This went on for four- or five-hundred years until the Windmill Hill culture had fully morphed into the Beaker People. Then they switched emphasis to the Sun, corrected some glaring errors, before raising the stones. The Moon then took a backseat.

      Some of the previously existing components remained, ie: the Altar Stone, Station Stones - or their positions at least - and of course the South Exit. Some things were forgotten or became redundant - such as cremations or posts - because the place was no longer a cemetery 'ruled' by the Moon.

      With emphasis on the Sun as the new time-keeper, the Aubreys also probably fell into disuse. Any elements that can be shown to correspond with the stones and the Aubreys are probably based upon similar observations, rather than being complimentary.

      Anyway, this is just a brief overview of some of the thinking on these things.
      Always remember that Stonehenge did not exist in a vacuum, nor do its studies. "World Experts" (in anything) are called thus because they take all the evidence and formulate a cohesive supposition. The more evidence that fits the theory-du-jour, the closer we get to a real understanding of a people who have utterly no correlation with us socially or culturally, and about whom we really know surprisingly little.

      The various forums we visit to share our thoughts or views are in a real sense the only peer review we ever get. Being found wrong by the knowledgeable is like receiving a medal of honor.
      Most of us have a chest full ...

      Neil

      Delete
  20. Thank you for your explanation, I see things much clearer now.

    ReplyDelete