Stonehenge and Astronomy

2012.01.21 - Recently in online fora, I interjected the topic of tallies, simply counting intervals; days, rotations, lunar orbits, nodal periods, full moons, eclipses, years or solar orbits. Newgrange and Knowth kerbstone numbers led to discussion of Stonehenge numerology and the possible import of the number of sarsen stones, thirty. While following discussions in several fora, I considered the numbers discussed in relation to astronomy constants. This post focuses on the thirty sarsens at Stonehenge and the question posed in a forum, "Does thirty have an explanation in astronomy?"

I want to begin this discussion with more context before my main focus, Stonehenge astronomy. There is considerable disparity of opinion and variety of interpretation regarding ancient astronomy. Naysayers are calling Neolithic culture "primitive" and their art "scrawlings" while questioning the ability of humans of that era to count and record astronomy periods. I suggest they view a few Stonehenge photos and videos for more context on what the "primitives" accomplished. The enthusiasts are seeking meanings and records in the details of ancient construction and artwork. I interjected astronomy tallies in the hope of clarifying how easy it may have been for ancient observers to arrive at astronomical knowledge. If sufficient cycles and periods are counted in unison from the same zero moment, in due time accurate ratios of astronomical motions become apparent—somehow this simple and obvious fact seems to have gone unnoticed in modern academic discourse.

Today, in our "advanced" world, popular cosmovision seems very primitive. Do your own sampling by asking a few people, "In what direction is the earth turning?" If they know that easy answer, ask in what direction the moon orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun. Even the very educated generally have a problem with the most basic of astronomy questions. The tendency, in general and with anthropology and archaeology paradigms, to resist thinking of people in the past or in other cultures as more knowledgable than we are impedes understanding the past. What tidbits of the history and prehistory of astronomy we possess are also interpreted in the context of ignorance of both the past and of astronomy—often with correlated assumptions that others must be at least equally as ignorant as we are. Ignorance of one's own assumptions plays a role and seems to keep the naysayers and enthusiasts entrenched in their own views.

Ancient astronomy was brought to popular attention with the publication of Stonehenge Decoded by Gerald S. Hawkins in 1965. Hawkins used a computer to analyze the alignments of many points in the monument to many possible astronomical events. He concluded the monument was a Neolithic computer. His work was properly criticized on probability grounds—given enough points, of course there will be alignments, especially when close is defined as good enough. The most conservative consensus today is that Stonehenge has one alignment, the Avenue roughly aligns with the summer solstice sunrise in one direction and winter solstice sunset in the other. The Avenue could also be a simple geometric subdivision of space, and, it has to point somewhere. Meanwhile, numerous hypothetical alignments continue to be proposed. Alexander Thom correctly ignored alignments between features too close together for reliable conclusions.

• Astronomy at Stonehenge? An expert discusses the controversial question of whether Stonehenge was an astronomical observatory. Audio.
• NOVA Secrets of Stonehenge. New archeological finds shed light on the most misunderstood monument of the ancient world. Video.

Another analytic approach is counting the stones, such as the thirty sarsens. In 2006, I wrote, "Keeping a luni-solar calendar reveals the facts. Observing the moon and sun moving in sidereal terms quickly reveals the ratio of days and rotations per orbit and the concurrent lunar synodic and sidereal ratio. There is only one way that the numbers fit. Without an intervening dogma/belief system, it is simple logic and math."

The idea, hypothetically, is that if Stonehenge served an astronomy function, wouldn't the number of sarsens, 30 stones in a perfect circle capped with carefully-leveled lintels, also have some relationship to astronomy. While thirty might just have been a convenient number to create a circular structure, this is a logical approach for investigating an interpretation—ask if independent data in another domain supports the supposition. The question was posed on a discussion board with numerous history of astronomy experts. Noone seems to have the answer yet, or at least noone has offered it to the group. Interestingly, I posted the answer shortly before the question arose, and noone has noted recognizing that solution. It seems that paradigms serve as blinders and assumptions do not allow considering solutions beyond present-day astronomy methods. Simply counting intervals is not part of the current astronomy tool kit.

The tally thirty does have both astronomical significance and precision. Thirty turns of lunar orbit axis (t = 30.0) is the motion tally I propose. Of course, knowing about the lunar orbit turning in fixed space and knowing its interval is advanced heliocentric knowledge. Ask a "modern" astronomer how long it takes lunar orbit to turn thirty times and in what direction it is turning, and you might only get a perplexed expression. If you lack awareness of a motion, you don't expect ancient astronomers to know it. Why did geocentrism persist for so long? Not knowing about rotation and solar orbit implies a lack of the tally variables used to solve the puzzle of cosmic order—blinded by the assumption of a geocentric universe.

Thirty axial turns of lunar orbit commensurates with the integer cycles and periods in Table 1. Table 2 displays the accuracy of the integers compared with the actual number in 30 turns of lunar orbit.

The lower integer 15 t interval also works, albeit that tally is less accurate for lunar observation because lunar anomalistic period is not integer-commensurate at 15 t. The 3,451-moon eclipse interval (3,451 m = 15 t = 279 o) can serve to derive astronomy constants, as I demonstrated for the Metonic interval and presented in a PowerPoint. In the case of a 30 t interval, lunar orbit completes before the eclipse because solar orbit has completed. Because both days and rotations are also integers, the eclipse repeats very near the same diurnal and sidereal moment. I also noted the following:

• Neolithic epoch 1.0 t equals an integer number of days, 6,793.999
• Lunar orbits and nodal periods commensurate at 3.0 t
• 746.0 lunar orbits equals 748.999993 nodal periods (1.0 : 1.000 000 009)
• 15.0 t : 279.0 o commensurates precisely about 482 BCE

So, if you have one skeptical bone (or even if your dog has one), by now you should have asked, "How do/can we determine if the builders of Stonehenge knew all this?" We can trust the astronomy. However, the intention of the builders and their degree of understanding astronomy cannot be easily determined. At least hypothetically, long ago a civilzation somewhere could have counted the intervals and determined the obvious pattern. Just because astronomers today seem to not recognize the import of the number thirty in astronomy tallies is not proof that someone many thousands of years ago would not do so. After all, they were not encumbered by our post-Dark Age assumptions and the waning influences of a theocratic and geocentric world view.

Assigning this knowledge to the builders of Stonehenge is a very high hurdle relative to our understanding of their knowledge base. Understanding this information is even a high hurdle for many students of archaeoastronomy and ancient cosmology today! Nonetheless, given the data the question is posed, "Did knowledge of astronomy 5,000 years ago surpass, in some ways, what is understood today?"

As I've said before, the telescope is no substitute for counting and thinking. It is important to understand we often are blind to our own assumptions. The past is not limited to our imagining. Stonehenge is awesomely impressive, certainly not the work of "primitives" lacking geometry and counting, the two simple ingredients to solving the complex puzzle of cosmology. If the builders did know all this astronomy and incorporated 30 sarsens because of it, and we now find that to be incredibe and impressive, does that say more about our ignorance than it does about their abilities?

More later regarding some of the other numbers under consideration in the tally context. You can test these ideas and other numbers yourself with my applets. Downloads are available on my Astronomy Page. Also later, I'll post an Excel file link to results of my integer ratio analyses. For further reading related to these ideas, see also: Ancient Astronomy, Integers, Great Ratios, and Aristarchus.
 

New Placemarks

SOUTHWEST Archaeology - NEW PowerPoint Versions of Photo Galleries

A dozen new PowerPoints are in the SOUTHWEST Anthropology and Archaeology pages.

Watching Eclipses, Counting Orbits
a PowerPoint with AeGeo Code

Southwest Spring 2007 Travel Posts

The Original ArchaeoBlog Pages, Fall 2005: Mound Builders of the Eastern Woodlands SciotoRiver Sites in South Ohio Newark Earthworks and Newark Area Mounds Marietta and Ohio River Sites Southwestern Ohio Indiana Sites Cahokia Eastern Woodlands GPS Placemarks w/ Squier map overlays. 2006.06 - Ancient Earthworks of the Eastern Woodlands

 

Search the Web Search jqjacobs.net

EDUCATORS: Use my images free and without hassle - Permissions

Home  |  Archaeology  |  Astronomy  |  Photo Galleries   |  Contact and Feedback