Note also that a line at right angles to the longer sides of the rectangle seems

to pick out the Midsummer Solstice Sunrise.  It was William Stukeley, FRS,

who first noticed this solar orientated axis for the site, apparently, 1740 AD:

"whereabouts the sun rises when the days are longest".

 

And that's not all: according to Robin Heath, for one, the rectangle's sides

pick out the Northmost Moonset, the Southernmost Moonrise and the four

Cross-Quarter or High Cross-Quarter days, notably Imbolc (circa Feb. 1st),

Beltane (circa May 1st), Lugnasadh (circa Aug. 1st) and Samhain (circa

Nov. 1st).

NOTE TO NON-AOL: you may need to scroll down a bit after this diag.!

to rejoin text.  A 'browser peculiarity', it seems. APOLOGIES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note, too - as Heath does - the right-angle twixt moon and sun (which only happens

in the latitudinal area of Stonehenge: about 35 miles either side of Lat. 51 degrees -

roughly Portsmouth to Bristol). apparently.  Heath, himself, comments on Midwinter
and Midsummer rises and sets not being "exactly" opposite below - despite the
indication they do given by him above.

 

Cross Quarter Days - as Sig Lonegren reminds us - evoke the Celtic Cross.  See his

www.geomancy.org site for an excellent exposition of the idea. The actual link is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See also Crichton Miller for the idea that this cross represents a navigational tool of

yore: http://www.crichtonmiller.com/ (and, also, compare the Wheel of the Year

distribution of the 'elements' of Fire, Air, Water and Earth, the directions North,

South, East and West, and the Four Seasons, with those generated by the tradition

of the four Royal Fixed Star Watchers (click on 'Royal Watchers'), the Jachin and

Boaz (and alchemical) tradition, the Biblical Four Horsemen and the four Humours

of Galen (sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and melancholy).*

 

All in all, interesting stuff!  But there's trouble in this Station Stone paradise.

 

According to Dr. Aubrey Burl, BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY No. 35, June

1998, ' STONEHENGE ANGLES', the right-angle claim obtains at Lat.

50.485 (underwater and not around Lat. 51 degrees).  I looked at this on

NAO and found the lack of decimals a hindrance, obtaining a solar value of

40 degrees northernmost moon and a solar sunrise of 49 degrees = 89

degrees.  But GeoAstro gives 49.5 for the latter ... 89.5 and closing? 

Burl calls the lunar alignment 'imprecisely directed' (if intentional), anyway,

and calls the right-angle idea 'superficial':

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba35/ba35lets.html

 

 

But there's another more serious problem with the Heath model, for one -

and it is one acknowledged by 'guru' Alexander Thom, for one: it just doesn't

work as regards the four Cross-Quarter Days. Not, that is if the assumption
is that it is the solstices and equinoxes they divide.*

* But if the assumption is that they divide the "Quarter Days", then they
are Dec 25th, March 25, June 24th and Sept. 29.  Now this dates to 1752 AD.
We jumped from Julian to Gregorian then:  "Give us back our ... days!" rang the
protests.  Before this they were on Xmas Day (Jan. 6th), 6th April, 6th July and
11th Oct. (in Scotland it's 2nd Feb, 15th May, 1st August and 11th Nov - closer
to the Cross-Quarter Days).  Imbolc, say, hardly divides either of the relevant two
of these English days!  The Quarter Days were payment settlement dates - legal
concepts. (BREWERS)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_days
http://www.astrologycom.com/stjohnbaptist.html

Why not?  Well, Midwinter opposes Midsummer much as the Spring and

Autumn Equinoxes oppose each other*, but the two sets of Cross-Quarter

Days don't.  Beltane is a different number of days from Midwinter and Mid

-summer to Lugnasadh as Imbolc is different to Samhain.  But they have to

be the same for the idea to work.**  It is a necessary condition.***  NAO

tells us sunrise Feb 1st this year is azimuth 117 degrees.  Logically, to oppose

this, Nov. 1st sunset should be (360 - 117) 243 degrees.  But we get 248. 

And May 1st is 65 degrees, giving (360 - 65) 295.  But we get 301 degrees.

*  Noting Heath, below: "not exactly" re Midsummer and Midwinter.

Next, the rectangle itself.  In Martin Doutre it's not even regular, the shorter

sides being of different lengths, and, if  Doutre's wrong, then is this rectangle

the product of ('Pythagorean') 5-12-13 maths or of Octagonal maths ... or
some other design, say that of Gaunt?  Thing is, they're all SO VERY
SIMILAR - but yet not the same.

 

If we take data from Gaunt and compare it to the M L Saunders/J Neal/H H

Franklin Octagon and the R Heath/J Neal/Ralph Ellis 5-12-13 we'd find that the

'5-12-13' triangle would become 5-12.07-13.064 would become 5-11.458-

12.5 (working back). Put another way, Heath would have an angle of of 22.62

degrees with his 5-12-13 compared to an octagonal 22.5 degrees and Gaunt's

23.5-6 degrees.  One degree covers them all.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry your page overheated itself.

Stone 91 is the recliner, not 93.

Midsummer sunrises/sets do not exactly oppose midwinter ones.

At the quarter days, and at the latitude around Stonehenge, consecutive
sunrises and sets occur nearly a solar diameter apart - that's  31
minutes of degree. As these SS rectangle alignments are classed as
symbolic (i.e. short distance) alignments, and we do not know where ( if
anywhere) an observer in 2500 BC placed his eye-balls to use such an
alignment, then it is not possible to publish a precise figure for the
angles of the quarter day sun rises/sets. The quarter day in the length
of the calendar year causes the sun's position to vary its rise and set
positions for a given day from year to year. And in prehistoric times,
the length of the summer half of the year was different to the winter
half in different ratio to the present, a fact that many fail to account
for. The laudable quest for precision is also doomed if the horizon
elevations along each supposed alignment are not taken into account.
Finally, are we supposing that the observer is interested in the
first/last flash, a half-risen/set disc or the sun sitting with lower
limb on the horizon?

The problem here is a little knowledge of the astro-archaeology is a
dangerous place to go. Perhaps some anchor points, upon which a
researcher can depend, are needed.

1. Alexander Thom's survey of Stonehenge and subsequent plan (1973)
represents the best available data we have from the acknowledged
master-surveyor of stone circles.  Thom found the axis of the monument
to within a few minutes to 50 degrees. In the Journal for the History of
Astronomy, 1974, pt 2 no 13, he gives the azimuth of the axis as 49*
57'. Nothing whatsoever to do with astronomy, this is what his survey
revealed from the avenue axis.

2. Thom (in the same JHA) measures the azimuth looking from station 92
to stone 93 as 'about 320 degrees'. Although 'about' may appear
uncharacteristically vague for Thom's data, it is the relatively short
distance between these two points, the lack of a backsight stone (92),
no knowledge of the original width of the backsight stone, that makes it
necessary to use the word 'about'. However, he noted that Gibbett's
Knoll, a small tump on the flat high ground above Market Lavington, some
9.16 miles from Stonehenge, provided an azimuth of 320* 02' from station
92. Again, this is nothing to do with astronomy, it's geodetic land
surveying data. For this longer distance, it matters little where the
observer's eyeballs were placed.
However, if this was a long distance foresight via stone 93 and station
92, and passing through the so-called Car-Park Postholes, this line
would  have provided a precision alignment to the major standstill
moonset around 1900 BC

3. These two precision surveying alignments 'fix' the rectangle to the
rest of Stonehenge. The difference between the axis azimuth and the
station (92,93) line above is within 3 minutes of degree of being a
right angle, a precision of 99.94%. It is hard to attribute coincidence
to this level of precision. It may be relied on as accurate, because
Thom was a first rate surveyor and this is acknowledged by
archaeologists.

4. Only one station still has a stone in its original hole. The holes
for the rest were determined by probing by Prof Richard Atkinson during
the Thom survey. There is always going to be uncertainty in determining
precisely where the centres of these stone holes were placed and we
shall never know the exact points. Akinson's data and conclusions on the
precision of the station stones were printed in John North's book,
Stonehenge (Harper 1996).
( Peter Newham determined that the station rectangle was aligned to the
avenue 'midsummer' axis (shorter sides) and to the major moonset (longer
sides). Thom's plan confirms the stations to be arranged to define a
5,12 rectangle. Thom also gives the diameter of the Aubrey circle as
283.6 feet to within just under one inch. This too may be relied on as
'best data available'. The later station stones appear on the plan to
have been placed on the line of the Aubrey hole circle, making the
diagonal of the 5:12 rectangle, 13 units of the pythagorean triangle,
the same measure. )

5. Thus, finally,  it is perfectly in order to suggest that the latitude
of stonehenge connects very well the geometry of the monument ( the axis
and the station rectangle), and the astronomy of solsticial sunrises and
major standstill moon sets. Burl may have suggested (1998) that the
exact calculated spot lies in the English Channel near the Solent, but
no-one has seen his calculation to check whether he accounted for
refraction, horizon elevation, the date assumed nor the curvature of the
earth.

6. Because we are dealing with a structure erected over 4000 years ago,
we must face squarely Thom's bleak prognostication that 'only in
exceptional circumstances may we expect stones to have remained in their
original positions.' But precisely because of this, we are legitimised
in attempting to make models of the monument that speak to both earth
and sky. And speak they do, conveying a meaning presently denied by
mainstream archaeology.
Anyone who has understood the basis of the calendar outlined in my
books will appreciate that the two principle circles at Stonehenge, the
early Aubrey circle and the later sarsen circle have diameters related
to the foot and the Megalithic yard. Prof North gives (correctly) the
outer sarsen as 52.2 feet radius and Aubrey as 104.27 Megalithic yards
diameter. These measures correspond with precision to the difference
between the lunar year (354.37 days) and the solar year (365.242 days),
a difference of 10.875 days), and the length of the lunation period
(29.53059 days). That this fundamental astronomical constant is built
into Stonehenge, as it is also built into the 5:12:13 lunation triangle
and into every Type B flattened circle indicates that it is time to
bypass the logjam caused by denial of prehistoric precision in astronomy
and metrology, and work outside of the box. That work must involve the
researcher in learning the mathematics and astrophysics to be able to
spot the pitfalls that lurk within this subject. Otherwise all that
happens is an increasingly fuzzy and turgid literature that obscures the
subject - this suiting the present archaeological stance ideally.

7.Let me finish by making the reader aware that one cannot learn this
subject - archaeoastronomy - in any UK University at present. That is
why I run Sky and Landscape courses (www.skyandlandscape.com) to
practically guide aspirants how it all comes together. For the past 20
years I have been taking groups to Stonehenge and other sites and they
use what remains on the ground to accurately find the date, the phase of
the moon and when eclipses will occur. Numerically and geometrically,
Stonehenge is a perfect monument to express how to do all of these
things. Eventually, more will be recovered, to be sure, but we actually
already have a full cup that fully runs over.

Robin Heath

Back to fuzzy and turgid me:

 

 

 

 

 

 

ago?


Assuming the positioning of the Station Stones was other than decorative in

intent, then all the ideas proposed are viable - given we only have the one stone

in situ and that this stone is nearly 4 and a quarter times smaller than the

'recliner', anyway (and "one of these may not be original." acc. witcombe)!  Not

much here to provide anyone with proof positive ...*

 

 

92      1.9    1.3    1         8.1

94      1.9    1.3    1         8.1

 

 

And that brings us to the actual rectangle dimensions themselves.  They vary

(almost as theory to theory).  If we take the hypotenuse value, say, then English

Heritage measures the distance at about 279' (from memory) to Bonnie Gaunt's

288'.  Most values are in the 281'-283' range with Thom just slightly larger at
283.6 and I think Chris Witcombe carried 285' on his excellent and informative
Sweet Briar College site (details below). * Obviously, given Octagonal maths,
5-12-13 or even PhiSq (as mentioned above!), one dimension informs the rest. 

Doutre, however is trapezium (UK def.) rather than rectangle proper, with

shorter sides given of 112' and 113.4' compared to, say, Gaunt's 115.1-ish'.
Ralph Ellis, THOTH: ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE (2001), carries
measurements of the shorter, or 'adjacent', sides: 108.75984 ..' by Flinders
Petrie and 109.25196867 ..' for Atkinson, this second being explicitly centre
to centre (insofar as that is possible ans imperial values being derived by me
from the metric given.  Given the adherence of Ellis to the 5-12-13 model, the
longer sides necessarily have to be 261.0236 or 262.2 .. whilst the hypotenuse
value has to be either 282.775584 or 284.0551 ..  The first, or Petrie value,
falls within the normal range determined (by me) above.

Ref:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yzXqUvQ5XBYC&pg=RA1-PA141&lpg=
RA1-PA141&dq=station+stones&source=web&ots=2c_RuIpZrZ&sig=
jvsVw3EF4PTed3_I09A2TRom89w

 

And the 118 degree azimuth (angle) to the Great Pyramid?  Well, the different

models produce outcomes of  117 degrees*, 117.1 degrees, 117.2 degrees,

117.38 degrees, 117.415 degrees and Gaunt's 118 degrees (for a Station
Stones' hypotenuse). ML Saunders gives the bearing 118.1255 for Stonehenge
-Giza itself using "spherical geometry" (on a not quite spherical Earth) but a
different value, of 116.75 degrees, for the relevant Station Stone midface to
midface, with plus or minus 0.75 degrees for the SS edges. 

I note that NAO supports a Midwinter sunrise azimuth of 117 degrees for
Cairo, near Giza, for 14th to the 30th of December, and an Imbolc value of
117 degrees for a Stonehenge sunrise.** 

 

Gary Osborn's research may be informative here.  Planet Earth tilts, the angle

varying from about 22.5 to about 24.5.  The value is commonly expressed as

23.5 degrees.  This is also the figure commonly given for the two Tropics,

Cancer and Capricorn.  The total distance, in degrees, is 47 (click on Jesus and

John)*.  Gary noticed 23.5 was a somewhat thematic angle in the art of the
C16th** and C17th AD.  And thematically linked to .... St. John.  See Gary's
site in detail at http://www.garyosborn.moonfruit.net/  Click on 'News' (left-hand
side menu) and explore 'REVELATIONS' and 'REVELATIONS 2'.

 

Now a right-angled triangle (Euclid 47) with an angle of 23.5 necessarily generates

another of 66.5 (as 23.4 would 66.6).  The range 117-117.5 degrees covers 5 X

23.4-23.5.*  It's an idea!  And 235 is also the number of lunations in a complete

lunar cycle, northernmost to northernmost.

 

Next, the Midsummer Solstice sunrise azimuth.  It is 51 degrees (off North) from

memory, in Michell - but  nothing supports this value for the 'Sunshine Line' as
being accurate (and I can't provenance the Michell '51', as yet!).  NAO, for
instance gives a value of 49 degrees.  And this seems to fit with:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 'aveglaswin' author, Michael Everest, cites various authorites for the

angle indicated: Hawkins 40 54, Atkinson 40 49, and North 40 43 (albeit in

3000 BC, this last).  According to the article (link given below) Stonehenge

represents a 'happy compromise' twixt Pythagoras and the Icknield Way and

the (Station Stone) bearings are something 'all authorities agree on' - well,

pretty much.  It leaves the obvious 90 degrees minus the 'bearing' = the sunrise

azimuth = 49 degrees (and a bit).  GeoAstro gives us a value of 49.5 degrees

for 2007 AD: http://www.jgiesen.de/sunmoonpolar/index.html#stonehenge

 

   The highly evocative Stonehenge Midsummer

 

 

 

 

The sun first appears (false dawn) to the left and then actually appears -

also to the left - moving rapidly southwards (to the right) and rising.  It

'sits' atop the Hele/Heel Stone some time later - well clear of the ground

(and the dawn).  Remember though, values of variously 49 degrees, 51,

360/7 and 51 51 have been attached to the event.  You could argue they

all fit kinda - and it's still a glorious visual presentation, dawn or no dawn!

 

Lastly, there's one line readers might like to explore: the other hypotenuse. 

I've not seen any suggestion whatsoever made for it by commentators - if

of course SS92-SS94 had any purpose as an alignment  I'd be interested as

to ideas.  Perhaps Skymap?*

*(freebie download available at www.5star.shareware.com : SkyMap Pro 8 (demo version)

STOP PRESS! This just in from ML Saunders - and my thanks (email to me 30-05-08):

My word you've been busy Geoff. Nice to see so much effort in one space,
you've collected over the years. If the side of your octagon is 62.5 cubits, you
can rest a 5:12:13 rectangle on it to generate the aubrey holes from the
solstice line. You get 2 sets of 4 septagons, octagon, 28 5:12:13 rectangles
and a decagon. SS93 then sits azimuth centered between two aubrey holes
in situ (ss92 ss94 slightly offset). The tumuli centers and SS93 inner face
62.5:150:162.5 cubit ... Hope you're well :)

STOP PRESS 2!  04-07-08:  "Bigbytes" has sent me a Station Stones idea based on his
Tree of Life/Metatron's Cube/Washington DC study.  The link is given below and is
well worth the look!  My thanks (geoffss).  Note the date he sent it ...

"Players"

Professor Richard Atkinson - a 1978 measurement carried by Ralph Ellis, p. 141
"Bigbytes" -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0OdFIhxfY

Martin Doutre - www.celticnz.co.nz/US14.html

H H Franklin - http://members.tripod.com/hew_frank/id21.htm

Bonnie Gaunt* - THE MAGNIFICENT NUMBERS .... (Numerolgy)
Gerald Hawkins - STONEHENGE DECODED (1963)

Robin Heath - http://cura.free.fr/decem/06heath.html

James Q Jacobs - http://www.jqjacobs.net/astro/index.html
Sir Norman Lockyer

Nick Markell - http://www.tivas.org.uk/stonehenge/stone_main.html
John North - STONEHENGE: A NEW INTERPRETATION ... (1996)
Flinders Petrie - measurement carried by Ralph Ellis, p. 141

Michael L Saunders - @ http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/list.php?f=1
Alexander Thom - Megalithic Yard (MY)/X-Quarter Days (Scottish) et al.

Charles Webster - http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/charleswebster

Chris Witcombe - http://witcombe/sbc/edu

 

www.archaeoastronomy.com

Robin Heath - www.skyandlandscape.com

Sig Lonegren - www.geomancy.org

Gary Osborn - http://www.garyosborn.moonfruit.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      22/7 was pre-calculator 'schoolboy' Pi.  If you click on Perpetual Choirs
      (tab left) you'll see how Point St. John is at Lat.

 

 

 

 

     for this. Note: I have found "51" used by others this year (2008 AD) ...

*Note re 117 (geoffss, 01-12-07): it's a mirror (of sorts).  117 is 39 X 3.  But is is
also 13 X 3 (power2) ... and 1332 is 666 X 2.


Two diagrams: Planet Earth's Tropics and Stonehenge's Station Stones:

















NOTES: 'the obliquity of ecliptic' etc.  Planet Earth is off celestial 'up' by a
(moving) angle stylised as 23.5 degrees = and this number is also (and again
stylised) accorded the two Tropics, Cancer and Capricorn.  These denote
the limits of our year's seasonal cycle.  The cycle is 47 degrees summer to
winter and vice-versa.

The Stonehenge Station Stones have been called octagonal (22.5) and
5-12-13 (22.62).  Ralph Ellis, THOTH: ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE
 ... P. 160 (googlebooks) carries the ideas 22.5/22.6 together in the context of
Stonehenge - and this value is indicative (or can be) of the lower value for the
cycle of the Earth's "wobble" for which 23.5 is often used as a middle value (of
sorts) - thanks for the refence, Gary.

The angle from the centre to the ends of shorter rectangle sides can be the
same 47 degrees as with the Tropics.  Here a a link to a fascinating study
embracing the tropics, 23.5, Washington DC, the Great Pyramid and
Stonehenge:

http://www.geocities.com/jussaymoe/Pentagram/pent_to_pyr2.htm