Stonehenge and the Tropical Solar Cycle

Being from the UK, I thought I’d share this, Stonehenge has always fascinated me since childhood, we used to drive from London to Devon every year for a family holiday , always stopping at Stonehenge - back then you could just wander around it , mind blowing as a child . Stonehenge was a ritual part of our journey throughout my childhood. Love the place.

Here is a fascinating paper by Timothy Darvill regarding Stonehenge and it’s possible link to an Eastern Mediterranean solar cycle calculation of 365.25 days .
Here the Abstract for a quick perusal:

Scholars have long seen in the monumental composition of Stonehenge evidence for prehistoric time-reckoning—a Neolithic calendar. Exactly how such a calendar functioned, however, remains unclear. Recent advances in understanding the phasing of Stonehenge highlight the unity of the sarsen settings. Here, the author argues that the numerology of these sarsen elements materialises a perpetual calendar based on a tropical solar year of 365.25 days. The indigenous development of such a calendar in north-western Europe is possible, but an Eastern Mediterranean origin is also considered. The adoption of a solar calendar was associated with the spread of solar cosmologies during the third millennium BC and was used to regularise festivals and ceremonies.

The paper mentions Stonehenge construction methods and calendar system as being unlike any other in Northern Europe (including others in the uk) and infers it was knowledge brought here, either by trade or interaction .
A very interesting read indeed .
Darvill ends with a logical thought about human interaction :

Thinking more widely about the origins of the solar calendar, its meanings, and its ramifications, now requires a detailed review of the connections between early farming communities across the Old World during the third millennium BC.

Enjoy.. here’s the link :
Timothy Darvill Stonehenge Paper

I take anything Stonehenge with a grain of salt these days.

The site was overhauled in 1958:

Under the direction of Colonel William Hawley, a member of the Stonehenge Society, six stones were moved and re-erected. Cranes were used to reposition three more stones in 1958. One giant fallen lintel, or cross stone, was replaced. Then in 1964, four stones were repositioned to prevent them falling.

IF you look, much of the original location was moved and repositioned according to how they felt it should look. Today if you were to visit, the monument contains modern day cement. Much of it is no longer "original".

Stonehenge has already served it's purpose and has been officially retired. If you followed the twin 8 year transit cycle's of Venus's conjunction from 2004-2012 then again from 2012-2020.. if that wasn't enough then maybe all the monoliths appearing around the world in 2020,. And if that still wasn't enough then maybe the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 2020. Or if that still wasn't enough then how about the 80,000 year cycle special delivery comet Leonard Venus had in December 2021.. the world has gone blind..

originally posted by: Triton1128
I take anything Stonehenge with a grain of salt these days.

The site was overhauled in 1958:

Under the direction of Colonel William Hawley, a member of the Stonehenge Society, six stones were moved and re-erected. Cranes were used to reposition three more stones in 1958. One giant fallen lintel, or cross stone, was replaced. Then in 1964, four stones were repositioned to prevent them falling.

IF you look, much of the original location was moved and repositioned according to how they felt it should look. Today if you were to visit, the monument contains modern day cement. Much of it is no longer "original".

A very good point.

Also, the idea that any group of people was too inept to actually watch the stars and mark sunrise positions for different times of the year doesn't seem to align with the rest of the things they were doing.

F you look, much of the original location was moved and repositioned according to how they felt it should look. Today if you were to visit, the monument contains modern day cement. Much of it is no longer "original".

Not sure all of that is entirely true - if you look into it, archaeology was done at the time to determine where the holes for the fallen stones were. As they have done in more recent work , which is why we know the sites of the stones and former wooden ring around the henge , radar of the ground has shown where the pits were for other now lost stones, and it’s how we’ve found out about it’s different phases.
It’s why we know of the development of the site as a whole .
As for concrete, sure they used it - they were big on concrete in the 20’s, but as a holding/foundation method , not a reconstruction method.
If you look into it, the archaeology done is quite accurate as to where the fallen stones stood.

What do you think about the premise of the paper, though ?
Are you saying that the 1920’s National Trust archaeologists are the ones that re-aligned the henge uprights to ‘how they thought it should look’ and just happened to match the eastern Mediterranean (and Egyptian) solar cycle at 365.25 days?
Why would they do that ?
Some coincidence …

a reply to: Triton1128

originally posted by: bluesfreak

F you look, much of the original location was moved and repositioned according to how they felt it should look. Today if you were to visit, the monument contains modern day cement. Much of it is no longer "original".

Not sure all of that is entirely true - if you look into it, archaeology was done at the time to determine where the holes for the fallen stones were. As they have done in more recent work , which is why we know the sites of the stones and former wooden ring around the henge ,
It’s why we know of the development of the site as a whole .
As for concrete, sure they used it - they were big on concrete in the 20’s, but as a holding/foundation method , not a reconstruction method.
If you look into it, the archaeology done is quite accurate as to where the fallen stones stood.
What do you think about the premise of the paper, though ?
a reply to: Triton1128

You are correct and the original data and locations still remains.

originally posted by: bluesfreak

F you look, much of the original location was moved and repositioned according to how they felt it should look. Today if you were to visit, the monument contains modern day cement. Much of it is no longer "original".

Not sure all of that is entirely true - if you look into it, archaeology was done at the time to determine where the holes for the fallen stones were. As they have done in more recent work , which is why we know the sites of the stones and former wooden ring around the henge , radar of the ground has shown where the pits were for other now lost stones, and it’s how we’ve found out about it’s different phases.

The earliest recorded restorations were in 1901 and the 1920 restoration was the "most vigorous" according to a quote in the New Scientist but recorded work on it goes back to 1881, when (I just found it) an article in The Antiquarian mentions some controversy over the restoration.

William Flinders Petrie, apparently was the one to document the stones and their position. He was a very exacting man, so his measurements would be as accurate as possible for that time.

(this site has photos from 1900, showing stones lying on the ground)

Note from this article: "William Gowland oversaw the first major restoration of the monument in 1901, which involved the straightening and concrete setting of sarsen stone number 56 which was in danger of falling. In straightening the stone he moved it about half a meter from its original position."

So what we see today ain't what was there originally.

William Flinders Petrie, apparently was the one to document the stones and their position. He was a very exacting man, so his measurements would be as accurate as possible for that time.

Ah old Petrie , eh? Wonder if he’d have been as interested in this papers premise, considering it links this ‘calendar’ with the AE and their calculations?
Nothing to say about the actual reason for the OP?!

No comment from you on what the paper suggests? a reply to: Byrd

originally posted by: bluesfreak

William Flinders Petrie, apparently was the one to document the stones and their position. He was a very exacting man, so his measurements would be as accurate as possible for that time.

Ah old Petrie , eh? Wonder if he’d have been as interested in this papers premise, considering it links this ‘calendar’ with the AE and their calculations?
Nothing to say about the actual reason for the OP?!

No comment from you on what the paper suggests? a reply to: Byrd

I have a few problems with it... the first being "how do we know they had a 12 month year"? Yes, there are often 12 lunar months in a year...but sometimes there's 13 months.

The second is, "why would a cultural group need a calendar that was NOT in the middle of (or close to) their living place? Can't you just imagine the town leaders saying "is it time for the solstice festival" and the priest saying "wait half a day or so while I run off to check the calendar."

Surely someone would say "why don't you have a calendar Right Here?" They had temples for that sort of thing.

The evidence given (Christian festivals and pre-Christian festivals dated 700 AD) is almost 4,000 years out of date. While we can't speak to them, we can tell from records that religious festivals can be a consistent cultural thing as long as that culture exists. An example here is theFestival of Opet, celebrated in ancient Egypt from the time of Hatshepsut until the Roman empire. Alexander the Great appropriated it to further his agenda. Here in modern times (3000 years later) it's not a date that anyone has any connection with.

So I find the "holdover mention" a very weak link.

There's some bad assumptions there... the statement "As an expression of the solar cosmology, the 12 months were named after the constellations that form the signs of the zodiac, and the epagomenal days were festivals celebrating the five children of Geb (earth god) and his sister-spouse Nut (sky goddess): Osiris, Horus, Seth, Isis and Nephthys " is incorrect. The months were not named after zodiac constellations. The epagomenal day names are correct, yes, but the months... no.

The key question, "Archaeologically, the question is whether the Egyptian Civil Calendar, or a variation thereof, could have been known to communities living in southern Britain in the mid-third millennium BC, and adopted by them" is easily answered with "no."

"So why do you say that, Byrd?" I hear you ask.

* there's no direct contact. They're not living next door. When cultures grab something from another culture, it's for a specific purpose and they borrow things that are proximate (harder to see in this modern world.) It's the same reason that the Tlingit (Alaskan natives... for folks who may not be familiar with Native American tribespeople) did not get their basket weaving skills from Japan although the occasional Japanese or Chinese artifact is found along those coasts.
* there's no actual use for it. Egypt's position along the desert and just above the equator brought two things that made a calendar necessary -- it's hard to tell one season from another (doesn't really get that cold, no falling leaves... they really have only 3 seasons - planting, harvesting, flood - that aren't appropriate for northern climates. Civil calendars are for religious festivals and Egypt had a bazillion of them (no kidding. Any particular day might have five different festivals celebrated in five different provinces) and the needed it because they were literate and needed to write down dates for legal matters, etc. For a small culture that's not literate, knowing the exact date isn't particularly helpful since it doesn't always rain on July 8 (for example.)
* Almost every culture around the world that sees seasonal changes has a way of counting the year. They didn't have to borrow it from anyone. It was self evident.

This paragraph is frankly hand-wavium Working back beyond 2000 BC, the archaeological trail marked by visible imports goes cold, although circumstantial indicators may be relevant. Particularly important here is the adoption of solar cosmologies across large areas of Northern Europe during the third millennium BC (Jones-Bley Reference Jones-Bley1993; Kristiansen & Larsson Reference Kristiansen and Larsson2005: 251–319; Kaul Reference Kaul2017) and its connection with the social construction of time (Kristiansen Reference Kristiansen and Lehoërff2008). There's no direct trade and indirect trade only starts up about 2000 BC. As for solar cults... it's this big magnificent thing in the sky that we rely on for a lot of things. Solar cults are a human thing.

I'll quit here, but could keep on going.

So I don't find the paper convincing. Europeans were intelligent people and ancient Celts certainly could see the sky and make sun daggers (arranging shapes in stone or other marks to show when the sun has come back to a certain place in the sky on a yearly basis.)

And that's my take on it.

I have a few problems with it... the first being "how do we know they had a 12 month year"? Yes, there are often 12 lunar months in a year...but sometimes there's 13 months.

Well, the reply is just as sweeping , “ how do we know they didn’t?”

“

The second is, "why would a cultural group need a calendar that was NOT in the middle of (or close to) their living place? Can't you just imagine the town leaders saying "is it time for the solstice festival" and the priest saying "wait half a day or so while I run off to check the calendar."

That’s a very spurious and strange position to take seeing as we don’t know many other things about these people.
Maybe they didn’t want the mess of a town near the precious clock ?
Is Avebury circle ‘in the middle ‘ of a Bronze Age town? Are the other Bronze Age circles and sun calendars across Europe ‘In the middle’ of their towns?

“ The key question, "Archaeologically, the question is whether the Egyptian Civil Calendar, or a variation thereof, could have been known to communities living in southern Britain in the mid-third millennium BC, and adopted by them" is easily answered with "no."

Erm, I think this is the premise of the paper, he questions whether we should reconsider human interaction in these times , due to the 365.25 solar calculation that is apparent here.
We were big on Tin here- needed for bronze , we probably had a real racket going on - you yourself have stated that AE tooling methods used bronze rather than the basic ‘copper’ so Tin was one thing the AE needed in large quantities .
They imported copper, and tin.
I have read other papers that state that they used Anatolian tin , but ALSO from Spain and the British Isles.
Trade routes existed .

If the rest of this Cambridge peer reviewed paper is so inaccurate , how were these inaccuracies not picked up upon and refuted before publication ?
Why didn’t they ask you?
Pretty sloppy from Cambridge university then eh?
This paper highlights two things to me:
1) Again , a ‘shutdown’ of discussion regarding contact between humans and cultures in the Old World,
2) publication of inaccurate research in a peer reviewed setting of authority .

Which one is it?
I favour the former.

And dont get me started on construction methods, ball and socket and tongue-and-grooved lintels - a technology that has no precedent in any Northern European stone circles before Stonehenge .
And no one in Northern Europe made similar linteled calendars AFTER Stonehenge , did they?
They had perfected the method , but no more were built .




a reply to: Byrd

originally posted by: Hanslune

Well that’s obviously the seating plan for the bridge on the USS Enterprise! 🤦‍♂️

originally posted by: bluesfreak

I have a few problems with it... the first being "how do we know they had a 12 month year"? Yes, there are often 12 lunar months in a year...but sometimes there's 13 months.

Well, the reply is just as sweeping , “ how do we know they didn’t?”

Exactly. It could have been anything. Stating "they had a 12 month calendar" is not possible unless we travel back in time and talk to them or we find that they had writing and wrote it down.


The second is, "why would a cultural group need a calendar that was NOT in the middle of (or close to) their living place? Can't you just imagine the town leaders saying "is it time for the solstice festival" and the priest saying "wait half a day or so while I run off to check the calendar."

That’s a very spurious and strange position to take seeing as we don’t know many other things about these people.
Maybe they didn’t want the mess of a town near the precious clock ?
Is Avebury circle ‘in the middle ‘ of a Bronze Age town? Are the other Bronze Age circles and sun calendars across Europe ‘In the middle’ of their towns?

Thing is, it's not next to a settlement. Now... some cultural places of importance are NOT near settlements (certain rock art sites in North America... but lots of other things as well.) However things that relate to everyday activities (this was supposed to be a daily calendar) WERE located in or next to places where people lived. And Avebury may have been a ritual site (for the solstices, or certain phases of the moon.

“ The key question, "Archaeologically, the question is whether the Egyptian Civil Calendar, or a variation thereof, could have been known to communities living in southern Britain in the mid-third millennium BC, and adopted by them" is easily answered with "no."

Erm, I think this is the premise of the paper, he questions whether we should reconsider human interaction in these times , due to the 365.25 solar calculation that is apparent here.

Thing is, though... you can get that same kind of precision with sun daggers. No calculation needed. Just a marker showing when the sun's in the same position as it was last year.

We were big on Tin here- needed for bronze , we probably had a real racket going on - you yourself have stated that AE tooling methods used bronze rather than the basic ‘copper’ so Tin was one thing the AE needed in large quantities .
They imported copper, and tin.
I have read other papers that state that they used Anatolian tin , but ALSO from Spain and the British Isles.
Trade routes existed .

Which is what I said... but it wasn't Egyptian boats sailing up to the Thames to trade. They got their tin from people who traded with people who traded with people who traded (etc) with tin miners. Nor did they send expeditions north to trade for tin in England. The did trade with others who went there, however.

If the rest of this Cambridge peer reviewed paper is so inaccurate , how were these inaccuracies not picked up upon and refuted before publication ?

Because of the journal's nature. They didn't try to publish in a Journal of Egyptology. They published in an Antiquities journal. History is so big and the amounts of information is so vast that it's not really possible to be an expert in ALL ancient history. I'm reasonably good with ancient Egyptian history, but my detailed knowledge of other cultures and times and so forth is only slightly better than the average person (and mainly from chasing down things here on ATS.)

If I publish something on how the Anasazi's laws were the original basis for the Aztec legal system (don't try this at home, folks) and send it to Journal of Intellectual Culture it's a pretty safe bet that none of their peer reviewers will know much about the topic and I can actually leap to a lot of conclusions that would be shredded by anyone who's actually worked with Aztec and/or Anasazi material.

Nota bene - for the skeptical, Jason Colavito's blog on this. I didn't get to the points he mentions because I felt I was sort of blathering on and on and on. I had not known (or had forgotten) that Stonehenge was constructed in stages.

Colavito isn't the be-all-and-end-all of critiques but he brings up things that I have seen discussed by other scholars.

All fair points Byrd,
Im not taking ‘sides’ in this, just find it all extremely interesting , and by no means do I think I have any ‘answers ‘ on this, just an enquiring mind ! 👍👍

Ps, though, I DO think it had a calendar based purpose , that was also combined with the ritual.
A lot of time and effort went into making it , equinoctial measurements and displaying such events through stone placement is a wonderful feat to bring to life - creating the monument itself requires the study of ‘time’ passing in order to achieve it , we can’t dismiss ‘time’ in the way they may have perceived it compared to how we now perceive it.
Blows my mind , though . a reply to: Byrd

a reply to: Byrd

The ancient sites like Easter Island, Nazca, Ollantaytambo, Paratoari, Tassili n’Ajjer, tombs of Aldebaran and the Pyramids of Giza are all aligned on a single great circle. Stonehenge can be used to tell time at night using a Merkhet, an ancient Egyptian timepiece. All were built before 3000 BC.

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: Hanslune

Well that’s obviously the seating plan for the bridge on the USS Enterprise! 🤦‍♂️

Darn you might be right

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: Byrd

The ancient sites like Easter Island, Nazca, Ollantaytambo, Paratoari, Tassili n’Ajjer, tombs of Aldebaran and the Pyramids of Giza are all aligned on a single great circle. Stonehenge can be used to tell time at night using a Merkhet, an ancient Egyptian timepiece. All were built before 3000 BC.

3000 BC? Giza, Easter Island, Nazca, Ollantaytambo are not that old people were there but the structures were not.

Paratoari, Tassili n’Ajjer are natural

Tombs of Aldebaran?

What is the importance of this circle? if you put random dots on a globe - guess what - if you ignore the majority of them you can find some that will line up - why is this importance and more germane why are points x and y left out?

a reply to: Hanslune

Start on the Equator, at the mouth of the Amazon River, at 49° 17′ West Longitude; go to 30° 18′ North Latitude, 40° 43′ East Longitude, in the Middle East, which is the maximum latitude the line touches; then go to the Equator at 130° 43′ East Longitude, near the Northwest tip of New Guinea; then to 30° 18′ South Latitude, 139° 17′ West Longitude, in the South Pacific; and then back to 49° 17′ West Longitude, at the Equator.

Distances to any location from the center of an equal azimuthal projection are equally scaled.

Since all of the sites on the great circle alignment are equally distant from the axis point at one-quarter of the circumference of the earth, the alignment forms a perfect circle halfway between the center and the outer edge of the projection.

a reply to: mcsnacks77

This would put Atlantis where Cape Verdi is located or a different city that was destroyed. Blue eye of Mauritania isn’t far from the cave where the oldest human bones have been found in jebel toubkal, Morocco.