A New Interpretation of Stonehenge
by Joseph C. Keller, May 15-21, 2014
Executive summary. Stonehenge is a "precessional alarm clock" laid out during the last Ice Age and indicating the present epoch. Unlike the Mexican and Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge refers not to bright stars whose present Declination equals its present latitude, but rather more universally to the brightest stars near the ecliptic or (at present) the equator, indicating, with its largest stones, i.e. the "horseshoe", their present azimuths of rise, assuming the 45 degree latitude which Stonehenge evidently had during the last Ice Age when the last Hapgood pole position was extant.
Introduction. If modern relativity theory is considerably incomplete or outright false, then unexplained astronomical and geological phenomena may well be observed if we look for them. Stonehenge might be a record of some such phenomenon. So, Stonehenge is indeed part of the "Requiem for Relativity". The layout of the stones corroborates Hapgood's location of the last Ice Age pole. Even more strangely, the stones seem to indicate a stellar alignment, or "precessional alarm clock" (to use John Major Jenkins' phrase) consistent with our own epoch. My reference for Stonehenge data, is Michael Balfour's popular "Stonehenge and its Mysteries", 1979.
Part 1. The Heel Stone, etc., and Hapgood's pole.
Usually, though with unacceptable inaccuracy according to some naysaying authorities (e.g. E. H. Stone, 1924; see Balfour p. 112) the Heel Stone has been interpreted as the azimuth, at some ancient epoch, of summer solstice sunrise, or perhaps some closely related quantity such as northernmost moonrise. I embrace the radically different (already proposed by others) hypothesis, that the Heel Stone, etc., indicate true East during the latest Ice Age, due to a Hapgood pole shift. Let us refer to Fig. 23 on p. 109 of Balfour's book. (Due to an editorial error, my copy lacks a caption for this figure, but the caption to Fig. 6 on p. 38, implies that Fig. 23 is the detailed version of the British Department of the Environment's then-current official plan of Stonehenge.) The stone numbers in current use, are still those adopted by Petrie for his 1880 book.
The center of the Heel Stone (#96) and the center of the base (west end) of the fallen Slaughter Stone (#95) give us a line; the nearby empty stone holes B & C give us a nearly parallel line. Furthermore (as noted by Lockyer; see Balfour p. 40) these lines are orthogonal to the nearly exact rectangle formed by Stations 91, 92, 93 & 94. I can borrow from Atkinson's 1978 survey (Balfour p. 40) which determined that the "Avenue" (a structure very nearly parallel to the Heel Stone - Slaughter Stone line) is directed, on average, 40deg05'48" = 40.097deg north of east.
The rectangle formed by the above Stations, has central angle about equal to the latitude of the arctic circle (my measurements on Fig. 23 give 67.3deg using one narrow end of the rectangle and 66.7 using the other; average 67.0 = 90 - 23.0). This rectangle is a hint that something in Stonehenge reveals its original latitude. The 24deg (Earth's obliquity) tilt of the Heel Stone, thought by some to be intentional (Balfour Plate 66, p. 87) is another such hint. This something might be Stone #127. Petrie gave it the 1xx number usually given to lintel stones, and although most maps show it as a fallen stone, and it is horizontal in photographs, the detailed map of Fig. 23 indicates that it is a standing stone. Perhaps, though horizontal, it was, by someone, not thought to be "fallen" from its original position. This stone, or alternatively the two perimeter stones near it in the circle, both indicate about a 45 degree angle with the line of the Heel & Slaughter stones (my two ways of measuring on Fig. 23, give 45.9deg +/- SEM 1.2). Perhaps the Stonehenge site was chosen for exact 45.0 latitude. If that was the latitude, then the indicated pole is 63N, 91W vs. Hapgood's most recent pole, 60N, 73W (using Atkinson's "Avenue" direction as true east). My own measurement of the true east direction, based on the Heel and the Slaughter stones, is 40.01deg, practically equal to Atkinson's, but based on the empty stone holes B & C, is 42.11deg: this alternative true east, implies a pole at 62N, 87W, even closer to Hapgood's.
Another hint that the latitude of Stonehenge was 45, is the angle from the base of the Slaughter stone to the midpoint of a short side of the "station" rectangle and thence to the center of that rectangle. The two very slightly different angles imply 46.0deg +/- 0.2. As in all cases, the standard deviation I give is only a lower bound; many sources of error, for example the error of the base position of the fallen Slaughter stone, I cannot estimate and must ignore.
Part 2. The precessional alarm clock.
Archaeological dating indicates that the main stonework at Stonehenge was done at about the same time as the conventional date of the Giza pyramids. However, the information contained in Stonehenge might be much older, just as Egyptian temples were reconstructed over and over on the same foundations using whatever building technology was then current. Gradually, those who rebuilt Stonehenge perhaps forgot the original significance, and over-emphasized the circular structures because it was evident to them that the layout must have something to do with circles and circular functions (also known as trigonometric functions).
Referring to Fig. 23, stones #51 & #52 point to the true (airless) azimuth of rise (for 45 deg latitude, sin(az) = sin(Decl) / cos(45) ) of Procyon, stones #53 & #54 to the azimuth of rise of Spica, stones #57 & #58 to the azimuth of rise of Regulus, and stone #60 (and perhaps the base of the fallen stone #59A) to the azimuth of rise of Rigel. These trilithon sarcen stones of the "horseshoe" are the tallest of Stonehenge. Measuring two ways (according to the centroids of the stones and again according to the best edges) to get a standard error, and accepting my measurement of the Heel - Slaughter line as true east (i.e. practically Atkinson's value for the "Avenue") I find from Fig. 23:
Rigel az -10.5 +/- SEM 0.9 (azimuths are given as North of East, for clarity)
implies Declination -7.4 +/- 0.6
vs. actual (epoch 2000.0) Decl -8.2
Regulus az +18.7 +/- 1.2
implies Decl +13.1 +/- 0.8
vs. actual (2000.0) Decl +12.0
Procyon az +7.0 +/- 0.9
implies Decl +4.9 +/- 0.6
vs. actual (2000.0) Decl +5.2
Spica az -13.7 +/- 0.8
implies Decl -9.6 +/- 0.6
vs. actual -11.2
The choice of these stars makes sense: Regulus and Spica are the bright stars nearest the ecliptic, and one of them happens to be north and one south of the ecliptic and of the equator. Rigel, Procyon and Betelgeuse are nearest the equator, now, of all the stars brighter than Spica. Procyon and Betelgeuse are north of the equator and Procyon is nearer the equator than Betelgeuse. Rigel is the only one of the three that is south of the equator.
Stones #57 & #58 were re-erected in 1958 after falling in 1797. So, the nearby bluestones might be substituted for them.
In Part 1, I noted that my Heel-Slaughter stone line is 40.01 N of E, Atkinson's Avenue line is 40.10 N of E, but the empty stone hole B & C line is 42.11 N of E, and leads to considerably better agreement with Hapgood's pole. If I correct the star azimuths to this empty stone hole line instead, all azimuths become 2.10deg more negative; using the average of my two lines, only 1.05deg more negative, as shown below:
Rigel az -11.6 +/- SEM 0.9
implies Declination -8.2 +/- 0.6
vs. actual (epoch 2000.0) Decl -8.2
Regulus az +17.7 +/- 1.2
implies Decl +12.4 +/- 0.8
vs. actual (2000.0) Decl +12.0
Procyon az +5.9 +/- 0.9
implies Decl +4.2 +/- 0.6
vs. actual (2000.0) Decl +5.2
Spica az -14.7 +/- 0.8
implies Decl -10.3 +/- 0.6
vs. actual -11.2
which is considerably better agreement. What is needed, is a way to determine the indicated azimuths to the arcminute rather than to the degree, so that the indicated epoch can be known to the year rather than to the century.
