STONEHENGE

Could this Ancient Megalithic Site hold

the Secret to the Earth's Turbulent
Past?
By Dean Talboys

At the start of summer 2006 I probably knew as much about

Stonehenge as the next man – it’s a collection of big old stones, or
megaliths, set in a circle on the gently rolling chalk hills of Salisbury
Plain in the English county of Wiltshire ...

Having grown-up in
England I’d even had the
opportunity to visit the
area as a schoolboy,
although I must say I was
more interested in running
up and down the slopes of
neighboring Avebury than
listening to the master
droning on about how the
site was constructed and
by whom. Little had
changed almost forty years
later, England in the World
Cup proving far more
exciting than the antics of
their Neolithic ancestors.
So when my ten-year-old
daughter asked why
anyone would want to use such big stones to build Stonehenge in the first place my
answer was appropriately glib, but it got me thinking. In fact it prompted a very
bizarre experiment followed by two years of intense research culminating in a book,
The Stonehenge Observatory.
You may be wondering why anyone is still interested in the
site, after all, so much has been written about it in the past 100
years there can be nothing left to discover, can there?

If only it was that simple because, try as they might to pigeon-hole the site,
Stonehenge poses a rather difficult problem for the archeologists.

• It is similar to ancient earthworks in the use of a bank and ditch but the
arrangement is unique, for almost every other ancient earthwork has an inner
ditch and outer bank. For some reason this is reversed in Stonehenge where
an outer bank encloses the remains of a once towering inner bank.

• It is also similar to ancient megalithic structures in the use of stone but the
quality of workmanship is unique. Lintels set atop two pillars have been
secured using knob and socket joints that are more familiar to pre-cast
concrete structures today. Possibly the only other ancient site demonstrating
this method of dry-jointing stone is the Giza Pyramid where it has been used
to secure cornerstones.

• Stonehenge sits in a greater megalithic landscape populated by causewayed

enclosures, chambered tombs and passage graves, and although individual
stones of the size and finish seen at Stonehenge are not unusual to the
Neolithic age, thirty pillars, each weighing around 30 tons, accurately placed
on sloping ground to support a level and perfect ring of lintels over 30m
(100ft) in diameter is extraordinary, and not just for Europe.

• Considering the size of the surrounding ditch and number of stones there is
surprisingly little evidence of it having been constructed using the tools of the
day – antler and bone. For example there are only two radiocarbon samples
available to place a date on the erection of seventy-five stones that make up
the Sarsen Circle and Trilithons, and they differ by almost 2,000 years.

• It is so well-designed that some observers believe it functioned as a solar and

lunar calendar at a time when the emerging agrarian societies in Neolithic
Britain became aware of the significance of the Sun and Moon in predicting
seasons, a view that contrasts with British archeologists who believe it in
some way ‘symbolic’ for a culture connecting with dead spirits – anything
more would require knowledge well beyond the capabilities of the British
Neolithic people and suggest (heavens forbid) a foreign influence. To this end
the ‘authorities’ appear willing to do almost anything to keep Stonehenge a
truly national monument.
Almost every attempt to recreate techniques believed to have
been used to transport, prepare and erect the stones is done so
from the point of reinforcing the Neolithic theory.

It has helped define a phased sequence of construction spanning 1,500 years where
erection of the largest stone groups, the Trilithons, at the center of the monument
would require the builders to negotiate the Sarsen Circle during their positioning and
final erection (it’s worth
noting how the recreation
of construction techniques
is always performed in
isolation and with neatly
squared-off blocks of pre-
cast concrete). A re-
evaluation by the Ancient
Monuments Laboratory
(AML) of radiocarbon
datable material recovered
during 20th century
excavations of the site was
clearly aimed at reinforcing
these established phases.

It is against this backdrop that I attempted to publish a paper documenting my own

theory some six months into my research. Looking back, to be honest, it was a
hastily prepared conclusion I felt keen to rubber-stamp as my own and deserved no
more attention than it achieved. Undeterred by the lack of official or media response
I continued researching the subject of Stonehenge in books, video, and on the
Internet. Most authors provide little more information than can be obtained from R.
J. C. Atkinson’s book, Stonehenge, published in 1956, and default to the techniques
for moving and erecting stones he describes. Even Gerald Hawkins, author of the
much maligned Stonehenge Decoded in which he ‘proved’ the builders capable of
astronomical calculation far ahead of their time, felt obliged to stick to Atkinson’s
sequence of construction and subsequent archeological dating of such. I too may
have fallen into this trap had it not been for Google Sketchup. This incredibly
powerful yet easy to use software allowed unparalleled access to the site via 3D
models I had created using data from a variety of sources and, used in combination
with CyberSky astronomical software, I was able to test theoretical alignments as
well as add weight to my own theory. However, it was in using the models to provide
illustrations for the book that I realized a consequence of the method Atkinson
adopted to erect the Sarsen pillars – the orientation of the flat inner face meant they
could only have been raised from outside the circle. It was only one of a number of
inconsistencies which were to cast doubt upon the established sequence of
construction and dates, a doubt that was further corroborated following a thorough
examination of the AML study.
By the end of 2007 I was reasonably certain my theory provided a credible
alternative to any other, including the ‘archillogical’ interpretation of Stonehenge as a
Neolithic place of ritual worship. Hawkins had been right about the outlying stones
but they could only have been placed following severe erosion of the bank which
would have otherwise rendered them useless. Other theories rely on a uniformity of
stone and symmetry that is absent in all but the Sarsen lintel ring. Still more totally
ignore features for which they have no use or explanation. Stonehenge is too precise
an arrangement to be simply a temple and yet too crude in the choice of material to
be an astronomical observatory – that is, until you fill it with water at which point the
central setting of stones provides a firm base from which to observe a reflection of
the Sun, Moon and stars. There could be no other reason for paying such close
attention to the form and finish of a lintel ring that would remain out of sight to
observers at ground level, and especially so when such little attention had been paid
to the pillars supporting it. Contrary to the many stylized models of Stonehenge the
pillars are not of a uniform shape and size (and never were) neither are the gaps
between them, yet much is made of their placement in aligning on or obscuring the
view of various events. The pillars are purely structural and well suited to the
purpose. Another reason to believe the lintels provided a firm base on which to move
around is the technique used to secure them in place. It’s not as if 7 tons of rock is
likely to slip off two 30 ton pillars set 1m (3ft) into the ground, yet the builders felt it
necessary to use three different methods to join them all together. The surrounding
hills still provide an ample supply of water in the form of an unconfined aquifer and
there is every reason to believe the level of the water table even higher in the past.
Features within and around the site provide examples of how that water could be
accessed and maintained within the confines of the henge.
At the same time (the end of 2007) I
was struggling with the geometry of
projection. It was proving impossible to
provide a geometrical method to
compensate for the orientation of the
site around 50° east of north without
resorting to trig tables, and I wanted
to show how the stars could be plotted
mechanically. The orientation of the
site towards the longest day of the
year, the summer solstice, lends
weight to the idea that it was
intentionally aligned on the event but
the association is tenuous for several
reasons, none least of which being the
tendency for the event to move left
and right according to the Earth’s
changing angle of tilt. Following a
dialogue with a professor in astronomy I decided to look at the problem from a
completely different angle, literally, at which point everything fell into place. Not only
was the geometry problem solved, there was also an explanation for the positions of
the Trilithons within the Sarsen circle in providing a permanent record of the Moon’s
northern and southernmost standstills.

For the first time every feature within the henge could be
accounted for in a single, functional unit. However, in closing
the door on one mystery I had opened the door to another of
even greater magnitude - for my theory to be correct, the
history of the Earth has to be wrong.

Much more is disclosed in my book, The Stonehenge Observatory. It includes a

full cross-examination of the AML study, an explanation of the astronomical problems
faced by the builders, alternative theories, and a full description of the features. But
paper alone never really does justice to the site. Previous authors have reverted to
long-winded descriptions of the stones with Ordnance Survey style plans for
reference, or wire-frame diagrams of what the site would have looked like. In an
attempt to provide the reader with as much access to the site as possible without the
need to be there in person (which would require a time-machine to see how it was
originally) I have made the 3D models available online at:

http://www.stonehengeobservatory.com

The web site is designed to compliment the book, so don’t expect too much in the
way of commentary. The models are, however, very interactive with the option to
hide or show features, pan and zoom manually or with the help of a site plan. An
eBook version of The Stonehenge Observatory is available for those of you who can’t
wait for the printers.
There is also an animated reconstruction of the destruction of the site from which it
is possible to see the extent of the damage to individual stones. The destruction of
Stonehenge is as much a mystery as how it was built. There can be no doubt that
Man figured largely in the removal of fallen stones but you need only look to the 20th
century restoration of the site to realize how the sheer size and foundations of those
left standing poses more of a problem for the scavenger than it ever did for the
builder. Large cranes, gantries and cradles were essential to lift megaliths still buried
after so many centuries. It is also clear that erosion of the site exposed some
foundations sufficiently for the wind to take its toll, but not to such an extent that
the entire southwestern sector would be demolished, and though the scale of the
damage would suggest a tidal wave or earthquake, the pattern of destruction says
otherwise. To this end, what I consider possible in The Stonehenge Observatory can
only invite scorn from the academic community to which I do not belong, but the
true age of Stonehenge and the event which lead to its destruction together with
what can only be described as a red herring of truly astronomic proportions, are
corroborated in studies by members of that very community.

Dean Talboys is a consultant systems analyst. His book, The

Stonehenge Observatory, is available for immediate download in
PDF format from the web site.

200 Pages
28 Photographs
43 Illustrations
Fully indexed and Cross-referenced

$8.99