Featured: Hare and Tabor T Shirts for discerning antiquarians

Hare and Tabor T Shirts for discerning antiquarians

Visiting the Past: Finding and Understanding Britain's Archaeology

Visiting the Past: Finding and Understanding Britain's Archaeology

Who's Online

There are currently, 453 guests and 3 members online.

You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here

Sponsors

Moderated by : Andy B , Klingon , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem , Martin_L

The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >> Stones Forum >> Stonehenge's alignment to Solstice
New  Reply
Page 1 of 2 ( 1 | 2 )
AuthorStonehenge's alignment to Solstice
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 08:50   
The alignment 
It's well known that Stonehenge is aligned to the Solstices. At Britain's latitude, the winter solstice sunset is only just over two degrees different from the opposing direction at summer solstice. At Stonehenge, the hills to the north east make the sun appear just that little bit later, which means that the two events are even closer than you would find on a flat plain. 

A posteriori evidence 
There is evidence from places such as Newgrange that the solstices may have been important to some Neolithic people. Sunrise at winter solstice produces a beam of light which shines down the Newgrange passage.



However, Newgrange is a long way from Stonehenge. It was constructed hundreds of years earlier. It also looks nothing like Stonehenge. Stonehenge does not appear to do anything special with the beams of sunlight, so the best we can say is that Newgrange (and similar monuments which are known to have a solstice function) might provide a fairly weak (a posteriori) link if the monuments are of the same type. 

The evidence of alignments 
Stonehenge has multiple alignments with solstice. Its Avenue points towards summer solstice sunrise (albeit downwards). The monument is arranged on an axis which points in about the right direction for either summer solstice sunrise or winter solstice sunset. 



From the centre of the monument, there is an alignment to summer solstice through stones 1 and 30 (1). There is also an alignment through blue-stones 31 and 49 (2). The Avenue is aligned (3) and so is the slaughter-stone (4) and its companions (if its companions existed). There also an alignment through the Great Trilithon (5). Some argue that the heel-stone, though not aligned, would be aligned if it's companion existed at the same time (which evidence in the way of a ditch shows that it did not).

But Stonehenge is a symmetrical monument. Any symmetrical building layout will generate multiple alignments. For example, if an entrance door of any symmetrical building faces solstice, it will be aligned to solstice (1) from the hallway in exactly the same way that Stonehenge's 30-01 stones do. If its lobby is symmetrical, it will also generate alignment (2) through the lobby door in exactly the same way that the blue-stones referred to do. If it has a path leading to the door, that will generate the same solstice alignment (3) as the Avenue. If two garden gnomes are placed either side of the path, that will generate the same alignment (4) as the slaughter-stone and its pair. If the kitchen is behind the hall, the kitchen door will generate the same alignment (5) as the Great Trilithon. The door to the conservatory generates extra alignments (6,7) that Stonehenge does not have and the path gate creates yet another alignment (8) not seen at Stonehenge.



All this without having the problem of the heel-stone, which does not align, even with its pair stone-hole. Nor with the problem of the Altar Stone, which does obstruct the view of the setting solstice sun through the trilithons. 

The odds
Stonehenge is aligned to solstice, but only in the same way that a house might also be aligned purely by chance. Turn it round forty degrees and it aligns east. Forty more and it meets winter solstice sunrise. There is at best a 1 in 60 chance that it points in a correct direction by chance and chance alone. Given that we are looking for something which shows what Stonehenge was for, our finding something (that fits with our preconceptions) reduces the odds to perhaps only slightly better than 50/50.

Is there anyone who knows of more proof or evidence that supports the solstice argument? I'm not against the idea; I just don't see the evidence.




Image 1 way too big: edited:

[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2013-03-26 09:01 ]




 Profile  Email   Reply
tiompan



Joined:
09-01-2005


Messages: 3186
OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 09:59   
Jon , if you can't see the evidence then there is nothing else to add that will convince . The comparison with a house is misleading . Millions of houses have paths, doors ,halls , kitchens as you describe , it is in their nature . How many structures are like Stonehenge ? There is no need for structural symmetry at Stonehenge , the horseshoes need not face in the same direction as each other or the solstice , others don't . The avenues need not align on the solstice and the horseshoes , others don't . Stonehenge is not a house , it is a complex megalithic monument with different structural elements that could be quite different and still maintain the integrity of the monument but they don't and the multiple points only provide greater evidence of intentionality .

George




 Profile   Reply
cropredy



Joined:
01-01-2006


Messages: 7171
from Oxon

OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 10:11   
jonm,

I keep posting this link ,
http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba94/feat2.shtml
I know its based on churchs, but churchs are based on former megalithic sites.
It is important because churches are rectanguler and thus provide far better chance of alignment than a circuler type place like SH.
The suns apparent route is none stop...solstice is sol....stice.... latin for sunstill sun ....still

What does that relate to??????
It's apparent height settles for three days at it's lowest during the winter solstice period, but it doesn't standstill???

Churchs have altars....so does SH.





 Profile   Reply
cropredy



Joined:
01-01-2006


Messages: 7171
from Oxon

OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 10:33   
jonm,
Instead of adhering to the ASSUMPTION that the sun is centrally self powered....instead consider it is externally powered by galatic focussed charges.
http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Then further consider that this planet is not as ASSUMEDorbitting the sun at all, but trailing behind the sun , as are all the other planets on spiral pathways, and that the sun itself is on it's own spiral pathway .

Then consider the patterns of such created and the electrical occurances relative to points in those crossing patterns???

We are discussing constructions that were built by people who perhaps didn't have any of our current assumptions in their thinkings, but instead observed nature and the heavens far far differently.

cropredy




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 14:36   
Hi George

As soon as you decide to create a pathway leading to an entrance of a symmetrical structure, you create at least two "alignments". If your path has a gate, you create three. If the structure has a rear entry, you create four. It doesn't matter what the structure is. As soon as you arrange symmetrical components within the structure, particularly if they are lintelled, you create more alignments.

Structural symmetry exists at Stonehenge. Not only does structural symmetry exist, but some other architectural devices exist (such as shaping the stones for perspective). This shows that there was architectural thinking in designing the monument. Symmetry is rather like a 'prime directive' of architecture: (eg: Symmetry in architecture)

What types of symmetrical structure do you believe would not randomly achieve the same number of alignments as Stonehenge?

Here's "Randomhenge", created by a spreadsheet randomly locating and sizing 20 pairs of blocks into a CAD programme: It has about the same number of multiple point alignments as Stonehenge and with fewer stones (amazing what you can do in a lunch-break with CAD these days).




Hi Cropedy

Interesting: Would you mind if we came back to your notes later?







 Profile  Email   Reply
tiompan



Joined:
09-01-2005


Messages: 3186
OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 17:07   
Jon , the obvious symmetry of the various elements of the solstice alignment are not necessarily a consequence of the other elements , it could quite easily have been otherwise and the monument would still have been Stonehenge . It is because these elements are symmetrical that they are salient .
The first was the entrance which could have gone anywhere ,but, from the centre of the non megalithic monument was roughly solstice oriented ,this alone would have been significant for us if not entirely convincing . The five trilithons could have gone anywhere on any axis but they also contributed to the alignment , again even alone it would have been noted by us as a possible solstice indication . The sarsen circle could have had it's monoliths anywhere on the perimeter of (partial ) circle but the sightline to the solstice was respected . Next the bluestones could have gone anywhere and they did only to be moved later . The avenue could have gone anywhere others are not necessarily on the axis of their associated monument or aligned on the solstice , this one was . The bluestones when rearranged could have gone anywhere on the perimeter of a circle but they also respected the sightline to the solstice the other bluestone setting derived from the oval may have it's orientation due to much later modifications but was nevertheless also on the axis . If you were to do genuine random version it would need to consider each element separately as the monument was built over a long period of time and each element did not have to respect the the solstice alignment or even consider it . The fact that each element does when it needn't makes it even more compellling .
George




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 17:53   
Hi George, you've lost me again

Let's say that Parker Pearson is right about the periglacial stripes
You have an alignment
I have a rough pathway

Now we build an initial monument, but put the entry in the wrong place for the alignment. Some time later we improve the embankment so that the entry faces out onto the periglacial stripes
You have a second alignment
I have the startings of a monument where the entry faces the path

Now we build a sarsen monument at the end of the periglacial stripes. The horseshoe goes in
You have a third alignment (but only through stones 55 and 56)
I have a monument starting to be built symmetrically so that it faces the path

Now we build the outer ring
You have a forth alignment (but only through stones 1 and 30)
I have a monument and we're still building it symmetrically

Now we put in blue-stones and mess them around a bit
You have a fifth alignment and compelling evidence? (but only through stones 31 and 49)
I have a monument with its amendments built symmetrically

Now we build over the periglacial stripes to make the Avenue
You have a sixth alignment and more compelling evidence?
I have an improved pathway

Now we install stones either side of the avenue
You have a seventh alignment and more compelling evidence?
I have an improved pathway with an entry feature


I agree that the monument has an alignment, axis or whatever you like to call it. But what exactly is it that makes the elements that you've selected compelling evidence that those specific elements were designed to be aligned to the solstice rather than just a normal consequence of building symmetrically?






 Profile  Email   Reply
tiompan



Joined:
09-01-2005


Messages: 3186
OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 18:19   
Jon , I disagree with your analogy with paths etc. but to keep it simple .There is no structural reason for any of the elements to be aligned . Where else do you find that level of symmetry in monuments of the period ?

George




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 18:41   
Hi George

The monument is uniquely symmetrical, but I can't see how this provides more than one piece of evidence for design alignment to solstice: Symmetry requires one axis and that axis does face solstice. It's the idea of the symmetry providing multiples of evidence that I'm having difficulty understanding.






 Profile  Email   Reply
tiompan



Joined:
09-01-2005


Messages: 3186
OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 19:22   
Jon, If you accept the MPP suggestion about the “periglacial ? stripes “ as you mentioned earlier , then everything falls into place from the build of the monument to the end of the megalithic monument construction (3000- 2300 = 700 years ) . That view denies the level of choice available to the builders over that period. I don't accept the MPP view and also don't believe that the megalithic monument was in the minds of the builders of the earliest monument , like many monuments it was evolving and each time choices had to be made . These ( multiple ) choices need not have been those that respected the alignment but at each juncture they did .

George




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 20:57   
These ( multiple ) choices need not have been those that respected the alignment but at each juncture they did .

I can't see the logic George. They changed the alignment of the embankment of the original henge to suit the new arrangement: We don't know if there was any alignment precision in this change. Whether you agree with MPP or not, once that had been established they built a large symmetrical structure and a wide symmetrically arranged Avenue. Subsequent modifications respected the symmetry: Not much choice given what had been built.

However, they did change the alignment of the stone (or stones) that made the Heel-stone (possibly the slaughter stone too): This change did not respect the alignment.

What is the particular example of subsequent choices that you're thinking of?





 Profile  Email   Reply
tiompan



Joined:
09-01-2005


Messages: 3186
OFF-Line

 Posted 26-03-2013 at 22:03   
Jon .I don't believe the builders over the 700 year period had little choice and were following some blueprint of enfroced symmetry . I believe their choices were related to respecting the alignment .They could have built the various components quite differently , destroying the symmetry if necessary , they didn't , but not due to architectural constraints . Each element was a deliberate choice not an enforced one .

George




 Profile   Reply
Feanor



Joined:
11-05-2011


Messages: 943
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US

OFF-Line

 Posted 27-03-2013 at 01:58   
I wrote this 14 hours ago and forgot to post it. There's been some discussion here since then, but I feel the notice is still valid.

Hi Jon.
I'm not a big fan of the 'House Analogy', for many of the same reasons mentioned by George.

As you know, I am firmly in the Intentional Solstice Design court, and here's why.
With Stonehenge as just a cemetery in the beginning, the NE Causeway was 'close enough' to SSSR, as were a few other monuments.
We both know that they fouled-up the Aubrey layout because of inconsistencies in the East/West Horizons.
How they screwed up the Southern Entrance has yet to be determined, as North is easy, but it would be interesting to find out precisely where Thuban was during that period, as this might lend a clue.

I believe it was only a very short time before they realized their layout error, but determined that, as a cemetery, it didn't really matter. The Altar Stone, in my opinion, was always recumbent, and this idea is bolstered by finding the two old post-holes placed specifically at either end of it.

When the Monument began to morph into something more sophisticated, S-97, S-B & S-C were placed in incorrect positions, but all 3 are positioned precisely to the East of the line. This was all long before there was an Avenue.

I believe that the knowledge to correct these errors was unavailable at the time, so the Monument was abandoned in frustration, though probably still used as a graveyard.
Upon return they fixed the mistakes by re-setting S-97 into its present location and moving B & C to the D & E locations, though it's possible that one of them is the Slaughter Stone. Its rough & ready working compliments that of the raw Heelstone, which makes me wonder if the other two were also hastily prepped.

Anyway, the corrected alignment was achieved before the Trilithons went up and were positioned according to the new, more accurate Solstice line.
Yes, any number of correlated alignments will occur in a symmetrical structure, but there's little doubt that the Trilithons and Circle are in their specific positions for Solstice reasons.

If East is Life (Sunrise) and West is Death (Sunset), it's possible that the Summer Sunrise meant Fertility and Winter Sunrise meant Life Renewal.
Having the WSSR light-passage at Newgrange (in the West) could be meant to usher a Noble into the Afterlife.
The Southern Circle at Durrington Walls has the WSSR feature, and a very strong case can be made for one at SH as well (though perhaps as an afterthought.)

Are the alignments stringently perfect? No -- not by modern standards. But they worked quite well to the naked eye. Whether or not Stonehenge was a Solar Demonstrator, this alignment served an intentional function.

Best wishes my friend,
Neil





 Profile  Email   Reply
davidmorgan



Joined:
23-11-2006


Messages: 3090
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 27-03-2013 at 02:28   
Maybe they came across the glacial grooves and decided to make a graveyard at the end of it before they discovered the solstice alignment, after they'd cleared enough trees to see it. Were the Aubrey holes tree sockets?




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 27-03-2013 at 08:02   
Hi George

Sorry George, I don't get the logic: Doesn't the latest dating evidence (in MPP's book) show that virtually all of the 'confirmed' solstice alignments that you're referring to were built in the second and third stages (this could be 400 years at a stretch but it could also be 40 years)

Also I don't get the idea of enforcement: Isn't this conjecture George? There are many many examples of buildings which have been modified over hundreds of years. When modified, especially for high status structures, the arrangements usually respect the existing form and architecture. What is different about Stonehenge that would make them feel that they could not respect the architecture?






 Profile  Email   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 27-03-2013 at 08:04   
Hi Neil

NE Causeway was 'close enough' to Summer Solstice Sunrise (SSSR) in a very iffy sort of way: At that stage it was aligned on the moon, not SSSR. So it aligning on the moon's standstill doesn't really give any evidence for them really wanting it to align on the Sun does it?

Yes, any number of correlated alignments will occur in a symmetrical structure, but there's little doubt that the Trilithons and Circle are in their specific positions for Solstice reasons.

I like the idea of an initial connection to Solstice. The monument faces in the correct direction. But that's all the evidence there appears to be. The rest is conjecture (and some of the evidence goes against the theory of Solstice alignment) Give me a more reasons Neil!

Jon




 Profile  Email   Reply
tiompan



Joined:
09-01-2005


Messages: 3186
OFF-Line

 Posted 27-03-2013 at 09:25   
Jon , taking the dating from MPP First stage 3000-2920 (causeway )to second stage 2620-2480 Trilithons gives a minumum of 300 years third stage 2480 -2280 (avenue ) gives a minimum of 440 fourth stage 2280-2020 ( bluestone circle and bluestone horseshoe ) gives minimum of 640 years and maximum of 900 years .
Stonehenge is a megalithic monument that was previously a form of causewayed enclosure /enclosed cremation cemetery that also had timber structures , possibly a house ,lots of burials , like many prehistoric monuments it went through many typological changes . It is not of the form of a high status structure that respects the existing form and architecture ,this is obvious from the amount of change and development typologically . What was respected was the solstice alignment , not the “existing form and architecture “ which was often destroyed / changed at prehistoric sites Stonehenge is no different from other prehistoric sites in that respect .
George




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 27-03-2013 at 12:06   
Quote:
Jon , taking the dating from MPP First stage 3000-2920 (causeway ) to second stage 2620-2480 Trilithons gives a minumum of 300 years



Agreed George. But you can't really count an alignment which they think mostly aligned approximately in the direction of the moon (posts, stoneholes etc) as evidence of respect for alignment to the sun can you? MPP notes that the three stoneholes B-C-97 align roughly to the moon. I accept that there is one stonehole of the three (97) that might have aligned relative to the centre if you stretch the imagination a bit. What have I missed here?

Quote:
third stage 2480 -2280 (avenue ) gives a minimum of 440



Second to third gives a maximum of 400 but a minimum of a few decades doesn't it? One era ends 2480, the other starts 2480. It's possible that MPP is right about the short time-frame for construction: A few decades isn't a great deal of proof of hundreds of years of respect for the solstice alignment is it?

Quote:
fourth stage 2280-2020 ( bluestone circle and bluestone horseshoe ) gives minimum of 640 years and maximum of 900 years .



But this last stage is only one extra Sun alignment: The movement of the bluestones. All they did was to reposition them a bit. If I were re-modelling a porch, I would put it where the entrance path and door are: I would not put it somewhere else. I don't think this even counts as respect for architecture; it's just common sense.

Even if we accept the proposition that it's neither common sense re-modelling nor respect for the architecture of the ancestors, this one modification doesn't seem to give substantive evidence for hundreds of years of respect for solstice alignment does it. What have I missed here?








 Profile  Email   Reply
Lloyd



Joined:
27-03-2013


Messages: 16
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 27-03-2013 at 12:35   
Hi.

I have followed the tread, "Is the bluestone myth based on scientific fraud?" date 21st March at http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/

I understand the arguments that are being made against alignments having any significance, but as a layman there would appear to be a conspiracy against impartially examining any evidence that has been put forward; is this to maintain the mystery for interested parties? From my humble point of view, I cannot understand why the alignment of stones is so easily discounted; for the same reason glacial transport would appear to make logical sense for the transport of the bluestones. So much research has been centred on Stonehenge, but so little intellectual willingness to seek a unifying answer to the different strands of evidence.


What sort of evidence would satisfy the doubters of the glacial theory of transport, or what evidence is required to satisfy the critics of celestial alignments?

If cost was not a problem, and a serious attempt was made to haul 60 Bluestones to Stonehenge in conditions that replicated that era, and it was successful, would this mean that the doubters are proved correct? If it failed would it mean that the supporters of glacial transport would be proved correct?

What is the evidence that is required by the critics of celestial alignments?

Lloyd Matthews




 Profile   Reply
tiompan



Joined:
09-01-2005


Messages: 3186
OFF-Line

 Posted 27-03-2013 at 13:20   
Jon,The first stage did have an alignment towards the solstice , no need to stretch the imagination centre of monument to stonehole 97 provides a declination that will have seen the sun rise on the solstice slightly to right of the stone . However long it took to build the second stage it was still 300 -400 years before it was began and the building period is not an indication of the length of time the alignment was respected .
The fourth stage involved the bluestone circle and the horseshoe ,two important elements , not one , both of which respected the alignment and they were 640 years minimum after the first stage .There were further major changes to the architecture so we can't say how much longer the continuation of that respect would have been maintained but that is the minimum we can judge from the evidence .
What you are missing is that we are not talking about porches and what a contemporary architect might consider common sense , but what gets done and was done at prehistoric monuments .
The Sanctuary has an avenue and at the point it meets the first stone circle there was a monolith in the middle of the avenue , would you do that , is that common sense ?
George


George






 Profile   Reply
Go to Page: 1 | 2
New  Reply
Jump To

Sponsors