Before the Pyramids: Cracking Archaeology's Greatest Mystery (15 page)

Jim has proved to be a very valuable asset to our enquiries because he has lots of knowledge about engineering but no preconceived ideas about archaeology. Most archaeologists are the product of university departments that take their students in straight from school, and then proceed to test them on their ability to absorb the standard world-view of the past. If you want a good degree it is essential to be able to recite accepted idea. Even postgraduate studies expect close conformity to standard protocols and incremental advancements based on accepted wisdom. The next email from Jim highlighted his fresh, logical thinking:

I cannot believe how close to a perfect basis for a sky-monitoring instrument Stonehenge would be. Any (TV) programmes I have seen involving it look at it from ground level as a place of worship. If I were living on UK mainland in the Neolithic period, and requiring an observatory, it would be located in the south to cover as much of the sky as possible. I would see that with a little timber modification I could superimpose a timber artificial horizon on the perimeter stones and indulge myself in a little stellar and lunar observation. The payoff would be, with eclipse prediction knowledge and the implied power over nature, I would wield enough power over the masses worshipping my chosen god down below to keep improving my scientific instrument and keep me in a style to which I would have become accustomed. (Using religion as a tool of submission is primitive compared to AK47s, famine and chemical weapons used in our modern developed civilization!)

Stonehenge fits my engineering requirements, but there may be other requirements such as visibility of the horizon, or local weather conditions 4,000 years ago, which may make the proposal inappropriate. Every option should be examined with an open mind.

Much of the thought process develops by association and discussion; if my suggestion is false, the idea may inspire someone else to offer a better one.

Perhaps I am covering old ground here, but I have never seen this solution to the function of the building before. Is this old material or is it something new?

This was music to our ears!

Of course, Jim is just another deluded engineer like Thom, as far as some archaeologists are concerned. But we believe that this ‘back to basics’ is appropriate for prehistoric periods such as the British Neolithic.

Jim then began to refine his thinking, as the complexities and possibilities occurred to him:

My ancient engineer would have realized after a couple of nights that the celestial sphere axis is spinning around the North Star, and that axis is tilted with respect to the horizon. A vertical pole in the north side would sweep the northern sky and allow measurements in that sector. My ancient henge could be modified in timber to achieve this.

Next Jim’s thought processes caused him to ask a significant question:

Does ancient astronomy always seem to be based on Earth horizon events, or could it have been leaning towards what NASA spends millions on today; early warning of Earth impacts from anywhere in the sky? If an ancient civilization had been traumatized by an Earth impact when they had seen a short-term warning in the sky, it could have encouraged the building of an observatory.

Like us, Jim found it hard to believe that people have not understood the basic working of the Sun, Moon and Earth for a very long time indeed. The light pollution we have in our modern built environment prevents most of us from even noticing the sky at night, whereas Neolithic man would have been much more in tune with, and much more observant of, the natural environment than we are today.

Watching the way the Moon is illuminated, sometimes before the Sun goes down, makes it difficult not to see the Moon as a sphere lit up by the Sun. We have long suspected that the period when people thought the Earth was flat was a short-term regression when dumbed-down religion became more politically powerful than science. (Unfortunately we are seeing a mini-resurgence of superstition trying to overtake scientific reason in some quarters, particularly in parts of the United States.)

Jim came to the same conclusion, giving an example of how the effects might have been noticed with everyday objects such as a round ball of clay – such as we believe was used for pendulum weights.

He suggested that if Neolithic astronomers had placed such a ball of clay between their index finger and thumb, and then revolved it around at arm’s length, as though to inspect its accuracy, they would have noticed certain things. During the day they would only see the ball, but at night with a single source of light, such as a campfire, they would see a miniature model of the Earth, Moon and Sun system, and the phases of the Moon in the shadows on the surface of the ball.

Spinning it around in the right plane they could even see the ball eclipse in the shadow of the head, and even the campfire eclipse behind the ball. This would also work if they had walked around an object like a fruit hanging on a tree. Is it too far-fetched, Jim asks, to imagine a Neolithic man 4,000 years ago with a clay ball or fruit in his hand doing exactly this, and noticing the similarity between the shadow on the stone and the shadows on the Moon, and the eclipses?

Jim was going through rather similar stages of thought as we had covered in our own questioning – but with an engineer’s insight. He raised the possible use of water in henges, which is an idea that has fascinated Chris for some time for two reasons: First, because it provides a quick and foolproof way of identifying a perfect level (just as a spirit level does today); and secondly, because it provides a perfect mirror to reflect the stars, which would aid alignments over a short distance. But Jim, who knew nothing of the possible use of water in henges, went further. He emailed saying:

Use of the natural profiles of the horizon places severe limitations on the accuracy of observations of horizon events. Vegetation growth on far-off horizons, or between the observer and the horizon, leads to inaccuracies. The significance of the use of water as a datum for establishment of a truly level plane of observation seems to have been overlooked in archaeology. In its simplest form, consider an observer (with good eyesight) on a platform in the middle of a small lake, with a pole at eyelevel. Consider a series of poles set in a circle, with horizontals set between the pole tops, say, 6 metres away (further means more accuracy) and exactly the same distance above the water. Lining up, by eye, the centre pole and the top of the outer poles produces a horizontal-plane-of-sight instrument, comparable in accuracy with optical levels used on building sites today. Sightings could be made far beyond the perimeter of the circle, even to the stars. The same instrument made from water and wood, used after dark, could monitor ‘artificial horizon’ events with great accuracy by marking the perimeter rail. Replace the lake with an artificial lake in a trench on dry land, stick a few poles in the trench, and you have the makings of a henge. The centre pole could be set later by sighting across the perimeter without water anywhere near the middle.

However, Jim was not quite right, insofar that a small number of archaeologists have identified water as being present in some, if not most, henges. But because they have not thought of henges as astronomical instruments they have missed the importance of this feature entirely.

Jan Harding, the henge expert from Newcastle University who has done so much good work at Thornborough, has said:

Henges are generally located in low-lying positions, on the floor of natural bowls or valleys, and many are sited in close proximity to water … There are also instances where henge ditches may have contained water for long periods over the year.
²

Colin Richards of the University of Manchester, who specializes in Neolithic archaeology, architecture and monumentality, and ethno-archaeology, has suggested that archaeologists have misconceived the visual appearance of henge monuments – most particularly the probability that the enclosure ditches involved with henges were created as receptacles for water.
³

But both Harding and Richards attribute the water to the religious or spiritual needs of the henge builders – some part of the notion that these were very unsophisticated people who built superb structures to carry out religious practices of some unspecified variety. Richards says that he wishes to focus attention on the importance of the ‘social constitution of nature and landscape’.

The problem is that there are no written records to confirm what these structures were used for, and it is like trying to complete a complex jigsaw puzzle with a handful of pieces.

Having identified a need for still, standing water, Jim’s journey of discovery moved on to another aspect of henges that had long interested us. He said:

Taking flying lessons years ago, I remember the subject of ‘lookout for traffic’ on collision course was important. I remember being told that if approaching traffic appears to stay in the same spot in the windscreen, then that traffic will come through the windscreen at that spot! If it apparently moves away from that spot then you are not on collision course.

Could the same be said for an approaching comet? Would it be the case that an object passing across the sky is definitely not on collision course, but one getting bigger and staying in the same spot, relative to other stars, is on collision course? If so, it would be a very simple test requiring only an artificial horizon to mark the spot and a pendulum to measure the time from the rising of a known fixed star.

This is a key point from a geologically orientated engineer. As already mentioned, in 1997 Chris had been led to investigate a cometary impact that may have caused a global flood, by evidence supplied to him by leading Cambridge geologist Jack Miller. This had resulted in the publication of
Uriel’s Machine
in 1999, which argued that a massive tsunami caused by a seven-part comet impact had indeed devastated the planet around 9,000 years ago.
⁴
Memory of this event is recorded in virtually every culture of the world and an increasing number of geologists are now of a similar opinion.

In his book, Chris recreated a machine described in the Book of Enoch, arguably the oldest written story in the world. A figure described as an ‘angel’ (not necessarily an otherworldly description at that time) and by the name of Uriel – meaning ‘flame of God’ in early Hebrew – dictates instructions to Enoch for the building of a machine. When reconstructed this machine turns out to be a circle of wooden posts carefully aligned using the sine wave of a pendulum to mark the horizon movements of the Sun. One of the principal benefits of this device is its ability to indicate whether or not a distant comet is on a trajectory that will lead to an impact with the Earth. If it sustains such a trajectory, the user knows to set off to the Alps, the Rocky Mountains, or any other substantially high ground if they do not want to be wiped off the face of the planet by a giant tsunami.

Jim Russell had again intuitively identified a genuine usage for ancient astronomy. Chris sent him a copy of
Uriel’s Machine
and, after carefully reading it, Jim said that Chris’ deciphering of the Book of Enoch was a logical interpretation of what had been to him a total mystery.

Jim Russell is a busy man, but he has created a considerable amount of time to conduct a range of practical experiments to establish just how much could be achieved with Neolithic technology if one had some basic astronomical awareness. Appendix 6 was written by Jim as an account of his approach and the results of his astonishing experiments.

Jim has suggested two methods to estimate the Earth’s circumference – a horizontal method and a vertical method. He points out that the horizontal method should be much more accurate than the vertical method as the sighting distances can be further apart. But, the horizontal method can only be carried out with clear skies at dawn at equinox, whereas the vertical method can be done on any suitable day in the year. Both methods work with either the stars or the Sun to calculate the Earth’s circumference at the observation latitude.

The apparatus Jim has constructed, as proof of concept, is very large but still relatively small scale compared to that which would have existed in Neolithic times. The apparatus 5,500 years ago could have been many times larger and hence more accurate.

On 21 March 2009, as proof of concept, Jim took the ‘away’ vertical sight rail 30 miles from home on a lorry, set up in 30 minutes, took the readings in 3 minutes and brought the sight rail back to the yard the same evening. The result of this short experiment was a value for Earth circumference of 25,802 miles. Jim realized that the error of about 3 per cent in this result was due to the effect of the wind on the unprotected plumb line on the wooden pole. Perfect weather (good visibility and no wind whatsoever) is critical to the experiments. With minor equipment modifications, Jim is confident that larger vertical equipment or the horizontal method would better the ±50 miles accuracy. In the conclusion of his report Jim observes that, considering that six months ago no one had even proposed a Neolithic method of determining Earth circumference, his experiment must be considered a remarkable success.

Jim considers he has demonstrated that Neolithic astronomers could have experimentally determined the diameter of the Earth, and could have produced more accurate results than he has, using full-scale equipment.

Some may say that, just because Neolithic peoples could have done this does not mean that they did. Some would deny the relevance of the experiments because there are no remains of any such equipment. But whilst wood rots, the outcomes of these measurements do not. As Jim Russell has said: ‘The only evidence of the use of either method would be the results.’ And the results are there in abundance for those willing to open their eyes.

•

It is many years since we discovered that Alexander Thom’s Megalithic Yard was at the heart of a stunningly comprehensive 366-degree system, quickly recreatable by anyone through the use of a pendulum. Over time we have found more and more extraordinary attributes for a unit of measure that Thom found, but did not understand. The chances that this was a unit derived through error or inaccuracy, are effectively zero. Any statistical technique applied to the stream of features displayed by this oddball unit of 2.722 ft or 82.966 cm, would make it downright perverse to assert that they were not connected.