 |
Stonehenge vs. the Nebra Sky Disc
Author: Greg Alexander
Date: 3rd Feb 2004.
In the wake of the recent media coverage of the Nebra Sky Disc, identified as the oldest known ‘map’ of the heavens (i.e. pre-dating Egyptian and Babylonian equivalents), I can’t help thinking of the various theories (and also especially my own variant theory) concerning Stonehenge.
Here an angle of 81º again features prominently (being a slightly different latitude from the location where the Sky Disc was discovered where the angle is actually 83º). However it can’t be forgotten that Stonehenge (based upon recent datings) is perhaps some thousand years older still. Moreover the astronomical significance of Stonehenge is even more complex than the, in many respects, rather simplistic and child-like imagery of the Sky Disc. Depending on your point of view the various stones at Stonehenge could count the nineteen years of the Metonic Cycle as well as the high and low points of the Moon’s risings and settings throughout the year.
Why is it therefore that the various astronomical alignments so apparent at Stonehenge are passed off as fanciful imagination whereas the Nebra Sky Disc is taken so seriously?
Indeed if the two arcs on either side of the Sky Disc are taken as being of prime significance in comparison with the rest of the rather decorative artwork on the disc, and that when the ends of these two arcs are joined together with straight lines passing through the centre of the disc producing an equilateral cross with two lesser angles of 83º, is such a situation not also found with an object discovered in the general locality of Stonehenge? The gold lozenge retrieved from the Bush Barrow has two lesser angles of around 81º each and if four of these lozenges were placed side by side in a tessellating fashion, an equilateral cross is again formed which similarly measures the area swept out by the Sun each year.
My own personal theory concerning how the various astronomical alignments can be found at Stonehenge and how they interrelate, have been written up in a short book of 30,000 words. However since it was completed in 1999 it has apparently failed to impress any of the publishing houses. And this despite of the apparent integrity of the theory, general clarity of ideas as well as its readability. After the success of works such as ‘The Orion Mystery’ you would have thought the public were crying out for such theories involving astro-archaeology. Also as Britain’s number one ancient monument and with all the improvements they intend to make at the site, such a new and comprehensive theory is surely an ideal? What are we to think of these rather duplicit and stuffy old professors who have in all probability been ‘proof’ reading my manuscript over all these years? The mind must surely boggle!!
free hit counter
Send E-Mail to:
Copyright © 2004 Greg Alexander. All Rights Reserved