Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59df476f6b-pw78b Total loading time: 0.151 Render date: 2021-05-19T02:45:12.215Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Article contents

Moonshine on Stonehenge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Abstract

The astronomical significance of Stone- henge has been the subject of intermittent debate and speculation ever since 1740, when Stukeley [I] first observed that the axis of the sarsen structure and of the Avenue pointed at least approximately to the sunrise at the summer solstice. Apart from Sir Norman Lockyer [z], however, few professional astronomers concerned themselves with this question, until the appearance in,Nature of the two articles by Gerald S. Hawkins, Professor of Astronomy at Boston University, in 1963 and 1964 [3]. The first of these claimed the discovery of a number of additional alignments of astronomical significance, marked by pairs of stones and other features of the site; and the second suggested that the Aubrey Holes had been used as a neolithic 'computer' for the prediction of movements of the moon and of eclipses. Subsequently these theories received much wider publicity, in Britain as well as in the United States, through a CBS television programme, The Mystery of Stonehenge, which provided a superb example of partiality and tendentiousness in the presentation of an academic controversy.

Professor Hawkins has now elaborated his ideas in a book whose title, Stonehenge Decoded, leaves no doubt of his confidence in the rightness of his conclusions-a confidence explicity echoed in his text. 'There can be no doubt that Stonehenge was an observatory; the impartial mathematics of probability and the celestial sphere are on my side' (p. vii). 'I think I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the monument was deliberately, accurately, skilfully oriented to the sun and the moon' (pp. 146-7). 'I think I have put forward the best theory to account for the otherwise unexplained holes' (p. 147). 'I think there is little else in these areas that can be discovered at Stonehenge'(p. 147).

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

* The producer, Mr Harry Morgan, was in no way to blame. His own approach was meticulously impartial.

* Kindly communicated to me by Mr C. A. Newham. Hawkins explains this on p. 111.

** The correct probability, calculated with pencil and paper instead of a computer, is 0.000006. The arithmetic is not as ‘horrible’ as Hawkins suggests (p. 136). It takes about three minutes.

What Hawkins has calculated (incorrectly) is the probability of getting exactly 24 significant alignments by chance out of a total of 50, where the probability of a random alignment being significant is 0.2. The appropriate statistical test, however, requires the calculation of the probability of getting by chance at least the observed number—that is, the observed number or more.

Between the 14 points involved there are 182 possible sight-lines; but is it legitimate to include only one of the four post-holes near the Heel Stone (A) and exclude the other three? With all four included, there are 272 possible sight-lines. These totals may be reduced by eliminating all lines shorter than the shortest which Hawkins accepts, and those unlikely to have been used in one direction (e.g. from the Heel Stone and to the (unmarked) centre of the circle). They cannot, however, be reduced below 111 and 159 respectively. Under the conditions stated, the probabilities of getting by chance at least 23 significant alignments from these totals are 0.46 and 0.97. Both are wholly consistent with the hypothesis that the alignments claimed are accidental.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Moonshine on Stonehenge
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Moonshine on Stonehenge
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Moonshine on Stonehenge
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *