The 1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer
The startling 1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer
In 1966, Boston astronomy professor Gerald Hawkins told the BBC that Stonehenge's 56 holes formed a counting device for predicting eclipses, based on computer calculations. His theory, popularized in 'Stonehenge Decoded,' was later discredited by modern archaeology, which shows the monument was built over 1,500 years and its alignments were not precise enough for such predictions.
Stonehenge was locked to the Sun and Moon as tightly as the tides. It was an astronomical observatory. And a good one, too.
- JoeDaDude
IIRC (read the book ages ago when much younger) , the theory was that by using the 56 Aubrey holes to count, say, by moving a pole from one hole to another once a year, an eclipse could be predicted to occur every 18th or 19th year.
I always wondered why this was never simulated, and I guess the answer is that it would not work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_holes#Archaeoastronomy_...
- bazoom42
Of course the the theory is wrong:
> new investigations since the 1960s have discredited Hawkins' ideas.
- 2b3a51
OA makes no mention of Fred Hoyle's 'three hours with a calculator' to check Hawkins figures (and being generally unimpressed). Also nothing about the Thoms (Alexander and Archie) who surveyed many other stone circles, or perhaps a passing reference to John North's chunky book on Stonehenge itself. Latterly Euan MacKie was working out how exactly you could test an hypothesis about ancient observers marking a celestial alignment of some type anywhere in the latitudes of Britain. A multi-route rabbit hole if you are in need of diversion.
- PaulRobinson
As the last two paragraphs of TFA point out, this idea is now widely discredited.
However, there are a lot of things that don't seem widely known in popular culture about Stonehenge that might colour perceptions about this theory, and the counters to it.
First, it's worth remembering the thing you look at today has been mucked about with for thousands of years. It's not "original". Depending on your definition of that word, it's either a comparatively modern fake, or the current evolution of something that's always evolving.
For perspective: the stones now have concrete bases. Officials were concerned in the 1920s that the "conservation work" being done at that time was starting to head into "faking" the monument. Cranes were used to "reassemble" the famous (c.f. Spinal Tap), "Great Trilithon" in 1958. Make your own mind up.
But let's just pull it back to post holes and the archaeology of what has been discovered in more recent decades, even in this century.
Archaeologists now know that the site evolved even in the earliest incarnations over thousands of years. There is also now evidence it should not just be seen as a single stone circle. Within the nearby - ~5 miles radius - landscape, there is evidence of other circles, roads, burial mounds, feasting sites, all settlements slowly being understood.
We also now know a lot more of nearby cremations and burials, some of high-status individuals, over the course of hundreds of years. Turns out people travelled from all over, inc […]
- jvanderbot
At this rate, I would find it startling if ancient stonework didn't have something to do with the sun, moon, and stars. Everywhere you look some ancient society was predicting these things by tracking them.