Content uploaded by Andrew Collins
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Collins on Mar 01, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Celestial Numerics in the Construction of Stonehenge
and the Design of the Bush Barrow Lozenge
*
Andrew B. Collins
†
Abstract: The existence of not one but, potentially, two Altar Stones at Stonehenge
has prompted the exploration of their placement, and whether this knowledge might
throw further light on the monument’s construction. What this exercise has revealed is
the presence in the distances between certain key features of fractional numerics
using two interconnected systems of measure—one featuring the megalithic yard of
2.71875 feet or 32.625 inches and the other using imperial measures that remain in
use today. A relationship can be shown to exist between these two types of measures
based on the fractions 29/32 and 32/29, which by chance or design mimic
mathematical formulae related to the concept of 29 and 32 dimensions of geometry.
We show that the underlying numerics at Stonehenge, as well as at the nearby henge
monument at Avebury, and also in the design and function of the Bush Barrow
Lozenge, are likely derived from angles relating to the movement of the sun at the time
of the solstices, along with a pre-existing understanding of the cyclical motion of the
celestial bodies, the planet Venus in particular.
Key words: Stonehenge, Bush Barrow Lozenge, solstice, megalithic, megalithic yard,
imperial measures, Avebury, stone circles, cyclical times, chiral trigintaduonion
emanation theory, M-theory, the bulk, Venus, the Platonic Great Year.
The Bush Barrow lozenge is a thin sheet of gold 184/185 millimetres (7.25 inches) in
length and 156 millimetres (6.14 inches) in width. It was discovered by pioneering
archaeologists Sir Richard Colt Hoare and William Cunnington in September 1808 as
the latter excavated a bowl barrow forming part of the Normanton Down barrow
cemetery, located just one kilometre (0.7 of a mile) southwest of Stonehenge (see Colt
Hoare 1812, 202-205, + pls. xxvi-xxvii). It was found on the chest of the mound’s
internee, an individual described as a “stout and tall man” (Colt Hoare 1812, 203),
whose femurs or thigh bones were reportedly 20 inches (50.8 centimetres) in length
(Colt Hoare 1812, 203). This would have made the man around 6 feet 8 inches (2
metres) in height when alive. The lozenge bore two holes, one at each end lengthways,
indicating that it was worn upright as opposed to horizontal. The large number of high-
status goods and funerary items placed alongside the individual tells us that he was
probably a regional chieftain in both a secular and spiritual sense (Grinsell, 1979;
Needham, Lawson, and Woodward 2010).
The Bush Barrow chieftain lived during the Early Bronze Age, circa 2000 BCE.
This was as much as a thousand years after Stonehenge construction phase I in the
Late Neolithic (circa 3000 BCE). His seat of power was almost certainly Stonehenge
itself, for as we shall see, the design and measurements of the lozenge appear to have
a specific relationship with the monument’s construction.
*
This paper is to be seen as a supplement to the monograph “The Stonehenge Altar Stone: Its
Origins, Composition, and Function, And the Search for Its Lost Companion” by Andrew Collins.
Available from ResearchGate.
†
Private researcher, email: Andrew.author@gmail.com
2
The lozenge’s carefully etched surface features four nesting diamonds that
determine its distinctive shape. The innermost diamond is split into nine smaller
diamonds perhaps emphasising the importance of the number nine (the lozenge’s
outer diamond is made up of 36 triangles, nine on each side). The plaque’s two
lengthwise corners provide angles of 81 degrees (9 x 9), while its two width-wise
angles are each 99 degrees (11 x 9). Together they total 360 degrees (9 x 40).
‡
(See
fig. 1.)
Figure 1. The Bush Barrow Lozenge's external angles. Those of its four nesting
diamonds can vary between approximately +/- 1 degrees. Credit: Anthony
Johnson/Wiki Commons Agreement.
§
Being found in a Bronze Age barrow on the body of a chieftain whose seat was no
doubt Stonehenge itself has long led to speculation that the lozenge’s geometry might
relate to the monument’s dual alignment towards sunrise on the summer solstice
towards the northeast and sunset on the winter solstice towards the southwest. This
was almost certainly the case since the lozenge’s four corner angles record the
positions of the sun as it rises and sets from solstice to solstice and back again as
viewed from the latitude of Stonehenge. This is easily seen in the fact that the angle
between the sun’s first appearance at the time of the summer solstice, and its first
appearance at the time of the winter solstice six months later, was 81 degrees (Mackie
2009, Banton 2022). In the opposite direction, the sun created the same angle
between where it set at the summer solstice in the northwest and where it set on the
winter solstice in the southwest.
What this additionally tells us is that the angle to the north between sunrise and
sunset on the summer solstice and to the south between sunrise and sunset on the
winter solstice was 99 degrees, this being the wider angle recorded in connection with
the gold plaque. All this strongly indicates that the Bush Barrow Lozenge was
‡
A full examination of the Bush Barrow Lozenge’s numerics is forthcoming from Nick Davies (2025).
§
All illustrations are the property and copyright of Andrew Collins unless otherwise stated.
3
deliberately designed to express the journey of the sun from solstice to solstice and
back again as viewed from the latitude of Stonehenge (Mackie 2009, Banton 2022).
There is more, for if we add together the lozenge’s two angles of 81 degrees
with one of its 99-degree angles this creates a combined value of 261 degrees. This
was the angle made by the sun as it moved from sunrise to sunset on the summer
solstice, once again as viewed from the latitude of Stonehenge (see fig. 2).
Figure 2. Angles of sunrise and sunset at the time of the summer and winter
solstices as observed from Stonehenge during the epoch of its construction with the
Bush Barrow Lozenge overlaid for a comparison of angles. Credit: Google
Earth/Andrew Collins.
The location of the site’s two Altar Stones (see Collins 2024a, Wheatley 2024, 121-
122, 124), with their potential positioning in stoneholes WA 3639 and WA 2730
(Banton 2024a & 2024b), means that they would have stood side by side at the centre
of Stonehenge. In this manner they conform very well with the geometry of the four
nesting diamonds forming the etched design of the Bush Barrow Lozenge when
superimposed on a plan of Stonehenge (see fig. 3).
4
The distance between the two Altar Stones, which would have been 65.25 feet
in imperial measures (19.8882 metres),
**
was equal to 24 megalithic yards,
††
each with
a length of 2.17875 feet or 32.625 inches (0.664083 metres), a value originally
determined by engineer Richard Heath and his brother Robin Heath (See Heath and
Heath, 2010
‡‡
; Heath, Richard, 2020, and Collins 2024a). This suggests that the
megalithic yard, first detected by engineer Alexander Thom in the layout of dozens of
stone circles and stone settings surveyed in Britain during the 1950s and 1960s (1967,
ch. 5. See also Thom and Thom 1978), was employed in the design of Stonehenge.
Figure 3. The two Altar Stones (marked as AS1 and AS2) seen in relationship to the
geometry of the Bush Barrow Lozenge when overlaid on Stonehenge. The distance
between the two Altar Stones is 65.25 feet or 24 megalithic yards, making the overall
length of the Bush Barrow Lozenge when overlaid in this manner ideally 261 feet or
96 megalithic yards. Credit: Google Earth/Andrew Collins.
The fact that the two stones are thought to have been located on the site’s main
solstitial axis, their narrow edges turned 81 degrees away from this line to target
sunrise on the winter solstice and sunset on the summer solstice (Banton 2024a &
2024b), only strengthens the idea of a coordinated, multi-layered purpose behind not
only their placement, but also the design of the Bush Barrow Lozenge.
Elsewhere, I have speculated on the relationship between a megalithic yard of
2.71875 feet or 32.625 inches and the recurring presence within the measurements at
Stonehenge of the number 261—the value in degrees made by the sun as it journeys
**
Imperial measures are prioritised over metric measures as they conform very well with the
megalithic measures presented in this work.
††
Originally suggested by Simon Banton, pers. comm.
‡‡
“The megalithic yard is inherently the product of day-inch counting over three years, in one of its
known variations found by Thom, 2.718 feet or 32.625 inches. This confirms the practice of day-inch
counting whilst also giving this megalithic yard an inception date, as a unit, of 4000+ BCE (Heath and
Heath 2010).”
5
from sunrise to sunset on the summer solstice (Collins 2024a).
§§
It is present, for
example, in the estimated distance between the two Altar Stones (24 MY or 65.25
feet), as well as in the length of the Station Stone Rectangle (96 MY or 261 feet), and
in the distance between the centre of the henge monument and the location outside
the circle of the two Heel Stones (also 96 MY or 261 feet), the northerly of which is
missing today. All these measures, which imply the use of a unit of measure equalling
8 MY or 21.75 feet, are outlined in fig. 4.
Megalithic
Yard
⅛th of an inch
expansion/fraction
Value in feet
Value in inches
and as a fraction
1
261 x 1/8th
2.71875
261/8 or 32⅝
8
261 x 8/8th
21.75
261 or 2088/8
24
261 x 24/8th
65.25
783 or 6264/8
96
261 x 96/8th
261
3132 or 25056/8
Figure 4. Measurements derived from featured components at Stonehenge showing
their mathematical relationship to the megalithic yard of 2.71875 feet or 32.625
inches.
That the megalithic yard seems enmeshed in Stonehenge’s measurements
shows the use of what might described as a fractional process, one expressed through
the interrelationship between the megalithic yard and imperial measures.
So, can the 261-degree summer solstice sunrise to sunset angle at Stonehenge
be linked with the recurring use of the number 261 in the site’s measurements?
A Circle of 40 Degrees
Dividing a circle into 360 degrees originates from the adoption by the Greeks of the
ancient Mesopotamian sexagesimal system whereby everything is counted in
multiples of 60. In addition to the division of a circle into 360 degrees, this included the
measuring of time in seconds, minutes and hours; the determining of astronomical and
astrological coordinates, and the values of weights and measures.
A circle in which 360 degrees is split into 261 degrees and 99 degrees is thus
a product of the sexagesimal system, which might not have been employed in the
construction of Stonehenge (although there are thought to have been 60 pillars in the
site’s Bluestone Circle erected during construction phase III, circa 2400-2200 BCE).
These values can, however, be reduced to 29 degrees and 11 degrees, making 40
degrees in all. If we then see the angles of the Bush Barrow Lozenge divided not into
360 degrees, but into 40 degrees then its two narrow angles would equal 9 “degrees,”
while its two wider angles would each equal 11 “degrees” (see fig. 5).
We really have no idea how the megalithic peoples of Britain might have divided
a circle, although there are various examples of stones circles in the British Isles that
originally contained 40 standing stones, the Castlerigg stone circle in Cumbria,
northern England, being a prime example. We’ll return to this topic shortly.
§§
261: Factorization, 3 * 3 * 29. Divisors, 1, 3, 9, 29, 87, 261.
6
Figure 5. The division of a circle into 40 parts based on the movement of the sun
from sunrise to sunset on the day of the summer solstice as seen from the latitude of
Stonehenge during its epoch of construction.
Certainly, the division of a circle into 40 parts or degrees in connection with
Stonehenge and the Bush Barrow Lozenge does make sense. If so, by adding the
lozenge’s two angles of 9 “degrees” with one of its two angles at 11 degrees we get
29 degrees, which with the remaining 11 degrees makes 40 in total. Remember,
however, that this division of a circle into a 29th part of 40 is meaningful only for the
latitude of Stonehenge as it is related to the angle made by the rising and setting of
the sun there at the time of the summer solstice.
Can we accept, therefore, that this annual solstitial event, so very important to
Stonehenge’s primary axis, might have had a numeric value of 29 based on the
division of a circle into 40 parts (see fig. 5)?
***
This is an important realisation since it
is the prime number 29, and its 9 x multiple 261, that occurs not only in connection
with the measurements of Stonehenge, but also within megalithic metrology as a
whole.
The Megalithic Foot
We can see this, for instance, in the fact that 29 imperial feet is the equivalent of 32
units of 0.90625 feet, equal to 10.875 or 10 7/8 inches (27.6225 centimetres), a unit
of measure that might correctly be referred to as a megalithic “foot” as it is exactly
1/3rd of a megalithic yard. As a fraction, 10 7/8 inches can be written as 29/32th of an
imperial foot, showing the whole number ratio existing between these two different
units of measure.
***
The latitude of Stonehenge is important in another way as well. The lunar maximum and minimum
across the moon’s 18.61-year standstill cycle is seen at right angles to the sun’s position at the time of
the solstices, something that is also unique to the latitude of Stonehenge. The extreme northern
setting and the extreme southerly rising of the moon, along with the rising of the sun at the time of the
summer solstice and its setting at the time of the winter solstice are all synchronised with the
positioning of the four Station Stones at Stonehenge, which together are known as the Station Stone
Rectangle.
7
In addition to this, a megalithic foot of 10 7/8 inches can be divided into 87 units,
each with a value of
⅛
th of an inch. Although too small to have been used as a unit of
measure,
⅛
th of an inch can be identified as a base number in connection with the
expansion process associated with megalithic measures. For example, 261 x
⅛
th of
an inch is 32.625 inches, the length of a megalithic yard.
On this same theme, 261 inches, that is 21.75 feet (6.6294 metres), is 8
megalithic yards, a unit of measure found in connection with certain key components
at Stonehenge (see fig. 6). It is seen, for instance, in the dimensions of the Station
Stone Rectangle, which is 96 MY (12 x 8 MY) in length. It is present also in the distance
between the centre of the monument and the two Heel Stones (one missing today),
which is also 96 MY. Lastly, it is seen in the distance between the two Altar Stones,
which is 24 MY (3 x 8 MY) or 72 megalithic “feet” of 10 7/8 inches.
Fig. 6. Measurements of key components at Stonehenge shown in megalithic yards
with their breakdown into fractions featuring the key number 261.
What seems apparent here is that multiples of 8 megalithic yards, that is 261
inches or 9 x 29 inches, would appear to have been an important unit of measure at
Stonehenge, while a unit of measure equalling 9 imperial feet appears in connection
with the dimensions and positioning of other key measurements at the site (see Collins
2024b). It should be pointed out that one imperial yard, equal to three feet, is 32/29th
of a megalithic yard, making 3 megalithic yards (8.15625 feet, 97.875 inches, or
2.486025 metres) equal to one 29/32th of nine imperial feet or three yards.
What all this seems to indicate is that 29, the 10th prime, is integrally bound up
with the number 32 when it comes to comparisons between imperial measures and
any equivalent megalithic measure. This can be shown in the simple equation:
Imperial measure
29 x 32 = corresponding megalithic measure
Alternately,
Megalithic measure
32 x 29 = corresponding imperial measure
8
The Two Runners
The dual relationship between imperial and megalithic measures can be imagined in
the following manner: two runners take part in a running contest (see fig. 7). Both set
off at the same time and cross the finishing line together. Since one, let's call him
Imperial Man, has longer legs it takes him just 29 strides to complete the course, while
his competitor, let's call him Megalithic Man, needs 32 strides to complete the same
course in the same time. If these strides might be seen in terms of feet, then the three
extra steps that Megalithic Man has to make up to cross the line at the same time
would equal three megalithic feet or one megalithic yard with a value of 2.71875
imperial feet.
Figure. 7. The inter-relationship between imperial measures and megalithic
measures can be seen in terms of two runners who start off at the same time but
because one has longer legs than the other it takes him just 29 strides to pass the
finishing line while the other person takes 32 strides complete the same course in
the same amount of time. If each stride the individuals take can be seen in terms of
imperial and megalithic feet respectively, then the difference between the two values,
29 in the former and 32 in the latter, would be three megalithic feet, in other words
one megalithic yard of 2.71875 imperial feet.
So how exactly did this fractional relationship between the numbers 29 and 32 come
about? The connection between 29 and the number 40 might be explained in terms of
the angle made by the sun as it moves from sunrise to sunset at the time of the summer
solstice when viewed from Stonehenge, but the whole number relationship between
29 and 32 is less easily understood.
Higher Dimensional Dynamics
One possible area of study comes from the fact that 29 and 32 have been proposed
as co-existing dimensions of geometry. For a full exegesis of this subject see the work
of Stephen Winters-Hilt (2021, 2022, and nd.).
A continuum with 29 dimensions with three extra dimensions making 32 in all
(a state known as a trigintaduonion) can be seen as a mathematical object forming
part of the chiral trigintaduonion emanation theory. This is related to M-theory, a hybrid
form of string theory (El Naschie 2005, Winters-Hilt 2021), which predicts the existence
of an 11-dimensional realm known as the bulk. Within this realm universes or “branes”
9
can emerge into existence (see fig. 8). One such universe is, of course, our own, which
operates on three dimensions of space and one of time (Duff 1996). Other branes
would have their own laws of physics, which might mean they are very different to
ours.
The chiral trigintaduonion emanation theory is directly linked to the value of the
fine-structure constant,
𝛼
, which determines the measurable interaction between
electromagnetism and photons of light (Winters-Hilt 2021, 2022 and nd.). The fine-
structure constant has been calculated to be almost exactly 137 or 1/137 (Youvan
2024).
Figure 8. Artist impression of 29 and 32 dimensions intertwined and their relationship
to the 11-dimensional bulk of M-theory and the physical universe composed of three
dimensions of space and one of time.
Units of Measure and Cyclical Time
If these ideas can be seen as valid, then it implies that the relationship existing
between the fractions 29/32 and 32/29 mimic mathematical formulae involving higher
dimensional physics. Whether or not the megalithic peoples of Britain might ever have
become aware of such concepts is impossible to say, although we should not dismiss
the possibility out of hand.
What does become clear, however, is the importance of the number 29 at
Stonehenge, which could have stemmed from the 29-degree and 11-degree split of a
circle of 40 parts based on the movement of the sun on the day of the summer solstice.
This would imply that the Stonehenge builders came to recognise a special
significance in the number 29 (and, seemingly, its x 9 multiple 261) through the sun’s
solstitial extremes. Whether or not this also led them to recognise the interrelationship
existing between the fractions 29/32 and 32/29 is unclear.
10
29 and 32 and Cyclical Time
The relationship between the numbers 29 and 32 with respect to megalithic and
imperial measures could equally have stemmed from their use to mark the passage of
time. This was most likely achieved through long-term observations of the sun and
moon in association with a day count system whereby one day equals one imperial
inch on the ground. This has been something explored by engineer Richard Heath and
his brother Robin Heath (see, for instance, Heath and Heath 2010; Heath, Robin, 1995
[1993]; Heath, Robin, 2014, Heath, Richard, 2023), the former writing that the
megalithic yard can be divided into “the three lunar year count of 1063.1 days” with
the result being 10.875 (10 7/8th) “times” 32.625 day-inches, the length of a megalithic
yard in inches (see Heath, Richard, 2022a & 2022b). As already noted, 10.875 or 10
7/8th inches is the length of a megalithic “foot.” Richard Heath continues:
By 2016 it was already obvious that the lunar month (in days) and the PMY …
[“proto” megalithic yard of 2.71875 feet or 32.625 inches] and yard (in inches)
had peculiar relationships involving the ratio 32/29 … This can now be
explained as a manifestation of day-inch counting and the unusual numerical
properties of the solar and lunar year, when seen using day-inch counting.
It is hard to imagine that the English foot arose from any other process
than day-inch counting; to resolve the excess of the solar year over the lunar
year, in three years – the near-anniversary of sun and moon … (Heath, Richard,
2020).
This seems to confirm that the inter-relationship between megalithic and imperial
measures could have derived from day counting expressed in terms of linear units of
measure.
†††
Thus the presence of fractional numerics at Stonehenge could very easily
reflect the cyclical movement of the celestial bodies expressed in terms of linear
measurement.
Numerics in Megalithic Architecture
If the numbers 29, 32 and 40 were important to the megalithic peoples of the British
Isles then they should appear in connection with megalithic monuments in general.
Certainly, there are several stone circles with 32 stones. They include Glassonby in
Cumbria, Beaghmore Stone Circle F in Ireland, Borrowston Rig in Scotland, the
Sourton Tors circle on Dartmoor in Devon, along with the outermost ring of four
concentric rings of stone at Yellowmead Down, which is also on Dartmoor.
As for stone circles that originally contained 40 stones we can cite Castlerigg in
Cumbria, Gamelands/Orton, which is also in Cumbria; Moel-tŷ-Uchaf in Denbighshire,
West Wales; Castleruddery in County Wicklow, Ireland, Beltany in County Donegal,
Ireland; Wildshaw Burn stone circle in Lanarkshire, Scotland, along with the stone
setting known as the Great U of Stemster on the east coast of Scotland.
Although these figures represent a very small percentage of the hundreds of
stone circles remaining in the British Isles, there are enough sites with either 32 stones
or 40 stones to suggest some significance in choosing this number. As for stone circles
with 29 stones, at the Hurlers megalithic complex near Minions in Cornwall all three of
†††
I recommend exploring Richard Heath’s fascinating website Sacred Number Sciences Magazine
and Robin Heath’s website https://robinheath.info to fully appreciate the extent and implications of their
work in this field.
11
its stone circles are thought to have contained 29 stones. The southern of the two
stone circles known as the Grey Wethers on Dartmoor originally had 29 stones, as did
a stone circle in Fernworthy Forest, which is also in Devon.
The Avebury Henge Monument
One megalithic complex that deserves a closer look, however, is Avebury in Wiltshire,
which is located just 27 kilometres (16.77 miles) to the north of Stonehenge. Its outer
ring, situated just inside the site’s enormous circular ditch and bank, originally
contained 99 large sarsen stones (of which 30 remain today). Inside this great ring are
two stone circles located roughly north and south of each other. Avebury’s north circle
was originally made up of a ring of 27 stones while its south circle contained 29 stones
(see fig. 9).
Figure 9. Avebury stone circles showing the number of stones in the great circle and
its two inner circles.
If the site’s outer ring did indeed contain 99 stones,
‡‡‡
then the angle created
by the sun from sunrise to sunset on the summer solstice as viewed from the centre
of Avebury would have embraced exactly 72 of its 99 stones.
§§§
‡‡‡
Information on the number of stones in the circles at Avebury is taken from the English Heritage
webpage “Description of Avebury Henge and Stone Circles” (2015). It is realised that variations exist
in the number count of the stone settings at Avebury, although the figures quoted are those most
generally accepted.
§§§
It should be pointed out that the sun on the summer solstice at Avebury as viewed from an
elevated position at the centre is seen to set into the Neolithic encampment of Windmill Hill towards
the northwest. I know this as I lived in a house very close to the centre of Avebury and witnessed this
phenomenon each year from an upstairs window!
12
The choice to use 99 stones in Avebury’s great circle could relate to the fact
that in eight years, the time it takes the planet Venus to complete its five-fold retrograde
cycle of the night sky and rise where it had begun its journey eight years earlier, there
are exactly 99 moons. Having said this, the fact that the movement of the sun on the
summer solstice would have been marked by precisely 72 stones, leaving 27
remaining, suggests that the employment of 99 stones at Avebury was deliberately
chosen to create a combined relationship between the sun, the moon, and seemingly
even the planet Venus (see fig. 10).
Figure 10. Split of a circle of 99 parts into 72 and 27 parts based on the arc made by
the sun from sunrise to sunset on the day of the summer solstice as seen from the
centre of Avebury during the epoch of its construction.
That Avebury’s north circle contained 27 stones could relate to the concept
familiar to Vedic astrology whereby the lunar month is divided into 27 lunar mansions
or nakshatras.
****
These mansions, each individually named, relate to the locations on
the ecliptic, the sun’s path, that the moon crosses during its 27.32-day cycle, this being
the length of time it takes for the lunar orb to orbit the earth anticlockwise (Lima 1998).
The lunar mansions are thus used to record the progress of the moon across this
period.
The fact that Avebury’s south circle once possessed 29 stones could be seen
as related to a synodic lunar month of 29.53 days, this being the length of one
complete cycle of the moon from full moon to full moon or from first crescent to first
crescent. That said, there is no reason why we cannot link the choice to use 29 stones
with the fact that the number of “degrees” marked out by the sun as it moves from
sunrise to sunset at the latitude of nearby Stonehenge is 29 parts of a circle of 40
****
In Chinese astrology there are 28 lunar mansions.
13
parts.
††††
This surmise seems confirmed in the knowledge that the division of a circle
of 99 into 72 parts and 27 parts can easily be achieved using a circle of 11 stones and
breaking that into 8 parts and 3 parts; the result is the same. So the specific use of 99
stones at Avebury might well relate to the importance of the number 29 outlined within
this work. Whether this be connected to the cyclical motion of the celestial bodies, the
sun’s movement at the time of the summer solstice, or some deeper mathematical
reasoning will have to remain a matter of speculation.
Back to the Bush Barrow Lozenge
Returning now to the Bush Barrow Lozenge, when first discovered in 1808
archaeologist Sir Richard Colt Hoare described it as “7 inches by 6” in size (1812,
204). More modern measuring techniques have determined it is 184/185 millimetres
in length and 156 millimetres in width. In imperial measures this would be 7.25 inches
by 6.14 inches.
If 7.25 inches was indeed the plaque’s intended length then this would be highly
significant for as a linear value it can be broken down into either 58 x
⅛
th inches, with
⅛
th of an inch being a base number noted already in connection with megalithic
measures, or 29 x ¼ inches, revealing the underlying presence of the number 29,
something already determined in connection with both Stonehenge and megalithic
measures as a whole.
Unfortunately, the published width of the lozenge, 6.14 inches or 156
millimetres, only breaks down into 49 x
⅛
th inches or 24.5 quarter inches, if, that is,
we assume its intended width was 6.125 or 6
⅛
th inches (the equivalent of 155.575
millimetres).
The fact, however, that the length of the Bush Barrow Lozenge is 29 x ¼ inches,
which in megalithic measures would equal 32 megalithic “quarter inches” or 8
megalithic “inches,” each one 29/32th (or 0.90625) of an imperial inch in length, is too
precise to ignore.
‡‡‡‡
To start with 7.25 inches is exactly two thirds of a megalithic foot of 10.875
imperial inches, which is itself one 29/32nd of an imperial foot.
§§§§
This tells us that the
plaque’s length, although not its width, could well have some relationship with the
megalithic measures already detected in connection with the construction of
Stonehenge.
With this understanding we can go on to determine that the Bush Barrow
Lozenge is exactly 1/36th of 8 megalithic yards (21.75 feet or 261 inches), this being
the value of the larger unit of measure present at Stonehenge (see fig. 11).
*****
The
††††
Avebury is 27.85 kilometres (17.31 miles) north-northwest of Stonehenge, which means a slightly
different latitude and one in which the sun moving from sunrise to sunset on the summer solstice
during its time epoch of construction changes its overall angle of visibility from 261 degrees to 262
degrees.
‡‡‡‡
This value is achieved using the following equation: 7.25 inches/29 x 32 = 8 megalithic “inches.” If
we then divide 7.25 inches by 8 it provides the length for a megalithic inch, which is 0.90625 inches or
29/32 of an imperial inch.
§§§§
10.875/3 x 2 = 7.25.
*****
On first proposing that the Bush Barrow Lozenge was a scale model of key measurements at
Stonehenge in an earlier version of this paper I used megalithic inches of 0.90625 imperial inches
instead of Bush Barrow Lozenge lengths of 7.25 inches or 8 megalithic inches. I want to thank Nick
Davies for pointing out this error and providing me with the correct fractional relationship between the
two.
14
plaque would also be 1/108th of 24 megalithic yards (65.25 feet), the suspected gap
between the two Altar Stones, and 1/432nd of 96 MY (261 feet), the length of the site’s
Station Stone Rectangle and the distance between the centre of the circle and the two
Heel Stones.
†††††
Figure 11. The Bush Barrow Lozenge showing its length measures in ¼ inches,
imperial inches, megalithic “inches,” and its fractional relationship to the
measurements in megalithic yards (MY) found at Stonehenge. Image: public domain.
Putting this plainly it means that 36 Bush Barrow Lozenges placed end to end
would define 8 megalithic yards; 108 of them would be required to bridge the gap
between the two Altar Stones, and 432 of them are necessary to make the length of
the Station Stone Rectangle or the distance between the centre of Stonehenge and
the two Heel Stones. Thus it seems possible that the gold plaque was very specifically
designed to conform with the existing measurements of certain key components at
Stonehenge. Indeed, the Bush Barrow Lozenge can be described as quite literally a
megalithic measuring rod, although one manufactured as much as a thousand years
after construction phase I at the site.
The key numbers involved with these fractional representations between the
Bush Barrow Lozenge and Stonehenge’s underlying measurements, viz. 36, 108 and
432, are all important in various myths, legends, and folk traditions across the Eurasian
continent (Collins 2018, chs. 18–19, 37). They feature also in the design of
monumental architecture, most obviously the Buddhist temples of Angkor Wat and
†††††
Incredibly, when the Bush Barrow Lozenge is overlaid on Stonehenge with the two Altar Stones
constrained by the limits of the design’s innermost diamond (see fig. 3 of this paper), the overall
length of the lozenge is ideally 261 feet, or 96 megalithic yards. This is four times the distance
between the two Altar Stones, implying that the overall design of the plaque conforms with both the
length of the Station Stone Rectangle and the distance between the centre of the monument and the
two Heel Stones, which in each case is ideally 261 feet or 96 megalithic yards.
15
Angkor Thom in Cambodia and Borobudur in Java, Indonesia (See Collins 2018, 312–
313). At this last site, for instance, built during the ninth century CE as a representation
of the Buddhist concept of the world mountain Sumeru, we find 72 statues of Buddha
on each of the 4 sides of its central tower structure, making 432 Buddhas in all (Collins
2018, 309).
In addition to this, in Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism alone we find countless
examples of the use of 108 including the 108 beads on a rosary, the 108 blessings of
Buddha, the 108 ways to build a chorten (shrine), the 108 lakes and cemeteries
encountered during the Tibetan chöd ritual, the 108 sacred books of the Kangyur
canon, the 108 perambulations of Mount Kailash necessary to achieve nirvana, the
108 bongs made on a large gong in Japanese Buddhist shrines, and the 54 teachers
visited by a pilgrim named Sudhana. All this is simply an outward expression of the
apparent significance of key numbers like 54, 108 and 432 found in many
cosmologies, cosmogonies, mythologies, and religions of the ancient world.
Elsewhere the current author has proposed that key numbers such as 54, 72,
108, 432 and 864 feature as part of a calendar round generated by the triple saros
eclipse cycle of 54 years and solar “centuries” of 72 years. This is the length of time it
takes for the starry background to shift just under one degree against the position of
the sun due to axial precession, the slow wobble of the earth on its vertical axis across
a cycle of approximately 25,800 years (Collins 2018, ch. 37).
Interestingly enough if the key measurements previously cited in connection
with Stonehenge are given in megalithic “inches” equalling 0.90625 imperial inches,
this being one 29/32nd of an imperial inch, the result would be 288 for 8 megalithic
yards, 864 for 24 megalithic yards, and 3456 for 96 megalithic yards. All these values
feature in the combined triple saros/precessional century calendar shown up to the
number 864 in fig. 12 (see below).
Whether or not such small units of measure were ever used at Stonehenge is
unknown. The fact, however, that Richard and Robin Heath have determined that time
was recorded at megalithic sites using inch-day counting does imply that megalithic
inches could well have been incorporated into the design of Stonehenge.
‡‡‡‡‡
Fractional Constants
The fact that eight megalithic yards exactly equals 36 Bush Barrow Lozenges placed
end to end is itself a revelation, for after nine, which appears to be a key base number
at Stonehenge, 36 can be shown to be integrally related to the plaque’s expansion
process. If each of its nesting diamonds can be seen to possess a numerical value
that increases by nine from the innermost diamond outwards it means that the second
diamond will have a value of 18, the third a value of 27, with the fourth outermost
diamond possessing a value of 36. As we have already seen, there are nine
interlocked triangles on each of the plaque’s four sides making 36 in all.
It therefore seems certain that the ninefold and 36-fold symbolism of the Bush
Barrow Lozenge was not random but the product of a relationship between its length
and the presence of megalithic units of measure in the construction of certain key
features at Stonehenge. The plaque particularly seems to relate to the unit of measure
equalling eight megalithic yards, which appears to act as a kind of fractional constant
‡‡‡‡‡
It should perhaps be pointed out that among the divisors of 3456, the value of 96 megalithic
yards in megalithic inches, is 36, 108, 288, 432, 864, and also 72, which we look at shortly.
16
existing between higher value measurements such as 24 and 96 megalithic yards, and
lower units of measure such as the megalithic yard, foot and inch, all of which are one
29/32nd of their equivalents in imperial measures. Together they act as ever
decreasing fractions within the megalithic system of measure utilised, we can only
assume, by those behind the construction of Stonehenge and other similar megalithic
monuments in the British Isles.
The idea that the Bush Barrow Lozenge was created as an abstract
representation of Stonehenge’s axii and alignments, and also as a microcosmic
representation of the monument, also seems valid in the knowledge that the
monument was almost certainly the seat of power of the “stout and tall man” who bore
the gold plaque on his chest and who was laid to rest in a bowl barrow located just
one kilometre away from the site. In this manner, the Bush Barrow Lozenge functioned
arguably as a symbol of the ruling chieftain’s right to rule in the sight of the cosmic
forces thought to have been associated with Stonehenge.
Figure 12. Calendar round displaying the proposed grand calendrical system of the
Altai-Baikal region. It shows 16 triple saros cycles of 54 years and 12 precessional
“centuries” of 72 years. Synchronizations between the two cycles occur after 216
years, 432 years, 648 years, and 864 years helping to explain the recurrence of
these numbers in mythological traditions found all over the ancient world.
Almost certainly these forces were considered living embodiments of the two
Altar Stones, one of which (the one still present) is now known to have come from the
Orcadian Basin of northeastern Scotland (Bevins et al, 2023; Bevins et al, 2024;
Clarke et al, 2024; Parker Pearson et al, 2024). This was the original homeland of the
Grooved Ware culture who are thought to have been responsible for the construction
of the earliest phases of Stonehenge, circa 3000-2400 BCE. Almost certainly it was
members of their society that carried this 4.88-metre (16 feet) long sandstone slab,
over 6 tonnes in weight, from its place of origin in Scotland all the way to Salisbury
17
Plain in southern Britain. There it was set up, alongside a companion, to form twin
portal stones at the centre of Stonehenge’s earthen henge, this being even before the
construction of the site’s more familiar features such as its Sarsen Circle, Trilithon
Horseshoe, and the various settings of bluestones (Banton 2024a & 2024b, Collins
2024a).
The series of nesting diamonds forming the Bush Barrow Lozenge’s surface
design perhaps signified a window onto another realm, one in which the number nine
was the base number. The fact that the gold plaque’s innermost diamond is divided
into nine smaller diamonds seems unlikely to be without meaning. Their presence
seems to emphasize that from nine everything else came into being. Three expansions
outwards created another key number, 36, which was then transferred out into the
local landscape as a linear measurement used to express the cyclical passage of time.
If correct, then where might these ideas have come from originally?
The Denisovan Cave Lion Figurine
Siberia’s Denisova Cave was the site of a quite extraordinary discovery in 2019.
Excavators found a small figurine made of woolly mammoth ivory that was very
carefully carved into the likeness of a headless cave lion (whether it did once have a
head is unclear). This highly tactile object is thought to be as much as 40,000-45,000
years old (Liesowska and Skarbo 2019) and might very easily have been carved by
one of the cave’s Denisovan inhabitants. It bears a series of incised vertical strokes
on either side of its body, probably to represent animal fur. The number and distribution
of these incised strokes, however, suggests a very deliberate choice when it comes to
their number, distribution and arrangement (See fig. 13).
Figure 13. Carved cave lion figurine made of woolly mammoth ivory found in
Siberia's Denisova Cave and considered to be around 40,000-45,000 years old. Note
the sequences of notches on each side—8 x 4 = 32 on one side and 8 x 5 = 40 on
the other making 8 x 9 = 72 notches in all. The numerics are highly indicative of day,
month or year counting based on the cyclical movement of the celestial bodies.
Credit: Nick Burton.
18
There are eight groups of four notches on one side, making 32 in all, with 10
groups of four on the other side, making 40 (Collins 2022, 190, fig. 23.2). This means
a total of 72 notches, an auspicious number, which, like 36, 54, 108, 432 and 864,
appears frequently in the folk traditions and mythologies of ancient and indigenous
peoples across the Eurasian continent (Collins 2018, chs. 18-19, 37).
Seventy-two is the number of years, for instance, in a “century,” or human
lifespan, within an ancient calendar cycle of 432 years (72 × 6) used to this day by
shamanic-based societies in the Altai region of Siberia (Shodoev 2012, 61–64, 67,
70). It is also, as we have seen, the number of years it takes for the celestial
background to shift one degree against the position of the sun due to the effects of
axial precession.
The ancients would appear to have known the length of a precessional cycle,
since it appears as a “Great Year” of 25,920 years in Plato’s work the Timaeus, written
circa 360 BCE (see Callataÿ 1996, 15, 256, based on Plato, Timaeus, 39b). This
Platonic Great Year can be broken down into 360 x 72 = 25,920 solar years, with 360
degrees being, of course, the division of a circle adopted by the Babylonians during
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (Nair 2002), the most famous of the Chaldean dynasty
of kings who ruled Babylon circa 605-562 BCE.
The fact that the total number of notches on one side of the cave lion figurine
is 32 with 40 on its other tends to suggest that from a very early stage in human history
these numbers, along with 72 (which is 2 x 36 or 8 x 9), were being recorded in
connection with the cyclical motion of the celestial bodies, something suggested by
the fact that 32 is 4 x 8 while 40 is 5 x 8. The key number here, of course, is eight,
which is the value of the larger unit of measure recorded in megalithic yards at
Stonehenge.
Venus Cycles
Seventy-two, we should recall, is also the number of megalithic “feet” forming the gap
between the two Altar Stones at Stonehenge. In addition to this, it is the number of
stones marked out by the course of the sun as it moves from sunrise to sunset on the
summer solstice as seen from the centre of Avebury during the epoch of its
construction. The fact that exactly 72 of its 99 stones would have been marked out by
the sun at the time of the summer solstice hints strongly that the eight-year cycle of
Venus is key to knowing how these interrelated numerics might better be understood.
Forty is another number linked with the cycles of Venus. Forty years is the time
required for Venus and the earth to return back to the same part of the sky relative to
the position of the sun, this occurring only after five of Venus’s eight-year
perambulations of the heavens.
§§§§§
Moving on to 32 years, not only is it equal to five eight-year cycles of Venus,
but in Mesoamerican calendrics the first heliacal rising of Venus every 32 years was
seen as a point of synchronization between their 260-day ritual calendar known to the
Aztecs as tōnalpōhualli (“day count”) and the 365-day solar calendar (Bricker
2001).
******
§§§§§
Information on Venus’s 40-year cycle obtained from the website SpaceyV. Details in
bibliography.
******
There are 11,680 days in 32 years of 365 days (365 x 32 = 11,680), while 45 x 260 days = 11700
days, meaning that the synchronisation between the two calendars differs by exactly 20 days.
19
Another link between the number 32 and Venus is the fact that each year the
planet twice “kisses” the sun, once at sunrise directly following the planet’s inferior
conjunction and then afterwards shortly before its superior conjunction. It also twice
approaches and touches the sun at sunset, providing in all four fixed points of
synchronisation between the motions of the planet and the shifting position of the sun
as it moves from solstice to solstice and back again. This means that in eight years,
one entire cycle of Venus, the planet conjuncts or makes contact with the sun exactly
32 times. This is something that may well have inspired the Bronze Age Cycladic
civilization of the Aegean Sea (circa 3100–1000 BCE) to produce astronomically
decorated “frying pan” vessels containing specific numerics reflecting Venus’s 584-
day synodic period, its eight-year cycle, as well as its 32 conjunctions with the sun
during the same period of time (Tsikritsis, Moussas, and Tsikritsis, 2015).
It is also worth noting that across 72 years, the time it takes for the sun to
precess one degree, there are nine eight-year perambulations of Venus. From this we
can discern a relationship to the Platonic Great Year, since 72 multiplied by 360 (5 x
72) is 25,920 years, the length of a Great Year. In this information there is a direct link
to Venus, for 72 years (8 x 9) when multiplied by 72 (8 x 9) is 5184 years, this being
1/5th of 25,920 years. What this suggests is that knowledge of the Platonic Great Year
was not just reliant on a knowledge of the precessional cycle, but came also from an
intricate understanding of Venus’s eight-year cycle. If correct, then this would appear
to affirm that 72 was not simply the length of a solar “century,” it was also a number
linked integrally with the movement of the planet Venus.
In addition to this, it cannot be coincidence that 72 degrees is 1/5th of a circle of
360 degrees, suggesting that the number 72 is itself representative of 1/5th of a Great
Year, i.e., 5184 years. Seventy-two degrees is also the angle required to create a five-
pointed pentagram, the exact pattern the planet Venus weaves across the sky during
its eight-year cycle.
Many ancient civilizations divided the year into 360 days, which was broken
down into 12 months of 30 days with five extra days making 365 days in total. It was
this cycle of time that might well have resulted in the circle itself being divided into 360
degrees. What this tells us is that 72 days represented 1/5th of a year. Once again
there is a connection with the planet Venus since we are told that: “At greatest
elongation, Venus is approximately 50 percent illuminated in sunshine. A greatest
eastern (evening) elongation takes place about 72 days before an inferior conjunction,
and a greatest western (morning) elongation comes about 72 days after an inferior
conjunction.” (McClure 2018.) Thus 72 days, and the division of the sky into five parts,
was itself seen as associated with Venus and the pentagram it draws across the sky
during its eight-year cycle (see fig. 14).
All this makes sense of why the Denisovan cave lion figure has a total of 72
notches, which could well represent either 72 days or, more likely, 72 years, in other
words nine eight-year cycles of Venus, what might be described as a Venusian
“century.” This knowledge helps us to better understand why the numbers eight and
nine seem enmeshed in the measurements of key features at Stonehenge.
20
Figure 14. The perambulations of the planets showing the five-pointed rose-like
pattern made by the planet Venus across its eight-year cycle (from Ferguson, 1758,
pl. III). Image: public domain.
The Unification of 8 and 9
In this knowledge we can now go on to look at the connection between the numbers
eight and nine and the prime number 29, particularly their relationship to megalithic
and imperial measures and the fractions 29/32 and 32/29. One important point in this
respect is that the closest parallel between the whole number ratios 8:9 and 29:32 is
29:32.625 or 29:32
⅝
, this information being determined from the fact that 29/8 x 9 =
32.625.
As we have seen, 32.625 is the length in inches of one megalithic yard, so the
fact that its value can emerge from an equation featuring the numbers 8, 9, and 29
seems highly significant. Additionally, if 32 is itself divided by 8 and then multiplied by
9, we get 36 (i.e., 32/8 x 9 = 36). This is the value of a megalithic yard in megalithic
inches, showing that 32.625 imperial inches is the equivalent of 36 megalithic inches.
The same answer can be obtained by dividing 32.625 by 29 and then multiplying the
answer by 32 (i.e., 32.625/29 x 32 = 36).
Thirty-six is the number of Bush Barrow Lozenges it would take to equal 8
megalithic yards, with 36 also being the gold plaque’s numerical value based on the
proposed numeric expansion of its four nesting diamonds (i.e., 9 > 18 > 27 > 36). This,
of course, is reflected in the fact that its outermost diamond is composed of 36
triangles, nine on each side.
21
That 36 can additionally be seen as a clear megalithic measure (as in 36
megalithic inches = 1 megalithic yard) suggests that the choice to give the Bush
Barrow Lozenge a numerical value of 36 is directly related to the use of megalithic
measures at Stonehenge. Remember, 8 megalithic yards is 261 inches, which when
divided by 36 is the equivalent of 7.25 imperial inches or 8 megalithic inches. We also
know that the 96-megalithic-yard distance between the centre of Stonehenge and the
gap between the two Heel Stones, which is the same as the length of the Station Stone
Rectangle, equals 288 megalithic feet (261 imperial feet), which is 36 x 8.
The fact that the Bush Barrow Lozenge when overlaid on Stonehenge, using
the positions of the two Altar Stones as fixing markers (see fig. 3), the design’s total
length on the ground is ideally 261 feet or 96 megalithic yards is itself an important
realisation. It indicates that the monument’s pre-existing ground plan would appear to
have determined the exact length of the gold plaque.
Not only does this information appear to confirm that the numbers 8 and 9, as
well as the prime number 29, are enmeshed within the design of Stonehenge, it also
tells us that these numbers act as unifying factors in the dual relationship between
megalithic and imperial units of measure. This is shown in the case of the megalithic
yard of 32.625 imperial inches, or 36 megalithic inches, in the following mathematical
formulae:
29/8 x 9 = 32.625/29 x 32 = 36
32/8 x 9 = 36/32 x 29 = 32.625
From this we can see how elegantly the numbers eight and nine are able to
generate the value not only of the megalithic yard in imperial inches, but also, by using
the number 32, its equivalent value in megalithic measures. This is exampled also in
the following equation:
8 x 9
32 x 29 = 65.25
If we might see this figure as representing imperial feet, then this would be a
remarkable realisation for 65.25 feet is the exact distance between the Stonehenge
Altar Stones based on their placement in stoneholes WA 3639 and WA 2730 (Banton
2024a and 2024b). In other words, this linear measure, equal to 24 megalithic yards,
is generated through the close inter-relationship between 8 and 9 and between 29 and
32. Broken down into whole number units 65.25 becomes 261 (65.25 x 4 = 261), the
all-important fractional number at the core of Stonehenge’s measurements.
Was it possible that the size above ground of the Altar Stones somehow
reflected the base numbers behind these calculations? Did this knowledge help, with
the aid of a combination of megalithic and imperial measures, to determine the exact
distance between the two stones? Clearly, an understanding of mathematics—the
study of structure, order, and its relationship to measures and counting—would have
been required to carry out this act, suggesting that this was knowledge available to the
megalithic builders behind the construction of Stonehenge.
22
Venus and the Platonic Great Year
Since the numbers 8 and 9 can be seen as reflected in the way that nine eight-year
cycles of Venus creates a century of 72 years, the length of time it takes for the stellar
background to shift one degree against the position of the sun in the process of
precession, it now seems certain that both megalithic and imperial measures embed
within them an acute understanding of the passage of time based on the cyclical
motion of the celestial bodies. Aside from the sun, which is the most obvious celestial
body to record linear time, it is the current author’s opinion that it was the 9 x 8-year
cycles of Venus that were just as important in determining how temporal information
was recorded in numerical form by megalithic societies. This is shown perhaps in the
manner that the Platonic Great Year of 25,920 solar years is derived quite simply from
multiples of Venus cycles, i.e., 9 x 8 x 8 x 9 = 5184 x 5 = 25,920, the switch to a fivefold
process suggestive of the five-pointed star or pentagram created by the planet during
its eight-year perambulation of the night sky.
Clearly, the moon’s own cycles, particularly its 27.32-day anticlockwise
movement through the lunar mansions and its 29.53-day synodic month, must also
have factored into the measurement of time in prehistoric times, arguably based on
the three-year synchronization of the solar and lunar calendars as proposed by
Richard and Robin Heath. It was, however, the more accurate eight-year-cycle of
Venus, particularly its ninefold cycle of 72 years, a Venusian “century,” that would
appear to have been used to mark much greater periods of time. It should perhaps be
recalled that there are 99 moons in one eight-year Venus cycle. This tells that the
decision to construct Avebury’s great circle using 99 stones, 72 of which reflected the
passage of the sun from sunrise to sunset on the day of the summer solstice, was
probably linked with the numerology associated with Venus’s eight-year cycles and
their synchronisation with both the solar and lunar calendars.
Just Intonation
The numerical difference between the whole number ratios 29:32 and 8:9 can be
expressed in terms of another whole number ratio, 256:261, this coming from the fact
that 8 x 32 = 256 and 9 x 29 = 261. Not only does this demonstrate the dual relationship
between 8:9 and 29:32 but we also find that 256:261 has a special meaning in musical
tuning. The standard form of instrument tuning used today is known as 12-tone equal
intonement. It replaced a more ancient form of instrument tuning developed by the
Pythagorean School of ancient Greece around 2500 years ago and known as just
intonation or pure intonation. This was able to create harmonic progression utilising
any number of musical intervals as opposed to the 12 fixed examples used in equal
intonement. The Greek Pythagorean and pre-Socratric philosopher Philolaus of
Croton (circa 470-385 BCE) is known to have developed this system of intonation by
using a 9:8 ratio as a whole tone between frequencies (Pongsarayuth 2024).
The reason for mentioning this is that as a musical interval 256:261 is the prime
harmonic of 29 in C major. There is no evidence that this was information known to
Pythagoreans like Philolaus, although its existence highlights once again the
importance of the prime number 29 in generating key numbers integral to the dual
relationship between megalithic and imperial units of measure. What we also know is
that Pythagorean-based intonation, which is today making a comeback in modern
music, was employed by some architects during the Middle Ages to enhance the
acoustics of buildings (Pongsarayuth 2024). Incredibly, whole number intervals such
23
as 4:3 are still used in some places to maximise sound projection in theatres
(Srinivasan 1996, 26). Is it possible that the megalithic builders employed similar
musical intervals in the construction of monuments like Stonehenge in order to
enhance their acoustic capabilities? This is an exciting area of exploration, which in
the case of Stonehenge is explored in depth by the current author in “Stonehenge: A
Universe in Stone, Part One: Sonic Temples and Dodecahedral Structure” (Collins
2024b).
Conclusions
Jumping from a potentially Denisovan artefact as much as 45,000 years old to the
fractional numerics of megalithic monuments built as recently as 5000 years ago might
seem farfetched. This is understandable. It could well be, however, that the
significance of key numbers associated with the generation and recording of cyclical
time were handed down across countless generations until they eventually manifested
in the construction of megalithic architecture during the Neolithic age.
That the factions 29/32 and 32/29, along with the prime number 29 and the
base numbers eight and nine, are integrally linked to the relationship between
megalithic and imperial measures is highly significant. The fact that the numbers eight
and nine also act like a celestial clock recording the passage of time through their
relationship to the cycles of Venus cannot be unrelated to the manner they appear
entrenched within the measurements of key features at Stonehenge.
Time measured is an act of determinism. A knowledge of celestial cycles
ensures a preconceived notion of the future without unplanned hindrance or alteration.
This would have necessitated an understanding of numerics based on cyclical time,
and almost certainly from this emerged a very basic form of mathematics, originally
perhaps using pebbles, sticks, cord, and notional marks on portable objects (see
Marshack 1972). It was not, however, simply an understanding of numerics that
enabled our ancestors to align themselves with cyclical time; it was the ability of
knowing how to apply this information to cerebral activities whereby key celestial
numbers became entrenched in the design of ritual and ceremonial monuments.
These structures would in turn evolve into monumental architecture such as
Stonehenge, the Great Pyramid, or the Buddhist temples of Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom
and Borobudur where key numbers such as 8, 9, 29, 32, 36, 54, 72, 108, 432, 864,
etc., can be seen to be present to a more or lesser degree in their design (Collins
2018, chs. 18–19, 37).
The question then becomes: exactly how much of this mathematical information
present within the design of monumental architecture was truly understood by its
builders? Are we unwittingly adding to the true genius of their architects by assuming
they possessed far more knowledge than they actually did? Going down a rabbit hole
looking for deeper meaning to celestial harmonics is like an additive drug whereby
every new piece of information is seen as another link in an ever-expanding voyage
of discovery—one that seems ultimately to lead to the overwhelming conclusion that
all this cosmic information must have been inspired by someone or something. We
must therefore remain diligent as to the pitfalls of examining this topic as we strive to
better understand the hidden reality of celestial numerics.
24
References
Banton, Simon. 2022. “The Secondary Solstice Axis.” Stonehenge Monument
website (May 9, 2022).
Banton, Simon. 2024a. “Implications of an upright Altar Stone in WA 3639.”
Stonehenge Monument website (August 28, 2024).
Banton, Simon. 2024b. “Is the Altar Stone the founding stone of Stonehenge?”
Stonehenge Monument webpage (August 27, 2024).
Bevins, Richard E., et al. 2023. “The Stonehenge Altar Stone was probably not
sourced from the Old Red Sandstone of the Anglo-Welsh Basin: Time to broaden our
geographic and stratigraphic horizons?” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
51, no. 104215 (October 2023).
Bevins, Richard E. et al. 2024. “Was the Stonehenge Altar Stone from Orkney?
Investigating the mineralogy and geochemistry of Orcadian Old Red sandstones and
Neolithic circle monuments.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 58, no.
104738 (October 2024).
Bricker, Victoria R. 2001. “A Method for Dating Venus Almanacs in the Borgia
Codex.” Archaeoastronomy 26 (Journal for the History of Astronomy 32): S21–S44.
Callataÿ, Godefroid de. 1996. Annus Platonicus: A Study of World Cycles in Greek,
Latin, and Arabic Sources. Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 47.
Louvain-Paris: Peeters.
Clarke, Anthony J.I., et al. 2024. “A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of
Stonehenge.” Nature 632 (August 15, 2024): 570–575 + 12 pp. Supplementary
Information and Extended Data.
Collins, Andrew. 2018. The Cygnus Key. Rochester, VT.: Bear & Co.
Collins, Andrew. 2024a. “The Stonehenge Altar Stone: Its Origins, Composition, and
Function, And the Search for Its Lost Companion.” ResearchGate website
(December 2024).
Collins, Andrew. 2024b. “Stonehenge: A Universe in Stone, Part One: Sonic
Temples and Dodecahedral Structure.” ResearchGate website (July 2024).
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.31665.80485.
Collins, Andrew. 2022. Origins of the Gods. Rochester, VT.: Bear & Company.
Colt Hoare, Sir Richard. 1812. The History of Ancient Wiltshire, Part 1. The Ancient
History of South Wiltshire. London: William Miller.
Davies, Nick. 2025. “The Bush Barrow Lozenge: Expanding Space and Time in the
Stonehenge Universe of Stone.” (Forthcoming publication.)
“Description of Avebury Henge and Stone Circles.” 2015. English Heritage webpage.
Duff, M.J. 1996. “M-Theory (the Theory Formerly Known as Strings).” International
Journal of Modern Physics A11: 5623–5642.
El Naschie, M.S. 2005. “The supersymmetric components of the Riemann–Einstein
tensor as nine dimensional spheres in ten dimensional space.” Chaos, Solitons &
Fractals 24, No. 1 (April 2005): 29–32.
Ferguson, James. 1758. Astronomy Explained Upon Sir Isaac Newton's Principles ...
Philadelphia, PA.: Mathew Carey.
Grinsell, L.V. 1979. The Stonehenge Barrow Groups. Salisbury, Wiltshire: Salisbury
and South Wiltshire Museum.
Heath, Richard. 2020a. Sacred Geometry: Language of the Angels. Rochester, VM:
Inner Traditions.
25
Heath, Richard. 2020b. “Geometry 6: the Geometrical AMY.” Sacred Number
Sciences Magazine website (October 28, 2020).
Heath, Richard. 2022a. “Vectors in Prehistory 1.” Sacred Number Sciences
Magazine website (July 22, 2022).
Heath, Richard. 2022b. “π and the Megalithic Yard.” Sacred Number Sciences
Magazine website (September 26, 2022).
Heath, Richard. 2023. “Multiple Squares to form Flattened Circle Megaliths.” Sacred
Number Sciences Magazine (March 7, 2023).
Heath, Richard and Robin Heath. 2010. “The Origins of Megalithic Astronomy as
Found at Le Manio, Based on a Theodolite Survey of Le Manio, Carnac, Brittany,
22nd to 25th March 2010.” Available at Academia.edu.
Heath, Robin. 1995 [1993]. A Key to Stonehenge. St Dogmaels, Dyfed: Bluestone
Press.
Heath, Robin. 2014. Proto Stonehenge in Wales. Glanrhyd, Cardigan,
Pembrokeshire: Bluestone Press.
Liesowska, Anna, and Svetlana Skarbo. 2019. “Cave lion figurine made of woolly
mammoth tusk found at Denisova Cave.” Siberian Times website (November 20,
2019). Available via Wayback Machine.
Lima, Steven L. 1998. “Stress and Decision Making under the Risk of Predation:
Recent Developments from Behavioral, Reproductive, and Ecological Perspectives.”
Advances in the Study of Behavior 27. See section “Activity and the Lunar Cycle" on
Science Direct website.
Mackie, Euan. “The Prehistoric Solar Calendar: an out-of-fashion idea re-visited with
new evidence.” Time and Mind 2, no. 1 (March 2009): 9–46.
Marshack, Alexander. 1972. The Roots of Civilization: The Cognitive Beginning of
Man’s First Art, Symbol, and Notation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McClure, Bruce. 2018. “See Venus at its brightest.” EarthSky website (September
20, 2018).
Nair, R. 2002. “What is the origin of the fact that a circle has 360 degrees? Why not
720 or 270?” PhysLink.com website.
Needham, S., A.J. Lawson, and A. Woodward. 2010. “’A Noble Group of Barrows’:
Bush Barrow and the Normanton Down Early Bronze Age Cemetery Two Centuries
On.” The Antiquaries Journal 90: 1–39.
Parker Pearson, Mike, Richard Bevins, Richard Bradley, Rob Ixer, Nick Pearce, and
Colin Richards. 2024. “Stonehenge and its Altar Stone: the significance of distant
stone sources.” Archaeology International 27, no. 1: 113–37.
Pongsarayuth, Sasi. 2024. “Pythagorean Music Theory and Its Application in
Renaissance Architectural Design.” Malaysian Journal of Music 13, No. 1: 18–29.
Shodoev, Nikolai. 2012. Spiritual Wisdom from the Altai Mountains. Alresford,
Hampshire: John Hunt.
SpaceyV. 2024. “Dance of Venus: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts You Must Know!” 2024.
SpaceyV website (September 11, 2024).
Srinivasan, M. R. 1996. Physics for Engineers. New Delhi, India: New Age
International.
Thom, Alexander. 1967. Megalithic Sites of Britain. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford
University Press.
Thom, Alexander, and Archibald S. Thom. 1978. Megalithic Remains in Britain and
Brittany. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.
26
Tsikritsis, M., X. Moussas, and D. Tsikritsis. 2015. “Astronomical and Mathematical
Knowledge and Calendars During the Early Helladic Era in Aegean ‘Frying Pan’
Vessels.” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 15, No.1: 135–149.
Wheatley, Maria. 2024. The Secret History of Stonehenge. Marlborough, Wiltshire:
Celestial Songs Press.
Winters-Hilt, Stephen. 2021. “Fiat Numero: Trigintaduonion Emanation Theory and
its Relation to the Fine-Structure Constant α, the Feigenbaum Constant
𝒄
∞, and π.”
Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics 15, no. 2: 71–98.
Winters-Hilt, Stephen. 2022. “Chiral trigintaduonion emanation leads to the standard
model of particle physics and to quantum matter.” ResearchGate (May 2022). DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.32671.43686.
Winters-Hilt, Stephen. nd. “Theory of Trigintaduonion Emanation and Origins of α
and π.”
Youvan, Douglas. 2024. “Understanding the Fine-Structure Constant: Interpreting
1/137 as One-in-137.” ResearchGate website (June 2024).
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.22254.01604.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Simon Banton, Debbie Cartwright, Richard Ward, Nick Davies,
Rodney Hale, Ani Williams, Katalin Erdmann, and Catherine Hale for their help in the
preparation of this work.
