By topic: 202
Observer, undated
In book: 118b
Quick view

Lockyer defended against Crawford #2 (E.H. Stone)

View

THE AVENUE AT STONEHENGE.


Sir,—In the issue of The Observer for July 22 is a very interesting article by Mr. O. G. S. Crawford, F.S.A., describing certain features of the Avenue at Stonehenge as observed from the air above.

Everyone having a general knowledge of Stonehenge will be familiar with the fact that from Stonehenge, in a direction approximately north-east, the Avenue extends in a straight line for a distance of over 2,000 feet. Also that the centre line of this straight portion of the Avenue is (either exactly or very nearly) a prolongation of the axis of the structure. It appears reasonable to suppose that this coincidence is not the result of mere chance, but that the builders of Stonehenge intentionally laid out this straight portion of the Avenue in that particular direction with its centre line, as nearly as they were able, on the prolongation of the Stonehenge axis.

Sir Norman Lockyer, in the year 1901, made some observations on this long straight portion of the Avenue in connection with his well-known work on the determination of the azimuth of the axis.

Mr. Crawford notes that at a distance of 726 yards (i.e., over three furlongs) from the centre of Stonehenge this straight (axial) portion of the Avenue comes to an end, dividing into two branches—one going northwards, towards the “Cursus,” and the other going eastwards towards Amesbury. Commenting on this fact (which, by the way, has been well known for the last two hundred years). Mr. Crawford goes on to say:—

It puts out of court, once and for all, the fanciful astronomical theories of the late Sir Norman Lockyer.

It is difficult to see in what possible way the existence of these branches at the far end of the main Avenue can be supposed to affect the correctness of azimuth observations made on the straight axial portion. We can only suppose, therefore, that when he wrote Mr. Crawford had not been able to spare time to make an adequate study of Sir Norman Lockyer’s valuable paper.

But, in any case, if he does not agree with Sir Norman Lockyer’s conclusions, Mr. Crawford’s opinion thereon will scarcely receive much support by his characterising as “fanciful theories” the carefully-worked-out results arrived at by that distinguished astronomer.

Yours, etc.,
E. Herbert Stone, F.S.A.
  Devizes, August 3, 1923.