Decipherment of Avebury Stone #9 : The Stone Itself as Two Frontal Faces & Two Narrower Sides of the Megalith

Decipherment of Avebury Stone #9 by Andis Kaulins - The Stone Itself

As will be clear by the end of our postings on Avebury Henge Stone #9, a megalith which was re-erected in 1938 by Alexander Keiller, the now henge-outward "face" side should have been set henge-inward, and the now henge-inward "face" side should have been set henge-outward. Also the narrower right and left "sides" of the stone are thus also to be reversed in their direction, i.e the stone must be turned 180°.

In his era, of course, there was no way for Keiller to have known which side faced which way except through the original socket for the stone still present in the chalk underground, but that may have been ambiguous "either way".

Our photographs below of the four sides of Avebury Stone #9 were taken on an overcast day, September 13, 2005, i.e. in weather which was not conducive to "artsy-craftsy" types of photos such as fill the Archaeology books. Rather, we were lucky that the overcast and partly rainy weather eliminated solar-caused shadows and permitted a no-nonsense photography of just the stones, without "artificial" aesthetic considerations. Only the STONES count here, not the "beauty" of the picture. Let's go!

We first show simply The Two Faces and Two Sides of Avebury Stone #9.

Photo 1 of Avebury Stone #9
The Current Henge-Outward Face Which Should be Henge-Inward

Photo 2 of Avebury Stone #9
The Current Henge-Inward Face Which Should be Henge-Outward

Photos 3 and 4 : The Two Sides of Avebury Stone #9 Which Should Be Rightly Reversed by a 180° "Turn" of the Stone

This "side" currently faces left when seen from the inner part of the henge.
As we shall demonstrate, it must face Avebury Stone #10 (here in the background) and not Stone #8.

The "side" seen below currently faces right as seen from the henge inside out.
As we shall demonstrate, it must face Avebury Stone #8 and not Stone #10.

Have you spotted some carved figures on the stone above?
Welcome to the club!

We now proceed to do some amazing things with the above photographs.

Go to the next posting.

Avebury Henge: The Barber Surgeon Stone #9 Was Re-Erected Backwards

As proven in the next and subsequent postings, Avebury Stone #9, known popularly as the "Barber Stone" or "Barber Surgeon Stone" has been re-erected backwards.

The megalith had fatally fallen upon a man in the 14th century but was only re-erected in 1938. As we shall prove, the correct henge-outward side was set facing henge-inward, and the correct henge-inward side was set facing henge outward. The sides are also thus 180° false in terms of the direction they face, which as we shall see, is important.

How can we prove that? We can.

We began our decipherment of the Avebury Henge Stones in August. See our decipherment of Avebury Stone #10, the most important megalith at Avebury for understanding the "culture" of the henge.

We at that time issued a challenge to archaeological and related communities, a challenge that has gone unanswered. We now thus present our full decipherment of the Avebury Henge stones in this and forthcoming postings.

The finder of what turned out to be a "modern" skeleton under Avebury Stone #9 was Alexander Keiller, an archaeologist to whom, however, great respect and honor must be given for his restoration and conservation of the Avebury site in his lifetime. He more than anyone can surely be regarded as the modern "guardian angel" of Avebury, who in his day resurrected much of what could be resurrected, and without whom the present Avebury site presence would surely have been impossible.


However, even Keiller apparently destroyed some of Avebury, e.g. at least parts of the northwest bank, by using explosives to clear out tree stumps, etc., but his comprehensive restorations far outweigh any errors that he made.

Keiller can also not be faulted that he re-erected Avebury Stone #9 backwards. How was he to have known which side faced henge-outward and which side henge-inward? The stones have original "sockets" still found in the chalk underground, so in many cases the proper placement of the megaliths is quite clear, but this socket may have been ambiguous, permitting the stone to be erected either way.

Well, there is a sure way to know which way is right. And we reveal that shortly, not just for Avebury Stone #9 but for all the outer henge stones.

Because the skeleton is dated to the early 14th century, it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with a correct understanding of the Avebury stones, except that it proves that the stone was re-erected, and, as we show, falsely.

The National Trust features the skeleton story currently at its Avebury Stone Circles and Henge page, writing in that connection about Avebury as being allegedly "pagan stones". "Pagan stones" they are not. That will be seen when we examine Avebury Stone #9 in detail.

We "trust" that such a misleading "pagan" label will soon be deleted by the National Trust and that the archaeological community will start viewing these megaliths as the wonders of the ancient world that they are, created by ancient mankind as marvelous examples of ancient technology.

People sadly seem to prefer emoting unproven subjective mainstream assumptions rather than to do the first thing that true science requires here, which is to LOOK at the STONES themselves and to EXAMINE THEM in detail.

We have thus chosen Stone #9 intentionally because it is a stone that many have heard of because of its "circus-like" skeleton aspect, so that there is  little excuse among the academic professions for not having examined that stone "scientifically". The stone is not obscure. There have been many opportunities, but no one has done the close examination required.

We on the other hand have now examined Avebury Stone #9 in a bit more detail than has done previously.

We might mention here that we just finished reading Steve Marshall, Exploring Avebury: The Essential Guide, a book that was just recently published (September 2016) by The History Press (www.thehistorypress.co.uk). The reader can thus presume that we understand most of everything in that book and are aware of what is known and what is not known. Indeed, we use the stone numbering employed there for the inner circle stones, which was otherwise not available anywhere online, nor did our other books have it.

It is informative in reading Marshall's quite beautiful book to see how much information is actually "known" about the broader "archaeotech" environment of the Avebury stones, and yet, it is equally amazing to see how very little is understood by the archaeological and related communities about the true function of the stones themselves -- a deficit which we are now in the process of correcting, especially via Avebury Henge Stone #9.

In spite of its excellent photos and great informative value, Marshall's book shows the reader tiny photographs of ONE side of each henge stone only (pp. 66-68), plus only a few larger photos of the stones in their Avebury Henge quadrants. This presentation is disappointing. The STONES themselves are most important, not all the marginal things published by the archaeologists. We hope in the book's next edition for great improvement on that score.

We shall in coming postings show large photographs of every "face" and "side" of every stone -- and such a comprehensive view of each stone is the key to understanding all the stones. Everything counts!

Having already done Avebury Henge Stone #10, we continue now with Avebury Stone #9, which we shall prove to be set in place backwards viz. reversed as regards its original correct position, and of course, there is more, much more.

Birth Dates of William Shakespeare and Anthony Munday, Henry V, St George's Day, St Crispin

By tradition, William Shakespeare's date of birth is set at April 23, 1564, in Henley Street, Stratford-upon-Avon, England, three days prior to his baptism on April 26, 1564, As written at the Wikipedia:

"[William Shakespeare's] actual date of birth remains unknown, but is traditionally observed on 23 April, Saint George's Day [the Saint's day of passage]."

Parish registers were required by law in England starting in the year 1538. A second notice to that same regulatory effect was issued twenty years later in the year 1558, but no universal compliance with the recordation requirement took place in England in the 16th century.

Hence, as stated at English Parish Registers, Queen Elizabeth I decreed in 1597:

"... that all existing records should be copied into "fair parchment books, at least from the beginning of this reign".

The baptismal record for Shakespeare we have is thus not the original one.

Shakespeare's day of birth and death are both set traditionally at April 23. April 23 is St. George's Day, a Christian martyr and the patron saint of England. As written at the Wikipedia at Saint George's Day:

"In his play Henry V, William Shakespeare famously invokes the Saint at Harfleur prior to the battle of Agincourt ([October 25 OS] 1415): "Follow your spirit, and upon this charge Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'"

The entire speech by King Henry V is known as the St Crispin's Day Speech.

As previously noted, the likely author of the above-mentioned play, Henry V, was surely Christopher Marlowe:

The Famous Victories of Henry V mentioned above was almost certainly written by Christopher Marlowe in his younger days, containing what are argued to be characters taken from Marlowe's early childhood life. As written by Cynthia Morgan:

"What is most interesting about The Famous Victories is that two of the characters were named John Cobler .. and Lawrence Costermonger [Marlowe's father was a shoemaker, i.e. a "cobbler", while Marlowe himself was nicknamed "The Cobbler"] .. One of John Marlowe's good friends and neighbor was Laurence APPLEgate, a Canterbury tailor. When we look at the meaning of "Costermonger", an obvious pun and not a true surname, we find a close identification for Laurence APPLEgate because the word "costermonger" was used for a street seller of APPLES." [emphasis and capitalization added]

We will return to that quotation in just a moment....

How would an uneducated William Shakespeare of Stratford ever have known about such distant things in France in such detail?

But an educated Anthony Munday (viz. Christopher Marlowe) who in fact traveled in France, might easily have obtained knowledge of them, by various means. And then we run into something curious in terms of the dates....

The birth date of Anthony Munday has been a puzzlement because his memorial gave him a life of 80 years, which would have given him a birth date in the year 1553, whereas his baptism (or birth) is said to have occurred on October 13, 1560 in St Gregory by Paul's, London. That date is prior to Gregorian calendar reform -- we thus assume that October 13 is given as an OS date -- so that the New-Style Gregorian calendar birth date is very close to the date of October 25, Saint Crispin's Day, the same date as the battle of Agincourt -- which today still is dated by the old-style Julian-based date rather than by the now correct Gregorian calendar date of November 3.

As we can read at the Wikipedia about Crispin and Crispinian:

"Saints Crispin and Crispinian are the Christian patron saints of cobblers, curriers, tanners, and leather workers."

Marlowe's nickname was "cobbler" and his father was a shoemaker. Furthermore, Marlowe hailed from Canterbury and, as noted in the above-cited article at the Wikipedia:

"An alternative account gives [Crispin and Crispinian] to be sons of a noble Romano-Briton family who lived in Canterbury...." [emphasis added]

That connection to Canterbury is once again a possibly coincidental but perhaps intended connective thread to Christopher Marlowe as the author of those lines. If Anthony Monday was merely an alias figure for Marlowe, was the Crispin Crispian birthdate intentionally selected for the Canterbury connection?

And here are the lines in Henry V that particularly give pause for thought about the "ghost" of Marlowe at work in that literary work:

"Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers."

The military parts of St Crispin's Day Speech in Henry V are clearly "military", but one can not escape the feeling that the author is here talking about himself.