Move these markers according to these rules. Watch these stars. The Moon may travel between these boundaries. At these times watch especially carefully. The Sun must continue to appear between these inherited limits. If the Moon violates its boundary and the Sun subsequently violates its boundary, go to the refuge.

Our speculation in this article, particularly as it pertains to Structure 5 of the earliest rendition of Stonehenge — a moon circle, rather than a sun circle — potentially resolves the monument’s original purpose and provides a protocol by which the shaman might have assessed the state of Earth’s ECDO rotation and true polar wander at any given time.

When violations of the expected celestial geometry were observed in the moon — particularly during favorable nodal geometry, and potentially accelerated by syzygy and perigee (Super Moon) conditions — and subsequently confirmed by the rising and setting of the sun, it was high time to head for high ground.

Such wisdom may have been handed down through the millennia, from shaman to shaman—our fascination with the Moon eventually drifting from matters of vital celestial mechanics into mysticism and an eroded cultural memory of what may have been the most consequential event in mankind’s history.

Modern cataloging efforts encompassing approximately 3,000 British stone circles have suggested that possibly even a majority exhibit principally lunar, rather than solar, observational characteristics. Stonehenge is no exception — especially the excavated Stonehenge I that underlies the monument we observe today.

The broader lunar association has substantial precedent: Alexander Thom’s extensive surveys of British megalithic sites led him to propose that many such monuments were constructed to observe the Moon and, particularly, its 18.6-year nodal cycle and major lunar standstills (extremes in azimuths of rising and setting).¹

Stonehenge I Moon Circle Shaman Protocol

1. Establish the lunar baseline. Use the circle to maintain a multi-generational record of lunar position through the 18.6-year nodal cycle, particularly the extrema. Use the zodiacal constellations/star fields to track lunar altitude above the horizon by the stars occulted – or azimuth of rising and setting. An anomalous excursion beyond the established envelope (maxima and minima), or variance in between, constitutes the primary warning. (See Exhibit 1)
2. Weight the warning by gravitational geometry. Give greatest significance to an anomaly (or acceleration thereof) occurring near syzygy (new or full Moon) – and especially near perigee, when lunar tidal forcing is greatest (Super Moon, where gravitational coaxing is most pronounced – see Exhibit 3).
3. Cross-check against the Sun. The solstitial/equinoctial solar rising and setting positions provide an independent and highly repeatable reference framework. If the lunar anomaly reflects a change in Earth’s orientation rather than merely an unusual lunar observation, the solar progression should eventually cease matching its inherited reference positions as well.
4. Act. If the lunar warning is sufficiently large and subsequently corroborated by displacement of the solar reference framework, the protocol becomes behavioral: move to predetermined high ground and sheltering.

This effective utility can be observed in a detailed breakout of the original Stonehenge monument shown in Exhibit 1, below. The reader should note the 56 segments comprising the henge and their apparent utility in tracking the lunar nodal cycle in considerable detail. Note as well, that Structure 5 bears an alignment with ECDO Theory’s Np‘.

ECDO Theory Proposed Moon Mechanics

Stonehenge Original Moon Circle: another mystery falls to ECDO Theory?

Stonehenge began not as the famous sarsen monument we see today, but as a 56-position Moon circle (see Exhibit 1 above). Why 56, what are called, “Aubrey segments” (named after British archaeologist Aubrey Burl)? Within this article, we outline the celestial mechanics and potential shaman practices that utilized/observed those mechanics.

ECDO offers a potentially testable resolution to that mystery: 56 years closely approximates three 18.61-year lunar nodal cycles – the cycle governing the Moon’s extreme positions relative to Earth’s equatorial bulge (Exhibit 3 below).

The Aubrey circle also provides an angular unit of 6.4286°, with 4 surveyed subdivisions offering still finer resolution (as can be seen in Exhibit 1). Such a system could potentially track the observable ingredients of maximum lunar gravitational-gradient forcing: nodal position, syzygy, lunar distance/perigee, and horizon azimuth.

In terms of prior art, Gerald S. Hawkins (1963) first established the quantitative astronomical case for Stonehenge, Hawkins (1964) developed the proposition that its architecture—including the 56 Aubrey Holes—could function computationally, and Hoyle (1966) subsequently examined in greater mathematical detail how such a system could track lunar motion and eclipse-related cycles.^{2 3 4}

The conjecture: Stonehenge I (moon circle – see Exhibit 1) may have functioned not merely as a lunar calendar, but as an instrument for identifying a recurring lunar torque-risk window (see Exhibit 2 below) – one potentially relevant to ECDO rotational risk.

The value of the hypothesis is that the geometry can be tested against the mechanics rather than assumed from the monument. In addition, we conjecture this as the basis for the square north-blocks buried into the aurora borealis on Göbekli Tepe Pillar 43.

Does this count as a “hit” inside the ECDO Monument Obsequience Database? Sadly, no. This one bears too much interpretive latitude to be included therein. But I felt it intriguing enough to warrant highlighting on its own. It may well shed light on why moon circles were such a common element of the ancient shamanic landscape.

The Ethical Skeptic, “Stonehenge I Moon Circle and ECDO Theory”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 31 Aug 2026; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2026/08/31/stonehenge-i-moon-circle-and-ecdo-theory/

1. Alexander Thom, Megalithic Lunar Observatories (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), esp. 1–10, 106–123. See also Clive Ruggles, “Megalithic Observatories: A Critique,” New Scientist 71 (1976): 577–579; Clive Ruggles, Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999).
2. Hawkins — original astronomical interpretation; Gerald S. Hawkins, “Stonehenge Decoded,” Nature 200 (1963): 306–308, doi:10.1038/200306a0.
3. Gerald S. Hawkins, “Stonehenge Decoded,” Nature 200 (1963): 306–308; Gerald S. Hawkins, “Stonehenge: A Neolithic Computer,” Nature 202 (1964): 1258–1261; Fred Hoyle, “Speculations on Stonehenge,” Nature 211 (1966): 454–456. Hawkins proposed that the 56 Aubrey Holes constituted a counting mechanism related to lunar motion and eclipse cycles, while Hoyle subsequently developed a moving-marker scheme incorporating the regression of the lunar nodes.
4. Hoyle — developed lunar/eclipsing mechanism
   Fred Hoyle, “Speculations on Stonehenge,” Antiquity 40, no. 160 (1966): 262–276, doi:10.1017/S0003598X00032737.