COMMENTS ON THE ASTRONOMICAL DECODING OF ARIHOUAT

On making an initial examination of the general plan of the necropolis it became obvious, in addition to the high number of large circles, the unusual layout of circles L —G, II-III—, K —F-G, III— and 8 —F-G, IV—, my immediate interpretation of which was, respectively: Tarazed, Altair and Alshain, g, a and b Aquilae. And, with the addition of 18 circle:

« Circle L —G, II-III—: g Aquilae, Tarazed, with a magnitude of 2.7.

« Circle K —F-G, III—: a Aquilae, Altair, with a magnitude of 0.77.

« Circle 8 —F-G, IV—: b Aquilae, Alsahin, with a magnitude of 3.7.

« Circle 18 —G, IV—: d Aquilae, with a magnitude of 3.4.

 This supposition is not the result of an intuition or of the aspect of the layout of the three circles on a modern map of the sky, but a reflection made on having compared the three circles to others in the Pyrenees.

Here I would like to repeat that, if we accept that Pyrenean stone circles represent stars, it is obvious to think that these representations, with their variations, are reproduced in different places, as is the case of religious representations. Our Lady of Lourdes is not the same as Our Lady of Fatima, but they have the same conceptual origin and their messages point in the same direction. The Aquila, in the psc, like the Virgin Mary of Christianity, was extremely important and is represented in different ways, although some actually seem identical to one another. 

The Aquila also has a different conceptual aspect, on the one hand having possibly served to carry the souls of the dead to the stars, more specifically to the Milky Way, as told by history and explained at the end of this work. And, on the other, as expressed in Del crónlech pirenaico, the various astronomical ephemeris related to it, such as: the celestial contrast with Procyon, repeatedly represented, as is its setting, simultaneous with the rising of Sirius. 

The layout of circles L, K and 8, is similar to that of circles 0, 1 and 2 of the Etzela este, to 18, 19 and 20 of Errenkalko, to circles 6, 8 and 9 of Arriurdiñeta, to circles 1, 2 3 of Izu and to the central circles of Hegieder. Almost all of these circles are now in very poor condition; thus, finding a drawing such as that presented in Müller’s work has the attraction of offering a perfectly identifiable hieroglyph —finding a convincing solution for it is quite another story—.

Imagining the Aquila for analogical reasons, the already mentioned circles furthest to the south, which appeared as I said on the stretch of the Milky Way presided over by Sirius, are reminiscent of the southern subgroup of The Crowns of the Moon (Hecho Valley - Huesca). Basing our hypothesis, as I did to understand the said sub-group, on a map of the sky with Sirius culminated to the south we can see that Arihouat has a series of large circles, marked in red on Star Chart 1, the interpretation of which, while unquestionable, needs a number of explanations. The circles interpreted in the southern part, from north to south, are, in a first approximation:

« Circle 147 —G, V-VI—: a Aurigae, Capella, with a magnitude of 0.09.

« Circle 165 —F-G, VI—: a Geminorum, Castor, with a magnitude of 1.6.

« Circle 195 —E-F, VI-VII—: b Geminorum, Pollux, with a magnitude of 1.13.

« Circle 153 —G, VII—: b Tauri, Nath, with a magnitude of 1.7.

« Circle 112 —G, VIII—: g Geminorum, Alhena, with a magnitude of 1.9.

« Circle 111 —E_F, VIII—: a Canis Minoris, Procyon, with a magnitude of 0.38.

« Circle 114 —E, VIII-IX—: a Hydrae, Alphard, with a magnitude of 2.0.

« Circle 81 —H, IX—: a Orionis, Betelgeuse, with a magnitude of 0.69.

« Circle 96 —F, X—: a Canis Majoris, Sirius, with a magnitude of – 1.42.

The layout of the Arihouat circles with respect to the stars on Chart 1, is impeccable. The magnitude of the stars in comparison to the diameters of the circles, with the unique exception of Sirius —on which I am about to comment— would be incredibly correct if I hadn’t already seen the same thing repeated in hundreds of interpretations of circles the length and breadth of the Pyrenees.

Sirius was the star most often represented by stone circles in the Pyrenees, and the stone circles symbolizing it have diameters ranging from around 7 to 13 metres. In groups featuring Sirius, a normal factor given that it is the brightest star on the firmament, it always corresponds to the circle with the biggest diameter, while in Arihouat the circle attributed to Sirius it’s not the largest in diameter. For the time being, as we can see from the list appearing on page 2, the circle attributed to Sirius in Arihouat has 8.5 metres, when in fact it should have a diameter greater than the 10.8 metres attributed to Capella or the 9 metres of Procyon. This said, taking account of the drawings, both general and related to the circle ‘planche 58’ and the text, I can see that circle 96 —F, X— could have had a different diameter, p. 71: “La fouille semble montrer qu’il y a lieu de croire à un certain nombre de remaniements modernes ...”. In the said circles and ‘planche’, we can clearly see that the NW-SE arch, in addition to being unclear or destroyed to the NW, seems to have been clumsily modified in the SE. Even the important witness located to the SE, without having actually been on the site, when located further to the SE could well be indicating the rising of Sirius.

A potential Sirius in circle 96 —F, X—, and having adjudicated a star to almost all of the main circles in the southern part of Arihouat, we see that the ground corresponding to Arihouat resembles a modern planisphere, thus it seems logical to conclude that the layout and diameter of the rest of the circles should also correspond to astronomical criteria. Perhaps, making an exception, if the necropolis was used for a time, certain criteria regarding the choice of stars may have changed, and the range of certain circles may have been added, eliminated or changed for astronomic, religious or political reasons, something already found and commented on in others groups.

The circles ranging from Capella —circle 147— to Sirius ­—circle 96—, feature on the ground from N to S. Sirius never coincides on the firmament with Aquila —circle K and adjacent—, except at its rising, simultaneous with the setting of Altair, so often quoted as the Pyrenean astronomical ephemeris par excellence. However, when this occurs, the Milky Way is located in the SE-W position, a reason for which I prefer to think that, like in so many other places, the Arihouat stone circles reflect non-simultaneous stellar positions. It is possible to correctly draw Altair and Sirius in a vertical position, but only if considered at different times of the year. Altair and Sirius, or rather the Summer Triangle —ST— and the Winter Triangle —WT—, hold opposing positions in the sky, in such a way that when one culminates to the south, the other is hidden beneath the horizon to the north. If Altair and Sirius are in the N-S position on Arihouat, it means that both are culminating, but in different seasons. 

Leaving the southern subgroup with a culminating Aquila for the time being, we can see that, given its diameter —9 metres—, the circle furthest to the north —A—, continuing on its way towards the north, from Altair or circle K, is a better match to Vega, the fifth brightest star on the firmament, that with Deneb, which would suggest:

« Circle A —F-G, I—: a Lyrae, Vega, with a magnitude of 0.03.

This proposal coincides with: the diameter of the circle, its position on the ground at Arihouat, and, to a greater extent, the possible match between circles B —F, II—, C —F, II—, etc., and the little diamond shape characterizing representations of Lyra.

Having located Altair and Vega, I ask myself: where is Deneb, a Cygni, without which the ST is incomplete? In principle, if the whole thing had been drawn at the culmination stage, seen from Altair —K—, on looking towards the south we should find it to the left of Vega —A— at more or less the same latitude. On Müller’s general plan there are no circles at the same height, although to the left and lower, we do have circle 120 —B-C, III—, ‘l’un de plus grands monuments de la nécropole.’ Müller p. 81, indicates two crowns. ‘La plus grande dépasse les dix mètres de diamètre et est composée de blocs atteignant parfois près de 1m de longueur.’ He also says that ‘part of the circumference, from NE to S, is no longer visible, while the rough piles of blocks or stones accumulated to the SW and SE demonstrate modifications probably carried out for farming purposes.’ Although I am more or less familiar with all of this, despite being one of the biggest in the group, the circle doesn’t seem to reach the 10 metre mark. Initially, I could conclude:

« Circle 120 —B-C, III—: a Cygni, Deneb, with a magnitude of 1.3.

The magnitude of Deneb is similar to that of Pollux —1.1—, circle 195 —E-F, VI-VII— with its 7.5 metres in diameter. In principle, unless considered in a different way, if Cygnus is reflected in the diameter of circle 120, it should measure no more than 7.5 metres.

The position of the Cygnus on the land in relation to Vega —circle A— and Altair —circle K— gives us a distorted Summer Triangle —ST, Altair-Vega-Deneb, K-A-120. This deformation is only visible in the sky shortly after the ST has completed its cycle following the rising of Altair —Star Chart 2, on which the stars forming the ST are indicated in red, looking towards Vega, 63º, as it appears on the site— and at the same time as the settings of Capella —a Aur, circle 147— and Procyon —a CMi, circle 111—, a situation reflected in table I and calculated with the help of the program  Cartes du Ciel .

 Imagining ourselves on the site at Deneb —circle 120—, looking towards Altair —circle K—, in the background we would be able to make out a star at around 85º, just as when looking towards Vega —circle A—, at roughly 63º, we would see the same star over its corresponding circle, reflecting in the sky, as on the ground of Arihouat, a scalene triangle worthy of its name. The table also shows the positions of other stars which could have been taken into account, among which I in first place underline those corresponding to Cepheus, due to the consideration that circles 141 —A-B, IV—, 143 —B, III-IV—, 145 —A, III— and 146 —A, III-IV—, seem to correspond to this constellation, in a similar layout to that already observed and commented on in Izurrizti I, where circle 143 would correspond to the alpha, and 124 to the delta Draconis. I would, for the time being, place circle 65 in the Ursa Minor.

Having made a first approach to the northern subgroup, we have to return to the circles located between Capella —147— and Sirius —96—. While maintaining my above interpretation for certain circles, I can see that there are circles mainly to the north which, if only interpreted on the basis of a fixed star chart, would only slightly match, or not at all. Tackling the problem in parts, circles 148 —F-G, V-VI—, 169 —G, VI-VII— and 161 —H, VI-VII—, don’t seem to directly fit in with the first solution; however, when considered together with Capella and according to the ST subgroup —A-K-120—, they do produce an interesting sequential solution. In this subgroup, taking the positions of table 1, we leave Capella in its recently acquired position of having dropped below the horizon. However, taking account of and looking towards the alpha Aurigae some two hours previously, coinciding with the setting of alpha Persei, we see that beta Tauri is on the point of disappearing to the left and at a slightly higher altitude on the local horizon, just between alpha and beta Aurigae, still highest on the horizon, in a proposal which could be specified as:

« Circle 147 —G, V-VI—: a Aurigae, Capella, with a magnitude of 0.09.

« Circle148 —F-G, V-VI—: b Aurigae, Menkalinan, with a magnitude of 2.0.

« Circle 169 —G, VI-VII—: b Tauri, El Nath, with a magnitude of 1.7.

« Circle 161 —H, VI-VII—: a Persei, Mirfak, with a magnitude of 1.79.

This solution is the result of the theory that circles 148, 169 and 161 are an addition to an initial approach represented by the above-mentioned ST and WT and the stretch of the ecliptic running from Taurus to Gemini and their prolongations, or on the contrary, that they are earlier than the rest of the group. While we will return to the question, I would first of all ask myself whether or not a necropolis that may have been in use some 200 or 300 years could have experienced changes, consisting of the addition, removal or modification of circles. Based on the fact that the circles represent stars for partly religious reasons subject to changes and nuances, I would say that this supposition makes sense. We therefore we have to ask ourselves the reason for the astronomical anomalies appearing in the Arihouat circles in relation to the firmament and its rotation. Incoherencies which, from north to south of the group, can be summed up in three points:

1- The diameter, of over 10 metres, corresponding to circle 120, Deneb, is excessive for the magnitude of the star. The constructors of the psc would never have made an error of this kind. Hence, either its poor state of preservation caused a mistake, or Deneb has, with the passing of time, varied in importance for reasons other than its magnitude and in comparison to its differences with Sirius, as already mentioned on other occasions. I’ll leave the subject for the time being, but this is a recurring observation that leaves questions unanswered such as that of Oc. 

2- In the central part, above-mentioned circles: 148, 169 and 161, now interpreted, and 149, 150 and 167 —in a logical combination, following a new and omitted clarification, given that 147 corresponds to Capella, in the Cabrillas—, have a suitable astronomical explanation given that the representation corresponds not to a N-S position of the Milky Way, but to the position which, very close to the northern horizon, it is in the process of acquiring from the setting Persei and subsequently of Capella itself, until the rising of Altair finally completes the northern group, although we stop the sequence, which does in fact continue and has a historical explanation.

3- Nor does the southern part of the southern subgroup correspond to the given solution: circle 96 —Sirius— and circle 81 —Betelgeuse—, due to the presence of circle 105, which has no celestial comparison in this solution. To explain the presence of psc 105, we have to recall similar incoherencies of Betelgeuse, Rigel, Saiph and those of the Lepus, found in other places:

a- Izurrizti II, p. 431 and 432, of Del crónlech pirenaico, where I for the first time detected a representation of Betelgeuse symbolized by two secant circles, the explanation given by way of a spoken reflection of something already observed, but unknown, left in writing on the site.

b- The Crowns of the Moon, a group explained in this web page on the southern subgroup of which Betelgeuse is once again represented by two secant circles.

c- Ibintxa, p. 399 of On the Pyrenean Stone Circle, where I give a first joint, chronological indication of Rigel, Saiph and the stars of the Lepus, in the area of Gerasunko Ataka p. 405, in addition to a stellar sequence following the advent of Ophiuchus and Scorpio, at the same time as the setting of Capella, and where the stellar sequence subsequently continues in the adjacent group.

d- Okabe, also dealt with in this web page, where the subgroup Heavenly Doors of the Souls, features a Rigel, accompanied by a star of Lepus, aligned with Aldebaran-El Nath-Alhena and Antares.

Having noted these exceptions, and continuing with my interpretation of the circles, I realize that in order to explain the presence of circle 105, I have to find some kind of an analogy with other groups, also considering that the astronomical explanation of the Arihouat stone circles would seem to correspond to two different periods of construction. While still not having decided which of the two came first, we could add to the solution already given at the beginning of this work, for reasons of analogy with other groups, another option substituting Betelgeuse for Rigel in circle 81:

« Circle 105 —G, IX—: k Orionis, Saiph, with a magnitude of 2.1.

« Circle 81 —H, IX—: b Orionis, Rigel, with a magnitude of 0.1.

Circles 106, 107, 99, 92, 94, 91 —H, IX—, 89 —G, X— and 90, not specified, belong to Lepus, the Hare. The rising of this constellation, with the simultaneous arrival of Vega, mark the appearance of the ST and the start of the part of the ecliptic stretching from Taurus to Gemini. This ephemeris is always observed with the reference of Rigel, b Orionis and circle 81, as mentioned above, at Ibintxa, in the basin of the river Urumea and in the Okabe subgroup of the ‘Heavenly doors of the souls’.

This proposal, the result of attempting to explain the addition of circle 105, has a, let’s say, special technical coherence which nevertheless falters on observing the group as a whole. Before describing the potential evolution of existing beliefs, which can be taken from historical writings, let’s see what André Müller has to say in his work regarding the chronology of the group.

On p. 168 of his work, André Müller says: “In chapters III and IV of my study, we can see that the metal and ceramic items discovered in the Arihouat necropolis make it possible to distinguish (chapter IV) two very different periods of time. One, Arihouat I, located in the late 7th and early 5th Centuries BC, and another, Arihouat II, ranging from the end of the 5^th Century to the beginning of the 4^th Century BC.” Period I, the oldest of the two, indicated in blue on the general drawing —and in dark grey on the black and white drawings—, and, among the large circles on the Vega-Sirius axis, A-96, corresponds, from N to S, to the denominations: A, K, 18, 147, 169, 161, 105, 81, 94 and 91, respectively comparable to Vega, Altair, d Aquilae, Capella, El Nath, Mirfak, Saiph, Rigel and the three stars of Lepus. In other words, of the three astronomical anomalies observed and indicated above, the second and third would seem to come, according to Müller’s study, from the fact that the circles representing them were built at an earlier time.

Before continuing, I should say that this hypothesis led me towards a series of theories diverging from those accepted as proven by specialists of the psc in general:

1- In the first place, the taking into account of each group individually: the circles weren’t built separately according to the needs of successive deaths. This makes no sense given that, once a site had been chosen as a cemetery, the deceased or their ashes would have been buried symmetrically and some kind of difference would probably have been made between the importance of the graves, but burying certain individuals in an area measuring 10 metres in diameter next to another measuring 2 metres or nothing, as is the case of numerous graves, such as those in triangle A-K-120, makes no sense; nor is it based on the logic which we humans have used in subsequent cemeteries installed until today. As a result, I believe that it is more likely that the necropolises were set out according to religious-astronomic criteria, and not according to the common belief shared by experts, as stated by Müller in p. 169 p.169: “... It seems that part of the graves have been grouped around these poles according to criteria which, unfortunately, we will never be able to define and,...” No, the criteria are mathematically defined from the moment that we accept as decoders astronomy and history of myths and religions.

2- I think that the circles of each group were built simultaneously. This said, in some groups, such as that of Arihouat, which was used as a necropolis, according to Müller’s work, for a period of time of some 300 years, it is possible that there were evolutions in the beliefs which brought about changes in the initial approach, of which I will talk below.

3- If the necropolises were built according to astronomic criteria, it is probable that an initial project was followed according to which various circles were built at the same time. The burials and interior circles would have come later; although the occasional burial could have taken place while the circles were being built.

4- The religious criteria taken into account for the burials must have come from astral religion. As has been said on numerous occasions, among others, by Frank Cumont in chapter VI, Scatology, on p. 167 of Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans, regarding the beliefs of these religions with respect to the ´great beyond’, that the psc graphically and precisely traces in different variations.

5- Arihouat I seems to take its inspiration from the belief that to reach their astral residence souls had to be carried there by the Aquila or the Charioteer —Auriga—. On page 186 of his above-mentioned book, Cumont says: “All supposed methods of reaching heaven are highly primitive: they are based on the supposition that a load must be carried; they make virtually no difference between the body and the soul, and are earlier than the distinctions established by the philosophers between the different parts of the human being. They are the