Adam’s Calendar, also called the Blaauboschkraal stone ruins, is claimed to be the oldest known arrangement of standing stones in the world. It was discovered by Johan Heine, a pilot and firefighter. While the amazing discoveries at Gobekli Tepe have received widespread publicity, Adam’s Calendar is virtually unknown.
Heine together with astronomer Bill Hollenbach have identified a number of astronomical alignments at the site and have controversially dated the monument to between 75,000 and 250,000 years ago(a). Adam’s Calendar is one of many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of man-made stone features across southern Africa. A blog on Dale Drinnon’s website elaborates with images on these enigmatic structures(d).
One of their interesting claims is that the alignments with the cardinal points were all out by 3°17’43’’ suggesting a crustal displacement.
To my eye Adam’s Calendar is very similar to the megalithic astronomical circle at Nabta Playa in the northern Sahara.
Johan Heine teamed up with writer Michael Tellinger to produce two books, Adam’s Calendar (2008)and Temples of the African Gods (2010). These books are heavily illustrated but light on text. However, in my view, what really detracts from them is the pathetic attempt to link Adam’s Calendar with the ancient astronaut theories of the late Zechariah Sitchin and his Sumerian Annunaki gods. For good measure in a lengthy paper on Graham Hancock’s website(e). Tellinger has thrown in the claim that the circular stone ruins are “energy generating devices“! I suspect that all this nonsense was introduced as padding by Tellinger(c) who had written previously about extraterrestrial interference with mankind in his Slave Species of God .
*For good measure Tellinger, when referring to Sitchin’s Annunaki, also claims “that Great Zimbabwe was Enki’s ‘Headquarters’, simultaneously dating it to c. 260,000 years old.”(h)*
A highly critical commentary of Heine’s claims should be read for balance(g).
In 2011 Andrew Collins visited the site(b) and was impressed by what he saw. However, he was, as I am, quite sceptical about the dating of the monument in the absence of stronger evidence. He was dubious about the 3°17’43’’ misalignment due to the ‘jumbled’ positioning of some of the stones on the southern side. He concludes with a call for further investigation and research.
A related two hour YouTube documentary is available(f).
(d) See: Archive 3590