Crop Circle Scripts




The Alton Barnes Crop Circle

July 11, 1990



Milk Hill, Nr Alton Barnes, Wiltshire.


Chilbolton (2), nr Wherwell, Hampshire. 
Reported 19th August


Crabwood Farm House, nr Winchester, Hampshire.

Reported 15th August




Alton Barnes, July 11, 1990

The three appendages on the circles are three Semitic script symbols found in early Hebrew, 1000 to 500 BC. They spell the word Eve, the celestial mother of mankind who defaulted her mission.

The Semitic script symbols are shown in Sign, Symbol and Script, Hans Jensen, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York 1969.


I found this crop display fascinating, and somewhat disturbing, because of my research and reporting on Adam and Eve. Recognition of the Semitic script symbols required a familiarity which with I was acquainted. It certainly hit close to home.


Milk Hill, 1991

The following text is from Robert Boerman, a man from Holland, edited with commentary.

In August 1991, an American by the name of Erik Beckjord made a 'crop circle' in an attempt to communicate with the circlemakers. He hoped he might persuade them to make a formation in response to his plea. He tramped out the words 'TALK TO US' in wheat and it seems that he received an answer. Within a week a completely unreadable script appeared. Beckjord felt that it's appearance was an answer to his 'Talk to Us' effort. There were several known translations of this mysterious script.

The odd 'letters', or glyphs, that had flattened the crop, had a total length of 55 meters and were 5.5 meters high. Michael Green, English archaeologist and co-founder and current president of the C.C.C.S., identified these 'letters' as a form of ancient Hebrew. Green read the scripture from the right to the left and translated it on the basis of the Basque alphabet as; Phehthi or Ptah (ancient Egyptian god of creation) and Ea-cheche or Ea-Enki (ancient Sumerian god of wisdom; friend of the people). The answer according to Green's understanding was clear and unambiguous - 'THE CREATOR, WISE AND LOVING'.

But Green's wasn't the only translation that has been made of the mysterious Milk Hill script. There followed more people with a translation of the script.

Professor Gerald Hawkins, who wrote the famous book 'Stonehenge Decoded' in the early '60s, cast an experienced eye upon the Milk Hill script and saw that it was worth analysing. The 'Cerealogist' journal wrote an article about Hawkins' translation and showed the readers what Hawkins did. I quote:

'He assembled a team of 12 scholars who, after many calculations and consultations, announced a positive result. The following is extracted from their report:

It is assumed that:

1- The circle makers mark the message with breaks.
2- The twin lines marks the words breaks.
3- It is an extract character-by-character substitution code.
4- The tramline marks the bottom of the characters.
5- The message comprises two words, or two numbers.
6- There are no abbreviations.
7- The message is cognisable.

No two cognisable numbers could be found from the cipher. Turning to words, after searching 18,000 common phrases in 42 languages, the first word, with its double letter and beginning and ending with the same letter, is 'OPPONO'. This is Latin for 'I oppose'. To be cognisable, the verb needs an object - the accusative case. The second word ends in 0-blank, which can be only 'OS', the accusative plural. The only word possible seems to be 'ASTOS', plural of 'astus', meaning 'acts of craft and cunning'. The Milk Hill writing then translates as 'I oppose acts of and cunning'

End of quote.

Editorial remark: Hawkins might throw all kinds of scholarly weight to impress us with his erudition, but if he did not have the decipherment correct, he did not have it correct. I initially worked with Hawkins on this translation, saw the direction he was headed, and terminated my contribution. He could not see beyond Latin and his classical education. EPM

Readers of the 'Cerealogist' came up with some other translations like 'EFFETE ORDER' and 'ESSENE ORDER'. As the Cerealogist mentioned, the second one could perhaps signify the return of the old Essenes who were thought to be behind Jesus' mission, but neither is as impressively relevant as 'OPPONO ASTOS'. We shall see if this is true.

Another translation was made by Simon Burton in October 1995. As Burton said:

'I admit its not English, the current international language, but it is a 'Lingua Franca', a term which the dictionary defines most appropriately for Cerealogy as 'a language chosen as the medium of communication between speakers of different languages'. The international language that preceded English was of course Latin. (He forgot French.) Latin is also the traditional language of alchemy. Perhaps only those few with a classical education know it nowadays but I feel that the Circlemaker might have last been around a long time ago and can still remember the Latin it learnt as a boy! So here again I am on common ground with the language of the Hawkins team's translation of the script as 'Oppono Astos' - 'I am against acts of cunning'.

By forcing ourselves to abandon preconceptions about top and bottom, back and front, we read the script 'as above, so below'. One word from left to right, or top to bottom, the second in reverse, from right to left or bottom to top. The two words run in reverse towards each other as if reflected in a mirror. As above, so below, we have just one letter in the 'above' and 'below' words rotated out of alignment with the others. It is the L in the left-to-right word and an N in the right-to-left word. Clicking these back into an alignment that suits our anti-dyslexic prejudices, and correcting the mirroring we now read:


Unfortunately it still doesn't make sense, but: ALL THINGS CAN BE PERFECTED!

Making perfect the imperfect is the essence of alchemy, and using deliberate imperfection to hide the meaning of plain script and make us develop our intellects by working, is true to the alchemical nature of the circlemaker. By the simple addition of a single line to the top of the first U we perfect the message and now read:


(Occului Nunc)

'Talk To Us!' tramps out Erik Beckjord. But the Circlemaker simply declines to engage, explaining: 'I have hidden, at present', thus Simon Burton's translation of the Milk Hill script.

So now we have 3 different translations of the Milk Hill scripture, made by 3 different people:

  • Michael Green: 'Phehthi or Ptah, Ea-cheche or Ea-Enki' - The Creator wise and loving.
  • Gerald Hawkins: 'Oppono Astos' - I am against acts of cunning.
  • Simon Burton: 'Occului Nunc' - I've hidden at present.

But are these all the translations that could been made out of the Milk Hill scripture, or is there more than meets the eye?

Strange enough, my own crop circle research started with the translation of the Milk Hill script. I was aware of the translation made by Green - I saw the other translations much later - and I thought to myself that Green's translation of 'cheche' wasn't the right one. Don't ask me how I knew this, I didn't, but there was a little voice in my head that told me that 'cheche' wasn't the right translation. I always thought that the Milk Hill scripture was a sort of Hebrew, so I went to a good friend of mine with the request that she should look at the scripture and Green's translation of it. She told me that Green did a good job, but there wasn't any more in the script than he already translated. Was the little voice in my head lying? But then, after a few minutes my friend took a mirror, placed it at the left hand side of the scripture and said at once: 'Sewet Cham Anasim Gadasim'. My first reaction was: '???', but after she translated this perfect Hebrew sentence into English, I began to understand the complexity of the Milk Hill scripture. 'Sewet Cham Anasim Gadasim', means 'A New Breed of People'! All I could say was this is exactly right, because 'Phehthi or Ptah, Ea-cheche or Ea-Enki' (in ancient times also known as Ea, Enki or Ptah) was the ancient god who, according to old Sumerian cuneiform clay tablets, was responsible for the creation of Homo Sapiens.

. . .

So now we have four different translations of the famous Milk Hill script, but are these translations really so different?
Almost 10 years after the appearance of the Milk Hill script, the final translation was made. It was a great puzzle and I loved to do it.


Unfortunately, Boerman is not any better than all the others. We might lump all translations into one on an undefined intuitive level but that does not make them valid. The great objection to his lady friend is that she saw four words, Sewet Cham Anasim Gadasim, where the most we can squeeze out of the script is two! Or she saw the script double itself in the mirror and from that obtained four words. But that is a strange way to communicate. I simply must reject that case, if that is what she meant. Why would the Circle Makers go to that extraordinary technique to communicate with us? Furthermore, I attempted to find her words in Hebrew Lexicons but was unable to tie them to such supposition. One simply cannot take the script and reverse it in a mirror and come out with intelligible results.


In order to understand the construction of the script, examine the formation in the illustration above.


I agree with Gerald Hawkins on all of his points except #2, and perhaps #3. When I first saw this formation I immediately saw Hebrew block characters, as did Michael Green and so many others. But problems existed with assuming it was Hebrew, as I outline below.


The double thin lines are not consistent. On the utmost left of the script we have two thin lines. Then we proceed six characters to another two thin lines. These two thin lines are curiously separated unevenly from the construction to the right of them but with what appears to be the same spacing from the six characters as the two thin lines on the utmost left. The two thin lines on the utmost right of the text are unevenly spaced compared to the two thin lines on the utmost left. In fact, if I were to understand one thin line as enclosing the text with four letters to the right, then the spacing of that one thin line from the text of four letters would be the same spacing as the one thin line on the right of that text. But then we would have one thin line existing isolated by itself on the utmost right. The spacing of the lines suggest this supposition might be correct, even though we may not understand why the one thin line on the extreme right would be necessary to separate the text. If so, there is no text to separate.


The characters of the text are noticeably sitting above the tractor line to produce the lower part of the character. This is necessary to clearly show the construction of the character. Eight characters show this effect.


I shall now show the nature of appropriate Hebrew characters, imitating them in modernized hand script or print characters. The arrows show the direction of performing the hand print. (I am indebted to John J. Parsons for these characters.)


B K H Kh Tav D R Tet W W (2)


First we note that some Hebrew characters have a strong similarity to one another. The B and K, the H, Kh, and Tav, the D and R all show this. If our Celestial Visitors were to make us aware of these differences they would have to very careful in their imprint upon the grain. For example, they do not show the small hook at the bottom of the B. Does this mean they intended the K or the B? From the photograph it seems we can rule out the H sign, since we see no evidence for a slight break in the grain. But the Kh and Tav signs have the same problem as the B and K. Similarly with the D and R. The Tet is the only sign that seems exclusively appropriate to one of the letters in the first grain word. We might accept the W(2) or wav script sign as the single strokes showing in the grain. Or are the single strokes merely word separators? These problems all show how easily it would be for us to misinterpret the supposed message.


Second two letters of the grain word to the left, suggesting a reverse B or K,  are facing in the opposite direction as two letters, B or K,  in the grain word to the right. Does this mean the Circle Makers reversed the writing of the two words? Or, as Boerman stated: By forcing ourselves to abandon preconceptions about top and bottom, back and front, we read the script 'as above, so below'. One word from left to right, or top to bottom, the second in reverse, from right to left or bottom to top. The two words run in reverse towards each other as if reflected in a mirror. Does this mean that the KH or Tet are upside down also?


Third, the word separators, if that is what they are, cannot be arbitrarily shuffled in representation on the spatial distance without upsetting the integrity of the script. Hawkins does just that.


Clearly we do not have a simple clear script, if we assume it represents Hebrew.


For the sake of convenience I shall now show the arrangement of the grain script, in Hebrew characters, or modified Hebrew characters.





My modifications consist of taking the tit off the Tet and the Kh, and reversing the direction of the B or the K.  I make no other modifications.


If we read from the right to the left, as in Hebrew, then the word on the right seems proper in representation of the letters. If we continue to read in that direction, the R in the second word follows OK but the B or the Kh are reversed. Also the Kh and the Tet may be turned upside down. We have no method to determine the proper direction for them. We could read the word on the right in the proper Hebrew direction, and then read the word on the left is reverse, The B or the Kh are then OK but the R is now reversed. Since this script cannot be read directly or in reverse, or upside down, for the two words shown in Hebrew or modified Hebrew characters, we are forced to substitution codes, just as Gerald Hawkins, and everyone else engaged in. 


Without question we have a large assortment of substitutions we could run through. That makes the message enter into the realm of pure guess work. And that is what Hawkins and all the others submitted themselves to. Without other information we have an impossible task.


It seems to me that if our Celestial Visitors gave us a simple message at Alton Barnes in 1990, with only three letters, they could have given us something equally simple here. Why make it so difficult? Except that the message in not in the content, but in the fact of their ability to respond to us human beings, (Erik Beckjord). They DID talk with us, not with a specific message, but in the fact of their response.


I guess we are not content unless they somehow gave us secrets to the universe. Well, they have given us secrets. They have foretold time. But the world does not believe in it, or does not understand it. Nor could anyone understand because it required the destiny of time and place. Then we could come to understand. And that is where we are today.



Chilbolton, August 19, 2001



I will not repeat the fine work done by Paul Vigay on the binary encoding incorporated into the grain. See http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/arecibo.html


Although there are significant differences between the matrix interpretation of the binary code sent out by the Arecibo Telescope, and that of the code given in the grain field, the similarities were sufficient to encourage human beings to pursue the matter further. See Vigay's illustration below.  Clearly someone knew about our Arecibo efforts and the relationship to our Celestial Visitors.



Crabwood Farm House, nr Winchester, Hampshire, 15th August, 2002.


Lucy Pringle offers her experience and thoughts about this formation at


Further thoughts and suggested interpretation may be found at



A very large photograph of the encoded message may be found at




See also




Although I am dissatisfied with the work that has been done on this fabulous crop formation I cannot take the time, nor can I afford the personal energy such a task would require.