The solstitial axis of Stonehenge viewed from the entryway. Credit: Juan Belmonte
Stonehenge is a monolith of exceptional complexity that mesmerizes onlookers with its stunning megalithic circle and “horseshoe” design, built around 2600 BC.
Throughout history, different hypotheses have actually been proposed concerning the significance and purpose of Stonehenge. Currently, nevertheless, archaeologists have a better understanding of this monument as a “location for the forefathers,” situated within a complex ancient landscape that consisted of several other elements.
Archaeoastronomy has a crucial role in this interpretation considering that Stonehenge exhibits an astronomical positioning to the sun which, due to the flatness of the horizon, refers both to the summer season solstice sunrise and to the winter season solstice sundown. This represents a symbolic interest of the home builders in the solar cycle, most probably related to the connections in between the afterlife and winter solstice in Neolithic societies.
According to this theory, the monument represents a calendar based on 365 days per year divided into 12 months of 30 days plus 5 epagomenal days, with the addition of a leap year every four. This calendar is similar to the Alexandrian one, introduced more than 2 centuries later on, at the end of the first century BC as a combination of the Julian calendar and the Egyptian civil calendar.
The solstice alignment is quite accurate, Magli and Belmonte reveal that the slow movement of the sun at the horizon in the days close to solstices makes it impossible to control the right working of the alleged calendar, as the device (remember: made up by substantial stones) need to be able to identify positions as precise as a few arc minutes, that is, less than 1/10 of one degree. In this case, a “key number” of the alleged calendar, 12, is not identifiable anywhere, as well as any ways of taking into account the extra epagomenal day every four years, while other “numbers” are merely disregarded (for instance, the Stonehenge portal was made of two stones). The very first elaboration of the 365 plus 1-day calendar is documented in Egypt just two centuries later on than Stonehenge (and got in into use additional centuries later on).
This is, obviously, really far from saying that the monument was utilized as a huge calendrical gadget, as instead has actually been proposed in a new theory published in the renewed Archaeology Journal Antiquity. According to this theory, the monument represents a calendar based upon 365 days per year divided into 12 months of 30 days plus 5 epagomenal days, with the addition of a leap year every 4. This calendar is similar to the Alexandrian one, presented more than 2 millennia later on, at the end of the first century BC as a mix of the Julian calendar and the Egyptian civil calendar.
To validate this “calendar in stone”, the number of the days is obtained by multiplying the 30 sarsen lintels (probably) present in the original task by 12 and including to 360 the number of the standing trilithons of the Horseshoe, which is 5. The addition of a leap year every 4 is related to the variety of the “station stones”, which is, undoubtedly, four. This equipment was supposedly kept in operation using the solstice positioning of the axis and was allegedly taken from Egypt, much refining, nevertheless, the Egyptian calendar, which was of 365 days (the leap year correction was not present up until Roman times).
Stonehenge (view from the NW). Credit: Juan Belmonte
This is the undoubtedly remarkable theory that has actually gone through an extreme stress test by 2 renewed specialists of Archaeoastronomy, Juan Antonio Belmonte (Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias and Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain) and Giulio Magli (Polytechnic University of Milan). In their paper, which was released in the journal Antiquity as well, the authors show that the theory is based upon a series of forced interpretations of the astronomical connections of the monolith, along with on debatable numerology and unsupported analogies.
Of all, astronomy. The solstice positioning is quite accurate, Magli and Belmonte reveal that the slow movement of the sun at the horizon in the days close to solstices makes it difficult to manage the right working of the alleged calendar, as the device (remember: composed by big stones) should be able to distinguish positions as precise as a couple of arc minutes, that is, less than 1/10 of one degree. While the presence of the axis does show interest in the solar cycle in a broad sense, it provides no evidence whatsoever for presuming the number of days of the year developed by the contractors.
Second, is numerology. Associating meanings to “numbers” in a monument is always a dangerous treatment. In this case, a “key number” of the supposed calendar, 12, is not recognizable anywhere, in addition to any means of considering the additional epagomenal day every 4 years, while other “numbers” are just ignored (for example, the Stonehenge portal was made from 2 stones). Thus, the theory suffers likewise from the so-called “choice effect”, a procedure in which only the aspects favorable to a preferred interpretation are extracted from the product records.
The very first elaboration of the 365 plus 1-day calendar is recorded in Egypt only two centuries later on than Stonehenge (and entered into use additional centuries later on). In addition, they invented on their own likewise a structure to manage time, since absolutely nothing of this kind ever existed in ancient Egypt– probably the Egyptians showed the drift of their 365-day calendar through the seasons in their architecture however this is far different.
All in all, the declared “Neolithic” solar-precise Stonehenge calendar is revealed to be a purely modern construct whose archaeoastronomical and calendrical bases are flawed.
As took place sometimes in the past– for example, for the claims (revealed untenable by modern research study) that Stonehenge was utilized to anticipate eclipses– the monolith returns to its role of the silent witness of the spiritual landscape of its builders, a function which– as Magli and Belmonte stress– does not take anything far from his remarkable fascination and importance.
Reference: “Archaeoastronomy and the supposed Stonehenge calendar” by Giulio Magli and Juan Antonio Belmonte, 23 March 2023, Antiquity.DOI: 10.15184/ aqy.2023.33.
