Archaeoastronomy and the alleged ‘Stonehenge calendar’

A recent proposal suggesting that Stonehenge's Stage 2 sarsen settings (3rd millennium BC) functioned as a 365.25-day calendar, akin to the Julian calendar, has been critically reevaluated and deemed unsubstantiated. The study argues that Darvill's (2022) claim relies on numerology, astronomical inaccuracies, and unsupported analogies rather than empirical evidence. The research employs a methodological approach that challenges the proposed chronological alignment, emphasizing the need for rigorous archaeological and astronomical validation to support such claims. This critique underscores the importance of distinguishing between speculative interpretations and scientifically grounded hypotheses in archaeoastronomical studies.

Magli, G., & Belmonte, J. A. (2023). Archaeoastronomy and the alleged ‘Stonehenge calendar’. Antiquity, 97(393), 745–751. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2023.33