By Tim Binnall
The idea that Stonehenge once served as an ancient solar calendar has seemingly been upended by a new examination of the popular hypothesis. Archaeologist Timothy Darvill sparked headlines last March when he published a paper wherein he presented his argument for the longstanding theory. Despite the research being heralded in the media as having 'solved' the mystery of the famed monument, not everyone was convinced of that conclusion. In response to Darvill's work, archaeoastronomy experts Juan Antonio Belmonte and Giulio Magli have published a new paper in which they reportedly contend that it is "based on a series of forced interpretations of the astronomical connections of the monument, as well as on debatable numerology and unsupported analogies."
While Belmonte and Magli concede that the monument's "solstice alignment is quite accurate," they observe that this layout "provides no proof whatsoever for inferring the number of days of the year conceived by the builders." Additionally, the duo find fault in Darvill's ascribing meaning in the number of certain stones found at the site, which they muse is "always a risky procedure." Specifically, they note that his study heavily relies on the number 12 which "is not recognizable anywhere" in the monument, nor does his work point to a mechanism to account for leap years and "other 'numbers' are simply ignored."
Finally, the researchers take issue with Darvill's proposition that Stonehenge being a solar calendar came about after the concept spread to England by way of Egypt, which they indicate "has no archaeological basis." As such, the pair ultimately conclude that the theory is a "purely modern construct" that is fundamentally flawed when "subjected to a severe stress test." Remarkably, they note that this has happened previously in the past as it was once thought that the monument could predict eclipses until that hypothesis was similarly debunked by science. For his part, Darvill told LiveScience that the new research "does not undermine the essential model" put forward in his paper, suggesting that the debate over Stonehenge's purpose will likely continue into the future.