Archaeoastronomy and the alleged <<Stonehenge calendar>>

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the claim that Stonehenge's sarsen phase was designed as a 365.25-day calendar, arguing that the idea is unsubstantiated and based on flawed interpretations.

Contribution

It provides a critical analysis demonstrating that the hypothesis of Stonehenge as a calendar is unsupported by evidence and relies on forced analogies.

Findings

The calendar hypothesis is based on unsupported assumptions.

No direct archaeological evidence links Stonehenge to calendar functions.

The interpretation relies on forced analogies and interpretations.

Abstract

In a recent paper in Antiquity (Darvill 2022), the author has proposed that the project of the <<sarsen>> phase (stage 2) of Stonehenge (c. 2600 BC) was conceived in order to represent a calendar year of 365.25 days, that is, a calendar identical in duration to the Julian calendar. The aim of the present paper is to show that this idea is totally unsubstantiated, being based as it is on a series of forced interpretations and unsupported analogies.