No, not a calendar: scientists have disproved the theory about the appointment of Stonehenge

Stonehenge, a stone structure in the English county of Wiltshire, has been a grandiose reminder of the past for many centuries - and a mystery to scientists.

The debate about the purpose of the building is still going on. It's not just the boulders of Stonehenge dragged about 230 kilometers to the right place and built in a special way: the building must have some purpose. It is also called a giant clock, and an astronomical observatory, and even computer the Neolithic era (to be fair, the latest theory is from 1964).

In 2022, Bournemouth University archaeologist Tim Darvill published in the journal Antiquity article, in which he came to the conclusion: Stonehenge worked as a "perpetual calendar", measuring the year with a duration of 365.25 days.

The mathematician Julius Magli (Technical University of Milan, Italy) and the astronomer Juan Antonio Belmonte (Canarian Institute of Astrophysics, Spain) disagreed with Darvill's conclusion. They published in the same magazine a critical article

, which claims that Darvill's research is based on "a number of strained interpretations, numerology, and unsupported analogies with other cultures".

Darvill's theory

The stones that we consider to be Stonehenge are in fact only a small part of the archeology of that place. Long before the advent cromlech it was important place for burial. From about 3000 BC, buildings were added to the flat plain generation after generation. They dug a big hill and delivered blue stones (just from a quarry 230 km. Outside and inside, a row of sarsen megaliths was added, forming a large outer circle and two horseshoe-shaped structures in the center.

Given that the sarsen stones came from the same source (probably from career 25 km to the north), it can be assumed that they should work as a whole. It only remained to look at the position of the sarsen lintels - 30 horizontal stones forming the tops of the outer stone circle. Multiplying 30 by 12 gives 360. Add 5 more stones of the inner "horseshoe" and get 365 - just like days in a year.

Moreover, four more free-standing stones allowed the addition of a leap year every four years. They were added later to improve the timing in accordance with the solar calendar of ancient Egypt.

Criticism of Magli and Belmonte

Accusations of pseudoscientific numerology are not uncommon in archeology. After all, you can find the right-looking numbers in almost any design, you just have to try.

But even with this in mind, Magli and Belmonte argue that the key number 12, which Darvill used to multiply the bridges, is not reflected in the structure of Stonehenge. At the same time, Darvill ignores all other numbers that can actually be observed in the monument and its environs.

Moreover, the structure itself has hardly ever been accurate enough to discern subtle changes in the Sun's daily motion. It's one thing to match the sunrise with a particular stone. And it is quite another to use many stones to accurately determine the day of the year.

As for the reference to the ancient Egyptian calendar and the improvement of Stonehenge with stones for a leap year, Darvill simply did not provide convincing enough evidence for the connection of cultures. Yes, and the Egyptians themselves had not yet come up with anything for the exact counting of days, and the leap year was not taken into account for at least another 2 thousand years.

Last but not least, the architects of Stonehenge, like most Neolithic cultures, were more likely to follow the lunar calendar than the solar calendar. In theory, significant lunar dates could be aligned to the Sun, but this would require highly precise manual work.

It is worth clarifying that Darvill has not yet responded to the new article. If he offers strong enough evidence, more scientists may agree with his theory. But for now, we are back to where we started: the purpose of Stonehenge is unknown to us.