The Altar Stone

 

Did Aubrey Discover the Aubrey Holes?

John Aubrey deserves immense credit for putting Stonehenge on a scholarly footing. In 1666, armed with surveying tools and a sharp eye, he produced one of the earliest accurate plans of the monument—far more precise than anything before. His drawing (from Monumenta Britannica, Bodleian Library MS. Top. gen. c. 24, fol. 64) shows the sarsens, trilithons, bank, ditch, and the Avenue with commendable detail for the era. He correctly dated the site as pre-Roman (rejecting Danish or Roman attributions), linked such circles to ancient British "Druid temples," and treated monuments like Avebury and Stonehenge as worthy of systematic recording rather than folklore.

That plan includes five small depressions marked just inside the bank. Aubrey described them as "cavities in the ground from whence one may conjecture stones ... were taken", interpreting them as sockets where megaliths had been removed—perhaps hinting at a lost outer circle. He noted these amid broader conjectures about missing stones and the site's layout, including the Avenue.

In his honour, when William Hawley excavated half the ring of 56 pits in the 1920s (spotted via probing by Robert Newall), archaeologists named them the Aubrey Holes. It's a fitting tribute to the man who first drew systematic attention to irregularities in that zone.

But did he discover them? Not quite.

Aubrey saw and recorded only five surface features, visible hollows he linked to stone removal. The true Aubrey Holes (the complete prehistoric ring, dating to ~3000 BCE, later used for bluestones/posts and cremation burials) had been backfilled millennia earlier. Their upper fills (with sarsen chips and later deposits) meant they weren't open cavities in the 17th century; they were invisible without digging. Scholarly analysis, notably Mike Pitts in his 1981 Nature letter ("Stones, pits and Stonehenge," vol. 290, pp. 46–47), argues Aubrey's five depressions were likely unrelated, perhaps later disturbances, small post sockets, or other surface oddities, not the ancient pits now bearing his name.

So: Aubrey didn't excavate, map, or fully reveal the 56-pit circle. He vaguely noted a handful of surface dips in passing, as part of a holistic survey. The real "discovery" came 250+ years later with targeted digging.

Yet the naming is spot-on recognition. Aubrey pioneered antiquarian fieldwork, accurate surveying, and the idea that these monuments deserved serious study. Without his plan and notes, later work might have taken longer to contextualize the site. He bridged folklore and science, and his curiosity laid groundwork for modern archaeology.

In short: No, he didn't discover the Aubrey Holes, but he earned the eponym more than most, he was the man who looked at Stonehenge in 1666 and saw something worth measuring, drawing, and wondering about.

Megalithic Societies: Old Questions, New Narratives

Archaeopress: Megalithic Societies: Old Questions, New Narratives

https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.40094663
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.40094663

This volume features 16 papers from the European Megalithic Studies Group, exploring monuments across Europe. Topics include mobility, social structures, and symbolism, using methods like isotopic analysis, 3D modelling, and excavation. It reveals new insights into megalithic traditions and practices.

Free ebook: https://www.archaeopress.com/Archaeopress/Products/9781805830764

Chapter 1: Time, mobility and society: new approaches to megalithic monumentality in western and northern Europe – Chris Scarre

Chapter 2: Towards a high-resolution chronology of major megalithic monuments: Menga and Montelirio (Andalusia, Spain) – Leonardo García Sanjuán, Marta Díaz-Guardamino and Francisco José Sánchez-Díaz

Chapter 3: Dissolving and contrasting. The secondary deposition of human cremains at Perdigões enclosure (3rd millennium BC, South Portugal) – Antonio Valera, Lucy Shaw Evangelista and Ricardo Godinho

Chapter 4: Para-megalithism: alternative routes to understanding big stones – Jessica Smyth

Chapter 5: Funnel Beaker Culture megaliths in northern Germany. A comparison of architectural elements between three regions – Anja Behrens

Chapter 6: Sardinian megalithic and rock-cut tombs in the context of the prehistoric western Mediterranean – Maria Grazia Melis

Chapter 7: Megaliths: the singularity of each element. Appropriation of distinct entities versus geometric constructions – Luc Laporte

Chapter 8: Current Research on Westphalian Megaliths – Kerstin Schierhold

Chapter 9: Preserved and demolished megaliths from the Danish Funnel Beaker Culture – Niels H. Andersen

Chapter 10: ‘Linking megaliths’. A computational approach to the study of movement and mobility in the megalithic complex of Galicia (Northwest of the Iberian Peninsula) – Miguel Carrero-Pazos and Devin A. White

Chapter 11: Multi-method geophysical survey in megalithic landscapes: case studies from Ireland and Sweden – Stephen Davis, Tony Axelsson, Knut Rassmann and Karl-Göran Sjögren

Chapter 12: Geoglyphs, petroglyphs, and megaliths – Richard Bradley

Chapter 13: Building Space. A structural model of space in megalithic landscapes – Felipe Criado-Boado and Jadranka Verdonkschot

Chapter 14: Fathoming megaliths: social proxies and indictors for the study of the dolmens – Gail Higginbottom

Chapter 15: A reappraisal of megalithic orientations from Iberia and beyond: towards models of interpretation – A. César González-García

Chapter 16: Monuments of the dynasties – monuments of the people? Megaliths in Europe – Johannes Müller

Paul Whitewick investigates if there could be a fingerprint at Stonehenge

Why West Kennet Long Barrow Is Unlikely to Mark the Spring Equinox

 

West Kennet Long Barrow - Tim Daw

For decades, West Kennet Long Barrow in Wiltshire has been described in popular guides, visitor leaflets, and even some academic summaries as an intentional “equinox marker.” Around March 20/21 and September 22/23, the rising sun streams through its eastern entrance, lighting the chambers. The alignment is real and striking. But when placed in its full archaeological context—regional patterns, landscape setting, and statistical evidence—it becomes clear that the effect is almost certainly a byproduct rather than deliberate design. There is currently no clear evidence that any English Neolithic long barrow was engineered specifically to mark the spring equinox, with existing data more compatible with broad cultural and topographic influences.

West Kennet’s Alignment in Context

Built in the earlier fourth millennium BCE (often dated c. 3650–3600 BCE), West Kennet is a classic earthen long barrow: trapezoidal mound, elaborate eastern “forecourt,” and five chambers. Its long axis runs close to east-west (azimuth near 90°), allowing equinox-season sunlight to penetrate the passage. However, archaeoastronomy analyses (e.g., Mega-What surveys) show the axis lies several degrees south of true equinox sunrise, creating a fairly generous angular window where light enters for roughly a couple of weeks around the equinox dates—not a razor-sharp marker.

Hundreds of East-Facing Barrows

Over 300 Neolithic long barrows are known in Britain. In southern England, the great majority have their broader, higher (and usually more elaborate) end facing east, northeast, or southeast. Aubrey Burl noted that on Salisbury Plain alone, orientations run consistently between NNE and south, with many within the solar arc. Susan Greaney’s exhaustive 2021 study of the Stonehenge and Avebury landscapes (the most detailed modern catalogue) shows a similar pattern: the great majority in these areas follow a broadly easterly bias.

Regional Landscapes Dictate the Direction

The key insight comes from comparing two neighbouring regions:

• In the Avebury/Stonehenge chalk downs, the natural ridges and dry valleys run broadly east-west or gently undulating. Barrows sit on false crests, upper slopes, and ridge lines (West Kennet itself aligns with the chalk ridge above the River Kennet). Their axes therefore often parallel the topography. Greaney’s distribution plans (Figures A1-4 and A2-4) show clusters hugging valley heads and river confluences—practical, visible, and symbolically liminal places. The easterly orientation fits the direction the land already offered.
• Thirty kilometers south in Cranborne Chase (Paul Burley’s 2024 PhD study of 40 barrows), the geology differs: a strong northwest-southeast drainage pattern off the Chalke Escarpment. Here, my analysis of Burley’s measurements shows a mean azimuth of approximately 145° (southeast), with around 97% of barrows sub-parallel to local ridges and valleys. Burley concludes that orientations reflect topographic contours and viewsheds (e.g., toward the English Channel), with the statistical match tight.

In other words, the barrows broadly follow the grain of the landscape, not a precise calendar event. Topography explains the regional variation; a single targeted astronomical alignment does not.

Cultural Preference, Not Precision

The eastern (or southeastern) emphasis is real and probably carried meaning—sunrise, rebirth, ancestors—but it is broad, not pinpoint. Neolithic builders worked within ±20–30° of east in most regions. True equinox precision (within a few days and degrees) requires a flat eastern horizon and a deliberate choice to deviate from local topography. English long barrows rarely show this; even West Kennet’s axis aligns with its ridge, and the sunlight window spans weeks.

Compare this with notable Irish passage tombs: Loughcrew Cairn T’s passage is offset ~8–9° south of due east (likely intentional to account for seasonal declination differences), illuminating intricate solar-motif carvings on the backstone over several days around each equinox. This is widely accepted as deliberate and more precise than Knowth’s rougher alignment (deviating by ~2 weeks, as noted by Greaney and Prendergast/Ray).No English monument shows equivalent precision or symbolic reinforcement.

Supporting Sources

• Greaney 2021 (Cardiff PhD)—regional catalogues and distribution plans for Stonehenge/Avebury.
• Burley 2024 (Minnesota PhD)—40 measured azimuths and topographic statistics for Cranborne Chase.
• Marshall 2021 (Orientation of Prehistoric Monuments in Britain: A Reassessment, Archaeopress)—reassessment of British monument orientations.
• Burl, Ashbee, and earlier surveys—consistent eastern bias noted for decades.
• Mega-What archaeoastronomy analyses—details on West Kennet’s offset and solar window.

Conclusion

West Kennet’s equinox-season sunrise is a genuine and beautiful phenomenon, but it is likely a byproduct of two stronger influences: a widespread Neolithic cultural preference for broadly eastern orientations and the simple fact that the Wiltshire chalk ridges already run that way. The same combination explains why the great majority of other English long barrows point roughly east—or southeast, or northeast—depending on the local landscape. There is no clear evidence that any English Neolithic monument was deliberately engineered to mark the spring equinox. The data from landscape, distribution, and statistics point instead to practical, symbolic, and relational choices made by communities who knew their terrain intimately. The sun just happened to cooperate at West Kennet.

The Slaughter Stone Legend: Iron Oxides, Algae, and the “Blood” Pools of Stonehenge

For generations, the Slaughter Stone (Stone 95) at Stonehenge has captivated imaginations with its pools of vivid red rainwater collecting in natural hollows after showers. Victorian antiquarians and visitors interpreted the crimson tint as blood from human sacrifices performed on an “altar,” giving the recumbent sarsen its macabre name and embedding it in romantic tales of ancient rituals.

Scientific scrutiny reveals a far more prosaic — yet fascinating — explanation. The red colouration arises from two interacting factors: trace iron oxides in the sarsen stone provide a subtle rusty background, while pigmented terrestrial algae deliver the intense, blood-like drama.

Sarsen stone at the Long Barrow at All Cannings, March 2026

Sarsen, a highly durable silcrete (>99.7 % SiO₂), contains low but variable levels of iron oxides and hydroxides (such as goethite and limonite), typically 0.09–0.12 wt.% Fe₂O₃ overall, with higher concentrations in localised bands or pore linings. Rainwater percolates through the stone’s porous network (7–9 % porosity), slowly mobilising these reactive iron phases. Upon exposure and evaporation in shallow depressions, the iron oxidises to insoluble reddish-brown forms, imparting a classic rusty hue. This process is gradual and ongoing, protected by the stone’s resistant quartz framework, and accounts for the faint to moderate rust tones often described in official sources, such as English Heritage’s note that rainwater “reacts with iron in the stone and turns a rusty red.”

However, for the strikingly vivid, saturated blood-red pools that inspired the legend, as shown in my photograph, algae play the dominant role. Species of Trentepohlia, a common terrestrial green alga in the UK, produce abundant carotenoid pigments (including beta-carotene and astaxanthin-like compounds) that give colonies an intense orange-red to deep rust appearance, completely masking underlying chlorophyll. These algae thrive subaerially on damp, exposed rock surfaces, particularly in small hollows where rainwater lingers, providing humidity and occasional wetting without constant flushing. Organic debris — leaves, twigs, and nutrient-rich matter — further encourages growth, allowing pigments to leach into standing water or spread as streaky films across the stone.

My photograph illustrates this perfectly: a concentrated, irregular red-orange patch fills and surrounds a shallow depression, centred on a mass of decaying leaves and organic fragments. The vivid, patchy saturation and felt-like quality scream algal colonisation rather than uniform mineral leaching. In contrast, iron alone tends to produce more diffuse, subtler rusting.

It may be no coincidence that my example occurs on a sarsen where we have sheep over winter, where grazing animals deposit dung, trample organic material, and enrich the micro-habitat with nutrients that fuel algal blooms. The Slaughter Stone, now in the sterile, closely managed grassland of the Stonehenge visitor site with minimal organic accumulation, likely supports far less algal growth. Reduced nutrient input and drier, more exposed conditions could limit Trentepohlia to a minor role, leaving iron’s rusty contribution more prominent — and the pools less dramatically red than in nutrient-rich settings.

In summary, iron supplies a reliable rusty undertone from slow leaching, but the dramatic “blood” effect that so impressed the Victorians stems primarily from carotenoid-rich algae thriving in moist, nutrient-enhanced microhabitats.

What the REF doesn't see

 

Earley, B. (2026) ‘The popularity of “new antiquarianism” challenges how we understand research impact’, LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, 2 March. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2026/03/02/the-popularity-of-new-antiquarianism-challenges-how-we-understand-research-impact/ (Accessed: 3 March 2026).

Ben Earley’s blog post highlights a real tension in the academic archaeological community: traditional grants and REF frameworks still demand that tidy, linear model of public engagement — the university-led talk, the press release that generates newspaper headlines, and the TV documentary with your name prominently attached as presenter or consultant — yet the real magic often happens through non-academic dissemination, the parallel “reception at scale” that he describes so well. My posts, Paul Whitwick’s videos, independent channels like History Time, and Pen & Sword books absorb those academic outputs, chew them over with care and citations, then pass them on to tens or hundreds of thousands of readers and viewers who would never attend a campus seminar. This deeper, cumulative, uncontrollable uptake — which goes far beyond one-off newspaper coverage or academic-fronted TV programmes — genuinely shapes how the public actually encounters the past, yet it remains invisible to current metrics because there is no neat pathway or institutional ownership to tick. To keep academics incentivised and happy — and to stop the system quietly discouraging them from feeding the very ecosystem that keeps their research alive — we simply need to start recognising and measuring this non-academic dissemination alongside traditional engagement, whether through reception logs, altmetric multipliers or a new “uptake” box on the form, so the knowledge flows both ways and everyone wins.

(I wonder if this will be picked up as engagement with his blog article)