Seven Summer Solstitial Sunrise Sites

1. Stonehenge, Wiltshire, England

Description: Stonehenge, one of the world’s most iconic prehistoric monuments, is renowned for its precise alignment with celestial events.

Alignment: On the summer solstice, the sun rises behind the Heel Stone, casting rays into the centre of the circle. This alignment is a focal point for modern solstice celebrations, drawing thousands annually.

Evidence: The alignment is well-documented. English Heritage provides an overview.

Reference: English Heritage - Stonehenge Summer Solstice

2. Avebury (Cove), Wiltshire, England

Description: Avebury, the largest stone circle in Britain, dates to the Neolithic period and includes a complex of monuments, with the Cove in the northern inner circle being a key feature.

Alignment: The Cove is suggested to align with the summer solstice sunrise, with the sun rising in line with its northeastern orientation. While there is some debate, the evidence leans toward confirmation.

Evidence: Research from archaeoastronomical studies supports this alignment, though there is some controversy.

Reference: Darvill, T. (2023). Figures in the Rock? Experiencing the Avebury Cove at the Midsummer Sunrise.

3. Calanais Standing Stones, Isle of Lewis, Scotland

Description: Older than Stonehenge, the Calanais Standing Stones (also known as Callanish) form a cruciform pattern on the Isle of Lewis, dating to around 3000 BCE.

Alignment: The site aligns with the summer solstice sunrise and significant lunar events, reflecting its role as a ceremonial and astronomical hub.

Evidence: Historic Environment Scotland confirms the site’s astronomical significance, with solstice celebrations still held today.

Reference: Historic Environment Scotland - Calanais Standing Stones

4. Bryn Celli Ddu, Anglesey, Wales

Description: Bryn Celli Ddu is a Neolithic passage tomb on Anglesey, constructed around 3000 BCE, known for its well-preserved chamber.

Alignment: The summer solstice sunrise illuminates the inner chamber, a deliberate design highlighting its spiritual importance.

Evidence: Cadw, the Welsh heritage organization, and archaeological reports verify this alignment.

Reference: Cadw - Bryn Celli Ddu

5. Boscawen-ûn Stone Circle, Cornwall, England

Description: Located in West Penwith, Boscawen-ûn is a late Neolithic to early Bronze Age stone circle with a central monolith featuring rock art.

Alignment: The summer solstice sunrise illuminates the rock art on the central monolith, with additional alignment to the winter solstice sunrise.

Evidence: The Cornish Ancient Sites Protection Network and archaeoastronomical studies confirm these alignments.

Reference: Cornish Ancient Sites Protection Network

6. Midsummer Boulevard, Milton Keynes, England

Description: Milton Keynes, a planned city built in the 1960s, incorporates a nod to ancient solstice traditions in its urban design. Midsummer Boulevard is the city’s main street, running southwest to northeast.

Alignment: The boulevard is deliberately aligned with the summer solstice sunrise, with the sun rising at its northeastern end on June 20–22. City planners consulted the Greenwich Observatory to adjust the urban grid for this precise alignment.

Significance: This modern “temple to the sun” transforms an urban thoroughfare into a celestial marker, celebrated in the 1970s with bonfires and music. It remains a unique example of solstice-inspired urban planning.

Reference: BBC Radio 4 - How Ancient Civilisations Helped Build Our Modern Cities

[](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/30Jxg80pHnf4KrPfxBFXsCG/how-ancient-civilisations-helped-build-our-modern-cities)

7. Soulton Long Barrow, Shropshire, England

Description: Opened in 2017 near Wem, this modern long barrow, designed by Sacred Stones Ltd., is a columbarium and ceremonial space inspired by Neolithic architecture.

Alignment: The barrow is aligned with the summer solstice sunrise, with its entrance and chambers oriented to capture the first rays of the solstice sun, similar to Bryn Celli Ddu.

Significance: It offers a contemporary space for memorials and solstice celebrations, blending ancient design with modern spiritual needs, and is part of a growing trend of new long barrows.

Reference: Sacred Stones - Soulton Long Barrow

A Response to the WHS Setting SPD

A Response to the Setting of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

Regarding the Recognition of Historical Agricultural Heritage, Specifically the Silage Tower

Date: June 10, 2025

Dear Wiltshire Council,

I appreciate the opportunity to submit my personal response to the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the Setting of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site (WHS). I commend the SPD’s robust framework for protecting the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of this globally significant landscape, recognised by UNESCO since 1986. However, I believe the SPD could do more to acknowledge the historical agricultural heritage of the WHS, particularly the silage tower near the Stonehenge Visitor Centre. While the SPD currently identifies this structure as a visual detractor, it overlooks its potential significance as a rare example of 20th-century agricultural heritage, which I believe deserves recognition and thoughtful consideration.

Background on Silage Towers

Silage towers have played an important role in agricultural history, as highlighted in Historic England’s guidance on farm buildings (Historic England, 2014). First introduced from the United States in 1901, these airtight structures were designed to store freshly cut grass for conversion into silage, a key innovation that provided farmers with a reliable supply of fodder. Their use became widespread after World War II, marking a significant shift in farming practices. However, intact pre-1940 examples are now rare, especially those constructed in concrete. The silage tower at grid reference SU 10207 43450, appearing on the 1939 Ordnance Survey map, located on the Lesser Cursus ridgeline near the Stonehenge Visitor Centre, is one such rare survivor, adding an important layer to the WHS’s historical narrative.

Context within the WHS

The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is rightly celebrated for its prehistoric monuments, but the landscape also reflects centuries of agricultural activity. The silage tower, though modern in comparison to Neolithic and Bronze Age features, embodies the agricultural heritage that has shaped the WHS’s rural character. Its presence illustrates how farming practices have coexisted with archaeological significance, offering a broader understanding of the site’s evolution. Recognising such features supports the WHS Management Plan’s aim to enhance the site’s historical context.

Concerns with the SPD

The SPD describes the silage tower as a “prominent abandoned modern feature” that negatively impacts the WHS’s setting due to its visibility from several viewpoints, including Robin Hood’s Ball (Page 126, S-VP14; Page 147, Section 5.9). However, the SPD does not offer specific recommendations for addressing this structure, nor does it acknowledge its potential historical value. I am concerned that this omission could result in the prehistoric OUV being prioritised at the expense of more recent heritage, potentially leading to decisions that undervalue or remove significant agricultural features without proper assessment.

Recommendations

To ensure the silage tower’s historical significance is properly integrated into the WHS’s management, I propose the following amendments to the SPD:

• Acknowledge Agricultural Heritage: Add a subsection to Section 2.0 (Page 20) recognising the historical importance of agricultural structures like the silage tower. This would reflect the WHS Management Plan’s goal to “maintain and enhance the WHS by including significant archaeological features” (Page 18), extending this consideration to post-prehistoric heritage.
• Assess Historical Significance: Amend Section 3.0 (Page 41) to require Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) that evaluate the historical and architectural significance of agricultural structures, particularly the silage tower. Given its rarity, as noted by Historic England, research involving agricultural historians could determine its age and context, potentially justifying its inclusion in the WHS’s historical inventory.
• Enhance Visitor Interpretation: Update Section 2.6 (Page 35) to incorporate the silage tower into interpretive materials, such as signage or digital resources, to highlight the WHS’s agricultural history. This would enrich visitors’ understanding of the site’s evolution from prehistory to modern times, aligning with the Management Plan’s focus on education (Page 17).
• Explore Preservation Options: Revise Section 5.9 (Page 147) to consider preservation or adaptive reuse of the silage tower, balancing its historical value with the WHS’s visual integrity. For example, stabilising the structure as an educational exhibit could maintain its heritage significance without compromising OUV, subject to HIA evaluation (Page 44, Section 3.2).

Conclusion

The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is a dynamic landscape shaped by millennia of human activity, including agriculture. The silage tower, though currently seen as a detractor, is a rare and significant feature of the site’s 20th-century agricultural heritage. By acknowledging and preserving such elements, the SPD can present a more holistic narrative of the WHS’s history. I urge Wiltshire Council to adopt these recommendations, ensuring that the silage tower is celebrated as part of the site’s rich tapestry. I look forward to further collaboration during the consultation process.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Daw
All Cannings, Wiltshire
June 10, 2025

References

• Historic England: National Farm Building Types, 2014
• Setting of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site (Draft for Public Consultation), Wiltshire Council, 2025

Stonehenge - the original NIMBY

Objection to Planning Application Ref: SH/001/2500BC – Proposed Construction of Stonehenge

Dear Planning Committee,

I am writing to formally object to the planning application for the construction of Stonehenge, a proposed megalithic structure on Salisbury Plain, as outlined in application reference SH/001/2500BC. While I recognize the cultural and spiritual aspirations of this project, I have significant concerns regarding its compliance with sustainability principles, environmental policies, and resource management standards as set out in the Wessex Regional Planning Framework (WRPF) and the Tribal Environmental Stewardship Code (TESC).

Firstly, the proposed extraction and transportation of Sarsen stones from West Woods on the Marlborough Downs raises serious environmental concerns. The applicant’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to adequately assess the cumulative impact of removing these non-renewable geological assets, particularly following the near-depletion of Sarsen stocks by the Avebury Circle Development (ref: AV/002/2600BC). The WRPF, Section 4.2, mandates that development proposals must “demonstrate minimal disruption to finite natural resources and protect the geodiversity of the region.” Extracting Sarsens from West Woods risks contravening this policy, potentially leading to irreversible damage to the landscape character of the Marlborough Downs and its associated ecosystems, including the habitats of local flora and fauna.

Furthermore, the application lacks a robust Sustainability Appraisal (SA) to evaluate the long-term ecological consequences of the project. The TESC, Clause 3.1, requires developers to provide a “clear strategy for mitigating environmental harm and ensuring resource sustainability.” The proposed method of dragging Sarsen stones from West Woods using timber sledges is not only logistically inefficient but also likely to cause soil compaction and erosion along transportation routes, contravening the Landscape Protection Guidelines (LPG), which emphasize the preservation of soil integrity for future agricultural use. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate compliance with these guidelines or to justify the absence of alternative, less invasive construction techniques, such as utilizing smaller, locally sourced materials from the Salisbury Plain area.

Additionally, the application does not adequately address the Community Cohesion and Heritage Impact Assessment (CCHIA) requirements under WRPF Policy 7.3. The construction of Stonehenge risks overshadowing existing local landmarks, such as the Durrington Timber Circle, potentially undermining the cultural heritage balance of the region. The lack of public consultation records, as required by TESC Clause 5.2, further suggests that the proposal has not sufficiently engaged with affected stakeholders, including tribal groups in the Marlborough Downs and Salisbury Plain areas who rely on these landscapes for seasonal grazing and ceremonial activities.

In conclusion, I urge the Planning Committee to refuse this application in its current form due to its non-compliance with the WRPF and TESC policies, inadequate environmental safeguards, and failure to demonstrate sustainable resource use. I recommend that the applicant revise the proposal to include a comprehensive Sustainability Appraisal, explore alternative construction methods, and engage in meaningful consultation with the communities of the Marlborough Downs and Salisbury Plain to ensure that Stonehenge, if approved, aligns with our collective commitment to environmental stewardship and cultural harmony.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss these concerns further at the upcoming planning hearing.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
Resident, Wessex Community

A link rich Introduction to Neolithic Megalith Transport from Cáceres Puro et al. (2025)

 A link rich Introduction to Neolithic Megalith Transport from Cáceres Puro et al. (2025):

"Most of the stones used in prehistoric megalithic constructions were transported by land through a diversity of technical procedures (see discussion in Garfitt, 1979; Hoskin, 1986; Van Tilburg, 1995; Kalb, 1996; Adams, 2007; Harris, 2018; etc.). For a long time, however, there have been suggestions that, in some specific cases, stones were transported by water ways, either along rivers or marine coasts.

Transport of megaliths by water is well attested among the prehistoric societies of Micronesia (Hazell and Fitzpatrick, 2006) and, of course, in ancient Egypt (Landström, 1970). Although little is known about navigation and sailing technology in Neolithic Europe (Morgado et al., 2018; Gibaja et al., 2024; Morgado-Rodríguez et al., 2025), water transport was probably restricted to stones of a limited size. It is unlikely that massive stones weighting several tens of tons were transported by boat. At any rate, there are very few cases for which water transportation of megaliths has been postulated. Probably, the best-known case is that of Stonehenge (Wiltshire, UK), where the ‘bluestones’ have been interpreted to have been carried over a distance of 210 km from their geological place of origin in the Preseli mountains (Wales) to the building site (Parker Pearson, 2012; Parker Pearson et al., 2015) and the “Altar Stone”, whose provenance could be in Scotland, some 700 km north of the monument (Clarke et al., 2024; Bevins et al., 2024). Both coastal and river routes have been hypothesised for the ‘bluestones’ (Parker Pearson, 2012; Clarke et al., 2024), which are relatively small, weighting between two and five tons each, and therefore would not have posed an unsurmountable challenge for boat transportation to Late Neolithic communities. A water route has also been postulated for the kerbstones of Newgrange (Ireland), which, weighting around three tons each, were quarried at Cloger Head and transported strapped underneath boats along the coast and up the River Boyne (Stout and Stout, 2008). Seafaring transportation of megalithic stones over distances of up to 40 km have also been suggested for some of the Neolithic monuments of the Locmariaquer region, in French Brittany (Cassen et al., 2019)."

Site	Stone Type	Weight (tons)	Distance (km)	Proposed Transport Route	Source
Stonehenge, UK	Bluestones	2–5	210	Coastal and river routes (e.g., River Avon)	Parker Pearson (2012)
Stonehenge, UK	Altar Stone	~6	700	Coastal and river routes	Bevins et al. (2024)
Newgrange, Ireland	Kerbstones	~3	Unknown	Coastal and River Boyne	Stout and Stout (2008)
Locmariaquer, France	Various	Unknown	Up to 40	Seafaring along Brittany coast	Cassen et al. (2019)
Valencina, Spain	Matarrubilla Basin	Unknown	8.5 - 15	Potential river/coastal routes	Cáceres Puro et al. (2025)

Reference:

Luis M. Cáceres Puro, Teodosio Donaire Romero, José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez, Marta Díaz-Guardamino, Francisco Martínez-Sevilla, Alicia Medialdea, Miren del Val, Jonàs Alcaina-Mateos, Joaquín Rodríguez-Vidal, Fernando Muñiz Guinea, Juan Manuel Vargas Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Rogerio-Candelera, Leonardo García Sanjuán,
Seafaring megaliths: A geoarchaeological approach to the Matarrubilla giant stone basin at Valencina (Spain),
Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 180, 2025, 106263,
ISSN 0305-4403, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2025.106263.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440325001128)

Seafaring megaliths: robust evidence for Neolithic monolith transport

Seafaring megaliths: A geoarchaeological approach to the Matarrubilla giant stone basin at Valencina (Spain)

 Luis M. Cáceres Puro, Teodosio Donaire Romero, José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez, Marta Díaz-Guardamino, Francisco Martínez-Sevilla, Alicia Medialdea, Miren del Val, Jonàs Alcaina-Mateos, Joaquín Rodríguez-Vidal, Fernando Muñiz Guinea, Juan Manuel Vargas Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Rogerio-Candelera, Leonardo García Sanjuán,

Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 180, 2025, 106263,

ISSN 0305-4403,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2025.106263.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440325001128)

Abstract: A broad multidisciplinary approach is deployed to study an exceptional megalithic feature: the stone basin that presides over the chamber of the Matarrubilla tholos, part of the Valencina Copper Age mega-site (Sevilla, Spain). The study, including geoarchaeological characterisation and sourcing of the stone, traceological analysis of its surfaces based on photogrammetry and morphometrics, digital image analysis as well as OSL dating, leads to a number of substantial findings of great relevance to understand the significance of this stone basin, the only of its kind documented to this date in the Iberian Peninsula, with parallels only in Ireland and Malta. Among the most relevant conclusions, it is worth noting the fact that the gypsiferous cataclasite block the basin was made of was brought from the other side of the marine bay that five thousand years ago extended across the south-east of Valencina, this is the first evidence of waterborne transport of a megalithic stone in the Iberian Peninsula. In addition, the basin appears to have been put where it stands today sometime in the first half of the 4th millennium BC, long before any tholoi were built at Valencina, which suggest a prior history of still poorly documented monumentality at this mega-site.

Keywords: Valencina cooper age mega-site; Matarrubilla tholos; Stone basin; Megalithic art; Gypsum rock; Transportation of megaliths; Floating transport

 
Key Scientific Methods Used

Geoarchaeological Characterisation and Provenance Analysis

•  The study conducted a full geological analysis to determine the stone's origin. By comparing the mineralogical and petrographic properties of the basin with regional geological formations, researchers established that the gypsiferous cataclasite block originated from the opposite (eastern) side of a prehistoric marine bay, across from the Valencina site.
•  This sourcing was crucial in demonstrating that the stone could not have been obtained locally and must have been transported over water.

Traceological Analysis Using Photogrammetry and Morphometrics

•  High-resolution photogrammetry and morphometric analysis were employed to model the basin’s surfaces, documenting tool marks and manufacturing techniques. This allowed for detailed assessment of the basin's carving and dressing, providing insights into Neolithic stone-working skills and the logistics of moving such a large object.

Digital Image Analysis

•  Digital imaging was used to enhance the identification of tool marks and surface modifications, supporting interpretations of both manufacture and transport processes.

Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating

•  OSL dating of sediments beneath the basin provided a chronological framework, establishing that the basin was placed in its current location in the first half of the 4th millennium BC—predating the construction of the tholos itself. This temporal evidence supports the hypothesis of an earlier phase of monumentality at the site.

Interpretation and Broader Context

The multidisciplinary approach not only traced the stone’s geological origin but also reconstructed the likely transport route: the basin was moved across a marine bay (now vanished) and then hauled uphill to its final position. This scenario is supported by:

•  The lack of similar gypsum outcrops near the site, necessitating cross-water transport.
•  Comparative references to similar waterborne megalith transport in other prehistoric contexts, such as Stonehenge’s bluestones and the kerbstones of Newgrange, where geological sourcing and hypothesised river/coastal routes have been similarly established.

Conclusion

 This study exemplifies how integrating geological, archaeological, and advanced imaging methods can provide robust evidence for Neolithic monolith transport mechanisms. The combination of provenance analysis, morphometric documentation, and precise dating offers a model for future research into prehistoric monument construction and the capabilities of early societies in moving massive stones over challenging landscapes.