that time, several new stones were added to the circle in order to fill in gaps where the original stone had been lost or destroyed. Lambrick doubted that more than two of those currently standing were modern additions. Four of the other, smaller additions were stolen by vandals in the 20th century. The King Stone The King Stone is a single, weathered monolith, 2.4 metres high by 1.5 metres wide, standing 76 metres north of the King's Men. Unlike the other two of the Rollright monuments, it is of uncertain date. Many different interpretations have been made of the King Stone, with various arguments being presented as to what its original function was. Lambrick catalogued six distinct hypotheses that had been presented by antiquarians and archaeologists over the preceding centuries and evaluated their likelihood. Some of these argued that it had been positioned in relation to the King's Men stone circle, with others instead suggesting that it was a component of a long barrow or other burial site. Lockyer (1909) and Thom (1967) suggested that the King Stone had been an astronomical marker that may at the same time have had a relation to the ceremonies being undertaken at the King's Men. Lambrick dismissed any astronomical significance as unlikely, because the Stone aligns only with the rising of the star Capella as it would have appeared circa 1750 BCE. He notes there is no evidence that late prehistoric Britons valued the stars as important; they did build several of their monuments to have solar or lunar alignments. Megalithic specialist Aubrey Burl in 1976 suggested that the King Stone had been a landmark or guidepost designed to mark the position of the King's Men. Again, Lambrick disagreed with this, saying that its "position and orientation make it too inconspicuous to be satisfactory as a marker for anyone approaching the circle either along the ridge or from the alleys either side." Early antiquarian John Aubrey and archaeologist Arthur Evans had suggested that the monolith was a surviving remnant of a stone avenue that had once led to the King's Men. But Lambrick thought this unlikely, as no other archaeological evidence exists for such an avenue, and it would have been poorly aligned with the circle. Other researchers had suggested that the stone was once a part of a long barrow. But Lambrick's archaeological investigation in the 1980s failed to reveal any other