I really admire the spartan, determined, maverick stance of Alexander Thom (who reminds me of Hugh MacDiarmid) but I relish Burl's lack of hesitation in doubting Thom's Megalithic Yard and also how Burl rebuked the long drag from Preseli with a few well chosen words. I love that merciless puncturing of theories formulated through years of thankless, dusty mathematical torment and years of tramping and measuring in steadily falling rain. Burl dismissed Thom's Yard as "a grotesque statistical misconception". Such debates remind me, in the kindest way possible, of the extended footnotes regarding De Selby's works and theories in "The Third Policeman".

Burl still found a lot to write about in his books. And he wrote a lot of books. Don't get the one about Catallus. I've got the Carnac-Callanish one and Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany. We need guys like Burl as well as the Thom's.
I'm afraid the professional TV archaeo-pundits and careerists cannae really hold a light to those big boys.

What I like most about Burl is his writing style , simply very readable , not something I could say for most archaeo writing today. The subject matter was usually interesting too . Imo we owe him a great debt .

Love Burl's writing, really brings the sites and the Archaeology alive. Must look out for that one, it's not one I've seen around.

Based on 'Great Stone Circles' I agree that Burl produces excellent coffee table books. However I would urge caution in accepting anything numerical he quotes.
It is also difficult to take seriously a scholar who rudely attacks the 'megalithic yard' of Professor Thom (after his death), for which there is good survey evidence, and then proposes his own metrics such as the 'Beaker Yard', the 'Cumbrian Yard', the 'Stanton Drew Yard', the ' Perth Yard', and the 'Cork Yard' apparently without any large sample statistical analyses. Burl's approach is based on an appeal to 'authority': his own opinion. Caveat emptor.

Professor D P Gregg (retired)