close
more_vert

Excellent, thanks for this.

But I'm assuming that in the intervening years since this debate I wouldn't be the only person who'd describe themself as an archaeology enthusiast who believes in the existence of leys? Am I being naive to think that it doesn't have to be an 'either or' argument?

Incoming Traveller wrote:
Excellent, thanks for this.

But I'm assuming that in the intervening years since this debate I wouldn't be the only person who'd describe themself as an archaeology enthusiast who believes in the existence of leys? Am I being naive to think that it doesn't have to be an 'either or' argument?

That's how I see it IT, and if people get pleasure out of, just like dowsing, let them get on with it and enjoy themselves. I don't disbelieve but would need to study any line I chose to form a more solid opinion of it. I have Watkins's first edition (1922) Early British Trackways where he makes it quite clear that the pathway between two lay points isn't always straight as it depends totally on the terrain. The main thing is getting to that next point...presumably to observe/find the next one! In that respect they were perfect 'signposts' if you actually knew where they led to and where you wanted to go!

I think salient points are made by both sides in this exchange, it doesn't seem naive to me to take a view which incorporates elements of each argument.

I like this comment from Burl :

"As I have said, there is no argument between us about the existence of ancient lines and rows. For example, there are the three standing stones in line with a fourth in the recumbent stone circle of Castle Fraser in Aberdeenshire about which we have corresponded. This however, does not amount to a ley in the classical Watkins’ sense. Even if such sites are acknowledged to be deliberately aligned it is a long jump from there to the network of long straight tracks which Watkins’ imagination spread over the landscape."