close
more_vert

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 can see Burl altering that point about trackways not always being in an exact straight line to suit his argument, but then I'm probably biased towards Michell and he might have done the exact same thing. I've seen/heard many examples of science and mythology overlapping. Perhaps some folk are just too 'binary' about it all...

Why should enjoyment of a belief preclude criticism of the problems inherent in the belief , particularly when the believers make claims for the belief ?
Routes get marked that goes without saying but ley hunters include a huge amount of natural and man made features that only have to line up in a straight line to convince them that they have found a ley . Since Michell it has become something else , energies have been introduced into the equation . Both views have lots of problems .
It did get punters into the fresh air away from their maps and rulers , fine , but if they make claims then they can expect responses .