Stonehenge

The subject of Stonehenge always elicits controversy and I can understand why, but I've never understood the antipathy towards MPP. Is it "science-led"?
I saw him at a lecture at Leicester University 5 or 6 years ago, arranged by the Leicestershire Field-walkers Group and the first thing he acknowledged when he got on his feet was that the audience was peppered with sceptics, not of his subject, but HIM.
In my experience, that's in the nature of archaeological endeavour. I just don't understand why it's gets so personal.

Here's another take on it. Some interesting points made. It does look a little flimsy when it's examined.

tomatoman wrote:
The subject of Stonehenge always elicits controversy and I can understand why, but I've never understood the antipathy towards MPP. Is it "science-led"?
I saw him at a lecture at Leicester University 5 or 6 years ago, arranged by the Leicestershire Field-walkers Group and the first thing he acknowledged when he got on his feet was that the audience was peppered with sceptics, not of his subject, but HIM.
In my experience, that's in the nature of archaeological endeavour. I just don't understand why it's gets so personal.
Maybe his sceptics believe he looks for evidence to fit his theories... rather than recording what's there and hypothesising solely upon that? I guess it would be very un-human to be completely unbiased when it comes to interpretation when you are so passionate about something. And he does seem a decent enough chap, to be fair. However all roads once again lead - and all resources seem to be devoted - to Stonehenge. I'm more excited about confirming a new 'circle in Pembrokeshire, myself....

Brian John's latest review is extraordinarily angry.

Glacial, you might say.

Right or wrong the latest news tips the balance in favour of human transport closer to certainty.

Is it bad to hope MPP is right?