If you ask me, the scots pine bit of his theory was particularly dodgy. Why did he pick them out? Were they the only tree he could recognise at a distance? They are pretty distinctive.

In the Neolithic most of the country was covered in trees, it sounds pretty unbelievable now but it's true. Our ancestors cut down the forests for wood, and pasture and places to grow crops and glades to encourage wild animals.

Scots pines don't live thousands of years. Ok so baby ones may have replaced their parents but I'm sure they haven't been deliberately replaced by people down the ages who were 'in the know'. People have been more likely to cut down trees for their own uses than plant them.

Erm. The major prehistoric trackways of this country are fairly uncertain, even routes like the Ridgeway and the Ickneild way, because tracks meander about because of bad weather etc. Watkins thought his leys were based on real roads but later thinking has replaced that with the idea of energy lines.

I think some places are definitely in lines, maybe they were deliberately done in this way. I think you have to go to the actual places and see what you can see, see if there are any sighting lines. OTherwise personally I feel a bit doubtful about long-distance alignments. Though I could be wrong, I'm happy to be wrong.

Watkins uses all sorts of 'signs' from all different eras on his leys - castles, churches, wells, stones, trees. The different era thing puts me off even more. But it's a cool concept, I'm all for the concept.

sorry to waffle. you should go out and do some fieldwork, I think that's the only way to understand the landscape, and you'll find out something yourself. which is the way Watkins was suupposed to have come up with his theory himself, wasn't it?!