Maen Llia 7
Image by Ben Alder

nigelswift wrote:
And wouldn't it be interesting to have it established in the Archaeological mind that lines aren't necessarily lines pointing anywhere at all but markers of a viewshed limit and nothing whatsoever to do with direction. Someone needs to go and look at every stone row to see if there are any more like that!

Maybe ley lines aren't lines either! Could the "viewshed limit theory" explain why they're so inconveniently not very straight?

The vast majority of stone rows to the chagrin of the astro seekers do not point at anything salient in the Thom paradigm and also keep changing direction . They are however , like Bancbryn , often associated with other monuments .
I wouldn't hold out any hope for ley lines ,again , they are lines on a map , even in the Watkins sense (pre subtle energies etc ) as route ways they were only any good on the map , useless in practice , unless you ignore the bogs , rivers , lochs and contours .

"useless in practice , unless you ignore the bogs , rivers , lochs and contours"

I don't know, it IS useful to have some prominently visible features at both your origin and destination, they give you a nice sense of the straight line between the two and then you make pragmatic diversions as and when you encounter bogs and rivers etc. I used to navigate in London that way, trying to keep the sun at a particular angle to my car for as much of the journey as possible. It works well and you can choose dozens of routes and go for miles and still get there or thereabouts efficiently. So I think Alfred was probably onto something but I agree, you could never demonstrate it on a map only on the ground - by seeing whether the points were prominently visible. So the 2 cases are rather similar.