and if they did may have been part of a more circular feature none of which remains .There is a bit of a surrounding ditchand bank that may be a henge . The ditch may be dated due to the antler finds but the sockets only have charcoal supposedly a later deposit after the stones were removed (if they existed in the first place ) .If it was a stone circle the lack anything funerary or deposits makes the connection with the" stone for the dead , wood for the living" idea look a bit creaky . The RC dates will be crucial but lets hope the resulting interpretation is not too far fetched .
One, if people were travelling upriver for the first time would they be more inclined to build their first major settlements downstream or upstream? I'm thinking of a smallish river like the Kennet. People could probably get to the source of the Kennet from the sea in a week or so and perhaps, for strategic reasons, they would be better off at the source of the river than further downstream. In other words, perhaps the further upstream a settlement is the older it's likely to be (or have I got that totally wrong?).
The other idea is that if a settlement or site (such as the Bluehenge site) is a fair way upstream it might follow that it's not only older than sites further downstream (or located some distance from the primary river site as Stonehenge is from Bluehenge) it might also suggest that because Bluehenge is close to a waterway the argument for the human transportation of the bluestones becomes slightly stronger than the glacial theory (or have I got that totally wrong as well :-)