Non utilitarian aspects of monuments need explaining and sometimes the explanations become reified until new information confirms or negates the idea . radio carbon dating on a gross scale transformed the conjectural world that had a Mycenean inspired Stonehenge and standing stones and tumuli being the graves of danes .
Better quality dating and use of Bayseian stats produces dates that are accurate to less than a generation ,in the circumstances this info is starting to make the “ancestors “ a bit creaky and something more appropriate may have to replace it ,certainly for the sites that have the necessary dates and possibly for others that fit into the original paradigm. If there is a rethink on the ancestor idea in relation to chambered tombs etc Silbury would not be affected as it is different type of association ,the other are all deposits not anthromorphisation .A bit late now but it's worth considering what might have confirmed or refuted the idea ? e.g. faces would help a pro vote .