Stonehenge 181
Image by Snap

Well it may be reasonable to say that ‘we make no statement on how the stones were moved’ but to say ‘that is a mugs game for fools’ is perhaps a little harsh. Without the experiments and speculations of those who are interested in how the stones may have been moved we now, perhaps, have a little more understanding (if still no concrete evidence) on how it ‘may’ have been done.

I confess I lean towards the human transportation argument – A) because you’d surely expect some other (substantial) evidence of random bluestones near to the Stonehenge complex if it were glaciation and B) the bluestones are so obviously ‘special’ (in the same way that jadeite axheads are special) that they were considered well worth the time and effort getting them a very long way from A to B.

He has probably seen the arguments and thought that the vitriol is a bit unneccesary considering we don't have enough evidence to pick a winner , and the arguments are mostly agenda driven . Although maybe one day the science will provide enough to suggest that one or the other or combination is actually close . The only points I ever thought worth making was that the glaciation /anti long distance transport lobby's argument is based on the Thorpe & Williams Thorpe paper which doesn't prove anything and only points out that in most cases local stones were used and in those cases where transport may have been used glaciation was the method . It's not a strong argument as it is inapplicable to neighbouring areas that were not glaciated but have obvious examples of transport over long distances e.g. Jersey and even areas on the mainland wher glaciation was minimal or in the opposite direction from the source to site . And there is no doubt it could be done .