Stonehenge 181
Image by morfe

But you know how many scientists, not just archaeologists work. They come up with a theory, then make the facts fit. It's all smoke and mirrors till the theory stands up or fades away. Will pick up a copy of Antiquity (or more likely, have a sneaky read in local W H Smiths). Like yourself, I'm far from experienced in the field, (did an A level in arch at night school, then kids came along, and real life intervened) but I like to think I'm a reasonably well informed nutter. Hopefully, over the winter, and reflection of the data, a more balanced report will emerge.

You can read the paper on line. Haven't got a link handy, but it's available to read for free.
If people who are interested in archaeology have to be careful about 'the evidence' after reading a paper like this, what chance does Mr/Mrs Public have?
It's like the Durrington 'stones'. A big hoo-haa, but then we find out that they could be previously investigated chalk capping of post holes. 99% of th people who read the strories in the press will not be aware of that.

Also Mike Pitts has written an article in the magazine 'British Archaeology' which should be out later this week, I should get the online version tomorrow.

https://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/have-archaeologists-found-stonehenge-quarries/

Whatever the outcome, Presceli is a marvellous place that has a true prehistoric feel about it, I can fully understand the excitement of the archaeologists and also the 'sense' that such rocky outcrops are 'sacred'....

Btw, not wishing to fall out at all, but the name calling earlier was unnecessary. Tiompan knows his stuff.

Monganaut wrote:
Hopefully, over the winter, and reflection of the data, a more balanced report will emerge.
The Antiquity paper is that "more balanced report " , after five seasons of digging and cogitating .