Stonehenge and its Environs 134
Image by Chance

Sorry Nigel -- I thought we were supposed to be arguing out where the weight of evidence lies? All 4 theories can't be right -- at least not in their entirety. Probably what we'll end up with is a classic compromise, with ice doing some of the work and man the rest.

Would you not agree with me that the archaeology establishment has worked rather hard at making sure that their sacred cows remain sacred? Look at the way Kellaway and Williams-Thorpe were ignored and vilified by men who should have known better, just because they dared to question the established belief system of our leading archaeologists........ Richard Thorpe and his colleagues put forward meticulously researched geological evidence in 1991. They have never had the credit they deserved, for their contribution to a full understanding of Stonehenge.

Well I think there's two mechanisms at work - 1. everyone tends to slip into over-defending their pet theories and 2. it's not a good career move for archaeologists to rock the boat. And so the cow gains gravitas. Human beings, eh?

As for "where the weight of evidence lies?" that's a philosophical point. Does "some evidence" outweigh "no evidence" Numerically yes, but it's a dangerous rule on which to base an opinion as it might be wrong!

Yes, I can confirm from my practical experience that this is how the archaeological orthodoxy operates. The most cruel thing to say is that it is a pseudo-science, which is how it may be correctly described. That doesn't mean that dragging and boating precious stones from Wales wasn't done. So that Bristol Channel bluestone is a myth? (That explains how nobody can say where it is!)