Stonehenge and its Environs 134
Image by RiotGibbon

Littlestone says: "They must have missed some of the sarsens at Stonehenge then - the ones that were hauled there from some 30km away." That's your opinion -- but I still haven't seen any evidence to support it. I'll stick to the HHT theory on this one until somebody comes up with a killer fact.

With regard to Old Keig, tell me why it isn't a glacial erratic. The ice crossed this part of Aberdeenshire on several occasions in the Ice Age. Ice has no problems either in quarrying large rocks or moving them uphill. It's entirely logical to assume a natural explanation for most phenomena (eg large stones in "strange" places) and if that doesn't work, look for another (human-based) explanation instead. In exactly the same way I would assume that a cliff at the coast is created by the sea, and a large hole in a limestone area is caused by the solution of limestone. Because a large stone is incorporated into a dolmen, it doesn't mean it was dragged to it from somewhere else. There's a 60-tonner at Garn Turne. Ther stone was there before the tomb.

"until somebody comes up with a killer fact."

Would a video do? ;)

I would have thought the lack of a huge pile of leftovers needs explaining before you can say there's no evidence of human transport. Apart from small chippings there's not a lot left and no holes.
I don't think your suggestion they were all used in the monument or as mauls or packing explains it adequately - there'd be just too much wouldn't there?

Littlestone says: "They must have missed some of the sarsens at Stonehenge then - the ones that were hauled there from some 30km away." That's your opinion -- but I still haven't seen any evidence to support it. I'll stick to the HHT theory on this one until somebody comes up with a killer fact.
Ehm... actually it's Mike Pitts' opinion. Please see - Hengeworld by Mike Pitts (pp136). ISBN 0-7126-7954-5 (or are you disagreeing with him as well ;-)