I originally said ...

"The theory that there were huge axe markets seems solely based on Burl's need to explain the presence of axe carvings at sites. It's like ley-lines. Someone mentions a thought and everyone runs wild with it. If there is more solid to it than this will somebody please point me at it."

i.e. Burl offered them as a possibility - everyone else takes them as fact.

I don't dis Burl. How can you?