I have come across this excellent and wide-ranging report by David Field and Trevor Pearson. Very interesting indeed -- and in advance of a careful reading the following things stand out from the pages:
1. An admission that the sarsen stones might well have come from the immediate locality of Stonehenge, and that the idea of sarsen-collecting expeditions to the Marlborough Downs is dubious and probably unnecessary.
2. An acceptance that the bluestones MIGHT be glacial erratics (although the authors still defer to Profs D and W and don't want to stray too far from the party line on this.....)
3. They have at least read my book, although it would have been nice if they had spelt my name correctly......
4. An acceptance of the idea that the Stonehenge stone monument was probably unfinished, and that the builders went through many changes of plans and probably ran out of stones.
I'll come back to all of this in much greater detail, but does this mean that AT LAST the people working for English Heritage are prepared to challenge the long-held belief system established by Atkinson and others and perpetrated by Darvill and Wainwright? Maybe, maybe.......
RESEARCH DEPARTMENT REPORT SERIES no. 109-2010
STONEHENGE WORLD HERITAGE SITE LANDSCAPE PROJECT STONEHENGE, AMESBURY, WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT David Field and Trevor Pearson