We have been here before, in discussions on Occam's Razor and Hitchens' Razor. Since we have some new readers out there, let's just remind ourselves what this is all about. The archaeologists -- and certain others, including geologists and geomorphologists, have asserted something quite extraordinary -- namely that Neolithic tribesmen physically transported more than 80 large bluestone monoliths from North Pembrokeshire to Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain. And it is indeed an extraordinary claim -- it is spectacular, and heroic, and it has become one of the architypal English myths. Everybody knows it. That does not mean that it is true, or even well supported.
Let's cite Wikipedia again:
"Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in a 2003 Slate article, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Shall we just remind ourselves of the following ten points?
1. There is no sound evidence from anywhere in the British Neolithic / Bronze Age record of large stones being hauled over long distances for incorporation in a megalithic monument.
2. The builders of Neolithic monuments across the UK simply used whatever large stones were at hand.
3. If ancestor stones were being transported to Stonehenge, why have all of the known bluestones come from the west, and not from any other points of the compass?
4. There is no evidence either from West Wales or from anywhere else of bluestones (or spotted dolerite in particular) being used preferentially in megalithic monuments, or revered in any way.
5. If long-distance stone haulage was "the great thing" for the builders of Stonehenge, why is there no evidence of the development of the appropriate haulage technology leading up to the late Neolithic, and a decline afterwards? It is a complete technological aberration.
6. The evidence for quarrying activity in key locations is questionable, to put it mildly.
7. The sheer variety of bluestone types (I still insist the figure is somewhere near 30) argues against selection and human transport. There cannot possibly have been up to 30 "bluestone quarries" scattered about West Wales.
8. No physical evidence has ever been found of ropes, rollers, trackways, sledges, abandoned stones, quarrymen's camps, or anything else that might bolster the hypothesis.
9. Bits and pieces of experimental archaeology on stone haulage techniques (normally in "ideal" conditions) have done nothing to show that our ancestors could cope with the sheer physical difficulty of stone haulage across the heavily-wooded Neolithic terrain of West Wales (characterised by bogs, cataracts, steep slopes and very few clearings) or around the rocky coast. Aubrey Burl made this point forcefully many years ago, and it remains forceful today.
10. And if there was a "proto-Stonehenge" somewhere, built of assorted local stones and then dismantled and taken off to Stonehenge, where was it? Herbert Thomas thought it might have been near Cilymaenllwyd (south of Preseli) and now MPP thinks it might have been north of Preseli, somewhere or other. So the great proto-Stonehenge hunt continues.......
So where is the "extraordinary evidence" required to support the "extraordinary hypothesis"? In sort, there isn't any.
THE HYPOTHESIS IS THEREFORE REJECTED AS FALSE, without any requirement being placed on me or anybody else to find evidence against it.