The Stonehenge Bluestone Debate - What do we really know in 2024?

Well done, you guys! As somebody who is somewhat involved in the debate, it's hard to be fully objective (!!), but from my standpoint I think you have done a grand job of taking a hard look at that infamous BBC TV programme and at the narrative that has been woven by Mike PP and his colleagues. You have also represented the views of me and my colleagues quite honestly and accurately. So thanks for that. Happy to recommend this as essential viewing!

This is maybe the single best video I have seen on Youtube. The research, editing and your presentation all come together to tell the story fairly and comprehensively. Absolutely fabulous content - thank you very much.

I watched the BBC programme recently and I had no idea that there is an alternative theory (theories). The MPP pov sounded rather too neat and tidy to me so I’m grateful to hear an alternative. Great channel

Well done on a thoughtful and thought provoking video. What an excellent analysis you have presented on the issues involved in this long running debate. I think that that you have hit the spot here on the concerns that a lot of people have had with the work of Mike Parker Pearson and his team and the glaring holes within his evidence and spoken about, and given equal weight, to the views on this subject of Dr Brian John.

An absolutely superb video. Well balanced, expertly presented and nicely edited. Yes please to longer videos, it is really refreshing to see content of this quality - particularly on such a controversial area of research.

Congratulations on a well-researched and balanced presentation. I think Alice Roberts did her academic reputation substantial harm by being such a willing associate to MPP's fantasy project.

I especially liked the personal angle, the pictures of you growing up and your parental background. That personal information makes the analysis more human and believable. Thank you for revealing yourself, takes conviction.

ah hell yeah! a 2 hour doc thats mostly just scientific paper readings, im 100% into that \o/ please go for it! this was really interesting, i love stonehenge.

I have never believed the men carried the stones theory and that bbc documentary was anything but scientific.

Really well done! I've always thought the human transport argument seemed super vague, eveb while good evidence advanced in Giza and Rapa Nui. I'm so glad you examined the evidence so fully and presented it so clearly, I learned a ton. Be proud of this one!

So much great information, definitely re-watch a few times 📖

Fantastic totally enjoyed 👍👍

A really gripping documentary. Very professional, great research, good work. We were riveted from start to finish.

The stones may have already slid there at the end of the ice age on a melting giant moving ice shelf,leaving an avenue looking miracle for people to see they would think. The gods the miracle special and put them up to worship nature as their saviour it’s a kind of magic ,that’s what they thought iam sure,Stonehenge keeps you all busy and you all gather there still all thinking what a magical site your all smitten same as they were magic,it’s meant to amaze you all and make you all gather after travelling from far and wide.

Really nicely paced and presented video. You do a great job of highlighting the ways that this standard narrative is being accepted even in places where it doesn't really work. I do think there is a bit of an issue here in that you hold the mainstream view to a very high standard (eg dismissing the pentagonal stone/hole because that specific stone originated 7km away from the hole) whilst seeming to accept everything Brian John says without really questioning him. There are massive issues with the glacial theory, too. For instance, if glaciers had dumped a load of stones on Salisbury Plain, would we not expect to find lots of these, perhaps smaller ones, littering the area, and buried in the sediment? Then you're having to argue that whoever built Stonehenge managed to gather up all of these stones. I think some of the criticisms you make of the Mike Parker Pearson version are very valid, and you make a great case that he's overstretching in places, but you can do that without falling back on John's ideas. I wasn't really aware of John's ideas until this video, and I've since spent a little while reading up on them, and honestly they seem far more problematic than MPP's. So I guess my overall thought is, great video, and you can go beyond repeating John's arguments!

I don't know why the almighty YouTube algorithm presented me with this video this morning but I am highly appreciative that it did. Fascinating debate presented in a calm dispassionate manner with the humility to know the limitations of what we can understand. I have given up watching BBC documentaries such as these due to the dumbing down of subjects in favour of entertainment and story. I grew up watching BBC documentaries in the 70s and 80s when they treated the viewer as an intelligent person. I am aware of erratics in North America where huge rocks have been moved hundreds of kilometres due to glacial melt. So it doesn't surprise me if bluestone has been ripped out of Wales and dumped in Wiltshire. Equally, it wouldn't surprise me if in creating Stonehenge, humans had to source some bluestone from Wales in order to complete the structure as well as use available stone nearby. I wouldn't underestimate human capabilities. That would annoy both 'sides' though. But on balance of probabilities, the energy required is more likely H2O. There's been a recent discovery of another Nile route in Egypt which runs very close to the Giza plateau which makes the exporting of stones from known quarries easier. Ultimately I am more impressed by how successful communities were in this time period that they could support works such as Stonehenge regardless of how the stones arrived. You have to have sufficient free time and abundance to develop the skills and priesthood needed to create symbolic works. Anyway, have subscribed and look forward to more videos

I watched the Parker Pearson program when it came out and was bitterly disappointed at the lack of hard facts. I could only compare it with the like of "Ancient Alliens" which simply reels out lists of "look at this thing" without any evidence. Please continue. Having the whole story rather than picking the bits you like is what science is all about.

this was such a pleasant surprise. Diligently researched and presented - no hype or immodest attention-seeking declaration. It lays out enough material for people like me to be able to see the arguments and counter-argument and come up with a reasonably informed view. Excellent!

There is only one way to know for certain how Stonehenge was built, and that is to ask someone who was there at the time. Since time travel seems to be impossible, we will always only have theories.

There's more than one reason to explain the BBC's loss of half a million subscribers in a year, not least of which is an appalling decline in standards noticeable over 20 or 30 years.