Is it not even more magnificent to think of glacier ice playing a significant role in the Stonehenge story? Why do so many people have a problem with that?
Some people might have a problem with that but I'm not one of them. Nor do I have a problem with imagining that the Bluestones were moved manually. But what about you? Are you saying, categorically, that the Bluestones could not have been moved manually from Preseli to Stonehenge?
I would never use the word "impossible" -- but what we are talking about here is weight of evidence, and probabilities. This is not something one can quantify, but if pressed I would say it is now 90% probable that glacier ice carried the stones from West Wales to the Somerset - Wilts area (up from 80% a year ago, in view of the extra geology now available, showing that there are stones and fragments from even more localities on Salisbury Plain). What is the weight of evidence and probability of the stones having been moved all the way by human agencies? Maybe 10% at best?
We have been over this ground before ( pun groan ) and as glaciation had an impact on most of the areas where megaliths are found in Britain it could always be a reasonable explanation . However not so far from those areas where glaciation had a 0% impact we find that megaliths have been moved great distances by human agency . Fwiw I think the glaciation idea is plausible but we are a long way from being able to prove it . The human agency theory , whilst possible is almost impossible to prove . Even finding a local human and auroch cemetery whose tooth enamel show they were from Pembrokeshire might not be enough . The only real evidence is going to come from the earth sciences and only if it can categorically state the bluestones were never moved to the area by glaciation can the human agency theory be accepted by those that believe otherwise . It's all a bit angels and pins to me .