I am writing to point out inaccuracies in your article on Stonehenge.
The article, including the headline, (Stonehenge dig finally unravels the mystery of why it was built, 9 September) failed to distinguish between fact and interpretation, and presented one expert's view as established fact. It also gives the impression that the expert's view has been adopted by English Heritage. This is very confusing for your readers. English Heritage is firmly of the view that Stonehenge was built as a prehistoric temple aligned with the movements of the sun, contrary to what was implied in the article.
Professor Mike Parker Pearson's theory about the naturally formed ridges is interesting, but is by no means established.