I have read this article several times, and in spite of what Mike Pitts may say, the evidence does NOT show twenty big pits with vertical sides. In fact, I can't see any evidence of ANY pits of the size and scale proposed. It's extraordinary how gullible the media are -- but we have all got used to it. Seriously though, have any of the knowledgeable subscribers to this site bothered to actually read the article and apply any level of proper scrutiny? I'm sorry to say so, but this looks like another Gaffney fantasy. Remember his gigantic row of standing stones that turned out just to be a figment of the imagination? The obsession with banner headlines and column inches is not a good thing.
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/06/durrington-super-circuit-hypothesis.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-durrington-shafts-where-is-evidence.html
It's intriguing that the Barclay / Brophy paper slamming this sort of research came out just a few days adrift of the Gaffney paper. Does this mean that the era of fantastical narratives may finally be coming to an end? Let's hope to. It devalues the huge amount of good archaeology going on all over the country with people who do the research and who let their evidence speak for itself.
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-politicisation-of-neolithic.html
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road