Consensus! ;)And yes, I really like Pryor's work. Which is why I was disappointed with Britain AD, because it doesn't clear the high bar he has set for himself. Ultimately, I think it's because he strays too far from his field in that book. He excels at studying areas where we don't have primary sources and are forced to try to fill in the gaps with educated guesses. And in those instances, I think he's fantastic and that's partially because I'm reading it going "Well, I know he's making wild guesses but we really just don't know and maybe he's right!" But with Britain AD, the wild guesses start to fall flat because we have have significantly more data available and so I was left saying "well, that's just incredibly unlikely based on the evidence we have" instead of following him down the rabbit hole of possibilities like I had done with Seahenge, Britain BC, etc. Now that being said, I have immense sympathy for the man. Synthesizing history is very difficult, and often it feels like skydiving without a parachute. I can only imagine how much harder it would be to also put in a new untested theory into the mix. So I feel for him.As a side note, this is a really fun discussion!