"Phew , back to the decryption , sounds more like "Northand " or "handto " in Neolithic rhyming slang ?"

Haha. You must have seen the intro to the latest version of the book (or I missed the reference entirely): A bit different from Stonehenge this one. It is not even vaguely complex. To me it seems very obvious, especially with all the detailed drawings around the perimeter showing what to do. So I find myself wondering if I am imposing some of these development systems (which would lead directly to a "Stonehenge" being built) onto those monuments: It's a bit weird putting these ideas together and then finding that all of them seem to have been constructed.

If Stonehenge is engineering brilliance, then that other set is intellectual genius. If they're what I think they might be, then the whole set-up is so profound, simple, logical and obvious that future generations will look back with amazement; not at the interpretation, but at how long we took to work it out. But can it really be that obvious? I'm struggling with this so think I need the people who really know the place to take a look.