Probably I should not comment on this at all, but what really does bother me is this line from Stonelifter:
"I have excavated one of these cairns and it does go rather deep into the peat. Quite nearby there is a seam of eroding peat and, within that, a bed of tree fragments (Scots Pine). Many of these bits of Original Forest bear cut marks and, as the depth of this seam and the base of the cairn is at the same depth, I judge them to of a similar date - give or take two hundred and fifty years, say."

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but is Stonelifter a qualified archaeologist? Is he admitting to excavating a site that he believes to be ancient? If that is the case, does TMA condone amateurs scrabbling about beneath "ancient" sites? That would make Mike's crystal burying look pretty harmless in comparison. Why does Stonelifter call himself that? How many stones does he lift and what is the potential/actual damage to the archaeological record?

We do have to push the envelope sometimes if genuine, unknown sites are to be found, properly investigated and acknowledged. Nothing wrong in that, but then we come up aginst the reluctance of archaeologists to take seriously any suggestions from amateurs. That leads to frustration and DIY digging. As regards Davids Cairn - I can only agree with everybody else. Its very well made but only slightly older than Foamhenge!