Yes and all those red letter boxes would just have to be for votive offerings if a latter day Francis Pryor was one of your future archaeologists.

More and more I take the Littlestone views of henges, but not stone circles. Sure - dig a ditch and raise a bank then top it with thorn scrub or wooden stakes. That will corral the livestock. But to heft all those great big stones around to make a stock proof fence is just plain daft - and they weren't daft. A megalithic hammer to crack a very small nut.

Always a mistake to assume that they were all built at the same time for the same purpose.

I'm not necessarily claiming that ancient monuments are depictive of fundamental spiritual truths, or that they reflect mysterious alignments or magical features.

I'm simply saying that they are some of the earliest examples we have of formal arrangements imposed upon nature by man. Now, imagine a pristine forest before the evolution of human beings...doesn't tell you very much about human nature. But imagine that landscape thousands of years later (let's say shortly after the extinction of our species): the trees are gone; the earth has been levelled; structures of metal and stone stand in dissarray. What you are imagining are formal structures imposed upon the earth by man. The fact that the structures are utilitarian does not mean that they teach you nothing about man. Interpretation of those relics would reveal facts about the way we lived, the technology we had at our disposal, and what we conceived as our goals in life.

It is in this sense that I say stone circles are complex propositions. They may or may not be conscious attempts to communicate or record; they may simply be utilitarian structures. Nevertheless, there were complex minds at work behind the efforts of those ancient builders. We can learn about those minds by interpreting the forms they left behind.