>Why would they do the same all across the UK and Ireland if the resources were different in each place? In a place with lots of timber it would make sense to use that, and in places where stone is plentiful and no timber, they would use stone. Why then is the general construction the same across such wide areas?<

Sorry CML, I'm not quite following you here. Are you saying that stone circles across the UK and Ireland are basically the same? If you are, I'd basically agree with you, but having said that we don't know how many circles were made from organic material (that have now perished) and those circles may have been as equally widespread as the stone ones that have survived but different to them in appearance.

>...using large boulders instead of dry stone wall is not nearly as efficient or practical for holding animals...<

Well, with the greatest respect, I'm afraid I don't agree with you there; it all depends what materials you have to hand. Large to small boulders are scattered around at Piggledene but the flatter stones suitable for dry stone walling are not - you would need to go into the Cotswolds before that sort of stone became abundant.

>One man can gather and lay stones for dry stone walls but moving those large stones takes several men to make a smaller enclosure in more time.<

Yes, I agree, but that is based on the assumption that both materials are available at the same site. If you only have one or the other you don't really have much choice.

>...then we also have boulder burials in the centre of medium sized circles and not forgetting the tiny five stone circles that would hardly house more than a single dog.<

Or a single pig. I am quite serious here. If you've got a pig you've got to have a pretty good pen to hold it in because pigs are big and strong and like to splosh about - especially Neolithic pigs (well I haven't actually <i>seen</i> a Neolithic pig but I have seen an Anglo-Saxon pig which at first sight looked like a baby hippo :-)

>...if we know a large number had at least some features of ritual use, and add up all the different features found on every ring showing them, then it pretty much spells out that the general form is ritual.<

Would it actually be possible to demonstrate that a large number (of circles) show features of ritual use? What did 'ritual' mean in the Neolithic? For example, if a ritual connection <i>is</i> there in a stone circle was it religious in nature or ceremonial? Perhaps ritual in this context might be more functional than religious - such as the quickest and most advantageous way to dispatch an animal?

Enjoy debating the issue with you CML and am happy to be proved wrong on any of the above :-)