>> Anyone know if the depths of the postholes at say Woodhenge were all the same depth?
>> I was wondering whether or not the posts would have been the same height above ground?

The representations show different heights. I assume they have some evidence for this, but don't know what it is.

>> Mike Pitts gives the impression that archaeologists are working on 3/4 above ground 1/4 below. So a >> four foot hole gives a 12m high post.

The maths doesn't quite work there - 4 foot holes = 12 <i>foot</i> high posts

>> Is there any reason why the rings couldn't be different heights?

Can't think of one

>> SECOND QUERY
>> Any reason why like Seahenge the posts couldn't have infact been upside down trees? Say with the
>> bark stripped and "higher" branches, the ninserted upside down to create a canopy covering of root
>> balls?

Again no reason at all and it's one I've certainly considered for the central post. I presume ground compaction at the base of the hole would say something. Root balls are quite heavy, so it would mean a shorter post for the same ground compaction.

>> VAGUE IDEA
>> The central space. Anyone ever seen an old oak tree? It dies and rots away on the inside, but
>> remains alive. Imagine if you had to travel inland. You might keep close to the river as a landmark,
>> it's direction of flow can help you navigate. You keep an eye out for any defendable space to protect
>> you from bears, wolves, etc.

>> If you get stuck in the forest you can camp inside an old oak tree with your fire outside the
>> hole/entrance/

>> On a return journey you might widen the clearing around the tree, creating a clear and open central
>> space in the forest.

>> Sound likely? Stone circles are usually close to water, I like the idea of controlling a space within an
>> uncontrollable area.

Personally I'd rather keep pigs in them!

>> Your thoughts please.

You just read them :-)

I don't buy the maths and suspect the reconstructions.. Ever since the inverted tree at Seahenge, I have fancied the notion that what went down into the ground was possibly more important than what was above ground. Maybe that is why the TT reconstruction of Seahenge looks wrong.