Thanks George. I agree: It needs to be spelt out in a lot of detail. Time consuming process to get it to a state where the intro would be easy to grasp because you have to forget everything that we know and every assumption we take for granted: Start from scratch and go in a different direction. Normally with intros you're expanding on existing knowledge.

I've used Eogan and O'Kelly's work to check the initial data (as well as the site check): No inconsistencies so far but it's not like Stonehenge where everything is accessible, so everything could fall apart on entry to the inaccessible bits. The astronomical and calendrical theories seem over-complex to me, but there might be some secondary or dual purpose: There's one complex motif that seems overly developed to my eyes.

Will let you know what response I get!