I think Gordon's method actually applies much better to saying that the many tombs and circles in, say, county Cork or the Scottish Recumbents could have been 'Family Monuments' rather than 'Community Monuments'.

i.e. that a small group could have transported the stones (which are quite big in most cases) easily and there was not a need for a whole village.

I can not believe myself that building something like Stonehenge was done by a few people.

*******

I also thought about this the other day. The people of Easter Island totally deforrested the island just to move and erect their statues. There aren't all that many really, but they are huge (there is an incomplete one in a quarry that is over 60foot long). They obviously had great skill at moving and erecting these. Surely they would have come up with the same method, too. If they did have such a 'wood-cheap' method, then why was the island deforrested?

Firstly, I`d just like to repeat this:

>I`ll try not to mention this again, but you should settle for moving a 40 ton stone
>over Salisbury Plain, an enormous task, first. If you can do that, you`ll get the
>funding for tackling the far more difficult and expensive problem of raising a trilithon.

:o)

I presume that I`ve already got a reputation on this thread for being negative, that`s why I`ve shut up for a bit. I suppose that it`s my matter-of-fact style of writing that gets people`s goat and my way of expression just alienates people to what I`m saying.

Secondly, err....I disagree (LOL) with what your saying about whether they would have erected the stones in this way. Once you`ve mastered the theory of moving large weights horizontally with the lever method, it seems to me that the logical progression would be to attempt to apply it vertically, too. It must be a lot easier than any other method. Don`t forget, Gordon suggests that his method was used to build the pyramids, too.

baz

Nigel, one of your recurring themes has been that the archaeological establishment already accepts that large numbers of people would have been involved in the construction of Stonehenge. You suggested that we are using the "small numbers" factor as a means of justifying our method. I think that perhaps the reverse is true; the establishment has based its "large numbers" thinking on the fact that they haven't been able to see a way of doing it with a small team.

I have done a little web-research and it would seem that the population at the time consisted mainly of small agricultural settlements. There are so many neolithic sites around Britain that:

1. When a particular community wanted to erect a megalithic structure, then a large workforce was assembled from many surrounding communities, rather like Amish barn building. However, this would involve many man-hours because you not only have to build your own, but you have to help everyone for miles around to build theirs. It's also likely to give rise to resentment: "Hey come on, be fair now! You Salisbury guys only helped us erect a single monolith, and now you expect us to build a whole blinkin' circle".
-or-
2. An elite priesthood or aristocracy existed (with like-minded factions all over Britain) who were able to conscript whomever they wanted to build these structures.
-or-
3. A community was capable of building its own megalithic structure.

Take your pick. Gordon's method certainly allows for this latter option, which none of the other theories do. Mind you, there are counter examples, like Silbury Hill. I'd like to see anyone put up a replica of that in 24 hours!