I'm going to combine a few replies into one here.

Nigel,

I think if we do the stone-rowing first and show how efficient and viable it is, then the erection method is a natural follow-on of the technique. You seem to putting a lot of emphasis on the number of people. I don't think it matters that much. The small number is merely a consequence of the method, not the other way round.

FourWinds: "The people of Easter Island totally deforrested the island just to move and erect their statues."

How do we know that the deforestation occurred because of the statue erecting; perhaps they just used a lot of firewood? I don't understand how a method for erecting statues would consume timber. Gordon's method probably uses more than most for the crib building, but it is recyclable for the next statue.

Baza: "Don`t forget, Gordon suggests that his method was used to build the pyramids, too."

Nice to see you being positive. Now perhaps it's my turn to be negative. I only got involved in this Stonehenge project because of a posting that Gordon made in a Usenet group that I follow because of it's occasional Egyptian content. Whereas British Megaliths are the pet subject of most of the people on this forum, Egyptian construction is mine. I won't bore you with the detail here, but suffice to say that I do not think that Gordon's method is applicable to the two million or so core blocks that constitute the major part of the construction, though it may have been used for the 40 or so 70 ton blocks that roof the so-called King's Chamber. Sorry, Gordon.