We’ve been debating if there could be any immediate gain to today’s society in knowing what drew people to construct monuments of the past such as Stonehenge. Not so much about what it was used for after its construction but instead what initial concern could be so great that it could drive the eventual construction.
For example, there is a possibility that a monument could have been unifying in an abstract sense: Monuments can unify, particularly where their primary purpose is seen as being essential to the continuance of a society (for example Parliament).
If monuments were constructed voluntarily for the benefit of all, the reason for construction could be related to the continuance of society. Though done in a very different fashion, an expression of such a logical concern for society appears to exist elsewhere as a whole series of linked monuments. The same concern also appears to be described in the carvings related to those monuments:
|Newgrange, one of a series of monuments in Ireland.|
Perhaps this is just one big coincidence, but the benefits of such places would be expressed by a construction such as Stonehenge if it was used as described in ‘Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic’. This makes for a very plausible and interesting background to the novels but, as far as I can tell, there would be no immediate benefit to society (via archaeology) in understanding the detail of these coincidences.
I've been trying to set a personal deadline, perhaps 3-10 years, to get the novels written. There is a temptation to instead do the next book in the series of ‘Solving the Neolithic’ but it would be a significant spoiler for the novels’ storyline.