They've been banging on about Stone Henge quite a bit on the radio recently, this is largely due to the archealogical excavation that's going to take place there next month, with the aim of recovering carbon-datable samples that will possibly serve as evidence as to what sort of times the people who built it lived in, and thus give an indication of the age of the henge itself. This is no doubt stoking up excitement among historians who are keeping their fingers crossed that bones or other artefacts will surface that will prove that the monument is indeed the four thousand-odd years old that it is commonly believe to be, or even older - but I am keeping an open mind about this. I'm reserving judgement, because I think there's a chance that it's actually not as old as people think it is, as it is commonly accepted to be. I think we should be looking at evidence that might suggest that it is in fact quite young, rather than specifically concentrating on evidence that it is old - and in thinking about this we might shed more light on a conclusion as to WHY it is there, rather than just assuming it is 'something to do with the pagan religion'. I would be interested to discuss how old you think StoneHenge really is.