Question: What types of methods do various authors beieve were used to move Stonehenge?
About the article "Stonehenge", section "Function and construction".

Candidate passages:
Stonehenge was produced by a culture that left no written records.
Many aspects of Stonehenge remain subject to debate.
This multiplicity of theories, some of them very colourful, are often called the "mystery of Stonehenge".
A number of myths surround the stones.
There is little or no direct evidence for the construction techniques used by the Stonehenge builders.
Over the years, various authors have suggested that supernatural or anachronistic methods were used, usually asserting that the stones were impossible to move otherwise.
However, conventional techniques, using Neolithic technology as basic as shear legs, have been demonstrably effective at moving and placing stones of a similar size.
Proposed functions for the site include usage as an astronomical observatory or as a religious site.
More recently two major new theories have been proposed.
Professor Geoffrey Wainwright OBE, FSA, president of the Society of Antiquaries of London, and Professor Timothy Darvill, OBE of Bournemouth University have suggested that Stonehenge was a place of healing – the primeval equivalent of Lourdes.
They argue that this accounts for the high number of burials in the area and for the evidence of trauma deformity in some of the graves.
However they do concede that the site was probably multifunctional and used for ancestor worship as well.
Isotope analysis indicates that some of the buried individuals were from other regions.
A teenage boy buried approximately 1550 BC was raised near the Mediterranean Sea; a metal worker from 2300 BC dubbed the "Amesbury Archer" grew up near the alpine foothills of Germany; and the "Boscombe Bowmen" probably arrived from Wales or Brittany, France.
On the other hand, Professor Mike Parker Pearson of Sheffield University has suggested that Stonehenge was part of a ritual landscape and was joined to Durrington Walls by their corresponding avenues and the River Avon.
He suggests that the area around Durrington Walls Henge was a place of the living, whilst Stonehenge was a domain of the dead.
A journey along the Avon to reach Stonehenge was part of a ritual passage from life to death, to celebrate past ancestors and the recently deceased.
Both explanations were first mooted in the 12th century by Geoffrey of Monmouth (below), who extolled the curative properties of the stones and was also the first to advance the idea that Stonehenge was constructed as a funerary monument.
Whatever religious, mystical or spiritual elements were central to Stonehenge, its design includes a celestial observatory function, which might have allowed prediction of eclipse, solstice, equinox and other celestial events important to a contemporary religion.
Another theory, brought forth in 2012, suggests that the monument was intended to unify the different peoples of the British island.
This theory suggests that the massive amount of labour involved in the construction of Stonehenge necessitated inter-regional cooperation, especially as many of the stones were moved over very long distances, for example from quarries in Wales.
Prevalent throughout the film is the incorporation of pseudoarchaeology concepts.
One in particular is Jacob Glaser’s reference to a robot head on the moon.
To many, a photograph of an entity on the moon’s surface “proves” that extraterrestrial beings once visited the moon.
It is far more likely that the image represents an anthropomorphic rock formation has led to the occurrence of pareidolia, a vague symbol being interpreted as something far more that what it actually is.
Pseudoarchaeological claims such as the robot head on the moon can be at times quite difficult to separate from valid, logical, and scientific archaeological claims.
Credentialed experts, which is how Glaser is portrayed in the film, lend legitimacy to outrageous archaeological explanations.
The danger of this is in how the measures taken to provide evidentiary support for pseudoarchaeological premises are so extensive and readily available to the public.
Supporting charts, scientific jargon, photography, and thinly veiled arguments lends to creating the illusion of truth.
When the claims are logically dissected, they tend to fall apart.
However, skepticism is ubiquitous in the general public.
Pseudoarchaeology is popular because it is presented in a way that excites and entices the public’s curiosity.
The other scientists in the film may have mocked Glaser for his participation in pseudoscientific subculture, but the result is they gave up their skepticism.
He saves the world with one correct theory, but does that make all of his other theories correct?
When examining archaeological evidence, one should be able to separate the person making the claim, and how “correct” they may have been in the past, from what actual logical evidence is being provided on a case-by-case basis.
In other words, look at these claims and critically analyze their intrinsic merits.
If something seems outlandish, overly complicated, and impossible, then it probably is.
A second pseudo-archaeological concept in "Stonehenge Apocalypse" is the inclusion of an archaeological find as evidence of ancient extraterrestrial influence.
In this film the Antikythera Mechanism is this archeological find.
In the "Stonehenge Apocalypse" world, the Antikythera Mechanism is an ancient relic created by an ancient race, who lived on the Earth far prior to humans.
This ancient species was powerful enough to harness the power of a global energy grid as a terraforming process.
They assigned certain focal points across the globe as energy hubs for electromagnetic energy.
The catalyst to unleash the electromagnetic energy is located at the archaeological site of Stonehenge.
After activation, the stones at Stonehenge would continue to rotate and every ten hours a cataclysmic eruption would occur at one of the epicenters of the electromagnetic grid.
At the end of the terraforming process, all previous life on the earth would be destroyed with the exception of primordial bacteria.
In the film, the Antikythera Mechanism is the key to unlocking an ancient buried pyramid which can act as a sanctuary for those chosen few who are chosen to survive the terraforming.
The scientists in the film posit that the reason that archaeologists were not able to figure out the Antikythera mechanism was because knowledge was lost over the millennia.
Its complexity necessitated that it be created by otherworldly beings, rather than ancestors of modern humans- a common pseudo-archaeological claim.
The real-life story behind the Antikythera Mechanism is less sensational and otherworldly than depicted in the movie.
The Antikythera Mechanism is thought to be an ancient analog computer, designed to calculate astronomical positions.
It was discovered from a shipwreck around 1900-1901.
The find is interesting because the technology required was thought not to have been invented until the 14th century A.D. when astronomy emerged in Western Europe.
The antiquity of the object is one basis for the pseudo-archaeological claims for the mechanism’s origins.
However, antiquity and complexity are not sufficient evidence to support a pseudo-archaeological claim.
Researchers are continuing to study the device to find out its exact origins and function.
One such team is called the Antikythera Mechanism Research project.
This is a collaboration of researchers dedicated to using advanced scientific and archaeological methods to study the device.
Techniques used to study the mechanism include x-ray images, and an innovative digital imaging system, “a Dome that surrounds the sample under examination and takes a series of still photos to analyze the three-dimensional structure of the surface.
This enables astonishingly detailed examination of fine details such as faded and worn inscriptions.” They also now have a powerful new x-ray machine called the “Bladerunner” which is capable of taking three-dimensional x-rays with a resolution of better than .1 millimeter.
It is now possible to read inscriptions illegible for two thousand years.
According to the team, this is helping to build a comprehensive picture of the functions of the Antikythera Mechanism.
Although we don’t immediately know everything about the mechanism we do know some things about it.
Archaeology is a discipline that focuses on using the scientific method to answer questions about the past.
Although these questions and answers may seem less exciting than alien intervention, in the long term they are much more rewarding.
The plot of "Stonehenge Apocalypse" revolves around the pseudo-archeological concept of Ley lines, wherein many worldwide ancient historical sites are thought to be connected by a type of mystical energy.
In the film, Stonehenge serves as the central point where lines meet up, and is thus at the center of a powerful ancient doomsday device, capable of affecting various monuments worldwide that lie upon these lines.
The notion of the possible existence of Ley lines arose in archeology initially from the discovery of a series of Neolithic stone monuments, found predominantly in Britain.
These monuments, which date back roughly to between four and two millennia BPE, were initially thought to be interconnected, with such a hypothesis being offered as a possible explanation by the antiquarian Alfred Watkins in the 1920s.
Many explanations for the straight lines apparently connecting various historical sites worldwide have been offered, suggesting deliberate intention by the builders of the sites.
However, for the most part, the concept of ley lines is ridiculed by nearly all serious archeologists.
In the 1970s, a thorough examination of the statistical significance of various sites seemingly on a linear path, conducted by the Royal Statistical Society and Simon Broadbent, attempted to determine the normality of the distribution of these megalithic sites.
In assessing the various manners in which a ‘ley-hunter’ might seek to connect certain points of interest on a map, Broadbent stressed that much of the work surrounding ley lines is done in a fashion similar to Watkins’ initial approach: "Stick a steel pin on the site or an undoubted sighting point, place a straightedge against it, and move it round until several…of the objects named and marked come exactly in line."
Watkins’ methodology regarding tracing the connectedness between various points on a map allowed for a consideration of coincidence for three sites or fewer being connected.
Examination of Watkins’ claims using various statistical methods, predominantly the Angular Triad method, concluded that the number of tetrads, pentads and hexads observed, connecting at various points, did not exceed random allowance or expectation.
The Royal Statistical Society report additionally focused on possible errors, which could arise from measuring ley lines over time, placing little to no emphasis on the notions regarding underground energy currents associated with the lines. 
A recently published analysis draws attention to the fact that the stones display mirrored symmetry and that the only undisputed alignment to be found is that of the solstices, which can be regarded as the axis of that symmetry.
This interpretation sees the monument as having been designed off-site, largely prefabricated and set out to conform to survey markers set out to an exact geometric plan.
The idea of ‘precision’ (below) demands that exact points of reference were used, both between the structural elements and in relation to the axis (i.e.
that of the solstices).
Johnson’s theory asserts that prehistoric survey markers could not have been placed within the footprint of the stones, but must have been (as in any construction) external to the stones.
That almost all the stones have one ‘better’ i.e.
flatter face, and that face is almost invariably inwards, suggests that the construction was set out so that the prehistoric builders could use the center point of the inner faces as reference.
This is very significant in respect of the Great Trilithon; the surviving upright has its flatter face outwards (see image on right), towards the midwinter sunset, and was raised from the inside.
The remainder of the trilithon array (and almost all of the stones of the Sarsen Circle) had construction ramps which sloped inwards, and were therefore set up from the outside.
Placing the centre face of the stones (regardless of their thickness) against markers would mean that the ‘gaps’ between the stones were simply consequential.
The study of the geometric layout of the monument shows that such methods were used and that there is a clear argument for regarding other outlying elements as part of a geometric scheme (e.g.
the ‘Station Stones’ and the stoneholes 92 and 94 which mark two opposing facets of an octagon).
A geometric design is scalable from concept to construction, removing much of the need for measurements to be made at all.
Much speculation has surrounded the engineering feats required to build Stonehenge.
Assuming the bluestones were brought from Wales by hand, and not transported by glaciers as Aubrey Burl has claimed, various methods of moving them relying only on timber and rope have been suggested.
In a 2001 exercise in experimental archaeology, an attempt was made to transport a large stone along a land and sea route from Wales to Stonehenge.
Volunteers pulled it for some miles (with great difficulty) on a wooden sledge over land, using modern roads and low-friction netting to assist sliding, but it became clear that it would have been incredibly difficult for even the most organized of tribal groups to have pulled large numbers of stones across the densely wooded, rough and boggy terrain of West Wales.
In 2010, "Nova"'"s" "Secrets of Stonehenge" broadcast an effective technique for moving the stones over short distances using ball bearings in a wooden track as originally envisioned by Andrew Young, a graduate student of Bruce Bradley—director of experimental archaeology at the University of Exeter.
:"Experts hit on the new idea after examining mysterious stone balls found near Stonehenge-like monuments in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
About the size of a cricket ball, they are precisely fashioned to be within a millimetre of the same size.
This suggests they were meant to be used together in some way rather than individually."
In 1997 Julian Richards teamed up with Mark Witby and Roger Hopkins to conduct several experiments to replicate the construction at Stonehenge for NOVA's "Secrets of Lost Empires" mini series.
They arranged for a gang of 130 people to attempt to tow a 40 ton concrete replica on a sledge which was placed on wooden tracks.
They used grease to make it easier to tow up a slight incline and still they were unable to budge it.
They gathered additional men and had some of them use levers to try to pry the megalith while others towed it at the same time.
When they all worked together at the same time they were able to move it forward.
They were uncertain whether this would be the way they would have transported the largest stones 25 miles.
To do this would require an enormous amount of track and a lot of coordination for a large number of people.
In some cases this would involve towing the stones over rougher terrain.
They also conducted an experiment to erect 2 forty ton replicas and put a 9 ton lintel on top.
After a lot of experimenting they were able to erect 2 megaliths using a large number of people towing and using levers.
They also managed to tow the lintel up a steel ramp.
They were unable to determine this was the final answer but they demonstrated that this was a possible method.
At times they were forced to use modern technology for safety reasons.
Josh Bernstein and Julian Richards organized an experiment to pull a 2 ton stone on wooden tracks with a group of about 16 men.
They placed the stone on a wooden sledge then placed the sledge on a wooden track.
They pulled this with two gangs of about 8 men.
To move the stones as many miles across Southern England, the creators of Stonehenge would have had to build a lot of track, or move and rebuild track in pieces, as the stones were taken to their final destination.
A recent article has argued that the massive stones could be moved by submerging them in water and towing them below an ancient vessel or group of vessels.
This technique would have two significant advantages.
It would reduce the load borne by the vessel while part of the stone's weight is displaced by the water.
Secondly, the arrangement of the load below the vessel would be much more stable and reduce the risk of catastrophic failure.
Naturally, this would apply only for transportation over water.
The technique was tried during the Millennium Stone Project 2000, with a single bluestone slung beneath two large curraghs.
The sling frayed away, and the stone plunged to the bed of Milford Haven.
It has been suggested that timber A-frames were erected to raise the stones, and that teams of people then hauled them upright using ropes.
The topmost stones may have been raised up incrementally on timber platforms and slid into place or pushed up ramps.
The carpentry-type joints used on the stones imply a people well skilled in woodworking and they could easily have had the knowledge to erect the monument using such methods.
In 2003 retired construction worker Wally Wallington demonstrated ingenious techniques based on fundamental principles of levers, fulcrums and counterweights to show that a single man can rotate, walk, lift and tip a ten-ton cast-concrete monolith into an upright position.
He is progressing with his plan to construct a simulated Stonehenge with eight uprights and two lintels.
Alexander Thom was of the opinion that the site was laid out with the necessary precision using his megalithic yard.
The engraved weapons on the sarsens are unique in megalithic art in the British Isles, where more abstract designs were invariably favoured.
Similarly, the horseshoe arrangements of stones are unusual in a culture that otherwise arranged stones in circles.
The axe motif is, however, common to the peoples of Brittany at the time, and it has been suggested at least two stages of Stonehenge were built under continental influence.
This would go some way towards explaining the monument's atypical design, but overall, Stonehenge is still inexplicably unusual in the context of any prehistoric European culture.
Estimates of the manpower needed to build Stonehenge put the total effort involved at millions of hours of work.
Stonehenge 1 probably needed around 11,000 man-hours (or 460 man-days) of work, Stonehenge 2 around 360,000 (15,000 man-days or 41 years).
The various parts of Stonehenge 3 may have involved up to 1.75 million hours (73,000 days or 200 years) of work.
The working of the stones is estimated to have required around 20 million hours (830,000 days or 2,300 years) of work using the primitive tools available at the time.
Certainly, the will to produce such a site must have been strong, and an advanced social organization would have been necessary to build and maintain it.
However, Wally Wallington's work suggests that Stonehenge's construction may have required fewer man-hours than previously estimated.
Note that the estimate of 20 million man-hours means that 10,000 men working on the site for 20 days each year, for 8 hours per day, could have completed it in 12.5 years. 
I/O automata provide an accurate description of asynchronous systems.
They are also used to formalize and prove "precise claims" about "what systems can do."
In this section, a number of important types of properties are described.
These, as well as further properties and proof methods, are explained in "Distributed Algorithms". 
It is claimed that Stonehenge (3100 BC – 2200 BC) has golden ratio proportions between its concentric circles.
Kimberly Elam proposes this relation as early evidence of human cognitive preference for the golden ratio.
However, others point out that this interpretation of Stonehenge "may be doubtful" and that the geometric construction that generates it can only be surmised.
Various authors discern golden ratio proportions in Egyptian, Sumerian and Greek vases, Chinese pottery, Olmec sculptures, and Cretan and Mycenaean products from the late Bronze Age, which predates by about 1,000 years the Greek mathematicians who were first known to have studied the golden ratio.
However, the historical sources are obscure, and the analyses are difficult to compare because they employ differing methods.
The Great Pyramid of Giza (constructed c. 2570 BC by Hemiunu) exhibits the golden ratio according to various pyramidologists, including Charles Funck-Hellet.
John F. Pile, interior design professor and historian, has claimed that Egyptian designers sought the golden proportions without mathematical techniques and that it is common to see the 1.618:1 ratio, along with many other simpler geometrical concepts, in their architectural details, art, and everyday objects found in tombs.
In his opinion, "That the Egyptians knew of it and used it seems certain.
"Even before the beginning of these theories, some other historians and mathematicians have always proposed alternative theories for the pyramid designs that are not related to any use of the golden ratio, and are instead based on purely rational slopes that only approximate the golden ratio.
The Egyptians of those times apparently did not know the Pythagorean theorem; the only right triangle whose proportions they knew was the 3:4:5 triangle.
Carlos Chanfón Olmos states that the Sculpture of King Gudea (c. 2350 BC) clearly has golden proportions between all of its secondary elements repeated many times at its base.