Standing stones have been studied by European archaeologists for well over a century, but very little conclusive fact has been determined. There is little to study apart from the stones themselves, and what excavation there has been has uncovered few remains.

There is a popular belief that they are part of something mystical, and a misguided idea that they guard funerary remains. Though in the UK no direct evidence supports the latter, no proof on the other hand denies the many theories on connections with mystical networks, ancient powers, earth energies, druidic worship sites or spiritual lore and primordial symbolism.

Research of these megaliths has followed two main avenues. The first and most common is interpretation of their distribution, associations with landscape, soil quality and comparison with other megalithic structures.

The second, experimental archaeology, addresses standing stones from a practical angle; how to raise and move the rock, what equipment might be used, and of what material were these likely made and how were the work forces organised.

Mixing a little of both avenues with anthropology, I wonder whether observation of society today can help shed light on standing stones?

Meinihirion, vertically raised stones in Welsh, were placed permanently in the ground by people living during the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC and their high concentration in the landscape, more than 50 for instance on Anglesey alone, coins them as Western European prehistoric cultural expressions.

There are three phases to establishing a standing stone: obtaining the rock; transporting it to the site; and raising it into place, generally in a hole two thirds of its height above ground and secured firmly with small packing stones and earth. Undertaking such a project requires more effort than could reasonably be supplied by one extended family.

Not only does moving and lifting involve at the least the labour of numerous able-bodied people, but the preparatory work of making rope from hide and plant fibres, felling timber rollers and extracting the rock from the ground requires much time and energy.

Alongside these practical issues lies organisation. In an age when excess food was rarely had, due to the semi-nomadic nature of life, obtaining sufficient food to cover the whole undertaking was not an easy task. Help from other extended and neighbouring families was therefore likely drafted.

A resulting meinhir was thus a result of communal effort, belonging and known to all families involved. Might current youth behaviour reflect social activity at meinhir sites after their establishment? There is little archaeological evidence of gatherings at meinhir sites, yet might this not be part of their purpose?

On a Saturday during the Easter holidays, I noticed 20 young people spending their free time in the University Gardens at Bangor. They went there independently, not to be idle, but to be sociable.

The location was a setting of three low stone walls enclosing a junction of three narrow paved pathways, one leading to the garden entrance, the other two heading for the university terrace and Main Arts Building.

Marked permanently by stone, the site lies centrally between the areas the youths live in and is also a junction of pathways from these areas. There are no restrictions of status, wealth or appearance that might otherwise prevent particular individuals or groups from gathering.

The youths enjoy gathering here; they feel at ease and know that they can always meet up with their 'extended family' without hassle and on their own terms.

Does this, perhaps, reflect a dimension to the purpose and location of standing stones?