••• CLICK HERE FOR AMT196 •••
Penny from Fetcham, Surrey is throwing down quite the gauntlet here:
Why are people SO amazed by Stonehenge? It’s big, but it’s not that big, and it got there by being rolled on other big stones. Wow.
There’re lots of similar stone circles in France anyway, and they don’t make a massive deal of it over there.
I’ve always been underwhelmed by it. So answer me this:
Why should I be impressed by Stonehenge?
Erm…because it’s ancient and mysterious? Because it really livens up a trip along the A303? Because without it, there would be no Carhenge?
Readers, flock to the comments and explain why Stonehenge is the shit, or, if you agree with Penny, why it is just shit.
Answer Me This! Podcast 
November 22, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
It’s important to bear in mind that everything has it’s place in the order of things and should be compared to other things that have their place in the order of things and not things that don’t have their place in the order of things although thinking about it there are no things like that as we have already established that everything has it’s place in the order of things.
What i mean is that even though in some respects stonehenge and that is just a pile of big stones standing up, back when they first arrived then there was probably only grass and maybe some bushes so in that respect when the big standing up stones arrived the grass and bushes would have been like “wow! look at that! that’s amazing!” and then when sheep came along both the grass and bushes and the standing up stones would be like “wtf? that’s mad!” and then when people came along the rest of them would all be like “this is getting crazy mad!” and like on the one hand you can say yeah it’s just a load of big stones standing up and on one hand that’s true but if you put them next to like the times crossword or esso or the films of graham bennsonn on the other hand it’s more like ah ok, now i get it and then if you try to put something on the other hand you can’t as both hands are already being fully utilised, unless you have three hands in which case you are probably quite something anyway and to you i guess the standing stones are just a load of big stones standing up, so the argument could maybe be summarised as three hands yay two hands nay or the other way round if what i just said was the wrong way round.
That’s it really.
November 20, 2011 at 10:01 am |
Anyone think the skeletal remains that were found there are worth a little awe? How about the evidence that it was part of a network of sites in the area and part of a seasonal mass hike that probably had deep spiritual/existential significance to the participants? What about the ridiculously large buried avenue?
Or how about this sad thought: if a later civilization can’t figure out how an earlier civilization created their wonders, that later civilization is rightly described as “degenerate”. And pretending that the earlier civilization was “primitive” is just sour grapes.
November 18, 2011 at 8:47 am |
Shu..gar. I didn’t mean to post twice
November 18, 2011 at 8:46 am |
It’s what we don’t know. It’s not just rocks, it’s engineered rocks. It took hundreds of thousands of man hours to put the pile of rocks together
And it inspires this question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GxkBDJajg4
November 18, 2011 at 8:43 am |
It’s not the rocks of Stonehenge, they’re just rocks
It’s the fact that it was made for something, something that we do not know: It has a flat level top furface, it has inwardly facing circular rim, carved in stone to be exact. It has many other features that make it precise and unique. They spent hundreds of thousands of man hours making it.
It’s still just a bunch of rocks but it inspires this question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GxkBDJajg4&feature=related
(if you haven’t seen the video, you won’t be expecting what happens in it)
November 17, 2011 at 10:36 am |
I’ve got to disagree with the above two comments.
I visited Stonehenge a couple of years ago after having enjoyed other such sites as Avebury and Rollright, was found the whole experience massively depressing. I won’t knock the stones themselves, what out ancestors left for us here thousands of years ago is undoubtedly impressive. The problem is what has been done to the site in the century.
Seriously, you are not allowed to get anywhere near the stones, they are so far away in fact that you might as well just stand drooling in the awful gift shop/shopping arcade watching the promotional video, you’ll get a better look at it that way. Also, the fact that you have to walk though an underpass from the (overpriced) carpark to get to it gives a lovely inter-city slum feel to the whole experience.
The whole thing is a perfect example of how amazing historical sites are ruined by throwing money at it to ‘touristify’ it (sorry, when I get angry I start to make up words. It is a recognised medical condition).
November 20, 2011 at 11:35 pm |
I don’t know if you’re aware of the history of the current facilities (for people who haven’t been there, it’s a small car park, a souvenir and book shop, an outdoor cafe, a pair of ticket gates, a staff room, a tourist information hut and an underpass to get under the busy road – all being a ‘temporary’ solution dating from over 50 years ago, before mass tourism), the sad reasons for having to keep people out of the stone circle itself (vandalism, erosion) and the enormous difficulties encountered in reconciling all the different points of view in order to try and improve the situation?
It would be wonderful to have a majestic monument in splendid isolation on pristine chalk grassland where the 8500-ish people who arrive by car and coach on a typical summer Saturday could wander freely inside its 100′ diameter stone circle.
Unfortunately, that’s not realistic and successive governments haven’t seen fit to fund any desperately needed improvements until in the dying days of the previous Labour administration.
That most recent plan to build a new, low impact visitor centre and exhibition space a mile away from the monument in order to be able to demolish the existing facilities, close the road and return the monument to a grassland setting was nearly scuppered when the incoming Tory/LibDem coalition removed that funding.
It is still planned (and the axed funding has now been raised by other means), but depends in part on the outcome of a recent public inquiry into the restriction of motorised traffic along the byways that most closely approach the monument across the World Heritage Site.
What’s often overlooked is that the not-for-profit state organisation that has responsibility for Stonehenge also looks after about 400 other ancient and historical sites which need maintenance and protection. The money raised at Stonehenge helps to pay for all those other important, though less popular (or even largely unknown) places to be conserved for future generations.
November 15, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
It’s not about hugeness, but about (pre)history, and our lack of knowledge about it.
There’s an almost palpable sense of the ancient there (apart from the gift shop), especially when you look to the horizon in every direction and see Neolithic burial mounds as far as the eye can see. Like looking through a telescope, a visit to Stonehenge makes you aware of your insignificance – you’re dwarfed not by the size of the rocks, but the vastness of time that they encapsulate.
THAT’S WHY YOU SHOULD BE IMPRESSED, DAMMIT.
Also, because the Elder Gods will feast on your entrails if you fail to display the requisite awe.
November 15, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
Its a lot bigger than you think, it is quite weird, there isn’t anything quite like it.
It isn’t the biggest stone circle even in the UK (Avebury), and that whole ritual landscape is pretty important arcaeologically.
Also it looks fucking awesome when you drive past, especially if you catch it silhouetted against the sky in the evening
If you think the french don’t make as big a thing of it, you having heard them spaffing over Carnac, and thats just a bunch of alignments 😉