61–70 of 73 posts
It seems like it would be a mistake to say things like "it was for science and not religion" or vice versa. Additionally, also seems like it would be very hard to say "it was definitely not for eclipses," given the difficulty in proving the negative? Like, maybe it was and it just didn't work right.
As the last two paragraphs of TFA point out, this idea is now widely discredited. However, there are a lot of things that don't seem widely known in popular culture about Stonehenge that might colour perceptions about this theory, and the counters to it. First, it's worth remembering the thing you look at today has been mucked about with for thousands of years. It's not "original". Depending on your definition of tha…
I think people underestimate how similar to us people were a few thousand years ago. We build places like Glastonbury and Burning Man all the time and it doesn’t really mean much beyond looking kind of cool. Stonehenge might just be something like that.
As the last two paragraphs of TFA point out, this idea is now widely discredited. However, there are a lot of things that don't seem widely known in popular culture about Stonehenge that might colour perceptions about this theory, and the counters to it. First, it's worth remembering the thing you look at today has been mucked about with for thousands of years. It's not "original". Depending on your definition of tha…
I think people underestimate how similar to us people were a few thousand years ago. We build places like Glastonbury and Burning Man all the time and it doesn’t really mean much beyond looking kind of cool. Stonehenge might just be something like that.
In Alaska we still head out to fish camp. Places along the river where people gather for a few months because that is where the food is. Building a permanent structure at such places for seasonal use just seems logical.
As the last two paragraphs of TFA point out, this idea is now widely discredited. However, there are a lot of things that don't seem widely known in popular culture about Stonehenge that might colour perceptions about this theory, and the counters to it. First, it's worth remembering the thing you look at today has been mucked about with for thousands of years. It's not "original". Depending on your definition of tha…
I think people underestimate how similar to us people were a few thousand years ago. We build places like Glastonbury and Burning Man all the time and it doesn’t really mean much beyond looking kind of cool. Stonehenge might just be something like that.
Which is not surprising since our DNA barely evolved during that "short" time span.
We still like to think we are far superior, which all the people before us probably also thought about the people before them
At this rate, I would find it startling if ancient stonework didn't have something to do with the sun, moon, and stars. Everywhere you look some ancient society was predicting these things by tracking them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, why did they go through all that effort to build the Eiffel tower?
It honored the 100th anniversary of the French Revolution. And it demonstrated French industrial prowess, iron craftsmanship advanced engineering capabilities..
As the last two paragraphs of TFA point out, this idea is now widely discredited. However, there are a lot of things that don't seem widely known in popular culture about Stonehenge that might colour perceptions about this theory, and the counters to it. First, it's worth remembering the thing you look at today has been mucked about with for thousands of years. It's not "original". Depending on your definition of tha…
I think people underestimate how similar to us people were a few thousand years ago. We build places like Glastonbury and Burning Man all the time and it doesn’t really mean much beyond looking kind of cool. Stonehenge might just be something like that.
1000 years of this oneupmanship = stonehenge?