You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
October 22, 2016, 08:31:52 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: For you history nuts (you may have a heart attack)  (Read 360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

For you history nuts (you may have a heart attack)
« on: December 27, 2009, 07:07:45 AM »

Stone Henges most important part, the alter, was taken to finish a bridge.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: For you history nuts (you may have a heart attack)
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2009, 01:41:04 PM »
Picking through the writeup a bit... 
Actually, I think a "history nut" (in the simple fact collecting sense) might as easily be inclined to say Oh, that pattern again.  An extreme preservationist or close adherent of spiritual ways believed akin to those of historical Stonehenge, however, might respond more in the spirit of this webpage.  It is interesting, though.

Drawings of the site from just a few centuries ago show a stone altar (which by the way would confirm it was originally a temple)
          Perhaps neither here nor their to the argument, but...  I'm not clear on how that proves any site was necessarily "originally" a temple, nor exclusively used as such.

For some reason, the English seem to just enjoy building mundane shit out of important historical artifacts, like they did with Hadrian's Wall. That's a 2,000 year-old wall across Northern England originally built by the Romans, the bricks of which now can now be seen in nearby houses and churches.
          Perhaps it was actually a case of overlap or simple delegation -- I don't really know.  But I wonder if there could also be distinction there between what "the English" versus "the Romans" did.  Now if it was somehow decidedly English, while I could appreciate the irony (that is, assuming this was a British-authored article?), the English would not have been unique in doing so.  A somewhat distant example -- not sure how many shrines were involved -- but I understand all sorts of material was torn away to become the Great Wall in China...

The 6 Stupidest Things Ever Done
         Of course, it's irreverent or problematic to the extent the practice of the spiritual there continues, or from a conservationist standpoint.  Another point of view might go like this: Perhaps some earlier users would have preferred that their altar became something as functional and part of daily life as a bridge -- rather than say, being turned into part of some Christian abbey like so many other influential earlier religious items/sites.  I don't mean to say that those should necessarily be the only choices available.  Just picking a bit over the linguistic thrashing.     

Offline The Dark Raven

Re: For you history nuts (you may have a heart attack)
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2009, 06:35:47 PM »
Okay...stupid stuff done but...

The irreverence with which the author wrote the article had me trying not to snort with laughter too loudly.  The pictures helped.

Especially the dude from Temple of Doom with Louis XIV's flaming heart...*snicker*

~Lily...the history geek.