h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It would I believe, be a mistake to focus entirely on Stonhenge without placing it in some sort of context. Stonehenge does not stand alone but is part of a bigger picture of worldwide megalithic structures, created by peoples we know little about for purposes we cannot fathom. Indeed, a lot of cultures seem to go through a 'build it big and mysterious' phase. In North and South America huge pyramids were constructed, some like those of Tikal, Guatemala for ritual purposes, the rest? We simply don't know. Europe is literally dotted with megalithic structures. The 'when' of these structures is usually easily dealt with, but other questions remain: who built them, why were they built, and how did they do it? For the most part, the peoples who built these megaliths were without writing. One notable exception is the Egyptians. They plastered the inside of their pyramids with writing and art relating to how and why they were built. Even so, the picture is unclear, with many questions remaining tantalisingly unanswered concerning the construction of the pyramids. What can we say about the builders of Stonehenge? We can deduce that they were part of a sophisticated society that had enough excess labour and food to contemplate a very large work intensive construction such as Stonehenge. We can also dismiss some far-fetched theories such as those that say Stonehenge was a representation of the female reproductive system. The ancients liked their art to look like what it was supposed to be. The Cerne Abbas Giant, the Westbury White Horse, the Sheela-na-gigs of Ireland, the Nasca Lines etc. etc. all show that the ancients like their horses to look like horses and their giants to look like giants. I think that we will come closest to the truth of Stonehenge when we remember that the people who built it weren't primitive savages who had the aid of aliens, nor were they mystics who had access to mysterious earth powers but merely humans, much like ourselves struggling to make a living and make sense of life.

I may have read that there may be some connection with the stones at Avebury as well . . .

Sorry, and I don't mean to offend, but the idea that a worldwide 'bigger picture' of megalithic structures is fatuous at best.

These areas are so removed from one another (both physically and in style), that there is no reason to assume that they have connections in meaning, design, or purpose.

True, we may never 'know' what the originators of individual sites had in mind, but some things can be deduced. We do, at least, normally have a pretty good idea 'who' and 'when'. The 'what is also pretty plain. Even the 'how' can normally be guessed. I do agree that the 'why' is often beyond us.

The real 'far-fetched' suggestions do often involved UFOs. I'm awfully glad that we aren't going THERE.

The rest I quite agree with. Still, size alone is a good indication that they were used in group meetings or activities. (No one in earth's history has been so nearsighted to need a calendar this size.) Therefore, rituals, feasts, or celebrations can rightly be assumed. The trouble is, which ones?

Although I am only speculating, I assume that the comment wasn't meant to indicate that other such megaliths necessarily had any relation to Stonehenge, other than in that they are all exteremely large stone structures. I would submit that the connection is not the how or the who but in the fundamental 'why' (the functionalist interpretation rather than the reasons the builders told themselves and each other). Sure big tombs and meeting places and all that are fine ideas, but are they really important enough to lug thousands of ton of stone for? Perhaps we should look at the reason modern people still build megaliths and other mega-structures. The Statue of Liberty, the Eifel Tower, the CN Tower, the Space Needle, Big Ben, and so on: couldn't the proclaimed functions of these buildings be fulfilled just as easily by something smaller and cheaper? Of course they could, but big achievements serve the additional function of symbolizing the power of the chief and the unified will of the society. Thus, it is perhaps only secondary that Stonehenge was used as a calender and much more important that the ancient Celts could boast having the world's largest stone calender.

Yes, MotDoc. In fact, I believe that this was my point as well. All the structures you mention were indeed large structures, but each had a distinct impetus that had nothing to do with the others. Each was a result of certain influences of the creative cultures, and not to an underlying commonality.

Even if all monolithic structures turn out to have been based on their respective religious influences, it would not follow that they were meant to represent similar things. Certainly an enclosed burial pyramid, an open air 'church', and a series of stern stone faces faced out to sea have little in common except that the material they were formed from happened to be stone.

No one would confuse the reasons for building the Statue of Liberty with the reasons for building Big Ben or the Space Needle. They differ too much in style, function, and intent.

<>


But they are all statements of some sort, no? A culture's means of self-expression and territory marking.

Just as Stonehenge is beyond our full comprehension today, so would these modern buildings be to neolithic humans, apart from inspiring awe at their sheer size and scale and ascribing to them mystical/religious functions because of their sheer size mysteriousness.

This is what I am saying: these structures have both immediate functions and societal functions. The immediate function may be that of a meeting place, a tomb, a house for the ruler, a clock, etc. but in all cases the societal function is to serve as a symbol of the power and unity of that society. The Statue of Liberty serves as an American national symbol which is immediately recognizable even to those who have never seen it in person. Likewise with the Eiffel Tower for the French. Look at the case of the new twin towers being constructed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: even though the immediate function is as office towers, they are being deliberately extended with uselessly long antennae in order to be able to claim the title as the world's tallest buildings.

We're talking about Monumental architecture in just about every sense of the word.

I suspect that, at various points along the way, someone got involved in the design process and said "Look...if I'm funding this thing, I want it to be BIG. I want people to look at it and say 'Good gracious, he was rich and powerful. Look at the size of his Henge!'"

We know that the Egyptians were into Big as a statement of power.

However, the monumental size of Stonehenge, Avebury and the like don't really explain the hundreds of very much small stone circles scattered across the countryside. There are stone circles in Devon and Cornwall that you can literally miss in ankle-high grass if you aren't careful. I know this, I spent an hour trying to find one that was marked on an OS map only to discover that I'd walked through it three times without noticing.

So what are these? Parish Henges? How do they relate to the larger constructions? They can't ALL be Solstice calenders.

Maybe the guy who dies with the biggest 'henge' wins?

Seriously, I would accept that similiar structures, produced by a given people, may well have 'stuff' in common. But I believe it is futile to try to tie Easter Island statues to stone henge or the pyramids.

They only have the word monolithic in common because we made up the word for it.

My real point is that it DOES make sense to focus on one (or, all of one type) without referring to, or combining them with, other monolithic creations. It's trying to group them together that makes little sense.

It's like trying to tie all life forms together by including those who produce blood, and saying that you can't discuss the elephant without bringing in the rest.

Hmmm.

But you can compare structures that seem to have had a similar purpose. For example: Silbury hill has been found to have a spiral pathway running from bottom to top (or top to bottom, depending on where you're standing). It is surmised that there must have been a really good reason to want to climb the man-made hill, so one assumes 'ritual'.

In this instance, it is similar to some South American pyramids which also had ritual spaces at the summit.

But after that point, you're lost. You can make the comparison with Inca, Mayan, Aztec or Toltec structures if you want but you're really stretching a point, unless you recognise that they may fulfill a similar cultural need.

Despite the megaliths being seperated phsically and culturally I still think that Stonehenge should be taken in the worldwide context. I have not done any great amount of study on the subject, but I think it would be useful. Example:

Why were they built? Answer: at least *partly* it seems because they *could* be built. The early pyramids were rubbish compared to the later pyramids. You can actually see the impovements from pyramid to pyramid. Likewise the great cathedrals of Europe. The early ones show clear signs of 'on the job' training. Yet this is the pinnacle of European architecture since Roman times. Why build it that big? Because you can. By and large the cultures who build big then lose the urge to do so again. The exceptions usually have fairly obvious reasons for why more than one was built. The Egyptians were happy enough with the pyramids (one the technique was perfected anyway) and never attempted anything that enormous again. Maybe whatever function the pyramids had was being fulfilled by existing pyramids and they didn't need any more. The cathedrals of Europe were built mostly for the 'my henge is bigger than your henge' reasons. Every self-respecting city had one. Every bishop it seemed, wanted a bigger one. They also represented the very latest in building technology. So, as soon as you gain the ability to build big, you do. I wonder if there is any culture who had the ability to build big but never did? I'd bet that every stage of construction of Stonehenge was a struggle and that new methods had to be developed or applied for the very first time (for that culture anyway). It could be that they had the architectural know-how but that previously had lacked the manpower or the administrative skills needed.
From this I draw two conclusions about the people who built Stonehenge:
(a)they had just gained/developed the ability to build big when Stonehenge was constructed. Comparison with other sites from the same era may show whether it was the architectural skills or the mangement skills they had lacked to create Stonhenge any sooner.
(b)Stonehenge represented the very best that they could produce at that time.

These two conclusions would not be immediately apparent if Stonehenge was studied in isolation. I bet the professionals could (and should) be able to draw far more from a study of Stonehenge in a global context than in isolation.

To ask if there were ever a civilization that could build big but didn't is a non-question, like asking if there were ever a person that could speak but didn't. The only way you gain the ability to build big is by attempting it repeatedly. So anyone who had never tried wouldn't be able to do it, and anyone who could do it has tried. QED

Tut tut. I think a certain sophistication in architecture would be a good indicator. Hmmm, maybe not though. Head's too tired for this one right now, why did you have to make such a complicated reply?