Slashdot Mirror


Building A Modern Stonehenge In New Zealand

Flexagon writes "Wired News is reporting that a group of astronomy enthusiasts in New Zealand is building its own version of Stonehenge in a little more than a year. Why? "We came up with the idea of Stonehenge because it doesn't matter who you are -- everyone looks at the Pyramids and Stonehenge and structures like that (and asks) who built them, why did they build them?" says Richard Hall, president of the Phoenix Astronomical Society. Yet another reason to book a ticket!"

235 comments

  1. Units of measurement by delstar+dotstar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Before building it, remember that ' is feet and " is inches.

    1. Re:Units of measurement by troc · · Score: 1, Funny

      Otherwise it will be in danger of being crushed by dwarves. :)

      If you watch the DVD of Spinal Tap, I thoroughly recommend the commentary - one of the best ever.

      troc

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
    2. Re:Units of measurement by AndroidCat · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you want to mix your moddies and daddies? (Another ref)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Units of measurement by eathan13 · · Score: 1

      Ha ha! I love a good Spinal Tap referrence, and subtle too!

  2. Why they built them? by cioxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has been determined recently that Stonehenge was a giant vagina.

    1. Re:Why they built them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Determined? I think "someone suggested" works better.

    2. Re:Why they built them? by antic · · Score: 3, Funny

      I refuse to be the first guy on here to suggest that, in that case, their more modern attempt at building the same thing be any smaller!

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    3. Re:Why they built them? by JamesD_UK · · Score: 1

      That would make it a rather fitting partner monument for the Cerne Abas Giant :-)

    4. Re:Why they built them? by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1
      From that article: But there is no evidence of any burials near Stonehenge, Perks adds. 'There is little sign of death; there are no tombs, because Stonehenge was a place of life and birth, not death, a place that looked to the future.'

      YACT - Yet Another Crackpot Theory. Nice try, but Stonehenge is surrounded by hundreds of burial mounds.

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    5. Re:Why they built them? by FictionPimp · · Score: 0

      If you build it, they will cum.

    6. Re:Why they built them? by mkoscica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      YACT - Yet Another Crackpot Theory. Nice try, but Stonehenge is surrounded by hundreds of burial mounds.

      I can remember the exact moment I heard that, on those little portable tour guide devices. I didn't even notice them before, but as soon as I actually looked up and paid attention to all of those mounds scattered around everywhere, my mind was blown.

    7. Re:Why they built them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. Were they from the same time period? If the graves are 1000 years younger, it has no connection with the original builders.

    8. Re:Why they built them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bit of an odd statement! Cultures, including burial practices, persist longer than 1000 years all the time - Until VERY recently, italians were buried in the same roman graveyards as their 2500 year old ancestors. The Han dynasty in china... never really ended, people _still_ do the same stuff, thousands of years later. Go to Glendalough in Wicklow, Ireland - 7th century Irish christian graves next to 1930s ones. Sometimes with the SAME SURNAMES.

      I see no reason why a mere 1000 years would mean there is no connection.

      I bet you're american. No sense of just HOW LONG human recorded history, not even prehistory, is...

  3. I can see the ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Discover our erected rocks!

    1. Re:I can see the ads by rthille · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Shouldn't that be:
      Discover our Rock-Hard Erections?

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  4. At Last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I remember watching on TV how they recreated a single piece of stonehenge using 'original' techniques. At the time I thought it would be a better idea to recreate the whole thing with modern techniques, and so here we are...

    1. Re:At Last by zhenlin · · Score: 1

      In any case, just imagine what future historians will make of it.

      They'll be about 4000 years apart in construction. Given that dating methods can only be somewhat accurate after many centamillenia... not to mention continental drift...

  5. Europe's pagan roots by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful


    It annoys me that some are insisting that the (future) EU constitution must stress Europe's Christian roots.

    As sites like Stonehenge show, Europe doesn't have Christian roots. It's roots are pagan. Christianity is a foreign religion for Europe. I think we should insist on the constitution stressing Europe's pagan roots. Now that would be cool!

    1. Re:Europe's pagan roots by bluntos · · Score: 0

      most of our holidays are pagan holidays not christian

      --
      Fnord Fnord Fnord
    2. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Correct, the history of Christianity in Europe has been littered with many shameful deeds, the Crusades and the loing persecution of the Jews being just two that spring to mind.

      Not that I am saying christianity is bad. Just that religion in the hands of the state can be a powerful tool for evil.

    3. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Eivind · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Everyones roots are various nature-religions. Beliefs evolve and change just as any other aspect of culture. They start out from those things that matter to people, and which everyone can see, but not understand, and evolve from there.

      It's no accident, for example, that the "sungod", the "moongodess", various gods for weather and bad or good hunting/harvest whatever developed multiple times independently.

      It's also no accident that as more and more of the things we observe can be explained rationally, the importance of religion fades. Essentially, religion is that which some people clutch to to explain what we cannot (yet anyway) explain rationally.

      Today, most people are satisfied that the sun is a large clump of hydrogen undergoing fusion. We know that ligthining is caused by electrical discharge, we can tell that the harvest is bad on that land not due to a curse, but due to a lack of say nitrogen-compounds and so on.

      Stonehenge, and similar astronomical sites are important, because they give us an idea how much the ancients knew about the movements of the various stars, sun and moon. And it marks a first step from mystism to rationality.

      The constitution of EU, ain't got much to do with this, but if it's any comfort to you, it's very likely to not mention any religions spesifically at all. If for no other reason than that the various religious nutcases could never agree on what to write.

    4. Re:Europe's pagan roots by arfuni · · Score: 1, Funny

      Every thing is foreign at some point - even the pagan cults surrounding Stonehedge probably draw from older pagan cults who appeared and developed outside of Europe ;) Yeah, and those pagans all came from Africa. :P

    5. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, the history of Christianity in Europe has been littered with many shameful deeds, the Crusades and the loing persecution of the Jews being just two that spring to mind.

      Not that I am saying christianity is bad.


      Of course not we killed off and raided many christian villages on our crusades.

      It was like football hooligans going to a party. Hey I guess it still is a live part of our culture.

    6. Re:Europe's pagan roots by wagemonkey · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Correct, the history of Christianity in Europe has been littered with many shameful deeds, the Crusades and the loing persecution of the Jews being just two that spring to mind.
      Even though I'm a Christian I agree with this.
      I'd add the Inquisition and the religious murder in England too (Bloody Mary etc.). It's what you often get when groups of humans organize into rival factions, be it religions, political parties, racial groups, nations, or sports fans.
      There has been a lot of good too.
      Not that I am saying christianity is bad. Just that religion in the hands of the state can be a powerful tool for evil
      I'd be more likely to say that the State in the hands of organized religion can be a powerful tool for evil.
      Human beings are failible and very few are good in all areas all the time. Power corrupts - the only people who should be allowed power are those who don't want it, and then it may just take longer to corrupt them. IMHO one of the biggest problems with a theocracy is that , IIRC, in most organized religions the positions within the hierarchy tend to be permanent. It always seems to difficult to get rid of people if you need to - which is a disaster for a State.
      NB the root for Hierarchy is the Greek for 'rule of a high priest'.

      Democracy isn't perfect but's probably the least worst system available to run a State.

      In Good Omens Pratchetts 'Inquisition' is a terrifying example of how the Organized Religion mentality may work: suspicion is enough of itself to prove heresy as God must have put it into the mind of the 'inquisitor' - sorry can't remember the actual names he uses.

    7. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's no accident, for example, that the "sungod", the "moongodess", various gods for weather and bad or good hunting/harvest whatever developed multiple times independently.

      Interestingly though in the German language the sun (die Sonne) is female, and the moon (der Mond) is male. I know of no other language with this unique feature. Most languages, if they differentiate the sexus for sun and moon, describe the sun as male and the moon as female. What does this tell us about Germans? (And yes, this makes the translation of myths and legends into German somewhat squirky :) )

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:Europe's pagan roots by turgid · · Score: 1
      Ah but... is it the gender of the word, or the gender of the thing to which the word refers? Is there such a rule in German?

      For example the word for girl in German is das Maedchen which is neuter, because of the "chen" on the end of the word IIRC. Well, that's what they taught me at school.

      Also, in German, "der See" is "the lake" while "die See" is "the sea."

      But what do I know, I'm only Jockanese.

    9. Re:Europe's pagan roots by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Today, most people are satisfied that the sun is a large clump of hydrogen undergoing fusion.

      So what, I'm choosing to worship the Sun anyway now that I know the choosen shape of God is a burning mass of hydrogen just strengthens my pagan faith ;-)

      , we can tell that the harvest is bad on that land not due to a curse, but due to a lack of say nitrogen-compounds and so on.

      Damn those cunning witches, they leached the nitrogen from my lands. Burn them!

      And it marks a first step from mystism to rationality.

      Such a pity the Christians haven't made one yet, since they could do with some rationality ;->

      I have to agree though, religion has no place in the constitution of Europe. Let the State worry about State matters and the churches worry about spiritual matters.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    10. Re:Europe's pagan roots by MoP030 · · Score: 0

      It is true that "chen" is a standard diminutive appendix, and all diminutives are neuter. (as a side note: Maedchen stems from Magd i think, (the "g" was lost over time and the Umlaut comes naturally with the diminutive) but only Maedchen survived the times as Magd is used only very rarely).

      But "Sonne" is not a diminutive so it should be the gender of the word, I have to admit though that i am not sure what you mean with the gender of the thing to which the word refers.

      care to explain more?

      --
      the most sexp i get is my paren-mode.
    11. Re:Europe's pagan roots by turgid · · Score: 0

      A word is a label for a thing. What I'm trying to say is: it the gender of the label (the word) or the gender of the thing (to which the word refers). My example in this case was Maedchen since obviously a girl is femal (the thing to which the word refers) but the word (the label) is neuter.

    12. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bluntos wrote: most of our holidays are pagan holidays not christian

      For that matter, in English the days of the week are named for pagan gods-- and Northern European pagan gods at that:

      Sunday- Sun
      Monday- Moon
      Tuesday- Tyr
      Wednesday- Woden/Odin
      Thursday- Thor
      Friday- Frigga
      Saturday- Saturn/Chronos (only non-Germanic god in the bunch, but still pagan)

    13. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Sique · · Score: 1

      In German normally the natural gender determines the grammatical gender. There are a few exceptions as everywhere in language though. For instance the queen of a bee hive is either called "die Koenigin" (queen, female) or "der Weisel" (male).

      Maedchen is NO exception, because it is a diminuitive, and they are neuter in all cases (maybe because for little or infantile people you shouldn't expect any gender at all. If the natural gender has fully grown, they are not infantile anymore and loose neutrality in gender).

      The origin is "die Maid" or "die Magd" (both female), where "die Maid" refers mostly to a young woman, and "die Magd" refers to a female unmarried subordinate or servant, but they have the same root, and their usage was often interchanged in literature and depending on the region. In modern German neither "Maid" nor "Magd" is often used.

      You have the same situation with "Fraeulein" (literally: little woman), which was once used to refer to an unmarried woman, which is also neuter in grammar and thus probably meant to suppress the natural gender, because only a married woman was supposed to be a real woman of female gender, ready to give birth and raise children. The use of "Fraeulein" is disencouraged in modern German though.

      A male "See" (lake) means something else than a female "See" (sea). The female "die See" has is origin in the Low German language (the language of the northern, flat regions), while the male "der See" comes from High German (the language of the southern, mountainous regions), where one refers to "die See" (sea) mostly as "das Meer".

      Interestingly though the dutch language, neighbour to Low German geographically and ethymologically, uses both words in reverse: "de zee" means the sea, and "het meer" means the lake. You can find the same usage in northern Germany, where one of the greatest lakes is called "das Steinhuder Meer" (lake of Steinhude).

      But it is a good rule of thumb to expect a german word to have the same grammatical gender than the word's counterpart in reality or imagination.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1

      el sol
      la luna

      How much research did you put into this, again?

      --
      True story.
    15. Re:Europe's pagan roots by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > It's also no accident that as more and more of the things we observe can be explained rationally, the importance of religion fades.
      >Essentially, religion is that which some people clutch to to explain what we cannot (yet anyway) explain rationally.

      You have a very narrow view of what religion is.

      Science is *just* as dogmatic as religion, and in fact, *is* a religion. Anything that seeks the Truth of how the universe works, and why, is "pure" religion. Just because Science does it objectively, does not negate the fact that one can also do it subjectively. There is knowledge outside the realm of Science that it will *never* know, but just because it can't know, doesn't imply that we can't know, and in fact I would argue, that we *can* know.

      Peace

    16. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Sique · · Score: 1

      You didn't read my post ;)

      Spanish
      el sol = male.
      la luna = female

      German
      die Sonne = female
      der Mond = male

      All languages I know the words for "sun" and "moon" in, don't differentiate the genders grammatically (like English), or they have a male sun and a female moon.
      Just German has a female sun and a male moon.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    17. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're right; I completely misread your post. I though you said that languages with male/female distinctions on nouns had both the moon and the sun being female.

      As for Germans, I'd guess they've got a lot of gender confusion over there =)

      --
      True story.
    18. Re:Europe's pagan roots by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      As sites like Stonehenge show, Europe doesn't have Christian roots. It's roots are pagan.

      Christianity itself has pagan roots. Christmas: Started as winter solstice. Christmas trees come from pagan beliefs. Easter, with all the eggs and cute lil' easter bunnies? (Symbols of fertility.) Pagan, once again. The notion of virgin birth, 2nd coming - almost everything about Christianity has a prior history with the pagans.

    19. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irish has only vestigial genders (fortunately, as the vestiges are of 4 masculinoid and 5 femininoid declensions, as well as irregular and abstract... but you can just forget about them for normal irish speech.)

      Anyway, as it happens, the Sun and Moon are both female in Irish.

      an grian - sun (female 2nd declension)
      an gealach - moon (female 2nd declension)
      an ré - moon (female 4th declension)

    20. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science does not seek truth. You misunderstand science. Science can ONLY tell you what is wrong. It is a process, the Scientific Method, for refining your belief about the world. Science is a religion only in that it is the opposite of religion - in a religion, your belief is supposed to stay the same regardless ("faith").

      Scientists have to modify their belief systems constantly. A scientific sin, faith, is a religious virtue. A scientist must doubt himself, always. A scientist knows there are no easy answers, except when there are.

    21. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Djirbal, an Australian Aboriginal language, has that too. There are actually four "genders" in their language. Roughly:

      • Masculine - men/boys, the moon and most animals
      • Feminine - women/girls, the sun, fire, dangerous things such as stinging trees and weapons, bodies of water (where dangerous spirits live) and animals which young people are not allowed to catch.
      • Vegetable - Basically, edible plants
      • Neuter - Everything else

      A good description of this is in George Lakoff's excellent work Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, which you should definitely read. It's not just about Djirbal; it's mostly about cognition and language.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    22. Re:Europe's pagan roots by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Science does not seek truth. You misunderstand science.

      What are facts then? What are natural Laws?

      If I objectively demonstrate that gravity exists, and can show it's effects, have I not established the truth of gravity? Sure, I may not be able to explain how it functions, but I am on the road to being able to explain it.

      > Science can ONLY tell you what is wrong.

      I would say that it can show you where your knowledge is incomplete.

      > It is a process, the Scientific Method, for refining your belief about the world.

      Not only your belief, but what you *know*.

      The difference between Science and Religion is that in the first, the process is external, with the latter being internal.

      > Science is a religion only in that it is the opposite of religion
      > in a religion, your belief is supposed to stay the same regardless ("faith").

      As I said, I think that's a pretty narrow view of religion.

      I don't know where you are getting the idea that ALL religion is blinded by unchangeable doctrine, but not all religions behave that way. In fact, some show that you *can't* cling to dogma. Does that mean you chuck out all Absolute Truth? I didn't say you did. One starts to see that Truth is not only Absolute, but also Relative.

      My beliefs change over time -- because I now understand something that I wasn't able to before. This mental development is analogous to school. A 1-year old can't do calculas, they first need to learn the basics of math: Addition, Subtraction, etc. As they progress, they are able to work at a higher abstract level.

      Belief and Faith are *not* the same thing. First is Belief, then Faith, which leads to Action, and finally produces Knowledge.
      e.g.
      We can't see physically anything smaller then an electron, by un-aided means. Yet someone had a belief that we could. He then had Faith that someday he would be able to by developing the microscope, which lead to inventing the electron microscope; men acted on their faith. And finaly by observing, he was able to gain further knowledge of how the physical universe behaves/functions and is constructed.

      If you never act on your belief, that is all it is - just belief. If you prove something, but never do anything with it, what was the point?

      > Scientists have to modify their belief systems constantly.

      Why? Because they learn new knowledge - Truth.

      The same is true in a pure religious perspective. Religion is NOT about dogma, or doctrine; those are just a by-product. It's about a process of seeking the deeper meanings.

      > A scientific sin, faith, is a religious virtue.

      I have this is false by the example above.

      Peace

    23. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Eivind · · Score: 1
      In the practical, you are correct. Thinking philosophically though, the poster previous to you has a point.

      He says we "believe", you say we "know". Both of you are rigth, you only define the words differently.

      From a philosophical perspective, even if you drop a stone a million times, and it falls, with acceleration close to that of gravity, every single time, this is not absolute proof that the stone will always do so.

      It's a bit like, if I toss a dice, and say I'll manage to get a 6er 5 times in a row. If I manage it, you'll consider you "know" that something is foul (say louded dice). But offcourse it's *possible* that I simply had luck. (the chanse to pull of the trick is about 1:8000) Even if I tossed 6 a hundred times after oneanother, you have no *proof* that what you're seeing is not random chanse. I could be lucky. Yes, the chanses against are 1:10^77, but that doesn't make it impossible, only very unlikely.

      The problem with the parent posters position is that with this definition of "know" there is, and can be no knowledge, with possible exception for mathemathics.

      This ignores the very real difference between the belief "There is a God who considers it ok to eat meat, and drink milk, but gets angry/sad/whatever if I mix the two", for which there is essentially no evidence whatsoever, and the 'belief' ligth in vacum moves at around 300.000 km/s for which there are literally thousands of experiments that say: "yes, it seems to be so", and not a *single* one we've been able to device (despite trying hard!) that says: "Ooops, not in this case..."

    24. Re:Europe's pagan roots by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > In the practical, you are correct. Thinking philosophically though, the poster previous to you has a point.

      So how does one resolve this paradox?

      > From a philosophical perspective, even if you drop a stone a million times, and it falls, with acceleration close to that of gravity, every single time, this is not absolute proof that the stone will always do so.

      Correct. Science is about probability. i.e. What is the most probable outcome? Now science has learnt that the observer *does* change the outcome. So what does this tell us about the universe, and about ourselves?

      > The problem with the parent posters position is that with this definition of "know" there is, and can be no knowledge, with possible exception for mathemathics.

      Let me use an example to illustrate my point, that this position is incomplete, and that Belief is not the same as Knowing; it is a subset.

      When you were young, someone probably told you "Don't touch that, it's hot." But what happened? You didn't know what "hot" was, and didn't beleive them, so you touched it, and got burnt. Now you *KNOW* what hot is. The same goes for any emotion. You can try to describe it all you want and belief whatever you want, but you will never *know* what it is, until you have experienced it.

      Peace

    25. Re:Europe's pagan roots by Eivind · · Score: 1
      So how does one resolve this paradox?

      Most people resolve it by defining "know" as something like "Feel sufficiently sure that I'm willing to act as if it is proven true."

      We don't have any *proof* in the mathemathical sense that stones fall when let loose in gravity. I, and most people, are still going to *act* as if we do.

      Your examples falter a bit. The thing is, science cannot even be proved to show the most probable outcome. For example, assume a scientist, faced with my unbelievably-lucky dice-trowing. The only reasonable hypothesis when faced with a dice that 1000 times after eachothers land on 6 is to hypothesise that this dice always land on 6. Yet that ain't the most likely outcome at all, the chanses against are astronomical.

      Also, even if you touch a warm oven, and get hurt, this in no way *prooves* that the same thing is going to happen next time.

      I don't really see the problem. Most scientists, if pressed hard enough, will admit that what they produce isn't nessecarily true. But they'll probably also point out that while not nessecarily true, it's the best we've got, and best we're going to get.

      Science doesn't produce "This is true." kinda things. It produces: "This hypothesis fits for all experiments we could manage to think of, we're not aware of any single one where it doesn't fit." kinda things. If you want to label those things "knowledge" or not is largely semantic and not really of consequence.

    26. Re:Europe's pagan roots by sckeener · · Score: 1

      Science is *just* as dogmatic as religion, and in fact, *is* a religion. Anything that seeks the Truth of how the universe works, and why, is "pure" religion. Just because Science does it objectively, does not negate the fact that one can also do it subjectively. There is knowledge outside the realm of Science that it will *never* know, but just because it can't know, doesn't imply that we can't know, and in fact I would argue, that we *can* know.

      (outside of science) Please tell me what religion defines thermodynamics. At least science can change when proven wrong. Normal religions normally don't. I don't want to believe in a god that lies or changes the facts afterwards. If it is true now, it should have been true then. How many religions have embraced evolution? Very few here in Texas.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
  6. Science of the Future or Science of the Past? by osewa77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not very much into 'scientific' promotion that aim to interest people in the past. Let's talk about how we can change things, make things better. Let's talk about the science in invention and innovation! Let's work on tchnologies that make the future better!
    ______ my homepage

    1. Re:Science of the Future or Science of the Past? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well if people paid more attention to history then the human race wouldn't be doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. That would surely make the future better or at least give us the opportunity to create new mistakes.

      Not to mention that working out how old science worked often leads to the development of 'new' sciences or new directions for current sciences.

      Don't be so blinkered in your rush to the future.

    2. Re:Science of the Future or Science of the Past? by osewa77 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the ordinary, non-scientific people who these reconstructions are supposed to impress are hardly going to make any discoveries about the past that they couldn't have made by studying books about the original monument!

    3. Re:Science of the Future or Science of the Past? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think you're the first person to have that thought?

      Wouldn't it be interesting to know what happened last time someone took that sort of talk seriously?

      Then you need to read some history. QED.

  7. Re:New Zealand by mikis · · Score: 4, Informative

    As I understand TFA, this is an attempt to build a working astronomical calendar and explain people what was it used for (I'm shure many believe it was an alien airport, or whatever), and not to build just another Eiffel tower/Keops pyramid/Liberty statue clone.

    "The whole idea of the henge is that people can come out here and learn real basic astronomy, the real foundations of what astronomy is all about," says Richard Hall, the infectiously enthusiastic and indefatigable project manager and president of the Phoenix Astronomical Society, which is building the Kiwi henge.

  8. Re:New Zealand by zokrath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who's country precisely did you mean? I am not really sure that the modern Britism Isles can claim stonehenge as their 'heritage' when it was built thousands of years ago by a very different people, who were later nearly erradicated by the Romans.

    The next thing you know they will be stealing your Arthurian mythology.

    At least your still have your cuisine...

  9. This time, build the road first by antic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Months ago, there was talk of burrowing a road underneath Stonehenge at great cost and it raised great concern amongst many.

    How about this time they put the road in, and *then* place the stones?

    However many hundreds of years on, surely we've learnt something about planning!

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
  10. Re:New Zealand is gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I'm sorry. Bagging out New Zealanders is just the general Australian stereotypical joke about foreigners like Mexicans to Americans, Newfoundlanders to Canadians, etc. Nobody actually means it.

  11. What goes up... by tiredwired · · Score: 0

    must come down.

    1. Re:What goes up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that depends on velocity and force.

  12. The family trip by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yet another reason to book a ticket!

    Husband: I know we've been flying for 13 hours to get here but let's go right to see Stonehenge Aotearoa.

    [later]

    Wife: This is it? It's a bunch of rocks!

    Husband: No, no, you don't understand. This is astronomically significant!

    Wife: [reading plaque] "Time to harvest the kumara" What's a kumara?

    Husband: It's a sweet potato.

    I imagine at this point the wife will sacrifice the husband on the pagan altar, or whatever they install at this thing.

    1. Re:The family trip by hype7 · · Score: 1, Funny
      Yet another reason to book a ticket!

      Husband: I know we've been flying for 13 hours to get here but let's go right to see Stonehenge Aotearoa.

      [later]

      Wife: This is it? It's a bunch of rocks!

      Husband: No, no, you don't understand. This is astronomically significant!

      Wife: [reading plaque] "Time to harvest the kumara" What's a kumara?

      Husband: It's a sweet potato.

      I imagine at this point the wife will sacrifice the husband on the pagan altar, or whatever they install at this thing.


      It's at this stage that the shrewd husband would offer to take her to Australia :)

      -- james
      ps I'm joking... both NZ and Oz are great ;)
    2. Re:The family trip by ephraim · · Score: 1, Funny


      Wife: [reading plaque] "Time to harvest the kumara" What's a kumara?

      Husband: It's a sweet potato.

      I imagine at this point the wife will sacrifice the husband on the pagan altar, or whatever they install at this thing.

      No, no, she'll want to sacrifice him after he tries steaming the kumara in one of the muddy boiling steam vents at Rotorua..."What's that SMELL, dear?"

    3. Re:The family trip by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 0

      You can smell Roturua long before you get near a muddy boiling steam vent :-) For those who haven't visited, it smells strongly of sulphur which can be unpleasant when you first arrive but the smell becomes less noticeable after a short while.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  13. What tells you that paganism is "native"? by Kinniken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It annoys me that some are insisting that the (future) EU constitution must stress Europe's Christian roots.

    As sites like Stonehenge show, Europe doesn't have Christian roots. It's roots are pagan. Christianity is a foreign religion for Europe. I think we should insist on the constitution stressing Europe's pagan roots. Now that would be cool!



    Every thing is foreign at some point - even the pagan cults surrounding Stonehedge probably draw from older pagan cults who appeared and developed outside of Europe ;)
    Concerning the Constitution, I think Christianity should be mentioned since its role in Europe's history was indeed crucial. However, other religions who played a big role, including paganism (both Greek/Roman and Celtic), Judaism and Islam. Anyway, it's just a historical mention with no legal strength, and thus its effect is just symbolic.

    --
    What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
    1. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by bluntos · · Score: 0

      What tell's you it isn't? I tell you now we are the pagan masters we created it, yes thats right.

      --
      Fnord Fnord Fnord
    2. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by pubjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every thing is foreign at some point - even the pagan cults surrounding Stonehedge probably draw from older pagan cults who appeared and developed outside of Europe ;)

      No, paganism is quite clearly linked to northern climates - the seasons play a central role in the makeup of paganism and so the beliefs are very unlikely to have come from anywhere near the equator.

      I think Christianity should be mentioned since its role in Europe's history was indeed crucial.

      What, crucial in terms of causing loads of wars and strife?

      its effect is just symbolic

      "Just symbolic" does not mean it is a trivial issue - otherwise why do you think church leaders are making such a big fuss about including it?

    3. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by kunudo · · Score: 1

      Christianity shouldn't be part of any constitution, nor should any other religion. Constitutions are about politics, when you let religion touch politics, reason goes out the door. Some people with agendas like that, but it's not in the best interests of the people. Mr pope over there in Italy tells people in africa that condoms cause AIDS. Eh... riiight... fucking twat.

    4. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by perly-king-69 · · Score: 3, Informative
      No, paganism is quite clearly linked to northern climates

      Not really. Early Christians described those who worshipped the Roman (and by extension, Greek and Egyptian) gods as being pagan. It's just a word for those who are non-believers. Depends of course, who you believe in though!

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    5. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by kunudo · · Score: 1

      It's all about mindshare. If it's in the constitution we have to continue dealing with it.

    6. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by ashwinm · · Score: 1
      even the pagan cults surrounding Stonehedge

      It's more than just a stone hedge...

    7. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by absolut_kurant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And why should religion be singled out to be mentioned in the Constitution? Arguably, we should then also put in Communism, National Socialism, etc., as w/o those there wouldn't be an EU - after all, the EC was founded after WW2 so that we wouldn't be fighting our neighbors anymore.

      So I say, fuck that, let it be a laicistic document to guide the EU and its citizens, and not something to divide us even more along religious lines.

      --
      Yes.
    8. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think Christianity should be mentioned since its role in Europe's history was indeed crucial.

      What, crucial in terms of causing loads of wars and strife?


      Yep---exactly like the pagans. You don't think the Norse warrior epics were stories about peace-loving warriors, do you?

    9. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Christians call anyone who isn't part of the three abrahamic religions pagan. That is, in fact, the definition of the word. But in common usage it's come to describe a particular set of religions that did come out of the european continent.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    10. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Yea, cause it make's sense to compare stories from a religious text to 10-something crusades.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    11. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Concerning the Constitution, I think Christianity should be mentioned since its role in Europe's history was indeed crucial.

      I think it's even more crucial that today we have religious freedom for all, including the freedom not to worship any god. It's a shame that some people still insist on somehow forcing their religious beliefs and symbols onto others. Please grant other people the same freedoms you want for yourself.

    12. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, paganism is quite clearly linked to northern climates - the seasons play a central role in the makeup of paganism and so the beliefs are very unlikely to have come from anywhere near the equator.

      So you are saying there were NO pagan religions and fertility cults to come out of the middle east, Egypt, Africa, India, etc?

    13. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In our modern era, marked as it is with religious strife, it is important to remember the early martyrs associated with the early Christian church in Europe.

      Eyvind Kinrifa was a priest/shaman of the Northern European religion (the one with Odin, Thor, etc., I'll refer to it as paganism here) who died at the hand of Olaf Tryggvason around 1000 A.D. or so. Eyvind was an only child; his mother told him that he was only conceived with the help of a Finnish shaman. Olaf (aka "St. Olaf") captured Eyvind and held him prisoner. Olaf really wanted Eyvind to convert because he was a prominent adherent of the pagan religion. Olaf apparently made all the philosophical arguments that he could think of, but Eyvind would not convert. Olaf offered land, power, and treasure, but Eyvind would not convert. Olaf finally resorted to threatening Eyvind with torture and death, but Eyvind remained steadfast in his pagan beliefs.

      According to the Heimskringla, Olaf Tryggvason's Saga (1844 translation), this is what finally happened:
      Then the king [Olaf] ordered a pan of glowing coals to be placed upon Eyvind's belly, which burst asunder. Eyvind cried, "Take away the pan, and I will say something before I die," which also was done. The king said, "Wilt thou now, Eyvind, believe in Christ?" "No," said Eyvind, "I can take no baptism; for I am an evil spirit put into a man's body by the sorcery of Fins because in no other way could my father and mother have a child."

      Somehow, I rather doubt that Eyvind really said that he personally was an "evil spirit," and even if he did, the story seems to be an attempt to explain away what to me sounds like the most horrifying cruelty. Olaf's activities, in my opinion, did not follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

      Charlemagne is another fine example of a Christian king: he slaughtered literally thousands of people who refused baptism, and he instituted laws that imposed the death penalty on anyone engaging in pagan religious practices, particularly those associated with birth, marriage, and burial.

    14. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1


      Somehow, I rather doubt that Eyvind really said that he personally was an "evil spirit," and even if he did, the story seems to be an attempt to explain away what to me sounds like the most horrifying cruelty. Olaf's activities, in my opinion, did not follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

      Since when have Jesus' teachings had anything to do with the church or other institutions of the real world?

    15. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Eek! A little ancient italian for you:
      Urbanus: A City Dweller
      Rusticus: A Suburbanite
      Pagani: Ancient Roman Hicks
      When Rome became Christian, it was easy to convert the urbanus and not to difficult to get the rusticus, but it was much harder to travel the countryside to get to all of the pagani. When we took the word in english, we mistook it for meaning 'non-christian'.

      --
      Fnord.
    16. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by Acrimonious+Coward · · Score: 1

      Pagani: Ancient Roman Hicks

      Interestingly enough, the English word heathen comes from the Anglo Saxon word hoeðen whose meaning is roughly "someone who lives out in the boonies" or more simply, "uncultured".

    17. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took a class about ancient Egyptian religion a while back. The instructor pointed out that because of the climate and the flooding of the Nile, their religion made a big deal out of the rainy season and annual flooding, but didn't pay much attention to the equinoxes and soltices like people did at points further north (or further south).

    18. Re:What tells you that paganism is "native"? by renoX · · Score: 1

      >I think Christianity should be mentioned since its role in Europe's history was indeed crucial.

      And? The constitution is for the future not for the past and in Europe it has been pretty well established that religions should be kept separated from governments..

      So Christianity shouldn't be mentioned, it is just one religion among many other, currently and in the past it is one of the strongest religion in Europe, that's true but should we modify Europe's constition if/when Islam becomes the first?
      I don't think so!

      PS: I'm an agnostic.

  14. Already been done, by Sam Hill by zakezuke · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sam hill already built a Stonehenge replica near Goldendale, WA USA. It's near the Mary Hill museum of Art, noted for it's collection of relics from the last czars of Russia... some of the few that didn't burn when the revolution came.

    I believe it was built as a 1st World War memorial rather then to study astrometry.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:Already been done, by Sam Hill by merlyn · · Score: 1
      Correct. The Maryhill Stonehenge replica is not astronomically significant, nor a very good replica. It's basically just some big stones. {grin}

      My mind is a bit hazy on this, but I think visiting this monument as a child was part of the inspiration for my company name.

    2. Re:Already been done, by Sam Hill by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0

      And Goldendale ripped off Spinal Tap.

      --

      --
      What would Bill Clinton do?
    3. Re:Already been done, by Sam Hill by hkon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are several of these in the States. My personal favorite is Carhenge

    4. Re:Already been done, by Sam Hill by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      And in true American fashion you don't even have to get out of your car to view it. Ahh, now that's convenience.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    5. Re:Already been done, by Sam Hill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the Sam Hill is that?

    6. Re:Already been done, by Sam Hill by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I've been there, not much else to see in Eastern Washington (unless you like basalt and sage--which I happen to) and it is pretty impressive. I missed the museum, it was closed when we arrived and were headed to Portland on a fairly tight timing. The Stonehenge replica is very neat. I was intrigued by how it could was made with only ancient tools. I think the ancients were a whole lot more resourseful than we give them credit for being.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    7. Re:Already been done, by Sam Hill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was intrigued by how it could was made with only ancient tools.

      Because they had ancient whips, massive ancient whips!

  15. Re:New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    New Zealand was primarily colonised (after the Maori) by the United Kingdom and is in fact still part of the commonwealth. A lot of New Zealand's heritage is from the United Kingdom because that's where the colonists were from. It's hardly disrespecting your country when a large percentage of the population is only a few generations removed from it. e.g. I'm a New Zealander but I still qualify for a British passport.

  16. Well, Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Despite our clear, dark sky we have the hell job getting funding for modern observatories here in New Zealand, so we might as well build something that can be claimed to have an astronomical use!

  17. Re:New Zealand by Doomrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who's country precisely did you mean? I am not really sure that the modern Britism Isles can claim stonehenge as their 'heritage' when it was built thousands of years ago by a very different people

    But it is my heritage. The day that you can take away my memories of visiting the place on summer solstice, just sitting in a nearby layby each month and staring for hours, the stories my older relatives told me - is the day you can say bullshit like that again. I don't remember claiming to be a direct descendant of druids/astrologers/whoever (I'm not prepared to make any claims as to who originally built the place when it's shrouded in such ambiguity).

    My real point is that New Zealand really does itself a dis-service by practically ignoring its own virtues. It's a great place.

    The next thing you know they will be stealing your Arthurian mythology.

    Are you suggesting that I'm not a knight of the round table?

    At least your still have your cuisine...

    At least you still have your wildly outdated xenophobic, ill-informed views that we all eat boiled pig anus at each and every meal.

  18. Re:New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Not as much as you'd think. The Polynesians only reached New Zealand in AD 1000 and even then were restricted to fairly simple societies (hunter gathering and basic farming) due to the incompatibility betweeen polynesian crops and the New Zealand climate.

  19. Leylines by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come on! A stone circle built in NZ isn't going to work properly. Stonehenge on its own is just a pile of rocks. You need a properly aligned networks of temples and natural features to generate the correct psychic energy flows.

    1. Re:Leylines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way was I doing that!

    2. Re:Leylines by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      And more basic, the Moon, the stars and the Sun, go around the sky counter-clockwise in NZ rather than clockwise. What is the psychic significance of a Stonehenge built to run on a widdershins (closing) clock rather than a desol (opening) one?

      This does not bode well.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  20. Re:New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What country do you mean? They were built by Celts.

  21. Dear god please don't Slashdot us.! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You know this new stonehenge is actually a new network hub..

  22. additional by zakezuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It should also be noted that north of the Stonehenge memorial in the town of Goldendale, WA, USA is the Goldendale Observatory Interpretive Center. It has a publicly accessable 24.5 inch telescope which according to the Tri-cityherald is America's largest publicly accessable telescope, assuming the WA state parks department didn't close it down due to budget cuts.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  23. why? by knue · · Score: 0
    why built such a thing? because it doesn't matter who you are ... blahblahblah ... everybody asks why did they build it? so why did they built it? because it doesn't matter who you are ... infinite recursion

    do you think, future archeologists will catch this???

    1. Re:Why? by svvampy · · Score: 1

      Because they're massive Nerds. Also if the vagina theory is true, then maybe they're the people who've been keeping the spammers in business and have such large amounts of ex-Nigerian money and gianormous penises that they can afford this and require it.

  24. think again by beckerie · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The aim of the project, funded by a grant of NZ$56,500 from the Royal Society of New Zealand, is to generate interest in science among people who might not normally be keen on the subject.
    It may well be a miscalculation to think that building a stonehenge somewhere will generate interest in the public. Some people may not even know what a stonehenge is, let alone participate and visit one.

    Advancement and discoveries in science are happening all the time but as amazing and awesome as they are, the fact stands that what may be interesting to some people, is trivial to others.

  25. wired pulp vs. online.... by sjs132 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Once again, no reason to renew my subscription to the pulp version of wired when I can get it free online, just a few weeks later...

    --
    --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
  26. Re:New Zealand by zokrath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least you still have your wildly outdated xenophobic, ill-informed views that we all eat boiled pig anus at each and every meal.

    Well I didn't before, but I might now; however I was referring to stereotype of bland British food rather than the...colorful...'traditional' meals of the Isles.

    Regardless, it is good that you have many fond memories of Stonehenge, and likely other ancient structures and formations, but I do not see a cause to claim that this project is unfarily feeding on the fame of the original structures.

    The scientist is not saying "look, we had druids here too, come to New Zealand instead of England if your want to see Stonehend; ours is better, nyaa!"; such a claim would be pure nonsense.

    Rather, he is striving to spread knowledge and understanding, a noble goal under any circumstances.

  27. Inverting Stonhenge's astronomical relationship by crosbie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Whilst most assume that Stonehenge was used to establish the position of the stars, there is another explanation.

    The stars may have been used to accurately establish the orientation of Stonehenge.

    In otherwords, the builders cared not one whit where the stars were, but they cared greatly as to the position and alignment of stonehenge.

    They knew that astronomical observation and unique annual events could achieve this objective.

    So the real question is "Why would it be important to precisely position and orient Stonehenge?"

    It would be important if there was more than one Earth, e.g. in a parallel universe.

    How else could builders on both planets construct something in precisely the same place and orientation?

    What would be the benefit to having two Stonehenges in identical positions and alignments?

    A gate. Morphic resonance. Weave your way through one henge and pop out at the other.

    Dangerous stuff.

    And if you decide you don't like the gate, or the folk who come through it? Knock it down until it stops working.

    1. Re:Inverting Stonhenge's astronomical relationship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can buy it was for observing the stars. I can buy it was for developing a universal measuring unit. I can understand it might have been used to work out when to plant crops. I can buy it was part of fertility rites or offing those damn virgins. I can even buy someone built it because they thought it would be magic. But I ain't gonna swallow it was the plot from some really bad scifi.

    2. Re:Inverting Stonhenge's astronomical relationship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, that was a wacky rant...

      Perhaps a little thorazine would help your condition?

    3. Re:Inverting Stonhenge's astronomical relationship by RabidStoat · · Score: 1
      err, Earth to crosbie .. Earth to crosbie .. come in please, it's time to go back to the nice soft room.

      Thinking about it though, I wonder what /. is like on the other side, maybe it's ./ ?

    4. Re:Inverting Stonhenge's astronomical relationship by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Oooh, oooh, just like those moongates in that game...Ultima. Or it could just be an accurate calendar for determining when it's time to plant your crops and harvest them. Modern farming techniques in ancient times? Before you dismiss this bear in mind the Maori people of New Zealand have a fishing calendar which Dad and I used to use to determine when to fish and what fish to try and catch at that time. Lot's of info on google about it or click here if you're lazy.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    5. Re:Inverting Stonhenge's astronomical relationship by The+Zody · · Score: 1

      Is that a Terry Prachett reference? From Lords and Ladies?

    6. Re:Inverting Stonhenge's astronomical relationship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this clearly explains the sasquatch, yeti, loch ness monster, chupacabra, ogopogo, and other such creatures.

    7. Re:Inverting Stonhenge's astronomical relationship by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is that a Terry Prachett reference? From Lords and Ladies?

      In Lords and Ladies the dancers (big rocks containing meteorite iron) were made into a henge to stop travel between the two universes. Not to form a gateway but as the door that seals it.

      The elves (the Lords and Ladies from the title) couldn't pass through the ring of stones because they couldn't stand the iron. The area the stones surrounded was a particularly 'thin' area where the two worlds were close enough together to allow things to pass from one to another.

      So maybe the parent did get the idea from 'Lords and Ladies', conciously or not. But if they did, they should go back and read it again and get the facts straight.

    8. Re:Inverting Stonhenge's astronomical relationship by crosbie · · Score: 1

      Nope, not read Lords & Ladies.

      Got my influence from tons of mythology & faery lit, i.e. walking round trees three times, fairy rings, stone circles, magic wands, 'magical laws', maypoles, etc.

      I just thought it a little amusing, if all the henges were actually nothing to do with seasonal prediction, that any solar or stellar alignment while demonstrably present was purely to improve performance in some way - for whatever strange reason.

      For example, it is not impossible that one day in the future someone may deduce that sundials are for passing travellers to check where north is.

      Don't let Occam's razor stifle exploration of possibility. ;-)

      Just think of it as an amusing thought experiment: to consider the implications of the henge not being aligned with seasonal events in order to function as a calendar, but in order to be specifically aligned geomorphologically.

  28. Re:New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's country precisely did you mean? I am not really sure that the modern Britism Isles can claim stonehenge as their 'heritage' when it was built thousands of years ago by a very different people, who were later nearly erradicated by the Romans.

    Hey we're still alive across the northsea, successfully kept off the Roman Empire with our swamps and have small stone henges all over the place from our past.

  29. Spinal tap reference by mr_tenor · · Score: 0

    I second the "mod up" recommendation

  30. Re:New Zealand by basingwerk · · Score: 1
    > nearly erradicated by the Romans

    The million or so people in the British Isles who still speak celtic languages would disagree with you. And just because european invaders almost erraditicated the natives in America, I am not really sure that the Romans acted that way in Britain - somebody had to build Hadrian's wall and all those roads and villas.

    --
    I stole this .sig
  31. Re:New Zealand by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, there was Tolkein's history of NZ, recently made into a trilogy of films...

    Seriously, however, yes, NZ has heritage of its own: there are Pas (Maori forts), early colonial Pakeha buildings, etc. And given the historic links between Pakeha (European) New Zealand and Britain, I'm surprised you'd feel that NZ was disrespecting Britain.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  32. Re:New Zealand by Satan's+Hand+Puppet · · Score: 1

    The immensely ignorant farmers around Stonehenge knocked the stones down over the years, thinking that they were pagan symbols. There used to be a procession of stones along the paths towards Stonehenge too.

    The Irish have their own smaller Stonehendge too. Of course some Irish people are decendants of the original builders, the Tuatha De Danann. When the Celts came to Ireland, we mixed with the older people who occupied (what is now called) Ireland and the U.K. They were the builders of Stonehendge, and unless you're a decendant of them, then it's not really your history, although I'm sure you're welcome to share in it.

    The Celtic people and the Maori (although quite distinct) have a great deal in common however, in fact both cultures have a lot of similarities in many things.

  33. Re:Thank God by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a New Zealander, all I can say is WTF? I'll stick to my Maori/PI/Asian/Antipodean/etc culture thanks (yeh I'm white but screw it, I'm not European, I'm a New Zealander). I don't really get the need to build a "me too" monument to astronomy, but hey, if it floats his boat let him build it.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  34. Re:New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If that hurts your feelings, then you shouldn't read about how the Maori kicked the English's arses.

  35. Re:New Zealand by wagemonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Well I didn't before, but I might now; however I was referring to stereotype of bland British food rather than the...colorful...'traditional' meals of the Isles.
    Most British food isn't bland, though sometimes you might wish it were (brains, tripe, haggis). It can be if it's badly cooked of course but that's true anywhere.
    We have wonderful ingredients and some great recipes - if you look into historic foods theres lots of flavourings added. You could say things started to go downhill after Raleigh brought back the potato, but I woudln't agree.

    The national dish these days seems to be curry anyway, it may not be historical (more than a hundred years anyway) but it isn't bland :-)

    It's about as true as the stereotype of American Cuisine - that there isn't one! the US has lots of regional cuisines AIUI, but I'm mostly familiar with Cajun and Tex-Mex. But I do know that there's more. The US did give the world the burger chain though, so there's some excuse for believing that Americans are more concerned with quantity than quality. I'm sure it's not true for all though :-)

  36. Re:New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The million or so people in the British Isles who still speak celtic languages would disagree with you. And just because european invaders almost erraditicated the natives in America, I am not really sure that the Romans acted that way in Britain - somebody had to build Hadrian's wall and all those roads and villas.
    The Romans didn't nearly eradicate the Celts. It was the Angles and Saxons who did that. Of course, as you say, Celtic peoples survived in Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
  37. Aliens by pklong · · Score: 4, Funny

    You do know that you are seriously going to confuse the aliens when you put stonehenge in the southern hemisphere.

    --

    Philip

    Signatures are broken

    1. Re:Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when the US builds a great wall to keep out the invading hoardes of Mexicans, the confusion will be complete.

    2. Re:Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where would they build the wall? Could it even go below the masson-dixon line anymore?

  38. Re:New Zealand by kfg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So is it your opinion then that white, British descended, Kiwis have the history of the Maori as their heritage?

    Since there are a few surviving Maori left there might be some discussion on the matter, and perhaps some hard feelings over it too.

    I really don't see the modern, white Kiwis gathering in the town square for a massive fucking for fertility session (a practice that, personally, I think makes a lot more sense than killing someone for fertility) as part of his "heritage." If the Maori tried it today I rather suspect their heritage would see them all in jail. There's a conflict of heritage here.

    As a white, British descended North American I can understand that if I started claiming heritage rights to a Mohawk burial ground/sacred site some modern Mohawk might well think I was rather out of line, seeing as not a single one of my antecedents had anything to do with it.

    On the other hand, I rather doubt that any of the Native Americans would particularly object to my building a Stonehenge (although I'm more inclined to a Nerfhenge myself) replica here because they would perceive it as part of my British heritage. If you objected you'd be being an asshole, because my ancestors lay there under the stars and listened to tales of the elders and have at least as much claim to it as yours.

    Whereas if I wanted to celebrate the life and traditions of my North American ancestors I could, well, move into a tenement building in Harlem and then go to a moving picture. I think I'll pass. It lacks something as an ancestral ritual.

    For the majority of New Zealanders Stonehenge is their heritage and their purely New Zealand heritage goes back no farther than the mid 1800s.

    What would you have them do, kill a native, build a clerk's office and a railroad to celebrate their heritage?

    Should the Maori celebrate the Crusade of Richard I as part of their heritage, or The Tower? That would seem to be exactly the sort of thing you're objecting to. The road goes both ways.

    Yes, New Zealand is an awesome place. Yes, it has a rich cultural heritage, but that cultural heritage is not shared by its populace until completely modern times.

    KFG

  39. ...and I think... by turgid · · Score: 1

    ...we should stop looking backwards and look forward to a future where all superstition is relegated to where it belongs: in the past.

    1. Re:...and I think... by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1

      Why do you suppose Stonehenge is about superstition. Stonehenge, and the many associated monuments in the Wiltshire landscape (Silbury Hill, Avebury, West Kennet etc) were as much to do with a show of power - these were the first peoples in this country who were able to change the landscape in this way.

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    2. Re:...and I think... by turgid · · Score: 1
      Why do you suppose Stonehenge is about superstition.

      Maybe it's because there people, like many other primitive cultures, used to think daft things like you have to sacrifice people and animals to make the sun come up again at certain times of year etc?

      Superstition still goes on and is condoned (and even celebrated) to this day and in Western culture, which is supposedly "advanced". I need not spell out what for fear of lynching.

    3. Re:...and I think... by perly-king-69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe it's because there people, like many other primitive cultures, used to think daft things like you have to sacrifice people and animals to make the sun come up again at certain times of year etc?

      There's no evidence whatsoever of sacrifice taking place at Stonehenge. These monuments were all about taking control and ownership of the landscape at about the same time as society was transforming from a mobile hunter-gatherer one to a sedentary farming based one. It was about establishing control of the land.
      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    4. Re:...and I think... by turgid · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought it was about druid who used to hack to death young ladys to make sure that the sun came up again after the winter solstice. Maybe I heard wrong. A mad wiccan told me that. He was as mad as a hatter.

    5. Re:...and I think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Wicca's a 20th century invention, and Stonehenge predates the druids. It was there so they probably used it, but they didn't build it.

    6. Re:...and I think... by turgid · · Score: 2, Funny
      I see. The moral of the story is "never believe a wiccan on a mid-life crisis."

      Thanks.

  40. Stonehenge was rebuilt itself anyway...(maybe) by gulio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that claims have been made in recent years that stonehenge itself was almost completely rebuilt in the 20th century (based on evidence like constables paintings and contemporary photos), I don't understand why anyone would get their backup about a reproduction being made. (Granted there were many counter claims) [Personally I'd be interested in seeing even the techniques used even in 1902 reemployed in NZ]

  41. not really by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    That's only really true of Scandinavia and some other parts of northern Europe. Greece, for example, has been largely Christian since Christianity was first started. It's true that the ancient Greek religions were pagan, but they're hardly pagan in a way that's closely related to northern European paganism (and certainly not to neopaganism), and the development of modern Greek culture has been far more influenced by 2000 years of Christianity, particularly the Byzantine Empire.

    Similar things might be said of Italy, Spain, and Portugal.

    [Note that I'm personally not a member of any religion.]

  42. Celtic peoples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He runs like a Welshman. Doesn't he run like a Welshman?

  43. Looks cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like those concrete buildings styled in a modern roman style from the seventies .

    But in a nod to the old, the finished henge will be coated with cement and covered in plaster sculpted to look like stone.

    We know from experience plastering it grey is not going to make it look any better, communist architecture anyone :-)

    Besides plaster and stuff? This is going to last even less then the white stuff they put on the pyramids to make them shine.

    I prefer the vision of that European mechanical clock made from durable material that is designed to show the right hours and minutes for thousands of years.

  44. I'm getting ready for sloppy bar-b-que! by mindmaster064 · · Score: 1

    Stonehenge? Who needs one?
    If I was in NZ I would build an enbankment to protect me from the wall of molten acidic volcanic death!

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/05/03/volcano .zealand.reut/index.html

    The people that think neo-stonehenge is more important than this need to be summarily shot, drawn, quartered, and forced to watch Friend's episodes until completely unmasculated.

    1. Re:I'm getting ready for sloppy bar-b-que! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few people live in the Whangaehu Valley, on account of how lahars come down it every few years... (At least they don't live in the lahar path).

      The place where the train got hit is now protected by automatic gates across the road that will close if a lahar starts.

      This is a much better idea than the Nats dumb plan to start digging holes in the crater rim. (An embankment would *not* work)

      And fortunately, the ski fields are on the other side of the mountain from the main lahar gully.

      Hopefully Ruapehu won't erupt this season (as opposed to overflowing) - eruptions do tend to put paid to skiing...

  45. They're not the first by Inigo+Soto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nebraskans already built a replica of Stonehenge

    1. Re:They're not the first by khallow · · Score: 1

      And it's by far the coolest! :-)

    2. Re:They're not the first by siriuskase · · Score: 1
      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  46. In other news.... by SysKoll · · Score: 2, Funny

    SCO claimed ownership of the Stonehenge design and announced a lawsuit aganst the Phoenix Astronomical Society for copyright infringement. "Stonehenge was clearly an early computer, and as such, it might be used to run an early version of Unix. Which we own."

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  47. Re:New Zealand by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1
    successfully kept off the Roman Empire

    Clue...they weren't interested and didn't even try to invade. The only reason Britain was invaded was because Claudius needed a military victory to give him, a distinctly non-military man, some kudos with the army.

    --

    --
    This sig is inoffensive.

  48. Not massively relevant actually by ColourlessGreenIdeas · · Score: 1

    The religion that built stonehenge died out around 1100BC. The religion that tends to be called things like british paganism or druidism started around 600BC. There are no identifiable traces of the old (circle-building) religion, and there haven't been any since it died out in the first place. Feel free to lobby for more recognition for British paganism, but bear in mind that it's quite different to the old greek religion and has NOTHING to do with stone circles. Wheras all of Europe has been christian.

    --
    In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
  49. The original has some "interesting" properties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fence around the English Stone Henge was errected in order to prevent vanadalism. At least thats the offical line.

    I have been told, by two sources (who don't know each other) a very interesting story. Take this with as many grains of salt as you wish:

    Both sources had visited stone henge in the days before the fence. Both had reasons for spending the night with in stone henges stone circle. Both woke up the next day in the place they woke up the day before (i.e. one guy had traveld from Manchester to stone henge, and woke up back in Manchester the next day).

    From what I'm told, this only happens on solstices (solsti?).

    Anyway, that the word on the street (or lay line....)

  50. Another reason for ticket a book by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    "My crazy brother"- Prentice Hall

  51. my bedroom's like stonehenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somehow from the time between 6:00am and 7:00am there's a strip of light about 3 inches wide that hits ONLY the top quarter of the bed.

    -d

  52. Explains why stonehenge exists by kalayl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course, 4000 years ago a bunch of scientists were probably sitting around, staring at a decaying set of rocks 8000 years old, called someotherhenge. They were asking themselves who built them and why, which is when they decided to replicate someotherhenge and build what we now know as stonehenge, in england.

  53. Boy, oh, boy... by ndnet · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... will you be hated by anthropologists and archeologists. Think about it - after any writing is worn away, someone will dig it up and compare it to the original (which is a National Treasure of Some Sort (TM), so it'll be safe).

    At that point, they'll wonder if we're still pagans, or if pagans survived and migrated, or what... After all, they'll be able to date this one to 2005 AD, and the other one is thousands of years old.

  54. Re:New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you'll find that over 150,000,000 (150 million) people around the world claim a British heritage, and in the UK over 90% of the population has a direct ancestral route to the original inhabitants of the British Isles tens out thousands of years ago, who were the original builders of Stonehenge.

    In fairness, this percentage is expected to drop to 10% by 2050 due to protected influxes of immigration and multi-culturism, but for the time being, the British are directly related to these peoples (and NOT wiped out as previous thought) and also 150 million others throughout the world probably have a good chance of having this route, though probably not such a strong percentage.

  55. UMass Sunwheel by gcondon · · Score: 1

    The Department of Physics and Astronomy ot the University of Massachusetts in Amherst undertook a similar project a few years ago.

    What makes their project unique is that the design is NOT a replica of Stonehenge but, rather, a reconceptualization of the calendar wheel based on a modern understanding of astronomy.

    Check it out here.

  56. Size does matter! by ollyg · · Score: 1

    Surely what's impressive to us about Stonehenge nowadays is that the stones are massive but it was built in a time without the engines and machinery we have today?

    If so, why build a similar-scale henge? That's no news. You need to build something like a 200 storey skyscraper - that'd get them thinking in the future.

  57. Re:New Zealand by kfg · · Score: 1

    Actually, I think you'll find that 150 million people in the United States alone claim British heritage. Did I not mention that I was one of them? Was not that actually part of my point, that our heritage was British?

    KFG

  58. Oh dear! How tacky... by Ratface · · Score: 1

    Next they erected the pillars and lintels, hollow structures constructed using wood and cement board (hewn stone would have been too expensive and time-consuming to erect). But in a nod to the old, the finished henge will be coated with cement and covered in plaster sculpted to look like stone. Inside the "stones" will be some modern accoutrements: wires to allow a sound system to be installed. "We've already got two couples who want to get married out here," says Hall.

    I thought it was a pretty neat idea until I read that. It sounds more like something that you might find in Vegas than New Zealand if you ask me! Seems a bit cheesy when you think that it's basically going to be a glorified stage set!

    --

    A little planning goes a long way...
  59. I am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by Kinniken · · Score: 1

    I think it's even more crucial that today we have religious freedom for all, including the freedom not to worship any god. It's a shame that some people still insist on somehow forcing their religious beliefs and symbols onto others. Please grant other people the same freedoms you want for yourself.

    I am forcing my beliefs on you there??? For a start, I am not even religious, I am agnostic. Then, Europe's non-religious heritage is mentioned in the Constitution as well. Lastly, I fail to see why mentioning the role of religions in shaping Europe's history forces people to believe anything. We are not discussing a mention like "This Union, following the Christian Principles, ..." or "Under God, we establish ...", just a non-exclusive mention of its historical importance, which I indeed believe was one of the crucial factors in shaping out Europe (and certainly not only in positive ways).
    And BTW, I am French and takes laicity very seriously. I would be totally opposed to any mentions like the American "under God" or the "In God we trust" in French or European documents, and I am adamantly opposed to having religion influencing politics. I just do not think that rewriting history to fit current beliefs is right, and the current opening statement of the constitution which describes the big influences which shaped Europe without mentioning Christianity is just that.

    --
    What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
    1. re: i am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by ed.han · · Score: 1

      incidentally, those 2 phrases "under god" and "in god we trust" only date back to the 1950s, when fear of atheistic communism gripped the popular consciousness. it was at that time those phrases were added to the american lexicon.

      ed

    2. Re:I am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by Suidae · · Score: 1

      I am French and takes laicity very seriously

      Ok, thats twice in this thread. Pardon my ignorance, but what, exactly, is 'laicity'?

    3. Re:I am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh I put laicity into the merriam-webster online dictionary website (www.m-w.com) and it found one entry in the "unabridged version" which requires you to register for the premium service :/

    4. Re:I am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by renoX · · Score: 2, Informative

      "laicity" is the separation of goverment from church.

      It is one of the pilar of modern French state: governement, schools are all 'religion-free', religious activities are considered are purely private issue.

      It is very strange for French people to see the US president using the bible during his nomination, or witness swearing on the bible during a trial..

    5. Re: i am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by superyooser · · Score: 1
      Historical documents indicate that "under God" is a phrase that George Washington used.

      "In God we trust" was first put on coins in 1864.

    6. Re:I am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      It is one of the pilar of modern French state: governement, schools are all 'religion-free', religious activities are considered are purely private issue.

      On the other hand, neutrality with respect to religion and respect for the personal beliefs of people is not a part of the culture as the recent ban on religiously-mandated clothing shows. As an American, I find the slight to the Muslim, Jewish, and Sikh communities to be highly offensive and oppressive. In France, apparently relgious freedom means suppression of individual religious expression. This is a similar difference between the American protection of hate speech and the European ban of it while both claim to protect Free Speech.

      It is very strange for French people to see the US president using the bible during his nomination, or witness swearing on the bible during a trial.

      It is one of those odd traditions that continue to this day that are non-neutral. It's also unlikely to ever stop being the default due to the fact that it would be an unpopular move and the fact that witnesses can refuse to use a Bible and substitute another tome or nothing at all. Jews swear on the Talmud, Muslims on the Koran, etc. It is an odd continued joining between church and state, but it's not surprising if you consider that the tradition came from a time when the big worry about religious oppression was from one sect of Christianity dominating another sect of Christianity.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    7. Re:I am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by renoX · · Score: 1

      > the recent ban on religiously-mandated clothing shows.
      > As an American, I find the slight to the Muslim, Jewish, and Sikh communities to be highly offensive and oppressive

      Sorry but the ban is for
      1) public state school: I think the state can choose what clothing is considered as correct in state's schools.
      2) not related to any particular religion: a Christian who would wear an enormous cross would have the same problem as the other religion.

      IMHO religion is a serious matter who should be restricted to adults, I don't see why the state should allow religions to make differences between children within a state school.

    8. Re:I am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      1) In America, schools are not allowed to ban students from wearing clothing that expressed political or religious beliefs -- it's specifically banned, and the ACLU has fought numerous cases to preserve that right. Here, the state cannot infringe on the right to hold and to express one's beliefs, and that includes state-sponsored schools.

      2) This is the same sort of argument as saying, "A law banning all dark hair from schools is not related to any particular race: a white person with black hair has just the same problem as a black or Asian person." Discriminating equally against all religions is still religious discrimination. It's state sponsorship of atheism, and it's disrespectful to force people to act against their religious beliefs for the purpose of shielding kids from the fact that others around them might somehow be different from them.

      IMHO, religion is a serious matter that the state should keep their hands off of. Children are not immune to the same spiritual concerns that adults have, and the view that religion shouldn't be allowed to "corrupt" them at an early age shows a bias towards atheism. I don't see why the state should be allowed to tamper with the religious beliefs of its citizens nor why it should shield children from the fact that there are differences between them.

      Conformity is an illusion and a dangerous, polarizing ideal. Children not exposed to differing opinions tend to grow up intolerant of differences. Exposing kids to diversity and letting them make friends with diverse people raises their tolerance (or at least lets them think of more kinds of people as part of their in-group).

      Religion is just one thing "making differences between children within a state school." Everything from race to economic status to the quality of parenting results in differences between children. There's no reason to hide this fact, and cultures that have prided conformity of thought in their children have produced dangerous adults. France doesn't have to look far back into Europe's past to see the devastating effects of intolerance for divergent beliefs.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    9. Re:I am "forcing my beliefs on you"? by Suidae · · Score: 1

      In America, schools are not allowed to ban students from wearing clothing that expressed political or religious beliefs

      Sort of. Public schools can ban anything that they deem distracting or inappropriate. They can also institute strict dress codes such as the tan/black slacks (or skirt for girls) and white dress shirt that has been so popular in San Antonio and other Texas schools.

      I agree regarding conformity and the associated dangers, but in some areas certain things can be communicated by clothing styles that are not appropriate for school. In San Antonio (where I went to school and so can relate first-hand information) gang 'colors' were/are expressed in any number of ways, from a certain style of bandana to combinations of brand-name clothing. Schools that allow these expressions or cultural divisions have more problems with cliquish behavour and cultural intolerance. Dress codes help to discourage this kind of behavour.

      Naturally dresscodes are only one tool in educators toolbox, and should be used only as appropriate.

  60. A-men by Zilch · · Score: 1

    As a New Zealander I would have to agree.
    And good use of inverted commas - although I think you need them around 'civilisations'.

    Zilch

  61. Been there, done that by auferstehung · · Score: 1
    The University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR) built their own version of Stonehenge to demonstrate high pressure waterjet technology.

    --
    Logic is not Divine.
  62. Well.. by manavendra · · Score: 1

    the proposed pictures show a very "complete" and structurally intact stonehenge.

    I believe, for it to generate enough public interest, the structure has to have enough signs of wear and tear - be it caused by time, or annexes/captures/attacks by helpful enemies.

    Without that sign of missing elements, wear and tear, and a well-rounded story (or myth) to go with it, there'd be very less talk to go about with at the pub with a pint of the best local bitter!

    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
  63. NOT in Goldendale by simetra · · Score: 0

    Maryhill overlooks the Columbia River, but is not in Goldendale. It's a bit to the west.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  64. shouldn't that be... by samhalliday · · Score: 2, Funny

    Richard Hall, president of the Firefox Astronomical Society?

  65. Re:Bloody British.... by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1
    Yes. Lets clear out the British Museum returning all of the artefacts housed within. And whilst we're at it, let's do the same for the national museums in Paris, Belin, Madrid, New York &c.

    Oh, and we should levy a charge for preserving the Parthenon friezes for 100 years. Or maybe just rot it with fumes from traffic pollution like the rest of the parthenon.

    --

    --
    This sig is inoffensive.

  66. Stonehenge in Texas by mknewman · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a replica of Stonehenge and also two large Easter Island statues near Kerrville Texas, here is a web page: http://www.texastwisted.com/attr/stonehenge2/ Marc

  67. Aha! That's what they want you to *think* it's for by mwood · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually they are scheming to reconfigure the Earth's axis of rotation for arcane purposes. Why else build it more or less exactly opposite England?

    The two circles are ectoplasmic bearings. When Stonehenge B is up and running, all of the ley lines will snap together through the line between them, the planet will be wrenched into a new and more mystical rotational mode, and astronomers will rule the world! (Hey, it's easier than building a dimensional redistributor -- the tubes are so hard to come by.) :-) for the humor-impaired.

  68. Been there, done that by wcspxyx · · Score: 2, Informative

    UMR did this many moons ago.

    --
    Sig? What sig? Do I have to have a sig!?!?
  69. Re:Thank God by andr0meda · · Score: 3, Interesting


    You obviously don't know shit. As a European, having been in NZ for one month straight dramtically changes your view on the way current EU life is so full of stress that it barely is able to breath naturally.

    NZ is quite frankly the most perfect spot on earth I have ever seen / been to.

    Big thanks for a wonderfull vacation to the allways helpfull and sympathetic NewZeelanders and maori folks!!

    --
    With great power comes great electricity bills.
  70. Another Stonehenge by nrjyzerbuny · · Score: 1

    The University of Missouri Rolla has had a 1/2 scale replica of Stonehenge since the 1970's. It was cut out using water jets that the mining department and the engineering research lab had been working on.

    The henge itself was a collaboration between the mining dept and the physics dept. Physics got involved to make sure it was accurate. After all, the original is several thousand years out of date. Whenever you see a show describing it, they usually talk about how they had to model where the sun was in the sky at the time when Stonehenge was in active use, and by-golly, it worked. UMR's henge works correctly as a solar calendar calibrated for now.

    Kind of an interesting project, and one of those sort of distinctive things around the campus.

    Not like the ugly pink bathroom signs. (Previous link, beneath the UMR henge.)

  71. Been There, Done That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's an existing Stonehenge copy in Texas:

    http://www.alfredshepperd.com/stonehenge/untitle d. html

  72. They'll be gone when I get there by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Take a look at them. They are janky POS's. Its built from freaken wood. The wonderment we get from the originals is not really the shape or the function of it, but rather the fact that it was built from huge blocks of impossible to move rocks. Its the fact that the blocks are so wildly huge that we can only guess how they were able to build something to such a high degree of precision, while we who are so advanced would struggle to reproduce it.
    So Im sorry, but some bone heads making a fake stone henge out of wood which wont last 10 years let alone 10,000 is just LAME!

    1. Re:They'll be gone when I get there by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      oh, I'm sure it could go 50 to 100 years just like a modern crappy wood framed house.....

  73. One in Washington State too by Some+Pig! · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://www.maryhillmuseum.org/about.htm

  74. Tour? by koafc · · Score: 1

    Anybody know if Spinal Tap is already booked there?

  75. Re:New Zealand by term8or · · Score: 1

    As someone from the UK I'd say that if someone in NZ or anywhere else wants to build a stonehenge replica (or, in this case, a modern interpretation) then good luck to them.

    --



    "As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig. :) " - AC
  76. waste of time by chiyosdad · · Score: 1

    "...and ours will be 100x bigger and better than the primitive ones built by those english bastards!"

    Seriously, what's the point? People have much more accurate ways to construct a calendar nowadays... The original stonehenge was driven by need, and people admire it because it was a hard thing to do given the architectural standards of the time. The new stonehenge is unnecessary and pretty easy to do. Sounds like an unoriginal publicity stunt to me.

    everyone looks at the Pyramids and Stonehenge and structures like that (and asks) who built them, why did they build them?

    People know why they built them... they're going to look at this one and ask wtf?

  77. Modern History by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 1

    Of course, there have were some wonderful mishaps with stonehenge in the year 2000... First of all, there were the solstice celebrations/banning by the british from 1985-2000 here, which led to wonderful clashes with the british police. Then there was the attempt to recreate the trek of bringing the massive rocks to stonehenge here, which ended in dismal failure, and the sinking of a great bluestone rock. I guess New Zealand couldn't possibly do worse...

  78. Re:Bloody British.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Look. Stavros - Elgin nicked those friezes fair and square.

    You can have them back when Athens is a fit place for marble once more, free of the pollution that continually rots what's left of the Parthenon.

    And the same goes for any other whingeing natives/colonials who don't like the British Museum having more of their history than they have.

  79. Christianity is/was a pagan religion. by Phanatik · · Score: 1

    It just won out over all of the others due to a better business model.

  80. I saw one in Oregon. by LoudChris · · Score: 1

    There is one at @ meuseum in Oregon. Linkage : http://www.maryhillmuseum.org/about.htm#ston

  81. Sunwise is anticlockwise in NZ by Triskele · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Just remember sunwise is the other way round in the southern hemisphere as Stonehenge is a solar site.

    PS: English Heritage are blasphemeous bastards as punters are supposed to go along the walkway (which is close as you can get to the stones these days) anticlockwise round Stonehenge

    --

    --
    USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

  82. But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Am I the only person who read this report of a plan to build a replica of what is supposed to be an early astronomical computer in the southern hemisphere and thought, "but the stars are arranged differently there"?

    First trial run:

    "OK, it says in the installation instructions that we stand at the sixth outlier at midnight and the bright star between the third and fourth sarsens will be Sirius. WTF, there isn't any bright star there? We've spent NZ$56K on this and it's already broken?!? Where's that EULA...."
    1. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering about Stonehenge actually being an homage to some earlier henge that ancient archeologists couldn't quite figure out the point of but thought was pretty cool anyway. "How could they have possibly moved those giant slabs of rock with their primitive tools? Why don't we build one ourselves and maybe that will provide some insight?"

  83. Heh... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Quarry the stones from the same place as the original to really confuse the future. Thats why we're doing this, right? Fucking with future scientists/aliens who may study our dead world sometime in the future?

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  84. Re-Creating Stonehenge by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    This got rejected as a Slashdot story submission:

    Wally Wallington moves huge objects alone.

    See also Ancient Construction.

  85. Replicating the original reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    long, long time ago..
    Some people heard a legend about strange big stone structure somewhere far away that maybe was completely useless or it might have some arcane nifty properties, or maybe there even wasn't such thing. They wondered and wondered about these stories and just couldn't figure it out. All this work, why? So they had to test it and build their own Stonehenge. Nothing happened. Damn. Now today..

  86. Already been done in NZ 10 years ago: Fridgehenge by stanwirth · · Score: 1

    Not only has this already been done, but it was done 10 years ago in New Zealand

    But doesn't this thread belong under the "Stand Alone Calendar App" topic?

  87. Abridged moral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can drop the "on a mid-life crisis" bit from that sentence. Just an observation.

  88. What if this is what the real stonehenge is?! by shrewmy · · Score: 0

    What if someone a long time ago made a little rock sculpture, and people in Europe was like woah that's kind've cool, we should do that. And so they did. The original one is gone now, but the one in Europe still stands (but isn't it starting to fall down or something?) So now we build a new one, the 2nd falls, and the people in the future look back and wonder what the hell this thing the people in 2004 built is for, then decide to make their own. And it just goes on and on.

  89. Of course... by goliard · · Score: 1

    In other words: "Backward compatability".

    --
    -*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
  90. Sam Hill's isn't a good replica by Ben+Jackson · · Score: 1

    It is made out of coarse aggregate cement and it isn't aligned with the sun correctly. I wouldn't even stop by on the way to the Mary Hill museum.

  91. Re:Thank God by rthille · · Score: 3, Funny

    andr0meda, shut the hell up. Pay no attention to him. NZ is a vast toxic wasteland. Pretty much unlivable. Never go there.

    At least that's what I told people when I came back from spending 3 months bike touring there. Hate to have it inundated with the unwashed :-)

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  92. Re:Aha! That's what they want you to *think* it's by echucker · · Score: 1
    Moderation +2
    50% Informative
    50% Funny


    I'm not sure if I find the Informative moderation funny or disturbing.
  93. Answering Questions with Questions by ari_j · · Score: 1

    ...leads to more questions.

    Why?

    "We came up with the idea of Stonehenge because it doesn't matter who you are -- everyone looks at the Pyramids and Stonehenge and structures like that (and asks) who built them, why did they build them?"


    So, we're building something out of rocks because we don't know why someone else built something out of rocks? What will people think in 5,000 years when they come across the new Stonehenge? "Hey, these people were obviously great astronomers!" Wrong! They were copycat idiots with too much time and money on their hands.

    How do we know that Stonehenge itself wasn't built without a reason other than "because we got bored"? That's why I do everything I do, from turning Cray YMP hard drives into margarita mixers to writing a Lisp interpreter instead of studying for finals in college, so there's no legitimate reason to believe that Stonehenge doesn't have similar roots.

  94. Online version by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

    Actually, despite wired saying "this article will be available on $date", they're all available if you can guess the name of the html page. open up one that *is* available & replace the name with your guess - they tend to be 8 letter names.

  95. +5 INformative? by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1
    Only on /.

    heh!

  96. another stone heblahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just what i need to spend 1000's of dollors to go to new zealand rather then pay less to see the real thing or if you want to see a replica for real cheap then go about 20 miles east of the Dalles on I84 cross the Columbia River to Washington state and follow the signs(htis is dirrections from portland OR if you live in seattle drive to portland then get on I84 east if you live in eastern washington then follow state 94 south)...there is also a replica in wyomming or something that is made out of cars...car henge...yippy

  97. povo hollow stonehenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this really going to be a lasting archeological feature? They are making hollow wooden structures with a bit of concrete and plaster around the edges.

    Where's the stone? A wooden henge seems unlikely to stand the test of time

    Nothing's built to last these days. Back in my time they would have used stone. Or at least some crazy alloy.

  98. -1 Melodramatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  99. UMR did this 20 years ago! by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    UMR Stonehenge was dedicated on June 20, 1984 (summer solstice), at the site of the northwest edge of campus. Approximately 160 tons of granite were used in the monument. The rock was cut to the proper dimensions by UMR's Waterjet equipment. This equipment used two waterjets cutting at a pressure of 15,000 pounds per square inch traversing the surface just like a conventional saw. The cutter moved at a speed of about 10 feet per minute and cut between one-quarter and one-half inch on each path.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  100. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Kiwi, this is the sort of comment that really puzzles me. I have only been outside the country once (to Sydney, Australia) but from what I've seen by way of tv, films, internet, I don't get why people are always saying New Zealand is so perfect.

    Are you just being polite? (It's said NZers have a strong inferiority complex - could be from having one of the most hated accents in the world, and being so far away from everything else of course - but we can take the criticism!)

    Anyway - from what I've seen, Europe, Canada, The National parks in the US - all are much bigger, better, just as picturesque as anything in New Zealand.

    About the only thing we have is a relatively low population density.

    (As a NZer I have to say I've always thought Canada looked like a much better place to live...grass is greener and all that :)

  101. Not the largest by Quiet+Sound · · Score: 1

    The Tri-cityherald article actually says "one of" the largest and I know of one that definitely is larger. Chabot Observatory in Oakland, CA has a 36" reflector and the observatory is open to the public on weekend evenings and certain other times. I've not visited it since it moved to its current location but anyone who is able should do so.

  102. Re:Thank God by andr0meda · · Score: 1


    -:)

    You are right though, there is that danger that the country is going to get run-over by the vast masses in our western & eastern mega societies, even more so because of the LOTR movies, which, by the way, were not my incentive to visit the country.

    I went there purely for nature and extreme sporting (hang-gliding/bunji/skydive/biking/tramping), and I got all of that and bucketloads more. I mean.. I saw the Millford Sound with a clear blue sky, for christ sake! ;) Sadly I didn't have that luck at Mirror Lake. I took about 1000 photos..

    --
    With great power comes great electricity bills.
  103. Hoosier gots a stonehenge already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cf http://php.indiana.edu/~chumphre/

  104. what's the point? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    What's the point of building something like this out of - of all things - a wooden frame, cement boards, and plaster?

    Personally, what's cool about stonehenge is not that it points to the stars' alignment, or that it measures time in seasons, years, and decades. What's cool about it is the mystery surrounding it: it was built long before modern machines, by the sweat of the brow and ingenious engineering. It is a massive undertaking, even by today's standards (considering the size and numbers of the rocks). What's more, the exact purpose of Stonehenge isn't terribly well known, and there's a fair bit of question: why would someone build such a massive structure, if not for practical reasons?

    This modern implimentation of stonehenge is a joke. It'll last a couple hundred years - at best! - and be forgotten, as perminant materials weren't used.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  105. Source of confusion for future anthropologists by siriuskase · · Score: 1
    To make the henge truly of Aotearoa (the Mâori name for New Zealand), the astronomers have ensured that their creation links to the stars that Polynesian navigators used to cross the Pacific Ocean

    If they put in all these references to planting sweet potatos and ancienct Polynesion culture, anthropologists in the future won't know who to give credit to. 2000 years from now, people will think the Maori routinely wired their structures for sound.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest