by | July 9th, 2003
Hey, it's their headline, not mine. “Stonehenge is a massive fertility symbol, according to Canadian researchers who believe they have finally cracked the mystery of the ancient monument in southern England”:
Does Stonehenge Depict Female Genitalia??
Does this mean school groups won't visit anymore?

{ 3 comments }
They are always coming up with new theories on prehistoric stuff, and since there are no written records to counter it, why not?
This is my take. I’d say it’s a lot more likely to be coincidence that a circle of stones looks like genitals to a 21st century person flying over it in a helicopter than it is likely a coincidence that the layout of the stones accurately tracks stars and can be used as a calandar. Neolithic people didn’t have helicopters to see things from above, and even if they did, what would be the point exactly of having a huge sex fetish that could be seen from above??? What would be the point?
The support given in the article would make a little more sense for a paleolithic society than it does for neolithic, but even at that, it sounds more like a modern society overly preoccupied with sex than it does stone age culture. A miniature talisman like the Venus of Willendorf might make sense for fertility in that you create it quickly in the hopes that Frank and Barbara will produce children during their brief tenure on Earth. How would a larger than life size, abstract crotch that can only be seen from an airplane be of much use to Frank and Barbara, especially if it won’t be finished for several hundred years? It just isn’t logical.
Coming from the other side, if it was some bizarre sex fetish, how curious that by accident it manages to keep time. Other randon objects created by man do not by accident happen to keep time. Pianos do not double as clocks, and toilets cannot be used to predict eclipses. In fact, I cannot personally think of any object created for another use that was discovered to accidentally keep time. And finding a way to track the seasons year after year would be of great value to Neolithic farmers… I dare say of greater value than an aerial view sex fetish — all the more since fertility was a lot less of an issue once they developed agriculture and communities were already growing much larger.
:This is my take. I’d say it’s a lot more likely to be coincidence that a circle of stones looks like genitals to a 21st century person flying over it in a helicopter than it is likely a coincidence that the layout of the stones accurately tracks stars and can be used as a calandar.
And why can’t it be both since much of ancient humanity’s preoccupation with the movements and symbolism of the sun and moon had to do with fertility symbolism? It really would be best to read Dr. Anthony Perks theory before making flawed commentary about it. It is now available online you know…
http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/stonehenge.pdf
:Neolithic people didn’t have helicopters to see things from above,
This is totally spurious argumention. The fact of the matter is that diverse ancient cultures quite evidently did create gigantic ground art meant to be seen fom above such as the Nazca Lines, the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio, the Uffington White Horse, and quite possibly Glastonbury Tor which, from the air, looks like… you guessed it… a gignatic vagina complete with a Christianized clitoris!
http://www.artnet.com/ag/fineartdetail.asp?aid=3065&wid=31263&page=1&group=&max_tn_page=
http://nazcalines.homestead.com
:and even if they did,
They didn’t have helicopters but they most certainly DID make gigantic drawings intended to be seen by eyes in the sky. This goes a long way to explaining why…
http://eyeofgod.homestead.com
:what would be the point exactly of having a huge sex fetish that could be seen from above??? What would be the point?
The point would be that their “skygods” would see it and might “appreciate” its symbolism and respond to it.
:The support given in the article would make a little more sense for a paleolithic society than it does for neolithic, but even at that, it sounds more like a modern society overly preoccupied with sex than it does stone age culture.
Not really. After all “modern society” did not come up with this theory, just a retired professor of obstetrics and gynaecology whose area of knowledge expertise prompted him to perceive something that others did not. In any case ancient society, even stone age culture, was quite preoccupied with sex as well. N’est-ce pas?
:A miniature talisman like the Venus of Willendorf might make sense for fertility in that you create it quickly in the hopes that Frank and Barbara will produce children during their brief tenure on Earth. How would a larger than life size, abstract crotch that can only be seen from an airplane be of much use to Frank and Barbara, especially if it won’t be finished for several hundred years?
Because this “larger than life size, abstract crotch” would be seen by the solar and lunar “sky gods” of ancient Britons, to say nothing of the total solar eclipse “Eye of God” that may well have inspired the builders of Stonehenge to create it in the form of a symbolic vulva. Also it probably did not take “several hundred years” to create the different stages of Stonehenge. Each stage probaly was constructed within a reasonably short time frame with long gaps between the various stages of its evolution.
:It just isn’t logical.
Actually it is you who just isn’t being particularly logical and who quite evidently is not all that well informed about ancient society and stone age culture as it were.
:Coming from the other side, if it was some bizarre sex fetish, how curious that by accident it manages to keep time.
It’s not an “accident” at all both functions of Stonehenge would be quite intimately inter-related, assuming of course that Stonehenge was in fact designed to resemble a vulva when viewed from the sky.
:Other randon objects created by man do not by accident happen to keep time.
There is nothing “random” about Stonehenge, either in terms of its function as an astronomical observatory and possible eclipse calculator or the fcat that it may symbolically represent the vulva of an “Earth Goddess” when viewed by the solar and lunar skygods or “Eyes of Heaven”.
Totally spurious argumentation here.
:And finding a way to track the seasons year after year would be of great value to Neolithic farmers…
As would religiously encouraging their solar and lunar skygods to continue to “fertilize” the Earth… N’est-ce pas?
:I dare say of greater value than an aerial view sex fetish —
Tell that to those ancient human beings who built Stonehenge and Glastonbury Tor…
:all the more since fertility was a lot less of an issue once they developed agriculture and communities were already growing much larger.
Judging by plenty of evidence that is totally independent of Stonehenge fertility was NOT a lot less of an issue once they developed agriculture and communities were already growing much larger.
My new “Web Sight” that is dedicated to providing the public with truthful and accurate information about Dr. Anthony Perks’ new theory that Stonehenge may have been designed to symbolically represent the vulva of an “Earth Goddess” when viewed from the sky, in order to counteract the abundance of misconceptions, misinformation, and possible disinformation, that is now on the internet, is taking form here -
http://vaginamonolithstonehenge.homestead.com
Besides providing accurate information about what Dr. Perks new Stonehenge theory actually says, this new “web sight” will present my own personal knowledge and insights that arise from my extensive research into how the religious beliefs and “mythology” of ancient humanity were profoundly influenced by both solar and lunar eclipse phenomena and will explain how these ancient religious beliefs inspired by ancient, and even prehistoric, eclipses of the sun and the moon almost certainly relate to Dr. Anthony Perks copntroversial theory that Stonehenge symbolically represents the vulva of an “Earth Goddess”.
Maybe it is a giant cooch. It’s all !@#$ speculation because we can’t go back in time and ask. History is a few facts hanging on the edge of theory. Waste of !@#$ time. Yet it makes a great Discovery channel episode.
Comments on this entry are closed.