SeekingSolace[dot]Net

I’ve gotta say, I’m a little disappointed. I was really interested in watching this show about pagans in the UK around 5000 years ago. The entire show seems to be overly-focused on an assumption that the ancient pagan religion was obsessed with the dead. Every piece of information they provide seems to end with the phrase, “…which they used to connect to the WORLD OF THE DEAD.” Emphasized just like that. I think this guy went to the same vocal performance school that the movie voice guy did (you know, “IN A WORLD…” guy). On top of that, every time they try to reconstruct a monument digitally (poorly, I might add, the representation is sort of hard to see as a ‘big picture’…bad graphics and bad camera angles lend to that), the guy says, “We can now reconstruct the monument as the pagans would have seen it back when they were engaged in rituals to the WORLD OF THE DEAD.” And I mean it when I say he says that every time (or something very similar to it). Normally, History Channel shows aren’t this repetitive. The whole show feels rather sensationalized. And the experts…not that believable. One guy seems like a completely crazy man, the woman doesn’t really have much to say except, “This is an extraordinary achievement for neolithic peoples,”, and the other guy doesn’t really seem to make statements, just random unrelated generalizations.

Did you know there was a Woodhenge? That was the religious site dedicated to ‘life’, to counter-balance Stonehenge’s religious dedication to the WORLD OF THE DEAD. Also, they’re not really providing evidence for their information. “This hill was built to a height of 18′ first, then up to 120′.” Okay…where’d you get that information from? How’d you figure that out? Really, normally the History Channel gives us credit for being able to understand archaeological evidence and gives that evidence to us. They talk for a long time about a ceremonial path to Stonehenge from Woodhenge, but then say, “No part of this path exists anymore.” And pagans didn’t keep written records. So…where exactly do you get this evidence from if the road doesn’t exist? Well, there’s one at a different site in England that’s still marked with standing stones. Oh, well, dammit, that proves it! I bet it had standing stones, too, definitely, even if there’s no evidence for that, either.

*blink*

Also, the pictures they use to designate where these sites are look as though they’re going to be satellite pictures. But then they don’t zoom in to the actual sites, just large regions. Why use satellite pictures then? I’d like to see the overhead of Stonehenge, rather than an overhead of the whole region with a digital stone circle for Stonehenge and another for Woodhenge.

All in all, this feels really amateurish. F- History Channel. My world is crumbling.