<!– Global site tag (gtag.js) – Google Analytics –>
<script async src=”https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=UA-22856846-2″></script>
<script>
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());
gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-22856846-2’);
</script>
<!– Global site tag (gtag.js) – Google Analytics –>
<script async src=”https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=UA-22856846-7″></script>
<script>
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());
Starting February 1st ALL new Exiern pages will post ONLY to Exiern.com and Our Patreon. Please read and support us there!
Swords, Sorcery, And Then Some!
Howdy, New Readers! Thanks for reading Exiern!
Written by Scott T. Hicken with art by Antipus, the comic updates Mondays. Please check out the Archive to enjoy the earlier adventures of Typh and Peonie!
Exiern contains mature themes and is best for readers 18+.
Seems the shaman is destroying the evidence of his wife’s death and planning on taking on the blame for her actions. I don’t see either of the two allowing that to happen.
A fake death would work but were would he go? Or a banishment, witch would be considered worse. But really the offense here if I am reading it right IS that he did not control his WIFE.
The Irony is he will but punished for his dog’s biting some one.
The same laws that control women, often have a flip side.
His Wife was his possession, his responsibility, She is executed but so must he.
Nick D Waters – “I do hope they can repair their relationship and move forward. Methinks Diana will do the deed and become chieftess in short order.”
I don’t see Diana wanting to usurp Wyll anytime soon. They seem to be in love so short of her marrying Wyll and ruling by his side I don’t see her becoming Chieftain (it’s a gender neutral term).
Unless I’m mistaken, he’s just set a fire on the unprotected floor of a room with wooden floors, paneling and a wooden roof. Does no one see this as a problem?
he’s the Shaman, maybe he has a funeral fire ritual that only consumes what is intended?
C’mon, you two. Take the step forward for Women’s Rights and hold *her* accountable for her actions. The old man is just resisting change. If he doesn’t like not being executed, he can just leave.
It may be that he wants to die. After all, he was unaware of his wife’s subterfuges for quite a while – perhaps he was willfully blind. Perhaps, he loved her? More next episode, I imagine.
We’ve seen Sturm use this enchanted powder before. The traits will vary depending on the blend, but it’s primary property is that it only burns where the powder is applied.
The old coot is correct: to prevent this ever from happening again, someone must be publically executed, Matron is already dead, and if not the old man, who? Tiff?
The only things to remain to be seen/explained: how will they explain the execution as a warning? and will they cover up what the Matron had done all this time?
@Guesticus Not true people will always try Treason and take leadership.
There stupid that way.
There 3 ways to Rule and only 3.
To be loved.
To be Feared.
To be feared and Loved.
But despite what the book the Prince claims the author Niccolò Machiavelli claimed none of his political attempts came to anything.He was rather incompetent.
Ends justifying the means has never worked once in are entire history.
Because we forget the reasons for those ends, So you kill a innocent child to save a city thats no longer safe to have children in it. And ruin the reason you started.
The book is arguably his greatest accomplishment. (all his idiocy ever got him was the wrack in a dungeon)
The theory he put a great deal of thought into but in the real world it never works.
And very little of it ever worked but has been used over and over to justify evil.
Torcher a bomber to stop 1 bomb and create a martyr to that builds a army of bombers.
See what he did not understand is fear fades and People become complacent.
No one can never rule by fear or Making Examples only threw Justice.
Love endorsers were fear fades.
Love is the way to rule.
With force Applied only when needed.
Do You want to rule Cowards or Warriors? Do you inspire or terrify?
My mother Read the Prince when I was about 7 and I was terribly annoyed. The man was so wrong headed yet cerebrated it was always a sore spot for me, yes I am a weird get over it.
So what I am saying is will Diana and Wyll choose Poneys Dad’s Path of Machiavelli or the harder Path of Honor??
And witch One will let the survive as a culture they want to be longer?
There are a lot of comments saying that this is a step back from women’s rights, but if he didn’t offer himself up for execution then THAT would be a serious blow to the rights of the village women.
His wife used village funds to hire assassins and plotted to kill several people. If word of her actions made it out to the rest proponents for stricter control of women could always point to this incident as a reason WHY women need to be controlled and kept in place.
On the other hand if he’s executed then there are already witnesses of Diana going in there with an axe to stop the fight between ‘brothers’. It would be technically true to tell the rest of the village that a woman went in to stop the fight, uncovered the ‘real’ master mind and subdued him for execution. And look the old man also killed his innocent wife as well, what a villain. This story can now be used as an example as to why women need MORE freedom to act and voice their opinions. It moves the whole system one step further from the older misguided ways and gives Diana a higher standing in the village and Typh’s brother a stronger position as well when the two eventually marry. It could even lead to better relations to the south and reconciliation over the raids as Diana has family (uncle Neil) in the south. Basically anyone who wants to revive the old ways needs to take into account that the new chief’s axe wielding wife has family in the very lands you’re looking to raid.
So from that stand point it make more sense for the old man to take the blame.
Seems to me that the old man sees no reason to live any more. Whatever his wife had lost? He lost it too – and now he has also lost his wife. And he is old, and he’s just seen his grandchildren (he feels Wyll and Tiff as his grandkids too) well, and united, so all he had to live for is accomplished (unless he was waiting to see Diana’s children, which I somehow doubt). On the other hand, he has a few things to die for: Stop the gossip that’s spreading mistrust, and serve as a warning to secure Wyll’s rule, now that he trusts him and agrees with him. Or something to that end anyway…
@RagingAgnostic – Agreed!!! The old man has started a large fire in a wooden structure. Even in a modern world that would be stupid; in an age where a bucket brigade is your only fire fighting resource, it’s either insane or a deliberate attempt to burn down the house – or both. Yep, Definitely a problem.
Yes, the author / artist is using lots of artistic license to make a point… but still.
@Johnathan wint
The prince was a satire/mockery. You find everything in it wrong because it’ SUPPOSED to be wrong.
The book even recommends arming the populace AFTER making sure the populace has tons of reasons to hate you. Surely you can see where that plan i leading?
@Earthling are you kidding?? I not certain how to feel about this. My mother read that to me when I was a Kid and I hated it, but for years I seen it quoted to justify Cruelty and simple stupid and evil solutions. So am I foolish for never Knowing? Or are the political smucks who use it? Not questioning you I am truth be told excited to find this out, whats your sources. This changes a great deal about how i see that book and its author. I am afraid I not formerly educated but try to read at least one book a day.
He didn’t notice his wife stealing supplies and trying to manipulate the chief. She was afraid of the coming changes and was trying to plunge them into chaos and war. He failed in his duties and this is the only way he’ll regain his honor.
@Jonathan Wint
Check the wikipedia page for some basic examples on it. There are arguments over it and it is contested but compared to his other previous bodies of work i’ve heard about the Prince stands out as extremely different.
It was even written after he was put in Jail for calling the aforementioned prince a tyrant/etc.
There’s even debate on i it’s actually satire or a legitimate attempt to trick the tyrants into getting themselves overthrown.
Shaman dude, I know you are feeling guilty and grieving right now, but why don’t you wait until the crazy has worn off before anyone does any executing?
@Earthling wow puts a whole new spin on it for me after thinking I was familiar with the work. A legitimate attempt to trick the tyrants into getting themselves overthrown I could easily see. The ends justifying the means a deliberate attempted at giving bad advice to Politicians. If it is a joke or a Assassination attempt its still a sad fact that so many Politicians took it seriously and some even quoted it and lead there lives by it, W.G. Bush Jr is only one Unfortunate Example.
Its not moral grounds its that this course of action only ever results in a world that hates you and your nation and farther destabilization. And short sightedness of Simple Decisions that make a bigger mess later on. And the whole book is laid out that way.
By comparison “The Art of War” Explains How to win wars but why it’s better not to have them because of expense and economic damage.
Gee I wonder witch I wonder witch one is read in the White House?
Just look at Shroedingerling (no, can’t be bothered to check the ‘correct’ spelling, and anyone who knows it doesn’t need to point it out), his thing with the cat was a dig at the gullibility of the scientific community, and they picked it up and ran with it, and those in on the joke have been laughing at them ever since
Let me put it straight: anyone who believes his test is valid is complete, and total, moronic idiot!! It is flawed, and designed to be flawed, but the eggheads have shoved their eggs so far up their rectal-canal, a blind dead ostrich has better chance of seeing it!
Guesticus: Care to provide a legitimate source for that?
Anyway, intentions aside, it does serve well as a representation, or rather a visualization, of how the mathematics of quantum mechanics work. It has no relevance as a real-world experiment of course, any kid can poke holes in that. But the key piece of information is that if you have an object on a scale level where quantum mechanics is relevant, you can’t know what state that object is in without observing it.
I think you’re misreading machiavelli here, he actually advocated for being both feared AND loved, but said that the most important thing for a ruler was not to be HATED. With that understanding, he said that if a ruler had to choose between being feared or loved (as long as they’re not hated) then they should choose to be feared, and then proceeds to give several examples why.
And if it IS necessary to be hated, in that a ruler by necessity must unjustly harm someone, then they should harm those who are least powerful, and thus least able to harm the prince in return, or if the powerful are to be harmed (and thus hate the ruler) then the ruler should utterly destroy them so that they cannot harm the ruler in the future.
And on that, Machiavelli was atleast not quite wrong. History is full of dictators who have gained and stayed in power, and even do nowadays. You think that anyone loved Stalin? Yet he managed to stay in power until he died of natural causes ( altho to be fair, the stalin example seems to be a counterexample to the don’t be hated part).
Also do keep in mind the historical context of when and where the book was written. Machiavelli had actually written a book on republics, and viewed them favorably, but 1500’s italy was literally a time of “poisoning princes” and machiavelli wanted to see Italy united, even if it had to be done by a tyrant (and he did not like tyrants, but viewed it in this case as a necessary evil), and in that time, when the existing republics had failed to unite italy, and were corrupt, he deemed uniting italy by a tyrant as the only plausible way.
But I do agree with you, that atleast in matters of war, it is better to follow Sun Tzu by keeping wars short and waging them only when neccessary, thus minimizing their high economic and human cost.
And just to avoid any misunderstanding, I do firmly prefer republics to dictatorships or oligarchy, as a republic typically provides a government more representative of the will of its people and provides for a typically peaceful means to transfer power in the way of elections. So while republics aren’t perfect, they’re usually preferable to oligarchy.
Think about it for just one moment: the cat, a living creature that requires oxygen to survive, is placed into a sealed, airtight, container, the only calculations required is to determine the size of the container, figure out how much air will fill that space (minus the mass of the cat and the killer whatsit) and work out how much time that gives the cat before it suffocates
Just because science has created a branch to explain it doesn’t change the fact it was created as a Colin of the scientific community (the fact they embraced it so much just adds to the Colin)
It’s the same how new-age hippy idiots believe Stonehenge is ancient (the site may be ancient, but the stones were put in place by some Victorian eccentric)
You seem pretty sure you’re right about something that you’re really wrong about and I think it stems from one basic misunderstanding. If it would help I think I see where the confusion is. It’s not a real cat, it was never a real cat nor was it ever intended to be taken as a real cat. Schrodinger just liked cats, that’s all.
Just has how physics books in the 1900’s tried to give analogies to how atoms work by saying that the proton holds on the electrons like a hook holds a ring, people understood that if they could some how look at atoms there wouldn’t really be little hooks and rings attached to protons and electrons.
Similar to the curvature of space, it’s not really made of fabric. Just because it’s called the fabric of time and space, it’s not actually something you can place on a spinning wheel or knit together with your grandmothers knitting needles. It’s just an analogy to try to describe a phenomenon that cannot be observed in daily life. It can curve like an elastic piece of cloth, but it’s not actually made of cloth.
The cat isn’t real, it’s a metaphor. Stonehenge is archeology and isn’t even part of the study of physics so you seem to have a misunderstanding of that as well. The fact that you try to tie together quantum mechanics and archeology together is rather confusing. It was a complete segue and it doesn’t tie in with anything you said before.
I really hope this could clear things up for you and hope that you can better appreciate the difficulties scientists have trying to describe incredibly complex phenomenon as simple to understand everyday occurrences! Sometimes they get it right, other times the explanations are so bizarre that the explanations need explanations. Schrodinger’s cat being the most famous example of a bizarre explanation.
Be a Producer!Your name/title with an optional SFW hyperlink will be posted prominently HERE following the close of the month! You’ll also receive monthly mailings from Exiern’s author, Scott T. Hicken!
Seem a bit extreme, even if in some way, he right.
I saw this seine in john wayne’s genghis khan.
It seems the siblings are on good terms now.
Seems the shaman is destroying the evidence of his wife’s death and planning on taking on the blame for her actions. I don’t see either of the two allowing that to happen.
I do hope they can repair their relationship and move forward. Methinks Diana will do the deed and become chieftess in short order.
Aw, man. It’ll suck if they really do kill old man Sturm…
A fake death would work but were would he go? Or a banishment, witch would be considered worse. But really the offense here if I am reading it right IS that he did not control his WIFE.
The Irony is he will but punished for his dog’s biting some one.
The same laws that control women, often have a flip side.
His Wife was his possession, his responsibility, She is executed but so must he.
I didn’t think it was possible considering what happened moments ago… but that escalated quickly.
The Irony is he will but punished for his dog’s biting some one.*
meant.
The Irony is he will be punished for his dog’s biting some one.
Nick D Waters – “I do hope they can repair their relationship and move forward. Methinks Diana will do the deed and become chieftess in short order.”
I don’t see Diana wanting to usurp Wyll anytime soon. They seem to be in love so short of her marrying Wyll and ruling by his side I don’t see her becoming Chieftain (it’s a gender neutral term).
Unless I’m mistaken, he’s just set a fire on the unprotected floor of a room with wooden floors, paneling and a wooden roof. Does no one see this as a problem?
he’s the Shaman, maybe he has a funeral fire ritual that only consumes what is intended?
C’mon, you two. Take the step forward for Women’s Rights and hold *her* accountable for her actions. The old man is just resisting change. If he doesn’t like not being executed, he can just leave.
Why, yes Mr. Shaman. Let’s prove your crazy, dead wife RIGHT, by executing you for failing to control her.
Although being an unwitting spy and aiding and abetting a traitor are valid charges.
It may be that he wants to die. After all, he was unaware of his wife’s subterfuges for quite a while – perhaps he was willfully blind. Perhaps, he loved her? More next episode, I imagine.
BTW, way to keep us interested, Chemiclord. 🙂
We’ve seen Sturm use this enchanted powder before. The traits will vary depending on the blend, but it’s primary property is that it only burns where the powder is applied.
Aren’t there some chemicals/powders like that in our world?
The old coot is correct: to prevent this ever from happening again, someone must be publically executed, Matron is already dead, and if not the old man, who? Tiff?
The only things to remain to be seen/explained: how will they explain the execution as a warning? and will they cover up what the Matron had done all this time?
Oh, one more thing: stick to your spelling/usage of ‘drug’ in the first panel, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!!!!!!111!11!11!1
@Guesticus Not true people will always try Treason and take leadership.
There stupid that way.
There 3 ways to Rule and only 3.
To be loved.
To be Feared.
To be feared and Loved.
But despite what the book the Prince claims the author Niccolò Machiavelli claimed none of his political attempts came to anything.He was rather incompetent.
Ends justifying the means has never worked once in are entire history.
Because we forget the reasons for those ends, So you kill a innocent child to save a city thats no longer safe to have children in it. And ruin the reason you started.
The book is arguably his greatest accomplishment. (all his idiocy ever got him was the wrack in a dungeon)
The theory he put a great deal of thought into but in the real world it never works.
And very little of it ever worked but has been used over and over to justify evil.
Torcher a bomber to stop 1 bomb and create a martyr to that builds a army of bombers.
See what he did not understand is fear fades and People become complacent.
No one can never rule by fear or Making Examples only threw Justice.
Love endorsers were fear fades.
Love is the way to rule.
With force Applied only when needed.
Do You want to rule Cowards or Warriors? Do you inspire or terrify?
My mother Read the Prince when I was about 7 and I was terribly annoyed. The man was so wrong headed yet cerebrated it was always a sore spot for me, yes I am a weird get over it.
So what I am saying is will Diana and Wyll choose Poneys Dad’s Path of Machiavelli or the harder Path of Honor??
And witch One will let the survive as a culture they want to be longer?
Or can they come to some balance?
There are a lot of comments saying that this is a step back from women’s rights, but if he didn’t offer himself up for execution then THAT would be a serious blow to the rights of the village women.
His wife used village funds to hire assassins and plotted to kill several people. If word of her actions made it out to the rest proponents for stricter control of women could always point to this incident as a reason WHY women need to be controlled and kept in place.
On the other hand if he’s executed then there are already witnesses of Diana going in there with an axe to stop the fight between ‘brothers’. It would be technically true to tell the rest of the village that a woman went in to stop the fight, uncovered the ‘real’ master mind and subdued him for execution. And look the old man also killed his innocent wife as well, what a villain. This story can now be used as an example as to why women need MORE freedom to act and voice their opinions. It moves the whole system one step further from the older misguided ways and gives Diana a higher standing in the village and Typh’s brother a stronger position as well when the two eventually marry. It could even lead to better relations to the south and reconciliation over the raids as Diana has family (uncle Neil) in the south. Basically anyone who wants to revive the old ways needs to take into account that the new chief’s axe wielding wife has family in the very lands you’re looking to raid.
So from that stand point it make more sense for the old man to take the blame.
@Jonathan Wint
THANK YOU! it’s good to know I’m not the only one that saw the blatant flaw in that stupid saying.
Seems to me that the old man sees no reason to live any more. Whatever his wife had lost? He lost it too – and now he has also lost his wife. And he is old, and he’s just seen his grandchildren (he feels Wyll and Tiff as his grandkids too) well, and united, so all he had to live for is accomplished (unless he was waiting to see Diana’s children, which I somehow doubt). On the other hand, he has a few things to die for: Stop the gossip that’s spreading mistrust, and serve as a warning to secure Wyll’s rule, now that he trusts him and agrees with him. Or something to that end anyway…
Where’s the axe? I don’t see it in the funeral pyre. Maybe Diane is holding it in her right hand (which we can’t see).
@RagingAgnostic – Agreed!!! The old man has started a large fire in a wooden structure. Even in a modern world that would be stupid; in an age where a bucket brigade is your only fire fighting resource, it’s either insane or a deliberate attempt to burn down the house – or both. Yep, Definitely a problem.
Yes, the author / artist is using lots of artistic license to make a point… but still.
It’s going to be one hell of a grease fire.
@Johnathan wint
The prince was a satire/mockery. You find everything in it wrong because it’ SUPPOSED to be wrong.
The book even recommends arming the populace AFTER making sure the populace has tons of reasons to hate you. Surely you can see where that plan i leading?
Did he set fire to the old woman’s body? He was kneeling over her corpse two strips ago.
@Earthling are you kidding?? I not certain how to feel about this. My mother read that to me when I was a Kid and I hated it, but for years I seen it quoted to justify Cruelty and simple stupid and evil solutions. So am I foolish for never Knowing? Or are the political smucks who use it? Not questioning you I am truth be told excited to find this out, whats your sources. This changes a great deal about how i see that book and its author. I am afraid I not formerly educated but try to read at least one book a day.
I process information differently than normal, Most of the time that works out in my favor other times no so much. I MISS the point. lol
He didn’t notice his wife stealing supplies and trying to manipulate the chief. She was afraid of the coming changes and was trying to plunge them into chaos and war. He failed in his duties and this is the only way he’ll regain his honor.
@Jonathan Wint
Check the wikipedia page for some basic examples on it. There are arguments over it and it is contested but compared to his other previous bodies of work i’ve heard about the Prince stands out as extremely different.
It was even written after he was put in Jail for calling the aforementioned prince a tyrant/etc.
There’s even debate on i it’s actually satire or a legitimate attempt to trick the tyrants into getting themselves overthrown.
Shaman dude, I know you are feeling guilty and grieving right now, but why don’t you wait until the crazy has worn off before anyone does any executing?
@Earthling wow puts a whole new spin on it for me after thinking I was familiar with the work. A legitimate attempt to trick the tyrants into getting themselves overthrown I could easily see. The ends justifying the means a deliberate attempted at giving bad advice to Politicians. If it is a joke or a Assassination attempt its still a sad fact that so many Politicians took it seriously and some even quoted it and lead there lives by it, W.G. Bush Jr is only one Unfortunate Example.
Its not moral grounds its that this course of action only ever results in a world that hates you and your nation and farther destabilization. And short sightedness of Simple Decisions that make a bigger mess later on. And the whole book is laid out that way.
By comparison “The Art of War” Explains How to win wars but why it’s better not to have them because of expense and economic damage.
Gee I wonder witch I wonder witch one is read in the White House?
Just look at Shroedingerling (no, can’t be bothered to check the ‘correct’ spelling, and anyone who knows it doesn’t need to point it out), his thing with the cat was a dig at the gullibility of the scientific community, and they picked it up and ran with it, and those in on the joke have been laughing at them ever since
Let me put it straight: anyone who believes his test is valid is complete, and total, moronic idiot!! It is flawed, and designed to be flawed, but the eggheads have shoved their eggs so far up their rectal-canal, a blind dead ostrich has better chance of seeing it!
Guesticus: Care to provide a legitimate source for that?
Anyway, intentions aside, it does serve well as a representation, or rather a visualization, of how the mathematics of quantum mechanics work. It has no relevance as a real-world experiment of course, any kid can poke holes in that. But the key piece of information is that if you have an object on a scale level where quantum mechanics is relevant, you can’t know what state that object is in without observing it.
@ Jonathan Wint
I think you’re misreading machiavelli here, he actually advocated for being both feared AND loved, but said that the most important thing for a ruler was not to be HATED. With that understanding, he said that if a ruler had to choose between being feared or loved (as long as they’re not hated) then they should choose to be feared, and then proceeds to give several examples why.
And if it IS necessary to be hated, in that a ruler by necessity must unjustly harm someone, then they should harm those who are least powerful, and thus least able to harm the prince in return, or if the powerful are to be harmed (and thus hate the ruler) then the ruler should utterly destroy them so that they cannot harm the ruler in the future.
And on that, Machiavelli was atleast not quite wrong. History is full of dictators who have gained and stayed in power, and even do nowadays. You think that anyone loved Stalin? Yet he managed to stay in power until he died of natural causes ( altho to be fair, the stalin example seems to be a counterexample to the don’t be hated part).
Also do keep in mind the historical context of when and where the book was written. Machiavelli had actually written a book on republics, and viewed them favorably, but 1500’s italy was literally a time of “poisoning princes” and machiavelli wanted to see Italy united, even if it had to be done by a tyrant (and he did not like tyrants, but viewed it in this case as a necessary evil), and in that time, when the existing republics had failed to unite italy, and were corrupt, he deemed uniting italy by a tyrant as the only plausible way.
But I do agree with you, that atleast in matters of war, it is better to follow Sun Tzu by keeping wars short and waging them only when neccessary, thus minimizing their high economic and human cost.
And just to avoid any misunderstanding, I do firmly prefer republics to dictatorships or oligarchy, as a republic typically provides a government more representative of the will of its people and provides for a typically peaceful means to transfer power in the way of elections. So while republics aren’t perfect, they’re usually preferable to oligarchy.
Sob: seriously? SERIOSULY!?!?
Think about it for just one moment: the cat, a living creature that requires oxygen to survive, is placed into a sealed, airtight, container, the only calculations required is to determine the size of the container, figure out how much air will fill that space (minus the mass of the cat and the killer whatsit) and work out how much time that gives the cat before it suffocates
Just because science has created a branch to explain it doesn’t change the fact it was created as a Colin of the scientific community (the fact they embraced it so much just adds to the Colin)
It’s the same how new-age hippy idiots believe Stonehenge is ancient (the site may be ancient, but the stones were put in place by some Victorian eccentric)
@Guesticus
You seem pretty sure you’re right about something that you’re really wrong about and I think it stems from one basic misunderstanding. If it would help I think I see where the confusion is. It’s not a real cat, it was never a real cat nor was it ever intended to be taken as a real cat. Schrodinger just liked cats, that’s all.
Just has how physics books in the 1900’s tried to give analogies to how atoms work by saying that the proton holds on the electrons like a hook holds a ring, people understood that if they could some how look at atoms there wouldn’t really be little hooks and rings attached to protons and electrons.
Similar to the curvature of space, it’s not really made of fabric. Just because it’s called the fabric of time and space, it’s not actually something you can place on a spinning wheel or knit together with your grandmothers knitting needles. It’s just an analogy to try to describe a phenomenon that cannot be observed in daily life. It can curve like an elastic piece of cloth, but it’s not actually made of cloth.
The cat isn’t real, it’s a metaphor. Stonehenge is archeology and isn’t even part of the study of physics so you seem to have a misunderstanding of that as well. The fact that you try to tie together quantum mechanics and archeology together is rather confusing. It was a complete segue and it doesn’t tie in with anything you said before.
I really hope this could clear things up for you and hope that you can better appreciate the difficulties scientists have trying to describe incredibly complex phenomenon as simple to understand everyday occurrences! Sometimes they get it right, other times the explanations are so bizarre that the explanations need explanations. Schrodinger’s cat being the most famous example of a bizarre explanation.