Live data from Hacker News

British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

livescience.com

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#11
post #3

Once we realized he got everything wrong, we went back to the material he used, the specimens he used, the thin sections he used, the maps he used. And we could see that time and time again, he slightly changed this — or let's say he forgot," Ixer told Live Science. One of these is a far more serious charge than the other. Scientists don’t fabricate data. At least, not if their work matters. And even then, the fabric…

>fabrications are usually discovered.

I think you are being far too optimistic, here. It depends on your admittance threshold for "fabrication" but intentionally skewed interpretation of data seems to be the bread and butter of academic science in many fields.

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#12

Wow, this story leaves quite an impression on me on what it means to be a celebrated expert who is quite uncontested. You can basically meddle with the knowledge we humans have on that front and it will take quite a while for people to uncover it. I feel immediately more critical on our scientific and academic leaders and more responsible myself -- despite having no position in academia.

The expert was largely uncontested as the explanation he gave was adequate given the question being asked. More evidence was needed for a better explanation, and there wasn't a strong push to fund more research to answer "where did the stone for Stonehenge come from?" Though there can be some examples of scientists unwilling to question past experts, the bigger obstacle is the limited amount of evidence that scientis…

Yes, and I would emphasize the funding aspect. Archaeology is not a discipline we spend tons of money on anyway. I would expect errors to live on longer here than in say cancer research.

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#13
>>> Such a monumental procession would have been akin to transporting the space shuttle Endeavor in a parade, for all to see and celebrate, the archaeologists said.

This is another one of those "sounds good" ideas that the article is complaining about. The total population of the UK would have varied from 40,000 lower bound to 200k in this period (see below - figures really hard to find) Basically that's empty.

It's like the pyramids - at some point the labour force needed looks like "everyone" - processions did not go "past" anyone - there was basically no one to go past. And at some level of population, there was no one to go past because they were all pushing huge slabs of stone.

It's worth noting this took hundreds of years to achieve as well - this was socially deep - and we understand nothing about it ... weird

https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#14
"Spectacularly wrong" here appears to mean that he correctly identified that the bluestones came from the Preseli hills almost 200 miles from Stonehenge (and was the first to do so), but didn't get quite the right outcrop.

He thought they came from Carn Meini; the article says we now think they came from Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/nov/20/archaeologis... says that Carn Goedog is less than a mile from Carn Meini.

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#15
A question that really interests me about Stonehenge, Gobleki Teppeh and other such mysterious monumental sites is "how many people did this?"

When we (now, and in the past) look at ancient construction projects, we instinctively tend to imagine fairly "brute force" construction methods. Basically, the way things are done now but with people powered trucks, cranes and such. Think of all those depictions of many people dragging huge loads on rollers or sleds. Very large groups of people using muscle power.

Thousands of labourers, hundreds of years. Herodotus suggests that it took 100,000 builders over 20 years to build a pyramid, 2m man years. In egypt, it's plausible. They had huge numbers of people, an empire, large scale slavery...

With stonehenge in 5,000 ypb britain, there are thought to be far fewer people. It wasn't a massive urban culture like egypt. People are thought to have lived in small dispersed groups at that time, with little evidence of large "political" authority that could command a large labour force.

Gogleki Tepeh's builders achieved similar feats 12,000 YBB. This is before large scale societies are thought to have existed at all, anywhere.

So either, (1) "civilised" society was much more common historically and ancient in origin (2) There were "pre-civilised" ways of organising very large numbers of people. Or (3), they had very clever building techniques that did not require many people.

Any of these answers, or some combination of them could add a lot of flavour to our understanding of the neolithic, culturally.

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#16
> "Nobody would drag the stones up the Preseli Hills only then to drift them down south to Milford Haven," Ixer said. And going to the sea from the northern slopes isn't ideal, either. "You've actually got to make a long sea journey all the way around the south coast of Wales," he said. "So, it seems a pretty unlikely suggestion."

I'm not sure about this. It was a massive effort to move the stones in the first place, maybe if you could do most of the moving by boat or raft rather than dragging them all the way, it might have been a worthwhile trade-off. It's a long way from Newport (West Wales, not the one nearer to England) to Salisbury, and the terrain is hard going all the way.

We're talking here about people who reshaped Maiden Castle in Dorset by hand, using (as far as we know) tools made from antler and moving the earth in baskets. Who built Silbury Hill using similar methods. Who thought it worthwhile moving these massive stones (and hundreds like them) across the country at a time when any journey was far more difficult and dangerous than today. They were not like us.

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#17
post #14

"Spectacularly wrong" here appears to mean that he correctly identified that the bluestones came from the Preseli hills almost 200 miles from Stonehenge (and was the first to do so), but didn't get quite the right outcrop. He thought they came from Carn Meini; the article says we now think they came from Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/nov/20/archaeologis... says that Carn…

I'm so fed up with science and politics journalism.

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#19
post #14

"Spectacularly wrong" here appears to mean that he correctly identified that the bluestones came from the Preseli hills almost 200 miles from Stonehenge (and was the first to do so), but didn't get quite the right outcrop. He thought they came from Carn Meini; the article says we now think they came from Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/nov/20/archaeologis... says that Carn…

The article even makes mentioned potential fraud: "[Thomas] was forgetful and sloppy, but at worst he was being deceptive" Without any further explanation.

Science "journalism" certainly has the reputation it deserves.

Re: British geologist Herbert Henry Thomas’ seminal study on Stonehenge was wrong

#20

Wow, this story leaves quite an impression on me on what it means to be a celebrated expert who is quite uncontested. You can basically meddle with the knowledge we humans have on that front and it will take quite a while for people to uncover it. I feel immediately more critical on our scientific and academic leaders and more responsible myself -- despite having no position in academia.

Max Planck said that "science advances one funeral at a time".

Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Post reply on HN