Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

livescience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 73 posts

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

#21

Post by ryanwaggoner »

zorkw4rg wrote: post #19
mjw1007 wrote: 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.

To be fair, that’s a quote from the co-author of the study not the author of this article. And it does elaborate further later in the article on the context of where he was either forgetful or deceptive.

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

#22

Post by zorkw4rg »

dalbasal wrote: post #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 peo…

The number of 20 years is often repeated for the great giza pyramid, however its constructed using 2.3 million stones (~2.5 ton each) meaning they would have to place a stone every 5 minutes, for 20 years to make any sense. Traditional theories of egyptology fiercely defended by argument of authority are utterly useless.

In reality nobody has any idea how, when or even by whom (I would despute the cartouche as solid evidence) the great pyramid was actually built and egyptology certainly won't figure it out (at least not with its current systemic issues).

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

#23

Post by dalbasal »

zorkw4rg wrote: post #22
dalbasal wrote: post #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 peo…

The number of 20 years is often repeated for the great giza pyramid, however its constructed using 2.3 million stones (~2.5 ton each) meaning they would have to place a stone every 5 minutes, for 20 years to make any sense. Traditional theories of egyptology fiercely defended by argument of authority are utterly useless. In reality nobody has any idea how, when or even by whom (I would despute the cartouche as solid…

The 100k workers over 20 years figures aren't a theory of modern researchers. Those estimates are from Herodotus, who was reporting on what Egyptians of his day (2,500 ybp) thought. That's why it's repeated so often. It could be that they/he was wrong.

I think it sounds plausible in terms of the amount of work. 1 man year per stone.

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

#24

Post by rasz »

mettamage wrote: post #2

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.

Very true. Remember that National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) peer reviewed "revalence of injury during CrossFit training" study telling you it causes harm (covered by hackernews multiple times)? Turns out it was 100% fabricated.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/russell-berger-crossf...

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

#25

Post by kryptiskt »

mjw1007 wrote: 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…

Right, this is overselling a paper at its worst. They're just dressing up a mundane result with bombastic rhetoric.

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

#26

Post by Retric »

zorkw4rg wrote: post #22
dalbasal wrote: post #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 peo…

The number of 20 years is often repeated for the great giza pyramid, however its constructed using 2.3 million stones (~2.5 ton each) meaning they would have to place a stone every 5 minutes, for 20 years to make any sense. Traditional theories of egyptology fiercely defended by argument of authority are utterly useless. In reality nobody has any idea how, when or even by whom (I would despute the cartouche as solid…

Five minutes per stone actually seems rather slow IMO.

2.5 tons sounds really heavy, but just 25 people could lift and move that much weight. 50 people could move reasonably quickly and 100 people could carry that at a normal walking pace all day long.

PS: They also used larger stones on the bottom and smaller stones at the top.

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

#27

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

The tone of the article is aggravating - "debunking" and "debunked" are continuously used to say that, basically, modern researchers used modern techniques to prove older results partially wrong. As if this is something uncommon, in the sciences!

I am very surprised that the accusations of potential fraud come from the researchers themselves, despite the fact that they admit the use of tools unavailable to the older researcher.

It make me wonder whether all this talk of "debunking" and "myths" would be the case if this was not about Stonehenge, a subject that tends to attract lots of attention from quacks and loons of all stripes.

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

#28

Post by brownbat »

dalbasal wrote: post #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 peo…

Agreed, all those options are fascinating possibilities in their own way.

A few months ago lidar revealed a lost Purépecha city that had more buildings than Manhattan. The Purépecha were contemporaries of the Aztecs that most people have never even heard of.

Sometimes archaeology makes me feel about humanity the same way a Randall feels about dinosaurs--we know so much and yet it's almost nothing:

https://xkcd.com/1747/

Think about how distinct the 50s, 70s, 90s, and 2010s seem, or how different pre and postwar Japan are, say, over just decades. Then think of the thousands of years since some early wonders were built.

There's got to be so much we're missing.

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

#29

Post by coldtea »

mjw1007 wrote: 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…

>"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.

200 miles inside of England is like him pointing to Guatemala instead of Iowa.

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

#30

Post by coldtea »

dalbasal wrote: post #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 peo…

>With stonehenge in 5,000 ypb britain, there are thought to be far fewer people.

Well, it's also a much smaller scale project compared to a pyramid.

>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.

I think (1) is almost a given. Our idea for anything prehistoric is basically based on old prejudices. We find all kinds of things pushing civilization several millenia before where we thought it was.

Post reply on HN