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

31–40 of 73 posts

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

#31

Post by coldtea »

Retric wrote: post #26
zorkw4rg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

In which planet's gravity?

And carrying them from which remote location, on which nicely paved roads to make this easy?

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

#32

Post by coldtea »

shawn wrote: 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…

>Scientists don’t fabricate data. At least, not if their work matters.

Huh? Lots of prominent scientists have been found to do just that.

>And even then, the fabrications are usually discovered.

We only get to know about the ones that do get discovered, so there's no way to know if this happens "usually" rather than "rarely".

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

#33

Post by dEnigma »

coldtea wrote: post #29
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.

He wasn't off by 200 miles. That's just how far the source of the stones is away (both the location he gave and the new one). You should probably read the comment again.

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

#34

Post by coldtea »

l0b0 wrote: post #4
shawn wrote: 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…

Upvoted, but citation needed for "the fabrications are usually discovered." Basically the state of any research that nobody has tried to replicate yet is unknown.

It's also a logical impossibility to really determine whether "fabrications are usually discovered" or not.

We can only know about fabrications after they have been discovered -- so there could be 2x or even 10x as much that we don't know about and count among the "non fabricated" work.

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

#35

Post by Retric »

coldtea wrote: post #31
Retric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. In which planet's gravity? And carrying them from which remote location, on which nicely paved roads to make this easy?

The normal combat load in the US army is 60 to 100 pounds including body armor and batteries. People are expected to travel long distances over rough terain by foot, and run short distances. The average pyramid builder may have been somewhat shorter on average, but they would have been extremely fit.

People building these things where not stupid. These stones where not being lifted over boulders or anything just reasonably flat level ground.

PS: You will note the pyramid happens to be near a very nice river flowing in the correct direction. So, they don't exactly need to build hundreds of miles of roads, just enough to minimize effort.

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

#36

Post by coldtea »

Retric wrote: post #35
coldtea wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. In which planet's gravity? And carrying them from which remote location, on which nicely paved roads to make this easy?

The normal combat load in the US army is 60 to 100 pounds including body armor and batteries. People are expected to travel long distances over rough terain by foot, and run short distances. The average pyramid builder may have been somewhat shorter on average, but they would have been extremely fit. People building these things where not stupid. These stones where not being lifted over boulders or anything just reas…

>The normal combat load in the US army is 60 to 100 pounds including body armor and batteries. People are expected to travel long distances over rough terain.

Wearing specially mounted load, in specially designed clothing, hooks and suck, and nicely distributed among various body parts.

And even the higher end of that range (100 pounds) is still 1/55 the weight of the huge, monolithic, piece of rock.

>People building these things where not stupid. These stones where not being lifted over boulders or anything just flat level ground.

They didn't have to be stupid to have to lift them over non-flat ground. They just had to not have a source of such rocks in a straight line over flat ground to the pyramids.

Plus, when they got them there, they had to raise them appropriately.

Not to mention the cutting of those stones at the quarry itself.

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

#37

Post by coldtea »

dEnigma wrote: post #33
coldtea wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

He wasn't off by 200 miles. That's just how far the source of the stones is away (both the location he gave and the new one). You should probably read the comment again.

Oh, I got that wrong while reading the article too then.

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

#38

Post by dalbasal »

coldtea wrote: post #30
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…

Yes, definitely much smaller scale. Still, the unit of work is similar (massive stone cut, moved and placed).

If it takes a lot of people, that implies a lot of people coordinating at that time an place. In a sense, it gives us a minimal level of societal complexity that must have existed. Since britain didn't seem to have towns or cities, the nature of this complexity would be pre-civilised in the literal civil=city sense.

I agree though, civilisation has been getting older as evidence emerges. Or, as I prefer to think of it, the mysterious precursors to civilisation have been getting more impressive.

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

#39

Post by Retric »

coldtea wrote: post #36
Retric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The normal combat load in the US army is 60 to 100 pounds including body armor and batteries. People are expected to travel long distances over rough terain by foot, and run short distances. The average pyramid builder may have been somewhat shorter on average, but they would have been extremely fit. People building these things where not stupid. These stones where not being lifted over boulders or anything just reas…

> The normal combat load in the US army is 60 to 100 pounds including body armor and batteries. People are expected to travel long distances over rough terain. Wearing specially mounted load, in specially designed clothing, hooks and suck, and nicely distributed among various body parts. And even the higher end of that range (100 pounds) is still 1/55 the weight of the huge, monolithic, piece of rock. > People buildi…

Wearing specially mounted load, in specially designed clothing, hooks and suck, and nicely distributed among various body parts.

They are also expected to be able to move someone else with most of that gear attached to the both of them.

Really, carrying 50 pounds most of the day or lifting 200 pounds off the ground and moving to is reasonable for most physically fit people.

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

#40

Post by mikeash »

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…

Is one stone every five minutes supposed to sound implausible? Because it seems perfectly reasonable to me. The work would be massively parallelized.
Post reply on HN