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

41–50 of 73 posts

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

#41

Post by kingkawn »

brownbat wrote: post #28
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/17…

It fascinates me that the idea that we’re missing so much feels revelatory, but only because the authority figures of these fields presented their theories based on surviving available evidence as definitive and complete. It is a byproduct of how we assert our ideas that the idea that we are working with an incomplete picture seems mind blowing.

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

#42

Post by nickonline »

dalbasal wrote: post #23
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…

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.

YBB YBP?

This is some pretty incredible jargon is this widely used, I've never seen it before and needed to look it up.

Is it really that hard to say 2,500 years ago?

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

#43

Post by coldtea »

Retric wrote: post #39
coldtea wrote: post #36

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. 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.

>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.

What I try to get across is that this is not some army backpack and paraphernalia.

We're talking going in extreme heat (Egypt!), with sandals on your feet, and with 20+ people coordinating to pull a 2.5 ton rock (with some larger rocks going up to 6 tons). And then somehow pull it up, up to 400+ feet.

And even for the army, most of them having to carry 200 pounds for any extended period will end up royally fucked up after a few hours of this, much less entire years of working on such projects for hours every day...

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

#44

Post by yread »

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…

maybe they were all mythical 10x builders?

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

#45

Post by black6 »

nickonline wrote: post #42
dalbasal wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

YBB YBP? This is some pretty incredible jargon is this widely used, I've never seen it before and needed to look it up. Is it really that hard to say 2,500 years ago?

I had to look it up, too. I’m still used to BC and AD, and at least BCE and CE are familiar enough to me because of political correctness.

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

#47

Post by dalbasal »

nickonline wrote: post #42
dalbasal wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

YBB YBP? This is some pretty incredible jargon is this widely used, I've never seen it before and needed to look it up. Is it really that hard to say 2,500 years ago?

It starts to get cumbersome when you use it multiple times in a paragraph. The problem is really the BC/AD (starting the clock 2018 years ago) is clunky.

It's pretty widely used in the context of history these days, mostly because it's common to look at long stretches of time. It's really the easiest system once you know the acronym.

Here...

Herodotus is a 5th century BC historian, a favourite among the 13th century European historians that founded the modern discipline. He was relaying information that may have been invented sometime in the 2nd millennia BC, as many primary records were lost during the 19th century BC dark period. The Pyramid itself was constructed in the 24th century BC.

This is a little more confusing to me than ybp.

BTW, I'm still not really sure what AD stands for.

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

#48

Post by Retric »

coldtea wrote: post #43
Retric wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. What I try to get across is that this is not some army backpack and paraphernalia. We're talking going in extreme heat (Egypt!), with sandals on your feet, and with 20+ people coordinating to pull a 2.5 ton rock (with some larger rocks going up to 6 tons). And then somehow pull…

Ok, I am not saying people are applying 200 lb of force for long distances. Rather, if doing so for ~6 inches makes the rest of the process simplified it is a viable option. Especially if you are selecting the strongest groups from ~40,000+ workers.

For a direct comparison you can look at how many people moved litters over long distances. There are a few natural poisons to carry a litter especially if you can group people by height. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_(vehicle) People would get swapped in an out for long trips allowing for faster speeds, but up to ~100lb per person via logs was not uncommon.

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

#49

Post by naasking »

coldtea wrote: post #43
Retric wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. What I try to get across is that this is not some army backpack and paraphernalia. We're talking going in extreme heat (Egypt!), with sandals on your feet, and with 20+ people coordinating to pull a 2.5 ton rock (with some larger rocks going up to 6 tons). And then somehow pull…

> What I try to get across is that this is not some army backpack and paraphernalia.

Actually, do you know that for certain? These were decades long efforts, at least, so some specialized harnesses and paraphernalia probably were invented along the way.

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

#50

Post by madhadron »

dalbasal wrote: post #47
nickonline wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YBB YBP? This is some pretty incredible jargon is this widely used, I've never seen it before and needed to look it up. Is it really that hard to say 2,500 years ago?

It starts to get cumbersome when you use it multiple times in a paragraph. The problem is really the BC/AD (starting the clock 2018 years ago) is clunky. It's pretty widely used in the context of history these days, mostly because it's common to look at long stretches of time. It's really the easiest system once you know the acronym. Here... Herodotus is a 5th century BC historian, a favourite among the 13th century…

AD = Anno Domini, "year of the lord". It refers to when the Medieval church in western Europe thought Christ was born.
Post reply on HN