Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
nytlive.nytimes.com
Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
#2Cited article at Discovery: http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/powerful-women...
Re: Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
#3Interesting, but not particularly surprising. I think a more interesting finding would be a culture where the remains of wives, mothers and other female relations of leaders and high-status individuals were not treated with some level of pomp and circumstance.
Re: Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
#4Do they think it was a mass burial or separate burials during that time period?
Re: Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
#5Jumping to conclusions about one's status based on how many trinkets they were buried with is a dangerous exercise.
Plenty of victims of human sacrifice were buried with a plethora of artefacts. Conversely, many of the world's most powerful lie in very unremarkable graves.
Re: Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
#6Jumping to conclusions about one's status based on how many trinkets they were buried with is a dangerous exercise. Plenty of victims of human sacrifice were buried with a plethora of artefacts. Conversely, many of the world's most powerful lie in very unremarkable graves.
The trend today is to "discover" that women were warrior princesses and super powerful. The same facts would lead to very different conclusions 100 years ago. The 1916 version of his story would be that the king was very rich and gave nice stuff to his queen or concubines, long live the king.
Prehistorical "history" is more a reflection of what we think than what happened thousands of years ago.
Re: Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
#7[deleted]
Re: Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
#8Jumping to conclusions about one's status based on how many trinkets they were buried with is a dangerous exercise. Plenty of victims of human sacrifice were buried with a plethora of artefacts. Conversely, many of the world's most powerful lie in very unremarkable graves.
The trend today is to "discover" that women were warrior princesses and super powerful. The same facts would lead to very different conclusions 100 years ago. The 1916 version of his story would be that the king was very rich and gave nice stuff to his queen or concubines, long live the king. Prehistorical "history" is more a reflection of what we think than what happened thousands of years ago.
This comment does a complete disservice to at least two entire fields of science. It's extremely ignorant.
Yes, there is some variation in opinion in how the findings can be interpreted but most of the differences between 1916 and now would be due to that now we are MASSIVELY more rigorous in our approach to such findings.
The smug is strong here, and it's unfounded.
Re: Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trend today is to "discover" that women were warrior princesses and super powerful. The same facts would lead to very different conclusions 100 years ago. The 1916 version of his story would be that the king was very rich and gave nice stuff to his queen or concubines, long live the king. Prehistorical "history" is more a reflection of what we think than what happened thousands of years ago.
This comment does a complete disservice to at least two entire fields of science. It's extremely ignorant. Yes, there is some variation in opinion in how the findings can be interpreted but most of the differences between 1916 and now would be due to that now we are MASSIVELY more rigorous in our approach to such findings. The smug is strong here, and it's unfounded.
What you are noticing happens here constantly; many tech people I've met are completely incapable of understanding anything outside of hard science or engineering and so they lash out and try to bash it whenever it comes up: pretend there is no rigor, pretend it's not science, pretend it's just "people being PC", try to suggest everyone with a liberal arts degree is a barista, etc.
Re: Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment does a complete disservice to at least two entire fields of science. It's extremely ignorant. Yes, there is some variation in opinion in how the findings can be interpreted but most of the differences between 1916 and now would be due to that now we are MASSIVELY more rigorous in our approach to such findings. The smug is strong here, and it's unfounded.
What you are noticing happens here constantly; many tech people I've met are completely incapable of understanding anything outside of hard science or engineering and so they lash out and try to bash it whenever it comes up: pretend there is no rigor, pretend it's not science, pretend it's just "people being PC", try to suggest everyone with a liberal arts degree is a barista, etc.
People see the world through their own lenses. Perception drives reality.
I didn't say what you attributed to me. Have you ever read anything from that period I referenced at all before you declare me to be ignorant?
Take the facts gathered and put them in front of a British archaeologist in 1916. You would get a different interpretation, or a variety of reasons.