
Stonehenge: Neolithic monument found near sacred site - diodorus
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-53132567
======
TheOtherHobbes
There's a lot of speculation here about cultural amnesia, but I think that's
partly missing the point - which is the sheer scale of the project.

These structures are absolutely massive. I used to live in the area and it
took me a long time to see Durrington Walls, partly because it's hard to
imagine an earthwork on that scale. I literally did a double take when I
realised that some earth banks were part of this huge construction.

The Walls are a small enclosure inside this much bigger complex, and they
still cover an area bigger than Wembley stadium, which can seat up to 90,000
people.

This new ring of shafts - presumably with objects inside them - is slightly
smaller than the entire town of Salisbury a few miles to the south. It makes
the Old Sarum earthwork, which used to _be_ Salisbury in medieval times, look
like a footnote.

For a neolithic culture, it must have taken an absolutely insane amount of
planning and physical effort - and this at a time when the total population of
the British Isles was less than 200,000 people.

------
wolfi1
the report doesn't mention Prof. Wolfgang Neubauer's team from vienna who
developed the technology: [https://archpro.lbg.ac.at/press-
releases/stonehenge_durringt...](https://archpro.lbg.ac.at/press-
releases/stonehenge_durrington_pits)

------
apaz037
I'm of the firm belief at this point that we are a species with severe
amnesia.

I find it significantly more plausible that cataclysmic events we no longer
remember occured in our past and wiped away a rich history in which we may
have feasibly been far more advanced technologically than we currently are.

~~~
AlotOfReading
This is a pretty old idea that was recently rebranded as the "Silurian
Hypothesis". If you put in a bit of thought, it'll be obvious that it
essentially boils down to one of two things:

Either every paleoanthropologist, archaeologist, and geologist out there is in
a massive conspiracy to hide the truth, or all of the people in those
disciplines are complete idiots. An event like that would leave strong
genetic, palynological, and archaeological evidence, yet nothing of that sort
exists. Any explanation purporting to wipe out the evidence and replace it
with the consensus story we do would be better called magic than science.

~~~
stareatgoats
You could be right. It is certainly a compelling argument; "either scientists
are in a conspiracy or complete idiots" (paraphrased). The answer is however
unequivocally: we don't know. And it behooves to be a bit more humble when it
comes to these things, and investigate each claim individually instead of
making blanket statements about everything such.

There are several aspects one can take into account that can inspire a more
nuanced approach: one is that these kind of theories is an "entry-drug" for
interest in archaeology and related sciences. To get on a high horse and nip
such interest in its bud is counterproductive from a scientific perspective
and is reminiscent of the defensive position that many professions are taking
in the open data age that has opened for masses of amateur researchers doing
much better work than a tiny cadre of elite professionals could do on their
own.

Another aspect of this dismissive attitude is that the notion a petrified and
fact-resistant "establishment" is opening the field for all sorts of nut case
Youtube channels that exploit this types of interests instead. Including the
age-old nazis with their Atlantis and similar theories.

So no, let's assume that we don't know, that anything is possible. But let's
also inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim with best of our
knowledge.

~~~
technothrasher
_So no, let 's assume that we don't know, that anything is possible. But let's
also inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim with best of our
knowledge._

Well, first of all, you don't know that anything is possible. To assert
something is possible without actually showing it is possible is meaningless.
That doesn't mean we can conclude it _isn 't_ possible, just that we don't
know if it's possible.

Second, while 'we don't know' is a perfectly acceptable position, it does not
lead to,'therefore my pet idea is worthy'.

You are, of course, entirely within your right to explore any idea you'd like,
but to claim the scientific community is unfair or defensive to dismiss your
idea because it either has no evidence to back it up, or frequently because it
has been proposed over and over and has already been picked to death, is
intellectually lazy. If you want people to take it seriously, you need to
provide evidence. There's too much to study to be able to take every currently
baseless idea and run with it.

~~~
stareatgoats
> _Well, first of all, you don 't know that anything is possible_

I said "let's _assume_ (...) that anything is possible", a completely
different thing, so your argument that " we don't know if it's possible" is
moot, and a classic case of a straw man argument.

> _" while 'we don't know' is a perfectly acceptable position, it does not
> lead to,'therefore my pet idea is worthy'"_

Again, you are mostly having an argument with yourself, as this is somewhat a
misrepresentation of what I'm saying. My main point is that it behooves to be
a bit humble when it comes to dismissing ideas that are possible albeit
without firm evidence and that offhanded dismissal should be discouraged,
unless one can actually disprove the claim. It is after all the stuff from
which new knowledge is made. That doesn't mean that every scientist must
engage and clamor to inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim (but I do
believe that an active interest from the scientific community would help
cleanse the scene of some of the more outrageous theories).

> _" If you want people to take it seriously, you need to provide evidence."_

Really? so all scientific endeavors must produce evidence before they are
allowed to posit something? I think you will agree that this is an untenable
position hold as a general principle, and you probably mean that any layman
should not be allowed to posit anything without having the proper education
and academic standing. Be that as it may, such ivory towers of academic
snobbishness will fall, eventually.

------
FerretFred
It'll be a shame when the Government starts building the road tunnels
underneath Stonehenge to allegedly ease traffic. Sacred doesn't seem to be in
their vocabulary.

~~~
ta17711771
Sacred = supersedes my authority = destroy

