
Excavation uncovers remains of high-status women at Stonehenge - Amanjeev
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/02/04/excavation-uncovers-remains-of-high-status-women-at-stonehenge/
======
achamayou
Jumping 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.

~~~
Spooky23
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.

~~~
abritinthebay
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.

~~~
wfo
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.

~~~
Spooky23
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.

~~~
marshray
How is the interpretation of a British archaeologist in 1916 relevant to
modern archaeology?

------
brudgers
Cited article at Discovery:
[http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/powerful-
women...](http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/powerful-women-buried-
at-stonehenge-160203.htm)

------
foxhop
Do they think it was a mass burial or separate burials during that time
period?

------
douche
Interesting, 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.

