
What Lies Beneath Stonehenge? - jonbaer
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-lies-beneath-Stonehenge-180952437/?all
======
noiv
I've recently spend a few weeks in a region without light pollution and mostly
clear night sky. An experience I probably share with every six year old kid
which lived some thousands years ago. Even if I put all math I've learned
aside it was clear the sky rotates. The band of stars we call Milky Way took
same place every night. I can imagine after a few month the moon's behavior
appears obvious and after a few years seasons, the sun and constellations
start to match too. Perhaps people recognizing this pattern told it every next
generation because this is powerful knowledge. It doesn't need much to
accidentally find geographic features indicating the longest or shortest day.
The moment someone artificially build such a monument he gained the power of
prediction - the stars followed his words, provable every night and day.

I wish every kid had the opportunity to spend a night awake and follow with
open eyes our home galaxy moving over the night sky. After a week they can
name the planets.

------
wubbfindel
Just a little correction, if I may offer it. The article asks:

> How did the bluestones, which weigh between four and eight tons apiece,
> arrive at the site, nearly 5,000 years ago, from 170 miles away in North
> Wales?

It's my understanding that the majority of the bluestones have been confirmed
to come from the Pembrokeshire area in South West Wales, not North Wales.

Some searching returned these results:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-
wales-16245746](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-16245746)

[http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/pdf-files/uploaded-to-
ebu...](http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/pdf-files/uploaded-to-
ebulletin-2011/Bluestones%20press%20release.pdf)

Hope that's of some interest to folks...

~~~
contingencies
170 miles = 273.589 km ...

Duckduckgo 'distance from pembrokeshire to stonehenge' = 226.7 km

That's only an overall difference of approximately 17% in 'as the crow flies'
distance.

(Without knowing the geography at all, in reality the difference is quite
possibly even less, since the route is probably not straight and shares some
of the same diversions. On the other hand, it could also be more, since Wales
sounds (how scientific!) hillier than most places in the UK. Either way, it's
still a bloody long way.)

~~~
wubbfindel
I can attest, through the experience of living here (and occasionally cycling
here) that Wales is in fact "hillier" than England at least! But I think
Scotland beats Wales on hills.

So, personal experience; just slightly more scientific. But only slightly.

------
JacobAldridge
Stonehenge is a fascinating site, and if you haven't ever visited I encourage
you to do so at a time (eg, Solstices, especially winter) or with a tour that
allows you to venture inside and between the stones (standard visitors are
restricted to a safe distance, which is not nearly as impressive).

I found (and have found, across a lot of physical sciences) incongruity in
this piece between some mild slander of past amateur archaeologists without
perspective for how primitive our technology will one day look.

To wit: _In 1839 ... Captain Beamish dug out an estimated 400 cubic feet of
soil...Beamish’s “big hole was probably the final blow for any prehistoric
features...that once lay at Stonehenge’s center.”_

Followed shortly by modern day expert Vince Gaffney _" acknowledging that it
will require digging—“the testimony of the spade”—to discover precisely what
was there."_

Magnetometers would have been an unimaginable possibility to Beamish. I can
only assume that at some future point there will be technology unimaginable to
Gaffney (and us all) that may render his "testimony of the spade" as cruel to
Stonehenge's secrets as those we mock from the past.

This isn't specific to Stonehenge or Gaffney. I think we as humans tend
towards a little modern day hubris - _" Look at how they used to do things,
terrible science, we're so much more protective of things."_ And then we
shovel Stonehenge, slice up the Shroud of Turin[1], and discuss opening a
2,000 year old bottle of wine because that's the only way to find out what's
inside [2].

[1] I'm less concerned about this, because it's a fraud. [2]
[http://www.thelocal.de/20111209/39405](http://www.thelocal.de/20111209/39405)

~~~
ekianjo
> [1] I'm less concerned about this, because it's a fraud.

A fraud of what? It may not be the cloth in which Jesus was wrapped, but it's
still very old nonetheless and certainly not a painting from the Middle Ages
as some charlatans tried to portray it.

~~~
JacobAldridge
Good question: Claims that is is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ are
fraudulent.

If its only 'claim to fame' was that it was a very old shroud or painting,
then I would not make that claim (and, indeed, I doubt very much I would have
heard of it).

~~~
ekianjo
> Good question: Claims that is is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ are
> fraudulent.

Maybe fraudulent is a little bit strong. The different analysis done (not the
C14 one, which proved to be unreliable) indeed show it may be around 2000
years old or so. Now, we have no way of proving that the person who was
wrapped in the Shroud is actually Jesus or not, while there are some
similarities in the injuries described in the Bible and the blood stains
locations on the Shroud. I think even the Church itself does not recognize it
as being 100% authentic.

So, "we don't know", is probably close to the truth than "fraud".

~~~
the_solution
Radiometric dating is very reliable. I would be interested in seeing this
"different analysis". Can you provide a source please?

~~~
ekianjo
I saw a scholar conference about the subject a number of years ago, and they
demonstrated that if you irradiate a piece of cloth you can completely distort
the C14 readings (obviously). We don't know what printed the face on the
Shroud of Thurin, but it's not paint because it's far thinner than what humans
could even think of applying during the Middle Ages, so the "fake painting"
hypothesis was ruled out since then. Furthermore, I think there were fabric
analysis done to confirm that it was definitely something from about the Roman
era in terms of quality and material.

I'll try to find some sources if you are interested in the subject.

------
shiftyrussian
I'd like to imagine that ancient cultures had an elaborate visionary sense of
humor. Sitting around the campfire, they devised the most intriguing practical
joke on archaeologists.

~~~
JacobAldridge
"What if we only build half of it? Then they'll spend decades scouring the
country-side looking for the rest!"

"Dave - you're a genius."

~~~
cozuya
If only they labeled them "standing stone I, II and IV"

~~~
yebyen
I heard this one before but they were numbered hogs, greased up and released
into the school lobby at around midnight! Good laugh, thanks :D

------
quattrofan
If there are any archaelogists here one thing I would like to know is why
haven't the main stone rings as they stand now been restored? Its a fantastic
place to visit as it is, but why not repair it, raise the fallen stones and
put it back to how it last was, it would be amazing.

If this was say Westminster Abbey that was half destroyed we would do this,
why is it not considered it seems for Stonehenge?

~~~
sambeau
This _is_ the restored version. It was rebuilt at least three times in the
20th century. There's concrete under some of those stones, holding hem up.

~~~
quattrofan
Ok well I didn't know that, but then why not FULLY restore it? Its still what
60% complete at best?

------
lurkinggrue
The Pandorica?

~~~
thejteam
I knew somebody would have beat me to it.

~~~
codingbinary
Exactly my thought.

------
contingencies
If you like this sort of thing, check out
[http://www.philipcoppens.com/anglesey.html](http://www.philipcoppens.com/anglesey.html)
which describes an island off the northwest of Wales and its history (few
citations, but interesting). I hit on this reading
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/1037205...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10372050/The-
Ancient-Paths-Discovering-the-Lost-Map-of-Celtic-Europe-review.html)

------
ttty
any TL;DR?

~~~
dsjoerg
A groundbreaking survey of the site has turned up tantalizing new clues to
what really went on there.

~~~
nitrogen
Since we're actually talking about things buried in the ground, I have to ask:
is that literal groundbreaking, as in they literally broke the ground, or is
"groundbreaking" a metaphor for new and unexpected?

Edit: it looks like you just copy/pasted the subtitle from Smithsonian. Do you
have any additional commentary that might enlighten the rest of us who are
trying to decide whether to read the article?

~~~
wavefunction
groundbreaking - a colloquialism referring to new discoveries

ground-breaking - related to the actual act of breaking ground

Not sure how you don't know this, unless opening a dictionary would be a
groundbreaking experience for you.

~~~
cdwhite
Not necessarily. The OED actually gives the hyphenated form for the
colloquiallism, and cites William James: "I am going to settle down to the
composition of another small book, more original and ground-breaking than
anything I have yet put forth". (The more recent citation for the
colloquialism is unhyphenated.)

The OED doesn't comment on the act (ritual) of breaking ground, but Wikipedia
does, and it uses the un-hyphenated form.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundbreaking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundbreaking)
. (Wikipedia is not, of course, the most reliable possible source, but it does
indicate that the un-hyphenated form is in wide use for the literal act).

My strong suspicion is that the colloquialism arose as a metaphorical back-
formation of a participle from the gerund + object compound used for, you
know, ritually inaugurating (inaugerating?) a building project.

Edit: removed ill-considered emoticon.

~~~
nitrogen
_in_ auger _ating?_

A mere upvote is insufficient for this groundbreakingly clever pun. For
reference:

    
    
      auger
         2. An instrument for boring or perforating soils or rocks,
            for determining the quality of soils, or the nature of the
            rocks or strata upon which they lie, and for obtaining
            water.

~~~
cdwhite
Auger/augur has been giving me _way_ too much amusement over the last few
weeks :-).

