Am I the only one who is extremely skeptical of the Stonehenge "discovery"?
-
-
Replying to @AdmiralHip
It's not my field but I did wonder why they had to resort to 'good old fashioned digging' and 'ancient sunlight'.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Cavalorn
I was wondering if I had missed a new dating technique but what they mean is luminescence dating. But I am a bit baffled by this whole thing because it feels like they wanted to prove Stonehenge came from elsewhere and found a site that matched?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @Cavalorn
And maybe this is incorrect and the article isn’t doing the team justice here but I am just wondering how they arrived at this particular site and why a monument with similar dimensions and date means it was Stonehenge.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
One of the post holes is shaped just the same as one of the stones of Stonehenge!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Cavalorn
I do think that is interesting but...I still think it’s possible that the stones were maybe cut to the same dimensions. Because otherwise why move it? Why not quarry stone closer to Salisbury? Idk I would like to see the reports as I bet there is more to it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
And as I suspected the actual article in Antiquity is much more nuanced than the media would have one believe.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.