Stone Henge

[Noodley]

FWIW what I mean Arch is the sort of "this tool was used in the bronze age, that thing was NEXT TO it, so therefore it must also be from the bronze age" logic is probably true in most cases, and can be even assumed on the basis of probability, but is by means scientific proof of fact.

Please let it be known..just because I post after bonj does not mean I am a tool...

 

[laurence]

Please let it be known..just because I post after bonj does not mean I am a tool...

maybe it means you are bonj though!

 

[Rob S]

Are all the stones from Wales? Perhaps the Victorians repaired and added to what was originally there....given that the Avebury stones were repositioned by some bloke in the early 20th C I can't see that Stonehenge would've remained like this all this time. Perhaps it was slighted by the Tudors or Cromwell's army...or Georgian chavs.

 

[laurence]

Are all the stones from Wales? Perhaps the Victorians repaired and added to what was originally there....given that the Avebury stones were repositioned by some bloke in the early 20th C I can't see that Stonehenge would've remained like this all this time. Perhaps it was slighted by the Tudors or Cromwell's army...or Georgian chavs.

they did. the henge fell into ruin over time, but the stones were repositioned.

 

[papercorn2000]

Carbon 14 has a half-life, which means that after a certain time, half of it will be gone. After that time again, half of WHAT'S LEFT will be gone, i.e. a quarter of what you had originally. After 3 half lifes, you will have an eighth of what you had originally.
So given that the amount of C-14 in a body is constant, then Carbon dating is an accurate method of determining how long ago it is since the sample died, a. The half life of Carbon 14 doesn't "fluctuate" over time like you seem to be suggesting. It is a constant, physical thing - it isn't affected by temperature, pressure, biology, climate change, etc etc.... It can't be changed, it will always be the same! The only way in which it might not be accurate is if you can't obtain a big enough sample to observe a measurable amount of carbon-14 in. But with modern spectroscopy methods the precision they can measure very small amounts is very good.

What she's saying is that the proportion of C14 to C12 and C13 may have been different in the past. C14 is formed by the action of cosmic rays on Nitrogen in the atmosphere. Fluctuations in the intesity of cosmic rays would conceivably alter these ratios.

 

[Arch]

What she's saying is that the proportion of C14 to C12 and C13 may have been different in the past. C14 is formed by the action of cosmic rays on Nitrogen in the atmosphere. Fluctuations in the intesity of cosmic rays would conceivably alter these ratios.

Thank you PC, you've saved me typing. Mind you we had this whole conversation before and I don't think he understood then...

 

[asterix]

I'm not really bothered about its actual age, just so long as it's older than the pyramids,

 

[rikki]

Errrr, I don't think it is.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

I decided to use Google Maps to investigate and provide a definitive answer, and have discovered much to my surprise that Salisbury Plain is actually in Adelaide Australia. Which makes the henge probably about 30 years old in actual fact.

 

[Arch]

Errrr, I don't think it is.

All according to Wiki: Earliest phase of Stonehenge, the actual henge (ditch and bank formation) is c3100 BC. Great pyramid at Giza constructed c2540-2560 BC. Main stones at Stonhenge erected c2200 BC.

So they are fairly contemporary, Stonehenge 'wins' if you go back to the first monument on the site....

 

[Cab]

I'm not saying that - like I say, I'm keeping an open mind. It COULD be 4,000 years old, but I think it's just as likely that it was cobbled together in the early 1800s.

The lichens are too big. They identify the stones as having been cut and standing for far, far longer than that.

By all means keep an open mind, but if you're buying the possibility that its not dateable to antiquity then your mind is so open that your brain has fallen out.

 

[Fnaar]

The Egyptians invented reggae, though (with a little help from Jonathan Richman & the Modern Lovers)

 

[rikki]

All according to Wiki: Earliest phase of Stonehenge, the actual henge (ditch and bank formation) is c3100 BC. Great pyramid at Giza constructed c2540-2560 BC. Main stones at Stonhenge erected c2200 BC.

So they are fairly contemporary, Stonehenge 'wins' if you go back to the first monument on the site....

Umm. I was pretty certain about the stones being erected after the pyramids, but if a henge is the earthworks, then there's a good case

I decided to use Google Maps to investigate and provide a definitive answer, and have discovered much to my surprise that Salisbury Plain is actually in Adelaide Australia. Which makes the henge probably about 30 years old in actual fact.

I haven't seen this henge [north of Adelaide]. There are bits of Salisbury SA older than 30 years but nothing as nice as a pile of old rocks.

Rusty Chisel may have a pyramid in his backyard. Check out his occupation

 

[Arch]

Stonehenge is OK, anyway, in a mystic sort of way, but I much prefer the Knap of Howar and Skara Brae as early stone acheivements - more domestic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knap_of_Howar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae

I just love the stone cupboards at Skara Brae, so Flintstones!

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Yeah, Alton Towers offers more. Not least a definitive date of origin.