Stone Henge

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
TheDoctor said:
Well, I'm trying to build a time machine, so then I will know.
Can someone pass me a dilithium crystal, please?:biggrin:

No you won't. You'll get there and ask one of the builders and he'll say "I dunno, I'm just working to the plans..." so you'll ask a foreman and he won't know either and will direct you to the PR department of the Druids Association and they will be unavailable for comment. So youll have to come back, pausing only to plant something confusing and anachronistic under one of the trilithons...
 

Fnaar

Smutmaster General
Location
Thumberland
 

surfgurl

New Member
Location
Somerset
Renard said:
Hawkwind @ Stonehenge


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdiedZPGJIQ


No wonder they tried to ban people from the henge at the solstice!
If you look carefully you might see Dave5n dancing about on the stage ;)


Mr Surf just came in while I was watching the Hawkwind video. He claims to have been there. Probably true. As 1984 was two years prior to the mythical year of '86, of which he has no memories of. All he knows is he had a good time.

edited to add:

Mr Surf has now watched the vid to the end and tried to spot himself. He will now watch all 6 parts of the Hawkwind documentary in order to reminisce. I shall let you know if he remembers having anything to do with any alterations of the stones that could affect our theories on when it was built.
 

Danny

Legendary Member
Location
York
surfgurl said:
Mr Surf just came in while I was watching the Hawkwind video. He claims to have been there. Probably true. As 1984 was two years prior to the mythical year of '86, of which he has no memories of. All he knows is he had a good time.

What was mythical about '86 - I can't remember it either.
 

Bollo

Failed Tech Bro
Location
Winch
Just looked at my map of the plains and I think I've found the location of Straw Henge and Stick Henge. If it wasn't for that pesky wolf!
 
OP
OP
B

bonj2

Guest
papercorn2000 said:
How do we know that the photos taken in 1877 aren't faked?

I mean, if a couple of guys can knock out a crop circle in an hour or so, how much longer does it take to chuck up a few rocks in the back of beyond - they didn't even finish it, sounds to me as if they were disturbed or daybreak beckoned.

Could be a cunning plan to get all the hippies and crusties together at the one time prior perhaps to bombing them?
Because the stones in stone henge are MASSIVE!
You couldn't "knock them up" in an hour or two...
The older things are, the more difficult it is to date them - and the more likely it is that carbon dating will be the only truly definitive method. However 1877 is (relatiely) recent, and photographic technology is always advancing, so it is probably fairly easy to date the photo based on what photographic technology was used.


Arch said:
You called?

As an archaeologist... Oh, really, I dunno if I can be bothered....

On the question of dating, it's not the stones themselves that give a date - you can date the working of stone in some situations, but it requires them to be unearthed and processed in very controlled conditions, IIRC correctly, and having stood on Salisbury Plain for hundreds of years is not controlled conditions. What will be dated will be any artefacts or ecofacts found in sealed contexts near or under the stones. Carbon dating can only be used on organic material, non-organic stuff is more often dated according to established typologies and analogy. (eg, we know this style of brooch is found in tombs etc dated to X by other absolute methods, therefore the context it lies in may be from that date too). Dating isn't an exact science, well, not often (unless you have a coined stamped with a date or something), but it's exact enough for most people with any actual understanding to know that Stonehenge dates from before 1877. And I'm fairly sure it was marked on maps before then anyway, although bonj will just say they were made up prophetically or something.

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.
All these old maps and that are all very well, and great for forming a belief as to how old stone henge really is, and it's fine to base your belief on things like that. However, they're no basis for establishing definite fact.


papercorn2000 said:
Can you Carbon Date diamonds? They're stones. And made of carbon to boot.

No, because they were never living, duh... ;)
You can only carbon date things that were once alive but that are now dead.
Carbon has two isotopes, most of it is C-12 which is stable, but some is C-14 which is radioactive. When you are alive, your body regulates the amount of C-14*, but when you die - the C-14 gradually decays radioactively (into C-12 and helium? at a guess...) and such the percentage of it gradually drops logarithmically, and at a predictable (known) rate. So more precisely, what carbon dating actuallys tell us is not how OLD an organism is, but specifically how long ago since it died.
However, when we're dealing with thousands of years, and most animals live for less than a century, that's normally good enough. Interestingly enough however, you could carbon date a piece of tree back to 4,000 years ago, but it could have been a giant redwood and been alive for 4,000 years before that.



* because of the constant 'throughput' of carbon, due to you eating new food, shedding skin, shitting, etc. so no molecule of carbon that you've got in your body stays in you for years on end.
 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

(Natasha Kaplinsky is pregnant BTW)
 

papercorn2000

Senior Member
bonj said:
Because the stones in stone henge are MASSIVE!
You couldn't "knock them up" in an hour or two...
The older things are, the more difficult it is to date them - and the more likely it is that carbon dating will be the only truly definitive method. However 1877 is (relatiely) recent, and photographic technology is always advancing, so it is probably fairly easy to date the photo based on what photographic technology was used.

I didn't say an hour or two, I said it could be done over the course of a night!


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.
All these old maps and that are all very well, and great for forming a belief as to how old stone henge really is, and it's fine to base your belief on things like that. However, they're no basis for establishing definite fact.




No, because they were never living, duh... :biggrin:
You can only carbon date things that were once alive but that are now dead.
Carbon has two isotopes, most of it is C-12 which is stable, but some is C-14 which is radioactive. When you are alive, your body regulates the amount of C-14*, but when you die - the C-14 gradually decays radioactively (into C-12 and helium? at a guess...) and such the percentage of it gradually drops logarithmically, and at a predictable (known) rate. So more precisely, what carbon dating actuallys tell us is not how OLD an organism is, but specifically how long ago since it died.
However, when we're dealing with thousands of years, and most animals live for less than a century, that's normally good enough. Interestingly enough however, you could carbon date a piece of tree back to 4,000 years ago, but it could have been a giant redwood and been alive for 4,000 years before that.

a. 3 actually, C13 is another isotope - far commoner than C14
b. No it doesn't, the C14 decays to Nitrogen under its own steam
c. Inverse log actually
and finally, C14 is formed by cosmic rays interacting with C13, deep underground, the C14 would all have decayed and no new C14 would be able to form.

And finally, finally, you are obviously hard of reading 'cos I explained all this yesterday afternoon whilst I should have been working.:biggrin:

* because of the constant 'throughput' of carbon, due to you eating new food, shedding skin, shitting, etc. so no molecule of carbon that you've got in your body stays in you for years on end.

"Pwned" I believe is the term
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
bonj said:
Because the stones in stone henge are MASSIVE!
You couldn't "knock them up" in an hour or two...

Well, one man can move a ton, with the right methods. A work force of hundreds, could do a lot more. All you need is an elementary knowledge of levers and pivots. It would take more than a couple of hours of course. They had years if necessary.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0


The older things are, the more difficult it is to date them - and the more likely it is that carbon dating will be the only truly definitive method.

No. nonononononono. Carbon dating is OK for a certain time span, back a few hundreds of thousands of years. Beyond that there are equally reliable different methods. But the reliability and accuracy of Carbon dating varies even within its effective timescale - sometimes you can have an error margin of a few years, sometimes a couple of hundred years- and that is nothing to do with how long ago it is, but to do with fluctuations of the level of C14 in the atmosphere. So you could have more reliable date from further back and a less reliable one from more recently or vice versa, depending where on the calibration curve you are.


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.

What a sad loss to the world of archaeology, the day you took up IT instead...

All these old maps and that are all very well, and great for forming a belief as to how old stone henge really is, and it's fine to base your belief on things like that. However, they're no basis for establishing definite fact.

And thus, with one fell swoop, bonj dismisses the discipline of historical research...
 
Arch said:
And animals. Things that contain carbon that were once living. And even then, sometimes it's hard to get a good sample, eg from something mineralised like bone, or anything very old, or very degraded.

But not stone, and I don't think, diamonds, because surely the carbon in them is locked into one form?

And because, over periods of over about 14 000 years the ratio of Carbon 14 to carbon 16 becomes too small to measure. I think - it was a long time ago that I knew about this stuff.
 
OP
OP
B

bonj2

Guest
Arch said:
No. nonononononono. Carbon dating is OK for a certain time span, back a few hundreds of thousands of years. Beyond that there are equally reliable different methods. But the reliability and accuracy of Carbon dating varies even within its effective timescale - sometimes you can have an error margin of a few years, sometimes a couple of hundred years- and that is nothing to do with how long ago it is, but to do with fluctuations of the level of C14 in the atmosphere. So you could have more reliable date from further back and a less reliable one from more recently or vice versa, depending where on the calibration curve you are.
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.
 
OP
OP
B

bonj2

Guest
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.
 
Top Bottom