Originally posted by magicmushroom
What do you think of this then, in 2000 I was at stonehenge and I walked passed an archi telling a group of American tourist that they new who built
the henge becuse of the tools found at the site, antler bone tools etc. but I said to him does that prove they built it and his reply was that yes it
was becasue those were the people around at the time and those were the only tools available. So I said by that analogy if I leave a coin dated 2000AD
in thousands of years future archis will say that was when it was built because they have definite proof is that real proof? he did not like that and
said it was ridiculous, I said no more so than your theory.
If you did say that, then you were wrong.
Obviously, with the amount of traffic at the Stonehenge site, there will be found there thousands of years in the future both the remains of modern
(to us) tourism (candy wrappers, ciggy packs, diapers) as well as the earlier, and easily distinguishable, remains of the cultures that constructed
the henge (stone tools, antler tools, gnawed on bones or whatnot) at a much lower level (deeper in the ground) than our garbage. Also all the passers
by in the looong years between, if they dropped a trinket or two every now and then, that is.
So, yes, it is
Now, if you were to drop this coin at some other, currently unknown, archaeological site, and it was found thousands of years from now and erroneously
associated with the archaeological site, then at first archaeologists might consider the site to date from our era. Then they would compare what they
found there to other sites they had dated to our era. Depending on what the actual
age of the real
archaeological artifactual evidence
was (I mean, if it dated from 1940 or so, it wouldn't be far off, would it?), the scientists may or may not eventually discern that the original
dating was wrong.
We do, after all, follow the timelines today of several archaeological sites that cover a timespan of thousands of years of archaeological evidence
(one such site is, in fact, Stonehenge), all in the same area. Why would scientists thousands of years from now be incapable of the same?
Originally posted by magicmushroomAlso on the same topic and Im sure you saw this program on how the henge was constructed. 2 20ton
concrete blocks were placed in a field and 250 persons plus experts carried out a demonstration as to how the stones were moved and erected.
Well the exercise went to plan and the very proud experts announced this was indeed how the henge was built. Well sorry that proved nothing to me, it
proved that 250 persons using brute force could move and erect a 20 ton block of concrete on level ground. It did not explain how primitive people
could shape and move 50ton blocks of stone over hills, rivers etc. The day they do that experiment is the day I will believe them. It did not explain
how or why these people entered into such a task and for what reason.
No archaeologist has ever claimed to have "proven" anything about how a certain thing actually happened. What the program you are remembering
"prove" was the feasibility of a small group of people setting stones in a "Stonehenge-like" manner. Nothing more.
By the way, why do you require proof of "why" Stonehenge was built? You start out claiming you want to know how
it was built and when you
are shown one of several possibilities suddenly you are outraged that no one has satisfied you regarding the "why" of the matter, a question you had
[edit on 9/23/2006 by Harte]