Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Swedish Stonehenge? Ancient Stone Structure


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 39,489 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • "Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." - Albert Einstein

Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:34 PM

www.livescience.com said:

Ancient Scandinavians dragged 59 boulders to a seaside cliff near what is now the Swedish fishing village of Kåseberga. They carefully arranged the massive stones — each weighing up to 4,000 pounds (1,800 kilograms) — in the outline of a 220-foot-long (67-meter) ship overlooking the Baltic Sea.

Archaeologists generally agree this megalithic structure, known as Ales Stenar ("Ale's Stones"), was assembled about 1,000 years ago, near the end of  the Iron Age, as a burial monument. But a team of researchers now argues it's really 2,500 years old, dating from the Scandinavian Bronze Age, and was built as an astronomical calendar with the same underlying geometry as England's Stonehenge.

Posted Image Read more...


Posted Image

#2    Conrad Clough

Conrad Clough

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 144 posts
  • Joined:09 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Renton WA

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:23 PM

Quote

Archaeologists using radiocarbon dating have calculated that Ales Stenar was built about 1,400 years ago
comments like this always amuse me... since you can't date stone that way (and even if you could do so, using one of the other dating methods that works on stone it would only tell you the age of the rock, not when it was placed there by men)... I assume that they used organic material found at the site to do their testing, but it would be nice if the article mentioned what they actually radiocarbon dated.


#3    siggiesis

siggiesis

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined:21 Oct 2011

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:34 AM

I was left wondering what exactly they radiocarbon-dated. Even if they took debris from old structures or pits around the site, it can still be unreliable. Perhaps the geologist has a point about it being older for some (shocking) academic reason. Sometimes archaeologists annoy me with their god complexes.


#4    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 16,278 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:54 AM

View PostConrad Clough, on 19 April 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

comments like this always amuse me... since you can't date stone that way (and even if you could do so, using one of the other dating methods that works on stone it would only tell you the age of the rock, not when it was placed there by men)... I assume that they used organic material found at the site to do their testing, but it would be nice if the article mentioned what they actually radiocarbon dated.

It's worth pointing out the sentence containing this claim was written by a journalist, not an archaeologist. It's quite possible the archaeologists did not use carbon-dating to date the age of the monument, but the journalist simply made an error of assumption - and ignorance.

Without access to the original reports/papers of any of the archaeologists who have worked on this site, we are left to use the words of the journalist in their stead. But that does not mean we should judge these archaeologists by what the journalist states - unless that statement takes the form of a quotation or otherwise sourced (and referenced) from an archaeological report.

I am going to assume, based on the newest report being published in the Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, the archaeologists claiming the earlier date for the construction of the monument used 'archaeo-astronomical methods' to arrive at this date. The 'science' of archaeo-astronomy is much disputed, and results garnered from it are not generally viewed as reliable.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#5    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 April 2012 - 09:40 AM

Thanks Stillwaters, never heard of it befroe.
Amazing.
Posted Image
http://news.discover...den-120419.html

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users