63
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
63 points (78.9% liked)
Today I Learned
16313 readers
730 users here now
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This video is very misleading.
It's not some secret, you can read this on wikipedia, with more facts, e.g exact list of moved stones, not just 4 photos in a loop
Good to know, thanks.
Is there confirmation that the stones were returned to their same positions?
I did not know any restorations had taken place until today.
I don't want to repeat wikipedia, you can read about it in the section "1901-2000": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge#1901–2000
They even have 2 photos from the same location one from 1877, and the other from 2008.
These are very tricky questions because, you have to define what is the "original" position. Stonehenge was built for nearly a 1000 years.
E.g. on the last stage they removed some stones at phase 3/V (1930 BC to 1600 BC). So which one is the original? Were they vandals, or this was part of the concept? Should we consider Stonehenge 3/IV as the true Stonehenge, because that was the biggest?
If you check the photo from 1877 you can see that a lot of stones were already fallen. In the video the guy says, it's a "modern representation". But what should be the correct workflow? Should we just let them collapse? Because that's the other option. And than what will you say to your grandson: "I'm sorry you cannot see Stonehenge, but we just let them fall"?
Another note if you think about Stonehenge as a sun calendar. The British Isles move about 2.5cm/year due to plate tectonics. It means Stonehenge moved 10 meters since it's construction. It's possible that at some point it will move too much that it won't even look at the correct direction, and the Stonehenge Avenue won't look at the sunrise of the summer solstice. In that case should we relocate the whole area to compensate for continental drifting? Because relocated version would be as intended, and the actual location would be just wrong.
We have the technology to move big things and place them elsewhere and reassemble. Read about Abu Simbel and the other Egyptian monuments moved because of the construction of the Aswan-dam. They still look majestic, and the other option would be nobody can see them because they are underwater. Are these "modern representations"?
Actually this question is part of a 100 years old debate without a final answer:
All good points. Restoration and modification of sites has been going on for thousands of years also. The Vatican's St Peter's basilica is far different from the original church which was much simpler and likely just a reuse of an older Roman building. It is now believed that things like Greek statues and the Parthenon were actually brightly painted.
Also, if it was aligned with, say, the north star, then that has also shifted position over thousands of years too. The earth's precession means polaris hasn't always been the north star.
Exceptional detail, thanks. I agree, the video does paint it as a number of sacrilegious restorations, whereas each would have been undertaken to maintain as much original character and position as possible.
By 'original' position I meant taking fine triangulating measurements between untouched stones, and then replacing at the same angle and position. ie. It would be interesting to find out if there were historians or engineers making the lead decisions.
I honestly was only focussing on the TIL part of there being any changes/restoration at all over time, and can agree it now looks better than a pile of rubble.