5 ms·

Stonehenge Begins to Yield Its Secrets

93 points by jeo1234 11y ago

SimplyUseless 11y ago
Here we go again, the story already posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10538487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10538487
- DanBC 11y ago
  You post a link to a more recent submission with no comments?
  - bostonpete 11y ago
    Seems like all this user does is complain about reposts of stuff he previously (?) posted...
    - wnevets 11y ago
      sounds like he's living up to his username
      - SimplyUseless 11y ago
        Please refrain from calling names. Most recently I have been trying to highlight the fact that the site has been not keeping quality and multiple submissions cause discussions to scatter. I tried to open a discussion on this topic a while ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10225569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10225569 The problem of multiple submissions is not difficult to fix. Reposts are ok to re-kindle the discussions however it is a dysfunction when multiple submissions are happening within a span of few minutes. I do not wish to earn karma by taking credit away from anyone's post and I take keen interests in quality discussions.
        DanBC 11y ago
        Coming into a thread, pointing people to a later submission with zero comments, and saying "it's happening again", is not (in my opinion) helpful. Mods have told you, and other users have told you, that it is fine to repost something if the earlier submission didn't get posted. Mods will often tell you to resubmit a story if they thought it was good but it didn't get much attention. If there are different versions of the story it's probably useful to compile a list of all the different versions, and say which one you think is best. And if a submission has had some discussion in the past it's useful to link to that previous discussion. (I agree about the name calling. That wasn't necessary.)
        SimplyUseless 11y ago
        @DanDC I appreciate the comments. I agree that my original comments look venting rather than a contribution. I also standby the fact that duplicates (and not re-posts) are a problem on HN. By duplicate, I mean the following: 1. Identical domain (such bbc.co.uk vs. bbc.com) 2. Identical url (cnbc.com/ vs. cnbc.com/?click=homepage) 3. Identical age - Submitted within the span of active discussions happening on the HN. In case of re-posts, despite (1) and (2) points above either the discussions have ceased or mods have permitted re-posting. Currently, on an exact url match of a previous story, HN notifies the user. It would be great for HN to detect duplicate stories (not just an exact match). Let the user know of another ongoing discussion. Give an option to resubmit with that knowledge.
jimrandomh 11y ago
When people talk about ancient civilizations, they tend to... make things up. Stonehenge, in particular, due to its recent cultural significance, has lots of ridiculous stories told about it. There's this narrative about primitivism, which generates interpretations centered on religion and ritual. A more informative view, I think, is to assume it's practical. When I look at pictures of Stonehenge, it looks to me like motte and bailey. A literal motte and bailey, the military fortification, not the logical fallacy by the same name. A motte and bailey is a military structure that was extremely common in the middle ages. There's a ditch around the outside, which is for defense against small groups of invaders. There's a big stone structure in the middle, which you can climb up on if attackers get past the ditch, using a structure that was removed some time later. The graves, cooking pits, and other things at the site are just signs of habitation.
- ksenzee 11y ago
  I agree that when people talk about ancient civilizations, they tend to make things up, often assuming religious symbolism where none may have existed. David Macaulay's Motel of the Mysteries is a fabulous satire of that tendency and everyone should read it. But I also think calling Stonehenge a motte and bailey fortification is missing the mark. That's an easy enough interpretation that, if the archaeology supported it, everyone would accept it and move on. There's something more to it, and maybe we just don't yet have enough data to say what it is.
- lostlogin 11y ago
  If you were picking somewhere to defend, a flat paddock is hardly idea. It was probably forested then too, making it even worse. I have no idea what it was but it sure doesn't seem like a defensive position.
  - jimrandomh 11y ago
    You choose the flat paddock for economic reasons, and then fortify it as best you can.
    - 11y ago

93 points by jeo1234 11y ago

Here we go again, the story already posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10538487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10538487

DanBC 11y ago
You post a link to a more recent submission with no comments?
- bostonpete 11y ago
  Seems like all this user does is complain about reposts of stuff he previously (?) posted...
  - wnevets 11y ago
    sounds like he's living up to his username
    - SimplyUseless 11y ago
      Please refrain from calling names. Most recently I have been trying to highlight the fact that the site has been not keeping quality and multiple submissions cause discussions to scatter. I tried to open a discussion on this topic a while ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10225569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10225569 The problem of multiple submissions is not difficult to fix. Reposts are ok to re-kindle the discussions however it is a dysfunction when multiple submissions are happening within a span of few minutes. I do not wish to earn karma by taking credit away from anyone's post and I take keen interests in quality discussions.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Coming into a thread, pointing people to a later submission with zero comments, and saying "it's happening again", is not (in my opinion) helpful. Mods have told you, and other users have told you, that it is fine to repost something if the earlier submission didn't get posted. Mods will often tell you to resubmit a story if they thought it was good but it didn't get much attention. If there are different versions of the story it's probably useful to compile a list of all the different versions, and say which one you think is best. And if a submission has had some discussion in the past it's useful to link to that previous discussion. (I agree about the name calling. That wasn't necessary.)
        SimplyUseless 11y ago
        @DanDC I appreciate the comments. I agree that my original comments look venting rather than a contribution. I also standby the fact that duplicates (and not re-posts) are a problem on HN. By duplicate, I mean the following: 1. Identical domain (such bbc.co.uk vs. bbc.com) 2. Identical url (cnbc.com/ vs. cnbc.com/?click=homepage) 3. Identical age - Submitted within the span of active discussions happening on the HN. In case of re-posts, despite (1) and (2) points above either the discussions have ceased or mods have permitted re-posting. Currently, on an exact url match of a previous story, HN notifies the user. It would be great for HN to detect duplicate stories (not just an exact match). Let the user know of another ongoing discussion. Give an option to resubmit with that knowledge.

jimrandomh 11y ago

When people talk about ancient civilizations, they tend to... make things up. Stonehenge, in particular, due to its recent cultural significance, has lots of ridiculous stories told about it. There's this narrative about primitivism, which generates interpretations centered on religion and ritual. A more informative view, I think, is to assume it's practical. When I look at pictures of Stonehenge, it looks to me like motte and bailey. A literal motte and bailey, the military fortification, not the logical fallacy by the same name. A motte and bailey is a military structure that was extremely common in the middle ages. There's a ditch around the outside, which is for defense against small groups of invaders. There's a big stone structure in the middle, which you can climb up on if attackers get past the ditch, using a structure that was removed some time later. The graves, cooking pits, and other things at the site are just signs of habitation.

ksenzee 11y ago
I agree that when people talk about ancient civilizations, they tend to make things up, often assuming religious symbolism where none may have existed. David Macaulay's Motel of the Mysteries is a fabulous satire of that tendency and everyone should read it. But I also think calling Stonehenge a motte and bailey fortification is missing the mark. That's an easy enough interpretation that, if the archaeology supported it, everyone would accept it and move on. There's something more to it, and maybe we just don't yet have enough data to say what it is.
lostlogin 11y ago
If you were picking somewhere to defend, a flat paddock is hardly idea. It was probably forested then too, making it even worse. I have no idea what it was but it sure doesn't seem like a defensive position.
- jimrandomh 11y ago
  You choose the flat paddock for economic reasons, and then fortify it as best you can.
  - 11y ago