6 ms·

Archaeologists stumble on Neolithic ritual site in Suffolk (2018)

41 points by zeristor 8y ago

zeristor 8y ago
“The archaeologists first thought the timbers must be medieval or even Victorian, and were puzzled to find them so deeply buried. But as 30 metres of timber track were exposed, alongside other unexpected objects too, such as the massive horns and skull of an aurochs, an extinct breed of giant cattle, they realised they were dealing with something far more ancient. The timbers were 4,300 years old, according to the first carbon-14 tests, and underlying ones may be much older.”
ars 8y ago
"Archaeologists are nervous of using the word “ritual”" Because it's archaeological code for "We don't know what it's for" LOL. Although I do wish they'd just say "We don't know", instead of using code words........... It's not required that we know everything.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  I think in this case they do actually believe it was used as a ritual site, which is why they are nervous about using the term since it's been over used before.
  - groestl 8y ago
    Many professions have some kind of "last resort" explanation, which is (sometimes jokingly) used when no one has a clue what's going on. When I meet people with an interesting job, I sometimes ask what their last resort explanations are, and from an archaeologist I got this short poem in German: "Was man nicht erklären kann, das sehe man als kultisch an." ("What cannot be explained, should be assumed as ritualistic.").
    - kaybe 8y ago
      What answers did you get from other professions?
- dang 8y ago
  Could you please not post unsubstantive comments, and especially not shallow dismissals, to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - close04 8y ago
    Well, archaeologists are known to resort to "ritual" or "religious" when no obvious explanation exists. There's always the assumption that older civilizations were guided by more simplistic principles and since religion was a staple of almost every civilization it means this had to stand out and be overly represented in the findings. Religion along with war related stuff. So while the point above is made derisively it shouldn't be dismissed outright. This becomes a problem if they have evidence of it being a ritual site but the explanation was mistakenly overused in the past and lost its punch.
  - ars 8y ago
    It's really not dang, see the other replies in this thread, and search google as well, it's not a shallow dismissal, it's an insight into how archaeological results are reported.
    - dang 8y ago
      OK, point taken.
lkramer 8y ago
If anyone reading this lives in the UK, Digging for Britain (can't remember which episode) did an interesting bit on this digside and should still be on iPlayer.
- zeristor 8y ago
  That’s where I first heard about it, it on iPlayer until 22:00 today though, so not much opportunity for people to catch it. I’m surprised i didn’t hear about it earlier though, there was some press in June, considering this is is a few shades below Stonehenge
- zeristor 8y ago
  Available for a few more hours there’s about 10 minutes on it, 15 minutes in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0001jg7/digging-for-britain-series-7-3-east https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0001jg7/digging-for-b...
sgt101 8y ago
If I squint I can just see where this is when I look out of the window. The happy thing is that the powercable works (like the A14 improvement in Cambridge) have revealed all sorts of things about the landscape here. The sad thing is that it's such a mess; I really hope they put it back together as promised. The big impact on the landscape won't be from this though, it'll be from Sizewell C being built, which will take 12 years and involve moving a truly vast amount of kit and people on the roads.

41 points by zeristor 8y ago

“The archaeologists first thought the timbers must be medieval or even Victorian, and were puzzled to find them so deeply buried. But as 30 metres of timber track were exposed, alongside other unexpected objects too, such as the massive horns and skull of an aurochs, an extinct breed of giant cattle, they realised they were dealing with something far more ancient. The timbers were 4,300 years old, according to the first carbon-14 tests, and underlying ones may be much older.”

ars 8y ago

"Archaeologists are nervous of using the word “ritual”" Because it's archaeological code for "We don't know what it's for" LOL. Although I do wish they'd just say "We don't know", instead of using code words........... It's not required that we know everything.

roywiggins 8y ago
I think in this case they do actually believe it was used as a ritual site, which is why they are nervous about using the term since it's been over used before.
- groestl 8y ago
  Many professions have some kind of "last resort" explanation, which is (sometimes jokingly) used when no one has a clue what's going on. When I meet people with an interesting job, I sometimes ask what their last resort explanations are, and from an archaeologist I got this short poem in German: "Was man nicht erklären kann, das sehe man als kultisch an." ("What cannot be explained, should be assumed as ritualistic.").
  - kaybe 8y ago
    What answers did you get from other professions?
dang 8y ago
Could you please not post unsubstantive comments, and especially not shallow dismissals, to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- close04 8y ago
  Well, archaeologists are known to resort to "ritual" or "religious" when no obvious explanation exists. There's always the assumption that older civilizations were guided by more simplistic principles and since religion was a staple of almost every civilization it means this had to stand out and be overly represented in the findings. Religion along with war related stuff. So while the point above is made derisively it shouldn't be dismissed outright. This becomes a problem if they have evidence of it being a ritual site but the explanation was mistakenly overused in the past and lost its punch.
- ars 8y ago
  It's really not dang, see the other replies in this thread, and search google as well, it's not a shallow dismissal, it's an insight into how archaeological results are reported.
  - dang 8y ago
    OK, point taken.

lkramer 8y ago

If anyone reading this lives in the UK, Digging for Britain (can't remember which episode) did an interesting bit on this digside and should still be on iPlayer.

zeristor 8y ago
That’s where I first heard about it, it on iPlayer until 22:00 today though, so not much opportunity for people to catch it. I’m surprised i didn’t hear about it earlier though, there was some press in June, considering this is is a few shades below Stonehenge
zeristor 8y ago
Available for a few more hours there’s about 10 minutes on it, 15 minutes in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0001jg7/digging-for-britain-series-7-3-east https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0001jg7/digging-for-b...

sgt101 8y ago

If I squint I can just see where this is when I look out of the window. The happy thing is that the powercable works (like the A14 improvement in Cambridge) have revealed all sorts of things about the landscape here. The sad thing is that it's such a mess; I really hope they put it back together as promised. The big impact on the landscape won't be from this though, it'll be from Sizewell C being built, which will take 12 years and involve moving a truly vast amount of kit and people on the roads.