5 ms·

9k-year-old Stonehenge-like structure found under Lake Michigan

222 points by rmason 4y ago

ankaAr 4y ago
If they are not naming it Damonreach, all Chicagoans must to sign a letter in protest.
tomxor 4y ago
This whole website needs flagging, it's chocked full or ridiculous hyped up pseudo archaeology videos.
wwfn 4y ago
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/archaeologists-have-found-prehistoric-rock-structures-under-the-great-lakes https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/archaeologists... > Back to the media-hyped “Stonehenge” Holley found in Lake Michigan: It might be a small version of a prehistoric hunting structure, similar to the one found in Lake Huron. As for why it was falsely labeled in headlines, VanSumeren says that a hunting blind underwater “doesn’t have the same ring to it” as an internationally recognized prehistoric structure like Stonehenge. maybe this paper? https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11395945 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11395945
nemo44x 4y ago
There's other things like entire trees under water there too. When you read the geological history of an area like the Great Lakes, it makes you think a lot about things and how they change slowly and quickly. 10,000 years ago Lake Michigan looked very different and it recessed and came back multiple times over thousands of years. A few thousand years ago the water level was much higher than it is today. Even over a small number of years major changes happened. Glaciers, etc have such an interesting history.
adolph 4y ago
This site seems to gain a life in the media about every six months or so. Sadly, much of the information out there is incorrect. For example, there is not a henge associated with the site and the individual stones are relatively small when compared to what most people think of as European standing stones. It should be clearly understood that this is not a megalith site like Stonehenge. [...] Dr. John O’Shea from University of Michigan has been working on a broadly similar structure over in Lake Huron. He has received a NSF grant to research his site and thinks that it may be a prehistoric drive line for herding caribou. This site is well published and you can find quite a bit of information on it on the internet. It is highly possible that the site in Grand Traverse Bay may have served a similar function to the one found in Lake Huron. https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-about-the-stonehenge-in-lake-michigan/ https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-...
ntrz 4y ago
This was actually discovered in 2007, not recently. From the archeologist who discovered it: > This site seems to gain a life in the media about every six months or so. Sadly, much of the information out there is incorrect. For example, there is not a henge associated with the site and the individual stones are relatively small when compared to what most people think of as European standing stones. It should be clearly understood that this is not a megalith site like Stonehenge. This label has been placed on the site by individuals in the press who may have been attempting to generate sensation about the story and have not visited the site. The site in Grand Traverse Bay is best described as a long line of stones which is over a mile in length. https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-about-the-stonehenge-in-lake-michigan/ https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-... Another article with some additional context: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/archaeologists-have-found-prehistoric-rock-structures-under-the-great-lakes https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/archaeologists...
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  > The site in Grand Traverse Bay is best described as a long line of stones which is over a mile in length. That sounds even more interesting to me
  - prvc 4y ago
    "A long line of stones which is over a mile in length" could easily be laid by a single person in a relatively short time without any special skills, tools, or knowledge. Note: the structure described above seems to be a bit more than this.
    - unsupp0rted 4y ago
      Sure, but what prompted them to do it? When did they do it? What else do we know about them?
      - flandish 4y ago
        > them Welp, if the TV series “Ancient Aliens” has told us anything it’s that if there is any chance “prehistoric” or “non-white” folks did it, it was aliens. Always aliens. Except when it’s time traveling white humans from the future come to the past to help “those people” carve stones. (I am mocking the horseshit show, in case anyone worries.)
bornfreddy 4y ago
This is a non-amp version of the article: https://archaeology-world.com/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-structure-found-under-lake-michigan/ https://archaeology-world.com/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-...
- gnabgib 4y ago
  From 2020, post at the time[0] included 77 comments, 252 pts. That article was also a repeat, the original finding seems to have been in 2007 at https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-about-the-stonehenge-in-lake-michigan/ https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-... [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25478693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25478693
freitzkriesler 4y ago
Here's a direct link so you don't have to give traffic to some dinguses blog https://archaeology-world.com/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-structure-found-under-lake-michigan/ https://archaeology-world.com/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pavon 4y ago
  Regardless of who stole from whom, this copy of the article isn't any better. It just adds some links, half of which are incorrect like the links for Mark Holly and Greg MacMaster to completely different people that happen to share the same names.
  - layer8 4y ago
    It is marked as the source by TFA. So why not directly link to the source.
itronitron 4y ago
The 'photo' of the diver doesn't seem to match up with the other images in the article. Is there any confirmation or caption for that picture from other articles?
- RajT88 4y ago
  It is as if someone is baiting for clicks!
- poly_morphis 4y ago
  Yeah, noticed the same thing. The image seems more consistent with a shipwreck than anything else (at least according to my quick image search).
- pavon 4y ago
  Yeah, scrubbing the #SecretUnderground video linked elsewhere, I don't see that structure shown anywhere. If it was part of this structure I would certainly expect it to be front and center in that hype-driven video, since that image is more visually stunning than the actual rocks shown.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Wonder if it’s the civil war era pier mentioned. That’d look about right
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  It's not from the site discussed in the article, but instead the stern of a shipwreck called the Acme [0], which sunk in Lake Erie in 1867 [1]. Here's a photo from the actual site [2]. [0] http://www.wrecksandreefs.com/acme.htm http://www.wrecksandreefs.com/acme.htm [1] https://goo.gl/maps/VuskDMS3ZZYmpWDK8 https://goo.gl/maps/VuskDMS3ZZYmpWDK8 [2] https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SW_Line_sm-1-768x576.jpg https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2...
  - cpncrunch 4y ago
    So, basically nefarious clickbait. They put in a photo of a shipwreck that just happens to look like a henge.
salil999 4y ago
The direct link is littered with ads to the point it's difficult to read.
ducktective 4y ago
Heads up: Just recently, Graham Hancock has challenged John Hoopes (his arch-nemesis?) for a debate on JRE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyQ4-PVtqRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyQ4-PVtqRA
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >Heads up: Just recently, Graham Hancock has challenged John Hoopes (his arch-nemesis?) for a debate on JRE. Perhaps I'm missing something, but why (and why should we care) is an archaeologist challenging an anthropologist to debate about the Java Runtime Environment?
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    FYI, Hancock is a writer not an archeologist.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >FYI, Hancock is a writer not an archeologist. Thank you. My mistake. And so, why (and why should we care) is a writer focused on history/archaeology challenging an anthropologist to debate about the Java Runtime Environment?
      - qaz_plm 4y ago
        JRE in this case would be Joe Rogan Experience
        nobody9999 4y ago
        >JRE in this case would be Joe Rogan Experience Thanks! So a history writer and an anthropologist are going to debate the value of the "Joe Rogan Experience?" Doesn't seem all that interesting to me. Hopefully others will find it so.
      - astrange 4y ago
gaucheries 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21649869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21649869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24102035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24102035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27695726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27695726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25478693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25478693 (edited for formatting)
killjoywashere 4y ago
So a kid in Michigan grows up wanting to be Indiana Jones, also likes diving (a not-uncommon combo), but lives in Michigan. Gets certified for drysuits and finds some rocks. I wonder if there's Bonferroni correction here...
VLM 4y ago
"not far away" from the famous Rock Lake Pyramid. There's a lot of unusual stuff in the general upper midwest.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  The great lakes are the North American cultural equivalent of the Mediterranean sea. There were people living here for thousands of years before European settlers got here.
umvi 4y ago
What is currently stopping someone knowledgeable about dating techniques from making a fake underwater Stonehenge with fake caveman inscriptions in order to generate sensational press? Are there properties of dating techniques that can't be (easily) falsified? (I can't find anything on this website on how the scientists concluded the inscription is from 9k years ago)
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  Dating inscriptions is difficult because you usually can't directly date the removed material. The typical method is to start constraining when the carvings could possibly have been made. The Winnemucca lake petroglyphs are a good example of this process [0]. I'm unable to find a public field report for the site, but my guess is that the 9kya date is a terminus ante quem for when the site was flooded and the stones submerged. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnemucca_Lake#Petroglyphs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnemucca_Lake#Petroglyphs
hospadar 4y ago
Related: Map of cool stuff underwater in grand traverse bay: https://www.gtbup.org/interactive-map https://www.gtbup.org/interactive-map
sampo 4y ago
Listening to Graham Hancock, I have only recently learned that the "Clovis first" theory that people arrived to the Americas only 13k years ago, belongs to the 1970s. Since then, there have been findings of much older human presence: Bluefish Caves, Yukon, 24k years ago Old Crow Flats, Yukon, 25k-40k years ago White Sands, New Mexico, 21k-23k years ago Hartley Mammoth site, New Mexico, 38k years ago Cerutti Mastodon site, San Diego county, California, 130k years ago Monte Verde, Chile, 14k-33k years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefish_Caves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefish_Caves https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/old-crow-basin https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/old-crow-b... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/fossil-footprints-challenge-theory-when-people-first-arrived-americas https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/fossil-fo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartley_Mammoth_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartley_Mammoth_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde
- cpncrunch 4y ago
  Graham Hancock isn't a reliable source for anything.
  - knighthack 4y ago
    Your ignorance and bias are showing. Not being reliable is not the same as being untruthful. And here, Graham was right.
  - diggernet 4y ago
    Apparently he can be, as he reliably informed sampo that pre-Clovis people existed, as demonstrated by the multiple links that sampo provided above.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - sampo 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
moloch-hai 4y ago
[dead]
chiefalchemist 4y ago
> "If found to be true, the wannabe petroglyph could be as much as 10,000 years old – coincident with the post-Ice Age presence of both humans and mastodons in the upper midwest. The formation, if authenticated, wouldn’t be completely out of place. Stone circles and other petroglyph sites are located in the area." But if it's under 40 ft of water wouldn't that mean it was constructed (?) during the Ice Age? Not after?
aww_dang 4y ago
My favorite fringe archaeological theories for this region revolve around the ancient copper mining in the upper peninsula. Fringe theories don't demand absolute belief. That approach misses the opportunity for an imaginative flight of fancy. Whatever is celebrated as truthy today may be contradicted by tomorrow's truth mongers. A bit of nuance goes a long way here.
steponlego 4y ago
The fact that it's not as big as Stonehenge seems irrelevant - there are many henges across Britain, France, and other places which are smaller than this. The thing I'd like to know is if there's any significant archaeo-astronomical alignment of this structure and if so, is it related to the observations which Stonehenge was undoubtedly used for? If so this opens up some very interesting questions about the peopling of North America.

222 points by rmason 4y ago

ankaAr 4y ago

If they are not naming it Damonreach, all Chicagoans must to sign a letter in protest.

tomxor 4y ago

This whole website needs flagging, it's chocked full or ridiculous hyped up pseudo archaeology videos.

wwfn 4y ago

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/archaeologists-have-found-prehistoric-rock-structures-under-the-great-lakes https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/archaeologists... > Back to the media-hyped “Stonehenge” Holley found in Lake Michigan: It might be a small version of a prehistoric hunting structure, similar to the one found in Lake Huron. As for why it was falsely labeled in headlines, VanSumeren says that a hunting blind underwater “doesn’t have the same ring to it” as an internationally recognized prehistoric structure like Stonehenge. maybe this paper? https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11395945 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11395945

nemo44x 4y ago

There's other things like entire trees under water there too. When you read the geological history of an area like the Great Lakes, it makes you think a lot about things and how they change slowly and quickly. 10,000 years ago Lake Michigan looked very different and it recessed and came back multiple times over thousands of years. A few thousand years ago the water level was much higher than it is today. Even over a small number of years major changes happened. Glaciers, etc have such an interesting history.

adolph 4y ago

This site seems to gain a life in the media about every six months or so. Sadly, much of the information out there is incorrect. For example, there is not a henge associated with the site and the individual stones are relatively small when compared to what most people think of as European standing stones. It should be clearly understood that this is not a megalith site like Stonehenge. [...] Dr. John O’Shea from University of Michigan has been working on a broadly similar structure over in Lake Huron. He has received a NSF grant to research his site and thinks that it may be a prehistoric drive line for herding caribou. This site is well published and you can find quite a bit of information on it on the internet. It is highly possible that the site in Grand Traverse Bay may have served a similar function to the one found in Lake Huron. https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-about-the-stonehenge-in-lake-michigan/ https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-...

ntrz 4y ago

This was actually discovered in 2007, not recently. From the archeologist who discovered it: > This site seems to gain a life in the media about every six months or so. Sadly, much of the information out there is incorrect. For example, there is not a henge associated with the site and the individual stones are relatively small when compared to what most people think of as European standing stones. It should be clearly understood that this is not a megalith site like Stonehenge. This label has been placed on the site by individuals in the press who may have been attempting to generate sensation about the story and have not visited the site. The site in Grand Traverse Bay is best described as a long line of stones which is over a mile in length. https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-about-the-stonehenge-in-lake-michigan/ https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-... Another article with some additional context: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/archaeologists-have-found-prehistoric-rock-structures-under-the-great-lakes https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/archaeologists...

unsupp0rted 4y ago
> The site in Grand Traverse Bay is best described as a long line of stones which is over a mile in length. That sounds even more interesting to me
- prvc 4y ago
  "A long line of stones which is over a mile in length" could easily be laid by a single person in a relatively short time without any special skills, tools, or knowledge. Note: the structure described above seems to be a bit more than this.
  - unsupp0rted 4y ago
    Sure, but what prompted them to do it? When did they do it? What else do we know about them?
    - flandish 4y ago
      > them Welp, if the TV series “Ancient Aliens” has told us anything it’s that if there is any chance “prehistoric” or “non-white” folks did it, it was aliens. Always aliens. Except when it’s time traveling white humans from the future come to the past to help “those people” carve stones. (I am mocking the horseshit show, in case anyone worries.)

bornfreddy 4y ago

This is a non-amp version of the article: https://archaeology-world.com/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-structure-found-under-lake-michigan/ https://archaeology-world.com/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-...

gnabgib 4y ago
From 2020, post at the time[0] included 77 comments, 252 pts. That article was also a repeat, the original finding seems to have been in 2007 at https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-about-the-stonehenge-in-lake-michigan/ https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/index.php/the-truth-... [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25478693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25478693

freitzkriesler 4y ago

Here's a direct link so you don't have to give traffic to some dinguses blog https://archaeology-world.com/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-structure-found-under-lake-michigan/ https://archaeology-world.com/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pavon 4y ago
Regardless of who stole from whom, this copy of the article isn't any better. It just adds some links, half of which are incorrect like the links for Mark Holly and Greg MacMaster to completely different people that happen to share the same names.
- layer8 4y ago
  It is marked as the source by TFA. So why not directly link to the source.

itronitron 4y ago

The 'photo' of the diver doesn't seem to match up with the other images in the article. Is there any confirmation or caption for that picture from other articles?

RajT88 4y ago
It is as if someone is baiting for clicks!
poly_morphis 4y ago
Yeah, noticed the same thing. The image seems more consistent with a shipwreck than anything else (at least according to my quick image search).
pavon 4y ago
Yeah, scrubbing the #SecretUnderground video linked elsewhere, I don't see that structure shown anywhere. If it was part of this structure I would certainly expect it to be front and center in that hype-driven video, since that image is more visually stunning than the actual rocks shown.
TylerE 4y ago
Wonder if it’s the civil war era pier mentioned. That’d look about right
AlotOfReading 4y ago
It's not from the site discussed in the article, but instead the stern of a shipwreck called the Acme [0], which sunk in Lake Erie in 1867 [1]. Here's a photo from the actual site [2]. [0] http://www.wrecksandreefs.com/acme.htm http://www.wrecksandreefs.com/acme.htm [1] https://goo.gl/maps/VuskDMS3ZZYmpWDK8 https://goo.gl/maps/VuskDMS3ZZYmpWDK8 [2] https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SW_Line_sm-1-768x576.jpg https://holleyarchaeology.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2...
- cpncrunch 4y ago
  So, basically nefarious clickbait. They put in a photo of a shipwreck that just happens to look like a henge.

salil999 4y ago

The direct link is littered with ads to the point it's difficult to read.

ducktective 4y ago

Heads up: Just recently, Graham Hancock has challenged John Hoopes (his arch-nemesis?) for a debate on JRE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyQ4-PVtqRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyQ4-PVtqRA

nobody9999 4y ago
>Heads up: Just recently, Graham Hancock has challenged John Hoopes (his arch-nemesis?) for a debate on JRE. Perhaps I'm missing something, but why (and why should we care) is an archaeologist challenging an anthropologist to debate about the Java Runtime Environment?
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  FYI, Hancock is a writer not an archeologist.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >FYI, Hancock is a writer not an archeologist. Thank you. My mistake. And so, why (and why should we care) is a writer focused on history/archaeology challenging an anthropologist to debate about the Java Runtime Environment?
    - qaz_plm 4y ago
      JRE in this case would be Joe Rogan Experience
      - nobody9999 4y ago
        >JRE in this case would be Joe Rogan Experience Thanks! So a history writer and an anthropologist are going to debate the value of the "Joe Rogan Experience?" Doesn't seem all that interesting to me. Hopefully others will find it so.
    - astrange 4y ago

gaucheries 4y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21649869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21649869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24102035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24102035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27695726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27695726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25478693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25478693 (edited for formatting)

killjoywashere 4y ago

So a kid in Michigan grows up wanting to be Indiana Jones, also likes diving (a not-uncommon combo), but lives in Michigan. Gets certified for drysuits and finds some rocks. I wonder if there's Bonferroni correction here...

VLM 4y ago

"not far away" from the famous Rock Lake Pyramid. There's a lot of unusual stuff in the general upper midwest.

thepasswordis 4y ago
The great lakes are the North American cultural equivalent of the Mediterranean sea. There were people living here for thousands of years before European settlers got here.

umvi 4y ago

What is currently stopping someone knowledgeable about dating techniques from making a fake underwater Stonehenge with fake caveman inscriptions in order to generate sensational press? Are there properties of dating techniques that can't be (easily) falsified? (I can't find anything on this website on how the scientists concluded the inscription is from 9k years ago)

AlotOfReading 4y ago
Dating inscriptions is difficult because you usually can't directly date the removed material. The typical method is to start constraining when the carvings could possibly have been made. The Winnemucca lake petroglyphs are a good example of this process [0]. I'm unable to find a public field report for the site, but my guess is that the 9kya date is a terminus ante quem for when the site was flooded and the stones submerged. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnemucca_Lake#Petroglyphs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnemucca_Lake#Petroglyphs

hospadar 4y ago

Related: Map of cool stuff underwater in grand traverse bay: https://www.gtbup.org/interactive-map https://www.gtbup.org/interactive-map

sampo 4y ago

Listening to Graham Hancock, I have only recently learned that the "Clovis first" theory that people arrived to the Americas only 13k years ago, belongs to the 1970s. Since then, there have been findings of much older human presence: Bluefish Caves, Yukon, 24k years ago Old Crow Flats, Yukon, 25k-40k years ago White Sands, New Mexico, 21k-23k years ago Hartley Mammoth site, New Mexico, 38k years ago Cerutti Mastodon site, San Diego county, California, 130k years ago Monte Verde, Chile, 14k-33k years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefish_Caves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefish_Caves https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/old-crow-basin https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/old-crow-b... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/fossil-footprints-challenge-theory-when-people-first-arrived-americas https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/fossil-fo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartley_Mammoth_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartley_Mammoth_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde

cpncrunch 4y ago
Graham Hancock isn't a reliable source for anything.
- knighthack 4y ago
  Your ignorance and bias are showing. Not being reliable is not the same as being untruthful. And here, Graham was right.
- diggernet 4y ago
  Apparently he can be, as he reliably informed sampo that pre-Clovis people existed, as demonstrated by the multiple links that sampo provided above.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- sampo 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

moloch-hai 4y ago

[dead]

chiefalchemist 4y ago

> "If found to be true, the wannabe petroglyph could be as much as 10,000 years old – coincident with the post-Ice Age presence of both humans and mastodons in the upper midwest. The formation, if authenticated, wouldn’t be completely out of place. Stone circles and other petroglyph sites are located in the area." But if it's under 40 ft of water wouldn't that mean it was constructed (?) during the Ice Age? Not after?

aww_dang 4y ago

My favorite fringe archaeological theories for this region revolve around the ancient copper mining in the upper peninsula. Fringe theories don't demand absolute belief. That approach misses the opportunity for an imaginative flight of fancy. Whatever is celebrated as truthy today may be contradicted by tomorrow's truth mongers. A bit of nuance goes a long way here.

steponlego 4y ago

The fact that it's not as big as Stonehenge seems irrelevant - there are many henges across Britain, France, and other places which are smaller than this. The thing I'd like to know is if there's any significant archaeo-astronomical alignment of this structure and if so, is it related to the observations which Stonehenge was undoubtedly used for? If so this opens up some very interesting questions about the peopling of North America.