6 ms·

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 mon

by 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.)
      - adamc 4y ago
        It's a show PT Barnum would recognize.
    - hammock 4y ago
      A fence?
    - animal_spirits 4y ago
      The article posted by the top commentor suggests it was used for herding caribou
  - henryfjordan 4y ago
    But why? Religion? Marking territory boundaries? Some kind of barrier to stop water flowing? Fencing for animals? I think it unlikely someone just decided to do it to mess with future archaeologists.
    - bratwurst3000 4y ago
      That would be amazing if someone did that. So many things we do are useless. I can imagin humans a few thousand years ago saying „ lets put some stones in a line for the fun of it“ Could we pls mess with future archeologists now!
      - mtnGoat 4y ago
        I already do. I’ve bashed strange designs and my initials into rocks far from civilization when I’m out hiking. With the exact thought of throwing someone for a loop long into the future. They are always subtle and small (so as not to be annoying to other users ).
    - spacedcowboy 4y ago
      Tell me, have you ever been young ? :)
    - unsupp0rted 4y ago
      Some time in the next few hundred years we will discover that the majority of mysterious archaeological finds were placed there by future humans to mess with past archaeologists.
    - Telemakhos 4y ago
      Caribou hunting. You set these up along a path Caribou use to constrain them to a narrow route, and then you set up hunting blinds along the path. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1404404111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1404404111
      - dieselgate 4y ago
        Oh wow very good callout and thanks for the academic (!) reference! This reminds me of the weirs used to trap fish - no surprise similar units were created on land for hunting as well
Kon-Peki 4y ago
> there is not a henge associated with the site To be fair, the average person doesn’t know that henge is a word with a specific meaning, and Stonehenge is just the name of a place with stones stacked in a pattern. So this is kind of like that. Also, continued public interest is probably one of the reasons that research grant money continues to be available to study something that was found 15 years ago. So cut the general public some slack :)
- efreak 4y ago
  As a member of the general public, I find this quote from Wikipedia interesting: > The word henge is a backformation from Stonehenge, the famous monument in Wiltshire. Stonehenge is not a true henge, as its ditch runs outside its bank, although there is a small extant external bank as well So the word henge comes from the name Stonehenge, but Stonehenge is not a henge. This could be incorrect, however, as nearly every etymology I've found online seems to use almost the exact same wording as either Wikipedia or dictionary.com (the source cited on Wikipedia)
- ntrz 4y ago
  > Also, continued public interest is probably one of the reasons that research grant money continues to be available to study something that was found 15 years ago. Unfortunately for Dr. Holley, it doesn't seem to have been working out that way in this case (from his page linked above): > ...state politics in previous years have meant that we have only been able to obtain limited funding for research and as a result little progress has been made.
- arp242 4y ago
  My main gripe is that "stonehenge" gives an impression of these huge megalithic structures, while they're actually "4 feet high and about 5 feet long" rocks (1.2 by 1.5 metres). It's not quite a Spinal Tap sized stonehenge, but closer to that than the actual stonehenge. I don't care that it's not actually a "henge", it's just that the mental picture of it is all wrong. Even just adding the word "small" or some such would greatly improve things.
  - 4y ago
staplung 4y ago
That's okay, even Stonehenge isn't a proper henge. For official henge status you need to have a ditch inside a raised bank. At Stonehenge, it's the opposite; the ditch is outside the bank. When I visited there a few years ago with some friends I took to calling it Stonething.
- technothrasher 4y ago
  To be fair though, the modern word ‘henge’ meaning a circular embankment with an internal ditch, was derived from the name of Stonehenge. So that while Stonehenge is not a henge monument, one cannot fairly complain that it is named incorrectly. If anything, its the term 'henge' which has been incongruously repurposed.

by ntrz 4y ago

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.)
    - adamc 4y ago
      It's a show PT Barnum would recognize.
  - hammock 4y ago
    A fence?
  - animal_spirits 4y ago
    The article posted by the top commentor suggests it was used for herding caribou
- henryfjordan 4y ago
  But why? Religion? Marking territory boundaries? Some kind of barrier to stop water flowing? Fencing for animals? I think it unlikely someone just decided to do it to mess with future archaeologists.
  - bratwurst3000 4y ago
    That would be amazing if someone did that. So many things we do are useless. I can imagin humans a few thousand years ago saying „ lets put some stones in a line for the fun of it“ Could we pls mess with future archeologists now!
    - mtnGoat 4y ago
      I already do. I’ve bashed strange designs and my initials into rocks far from civilization when I’m out hiking. With the exact thought of throwing someone for a loop long into the future. They are always subtle and small (so as not to be annoying to other users ).
  - spacedcowboy 4y ago
    Tell me, have you ever been young ? :)
  - unsupp0rted 4y ago
    Some time in the next few hundred years we will discover that the majority of mysterious archaeological finds were placed there by future humans to mess with past archaeologists.
  - Telemakhos 4y ago
    Caribou hunting. You set these up along a path Caribou use to constrain them to a narrow route, and then you set up hunting blinds along the path. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1404404111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1404404111
    - dieselgate 4y ago
      Oh wow very good callout and thanks for the academic (!) reference! This reminds me of the weirs used to trap fish - no surprise similar units were created on land for hunting as well

Kon-Peki 4y ago

> there is not a henge associated with the site To be fair, the average person doesn’t know that henge is a word with a specific meaning, and Stonehenge is just the name of a place with stones stacked in a pattern. So this is kind of like that. Also, continued public interest is probably one of the reasons that research grant money continues to be available to study something that was found 15 years ago. So cut the general public some slack :)

efreak 4y ago
As a member of the general public, I find this quote from Wikipedia interesting: > The word henge is a backformation from Stonehenge, the famous monument in Wiltshire. Stonehenge is not a true henge, as its ditch runs outside its bank, although there is a small extant external bank as well So the word henge comes from the name Stonehenge, but Stonehenge is not a henge. This could be incorrect, however, as nearly every etymology I've found online seems to use almost the exact same wording as either Wikipedia or dictionary.com (the source cited on Wikipedia)
ntrz 4y ago
> Also, continued public interest is probably one of the reasons that research grant money continues to be available to study something that was found 15 years ago. Unfortunately for Dr. Holley, it doesn't seem to have been working out that way in this case (from his page linked above): > ...state politics in previous years have meant that we have only been able to obtain limited funding for research and as a result little progress has been made.
arp242 4y ago
My main gripe is that "stonehenge" gives an impression of these huge megalithic structures, while they're actually "4 feet high and about 5 feet long" rocks (1.2 by 1.5 metres). It's not quite a Spinal Tap sized stonehenge, but closer to that than the actual stonehenge. I don't care that it's not actually a "henge", it's just that the mental picture of it is all wrong. Even just adding the word "small" or some such would greatly improve things.
- 4y ago

staplung 4y ago

That's okay, even Stonehenge isn't a proper henge. For official henge status you need to have a ditch inside a raised bank. At Stonehenge, it's the opposite; the ditch is outside the bank. When I visited there a few years ago with some friends I took to calling it Stonething.

technothrasher 4y ago
To be fair though, the modern word ‘henge’ meaning a circular embankment with an internal ditch, was derived from the name of Stonehenge. So that while Stonehenge is not a henge monument, one cannot fairly complain that it is named incorrectly. If anything, its the term 'henge' which has been incongruously repurposed.