4 ms·

> 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 jus

> 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.
- robocat 4y ago
  Thanks for the Spinal Tap reference: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyh1Va_mYWI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyh1Va_mYWI Gotta love glam rock mockumentary pisstakes from the 80s.
ALittleLight 4y ago
The issue is with telling the public the wrong thing. It's the reporter's or the editor's fault for publishing exaggerations - not the public's fault for being misled. If you told people that a crashed UFO was found beneath the lake, people would probably support funding more investigations - but that would be a lie. Likewise, describing the structures as what they are not like is a lie.
thiht 4y ago
> To be fair, the average person doesn’t know that henge is a word with a specific meaning It would take a journalist literally 1 sentence to explain what a henge is and why this is not it. But hey, saying they found Stonehenge II in the US probably sells more.

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.

robocat 4y ago
Thanks for the Spinal Tap reference: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyh1Va_mYWI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyh1Va_mYWI Gotta love glam rock mockumentary pisstakes from the 80s.

ALittleLight 4y ago

The issue is with telling the public the wrong thing. It's the reporter's or the editor's fault for publishing exaggerations - not the public's fault for being misled. If you told people that a crashed UFO was found beneath the lake, people would probably support funding more investigations - but that would be a lie. Likewise, describing the structures as what they are not like is a lie.

thiht 4y ago

> To be fair, the average person doesn’t know that henge is a word with a specific meaning It would take a journalist literally 1 sentence to explain what a henge is and why this is not it. But hey, saying they found Stonehenge II in the US probably sells more.