use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~4 users here now
History
Scientists find origin source of larger Stonehenge pieces
submitted 3 years ago by Vigte from ca.news.yahoo.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - 3 years ago (3 children)
Cool. I do wish these articles went into a little more detail though.
A (single) sarsen core sample, extracted during conservation work in the late 1950s when metal rods were inserted to stabilize a cracked megalith, provided crucial information. The researchers analyzed fragments of the sample - destructive testing being off limits for megaliths at the site That fingerprint matched sandstone still at West Woods and all but two of the Stonehenge sarsens.
A (single) sarsen core sample, extracted during conservation work in the late 1950s when metal rods were inserted to stabilize a cracked megalith, provided crucial information.
The researchers analyzed fragments of the sample - destructive testing being off limits for megaliths at the site
That fingerprint matched sandstone still at West Woods and all but two of the Stonehenge sarsens.
I just don't understand how they made this determination:
How??
[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (2 children)
Not knowing how something is done is not grounds to dismiss it. They destroyed the core sample in an analysis process to gather defining signatures that could then be non-destructively compared to the other structures. There are many times where this kind of thing is done throughout archaeology and many different techniques involved. If you are curious, these days all you ever wanted to know is just a search for a study away.
Personally I do not know what method was used in this particular test. However, detailed spectroscopy can also accomplish such things, called "Spectral geology". Probably not what was done here, but one of many possible methods.
[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (1 child)
Oh, I wasn't dismissing it. I just think the popular coverage of science stuff is always a bit too light. (Would be great to read something a little more in-depth, but not necessarily the full academic paper.)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (0 children)
Ah, well, I agree with you on that point. "Popular science" or science reporting is hot fucking garbage.
view the rest of the comments →
[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - (3 children)
[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)