Scientists find origin source of larger Stonehenge pieces

submitted by Vigte from ca.news.yahoo.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (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.

I just don't understand how they made this determination:

  1. Single core sample
  2. Matches all but two of 52 sarsens

How??

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (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 - 1 fun -  (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 - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, well, I agree with you on that point. "Popular science" or science reporting is hot fucking garbage.