[HN Gopher] Java's Megalithic Mountain
___________________________________________________________________
Java's Megalithic Mountain
Author : diodorus
Score : 65 points
Date : 2024-07-13 04:06 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (archaeology.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (archaeology.org)
| cletus wrote:
| Ngl, I saw the title and thought it was going to be about the
| overheard of the JVM.
|
| The common view of how hard it is to move large stones doesn't
| match reality. There are many examples (eg [1][2]) of what one
| man can do without any heavy machinery. People have been moving
| large stones around for thousands of years. And the "how" is
| simply using leverage and the power of many people and beasts of
| burden.
|
| Still, it's interesting that they would. I suspect many of them
| didn't have a choice.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5pZ7uR6v8c
|
| [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mRrB33wvGk
| gosub100 wrote:
| That's kind of cool that, in Java, there exist real-life
| garbage collectors.
| hinkley wrote:
| Using a tiny rock as a pivot and a bearing is my favorite hack.
| Some of the others look like they could get away from you and
| result in death.
| helpfulContrib wrote:
| I truly hope there will be more work done on understanding
| megalithic pre-history. It is really, really fascinating - from
| Gobekli Tepe to Narwala Gabarnmang and beyond, the whole subject
| is rich in intriguing questions about what humans were up to,
| 10's of thousands of years ago ...
| dang wrote:
| [stub for offtopicness]
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| 13 comments, and exactly zero of them refer to the actual
| article content. Come on, HN, you're better than this!
| znpy wrote:
| (Spoiler: this is sarcasm)
|
| You mean we can reach 130 comments without referring to the
| content? I'm doing my part, i guess.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Email issues such as this to the mods at hn@ycombinator.com
|
| Dang often sweeps up off-topic threads (including this one,
| including my own comment) into a buried off-topic stub, which
| is a brilliant HN affordance:
|
| <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que
| ...>
| orr94 wrote:
| I was ready for complaints about large collections of Java
| monoliths, now being called "megaliths". But this is cool, too.
| throwup238 wrote:
| The retracted study in TFA was on HN's front page several times
| late last year [1][2]. Commenters in both threads pointed out the
| problem that eventually caused the retraction:
|
| _> They use the generic SHCal20 calibration curve for the
| southern hemisphere which is generally fine for testing bone and
| some plant matter but they didn 't find any fossilized plants and
| I doubt it's accurate for soil samples in a volcanically active
| area. Gunung Padang sits atop an extinct volcano and Mount Gede
| is miles away uphill with active vents and hot springs. Local
| emissions of C14 depleted carbon dioxide and dissolution of
| ancient carbonate minerals in groundwater usually throws those
| numbers way off. The samples will appear older because the
| volcanoes are constantly dumping C14-poor carbon into the
| environment from deep in the earth._ -civilitty [1]
|
| _> It looks like all 7 of their C14 dated samples were simply
| "organic soil", no artifacts or charcoal. If you're going to
| build a pyramid by piling soil and rocks, then the soil will be
| older than the pyramid. The authors don't mention having done any
| core samples away from the pyramid as a control group. It seems
| like they have, at best, proved that Gunung Padang contains old
| soil, without proving anything about the age of the pyramid
| itself._ -driggs [2]
|
| From the retraction:
|
| _> This error, which was not identified during peer review, is
| that the radiocarbon dating was applied to soil samples that were
| not associated with any artifacts or features that could be
| reliably interpreted as anthropogenic or "man-made." Therefore,
| the interpretation that the site is an ancient pyramid built 9000
| or more years ago is incorrect, and the article must be
| retracted._ [3]
|
| [1] New evidence strongly suggests Indonesia's Gunung Padang is
| oldest known pyramid (40 comments) -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38186510
|
| [2] The pyramid of Gunung Padang began construction in the deep
| past, study claim (40 comments) -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38181200
|
| [3] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1932
| gylterud wrote:
| It is interesting that HN commentators spotted this, while peer
| review didn't.
|
| I often get great comments from peer review, but I used to
| worry that some critical mistake would be missed (one time
| there was!). My work is purely theoretical, so these days I
| formalise everything in a proof assistant. But in empirical
| science, there is no such certainty to be had. There really
| should be some kind of comment section under the published
| works.
| nurettin wrote:
| That comment section should be moderated and merit points
| need to be awarded based on the personal opinions of other
| armchair experts.
| lmm wrote:
| Well apparently that worked better than conventional peer
| review in this instance.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-16 23:00 UTC)