[HN Gopher] Lake Michigan Stonehenge - What have researchers lea...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Lake Michigan Stonehenge - What have researchers learned?
        
       Author : janandonly
       Score  : 85 points
       Date   : 2024-10-09 20:03 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.illinoisfishinghub.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.illinoisfishinghub.com)
        
       | Loughla wrote:
       | Why is the baseline assumption that early humans were not as
       | intelligent as we are now? I've never understood that. It seems
       | like levers and rolling logs would be pretty easy to figure out,
       | or what am I missing?
        
         | evbogue wrote:
         | Probably the lack of similar structures in the area at the time
         | makes this significant. If large arranged stones from 10,000
         | years ago were common around the great lakes then we'd assume
         | everyone knew how to move large rocks back then.
        
           | chrisco255 wrote:
           | This assumes we've been comprehensive in unearthing ancient
           | structures that were buried under water and dirt 10K years
           | ago. We mostly find these types of sites when doing new
           | construction. There is likely countless underground ancient
           | structures undiscovered off the coastline, since sea levels
           | rose more than 120 meters at the end of the last glacial
           | period.
           | 
           | Also, I wouldn't assume at all that knowledge would transfer
           | outside of a localized area. It didn't happen like that in
           | the so-called hearths of civilization like Babylon, Egypt,
           | China, etc.
        
         | mykowebhn wrote:
         | There's also the assumption that humans in the Americas, prior
         | to the mass arrival of Europeans, were primitive and did not
         | form sophisticated societies like those found in the "Old
         | World". I think this has been otherwise shown, but old
         | assumptions die hard.
        
           | jordanb wrote:
           | The large American civilizations (Inca, Aztec, etc) were
           | essentially bronze-age civilizations. Perhaps Europe would
           | have been so as well had there not been a bronze-age
           | collapse.
        
           | dugmartin wrote:
           | Yes, for instance in 1100AD Cahokia Mounds had a larger
           | population than London.
           | 
           | https://cahokiamounds.org/
        
             | argsnd wrote:
             | I don't think London was a particularly important city in
             | the world in 1100AD
        
         | AlotOfReading wrote:
         | That isn't the assumption. Modern archaeologists usually assume
         | that ancient people were as intelligent as we are today, or
         | even more so.
         | 
         | What's not assumed is that they had the same thought patterns.
         | People don't derive ideas uniformly from the space of all
         | possible ideas, they tend to think within the constraints and
         | realities of past experiences. If you build a house, it's going
         | to be similar to houses you've seen before. If you paint a
         | painting, it's going to be a _painting_ rather than some other
         | means of expressing yourself with colored pigments.
         | 
         | In other words, ideas are subject to the same kinds of path
         | dependence that technology is. When we see something that's
         | severely anachronistic (outside of it's "normal" place in
         | time), the initial priors are that things like the dating are
         | wrong rather than ab initio invention of a whole suite of
         | different ideas that just happened to be preserved for us.
        
         | detourdog wrote:
         | You are missing nothing they used to do brain surgery.
         | 
         | https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/in-roughly-150...
        
           | sisisbcucksba wrote:
           | How is a square hole in a skull conclusive evidence for brain
           | surgery?
        
             | defrost wrote:
             | Few things in the field are _ _conclusive_ _ many things
             | are highly suggestive and have few other explainations.
             | 
             | WRT "brain surgey" - the operation in question would be to
             | relieve swelling under the skull that was pressing on the
             | brain - probably caused by a blow.
             | 
             | The remaining skull would show that the hole was cut using
             | an edge, likely extremely sharp flaked stone similar to a
             | modern ceramic edge knife - an original blow would have
             | splintered bone and caused a swelling, the splintering
             | would have been cut away. Other evidence would likely have
             | included signs that the bone restitched itself and "grew
             | back" to a degree, demonstrating the person survived for
             | some years afterwards.
             | 
             | I know nothing about this _specific_ skull, there are
             | others with similar work discussed in journals.
        
             | fransje26 wrote:
             | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S18788750
             | 2...
        
         | schrectacular wrote:
         | You might like Graeber's book "The Dawn of Everything". He goes
         | into some of the scientific historic reasons for why.
        
         | giantg2 wrote:
         | My view is on why that is the assumption is because
         | anthropology seems to put a lot of pressure on higher level
         | tasks only being achievable through some mass of individuals.
         | The idea is that ancient people had a struggle to survive and
         | deal with daily tasks, so they must not have had enough time to
         | pursue advanced topics or even care to focus on them.
        
         | devnonymous wrote:
         | One aspect of this is knowledge is part of intelligence and
         | lifespans influence shared/communal knowledge.
         | 
         | I don't think anyone claims that early humans were not as
         | intelligent as we are now but the weakest link in the knowledge
         | of how to effectively use levers or roll logs, or not
         | (metaphorically) 'reinvent the wheel', would have been the
         | eldest members in the community.
        
       | oh_my_goodness wrote:
       | I'd really enjoy actually seeing one of the pictures of
       | mastodons.
        
         | holtkam2 wrote:
         | Unfortunately they are extinct
        
           | oh_my_goodness wrote:
           | Right! The pictures on the rocks are either extinct, or close
           | to it.
        
         | oh_my_goodness wrote:
         | https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prehistoric-structure-lake...
         | 
         | https://imgur.com/gallery/lake-michigan-mastodon-rock-undoct...
        
       | coldspoon95 wrote:
       | This is just further evidence to show that there's some periodic
       | reset of civilization. Perhaps sun forced(micro-novas triggered
       | by the black hole at the center of our Milky Way flipping its
       | magnetic field). The shedding of the sun's outer convective layer
       | throws a big disturbance to the earth's tectonic plates causing
       | plates to move(or poles to be perceived as moving if the tectonic
       | plates were to be used as frame of reference). This is led by a
       | period where earth doesn't have a strong magnetic field(as it
       | takes time to recover), and low solar output which sputters back
       | up leading to an ice-age with intermittent blasts. This prolly
       | forced humans to build large underground shelters(Gobekle Tepe,
       | Cappadosia, etc) to live when there's intense solar outbursts.
       | 
       | Our genome hasn't evolved much since the last 150,000yrs meaning
       | that all faculties have been the same for ancient man. What we've
       | effectively achieved in 2000yrs must've been replicated a few
       | times in history. Even if the silicon age never came, it is
       | likely man had strong agriculture, pottery, understanding of
       | nature, evolution of animals(wolves were effectively bred into
       | dog companions 40,000yrs ago), etc that would've surely lead to
       | vast amounts of knowledge being gathered. And with high CO2
       | concentrations, it is likely that agriculture produce and access
       | to energy(coal, firewood, nutrition, etc) was abundant to support
       | fairly complex civilization that could support occupational
       | specializations.
       | 
       | There's evidence across the world in anthropologic, natural
       | history and other evidence left behind. However, the full
       | interpretation lies behind a series of walls of resets where we
       | can only guess, but not fully understand the context of how
       | things were. Imagine a 10,000yrs from now, someone finds a
       | portion of a fossilized city dump with no direct access or
       | lineage from present day. There's not much that can be gleaned of
       | things there. And some of these events are so catastrophic that
       | they move oceans/atmospheric currents at supersonic speeds and
       | cover large swathes of land under miles of slurry.
        
         | detourdog wrote:
         | One simple shift is that the Astrological calendar Was based on
         | the sun's position between the constellation's.
         | 
         | Imagine the crisis of faith when the monuments started to
         | mislead society.
        
         | franktinariwen wrote:
         | How is this evidence of the "periodic reset of civilization?"
         | Why what we have done in the past 2000 years have been
         | replicated before? These just seem to be unfounded speculations
         | like pyramid lasers and Atlantis.
        
         | majormajor wrote:
         | > Imagine a 10,000yrs from now, someone finds a portion of a
         | fossilized city dump with no direct access or lineage from
         | present day. There's not much that can be gleaned of things
         | there.
         | 
         | You say this has all happened before, and yet that "a modern
         | city dump in 10,000 years" would have a LOT of artifacts that
         | do not exist in any 10,000 year old sites we've found. If we
         | were to find one, a lot could actually be gleaned from it.
        
           | sisisbcucksba wrote:
           | Which artifacts would last 10k years?
        
             | ascorbic wrote:
             | Glass bottles, aluminium cans, ceramics
        
               | h2odragon wrote:
               | you'd think we'd have more "bail top" bottles around
               | today if they were so durable.
               | 
               | I've got a gully that was used as a trash dump in the
               | 1920s. We found some "rust colored areas" in the soil and
               | some ~10mm shards of ceramics with recognizable glazing
               | still. even the bricks were shattered and easy to mistake
               | for rock.
               | 
               | I think the speed of natural recycling is vastly
               | underestimated. There's a few rare occasions and
               | circumstances where preservation can happen; the default
               | state is entropy eating things as fast as they're built.
        
               | ascorbic wrote:
               | It varies a lot by location and conditions. I find lots
               | of stuff in fields around me, of all ages. Loads of
               | Victorian ceramics, but also 1920s glass, 1980s ring
               | pulls, Roman tiles, Mesolithic flint.
        
             | majormajor wrote:
             | Things made of stone are easy ones, of course, since they
             | already have. The volume of those today is far higher than
             | in any historical sites. Glass, ceramics could also survive
             | in many conditions. Copper, I think? But just the
             | stone/concrete infrastructure remains of an NYC would be
             | very noticable.
             | 
             | The volume of human remains would be wildly different too,
             | admittedly we're getting away from just "city dumps" then.
        
             | lazyasciiart wrote:
             | Radioactive ones.
        
             | chrisco255 wrote:
             | Nokia 3310s, mostly.
        
       | AlbertCory wrote:
       | I'd never heard of this, despite growing up in Chicago. It makes
       | you wonder how many other archeological treasures are underwater
       | and undiscovered, given how water levels used to be lower.
        
         | jbattle wrote:
         | Lake Michigan is BIG. The location of this thing isn't public
         | but Chicago is closer to Cleveland than the middle of Grand
         | Traverse Bay. Washington DC and NYC are closer together than
         | Chicago and G.T.B.
         | 
         | I'm no expert in the Great Lakes but I'm surprised they found
         | something that far north that old. From a little reading the
         | glaciers were retreating from that area around the same time
         | frame. I guess +/- 1,000 years is a big deal.
         | 
         | There are a bunch of cool signs of the precursor to Lake
         | Michigan around Chicago from the time when the lake was
         | "capped" in the north and drained to the south. Blue Island and
         | Stony Island were real islands. Ridge road to the north marks
         | where the shore once stood. Pretty cool to imagine.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Chicago
        
           | dhosek wrote:
           | Where I live in Oak Park, there is a ridge on the
           | appropriately-named Ridgeland Avenue, which marks the shore
           | of the ancient Lake Chicago. I think my current home would
           | have been in marshy shoreland.
           | 
           | Edit: Just looked at the article, and see that Ridgeland
           | avenue is listed as one of the shoreline areas in the
           | article.
        
           | AlbertCory wrote:
           | Interesting. I grew up in Roseland, and there was a hill east
           | of Michigan Ave. going down. I always thought that was from
           | Lake Calumet which used to be a lot bigger.
        
       | emmelaich wrote:
       | Not convinced this is anything at all. Where's some clearer
       | pictures? Where's a diagram of the circles?
       | 
       | and sure enough from the man himself.
       | 
       | https://holleyarchaeology.com/index.php/the-truth-about-the-...
       | 
       | > _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._
        
         | exegete wrote:
         | >The site in Grand Traverse Bay is best described as a long
         | line of stones which is over a mile in length.... Dr. John
         | O'Shea from University of Michigan has been working on a
         | broadly similar structure over in Lake Huron... [He] thinks
         | that it may be a prehistoric drive line for herding caribou....
         | It is highly possible that the site in Grand Traverse Bay may
         | have served a similar function to the one found in Lake Huron.
         | 
         | So not like Stonehenge but seems interesting to me.
        
           | mrangle wrote:
           | The "Stonehenge" reference is likely utilized as an imagery
           | anchor that most people will recognize. Whereas the
           | implication is that it is suspected that the possible
           | structure under discussion and Stonehenge are similar because
           | they both may be intentionally built megalithic structures
           | (generally from the Neolithic). Of which there are a lot of
           | worldwide examples that are in straight lines, as well as
           | other configurations.
        
         | technothrasher wrote:
         | Funny to contrast it to Stonehenge by noting the lack of a
         | henge, since Stonehenge does not actually have a henge either.
         | But I suspect he means there is no ditch structure at all.
        
           | Galatians4_16 wrote:
           | Isn't it essentially a henge made of megalithic blocks?
        
       | russfink wrote:
       | ... and yet another theory was that a time traveler became
       | stranded in the past, and devoted the rest of their life to
       | marking their presence as a signal to their colleagues in the
       | future, similar to a Vernor Vinge or Michael Crichton storyline.
        
         | russfink wrote:
         | Further thought - humans are obsessed with powers of 10. These
         | stones were arranged 9,000 to 10,000 years ago. Would it not
         | make sense that the traveler dialed up "10,000 years ago" in
         | their machine? Can we use this with our own relative position
         | to the stones' placement (eg 9,500 years) to predict when
         | humans will achieve time travel (eg 500 years from now)? Lovely
         | fantastical thoughts for a Saturday - enjoy!
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-10-13 22:02 UTC)