Slashdot Mirror


Aboriginal Sundial Pre-Dates Stonehenge

brindafella writes "Look out, Stonehenge, here come the Wurdi Youang rocks in the Australian state of Victoria. The semi-circle of stones has been examined by an astrophysicist from Australia's premier research group, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), who says this arrangement of rocks is a carefully aligned solar observatory that may be 10,000 years old. It would have been created by local Aborigines, the Wathaurong people, who have occupied the area for some 25,000 years."

145 comments

  1. Sloppy Half-circle by JumperCable · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't look like much from the picture. The only supporting statement in the article is:

    its two points set in perfect alignment with the setting sun on a midsummer's day.

    I'd like a little more supporting documentation before getting all excited about this.

    1. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Mbraz · · Score: 1

      OK, sou you expect that after 25,000 years the stone clock would be in perfect state, to prove for you that the circle was indeed, a circle.

    2. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well I agree it doesn't look like much, but then again it's 10,000 years old. That's much older than most other such remnants in the world. Either way, it's definitely not natural. Humans did this. The question is: for what purpose?

      If it does align perfectly on the with the sun on the solstices, then this becomes very interesting. The likelihood that humans happened to place the rocks on that exact alignment by pure chance (as opposed to any other random alignment) is small.

      If on the other hand the alignment isn't really very significant from a solar/stellar perspective it's probably just some ancient place marker or something instead. Still interesting, mind you, but nothing globally unique.

    3. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by zwei2stein · · Score: 0

      It must be humiliating having your boots smarter than you.

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    4. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Chrisq · · Score: 0

      By looking at the picture consists or a complete circle of stones, almost touching. Inevitably some of them will be in "perfect alignment with the setting sun on a midsummer's day", as will some of the bricks in my house.

    5. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked a sundial didn't have the point rotate around an entire circle. The sun cuts a semicircular path across the sky.

      --
      Cheers, Chris
    6. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those of you who would actually read TFA if it were available:

      N258: Wurdi Youang: An Australian Aboriginal Stone Circle with possible solar indications.
      Ray P. Norris, Priscilla M. Norris, Duane W. Hamacher, and John Morieson , 2010, To be submitted to Archaeoastronomy Journal

      From the Authors webpage:
      http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/

    7. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by TeXMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well I agree it doesn't look like much, but then again it's 10,000 years old. That's much older than most other such remnants in the world. Either way, it's definitely not natural. Humans did this. The question is: for what purpose?

      If it does align perfectly on the with the sun on the solstices, then this becomes very interesting. The likelihood that humans happened to place the rocks on that exact alignment by pure chance (as opposed to any other random alignment) is small.

      Was the alignment correct 10k years ago? Don't the precessions influence the relative position of the sun and Earth in a way that would be significant after 10k years, meaning that something on Earth aligned with a specific Sun position at a specific time of the year now would not be valid 10k years ago, and conversely?

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    8. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Looks more like a left over set from the original Max Max movie, which was made in the same area. Hard to believe that rocks will just sit in the same place for 10000 years. This whole area has been pretty much gone over. There are plenty of farms in the area. Its really just outside Melbourne. Hardly outback.

    9. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hard to believe that rocks will just sit in the same place for 10000 years

      I found this hard to believe at first too. I've been sitting watching this rock for over 25 years now though, and no sign of movement on the micrometer. I'm starting to have my doubts.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by aug24 · · Score: 1

      It's not a complete circle. There are a few over on bottom right of the picture, but they are only 'almost touching' around the top left. It's the ends of the closely packed stones that form a chord which is aligned with the midsummer sun. Seems unlikely to be chance.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    11. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sun cuts a semicircular path across the sky.

      More or less: More than a semicircle during the summer, less during winter.

    12. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      I am curious to see how you get on. Be sure to get back to me in another 25 years with your observations.

    13. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about his a fucking dick?

      I've got to say, after having looked at the images in the article, I can't really see anyway that collection of rocks could be said to align (or not align) with anything. Then again, I'm not an archaeologist.

    14. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by lul_wat · · Score: 1, Troll

      Either way, it's definitely not natural. Humans did this. The question is: for what purpose?

      Helps to figure out if it's dole office is open yet

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    15. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      Precession, nutation, and polar motion.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    16. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they remembered to correct for precession of the equinox.

    17. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just subscribe to his newsletter like i did!

    18. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by mangu · · Score: 2

      YMMV, but I've been watching these stones for fifty years and they move around quite a lot.

    19. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      Well I agree it doesn't look like much, but then again it's 10,000 years old. That's much older than most other such remnants in the world. Either way, it's definitely not natural. Humans did this.

      How did you make the leap from "not natural" to "Humans did this"?

      Other animals? Aliens?

    20. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I agree it doesn't look like much, but then again it's 10,000 years old. That's much older than most other such remnants in the world.

      Actually, its not. Furthermore, as so far as examples of technology goes which dates back to 10,000 years, its down right primitive. Hell, the majority of archaeologists agree the sphinx dates back 9,000-11,000 years. Its Egyptologists who argue its not that old despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. And that's completely ignoring city and city after city after city after city, all over the world, which dates back that far which were built using technology we don't understand and would be challenging even with today's technology. And that's ignoring the pyramids in South America, which are actually larger than the the ones in Egypt, all of which toughly date back 10,000 years.

      Simply put, the evidence from ALL over the world is very clear - in that almost all of this technology dates back 9,000-10,000 years ago - and not the 6,000 years as has been incorrectly taught.

    21. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      Over a 21,000 year period summer and winter swap over ....so over a long enough period any randomly positioned stones would line up at some time ?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    22. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some rocks, it appears, do move by themselves.

    23. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by fbjon · · Score: 1
      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    24. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by somersault · · Score: 1

      I call bullpickles. These rocks have not been moving under their own power, but have been driven by high winds over a low friction substrate. A very specific arrangement, and not one that Dwayne is subject to.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    25. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stone circles have been around for a very long time, there's no need to assume its an ancient chronograph without a lot more evidence. Stones, believe it or not, are also used to mark areas.

      Go and make a stone circle, now you can claim it's a clock by looking back through thousands of years until you find a match. Not hard is it. This circle is probably an important gathering ground, which when excavated may reveal ancient tools and bones.

      Why are you so eager to believe it has astronomical significance?

    26. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Only 10K? That's hardly 2/5s the time these folks have been local to the region. For them, this is a late, modern development. For European descendants it is an incredible antiquity.

      Interesting to think of these timelines, regarding common perception. Cleopatra lived and died closer in time to the era of Moon landings than she did to the building of the great pyramid at Giza.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    27. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How did you make the leap from "not natural" to "Humans did this"?

      Because it's far less of a leap than "Other animals? Aliens?".

      To date, we haven't seen any evidence that 'other animals' have ever put together time-keeping measures ... and, well, the alien theory is more extraordinary than the notion that a people who have been there for at least 40,000 years did something like this 10,000 years ago.

      The most likely conclusion is that "not natural" means "Humans did this".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    28. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ayers rock functions as a sundial.
      any tree functions as a sundial.

      sundial is an example I use when trying to explain stuff that shouldn't be possible to patent. a sundial is an observation, not an invention.

      provided that there is enough light coming from suns direction, unlike this this gray day in finland which cast no shadows at all.

    29. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by TRS80NT · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Didn't we all just get our sun signs reassigned?
      Or something.

      --
      Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
    30. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't the precessions influence the relative position of the sun and Earth in a way that would be significant after 10k years, meaning that something on Earth aligned with a specific Sun position at a specific time of the year now would not be valid 10k years ago, and conversely?

      Yes, but that only changes the positions relative to the stars. Precession means the rotation axis of the earth changes the way it points, but the axis is the same. North is always the same direction, apart from a relatively small polar motion.

    31. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For what its worth, I saw a documentary on these rocks many a year ago. They attempted to move a rock using fx- fans, which basically created winds of a small hurricane. They were completely unable to move a single rock. Furthermore, such winds are completely undocumented for the region. Not to mention, most agree such winds, in moving the rock, would sandblast the trail, obliterating it.

      Realistically, these rocks are a scientific mystery. Some have suggested the rocks are in fact NOT moving and that its an illusion created by its tail. Along these lines, some scientist say we should be looking for alternate explanations of how the tail (the trail) is created rather than focusing on what appears to be moving rocks.

    32. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there is the practical problem of the need for solar observatory. One does not need a solar cult with the observatory if one is not dependent on agriculture. Aborigines have been considered being hunter-gatherers as I have understood.

    33. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      I forgot about those! Thanks. It one of those things that seems simple at first glance , but when you bring your full attention upon it you go WTF? The devil is in the details.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    34. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      BTW, Don't listen to those that say it's wind and ice. We're living in a simulation, and when They upgrade the terrain sometimes algorithms that place these stones move these. What happens is, that is a place where two tiles meet and rounding errors get pretty bad there. They says They know about it, but is low probability of it getting fixed. Personally, I agree .. They need to fix the AI first and foremost. Some of the people ... jeez louise, especially there mob/crowd estimation/approximation algos.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    35. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but this is no time for MATH!

      /pi anyone?

    36. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by meglon · · Score: 1

      Even a broke pre-Stonehenge rock arrangement is right twice every 21,000 years.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    37. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by idji · · Score: 1

      Here is an Interview and Transcript with Duane Hamacher, the astroarcheologist who wrote his thesis "On the Cultural Astronomy of Aboriginal Australia".

    38. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Without tv, what would folks do at night but look at the stars?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    39. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I went from Scorpio to Toaster.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    40. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the same problem exists with the 'maybe it only happens when it's wet' hypothesis. Yeah, that might need less wind...OTOH, it would also need much less wind to erase the tracks.

      There's not any way at all wind can move 100 pound things along the ground, but leave two little ridges down the trail where the sand was pushed away. Not to mention failing to smooth the other sand, around the rock.

      No one's actually measured them moving, have they?

      Of course, the theory that the trails are caused by something else is also a bit of a non-starter. If they're being caused by something else, they must actually start at a rock, or the fact all the trails end at rocks is incredibly unlikely.

      But then the trails wander in random directions, so it can't be the wind or something like that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    41. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Interesting to think of these timelines, regarding common perception. Cleopatra lived and died closer in time to the era of Moon landings than she did to the building of the great pyramid at Giza.

      Is it really common perception to associate Cleopatra with the era of ancient pharaohs? She's most popularly known as an intimate part of the story of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, i.e. early AD. I would expect the mistake most people would make would be to think if she hadn't killed herself, she'd have been dragged back to Rome and been thrown to the lions along with some Christians (which, of course, would not be happening yet).

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    42. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they remembered to correct for precession of the equinox.

      I wonder if you know what that is. If you think precession impacts where the sun appears to be relatively to stones on the ground on the solstice, you either don't understand what precession is or don't understand what a solstice is.

      For anyone who doesn't -- precession of the equinoxes is a phenomenon which causes the sun to move, relative to the background stars, over a long period of time, such that it'll be in a different constellation on the vernal equinox than it was thousands of years previous or will be hence, caused by a change in the orientation of the Earth's axis of rotation. If you understand what it is and what causes it, it's easy to see that although a stone circle aligned to point at some star other than the sun on the solstice would not be pointing to the right star on the right day millennia later, it has no impact at all whatsoever on anything designed to point to the Sun, and thus no "correction for precession" would be called for. The sun will have appeared to have moved in the sky relative to the background stars, not relative to the Earth. Give what "equinox" and "solstice" mean, the sun will always appear to be in the exact same position in the sky relative to the ground observer unless the axial tilt changes (which will cause it to appear higher or lower in the sky) or continental drift moves the location sufficiently, since the only thing that changes where the sun appears to be at a given time on the solstice is your latitude, which is not altered by precession.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    43. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Late BC, actually.

      The Caesar of the Bible is Tiberius, stepson of Augustus - himself the nephew of Julius.

      I think it common for people to not reflect on the incredible span of Egypt from Dynasty I through Ptolomy.

      Of course many are unaware that we live closer to the time of James Tiberius Kirk than...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    44. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "His a dick"? Let me guess, you're from Bankstown?

    45. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by aquila.solo · · Score: 1

      I can think of at least one thing. ;-) The fact that there are still little aborigines running around suggests they may have thought of that, too.

    46. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by fractoid · · Score: 1

      It doesn't look like much from the picture. The only supporting statement in the article is:

      its two points set in perfect alignment with the setting sun on a midsummer's day.

      I'd like a little more supporting documentation before getting all excited about this.

      Exactly. "Carefully aligned solar observatory"? I'd accept 'sundial' maybe but all it implies is that they had some idea of when the "middle of summer" was (not surprising for nomadic gatherers) and some concept of "where the sun sets".

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    47. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the sun hits the eastern end of the circle, and it is a Thursday, it's time to take the kids to the local bottle shop and teach them how to buy goon bags.

      (True story, I once went into a bottle shop and, being skint at the time, was going to buy some Chateaux Cardboard. They were all sold out, the owner just shrugged at me and said "it's Thursday mate".)

    48. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooooooooooooosh.

    49. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helps to figure out if it's dole office is open yet

      Helps to figure out if it is dole office is open yet? What does that mean?

    50. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "His a dick"? Let me guess, you're from Bankstown?

      Please don't post as AC here again, ever. Your stupidity is ruining it for the rest of us.

    51. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by lul_wat · · Score: 1

      The Unemployment Office .. whatever you yanks call it

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    52. Re:Sloppy Half-circle by TeXMaster · · Score: 1

      Don't the precessions influence the relative position of the sun and Earth in a way that would be significant after 10k years, meaning that something on Earth aligned with a specific Sun position at a specific time of the year now would not be valid 10k years ago, and conversely?

      Yes, but that only changes the positions relative to the stars. Precession means the rotation axis of the earth changes the way it points, but the axis is the same. North is always the same direction, apart from a relatively small polar motion.

      There is also a precession of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, such that the path over long periods of time looks more like the petals of a flower than the same ellipse being run over and over again. I suspect that would alter the alignment of Earth-based object with respect to the Sun at specific times of the year. I'm not sure though.

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
  2. My watch is older than yours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So what. It's not like you can take either one of them with you. The real question is: which watch do chicks dig better!

    1. Re:My watch is older than yours... by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      I tried to get chicks to dig my watch, but they balked when I handed them the shovel :(

  3. It doesn't suprise me. by ResistanceIsIrritati · · Score: 1

    After all, there's so much more sun there than in Wiltshire.

  4. Sundials go anti-clockwise in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine if watches were invented downunder.

    Btw, this is the way you answer the "do toilets flush clockwise in Australia":

    "Their flush direction depends entirely on how they were manufactured, but Sundials go anti-clockwise in Australia"

  5. Stonehenge isn't even the oldest in the UK by lilo_booter · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are older stone circles in the UK than Stonehenge. The stone circles in Orkney predate Stonehenge for example, though admittedly not by as much as those claimed here.

    1. Re:Stonehenge isn't even the oldest in the UK by Custard+Horse · · Score: 2

      Yeah but Stonehenge is open source.

    2. Re:Stonehenge isn't even the oldest in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but behind a paywall.

    3. Re:Stonehenge isn't even the oldest in the UK by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      In fact, Stonehenge is notable for being recent -- it was the pinnacle of the great stone monuments, one of the last and certainly the most monumental. Comparing a potential "first" to a recognised "last" is a bit disengenuous.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  6. More details from the CSIRO by Random+Data · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:More details from the CSIRO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists analysing the rocks in the sundial were surprised to find traces of egg and fish, but this led to the to the astonishing discovery that the sundial was actually a circle of ancient fossilized goon bags.

  7. Re:LIAR !! by OzTech · · Score: 0

    > But enough of this. Nothing more need be said

    However, you felt it pertinent to add > 70 words in 5 sentences using about 10 punctuation marks and 2 apostrophes.

    Thank goodness, you closed this one out so succinctly.

  8. How do you put a date on something like that? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is there an archeologist in the house? Couldn't I just dig up some old rocks, and arrange them in any shape that I liked? I'm just wondering if this is the equivalent of "crop circles" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circles in England?

    Yikes! From the Wikipedia article:

    In 2009, BBC News reported that Lara Giddings, the attorney general for the island state of Tasmania, stated that Australian wallabies had been found creating crop circles in fields of poppies after consuming some of the opiate-laden crop and running in circles.

    So, maybe Australian junkie wallabies constructed the stone structure?

    What also puzzles me, is why cultures that create such structures, just kinda sorta die out? Like the Egyptians who built pyramids, whoever built Stonehenge, and the like?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by aiht · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What also puzzles me, is why cultures that create such structures, just kinda sorta die out? Like the Egyptians who built pyramids, whoever built Stonehenge, and the like?

      Answer: All cultures die out over this kind of time span. But for some reason, we just don't pay any attention to the ones that leave no evidence of ever having existed...

    2. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      What also puzzles me, is why cultures that create such structures, just kinda sorta die out?

      Maybe its because cultures just sorta die out.

    3. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Egyptians (the pyramid building ones at least) "died out" when they essentially overthrew the pharaohcy when the Nile ceased to flood through Egypt. Because the Pharaoh's, who were supposed to be in communication with the God's, couldn't continue to provide the river water through Egypt, the people realized the Pharaoh's were not what they claimed to be. The Egyptians started to die out from lack of water and splintered into small settlements where water could still be found.

      The pagans who built Stonehenge gradually grew thinner in numbers as other religions (Christianity) started to sweep through England. Eventually Paganism was outlawed and more or less died off (except for the rumored underground pagan cults)

    4. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by Dr+La · · Score: 2

      How they dated it, indeed is the big question. These kind of things are notoriously difficult to date. If there is charcoal, bone or pottery in the pits used to socket the stones, you can date it (and then you still assume the materials in the pit date to the time of digging the pit, which is a dangerous assumption), but otherwise it is almost impossible. 26Al or 10Be dating of the stones itself will bring you no further either, as the surface residence of these stones can significantly predate their incorporation of them into this structure.

      From the picture, this structure seems to be made up of rather small stones put on the surface and I doubt they were socketed in pits for that reason. So I would be very weary of that 10,000 year date unless it becomes clear how they arrived at that date.

      IAAA (I Am An Archaeologist), by the way.

      re the "dying out" of cultures, the commenters before me already answered that. Culture is not static, it changes over time, by definition. So does who is in power (and able to launch large community efforts like building pyramids). Prehistoric cultures without big building projects are gone too.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
    5. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      The pagans who built Stonehenge gradually grew thinner in numbers as other religions (Christianity) started to sweep through England. Eventually Paganism was outlawed and more or less died off (except for the rumored underground pagan cults)

      Sorry, that doesn't wash. Stonehenge is between two-and-a-half and three millenia older than mainstream Christianity in Great Britain, yet after Stonehenge we don't see monumental architecture on such a scale anywhere. It is not proven that the Druids built Stonehenge, but even if they did, there is a big difference between "religion" and "civilisation".

      Consider that up until about 100 years ago, most of Europe was institutionally Christian. The Roman Empire was Christian in the latter half of its duration. If religion == civilisation, then our grandfathers were Romans, and we are a different civilisation from our grandparents. And on the other hand, Rome under Constantine was a different "civilisation" than before his ascendancy. Yet the trappings of Roman civilisation -- art, architecture, commerce, etc -- continued.

      It's quite possible that henge technology simply became obsolete as artisans found ways to make smaller sundials out of wood. Or maybe they were happy enough with the stone circles they had that they stopped building them and forgot how to make them.

      HAL.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    6. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Egyptians were conquered by the Romans, the Pharaoh replaced by a bureaucracy run from Rome which came with a mandatory new and different religion. Since that lasted a few centuries, nobody bothered reinstalling a Pharaoh after the Romans left. Without a central power, nobody would build monuments the size of the pyramids, even if the rest of the culture is still active.

    7. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by dukemarlon · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that doesn't wash. Stonehenge is between two-and-a-half and three millenia older than mainstream Christianity in Great Britain, yet after Stonehenge we don't see monumental architecture on such a scale anywhere. It is not proven that the Druids built Stonehenge, but even if they did, there is a big difference between "religion" and "civilisation".

      So because no other monuments of that scale were built (or didn't last until present day (which means because no proof exists today means that it never existed under your claim?)) that means the pagans (or druids, or whatever you want to call them) died off (or their culture as you claim? I didn't realize they were a separate civilization) shortly after Stonehenge was built... I'm sorry, but that explanation just doesn't wash.

    8. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Science says there is no connection between Stonehenge and the Druids. That's largely a creation of pop culture.

      Realistically, we know almost nothing of the culture which created Stonehenge and even less about what proceeded it. We do know several civilizations took root afterwards because of burial remains; to wit, we can identify with various known and documented cultures.

    9. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      So because no other monuments of that scale were built (or didn't last until present day (which means because no proof exists today means that it never existed under your claim?)) that means the pagans (or druids, or whatever you want to call them) died off (or their culture as you claim? I didn't realize they were a separate civilization) shortly after Stonehenge was built... I'm sorry, but that explanation just doesn't wash.

      Hold up... "the pagans"... there's no single group called that, so for them to die off is illogical. "The Druids"... they were still going well into the Roman era. My point was that we have no proof it was druids who built Stonehenge, and that claim was always simply built on the fact that they were the earliest well-documented group in the British Isles, thanks to the Romans. But now we have archaeology and common sense -- druidism probably wasn't around in those days. Druidism is mostly linked to mainland European Celtic culture, and the Celts aren't thought to have reached Britain until over a millenium after Stonehenge. Druidism isn't even thought to have come over with the first wave of Celtic culture (it's only well attested in regions near the channel, and the Gaels in the north and west of the archipelago had a fairly standard pantheistic mythology with clear parallels to Greek, Roman and Germanic legends, rather than the obscure animism of the druids).

      But civilisations don't die out. They adapt. Stonehenge was hard work, and was really a fairly hamfisted affair. They will have found better ways to get the same results.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    10. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAA, but I know the difference between "weary" and "wary"

    11. Re:How do you put a date on something like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just one question about that:
      Why did you think "Pharaohs" and "Gods" consistently warranted an apostrophe, but not Egyptians, settlements, religions or pagans?

  9. who dug it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wouldn't stay uncovered for 10 000 years in a grassy field like that.

  10. 10,000 years, that's nothing--- by kmdrtako · · Score: 4, Informative

    Try 75,000 years old, in Africa.

    http://www.adamscalendar.com/pages/michael-tellinger.php

    Well, the guy might be a bit of a loon. Apparently he believes in little green men in flying saucers too, but the stone circle is apparently real.

    1. Re:10,000 years, that's nothing--- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe in little GREY men in flying saucers. Green men? BAH! Heresy!

    2. Re:10,000 years, that's nothing--- by arisvega · · Score: 1

      Well, the guy might be a bit of a loon.

      Agreed that he, as you point out, might be. The issue with such of authors is that they usually get arguments out of their asses, tailored to support their theories and mostly circumventing scientific methods. Not that I mind, but it makes them all more difficult to be taken seriously.

      More specific- how does one determine the age of such things? 75.000 is too paradigm shifty to get away with not explaining it enough. As I understand it, egyptologists still have lots of trouble getting accurate answers on similar questions (and they have been around quite a while, and I am under the assumption that they are practicing science and not guessing & witchcraft).

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    3. Re:10,000 years, that's nothing--- by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      I believe in little GREY men in flying saucers. Green men? BAH! Heresy!

      What shade of grey? You're not one of those light-grey freaks, are you?

    4. Re:10,000 years, that's nothing--- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the guy might be a bit of a loon. Apparently he believes in little green men in flying saucers too, but the stone circle is apparently real.

      Look, every other architectural structure at the time was covered with detailed hieroglyphics. When is the academic community going to accept the fact the pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty did not build the great pyramids?

    5. Re:10,000 years, that's nothing--- by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      There was a special on National Geographic about using dna to study the movement of people in early history of mankind. They stated that the Aboriginals in Australia are the second oldest people. They had a hard time explaining how the people made it from Africa to Australia. They certainly did not sail across the Indian Ocean about 40,000 years ago so they would have had to travel along the coast line. But even doing that they would have had to cross many rivers and when they got to Sumatra they would have had to cross the Java Sea to get to Borneo and a lot of open seas to get to Papua New Guinea and again to get to Australia. They tried to explain this by saying the Earth was in a ice age and therefore a lot of the oceans waters were trapped in the ice. Therefore a lot of the places that now have water might have been either not there or a lot narrower. This was the main reason the people traveled in the first place since the ice age made a lot of those lands arid.

    6. Re:10,000 years, that's nothing--- by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      That's too funny, egyptologists are practicing historical revision more than science, it's almost impossible to actually get the egyptians to consent to anybody doing science around the pyramids. At least they aren't destroying sites like mexican archeologists, or totally ignoring them like the chinese. Just remember, history and archeology have had very little to do with science over their long histories.

  11. Amazing, now let's peer-review the science! by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    What's that you say?

    Its location is a closely guarded secret.

    Then that's not science, it's a bullshit claim by one guy who for all we know throw down some rocks in his back yard and took a picture of them. [citation needed]

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Amazing, now let's peer-review the science! by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's that you say?

      Its location is a closely guarded secret.

      Then that's not science, it's a bullshit claim by one guy who for all we know throw down some rocks in his back yard and took a picture of them. [citation needed]

      In other words an outcrop circle.

    2. Re:Amazing, now let's peer-review the science! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Can't be that hard to find. Its right beside the road from Geelong to Bacchus Marsh.

    3. Re:Amazing, now let's peer-review the science! by gknoy · · Score: 2

      If one had found a stone circle that you thought was Really Old and deserved investigating, I could see the merits of trying to minimize the location's publicity. The less people that walk in and take stones, or move them, or otherwise mess with it, the better. (That doesn't mean it can't be an outcrop circle, as Chrisq said. ;))

    4. Re:Amazing, now let's peer-review the science! by pclminion · · Score: 1

      The location of the largest trees in the United States (they are somewhere in the groves of the Redwoods in northern California) is kept secret by the arborists and other researchers who study them. It's not unprecedented, when you have only a single piece of evidence, to do something to protect it from vandals and psychopaths.

    5. Re:Amazing, now let's peer-review the science! by martinX · · Score: 1

      Wasn't "Bacchus" Marsh the greatest wicket keep Australia has ever seen?

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    6. Re:Amazing, now let's peer-review the science! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Thats where his nickname came from, because the team were on a train which stopped there one day.

  12. Another Aboriginal site by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

    If anybody is interested there is a spot in Lysterfield Lake Park which seems to have been used for aboriginal ceremonies of some sort. The first time I found it they had firewood stacked up and wood for a little shelter. There were strange little piles of stones. Its on bare stone right at the top of a hill and quite close to the Boys Farm track. Since I was first there it has been cleared out by a fire. One time at that location a really big kangaroo came out of the bush at me, hopped past and disappeared. Obviously felt that it owned the place and I didn't.

    1. Re:Another Aboriginal site by Twisted64 · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt that strange little piles of stones would have lasted even a few years, considering the number of mountain bikers going off the path in that area :)

      --
      Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
    2. Re:Another Aboriginal site by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply that this was an historical site, more that it is in active use.

  13. Being older than Stonehenge isn't that big a deal. by VShael · · Score: 1

    It's famous, but it's hardly a yardstick for antiquity.

    Newgrange in Ireland is older than Stonehenge in England and the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt.

    But 10,000 years old? The Aborigines seem to have them all well and truly beaten.

  14. ggigantija on Gozo by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    Visit the island of Gozo, near Malta, and prepare to have your credulity stretched beyond breaking point.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  15. I am in Wiltshire by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    It is pissing it down from dark clouds this very moment, which admittedly is a change from snow and hail, and all I can say is, you insensitive clod.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:I am in Wiltshire by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      Never mind though. As the rhyme goes: "Oi can't read and Oi can't write, But it don't really matter, 'Coz I come from the West Country, And I can drive a tractor...."

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
  16. Coincidence? by Dahlgil · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The article says this is also called the Mount Rothwell site. There is also an odd similarity with the appearance of the ground and rocks with those in New Mexico. Is anyone seeing the connection? Could I be on to something?

    1. Re:Coincidence? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      ...take out the "to" in your last sentence.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Coincidence? by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Could I be on to something?

      Rozwell.. Rothwell..

      By golly, yes!

      It seems that aliens are naming the places where they land -- and some of them lisp!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    3. Re:Coincidence? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      We do say it's built with alien technology. :) Now to look for parentheses in cave art...

  17. Older than Stonhenge by stiggle · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is nothing special or new - there are loads of stone circles and other landscape features which pre-date stonehenge and are astronomically aligned. Stonehenge isn't even the best stone circle in the area.

    If you want to get up close to the stones and see a proper ancient landscape then head up to Avebury instead.
    You have the village inside the huge circle, the other circles, the avenues, Silbury Hill, the Kennet Long Barrows, The Sanctuary.
    All together Avebury is a much better AND cheaper stone circle complex to visit than stonehenge.

  18. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just calculate at which point in the past the rocks were in closest alignment with the sun.

    You know that the sky isn't static, right?

    1. Re:Easy by aiht · · Score: 1

      That would be yesterday, at approximately 7:08PM (local time), but it will be even closer tonight at 7:07PM.
      What's your point?


      NB: I didn't actually check the local sunset time. That's just a guess. Feel free to bother, and correct me.

  19. What's with the 10,000 years thing? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    Why does that number get thrown around a lot? It's nice and round I suppose. If you're trying not to offend fundamentalists you'd really want to go with 6,000 years ago so is 10,000 a compromise of some sort?

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:What's with the 10,000 years thing? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to avoid offending fundamentalists?

    2. Re:What's with the 10,000 years thing? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to avoid offending fundamentalists?

      They like to kill people they disagree with.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  20. How did they date it? (so is it really older?) by Dr+La · · Score: 2

    The two web-articles give no clue how they arrived at the 10,000 year bp date. Has the structure been radiometrically dated in some way? Or is it just a wild guess?

    As others already commented, even in Europe there are megalith sites with possible sun/moon allignments that are older than Stonehenge, b.t.w.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
    1. Re:How did they date it? (so is it really older?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two web-articles give no clue how they arrived at the 10,000 year bp date. Has the structure been radiometrically dated in some way? Or is it just a wild guess?

      They used the stones that were in fashion at the time. We know because fashion designers said so, therefore it must be true.

    2. Re:How did they date it? (so is it really older?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We ***never*** said it was 10,000 years old and said NUMEROUS times that we don't know the age of the arrangement... typical journalistic sensationalism.

      We said that "if it was, say 10,000 years old, then it would pre-date stonehenge" - it was a hypothetical number!

      We plan on submitting the paper to the Journal of Archaeological Science in the next week or so... the journal 'Archaeoastronomy' is already booked up for the next year.

      We have NOT dated the site yet, but are planning a geophysical survey to find ways of dating it. It could be 500 years old, it could be 30,000 years old. WE DO NOT KNOW!!!

      -Duane Hamacher, Macquarie University

  21. It's not even really a sundial by Moraelin · · Score: 2

    It's not even really a sundial, as it doesn't actually tell the time. Not the least because it's facing West instead of South. So, you know, it would require a Sun that moves from North to South or viceversa instead of East to West, to tell you the hour.

    What it is argued that it does is basically track the two extreme points where the sun sets, and the middle of that interval.

    It's actually something pretty trivial to do. All you need is about a year and some movable stone. Each evening you stand in the designated spot and see if the sun sets a little to the left or to the right of where you left the marker point yesterday, and yell to some other guys to move it a little if so.

    Think of it as the non-computer equivalent of, basically

    if (x xMax) xMax = x;

    If you have two stones that represent the xMin and xMax and move accordingly over a year, you end up with exactly the two ends of the interval marked. If you want to be sure, you repeat it over a couple more years.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:It's not even really a sundial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I get the West-East part of your argument - you kinda dropped the ball with the whole "instead of South" bit. Australia is in the Southern hemisphere and so facing North would be more useful. Inductive logic would suggest you're probably a Yank and thus, based on Global perceptions of geographic knowledge amongst citizens of the USA, it's an understandable mistake.
      :D

    2. Re:It's not even really a sundial by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Actually, European, but point taken. I've only seen the sun in the South at noon for as far as I lived, so, yeah, it's a bit of a reflex.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:It's not even really a sundial by jittles · · Score: 1

      This is the southern hemisphere, so wouldn't you want the stones to face north and not south?

  22. What purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought standing stones were primarily of use to agrarian societies; for planning when to plant seasonal crops and such. Probably the most impressive thing about indigenous Australian technology is the woomera, a rigid sling for hurling spears. Given that European explorers (Cook's crew) didn't find evidence of cultivation,it's hardly likely they were spearing maize. My personal (uninformed) opinion is that it was likely a technological leap that didn't quite take off. Clever scientist types of the day might have wanted to figure out a bit more about how those points of light up there moved around, and why they seem to repeat their patterns. They probably suffered death by woomera, setting their culture back a few thousand years until we could show up, invent the goon cask, and ruin it forever. If they'd made a calendar, then they might have made writing, started recording history as more than campfire stories. What Dirk Hartog found on the West coast, and what James Cook found on the East might have been very different.

    *prepares to be modded negatively for the goon comment, to the exclusion of all other points*

    1. Re:What purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it likely that Cook and Hartog both found Till Eulenspiegel?

      Consider the possibilities.

  23. Ancient Astronomy by tazan · · Score: 0

    I used to be all impressed with ancient astronomy stories, things like being able to predict where the sun would be on a given day. I read all the Von Daneken books when I was a kid. Then one day it occurred to me that anyone with a stick and the ability to stick it in the ground could also predict where the sun was going to rise exactly 1 year in the future. Solar observatories are just a series of sticks stuck in the ground.

  24. I'm at a loss as to why that's a problem by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    TBH I don't understand what's so incredible. I mean, it's interesting as history information, but it's not like it's some great knowledge. Humans 10,000 years ago were already the modern humans, and probably just as smart as most people here.

    As I was saying in another post, there is a very simple way of marking where the sun sets for the solstices, because they're the extreme points left and right. Just moving a stone each evening until you found the rightmost point the sun sets, and a different stone for leftmost, will get you those two points pretty well. The third point is simply the middle of the segment, and something that you can measure even with your feet.

    The whole thing is perfectly within the range of things human could figure out 10,000 or even 100,000 years ago.

    They don't even have to understand such things as solstice or equinox. Pretty much you just need someone to figure out "hey, didn't the sun set behind the other bush some time ago?" And from there, if you're bored and have a year or two to look where it sets, you can mark pretty well how far north and how far south can the sun set.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:I'm at a loss as to why that's a problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The question isn't how they did it, that much is obvious. The question is, why they bothered? What was the intended purpose of the tool?

    2. Re:I'm at a loss as to why that's a problem by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Curiosity? They were human after all, and it really isn't much more effort than a couple of minutes a day at sunset.

      Some kind of sun cult? It tends to be a major spirit for people.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:I'm at a loss as to why that's a problem by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Probably the kids: Are to spring yet? How much longer. I'm bored. He's on my side!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    4. Re:I'm at a loss as to why that's a problem by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So they can tell when in the year they're at.

      That's very useful for planting and floods and whatnot. You can't figure out when to do stuff if you don't know when you are.

      The only other option is to just count days, and that's very hard, and even harder when you haven't invented useful numbers or place values yet. Back then, they'd have numbers from one to twenty or whatever, and that was essentially it. If they were lucky they could count moons, but the moons do not divide evenly into the year so that doesn't work well.

      But once they notice that shadows move back and forth, they can do what the GP said, stick up a pole and mark the summer and winter solstice with essential no work at all, and then mark 10 rocks across or something. And they could just look at it, and figure out that, despite it being cooler already, they shouldn't plant yet, it just got cooler early this year, and it's still 'five rocks' or whatever to solstice, and they're supposed to plant at four. (Or even put some sort of carved symbol at exactly the right place that means 'plant'.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:I'm at a loss as to why that's a problem by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      TBH, I very much doubt that they had agriculture yet, so that's probably not it. Still, I suppose it's also good for tracking when the next bird migration or whatever happens.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:I'm at a loss as to why that's a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's very useful for planting and floods and whatnot.

      Because nomadic Aboriginals were planting food and worrying about the desert flooding?

  25. All cultures die out. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    "What also puzzles me, is why cultures that create such structures, just kinda sorta die out? Like the Egyptians who built pyramids, whoever built Stonehenge, and the like?"

    Every culture (well, there might be one or two exceptions, I don't know), at least most, die out once enough time passes, for a variety of reasons.

    Look at the Egyptians first the Greeks conquered them, and started intermarrying with them and influencing/changing their cultures, then the Romans, then eventually, the Arab Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula invaded and conquered them.

    Ethnic and Cultural intermixing is the natural path of all societies, sooner or later. Eventually that mixing happens to such a degree that we say that a new people have emerged - but they still carry on the genetic and cultural legacies of the peope's that they descended from. The ethnicities/cultures that are most 'pure' at this point, I believe, are mostly the ones that due to geography, were the most isolated for the longest periods of time.

    1. Re:All cultures die out. . . by gknoy · · Score: 1

      The only one I think I could point to as having not done that (yet) is China. It's a cultural juggernaut.

    2. Re:All cultures die out. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cultural legacies of the "peope's" what?

      and what's a peope, anyway?

    3. Re:All cultures die out. . . by aiht · · Score: 1

      The only one I think I could point to as having not done that (yet) is China. It's a cultural juggernaut.

      And that's a particularly interesting example, because of the large number of cultures lumped together into the Chinese empire. Do people in China still think of themselves as culturally (e.g.) Han, Zhuang, Manchu, or just "Chinese"?

      (Names taken from here.)

    4. Re:All cultures die out. . . by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      They most certainly do not see themselves as just Chinese, though they will put on that front in the face of other cultures. They bitch and complain about the other dialects, other provinces, the northerners who can't be considered chinese by the pure chinese, the yellows against the whites, hell, they still have great organizations based on family surnames. Never have i seen a 'culture' more divided than the chinese. You don't think that fear of intermingling they have was just born out of meeting whitey did you?

  26. Stonehenge is new-fangled stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stonehenge is newfangeles stuff. It's only about some 5000 years old. Actually old stuff are things
    like Goebli Tepe: http://knol.google.com/k/suresh-emre/g%C3%B6bekli-tepe-first-temple-11500-years/35vsnxisjn2mw/320

  27. So? by Dputiger · · Score: 1

    This semicircle of rocks would be far more interesting / culturally significant if there as an actual reason to see it as such. Stonehenge (and the other henges known to exist) were typically significant, large-scale endeavors that were years in the making. According to the linked articles, this is a few waist high rocks with some smaller, relatively easy to move outliers. I'm not disputing that it may be a sundial but I'd like to know more about the culture of the tribe(s) that've lived there and whether any bits of lore have been passed down through myth/legend. Assuming the find is validated, it points to how silly our understanding of "firsts" is. I suspect that if we could look backwards clearly, we'd see that discoveries like this were made and remade over and over during prerecorded history. When you consider how much time has passed and how great a part war, climate change, and prevailing ecological conditions may have played, it's small wonder that so few have survived.

  28. what does a hunter/gatherer do with a calender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could see an agrarian society using solstices & equinoxes to plan growing & harvesting times; but what usefulness would seasonal calender information have to a hunter/gatherer society?

    1. Re:what does a hunter/gatherer do with a calender? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Lots of seasonal variations in food sources for hunter/gatherer peoples.

      There could be seasonal migrations of prey, in additional to the seasonal variations in plant-based foods gathered. Nuts, berries, roots -- all of these may vary on a seasonal basis.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:what does a hunter/gatherer do with a calender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but hunter gatherers usually aren't settled in one place. If they were going to follow the majestic herds of migrating...kangaroos around wouldn't they just do so? Would they even be in proximity of their calender to check it? Hell I don't think the aborigines ever domesticated any crops or animals, so I'm baffled. I guess "ceremony" is a good of a fallback explanation as any.

  29. Perceptions by warrax_666 · · Score: 1

    Interesting to think of these timelines, regarding common perception. Cleopatra lived and died closer in time to the era of Moon landings than she did to the building of the great pyramid at Giza.

    Technologically that's not really the case. I think that may be the cause of this perception.

    --
    HAND.
  30. Location by drb226 · · Score: 1

    Its location is a closely guarded secret.

    Dear Anonymous,
    Who cares about government scandals. We wanna see this place! I expect gps coordinates within the week.
    Love, someone who is definitely not your leader or anything...

    So nice of you to come over, Mr FBI investigator...

    1. Re:Location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnily enough it seems to marked out clearly in Google Earth as the "Mount Rothwell Conservation and Research Centre" and for all you megalith buffs here's some more info on it's location: http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=28470

  31. Interesting news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the research is correct then it should not come as a surprise. The Aboriginal tribes have shown an amazing awareness of their natural surroundings. Good on em!