Spanish Stonehenge
September 18, 2019 2:08 PM Subscribe
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they'd deliberately flood something like that but here I am anyway.
posted by small_ruminant at 3:46 PM on September 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by small_ruminant at 3:46 PM on September 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Oh, wow, unpleasantly interesting question about whether to move it. Archaeologically unforgivable, but if the reservoir is in one of the rare good places for a big reservoir it's worth more and more as precipitation gets even more unpredictable.
posted by clew at 4:16 PM on September 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by clew at 4:16 PM on September 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
Oh huh, I hadn't heard of that site at all! But then if it's been underwater for longer than I've been alive I can see why it wouldn't come up as easily as some of the other big name megaliths and such. Damage it by moving it vs. dooming it by not is a nasty dilemma.
Also for some reason my brain really wanted to slot it into New Pornographers:
Listening too long to one stone
Listening too long to one stone
Sing me Spanish Stonehenge
posted by cortex at 4:35 PM on September 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Also for some reason my brain really wanted to slot it into New Pornographers:
Listening too long to one stone
Listening too long to one stone
Sing me Spanish Stonehenge
posted by cortex at 4:35 PM on September 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Can they not leave it in place and build a wall around it?
posted by brambleboy at 11:29 PM on September 18, 2019
posted by brambleboy at 11:29 PM on September 18, 2019
Might be difficult due to the ground conditions, but I bet it would be a really cool site to visit afterwards!
posted by Harald74 at 12:16 AM on September 19, 2019
posted by Harald74 at 12:16 AM on September 19, 2019
The choice seems to be between two options, both problematic. Leaving the stones in place means that they will continue to degrade. Moving the stones would save them, but removes them from the context of where they were built. Ideally the site never would have been flooded, but that is true for a lot of reservoirs constructed back in the day.
Can they not leave it in place and build a wall around it?
Between the floodwalls and whatever ongoing effort is needed to pump out groundwater, that is likely going to be prohibitively expensive.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:02 AM on September 19, 2019
Can they not leave it in place and build a wall around it?
Between the floodwalls and whatever ongoing effort is needed to pump out groundwater, that is likely going to be prohibitively expensive.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:02 AM on September 19, 2019
@small_ruminant if you haven't been heartbroken yet today...
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/12/they-are-barbaric-turkey-prepares-to-flood-12000-year-old-city-to-build-dam
posted by toshicat at 7:58 AM on September 19, 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/12/they-are-barbaric-turkey-prepares-to-flood-12000-year-old-city-to-build-dam
posted by toshicat at 7:58 AM on September 19, 2019
toshicat, that city (and its doom) deserves a post of its own.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:01 AM on September 20, 2019
posted by small_ruminant at 11:01 AM on September 20, 2019
« Older This is just to say | California just passed a landmark law to regulate... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Greg_Ace at 3:13 PM on September 18, 2019 [7 favorites]