This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article could benefit enormously from a picture of the landscape and the researchers ( [1]) in the "pavement" of stone fragments. However, they all belong to the researchers and I couldn't find a CC photograph in my short search. I'm done looking today. Thanks Rvanarsdale ( talk) 04:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This should be capitalized, as it's not referring to the quality of the pyramid but rather the specific pyramid in Giza, Egypt called the "Great Pyramid" of Giza. This is my fault for not originally clarifying. I'll fix it. Thanks. Rvanarsdale ( talk) 14:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Rvanarsdale: Apologies. In retrospect I see that my edit comment was not clear enough. I removed the layer thickness claim not because I personally found it implausible, but because the thickness conflicts with the lithic density data, and because I found a handful of mistakes and imprecisions in the paper.
The average number of lithics is given as 75.22 per square meter, and the average lithic volume as 7 cubic centimeters. That works out to a layer density of 0.5 millimeters. That's a factor of ~10000 less than the pyramid conversion.
I contacted Foley about this in 2015, and he said "I suspect you are right that there is an error in the volume estimate". He promised to redo the calculations, but apparently never got around to it. Last I checked, the paper hadn't been corrected. Let's hope this doesn't become another spinach myth.
BTW, if you want to make sure I see a comment of yours, just {{ ping}} me, like I did you here. That way you can keep discussions where they belong. ;)
Happy editing, Paradoctor ( talk) 12:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article could benefit enormously from a picture of the landscape and the researchers ( [1]) in the "pavement" of stone fragments. However, they all belong to the researchers and I couldn't find a CC photograph in my short search. I'm done looking today. Thanks Rvanarsdale ( talk) 04:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This should be capitalized, as it's not referring to the quality of the pyramid but rather the specific pyramid in Giza, Egypt called the "Great Pyramid" of Giza. This is my fault for not originally clarifying. I'll fix it. Thanks. Rvanarsdale ( talk) 14:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Rvanarsdale: Apologies. In retrospect I see that my edit comment was not clear enough. I removed the layer thickness claim not because I personally found it implausible, but because the thickness conflicts with the lithic density data, and because I found a handful of mistakes and imprecisions in the paper.
The average number of lithics is given as 75.22 per square meter, and the average lithic volume as 7 cubic centimeters. That works out to a layer density of 0.5 millimeters. That's a factor of ~10000 less than the pyramid conversion.
I contacted Foley about this in 2015, and he said "I suspect you are right that there is an error in the volume estimate". He promised to redo the calculations, but apparently never got around to it. Last I checked, the paper hadn't been corrected. Let's hope this doesn't become another spinach myth.
BTW, if you want to make sure I see a comment of yours, just {{ ping}} me, like I did you here. That way you can keep discussions where they belong. ;)
Happy editing, Paradoctor ( talk) 12:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)