George Hart's Neolithic Carved Stone Polyhedra page, on his own site georgehart.com, carries no formal publication year since it is an ongoing personal reference page rather than a dated publication. Its strength is that Hart is a research mathematician working in polyhedral geometry, and the page documents a specific, checkable rebuttal: mathematician Lieven Le Bruyn's demonstration that Keith Critchlow's claimed dodecahedron-shaped Neolithic Scottish stone balls do not match the actual Ashmolean Museum artifacts in Critchlow's own published photograph. Its limit is that it is a specialist's personal web page rather than a peer-reviewed journal article, though the specific claim it documents is independently checkable.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier2
Tier two: a research mathematician's own personal reference page rather than a peer reviewed journal article, though it documents a specific, checkable rebuttal, mathematician Lieven Le Bruyn's demonstration that claimed dodecahedron shaped Neolithic stone balls do not match the actual Ashmolean Museum artifacts in the claim's own published photograph. Its limit is that it is a specialist's personal web page, though the specific claim it documents is independently checkable. NotesGeorge W. Hart is a research mathematician working in polyhedral geometry. This page documents mathematician Lieven Le Bruyn's rebuttal of Keith Critchlow's claim that Neolithic Scottish carved stone balls depict the five Platonic solids a thousand years before the Greeks: the balls in Critchlow's own published photograph are not the Ashmolean Museum balls he says they are, the paper bands drawn onto the photograph do not follow the actual carving, and no genuine Ashmolean ball carries the twelve knobs a dodecahedron would need. Use for the Dodecahedron fact's disputed-and-rejected clause.
Citation
AuthorGeorge W. Hart
Publishergeorgehart.com (Virtual Polyhedra)
URLhttps://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/neolithic.html
Source Typereference article
Claims Backed By This Source (9 claims)
This source backs 9 claims across the atlas. As facts: 8 well-attested. Plus 1 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 7 claims: 7 well-attested.
- Articles, 1 claims: 1 well-attested.
- Sacred Geometry, 1 claims: 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.