A submerged monolith in the Sicilian Channel - Journal of Archaeological Science

Nov 2014
38
US
#11
Let's not get carried away. Just because a monlith has been found from a certain date does not indicate the same date applies to every remaining monolith elsewhere.
Take in the full context of what I said above. I would say we shouldn't get carried away as well, except not to get carried away building a whole hypothetical structure around so many megalithic sites based on (a) organic material of questionable provenance and (b) hypotheses regarding ancient cultures and migrations that are notoriously lean on facts, when stone itself can't be dated in this way.

If I had to guess I'd say that if we found the earliest megalithic site that has a very remote and confirmed date in some way, then this would just be one point along a timeline of megalithic building that probably spanned at least a few thousand years.

At Stonehenge and other megalithic sites in Britain, the age and origin of the stones has been thoruughly investigated
I think "thoroughly discussed" would be more accurate terminology. Volumes upon volumes have been written but you still can't carbon date stone. If the carbon dating I referenced above was taken from underneath one of the original stones, immediately after that stone was pulled out of the ground, then that would be more believable for me. As it stands I am skeptical of carbon dating from a hole where an original stone was pulled up, the dirt was filled back in, and then it was dug up again later. If there weren't such a fascination and desire for answers at this particular site then academics would probably be asking for more definitive testing.
 
Nov 2014
38
US
#12
One question regarding the monolith: how can one date it, as the erection may have taken place at any date before the submergence?
I don't think they were dating the monolith per se, but just the last time it would have been above water. It couldn't be pushed much further back in time than it already is without causing problems for the currently accepted theories of the neolithic period, which is supposed to have started at the end of the last ice age, something like 3000 years earlier than the estimate time when this monolith was last above water.

It takes a lot of coordination and effort to start hauling around big stones and lining them up, especially if this turns out to be some kind of complex rather than a single stone, as in some other locations. All of this is typically associated with people that have settled down and became agricultural, and live and work in communities with assigned roles and things of that nature.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,147
#13
I think "thoroughly discussed" would be more accurate terminology. Volumes upon volumes have been written but you still can't carbon date stone
You can carbon date associated finds, which provides what archaeologists call 'dating evidence'.
 

ib-issi

Ad Honorem
Mar 2011
3,403
just sitting here
#14
I don't think they were dating the monolith per se, but just the last time it would have been above water. It couldn't be pushed much further back in time than it already is without causing problems for the currently accepted theories of the neolithic period, which is supposed to have started at the end of the last ice age, something like 3000 years earlier than the estimate time when this monolith was last above water.

It takes a lot of coordination and effort to start hauling around big stones and lining them up, especially if this turns out to be some kind of complex rather than a single stone, as in some other locations. All of this is typically associated with people that have settled down and became agricultural, and live and work in communities with assigned roles and things of that nature.
how can they know the monolith was erected when it fell , and therefore
come up with a date when the land was dry , as i said before it may be where it is because it was being transported on rafts and it sank, water may have already been where it is .
 

Similar History Discussions