3 ms·
Evidence, you say? https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prehistoric-structure-lake-michigan-stonehenge-2432737 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prehistoric-struc
by 52-6F-62 2y ago
Evidence, you say?
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prehistoric-structure-lake-michigan-stonehenge-2432737 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/prehistoric-structure-lake...
https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/9000-year-old-stonehenge-like-structure-found-under-lake-michigan https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/9000-year-old-stonehen...
We're just starting to think about scratching the surface. Again.
- lumost 2y agoArcheological dating is strange, we find the earliest civilizations in places where they could and did build in stone - then suffered a drought. The drought ensures that the archeological sites weren't simply re-used for another purpose. Stone ensures that it's still around for us to see it. Whenever you have a wet location, or an extremely old location - we start looking at granite, as granite structures are virtually indestructible. However many civilizations lacked the ability to do more than dent granite with some drawings, or stack rough blocks into an arrangement. As granite doesn't generally erode on human timescales... dating these blocks is problematic. Every time I've gone down the rabbit whole on the dating of granite structures - I've ended up at "the latest it could have been built is X, weak evidence suggests that it was around Y, the earliest date that it could have been built is unknown."