Science
Related: About this forumMysterious Stone Structure Discovered Beneath Sea of Galilee
A giant "monumental" stone structure discovered beneath the waters of the Sea of Galilee in Israel has archaeologists puzzled as to its purpose and even how long ago it was built.
The mysterious structure is cone shaped, made of "unhewn basalt cobbles and boulders," and weighs an estimated 60,000 tons the researchers said. That makes it heavier than most modern-day warships.
Rising nearly 32 feet (10 meters) high, it has a diameter of about 230 feet (70 meters). To put that in perspective, the outer stone circle of Stonehenge has a diameter just half that with its tallest stones not reaching that height.
It appears to be a giant cairn, rocks piled on top of each other. Structures like this are known from elsewhere in the world and are sometimes used to mark burials. Researchers do not know if the newly discovered structure was used for this purpose.
http://news.yahoo.com/mysterious-stone-structure-discovered-beneath-sea-galilee-111707097.html
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Thy're always 'temples' or 'tombs' ... 32 feet high, 230 feet in diameter --- could have been an early market/restaurant. Or a community bad-weather-shelter. Or someone's home.
Jeez.
Javaman
(62,439 posts)gtar100
(4,192 posts)It seems we are very uncomfortable with saying "we don't know." It is fun to imagine though what it was and who put it there and lived around it.
Obviously ancient people did more than worship and die ... there are numerous possibilities what early structures could have been - just thinking of our modern society & the various types of buildings we have - not to mention that they could have needed structures that we haven't considered.
But 'the smart people' always seem to reduce it down to the 2 options rather than leaving the door open to actually learn something new about an ancient group of folks.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Nitram
(22,671 posts)...dumped a pile of rock into the sea? I guess ETs will be blamed for our landfills centuries hence.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)This one calls it 'monumental'. They suggest it may mark a burial site, but says they don't know.
Since "it appears to be a giant cairn, rocks piled on top of each other", it would not be much good as a "market" or "restaurant", would it? Or a home.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)know what it was for. So the word 'religious' was introduced by you.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Saying something ancient had religious significance is like saying it was made of rock.
1monster
(11,012 posts)of them and placed them neatly on a shelf with some other whimsical bubble bath bottles. I had to laugh when I realized that the placement of the bubble bottles looked a bit lit an alter. I had fun imagining how archeologist in a far distant future would describe the culture and the people who "worshiped" such strange gods...
Ready4Change
(6,736 posts)I see our deep capitalism as a useful thing, but I can imagine a future society that would perceive our current consumer society as a form of religion.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Maybe this was a deposit from a melting glacier.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)"They say it is definitely human-made". They have actually studied this science, and they've studied the mound. Which is more than can be said for you or me.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)and that a few anonymous people on the internet can second-guess them, I'd question why you bother reading it at all. After all, we don't read an article about global warming and then say "pah, scientists, what do they know? I bet it's just the sun getting warmer".
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)which is more than guessing. Are there glacial features in the area (latitude 38N, and below sea level)? Do you get conical piles of rocks from glaciers, rather than elongated features?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It could be from an ice age and long before there was water.
Then again, it might have been a small man made island and the rocks shifted from a quake or the water rose.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)based on the sediment that has covered the base of the cone. And that doesn't take it back to the last ice age. When you add in that it's over 1000 miles south of where the ice cap got to in the Last Glacial Maximum, and I don't think 'science' can be applied to the suggestion of a glacier.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)At the LGM, the area was desert - see the source for the Wikipedia map: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue11/rayadams_toc.html . At the time they think it was constructed - between two and 12 millennia ago, with suspicions it's related to the nearby structures from about 4,000 years ago - there probably would have been. It's roughly the area that first developed agriculture, almost 12 millennia ago, so it wouldn't have been desert any more, and, being so far below sea level, you'd expect a lake to form in that depression, whether or not it was connected by river to the Dead Sea.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It's not like it's in super deep water.
It could have been a moor.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)because the maximum extent of glaciers stopped way short of this place, in the last ice age. So far short that I don't think you can just say "what if it was from several ice ages before that, and it just survived intact for a few million years?". Plus, as they said, it doesn't look natural.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)They push it around. It looks like it was 'poured' or 'dropped' because it was - by humans, on purpose, at one point.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)What would be COOL is if it was a collapsed lighthouse.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Because "economics" and "witch" come from the same root. Because such a structure required so much non-food producing labor that it seems logical to assume that its significance was important to the entire community, not merely a single entrepreneur.
Oh, and bad weather was definitely a religious matter back then. See Gods, thunder.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)
Take a look at the coast of Lebanon sometime and you'll see the peninsular city of Sour, which used to be the island of Tyre until Alexander the Great built a giant ramp from the shore to the island and turned it into a peninsula.
The assault ramp at Masada is of similar, huge proportions, although that one was built upon an existing slice of bedrock.
Most ancient cities had walls or fences, construction projects which would compete favorably with large construction projects today.
Of course, that does not totally excuse religion, because the reason for the walls was to keep assholes from one religion or sect from getting into the city and killing off assholes from another religion or sect.
Edit: I stand corrected! The biggest ancient structures are usually garbage heaps, as another poster below speculates.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Archaeologist #1: "Why would people build a huge cone of basalt, in a body of water that formed in the Miocene?"
Archaeologist #2: "Yeah, that's kinda dumb. Must be a temple of some sort for some kind of wacky religion"
Archaeologist #2: "Ahhh, yeah, that would make sense."
exboyfil
(17,857 posts)A cut and formed structure was built over 4000 years ago and was 30 m high. I wonder if the ancient inhabitants were trying to keep up with the Jones (Sumerians and Egyptians)?
Javaman
(62,439 posts)It first started with people hurling pebbles at each other.
It quickly got out of hand.
Response to Zorro (Original post)
guyton This message was self-deleted by its author.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)That sounds unlikely. Even if their tailings were that large, you'd expect to find them very closed to wherever they were mining - which would imply a major mine close by, that they had to move basalt from. Which I don't think would match with the kind of stuff they mined back then (pre Iron Age).
And 'unhewn' doesn't match with tailings - they have to be 'hewn' too (the paper describes them as "large, natural, unhewn basalt cobbles and boulders" .
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)...at the negative end of the scale. And I checked that I had the probes attached with the correct polarity.
Must have been a slow day at LiveScience.
Putting it together
Credit: Diagram courtesy Shmuel Marco
Putting all the data together researchers found that the structure is cone shaped, about 230 feet (70 meters) in diameter and nearly 32 feet (10 meters) tall. It weighs an estimated 60,000 tons. ...Researchers noticed that the big pile of rocks looks like ... a big pile of rocks.
It was the concluding paragraphs of the article sent me out of my seat! :
<snip>
Paz said that he hopes soon that an underwater archaeological expedition will set out to excavate the structure. They can search for artifacts and try to determine its date with certainty.
He said that the Israel Antiquities Authority has a research branch capable of excavating it. "We will try to do it in the near future, I hope, but it depends on a lot of factors."
Such detailed reporting, exciting proposals, and dynamic planning. Whew.
Probably the best aspect of the article was the gratuitous 'warship' analogy:
Perspective
Credit: Department of Defence | Public Domain
To put the structure's weight into perspective consider this - at 60,000 tons it is heavier than most modern day warships. In fact it weighs about the same as this ship, the now retired battleship USS New Jersey. ...demonstrating that whatever civilization constructed the stone mound was not unique in expending substantial resources creating large, ugly edifices with no useful purpose.
The researchers did not point out the similarity of the rock pile profile with that of the battleship or suggest that the pile was a actually a stone ship that sank on its maiden voyage.
Thanks for the post, Z.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Could it have been created geologically somehow? Maybe by wave action or by a glacier?
aquart
(69,014 posts)And then there is that lingering tradition so old we can't account for it but do it anyway. No Jew would visit a grave without leaving a stone. Mere pebbles these days, but before? The Irish leave white stones.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)from the scene at the end of Schindlers List. I found it quite touching.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)and the Sea of Galilee is just a small inland lake (8 by 13 miles). It's also very far south for glacial action (about the same latitude as Dallas, and below sea level, so not cold). These people are professionals, and they say it's artificial.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Though there are similar formations in the great lakes that ARE the result of glacial deposit and wave action.
However as they are uniformly basalt, and are pretty damn big, and the pile is irregular, I'm going to place my bet on it being a natural formation somehow. I dunno how, but stuff like that does happen.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Paging Erich Von Whatshisname...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Loaded cargo ships are more stable than unladen ones, so cargo vessels load up on rocks for their return trip after they offload their cargo. When they get to the pickup dock, the toss the stones overboard.
This is the location of an ancient dock, at which cargo was loaded onto vessels, and stones tossed overboard.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)cartach
(511 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)The Sea of Galilee is 8 miles by 13. They wouldn't be carrying metre-long rocks around by choice, 4000 years ago, in a small lake just for ballast. If they're worried by the weather, they'd just delay the trip.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Unusually low altitude and large temperature differences between the Sea and the nearby Golan Heights are the cause of sudden, unpredictable, and violent storms on the Sea. Quite literally Biblical in intensity:
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)for a small boat to have in, just in case. It's not exactly convenient to find metre-long boulders, get them into a boat, sail a few miles, and then take it out and dump it - in exactly the same place as everyone else has been. There's not a lot of call for a major quay on a small lake, when there can't be that much cargo traffic.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)It occurs to me that ballast would have been more important on the Dead Sea, where the salinity of the water would require extra ballast to steady an empty cargo craft.
But I don't think the Jordan River was navigable from the Dead Sea to the Sea of Gallillee, certainly not well enough for a boat to want to keep its ballast for the entire trip. The ballast must have been used for travel within the lake, I guess.
Whatever the case, it looks like the loading dock came close to being a loading berm.
Ready4Change
(6,736 posts)But would they have used stones of this size?
But it would open lines of investigation. For such a large amount of stones of similar composition, it would imply regular trade with a location that was a source of that particular material. Is there some likely candidate port near a quarry of the right sort? I dunno.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)Maybe it is geological in origin. Maybe it was a basalt bluff that eroded into a big pile. Basalt does that. Maybe, the archaeologists should move over and let the geologist have a gander.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)Author Information
1 Israel Antiquity Authority, Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel
2 Department of Geophysics, Tel Aviv University, Israel
3 Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research, Haifa, Israel
4 Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Israel
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1095-9270.12005/full
They know what they're doing. They've actually studied the data. They'll even have been to the site, and checked to see if there were any bluffs overlooking the site, that someone had somehow forgot to tell them about.
Why is it that so many people are determined to call the archaeologists incompetent about this? To think that we, on an internet site, can just say "these university archaelogists, they haven't got a scrap of common sense - let us, the Great Internet Public, tell them what's going on in their studies after reading one internet article about a place that probably none of us have ever been to"/
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)tclambert
(11,080 posts)See, they used to position a target barge right over that spot and chunk stones at it.
formercia
(18,479 posts)Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)[link:|
cartach
(511 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)"Looks like a tit."