Science

muriel_volestrangler

(106,260 posts)

52. At which time?

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:20 PM

Apr 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mysterious Stone Structure Discovered Beneath Sea of Galilee [View all] Zorro Apr 2013 OP

Again, I have to ask: why is it that every archaeological find is 'religious'? Myrina Apr 2013 #1

A call to Starbucks for an opinion went un-returned. Javaman Apr 2013 #3

It's either religious or extraterrestrials. gtar100 Apr 2013 #4

Right?! Myrina Apr 2013 #6

Possibly a bronz or iron smelter? xtraxritical Apr 2013 #26

Extraterrestrials... Nitram Apr 2013 #61

Can you link to the report that called it 'religious'? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #8

And yet this article calls the discovery 'monumental' and repeatedly says we don't Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #11

The speration of church and state is a farly recent development. Exultant Democracy Apr 2013 #12

When my son was a toddler, bubble bath came in Muppet shaped bottles. Of course, I bought all 1monster Apr 2013 #21

From some points of view, they would be correct. Ready4Change Apr 2013 #62

Why is every pile of rocks a "find"? Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #25

Because they have a basic idea of what they're doing? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #34

Are you saying we should have faith? Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #39

This is the Science Group. If you start by assuming that scientists don't know what they're doing muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #42

Science is about asking questions and challenging assumptions. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #43

It's also about working with the evidence, and putting forward reasonable hypotheses muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #44

They don't know the age of this.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #45

They don't know the exact age, but they have a range muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #46

Was there water there at the time? Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #47

At which time? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #52

You mentioned sediment to date it. That would only date how long it was submerged.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #55

OK, but that doesn't help support a glacial theory muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #56

It looks like it was poured. That's why the drop theory. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #57

Glaciers don't 'pour' or 'drop' debris at one point muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #58

As I said, it looks like it was a harbor fixture.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #59

Because there was no separation of church and state. aquart Apr 2013 #29

The biggest ancient structures are usually military in nature. sofa king Apr 2013 #48

You have to wonder? Scootaloo Apr 2013 #51

Great Ziggurat of Ur exboyfil Apr 2013 #2

It was the Big Stone Race... Javaman Apr 2013 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Apr 2013 #7

Tailings "of basalt boulders up to 1 m (3.2 feet) long", 4,000 years ago? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #9

This article pegged my WOW'ometer... DreamGypsy Apr 2013 #10

That picture just looks like a big pile of rocks. drm604 Apr 2013 #19

Sure. But only one? Wouldn't the area be dotted with them? aquart Apr 2013 #30

I only knew that dipsydoodle Apr 2013 #38

You need very big waves to move metre-long boulders muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #35

Glacier is unlikely Scootaloo Apr 2013 #53

Calling Geraldo Rivera! n/t n2doc Apr 2013 #13

Maybe this will go better for him than Al Capone's "vault". AAO Apr 2013 #17

"Rock Heaps Of The Gods" riqster Apr 2013 #14

Heh. +1 n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #15

Ballast stone. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #16

That's a very astute and plausible explanation, thanks. xtraxritical Apr 2013 #27

Flintstone family operation. EOM cartach Apr 2013 #33

Too small a lake for any such vessel to operate muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #36

You're forgetting the notorious microclimate of the Sea of Galilee. sofa king Apr 2013 #50

But that doesn't mean people think a several ton rock is a good thing muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #54

Yes! sofa king Apr 2013 #49

That was my intial thought. Ready4Change Apr 2013 #63

A pile of basalt rocks.. Boudica the Lyoness Apr 2013 #18

Here's where the authors work: muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #37

Could be worse. We could be claiming these were Jesus' stepping stones. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #41

Perhaps they have discovered an ancient catapult practice range. tclambert Apr 2013 #20

What could it be? formercia Apr 2013 #22

There is no rational explanation? Rain Mcloud Apr 2013 #23

Great haircut. EOM cartach Apr 2013 #32

My fiance's first reaction earlier today... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #24

Definitely needs to be worshiped religiously! xtraxritical Apr 2013 #28

But then there would be two. aquart Apr 2013 #31

Not to mention a nearby cave. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #40

So when Jesus was walking on water, that's what he was really walking on. undeterred Apr 2013 #60