Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zorro

(15,691 posts)
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:42 AM Apr 2013

Mysterious 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

63 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mysterious Stone Structure Discovered Beneath Sea of Galilee (Original Post) 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

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
1. Again, I have to ask: why is it that every archaeological find is 'religious'?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:54 AM
Apr 2013

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.

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
4. It's either religious or extraterrestrials.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:13 AM
Apr 2013

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.

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
6. Right?!
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:26 AM
Apr 2013

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.

Nitram

(22,671 posts)
61. Extraterrestrials...
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:51 AM
Apr 2013

...dumped a pile of rock into the sea? I guess ETs will be blamed for our landfills centuries hence.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
8. Can you link to the report that called it 'religious'?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:00 AM
Apr 2013

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)
11. And yet this article calls the discovery 'monumental' and repeatedly says we don't
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:24 AM
Apr 2013

know what it was for. So the word 'religious' was introduced by you.

Exultant Democracy

(6,594 posts)
12. The speration of church and state is a farly recent development.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:36 AM
Apr 2013

Saying something ancient had religious significance is like saying it was made of rock.

1monster

(11,012 posts)
21. When my son was a toddler, bubble bath came in Muppet shaped bottles. Of course, I bought all
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:41 PM
Apr 2013

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)
62. From some points of view, they would be correct.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:02 PM
Apr 2013

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.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
34. Because they have a basic idea of what they're doing?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:24 AM
Apr 2013

"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.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
42. This is the Science Group. If you start by assuming that scientists don't know what they're doing
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:56 AM
Apr 2013

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".

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
44. It's also about working with the evidence, and putting forward reasonable hypotheses
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 12:34 PM
Apr 2013

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)
45. They don't know the age of this....
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 12:46 PM
Apr 2013

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)
46. They don't know the exact age, but they have a range
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:11 PM
Apr 2013

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.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 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.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
55. You mentioned sediment to date it. That would only date how long it was submerged....
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:09 PM
Apr 2013

It's not like it's in super deep water.



It could have been a moor.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
56. OK, but that doesn't help support a glacial theory
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:35 PM
Apr 2013

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.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
58. Glaciers don't 'pour' or 'drop' debris at one point
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:00 PM
Apr 2013

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)
59. As I said, it looks like it was a harbor fixture....
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:44 PM
Apr 2013

What would be COOL is if it was a collapsed lighthouse.

aquart

(69,014 posts)
29. Because there was no separation of church and state.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:46 AM
Apr 2013

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)
48. The biggest ancient structures are usually military in nature.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:34 PM
Apr 2013

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)
51. You have to wonder?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:14 PM
Apr 2013

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)
2. Great Ziggurat of Ur
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:54 AM
Apr 2013

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)
5. It was the Big Stone Race...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:16 AM
Apr 2013

It first started with people hurling pebbles at each other.

It quickly got out of hand.

Response to Zorro (Original post)

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
9. Tailings "of basalt boulders up to 1 m (3.2 feet) long", 4,000 years ago?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:08 AM
Apr 2013

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&quot .

DreamGypsy

(2,252 posts)
10. This article pegged my WOW'ometer...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:21 AM
Apr 2013

...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! :

Paz added that "in order to build such a structure a lot of working hours were required" in an organized community effort.

<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)
19. That picture just looks like a big pile of rocks.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:14 PM
Apr 2013

Could it have been created geologically somehow? Maybe by wave action or by a glacier?

aquart

(69,014 posts)
30. Sure. But only one? Wouldn't the area be dotted with them?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:56 AM
Apr 2013

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.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
35. You need very big waves to move metre-long boulders
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:31 AM
Apr 2013

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)
53. Glacier is unlikely
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:26 PM
Apr 2013

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.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
16. Ballast stone.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:09 PM
Apr 2013

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.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
36. Too small a lake for any such vessel to operate
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:35 AM
Apr 2013

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)
50. You're forgetting the notorious microclimate of the Sea of Galilee.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:06 PM
Apr 2013

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)
54. But that doesn't mean people think a several ton rock is a good thing
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:32 PM
Apr 2013

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)
49. Yes!
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:00 PM
Apr 2013

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)
63. That was my intial thought.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:07 PM
Apr 2013

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)
18. A pile of basalt rocks..
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:22 PM
Apr 2013

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)
37. Here's where the authors work:
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:48 AM
Apr 2013

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"/

tclambert

(11,080 posts)
20. Perhaps they have discovered an ancient catapult practice range.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:46 PM
Apr 2013

See, they used to position a target barge right over that spot and chunk stones at it.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Mysterious Stone Structur...