Re:A Prehistoric Pyramid May Have Just Rewritten Human Histo...
by npcompl33t on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @01:44PM
(#38194962)
The soil samples were taken above / below / in between layers that are clearly artificial.
The controversial 24-14,000BC dates are from soil in Unit 3.
Directly above this layer, is a layer of soil that is much younger -- yielding radiocarbon dates of 8000-6000BC
On top of this layer of soil fill, are stacked/cut pieces of columnar basalt, aligned parallel to the ground which does not occur naturally and indicates it is an artificial construction. Dates from soil in this layer yield 6,000-5,000BC
So the age of the soil in this case does indicate ages in which portions of the structure was assembled. You can argue that the soil is "old", but given the time gap, and the fact that it is completely covered by younger soil yielding dates from 8,000BC-7000BC, it seems hard to argue that it was not constructed sometime before at least 8000BCE.
The controversial 24-14,000BC dates are from soil in Unit 3.
Directly above this layer, is a layer of soil that is much younger -- yielding radiocarbon dates of 8000-6000BC
On top of this layer of soil fill, are stacked/cut pieces of columnar basalt, aligned parallel to the ground which does not occur naturally and indicates it is an artificial construction. Dates from soil in this layer yield 6,000-5,000BC
So the age of the soil in this case does indicate ages in which portions of the structure was assembled. You can argue that the soil is "old", but given the time gap, and the fact that it is completely covered by younger soil yielding dates from 8,000BC-7000BC, it seems hard to argue that it was not constructed sometime before at least 8000BCE.