Megaliticsbeta

Recherche

Chercher un site, un artefact ou un dossier de l’atlas

A critical atlas of the deep past

The ancient builders left the stones. Not the instructions.

132 sites and artefacts, each with two readings: what science establishes, what remains unanswered. The globe colours them by state of knowledge, not by date: dates live on each entry, as ranges, with their sources.

Explore the atlasHow we weigh evidence
0 · 132reviewed entries · entries being sourced
1,003 · 313sources · with a DOI
16enigmas with no accepted answer
16fakes dismantled
How to read this atlas

We are not archaeologists. We read, we cite, we show the doubt.

An attempt at understanding, careful and unapologetic. Where the atlas stands: 0 of 132 entries reviewed to charter level. We prefer to say so.

  1. 01We do not produce archaeological knowledge. We read the open literature and cite it, line by line, with its register: consensus, peer-review, primary source, alternative reading.
  2. 02A date is a range. A civilisation’s name is an attribution, often one layer among others. We display them as such.
  3. 03“No accepted answer” does not mean “inexplicable”. It means no explanation commands consensus today.
  4. 04A consensus is the state of knowledge, not its end. Science corrects itself: that is its method, not its weakness. We follow it without sanctifying it, and without questioning it for sport.
  5. 05When science moves, the entry moves. The revision stays visible, dated, with its source.
  6. 06Our stone in the wall: gathering what is scattered, comparing it, making it readable. Not ruling.
Uneven knowledge

Some sites have been studied for a century. Others, excavated since 2019.

For every entry the atlas counts what is established and what remains open. Here are 11 flagship entries, ranked by share of open questions. Hover a row.

established claimsopen questions
No accepted answer · PeruSacsayhuamán

Blocks of 100+ tons, joints fitted to the millimeter, without mortar or iron. How?

→ all 132 entries, filterable by status
Real count of each entry’s two lenses. A high “?” does not mean “mysterious”: it means “little settled”.

Where to start

Explore all · 132 entries →
Göbekli Tepe
No accepted answer

Göbekli Tepe

A monumental complex built by hunter-gatherers, 6,000 years before the pyramids. Then buried — deliberately or by time, the debate is open.

4 · 4Turkey →
Karahan Tepe
No accepted answer

Karahan Tepe

The "brother" of Göbekli Tepe, perhaps even older. Only seriously excavated since 2019.

4 · 3Turkey →
Stonehenge
Debated

Stonehenge

The bluestones traveled 250 km from Wales. And the altar stone, from Scotland. Why those particular stones?

6 · 3England →
Serapeum de Saqqarah
Debated

Serapeum de Saqqarah

Twenty-four black granite sarcophagi, 60 to 80 tons, lowered into underground galleries carved out for the sacred Apis bulls.

4 · 3Egypt →
Pumapunku
No accepted answer

Pumapunku

Andesite H-blocks cut and standardized with remarkable precision — without iron tools, using hard-stone pounders and abrasives. The method is documented, the scale remains astonishing.

7 · 3Bolivia →
Sacsayhuamán
No accepted answer

Sacsayhuamán

Blocks of 100+ tons, joints fitted to the millimeter, without mortar or iron. How?

6 · 4Peru →
Who built it?

One site, often several builders. And names given to them after the fact.

“Inca”, “Roman”, “hunter-gatherers”: these are attributions, not signatures. On many sites, layers overlap, one occupation reuses another, and the oldest sometimes has no name. The atlas shows the known layers and leaves blank those we do not know.

  • established attribution
  • debated attribution
  • assumed layer, unnamed
SacsayhuamánPeru · known layers: 2
  1. Inca · Pachacuti and successors · 1438 → 1533, textsestablished · chronicles, quarries
  2. Killke · pre-Inca occupationdebated · one dig, press report
  3. Older?no data

Killke remains were reported beneath the Inca fortress; a single dig, with no peer-reviewed paper found. Older: no published data.

StonehengeEngland · known layers: 2
  1. Neolithic farmers · enclosure, bluestones, sarsens · −3000 → −2500, C14established · C14, published phasing
  2. Bell Beaker · reworking, not the build · −2450 → −1500, C14debated · ancient DNA; role unsettled

The Beaker population arrives after most of the sarsens (Olalde et al. 2018): those who finished the monument are not those who began it.

BaalbekLebanon · known layers: 2
  1. Imperial Rome · Temple of Jupiter, trilithon · 1 → 100, textsestablished · DAI excavations
  2. Podium · Herodian phase?debated · one stylistic study

The trilithon is Roman by consensus; only the podium's first phase is discussed, on a stylistic argument (Kropp and Lohmann 2011).

Göbekli TepeTurkey · known layers: 1
  1. Pre-Pottery Neolithic hunter-gatherers · −9600 → −8000, C14established · C14, DAI excavations
  2. Which people? Language, name, organisationno data

“Civilisation” is a shortcut here: we know a material culture, not a people.