Because wood rots, and stone doesn't, isn't there a danger that speculation is based on apparent evidence that's misleading?
I mean, yes stone began to be used at some point in different places but if it was a follow-on from timber it could signal merely the spread of a new technical idea, a new and better way of doing things rather than a change to pastoralism or changes in mindsets. Better ways of doing things can be embraced by all cultures once the idea takes hold without it necessarily being evidence that the culture has changed.
|