[cubefox]

But surely it is much more unlikely that animal bones would last for a hundred millennia.

[JumpCrisscross]

> surely it is much more unlikely that animal bones would last for a hundred millennia

Why? The Cambridge paper gives a scientist’s reasons for that not being the case being supposition.

[cubefox]

Because processed stones are much more massive than bones, which mostly rot away quite quickly.

[rini17]

Mass does not matter. Tungsten metal is heftier that the stone and it rots regardless.

[cubefox]

Let's say durable then.