This is what I've read in an article (won't share it here out of fear of attracting several downvotes just for posting a link of that kind) that raises some questions:
Carbon dating is carried out on organic matter found around, inside or near the stone object. Based on that organic material's dating, the date around which the item was carved, is estimated.
The problem with this approach: Suppose a museum in the present day has several stone monuments from varying dates. And they're cleaned and maintained quite well by the curator; there is no organic material on them. One day the whole museum is suddenly buried under enormous amounts of inorganic material, with the curator trapped in and crushed to death. 2000 years later a team of archaeologists uncover this place. The only organic material they find is the remains of the curator. They date it, and from that, peg all the stone sculptures found in the museum at 2000 years old. But the items were actually much older than even the curator. So isn't that a wrong dating?
Inspecting the handiwork on the sculpture itself is subjective to assumptions about possession of skills at different time periods. That's not linear. Take one present day example : Utensils from 1000 years ago in a museum can have exquisite artwork, embellishment, detailing. Imagine someone comparing it with a utensil being ordinarily used today having no artwork, with both items being made of the same material. They would assume that today's utensil is older than the one from 1000 years ago, on the basis of handiwork.
So is the part about the carbon dating of nearby organic material true? Or does stone have its own ways of finding age of carving that is independent of nearby organic material?