A World Future that we wouldn't see

Nah, I'm not Hancock, although I have read Fingerprints of the Gods back when it came out but was already down that rabbit hole. Hence the bit of a fascination I have with soil on Easter Island. And I have no idea what C-14 dates you refer to as that link was behind a pay wall, some sort of membership needed to log on to the full article. And thanks for the advice on the soil microscopy but I have tried to find out as much as I can because none of explanations provided give me enough detail. Personally think in the first instance being buried on purpose by people is plausible. There is evidence of similar behaviour at Gobleki Tepi so maybe a similar type of preservation thing going on. Also

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

Both have their arms and fingers in the same place and share the same style. Obviously, top one from Gobleki Tepi and bottom one from Easter island. This is just one thread among many that you get between ancient stone works scattered across the world. The idea that they were built by a culture that had some contact or commonality with another culture on a different continent isn't far fetched to me. There's examples of similar type of stone work from South America, Easter Island, and Egypt, so why couldn't the builders have a shared or common culture? The idea this is all coincidence doesn't satisfy me tbh so when someone says where is the evidence of this missing civilisation, I say here it is. A few remanants of massive stone building works scattered around the globe. However, the orthodox view tells a very different narrative about the stones and the stones themselves aren't telling.

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

 

There's nothing wrong with the theory that there are links between these sites. Like I said, DNA evidence suggests a possible link between Easter Island and Mohenjo Daro. I think you need to move away from things like Atlantis and pre-flood civilisation though as these are concepts that are no longer considered credible. If you do that, what you may discover would actually be more interesting. I would avoid Graham Hancock too.

You won't find the answers in photographs or on popular websites though. You will need to examine the published excavation reports, the artefactual, archaeofaunal, archaeobotanical, soil micro morphological, C14 analyses and phosphate, isotope, x-radiography analyses if they've been done. You'll also probably need to compare the original excavation records.

 

I'm not an archaeologist, soil expert or even a gardener but is it possible that seeing as the photos that you've provided are in a volcano crater that there was an eruption? The ash (soil) that erupted eventually subsided down the slope burying the bases?

That would explain the Maoi facing inwards as a "protection from the gods" just as they face outwards on the edge of the island as a "protection from invaders".

If there was a volcanic eruption, the trees would have been destroyed, allowing the ash/soil to travel down the slope. It's not unreasonable that a tribal society would have looked to their gods for protection. It's also possible that they thought the best material to protect them was the stuff that had been made by the volcano in the past.

 

The most recent volcanic activity is thought to have been slightly less than 2000 years ago. The Radiocarbon dates show that settlement didn't occur until approximately 800-900 years ago.

 

Exactly mate who knows how far ahead we may have been but nope we will just burn it all in the name of God...

 

I knew what you were doing mate..

 

Don't think so. Volcano has been extinct for a while and any explosion would have buried them or knocked them over. Additionally, debris from an eruption doesn't make soil, it hardens off into rock and those statues are buried in soil. And you have statues inside the crater so I couldn't see those survivng an eruption either.

 

Radio carbon dates for settlement? Got a link to this as I've got stuff on tree pollen samples showing a decline but that doesn't prove anyhting when it comes to how and when statues were buried. There isn't any radio carbon dating for the soil the maoi are buried in, at least none that I can find, and I don't see how decining tree pollen from a bog sample proves anything regarding that.

 

Yeah, the radiocarbon dates show that settlement occurred between about 1000 AD and 1200 AD. Obviously, you're not going to get statues without people living there. These dates are broadly consistent with Polynesian settlement of New Zealand and other islands, demonstrating a period of Polynesian expansion at around this time. Here's a link to one article about the dates. You'll have to down load the PDF.

https://www.pnas.org/content/108/5/1815

I think the other article that I provided the link for, which you couldn't access, was more recent and more detailed. The C14 dates from Easter Island have been subject to much scrutiny so they have been refined numerous times. There is another article knocking around somewhere which goes into minute detail about the quality of the sampling strategies for C14 dates and ranks them. Nonetheless, all of the dates that I've seen are focussed on the period slightly before the early 13th century.

 

Edit: I take that back, the previous article I linked to was earlier than this one.

 

If you want to think the idea of a pre flood civilisation lacks credibility, that's up to you. If you want to say no human activity beyond hunter gathering occured before circa 10,000 BC, again, up to you. But I don't think that's true. But then again, I have looked into just how devastating a period of climate change and environmental instability humanity went through and how much the available area of land to live on has been altered in that time.

please log in to view this image

We've been stable* for a good 10,000 years, and that stability has allowed us to develop. If you go back 15,000 years ago and look, you've got 4-5,000 years of the climate being all over. This is also when a massive amount of species went extinct and when Plato dates Atlantis being destroyed. When you keep going backwards in the geological record from 15,000 years ago, you see environmental stability, the exact thing that's needed for humanity to develop from hunter gethers to civilisation. But according to contemporary ideas about human history, that didn't happen and it couldn't possibly have happened even though every culture around the world says it did. I'm inclined to think they might well be onto something.

*When I say stable, I don't mean the environment doesn't change at all, it's just the changes aren't devastating enough globally to screw us up. Here's Doggerland, not Stan Collymore's favourite holiday destination but the area we now call the North Sea. This is what it looked like in about 10,000 BC and it took about 4-5000 years for the receding ice caps to melt enough to flood this area and cut us off from Europe.

please log in to view this image

More Doggerland with the added bonus of having a Baldrick.

We know more about the surface of Mars than we do the area of submerged land between us and France. Canny mental that like.

 

There's a massive difference between Doggerland and Atlantis. We have evidence for Doggerland.

Are you sure every culture around the world said there was pre-flood civilisation? I'm certainly not. We don't even know if there was a flood. You're basing a lot on ancient texts which we know cannot be taken literally. And do you really think that no one has asked these questions before? Like I said, Atlantis and alien theories are rooted in 19th century beliefs that are now dismissed. Thousands of academics have been looking at these subjects for hundreds of years and there is no physical evidence to suggest anything different, yet there is plenty of evidence to indicate that human society developed along the lines that what you call the 'orthodox' suggests. Of course our views of how this all happened will be refined over time but like I keep saying to you, it will based on the properly researched work that has already been done.

I don't expect you to change your view. Research has demonstrated that disagreeing with someone only causes their views to become more entrenched. I am astonished though that you don't seem to want to consider things through the prism of the overwhelming quantity of fieldwork, analysis, and research that has already been done, and continues to be done, on the development of human society.

 

/ As it states, radio carbon dates going bac

Cheers. So Radio Carbon dating for colonisation in 1000AD ish. All that proves is a colonisation episode happened then. It doesn't prove it wasn't inhabited any earlier than this and abandoned and the re-colonised. And it doesn't prove the statues were built then. In fact, apart from Easter Island, is there any other evidence of Polynesian culture making massive statues any where else? I find it hard to believe the culture that made them didn't make them anywhere else. Surely you would expect to find evidence of that.

 

Really?! Do you really think that it's possible for people to live on an island, build a load of massive statues, and leave no other trace of their presence?

You do find find Polynesian statuary elsewhere, yes. Not on the same scale but then minor differences in art across a geographical spread like that aren't unusual.

 

Are you sure you are a Sunderland fan... you sound more like a mag?

 

I know Doggerland and Atlantis are different. I'm saying you get a situation like Doggerland in a period of environmental stability. I said you get a situation like Atlantis sinking in a period of environmental instability. It was trying to show just how much change can occur in the landscape in a relatively short period of time in an overall period of global environmental stability. Where I have a problem with the human development narrative is the environmental stability/instability plays no part in it and most folk have no idea how much the earth changed from 15,000 BC to 10,000 BC. That's half the time frame that the narrative of human development occurs in. And previous to that, it was near on 100,000 years of environmental stability. Plenty of time to develop imo.

Sorry, global myths of a world wide flood that killed nearly everyone. And again, I'll hear you say they are unreliable but that's wrong. Some of them have information relating to real events. If you want to deny the oral tradition can be accurate, so be it. I think it's arrogant for a culture like ours to say to a load of other cultures you don't know your own history but we do. I mean, you do realise the Inca have never themselves claimed to have built the buildings we claim are Inca built. Strange that.

 

Yes mate. How many billions of humans have lived that there are no trace at all of? How many of your own ancestors can you prove exist, and what evidence is there of their existence. Very little if any. We can only infer the existence of our ancestors, but can't prove it.

So no evidence of that culture carving statues on that scale any where else. These other stautes, look like the Esater Island ones do they? You see, I can't find evidence of anything similar but obviously you have so can I get a link please?

 

As I've said before, the events that are recounted in these things probably did happen but the texts themselves have to be interpreted, you can't take them literally. One of the first things you have to understand when considering ancient civilisations is that their world view was different to ours. Their concept of the size of the world, their concept of time, their concept of what caused various things to happen were all very different from ours. Therefore, we have to try and understand the perspective from which they were seeing things. The 'whole world' to them, could be a very small area to us. This applies to a whole range of concepts. It's called the interpretive dilemma and means you can't apply our perception of the world to ours a vice versa. It's the absolute opposite of arrogance.

 

I'm not being funny, but if you want these answers you need to enrol on a beginners archaeology course.

I'm not talking about individual people, I'm talking about other evidence of an earlier civilisation. There isn't any.

They don't have to be similar, although I wouldn't have said the tiki were dissimilar, different groups can and do develop their own artistic styles.

You keep going on about arrogance but don't you think its arrogant to just completely dismiss the 140 odd years of intensive archaeological study that has been carried out on Easter Island?