A World Future that we wouldn't see

Reading this thread is akin to stumbling into the twilight zone. Not a bliddy clue.

 

There’s a reason for that you don’t come from a far superior race called a Mackem!

 

Excuse me?

 

I'm not arrogantly dismissing anything. I'm just questioning the narrative as no detailed explanation is provided for where all the material burying the maoi actually comes from. It's just vague things like soil movement. Additionally, the current story says human development only occurred within the last 12,000 years or so and nothing could have gone on before as there is no evidence. I disagree. I think some myths have truth in them. I know they can get distorted through the transmission of time through local variations but that doesn't mean they don't have an origin point of a recounting of an actual event.

It's also noticable to me that this period of human development only starts when the climate and environment start settling down after 4 to 5,000 years of instability. But previous to that, from about 100,000 years ago to about 15,000 years ago the climate and environment were stable. So I don't consider it unreasonable to think that humans could have developed at least as much as we have up to say, horse and cart, writing, maths, travelling the globe in sailing ships.

I also think some of the massive stoneworks around the world show a narrative that begins in that time frame and continues through into ours. The ancient world, especiallly parts of the pyramid of Giza shows evidence of highly advanced techniques, never mind sophisticated. Techniques that if we were to replicate today, we'd need a machine to do it. The accuracy of some of it beggars belief and I base that on 20odd years in the building trade.

The modern day view just doesn't account for that 4-5,000 year period where the climate and environment radically changed so it's only telling part of the story imo.

 

I can say as an absolute fact that I can prove every single one of my ancestors existed, if even just one of them didn't I wouldn't exist and that goes for every human walking this earth today and that ever lived.

 

Do you not think that the origin of the material around the statues was not one of the first questions that the excavators asked about it? That would be amongst the first things that would be considered. The explanation of soil movement is completely plausible. You should read up on archaeological site formation processes.

There are detailed studies regarding domestication of the horse, and other animals, the development of language, and how people moved around the world. If you look hard enough, you'll find them. If you just look at the first page of a Google search, you won't find the detail that you need. You aren't the first person to ask these questions. People have asked these questions and that's how we know what we know about the development of human society.

The sites that you have mentioned throughout this are all well known and have all been subject to intense research and analysis. Anything published regarding these sites will have been subject to intense academic scrutiny, the excavators and publishers could not have got the information into the public sphere if the sites had not been subject to the most up to date research and analytical methods.

 

If the soil excavators did look for what it was made of I can't find a link to the results. And soil movement isn't plausible without explaining where the soil moved from imo. The statues are standing on a slope and I know soil doesn't move upwards. There doesn't look like anywhere near enough vegetation to wash down on them.

please log in to view this image

I can see the evidence of a gradual accumulation on the slope, I'm not disputing that. I even said there is evidence for it on one of the statues that was uncovered.. It's the initial all at once burying of statues that I can't see how 'soil movement' explains. Let's go with what's accepted. The Polynesian's, great bunch of sailors, rocked up about 1200AD, carved all the moai, then some sort of process buries 150 of them to a depth of 5 metres, and all of this happens before Europeans turn up in 1700ish, so a 500 year time frame. So say 300 years to build the 1000 we find there, which leaves a 200 year time frame for soil movement to cover 150 statues up to 5 metres in depth. Yet in the intervening 600 year period since Europeans discovered it, we find the same amount of statue popping out over the ground as we did back then.

 

I'm saying you can't provide any physical evidence for most of your ancestors. I understand that looking around me says they must have existed as people are around but I haven't got the bones of all of my ancestors on a shelf somewhere.

 

What do you mean 'let's go with what's accepted'?!?!? It is accepted. The populist websites wouldn't make those statements if they weren't accurate. You are literally arguing with some of the most knowledgeable people in the field. Just because you don't understand the process doesn't mean it's wrong. Excavation results are difficult to find online. You need to look at the published literature and the grey literature not just websites.

 

No, but when people have lived somewhere they leave behind traces of their presence. You can't pick out individuals but you can see the remnants of their buildings, the waste they leave behind, the tools they lose etc etc.

 

It isn't difficult to understand the process of soil movement tbh; a flood leaves sediment, I know a landslide will deposit a large amount of material, dust and particles can be air borne in the way the Sahra feeds the Amazon. I know about the gradual accumulation of material to make soil, whether that is from organic matter decomposing or rock through weathering so I've got the basics covered thanks.

What I asked was how come 150 statues on the inner and outer slopes of a crater get buried to a depth of 5 metres in 2-300 years but then are still showing the same amount above the ground 600 years after Europeans discovered them? Doesn't make sense to me like.

 

Because soil moves at different rates and is affected by environmental factors. Those can change. Without having seen the literature, the logical explanation is the deforestation that we know took place.

 

I agree, but we get very little of that presence compared to how much human activity our ancestors were actually up to imo. When I was a kid growing up, the story of human history says hunter gatherers until agriculture/ animal husbandary round about 9,000ish BC. And we develop further skills due to the advantages that farming provides. I'm cool with that and it's nothing out of the ordinary, plenty of evidence for it.

Here's an imagination game to play when it comes to evidence knocking up against existing ideas. What if Gobleki Tepi hadn't have been buried on purpose? Instead of it being deliberate human activity, and it was natural processes that had no evidence you could radio carbon date, would Archeologists who uncovered it say it was built in 9,000ish BC, or would they say it was from about 7,000-4000ish BC? They would have no reason to say 9,000 BC tbh, and would have placed it elsewhen, in a time period where they already had evidence for that activity imo.

 

Stonehenge wasn't buried and they've got radiocarbon dates from there. As long as you can find suitable samples in sealed stratigraphic contexts, you can get an accurate date.

You can date deposits formed by natural processes too, as long as the right material is present.

 

Different rates? 5 metres in 2-300 years compared to nothing in the next 600. That is some difference. And this is a very localised area on an island that has the same tropical climate all over it. It's only 60 square miles, I'd hardly expect to see major variations in climate across it. And soil erosion due to deforestation is tricky. Where do you actually put the trees?

please log in to view this image

The moai are buried in the bottom left. That crater doesn't really slope, it's quite a vertical climb and not the ldeal location for trees to grow. Additionally, the crater top slopes away towards the left, leaving less area for anything to grow on. When I look at that, I don't think a forest has ever grew there tbh. And deforestation from any other location doesn't work as the statues are on a slope higher than the surrounding land and soil can't move uphill. And it wasn't just the outer slopes, it was the inner as well. It's all a bit of a puzzle to me.

 

Yes, different rates. As you say, the soil must have come from higher the slope. As I have said, I have never worked at Easter Island so I am not familiar with what they observed during excavation. Like I say, if you want the definitive answer, you'll have to get hold of the excavation reports and the environmental analysis.

 

I know stone henge wasn't buried on purpose, that wasn't the point. The point I'm saying is the human development narrative never had us having the abilities the builders of Gobleki Tepi had that far back. It's only because the right materials were present in the debris pile and we could radio carbon date them we get the dates for it. If those materials weren't present, I don't think any archeologist would have dated them to their actual build date. They would have fit it into a narrative that says this type of activity came much later, ie 7000ish BC when you have got evidence for other ones being built.

 

Maybe not, but that's why we developed C14 and other scientific dating methods. Having said, that there are other methods of dating, using artefact typologies and stratigraphic analysis.

 

I completely agree about artefact typologies. It's one of the reasons I think a strand of knowledge passed down to early cultures from an earlier civilisation. You can identify similarities in stone works and quarrying and building techniques, some of which we would struggle to do today.

 

What the hell is it ? never heard of it before the newspapers and gov have blew this all out of proportion a cough etc i watched the andromeda strain a few weeks ago how ironic.