It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Easter Island discovery: Experts unravel mystery of ancient statues

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
If there were numerous "upper class" families in the population, the statues could each represent one of those families marking THEIR fresh water source. In order to protect THEIR water reserve, a large very heavy stone is a lot harder for another family to stake a claim on it, where a smaller stick or pile of stones would not protect it.

Basically, they may have used these large stones to prevent claim jumpers (like during the California Gold Rush).

That would make more sense to me if that were the case.


Yes but there were 1000's of those statues on the island.




posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Krakatoa
If there were numerous "upper class" families in the population, the statues could each represent one of those families marking THEIR fresh water source. In order to protect THEIR water reserve, a large very heavy stone is a lot harder for another family to stake a claim on it, where a smaller stick or pile of stones would not protect it.

Basically, they may have used these large stones to prevent claim jumpers (like during the California Gold Rush).

That would make more sense to me if that were the case.


Yes but there were 1000's of those statues on the island.


And, as one water source dried up, that family would need to search for another. Then, mark it as well.

All pure speculation on my part to make sense of the theory discussed in the OP.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Krakatoa
If there were numerous "upper class" families in the population, the statues could each represent one of those families marking THEIR fresh water source. In order to protect THEIR water reserve, a large very heavy stone is a lot harder for another family to stake a claim on it, where a smaller stick or pile of stones would not protect it.

Basically, they may have used these large stones to prevent claim jumpers (like during the California Gold Rush).

That would make more sense to me if that were the case.


Yes but there were 1000's of those statues on the island.

Maybe a thousand.

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Easter Island is a very unusual place located in he middle of the ocean
and possessing so many megalithic statues that have hands depicted
on them on their fronts.

All of the similar examples of this style of depiction is found in Peru
and Bolivia proving a connection to the ancient stone builders that
apparently were active subsequent to the last ice-age.

If we could duplicate an example of a Serapeum-like box it would
not be cheap to fabricate.

Modern tall buildings evolved from brick to block to panels. Inside
it is a skeleton of beams and poles, nothing like the solid block
construction method used in pyramids.


edit on 12-10-2018 by ThatDidHappen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: schuyler
It's a small island now, but I believe it was part of an archipelago before the seas rose 300 feet after the last ice age melted. If that is true it puts those statues in a very different light.


But they didn't build the statues until 1200-1600 AD.


How did they prove that?


I don't know that they HAVE proved that.

However it's thought that they started carving them shortly after they started arriving on the island, around 1200 AD.

Why, do you have some inside knowledge that today's archaeologists have missed?


Maybe. Two points: They have also found Moai off the coast of the island underwater. Kind of strange, don't you think? How did they get there? Why are they there? Probably not to mark where there is fresh water, huh? Secondly, the statues are actually whole figures and are buried. When dug up they go all the way to the feet. So did they go to all the trouble to build these gargantuan statues only to "bury" them? Or did sediment over many thousand of years bury them naturally? It may be that the present day population did arrive at 1200AD, but it doesn't follow that they built the statues. Since they are made of stone (technically, "tuff," which is hardened volcanic ash) they cannot use C-14 for dating, so how did they do it? I'm thinking they did not and are just speculating, but I could be wrong.

We have the same basic problem with the pyramids. Archaeologists assure us they were built by the Egyptians about 3000BC. They insist the great pyramid is a tomb. There is no good evidence of either and the Egyptians themselves said they supplanted a previous great civilization. With a degree in anthropology/archaeology myself, I'm not as trusting of archaeological speculation as maybe some others are.


edit on 10/12/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   
since the first atombomb explosion are all C14 mesurements false due to gamma radiation that came free !

edit on 12-10-2018 by ressiv because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ressiv
since the first atombomb explosion are all C14 mesurements false due to gamma radiation that came free !


Not the least bit true and beside the point anyway. C14 only works on organic material. It can't be used on substances like stone. There are other dating techniques that can be used, but most are fairly expensive. The only issue with regard to these statues is whether anything other than speculation was used to date the moai.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: schuyler
It's a small island now, but I believe it was part of an archipelago before the seas rose 300 feet after the last ice age melted. If that is true it puts those statues in a very different light.


But they didn't build the statues until 1200-1600 AD.


How did they prove that?


I don't know that they HAVE proved that.

However it's thought that they started carving them shortly after they started arriving on the island, around 1200 AD.

Why, do you have some inside knowledge that today's archaeologists have missed?


Maybe. Two points: They have also found Moai off the coast of the island underwater. Kind of strange, don't you think? How did they get there? Why are they there? Probably not to mark where there is fresh water, huh?

That is absolutely correct. The underwater moai is a metal and fiberglass movie prop left over from Kevin Costner's "Waterworld." link


originally posted by: schuylerSecondly, the statues are actually whole figures and are buried. When dug up they go all the way to the feet. So did they go to all the trouble to build these gargantuan statues only to "bury" them? Or did sediment over many thousand of years bury them naturally? It may be that the present day population did arrive at 1200AD, but it doesn't follow that they built the statues. Since they are made of stone (technically, "tuff," which is hardened volcanic ash) they cannot use C-14 for dating, so how did they do it? I'm thinking they did not and are just speculating, but I could be wrong.

Radiocarbon dating. link


originally posted by: schuylerWe have the same basic problem with the pyramids. Archaeologists assure us they were built by the Egyptians about 3000BC. They insist the great pyramid is a tomb. There is no good evidence of either and the Egyptians themselves said they supplanted a previous great civilization. With a degree in anthropology/archaeology myself, I'm not as trusting of archaeological speculation as maybe some others are.

Radiocarbon dating: link

Also, atom bomb explosions can only influence FUTURE C14 dating, and we have kept the standard at measurements taken in 1950 to prevent this problem.

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: schuyler
It's a small island now, but I believe it was part of an archipelago before the seas rose 300 feet after the last ice age melted. If that is true it puts those statues in a very different light.


But they didn't build the statues until 1200-1600 AD.


How did they prove that?


I don't know that they HAVE proved that.

However it's thought that they started carving them shortly after they started arriving on the island, around 1200 AD.

Why, do you have some inside knowledge that today's archaeologists have missed?


Maybe. Two points: They have also found Moai off the coast of the island underwater. Kind of strange, don't you think? How did they get there? Why are they there? Probably not to mark where there is fresh water, huh?


Radiocarbon dating. link


Really? From your link.

Most of the dates therefore are not dates for the erection of the statues but dates for the decline of the tree pollen in the bogs.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Why do the statues have beards?



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: schuyler
It's a small island now, but I believe it was part of an archipelago before the seas rose 300 feet after the last ice age melted. If that is true it puts those statues in a very different light.


But they didn't build the statues until 1200-1600 AD.


How did they prove that?


I don't know that they HAVE proved that.

However it's thought that they started carving them shortly after they started arriving on the island, around 1200 AD.

Why, do you have some inside knowledge that today's archaeologists have missed?


Maybe. Two points: They have also found Moai off the coast of the island underwater. Kind of strange, don't you think? How did they get there? Why are they there? Probably not to mark where there is fresh water, huh?


Radiocarbon dating. link


Really? From your link.

Most of the dates therefore are not dates for the erection of the statues but dates for the decline of the tree pollen in the bogs.

And?

It's well know (through eyewitness accounts) that the island was stripped of i's forest. It's the forest that produces the pollen.
If you read further, they are currently working on correcting anomalous dates and this indicates an even LATER age for when the trees began declining.

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Why do the statues have beards?

Only one has a beard.

Harte
edit on 10/12/2018 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
If there were numerous "upper class" families in the population, the statues could each represent one of those families marking THEIR fresh water source. In order to protect THEIR water reserve, a large very heavy stone is a lot harder for another family to stake a claim on it, where a smaller stick or pile of stones would not protect it.

Basically, they may have used these large stones to prevent claim jumpers (like during the California Gold Rush).

That would make more sense to me if that were the case.

My bet is this. Modern people are incredibly short-sighted and never think of old-fashioned resource competition as being something to consider worrisome. We fall into two schools of thought globally regarding ancient peoples & resources -- they were either way smarter than we are, or much more knuckle-dragger simplistic. In reality, I doubt they were much different than we are now regarding resources. If we'd clearly mark something as belonging to solely one person/group now (come on, who needs So-and-So Family or Company Farm/Ranch/Mine/etc signs, hmm?) then why wouldn't folks in the past clearly mark their stuff? Statues might seem like overkill today, but remember, in 2 thousand years, decorating the entry of a property to reflect who owns it might also be considered overkill. Who'd need that when you can just look at property records on your pocket device.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Howdy Harte and associates

Some comments on the earlier posts. Most of the Moai aren't buried just the ones around the quarry where once all the trees died or were cut down the soil there eroded down and partially buried the Moai. Those not around Rano Raraku were not buried.

They are not fully formed the people were far artists but they never got to a Greek level of skill plus tuff is not the best medium for detailed work especially using stone pounders.

Dating is problematic but from what we have we can see an arrival and then a decline of trees. We can definitely rule out some ancient lost civilization having been there. Just Polynesians who showed up.
The Moai were to create magic and power. Like human everywhere they do crazy things - like Italian's building towers in certain towers, lots of people building tombs and pyramids, lines of rocks you name people do stuff like that - it’s one of our defining characteristics doing eccentric things especially for religious reasons.

One of my favorite subjects. I went on an archaeology dig there while in college (73) and went back again as a tourist in 2002.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Every Island in the oceans are just mountain tops. Turn the clock back several thousand years, when the oceans were much much lower, back in time. Say during the last of the ice age. The base would be exposed. I'm willing to bet there are more things to discover off the coast of not just Easter Island now submerged by tide and time but all around the globe...




The oceans weren't that much lower.

Easter Island is volcanic in origin.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: KansasGirl

Yep. Agreed. Totally stupid explanation if you ask me.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Because They didn't have any BIC Razors?

Sorry, I had to. (The little childish voice in my head made me type it)



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I wonder if the Moai were used as a sort of "tree fertility" type god?

As tree's became fewer on the island, they "planted" stone tree goods in order to promote growth? Would explain the buried half and "planting" type techniques perhaps?



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I always believed they were done by the population to represent the major family elders.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tanga36
a reply to: CaptainBeno

This doesn't explain why all but seven of the Moai face inland. Alternatively, it fails to explain why only those seven face towards the sea. If they were only for marking locations of groundwater, there would be no need to have them all facing towards the center of the island.

It's an interesting theory but I'm with you, I'm not buying it. Why carve massive statues to mark where to get water when they could've just placed an uncarved and much smaller rock there to denote where to get a drink?


If they didn't face inland, then people looking at them from inland wouldn't be able to see their face.



originally posted by: Krakatoa
If there were numerous "upper class" families in the population, the statues could each represent one of those families marking THEIR fresh water source. In order to protect THEIR water reserve, a large very heavy stone is a lot harder for another family to stake a claim on it, where a smaller stick or pile of stones would not protect it.

Basically, they may have used these large stones to prevent claim jumpers (like during the California Gold Rush).

That would make more sense to me if that were the case.


That makes the most sense of any explanation I've seen so far. Family markers built of something permanent, so any future family wishing to make a claim would look stupid for claiming a water hole that has some other family's statue over it.

And that would explain why during their decline, they had started destroying them.






originally posted by: Harte


Radiocarbon dating. link



Harte



from the article in your link:

"But one of the advantages of pollen analysis is that the bog itself is formed of vegetable matter, which is basically carbon and can therefore be dated, as some of the carbon would originally been radioactive carbon 14, the gradual decay of which provides the basis for radio carbon dating. Most of the dates therefore are not dates for the erection of the statues but dates for the decline of the tree pollen in the bogs. The dates for the decline of tree pollen, and therefore the first settlement, began around AD 900, or possibly a couple of centuries earlier. The erection of statues was in full swing by AD 1200 and the collapse came around AD 1500."

In other words, they're dating the arrival of the people who were living there when Captain Cook arrived. The statues could have been built much, much longer ago by a whole different civilization that died out or left, and either never cut down the trees to begin with, or was gone such a long time that the trees grew back.

And actually... come to think of it, they're not necessarily dating the arrival of the people either. Just the beginning of deforestation. The people might have been smart enough not to cut down all the forests for a long time before that.




edit on 14-10-2018 by bloodymarvelous because: added bold to the quote, so it's easy to see what part I'm referring to

edit on 14-10-2018 by bloodymarvelous because: added underlining too, just to make it more visible. Otherwise it would be along quote to read through




top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join