10,000 Year Old Concrete in Polynesia

Anyone have any theories on this one?

popular-archaeology.com...

Cliffs: On The Isle Of Pines in New Caledonia, East of Australia, mounds were noticed but not excavated until 1959. The current native culture has no memory of what they are. Archeologists found that inside the mounds was a large block of high grade concrete with a hole through the center from top to bottom like it held a post of some kind. Below the post hole under the block is an iron object that basically look like a large toy top with the point end down. There are also a lot of iron nodules added through out the structure theoretically for support. There is a large iron deposit there with nodules scattered on the surface. Dating is pretty conclusive that it's 10k years old and man made but scientist aren't aware of what peoples would have been there or what these mounds are for. There are several hundred mounds but they seem to be pretty random in distribution. Several have been excavated or fell apart during road construction and they all seem to have the concrete core etc. They are not burial mounds as they contain no burial objects and there are other mounds on the island that are in fact burial and don't have the same construction/contents. Overall there seems to be pretty limited study on these mounds. It's a semi-remote location and scientist long preferred to dismiss it as somehow natural/made by birds lol. The usual.

There was a terrible theory that went for a long time they were actually birds nests and the concrete was dung but this is just preposterous and has been dismissed.

It really isn't a stretch that people could have been there that long ago. They were in Australia over 40kya so they could have made their way to islands in Polynesia especially when sea levels were lower.

It would make sense they are post supports for stilt houses but they are so random and there doesn't seem to be any other evidence of past culture. Unless concrete was their big invention and everything else was wood and deteriorated.

I'd love to imagine a giant city on stilts but it's a reach lol.

a reply to: FishBait

This is one reason why history needs to be written down, and not just passed verbally from generation to generation.

a reply to: FishBait

So metal reinforced or at least containing concrete construction that may be ten or more thousand years old, interesting stuff, oopart?.

Need's more research but this if true adds to the growing wealth of evidence demanding a rewrite of our prehistory and overthrowing long held and biased preconceptions of human history.

Just as Rekrul pointed out but if proven then like the suppressed evidence if the Indonesian pyramid this is vitally important to get out before it gets suppressed.

Makes you wonder what they would find from us if society went back to the stone age and evolved back to a close level of where we're at now in 10 to 20,000 years. Probably just concrete foundations and remains of roads.

a reply to: ntech

They have pushed modern human's back over three hundred thousand years now, so given we can do this in just a couple of century's from stone to metal to electronics what could have been in all of that time, how many races of man have vanished and how many of them approached or even equalled us?.

a reply to: LABTECH767

how many races of man have vanished and how many of them approached or even equalled us?.

Or dare I say, even surpassed us.

It would explain a few things.

The number of them would indicate that they had some use. They are bigger than I expected too.

originally posted by: Rekrul
a reply to: FishBait

This is one reason why history needs to be written down, and not just passed verbally from generation to generation.

Meanwhile, BLM/ANTIFA and the likes are book burning/tearing down statues because they are apparently so "offended" by history (dumbasses)

The romans seemed to have really hit on a great concrete recipe 2000 years ago. It wouldn’t surprise me if some similar but not as efficient concrete recipe had been used for thousands of years prior.

Also, carbon dating is often garbage tool that is way far from providing any sense of real accuracy.

Perhaps these are giant cauldrons used to smelt elements into iron-ore or even iron-age weapons and tools for use in other areas? These people could have been using the concrete structures as either a furnace or type of smelting operation?

Interesting find!

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
The romans seemed to have really hit on a great concrete recipe 2000 years ago. It wouldn’t surprise me if some similar but not as efficient concrete recipe had been used for thousands of years prior.

Also, carbon dating is often garbage tool that is way far from providing any sense of real accuracy.

You cannot carbon date concrete or iron. The Carbon dating was of snail shells embedded in the concrete.

The idea is that living things metabolize Carbon, a portion of which is Carbon-14. When the living things die, the Carbon-14 stays in their remains and the Carbon-14 decays by radiation. It decays at a known fixed rate and by measuring the abundances of the remaining Carbon-14 relative to the other Carbon, it can be established how long it was since the organism was living and taking in Carbon.

Carbon dating is accurate in theory, but there are several circumstances where substantial error can occur.

originally posted by: havok
Perhaps these are giant cauldrons used to smelt elements into iron-ore or even iron-age weapons and tools for use in other areas? These people could have been using the concrete structures as either a furnace or type of smelting operation?

Interesting find!

Smelting ores would leave behind other evidences.

The proposed theory is that these were where upright wooden poles were set in concrete. It is not clear that the iron under the mounds is a melted together lump, it could be an aggregate of high iron content particles.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: havok
Perhaps these are giant cauldrons used to smelt elements into iron-ore or even iron-age weapons and tools for use in other areas? These people could have been using the concrete structures as either a furnace or type of smelting operation?

Interesting find!

Smelting ores would leave behind other evidences.

The proposed theory is that these were where upright wooden poles were set in concrete. It is not clear that the iron under the mounds is a melted together lump, it could be an aggregate of high iron content particles.

That was a very interesting part... what they didn't find. They didn't find any charcoal. One would expect at least some from cooking fires if they were doing all that construction of 400 of these things.

Fascinating. .thanks.

The concrete is odd enough when the standard timeline of history is considered... the iron masses below them raise far more questions (supposedly coming from a stone age).

I've been almost completely convinced of a previous relatively advanced human civilization (or several) from various "anomalies" ... despite some instruction in physical anthropology and history.

The evidence is slowly accumulating.

a reply to: FishBait

I have brought up the subject of ancient Geopolymers many times here, a mountain of evidence is supporting this theory like the presence of 30-60nm silica nanospheres in the blocks of the Giza pyramids and how they are not found in the surrounding rocks.

a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

Very true, the Roman's had some fantastic concrete, they had not yet learned to use metal rebars but it was so strong that much of it is still standing today and forms the core of many still standing Roman building's, it also set underwater and was ideal for so many purposes but was a lost art for a very long time until we finally figured out there secret - volcanic pumice which was added to there concrete.

You know today we have a problem, we are burying toxic substances that will remain toxic or radioactive or even biohazardous for in some cased many millions of years, we struggle to figure out a way to do this properly and to leave a warning so that if our own civilization vanishes future people will be able to understand the universal warning sign we place upon it.

www.bbc.com...

You know there are mysteries, they try to explain the perfect nuclear reactor that is billions of years old as a natural formation, maybe they are right there theory is interesting but a self regulating nuclear reaction happening by accident?.
www.iaea.org...

The world is full of mysteries, would we even be able to identify a two billion year old nuclear reactor and distinguish it from a natural one?, after all we may ourselves entomb it in stone and bury it only for some distant being to dig it up looking for materials only to find they had already been used and be bewildered at his find before after much head scratching someone say's it was all done by water?.

a reply to: chr0naut

I was talking of carbon dating under the concrete, as one would to try and find organic matter to do so 🤙

New Caledonia is not part of Polynesia.

originally posted by: Phage
New Caledonia is not part of Polynesia.

I know it was just the quick way to describe it's location as I'd never heard of it and I assume many haven't. I was just as amazed the French still had an island over there on top of what was there lol. Should have mentioned that in OP. Thanks!

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: FishBait

So metal reinforced or at least containing concrete construction that may be ten or more thousand years old, interesting stuff, oopart?.

Need's more research but this if true adds to the growing wealth of evidence demanding a rewrite of our prehistory and overthrowing long held and biased preconceptions of human history.

Just as Rekrul pointed out but if proven then like the suppressed evidence if the Indonesian pyramid this is vitally important to get out before it gets suppressed.

Yea, it cracks me up they tried to write it off as birds nest for so long just to ignore it. And they call us pseudo scientists!