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.

 

10,000 Year Old Concrete in Polynesia

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
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.





I definitely think ancient man is drastically underestimated. I'm sure they surpassed us in some areas. And the concrete isn't even that much of a stretch. They would have constantly been working on different combos to make mud bricks etc and would have stumbled on the concrete fairly easily if they had the right materials. We were at it for several hundred thousand years for pete sakes!




posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FishBait

It is odd that this coral based concrete does not seem to be found anywhere else while the Melanesian culture was fairly widespread.

A very useful technology not used for any other purpose than these bumps.


edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
The number of them would indicate that they had some use. They are bigger than I expected too.


Apparently the locals claimed they were used for "torture" but they also claimed they really had no idea what they were and what was in the mound prior to excavation so that could have just been some local legend from a tribe that arrived later.

You wouldn't need the concrete just to hold a pole you tied someone too. Though the Game of Thrones imagery of people tied to poles all over this island is chilling!



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:37 PM
link   

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.


Yea, it seems like maybe they only uncovered the one metal "top" back in 1959 and haven't really examined that far down since. I get the impression there hasn't been proper time or funding to really get one of these fully apart and keep going down.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:44 PM
link   

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


New Caledonia is part of the north of the mostly submerged continent of Zealandia but it is a colony of France. It is classified as Melanesian.

New Caledonia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Zealandia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FishBait

It is odd that this coral based concrete does not seem to be found anywhere else while the Melanesian culture was fairly widespread.

A very useful technology not used for any other purpose than these bumps.



You can't help but wonder if there is more but it's buried and nobody is looking. It would be crazy to find out these were used for stilt houses across the Pacific islands to protect against tsunami or possibly as they noticed the seas were rising. The randomness makes that a hard one unless they essentially build a stilt "shanty" town (no offense meant) that they just keep adding to as time allows and more people arrive. It's not totally unbelievable if we think we maybe lived a different way and didn't care about a structured city, just community.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FishBait

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.


Yea, it seems like maybe they only uncovered the one metal "top" back in 1959 and haven't really examined that far down since. I get the impression there hasn't been proper time or funding to really get one of these fully apart and keep going down.


Perhaps when they dug down, the lower parts of the hole filled with water, so they back-filled with iron ore for drainage. They then set the pole and poured the mix that concreted it in place permanently?

This could be the case if the 'concrete' mix took an inordinately long time to set when wet.

edit on 26/8/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: FishBait

It would also be useful as mortar, not only cast footings.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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


New Caledonia is part of the north of the mostly submerged continent of Zealandia but it is a colony of France. It is classified as Melanesian.


Zealandia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thanks! I'd been trying to find more info on the ancient history of that "land mass". Had not heard of Zealandia!



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

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.


We don't know the culture of the builders. Perhaps they ate raw seafoods and plants and despite their tech of 'coral concrete', they didn't have fire?



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




they didn't have fire?

That's a large pill to swallow in regard to any culture 10,000 years ago.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut




they didn't have fire?

That's a large pill to swallow in regard to any culture 10,000 years ago.


Well, it definitely occurred at some stage (or stages) in our human past.

Also, perhaps they weren't even Homo Erectus?

edit on 26/8/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: butcherguy

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.


We don't know the culture of the builders. Perhaps they ate raw seafoods and plants and despite their tech of 'coral concrete', they didn't have fire?



It seems like there has been very little detailed study of this area. I'm not sure how much extensive archeological digging they have done over all. Plus, around that time the island should have been bigger before seas rose and so a lot of evidence is probably under water. I would think a fire on the beach cooking fish was just as fun back then!

I feel this is a big reason our ancient history is kind of wrapped up by main stream historians with "yea, people just wandered around like man-apes for a few hundred thousand year...then we built the pyramids and invented democracy so thank god those days are over!" lol. So much of the real evidence is likely under water as people have always lived on coast lines and they have shrunk considerably over history. And we would have used a lot of natural materials that would disintegrate over time if they hadn't already been recycled by subsequent communities. We've constantly built on top of ourselves and re-used existing material.

Also, given all the stories/evidence of a great flood and the more recent Youngar Dryas impact/destructions theories it's very possible civilization got a giant re-set somewhere around 10kya and people were just struggling to survive let alone worry about keeping all the history and tech intact.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Also, perhaps they weren't even Homo Erectus?

Only 10,000 years ago? Is there some reason to think they were very different from contemporaneous inhabitants in the region?

Not Homo Sapiens but they knew how to make concrete?

You're going from a horse pill to one for an elephant.

edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:30 PM
link   

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.


Or chiseled in stone more like. The Sumerians had the right idea with their Cuneiform tablets. Maybe they got tired of not being able to discern the history of THEIR ancient peoples and decided to make it easier on us. Then mankind got complacent again and started using pen & ink again, lol.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut




they didn't have fire?

That's a large pill to swallow in regard to any culture 10,000 years ago.


Well, it definitely occurred at some stage (or stages) in our human past.

Also, perhaps they weren't even Homo Erectus?


I'm confused. Homo Erectus was gone by 100kya. By 10kya it was only modern humans unless there were a couple Denisovan stragglers. That would be a major find if this area held the last Denisovan! Also, it's highly unlikely they didn't have fire, pretty sure the most recent fire find was over 1mill years ago. It's speculated some uncontacted tribes in current existence don't have fire so who knows. Maybe they knew but it wasn't worth the hassle when the weather is always nice and you like sushi!



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: new_here

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.


Or chiseled in stone more like. The Sumerians had the right idea with their Cuneiform tablets. Maybe they got tired of not being able to discern the history of THEIR ancient peoples and decided to make it easier on us. Then mankind got complacent again and started using pen & ink again, lol.


Lol, it's funny how we went from nothing, to something that will last thousands of years, then to something that may not make it to next week. Once it's all digital one misplaced magnet and we lose it all!



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: new_here




Or chiseled in stone more like. The Sumerians had the right idea with their Cuneiform tablets.

Impressions in clay.

edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut




Also, perhaps they weren't even Homo Erectus?

Only 10,000 years ago? Is there some reason to think they were very different from contemporaneous inhabitants in the region?

Not Homo Sapiens but they knew how to make concrete?

You're going from a horse pill to one for an elephant.


Homo floresiensis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


... not that far away in time or distance and perhaps they migrated previously over a land bridge through the Indonesian Archipelago and through Papua, exposed during a late ice age?

There is no indication that Floresiensis had fire, either, but we do know they used stone tools, from the cave remains.



Mapping Mankind’s Trek – Ancient Coastlines and Land Bridges

edit on 26/8/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So, not Homo Erectus, certainly.

Your source:

The Homo floresiensis skeletal material is now dated from 60,000 to 100,000 years ago; stone tools recovered alongside the skeletal remains were from archaeological horizons ranging from 50,000 to 190,000 years ago.[1]



10k seems quite recent compared to 50k.

But they had concrete and only used it to make footings for posts?
edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join