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: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:43 PM
link   


...30-60nm silica nanospheres in the blocks of the Giza pyramids and how they are not found in the surrounding rocks.
a reply to: solve

What does that find imply?




posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The Aroi Sun Kingdom was mentioned in passing in the article linked by the OP. Does it ring any bells with any of you?

Does this make any sense?

Aroi Sun Kingdom of the Pacific
To say that many people are not familiar Aroi. I mention this Easter Island certify that you are certainly familiar. Because until now there is no one to answer that. Famous Moai statues on the island have come to the kingdom Aroi never actually mentioned it in the universal history. There is evidence that the metaphysical. The lack of artifacts or remains are to identify the kingdom such a legend, widely used in the islands of the Pacific Ocean only name that realm smooth fall down around 24,000 years ago as the successor of Muhammad not disrupted. are settled all over the world. The point is that the islands in this area. Welcome, this is the story of the kingdom traditionally recount in race User Polynesia, Micronesia Malaga, Valencia and Micronic. Especially the older people of Polynesian anthropology that provides information to the ancient kingdom. Which ruled the region for thousands of years before any Europeans arrived. That is not my position. The survey has also found the pyramid, a number of small islands. Some islands are oddly shaped temple is located. Some of the evidence and found that age with Carbon 14 dating back to last six to seven years. The technique used to create it is known that the Incas did not feel the same. One thing that is notable. These ancient inhabitants of the island to the large popularity of the island to the beach on one side. Then the huge statue by the roadside, or coastal areas. When drilling a little deeper. Archaeologists found. Polynesian people of New Zealand, Easter Island, Hawaii and Tahiti are the myths about human bird that can fly to the sky during one island to another island.
เขียนโดย Watcharaphol ที่ 05:41 ส่งอีเมลข้อมูลนี้BlogThis!แชร์ไปที่ Twitterแชร์ไปที่ Facebookแชร์ใน Pinterest
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:

โพสต์ความคิดเห็น

บทความใหม่กว่า หน้าแรก
สมัครสมาชิก: ส่งความคิดเห็น (Atom)
ค้นหาบล็อกนี้

คลังบทความของบล็อก

from: noomnoi-civilizations.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FishBait

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.


People didn't always live by the coastline. That is an idea popularized by Hancock unfortunately he lacks evidence to support it. If people lived by the sea coast then they would have known about rogue waves, tides and storms which caused the water to rise. They wouldn't have been stupid enough to build cities at '0' elevation. Cities built on the edge of the sea are usually raised up but you can find some in Asia and elsewhere where they are right in the sea but usually sheltered. So the people in such cities would have just moved back and rebuilt - but oddly they didn't.

The ancient civilizations we know about were built along rivers not exclusively on the coast.

sites.google.com... th=290

upload.wikimedia.org...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

upload.wikimedia.org...

Etc.

Now the Sumerians, Egyptians, Xia and Norte Chico did have a city on the coast but the bulk was well inland.

Hancock was imply wrong.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: new_here




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

Impressions in clay.


Total side story but I worked at a pottery a long time ago and a local guy used to re-make these as accurate re-creations of known tablets and would bring them in every so often for us to fire them for him. They were super cool!



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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


Oh yea, I forgot about the hobbit people. They keep finding random human strains all over so hard to keep up.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Are you familiar with this "concrete" stuff at all?



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: FishBait
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.


Howdy Fishbait

Thanks I'd forgotten about this place which is mentioned in early 60's material - oh for those who think it is being suppressed. If THEY are doing it they are really sucking at it as it is well known - ie several reports on it. I think you guys forget just how many sites in the world there are. about 1/100th of 1% (and I grossly over estimate) of the sites on earth have been excavated fully. I was part of a survey of Eastern (Greek side) Cyprus and we estimated that it would take 400 years to completely excavate and record every known site (about 2,500 km2) - about a 1000 square miles.

It took the DAI over a century to excavate and report on Baalbek and Giza is still being excavated after over two hundred years. It will take 80-90 years to complete Gobekli Tepe and yep they are still working on Stonehenge too!

It needs a comprehensive full island survey unfortunately that type of long term archaeological study costs hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars and might take over a decade or more to do. So far the desire by the French or anyone else to so has been lacking.

I suggest the Fringe step up and fund the research.

Edited to add: I remembered an interested detail about that area unlike many areas in the world this particular part has been uplifted due to tectonic plate and volcanic activity. Yep going up but I don't recall the rate and more importantly WHEN.
edit on 26/8/20 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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?


You would think they would make block buildings but that's where I wonder if we were just so different with a different outlook and didn't even care about long term structures just surviving and continued exploration. You could probably re-build wood huts multiple times over with the time and energy it took to make artificial stone ones, especially if it meant mining etc. While there is plenty of ancient cites/communities going back to a long way it seems we didn't get into major construction until we settled down and moved toward agriculture with large community workforces. 10kya we probably were more smaller bands of tribes and maybe kept it simple and practical.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: FishBait

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.


People didn't always live by the coastline. That is an idea popularized by Hancock unfortunately he lacks evidence to support it. If people lived by the sea coast then they would have known about rogue waves, tides and storms which caused the water to rise. They wouldn't have been stupid enough to build cities at '0' elevation. Cities built on the edge of the sea are usually raised up but you can find some in Asia and elsewhere where they are right in the sea but usually sheltered. So the people in such cities would have just moved back and rebuilt - but oddly they didn't.

The ancient civilizations we know about were built along rivers not exclusively on the coast.

sites.google.com... th=290

upload.wikimedia.org...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

upload.wikimedia.org...

Etc.

Now the Sumerians, Egyptians, Xia and Norte Chico did have a city on the coast but the bulk was well inland.

Hancock was imply wrong.





Yea, I get all that I was talking specifically about fire and if it's a nice climate maybe it's only used to cook dinner by the beach after you catch some fish but not a regular thing in every structure that you find evidence of 10k years later. Just a thought. Most likely the island just hasn't been excavated that much. I get it we lived every where.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: FishBait
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.


Howdy Fishbait

Thanks I'd forgotten about this place which is mentioned in early 60's material - oh for those who think it is being suppressed. If THEY are doing it they are really sucking at it as it is well known - ie several reports on it. I think you guys forget just how many sites in the world there are. about 1/100th of 1% (and I grossly over estimate) of the sites on earth have been excavated fully. I was part of a survey of Eastern (Greek side) Cyprus and we estimated that it would take 400 years to completely excavate and record every known site (about 2,500 km2) - about a 1000 square miles.

It took the DAI over a century to excavate and report on Baalbek and Giza is still being excavated after over two hundred years. It will take 80-90 years to complete Gobekli Tepe and yep they are still working on Stonehenge too!

It needs a comprehensive full island survey unfortunately that type of long term archaeological study costs hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars and might take over a decade or more to do. So far the desire by the French or anyone else to so has been lacking.

I suggest the Fringe step up and fund the research.


I agree, the biggest hold up is funding. We just haven't looked that far at all in the grand scheme of things which is why it's easy to get fringe and not believe the main stream when they try to act like they 100% know. Like you are saying science is constantly being disproven and having to re-set. The fact that they still find stuff at Stonehenge of all places says it all!



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FishBait

You would think they would make block buildings but that's where I wonder if we were just so different with a different outlook and didn't even care about long term structures just surviving and continued exploration.


According to the authors, quite a lot of work went into these "structures."

But mortar can hold raw stones together, no "blocks" necessary.



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



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: FishBait

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.


People didn't always live by the coastline. That is an idea popularized by Hancock unfortunately he lacks evidence to support it. If people lived by the sea coast then they would have known about rogue waves, tides and storms which caused the water to rise. They wouldn't have been stupid enough to build cities at '0' elevation. Cities built on the edge of the sea are usually raised up but you can find some in Asia and elsewhere where they are right in the sea but usually sheltered. So the people in such cities would have just moved back and rebuilt - but oddly they didn't.

The ancient civilizations we know about were built along rivers not exclusively on the coast.

sites.google.com... th=290

upload.wikimedia.org...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

upload.wikimedia.org...

Etc.

Now the Sumerians, Egyptians, Xia and Norte Chico did have a city on the coast but the bulk was well inland.

Hancock was imply wrong.





Yea, I get all that I was talking specifically about fire and if it's a nice climate maybe it's only used to cook dinner by the beach after you catch some fish but not a regular thing in every structure that you find evidence of 10k years later. Just a thought. Most likely the island just hasn't been excavated that much. I get it we lived every where.


From my note above, yes the Isle of Pine has been moving around a bit. horizon.documentation.ird.fr...

This covers that aspect. So it possible that geologically the area with odd structure were once part of a reef. Will have to read the paper in detail later.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FishBait

You would think they would make block buildings but that's where I wonder if we were just so different with a different outlook and didn't even care about long term structures just surviving and continued exploration.


According to the authors, quite a lot of work went into these "structures."

But mortar can hold raw stones together, no "blocks" necessary.




Hey Phage read this paper I found. See what you make of the idea of uplift and the land being geologically a recent coral reef. horizon.documentation.ird.fr...

I scanned it and my thing is Archaeology not Geology. Since you are the smart Kanaka in everything else!!



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Dead link.
Dammit, sounds good. As we speak I can gaze at an offshore island (Kapapa) which is the remnant of a coral reef. A result of sea level subsidence.

Spent a number of overnighters out there as a teenager. Much safer than driving around Honolulu.

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



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Seem like something that's been exaggerated by the fringe that doesn't have a lot of proof other than the fact that the pacific islanders were more advanced than given credit for. Hard to say if they were really one huge community in the distant past. Probably not something we can ever really know. It also brings up Nan Madol which is much later than OP but still fascinating that megalithic architecture was happening on an island in the pacific in 1200 AD.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: FishBait

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.


People didn't always live by the coastline. That is an idea popularized by Hancock unfortunately he lacks evidence to support it. If people lived by the sea coast then they would have known about rogue waves, tides and storms which caused the water to rise. They wouldn't have been stupid enough to build cities at '0' elevation. Cities built on the edge of the sea are usually raised up but you can find some in Asia and elsewhere where they are right in the sea but usually sheltered. So the people in such cities would have just moved back and rebuilt - but oddly they didn't.

The ancient civilizations we know about were built along rivers not exclusively on the coast.

sites.google.com... th=290

upload.wikimedia.org...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

upload.wikimedia.org...

Etc.

Now the Sumerians, Egyptians, Xia and Norte Chico did have a city on the coast but the bulk was well inland.

Hancock was imply wrong.





Yea, I get all that I was talking specifically about fire and if it's a nice climate maybe it's only used to cook dinner by the beach after you catch some fish but not a regular thing in every structure that you find evidence of 10k years later. Just a thought. Most likely the island just hasn't been excavated that much. I get it we lived every where.


From my note above, yes the Isle of Pine has been moving around a bit. horizon.documentation.ird.fr...

This covers that aspect. So it possible that geologically the area with odd structure were once part of a reef. Will have to read the paper in detail later.


Wow cool! Thanks!



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: new_here



...30-60nm silica nanospheres in the blocks of the Giza pyramids and how they are not found in the surrounding rocks.
a reply to: solve

What does that find imply?



It implies that alchemy/chemistry is a far older science than we have thought, and that means advanced civilizations.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: FishBait

That's weird. The link in your quote works but the one in the post you replied to does not.

The sample from Pine Island dates to 118,000 years ago but that date is considered unreliable.

The age of the coral from the Isle of Pines is unreliable because it has been recrystallized by as much as 30%, and it was the only sample dated from this site


I wonder what recrystallization of coral might entail.
edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: FishBait

Our modern concrete, while being hard is inferior when it comes to lime concrete/plaster durability.
They are analysing thousands of years old structures that are still functional and removing cement-based repairs on historic buildings, replacing it with lime plaster.
The main advantage is more plasticity and water permeability. The underlying structure does breathe. I'd expect it to crack when freezed wet but it's obviously not an issue.
It's mostly just Calcium hydroxide and sand. Sometimes ash and other stuff when quick lime is used to set in wet conditions. The exact methods were lost and are coming back.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 05:12 AM
link   

The Isle of Pines southeast of New Caledonia is an almost completely peneplained lateritized peridotite massif, surrounded by uplifted flat reefs down to sea-level. A sample of coral, picked up in the oldest part of the reef aiid measured by the Io/U method was 118,000 5 8,000 years B.P. old (radio- metric age measured by M. Bernat, I.P.G. Laboratory Paris, in Launay and Recy, 1972). The average uplift computed for the top of the flat reef appears very slow at 1-2.lO-4m/y if we accept (for the age of this reef) a sea-level close to the present one or somewhat higher (Veeh and Chappel, 1970).


core.ac.uk...

See also, this geological map of the island

I would need to see the exact location of these concretions (not concrete). But my money is on either entirely natural or, possibly, connected with early agriculture (see, for example this paper)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join