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.

 

Indonesian Pyramid Is 20,000 Years Old Claims Geologist

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
If anyone can translate Indonesian there is this story:

Link

A summary from the Wiki page on the complex where I found the news story, although I am not sure why any of the points would lead them to stop the excavation:

"On October 1, 2014, surveyors halted excavation activities temporarily due to these facts and recommendations:[6]

There is a large structure below the surface
A core zone site area has been confirmed
Many man-made artefacts have been discovered
The construction of the site spans four eras
A recommendation has been made to extent the survey, renovation concept, conservation and management of the site"

Really in need of an Indonesian speaker...

**edit** A google translation (take that for what its worth) seems to indicate the bullet points are the findings and that the excavation has been shut down by a new gov't that leans toward uber-conservation of national treasures.
edit on 10-10-2014 by slip2break because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Culcullen
Has there been further developments on this story? Looking at sites such as this and Gobekli Tepe, it seems quite clear that high civilisation existed well into (and possibly before) the last Ice Age, and the conventional thinking that humans only started to organise around 9600 BC is a huge error. What is of particular interest is the siting of the Pyramid, again we have an incredibly old built artifact orientated along astronomical and geodesic lines. Again it is in a part of the world which ostensibly had no contact with the other parts of the world in which these structures pop up. Again, for some baffling reason, the mainstream of archaeological thought chooses not to acknowledge the common threads between these sites all over the world.

I get the distinct feeling that what we are looking at with this and other similar sites is being distorted by our modern world lens. I'd be eager to hear any further news anyone has. Meanwhile, this provides some good background of the current scenario.



Howdy

First of all what do you mean by a 'High Civilization'?

People often oriented sites to astronomical sighting, mainly those that can aid in determining seasons which was important to know when figuring out what and when seasons were coming, and perhaps just for the 'magical' aspects of it.

Common threads? Please elaborate.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans,

When I say "High Civilization" I mean a large (in the hundreds of thousands) and cohesive society with a distinct knowledge of mathematics, cosmology, physics and medicine. To undertake such large scale building projects would indicate a stationary culture, ergo a culture making use of pastoral or arable farming techniques well in advance of the accepted chronology. Similarly, such a culture would also likely require some knowledge of medicine, as a thirty year lifespan wouldn't cut it for projects considered in the span of decades (unless the birthrate was abnormally high, which ironically would also necessitate some knowledge of neo natal medicine).

Context is really everything. When you say "people" we are talking about "people" who to all intents and purposes are still supposed to be hunter gatherers, whose only real technology was fire and stone tools. You mention the importance of astronomical markers in keeping time, a worthy observation. The observation of the summer and winter solstice, and similarly the autumn equinox, would be of prime importance to somebody who's food or water supply was seasonal (such as in the case of Nabta Playa indicating the Nile flood, or Stonehenge being a good heads up for when to plant crops on a highly arable plain). What raises legitimate questions is the large scale monuments (such as the one under discussion) exhibiting the same principles of siting as constructions on other continents and islands. It seems an awful lot of effort to expend for what is, essentially, a timepiece. Specifically, the location of these sites at intersecting ley lines, or "dragon lines" as the Chinese would call them, the orientation to main sequence stars, the ability to select a site away from fault lines, the list goes on. One must at least consider it odd, considering the context of the time period we are discussing, that primitive cultures ostensibly evolving independently from one another would select such similar principles in siting their constructions.

Similarly, it can be observed from site to site, that certain common engineering principles are at work. Specifically, monolithic architecture in the form of single cut stone blocks (sometimes in the hundreds of tonnes), an appreciation of ratio in overall site layout, a huge expenditure of effort in acquiring specific stone (such as the alabaster and obsidian of the Giza plateau). That's not to mention the remarkable skill and tools required to shape stone that will stand for thousands of years without mortar.

You make the point "maybe they did these things for the magical aspect of it", which is a valid assertion. There is no law that Human behaviour has to follow logic, the best that can be said is that it "usually" does, especially in cases where a very large effort has been expended in the creation of something. If at some point in the future this hill was found to be a pyramid that would be remarkable enough. If it was also found to be a pyramid dating into the last ice age that would be even more remarkable (and I don't mean RC dating, this would be a good opportunity to utilise OT dating methods, which I think would be far more reliable).

It is an interesting site, and I would be interested in hearing any further news of it.

edit on 10-10-2014 by Culcullen because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2014 by Culcullen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
After doing a cursory search on the subject on the webs, it is difficult to form any conclusions regarding this site. The Indonesian gov't has done themselves, and the rest of us, no favors by using the site in propaganda furthering Indonesian nationalism. As a result, it would seem that no serious researchers want to touch this with a ten foot poll. Heck, you can find more serious debate by established researchers on the Bosnian "Pyramid."

One thing I find rather telling about this site is the lack of inscriptions. This site has been known for around a hundred years and has been cleared of trees and brush since the 1980s, yet I can find no documentation on any inscriptions on any of the uncovered stone. This probably accounts for the lack of serious research into this matter, much more than the nationalistic flag waiving of the Indonesian government.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: weirdguy

Yes indeed.

We must remember, that any Human civilization referred to in the 10,000+ BC time frame, that lived in low lands or near the oceans, may have very well been covered by those oceans for 1000s of years. There may exist many many cities and structures, miles from current day shorelines, and buried in the silt.

Something called the Ice Age had major influence on ancient man and his life.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: pandersway
reply to post by weirdguy
 


Tks that's really interesting! I wonder if those 'stone logs' in those places could be dated to around the same time period as Padang, West Java?


Lava columns are pretty common and make a ready strong building material, sometimes they are quite far from the volcano that produced the lava. it seems like it could be dated.



It is always a dramatic encounter between fire and ice when a glacier-clad volcano erupts. Hot lava can flash melt portions of glacial ice triggering mudflows and causing devastation for miles. Or, if the lava is slow moving and the ice is massive, the ice can cool the lava, stopping it in its tracks. As the lava cools, it cracks into hexagonal columns that point toward the source of cooling.

www.nps.gov...



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: gort51

Indeed... look to the areas now flooded by the seas. Sundaland and ideas posed by Stephan Oppenheimer. The more my subconscious digests what I have read today on the subject, the lack of any inscriptions should lead anyone to conclude that this is a natural formation... albeit an oddity. Yes, people have probably moved the rocks about from time to time for the last 2000 years.... but to see more here is akin to archeological pareidolia.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Culcullen

Thanks for the expansive reply

I would say the site is still a question mark and the dating not compelling. Like so many other sites more work is needed to differentiate the man made from nature.

In your description of this high civ; where are you placing it on the time line?

If you are placing it very early you run into the problem of no sign of domestication and a focus on agriculture.

Ley lines while popular have no scientific validity.

Given also that many of the ancient sites were built thousands of years apart the idea that one high civ did them is hard to make germane to all. There are many thousands of years between GT, Catahuyuck, Giza, Sumer, Han, Maya and Tiwanaku.

...as you said and I agree we'll have to wait a bit on this one until the geology is sorted out.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune
Hi Hans,

Yes I think RC dating has had it's day when it comes to monuments. TL dating seems to offer more reliable results. More info here:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Regards where I place it in the timeline, I don't. In the absence of any evidence to indicate a timeline (it also being a composite site) I am merely waiting for more data. There are a lot of ifs. If it turns out to be one coherent monument, then as I said before (to me) it's likely the creation of a stationary population. How they feed themselves is besides the point. To be clear, I'm not on board with the one civ argument, I merely find it intriguing to consider there may have been threads of a common heritage at play. The fact that some of these sites are temporally displaced does nothing to resolve the fact that many of these people had no contact with one another (so far as we know). I don't mention ley lines as an assertion of their importance, to my knowledge there is no hard science backing up various claims, I merely mention it as a common theme of siting monuments, who knows, perhaps for those "magical" reasons you mentioned.

I agree with you that the site is still a question mark, some good info above about how the politics is playing. I shall watch with interest.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Culcullen

If the past is any clue it will be 10-15 years before we get a clear(er) picture of that site.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
This one is being rejected by archeologists. There is a megalithic site, but only on the top layer and not anything like 20,000 years old:

www.smh.com.au...



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: cachibatches
This one is being rejected by archeologists. There is a megalithic site, but only on the top layer and not anything like 20,000 years old:

www.smh.com.au...


Excuse me, how did you reach that conclusion?

Nowhere in this text does it say that archaeologists rejects the data presented. How could they, since no archaeologists are involved in the project?

Quote:

"They believe the excavation threatens the preservation of the existing site, and hint strongly that archaeologists, as opposed to geologists, should be involved."

They are criticizing the way this research project is conducted, that's all. I agree that archaeologists should be involved.

The article states that the data presented by Hilman is "loudly disputed", which is normal. All research should be peer reviewed, and Carl Sagan's famous credo "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" applies in this case. Anyone who has followed the academic twists and turns of the Homo Floresiensis knows what I'm talking about.

One archaeologists however, who do not dare to reveal his name, states:

''In the Pawon cave in Padalarang [about 45 kilometres from Gunung Padang], we found some human bones and tools made of bones about 9500 years ago, or about 7000 BCE. So, if at 7000 BCE our technology was only producing tools of bones, how can people from 20,000 BCE obtain the technology to build a pyramid?'' the archaeologist asks.

This guy apparently thinks that human development must be linear, and his preconceived opinion of what is possible or not before even having studied the data is unscientific. He would not have a place in my team.

As to the dates presented, perhaps we should study them before we reject them?
edit on 22-10-2014 by Heliocentric because: Over the wintry forest, winds howl in rage with no leaves to blow.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Catal Huduk is a thriving Civilization in 7500BC - yet evidence of Agricultural practises don't exist until much later in that sites Geological record.




From Wikipedia - "Civilization"
A surplus of food results in a division of labor and a more diverse range of human activity, a defining trait of civilizations. However, in some places hunter-gatherers have had access to food surpluses, such as among some of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest and perhaps during the Mesolithic Natufian culture. It is possible that food surpluses and relatively large scale social organization and division of labor predates plant and animal domestication.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Heliocentric

A petition signed in April by 34 Indonesian archaeologists and geologists...

One archaeologist, who does not wish to be named since the President took such an interest, says the presidential taskforce is deluding itself....

To be fare, this one is from a Vulcanologist, but that make sit no less damning...

Says Gunung Padang is simply the neck of a nearby volcano, not an ancient pyramid.

This is pretty much the same as your Bosnian Pyramid nonsense where totally unqualified people get a silly notion and run off half cocked.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join