The mysterious Neolithic aerial geoglyphs of Kazakhstan

a reply to: Hyperia

I'm not entirely sure how to reply to that post. It seems to be all over the map. Respectfully, is English not your native language?

Slit throat, doesnt leave a blunt force impact..

Perhaps a bit of forensic training is in order here....Slitting someone's throat will indeed leave evidence on the bones.

In the villages we studied, the mounds weren't even begun until the village had been established for nearly a century. There were no mountains of corpses under any of the mounds except the mound used as a burial mound and prior to it becoming a burial mound, it was used as a residential site.

Perhaps you've bought into the myths a bit too heavily? We look for the scientific evidence of what happened. Science and technology cannot tell us the why of the evidence.

As an example of the what/why questions: In Mississippian villages, infant burials are found scattered throughout the village. Infants were rarely included in the formal burial mounds. This is the what. Of the 850 burials in the middle period of occupation of the site, only 5 infants are included. (Of the five, four were found in positions that suggest that the female died while pregnant.) Systematic excavation/examination can tell us what happened but it can't tell us why children weren't buried in same manner as adults. On that we can only speculate.

Did the people of the Mississippi Valley have kings? How do you show scientifically that a king ruled over a people who didn't write down their history? Certainly there are examples of some people who were held in higher regard in death than others. Were they kings? priests? astrologers? excellent hunters or farmers who produced food for community? To be sure, that dude buried at Cahokia Mounds with a whole bunch of young women held a different status in the city than others buried there but the actual science is far different from the wild speculations that have been published over the years.

You see, in the early history of archaeology, it was quite common to publish speculation about the aspects of a culture which the observers didn't actually understand. Anything that didn't lend itself to immediate recognition was "ceremonial." Sadly, many in my profession haven't moved beyond that point to be able to say, "I don't know."

originally posted by: Hyperia
a reply to: Byrd
First practice of dead was that their bodies contained nitrogen and phosphorus which was a great fertilizer on the tundras, caves were used to store the bodies in the cold since it keeps it from decomposing. When the permafrost unfroze its top layer, to bury them in one meter of soil you could dig.

There aren't many caves on the tundra. Neolithic burial practices even in Siberia involved house burials and later cemeteries

In the Himalayas they practice skyburial, any resemblance to the Fenix mythology? They even found skyburial evidence dating to 11.500BC,

No relation to the phoenix. It does, however, have a lot to do with the problem of finding a stable place to put a grave and the lack of trees for cremation.

a reply to: diggindirt

I think a crash course in Anthropology would do you more good in your area of expertise.

a reply to: Hyperia

The structures were 6-10 feet when they were built. That creates obstacles for the herd animals. Imagine 5000 large aurochs (ancient cow on steroids) or wild horses in a herd. Break up and confusing the herd is the objective. Bottle necking is like a large crowd trying to get out of building fast. Blocking 50% of the herds path would stop them making easier prey.

a reply to: Byrd

There aren't many caves on the tundra. Neolithic burial practices even in Siberia involved house burials and later cemeteries

Where did i put Siberia in my post?
If im 11.5Ka in the past it kinda give a reference to the ice age?

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the Quaternary glaciation occurring during the last 100,000 years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.[1] Scientists consider this "ice age" to be merely the latest glaciation event in a much larger ice age, one that dates back over two million years and has seen multiple glaciations.

Cremation dates from at least 20,000 years ago in the archaeological record, with the Mungo Lady, the remains of a partly cremated body found at Lake Mungo, Australia.

It couldnt have been so easily that they just, well ate her? Its not like cannibalism ever existed within the aboriginal communities or? Its inhumane?

No they cremated her 20ka and spread her ashes so she wouldnt come back to haunt them..

You ever wondered why they started with cremation? Cause of keeping the ashes in a bottle? Do you ever ask yourself the simple question," why " Not just, well hey the just put these pillars here cause of aesthetics, it looks great now..

a reply to: d8track

where do you find the reference for 6-10 feet?

a reply to: Hyperia

The source in the OP.

"But scientists marvel that a nomadic population would have stayed in place for the time required to fell and lay timber for ramparts, and to dig out lake bed sediments to construct the huge mounds, originally 6 to 10 feet high and now 3 feet high and nearly 40 feet across."

originally posted by: Hyperia
a reply to: diggindirt

I think a crash course in Anthropology would do you more good in your area of expertise.

No, I didn't go for a crash course, I took the full thing---over 300 hours of classes in the discipline during the 30 years of studying/teaching, and 25 years of field work in the specific study of the Middle Mississippian Culture with occasional forays into both earlier and later periods.

In the 30 years of study of the village that was our primary focus, I handled each and every one of those excavated remains at one point or another---from removing them as part of an excavation, to preparing them for study, the actual examinations and finally the replacing them for reburial on-site. Our studies were about science, about what we can know from what the actual artifacts can tell us. In the process of doing that sort of research and reporting we debunked a few theories and busted up some long-standing myths previously published by colleagues. Because we relied on science, today's science, not theories and technology of the past.

I don't know how much field experience you have in the field of anthropology but I can assure you, reading articles on the internet doesn't prepare one for the profession. While reading old texts may be interesting and even informative from time to time, it really has little to do with today's science and what technology can tell us about our history.

a reply to: d8track
Your theory makes as much sense as any other I've seen postulated. Now, how to put it to the test?

That's where the arguments over methodology will begin....among us "professionals". I'd really like to see the results of a systematic survey and testing of the entire site. There is a lifetime of study in that site and a whole bunch of thesis and dissertation materials waiting to be uncovered in a multitude of disciplines.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Hyperia
a reply to: diggindirt

I think a crash course in Anthropology would do you more good in your area of expertise.

No, I didn't go for a crash course, I took the full thing---over 300 hours of classes in the discipline during the 30 years of studying/teaching, and 25 years of field work in the specific study of the Middle Mississippian Culture with occasional forays into both earlier and later periods.

It shows. Enjoying your posts.

a reply to: diggindirt

I think only computer simulations could recreate the times and the structures of the era . It was a different time.
The land and the rain it had at the time. Using simulated herds with the structures could give clues.

a reply to: d8track
That would be an excellent place to start. But that would only be a guess---a somewhat educated guess, it's true. But for real archaeology, you need ground truth---actual evidence that can be examined.

My first plan of action would be to map the entire site and use ground penetrating radar to see what could be learned without any destructive measures.

Off the top of my head I'd say systematic coring of the soil and analysis of the contents would begin the process. High concentrations of organic remains that matched up with the manure of the herds would be a clue. Or evidence of slaughter of animals as evidenced by tool and bone/tooth fragments. Those things would give a lot of weight to your theory.

Pairing up the results of GPR and the coring should direct the placement of test units. That's when the real fun begins!

NATO-EU-UK attempts at sowing issues in Kazakhstan to stop the operations at Baikonur are completely hopeless.
Merkel, Steinmeier and Mattarella won't even manage to organize a single rally or protest that involves more than 1000 people.

a reply to: beansidhe

Like most ancient earth monuments worldwide. These at some point will be known to line up with astrological features.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: beansidhe

Like most ancient earth monuments worldwide. These at some point will be known to line up with astrological features.

Yeah, but will it be significant? Just because a person lines something up with the rising and setting sun, for light or warmth or whatever, doesn't mean anything more than they're just trying to maximize their sun exposure.