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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: solve
...30-60nm silica nanospheres in the blocks of the Giza pyramids and how they are not found in the surrounding rocks.
What does that find imply?
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
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).