Discussion in 'History' started by river, Oct 6, 2018.
Any thoughts ?
What I find interesting is that they were deliberately buried .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i am not soo puzzled at the thought of deliberate burying because we see examples in our common history of species & cultural/religous genocide
had a travelling local scout come back from another country a few years ahead of a potential invasion. the scholars would wish to hide the culture to prevent it being destroyed and then disperse the population into other towns and citys around the world.
there are many examples of this genocide process to pick n choose from.
some are still in practice today
20th century nazi's
given the generations of artisitic skill passed down with just the masonry alone, it suggests a level of ability that would not willingly hand over its technology to a genocidal butchery culture that would take all the best parts and turn them against the very people its self.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm I don't by your theory , presented here .
Surely the buring theory would be chanced .
I knew an artist who destroyed/gave away/threw away all of her old work when she felt a need to change .
I salvaged 3 of her old paintings and treasure them still.
She floundered for awhile, and produced less sad work, but aside from that her style didn't change all that much.
Why bury the last megalithic structure?
Darned interesting, but do we have any chance of understanding why?
If the previous structure was associated with the previous generation, could that be a reason?
It could be , but the whole site ? And from what I understand , not all that dissimilar . From one site to another
Klaus Schmidt stated that the oldest(earliest) constructed of the structures were the best constructed.
Which leads to a question of whether these structures were copies of earlier structures.
If that is true
the supposed earlier structures had been covered by rising seas, then
covering the current structures could be an homage to the previous culture and catastrophe?
But is there evidence that the flood buried any structures at this site ?
NO---not at this sight
but perhaps at the shore before the rise in sea levels following the end glaciation?
No evidence there(wherever there is) either?
It is just speculation.
Why would the oldest of the structures be the best constructured?
So say there was a flood , why would you go underground ?
To me it makes no sense .
Sorry Sculptor , I got off into a tangent here .
To your last statement , because they were the most intelligent , the most clued into the spiritual, and energy /matter understanding of the Universe . And fundamentally a much different envirnoment . Where a forest , or jungle was prevalent .
uncovered, rebuilt then burried ... ?
How long to bury that area?
(1)Especially when we are communicating about that general area:
I would not use the word "flood"(unless my mind was unusually sloppy on that day)
I would most likely default to "melt water pulse"---
Something about the "book" seems to bring out the crazy in people.
Though, if you were standing on your shoreline watching the rising water with waves crashing over your village, it could well seem like a flood----but, this one ain't going away until the glaciers begin gobbling up water again.
(2) I do not think that the earlier builders were more intelligent ---
I have a bias---40 odd years ago (in a grad anthro seminar) I proposed that if people had the time and inclination to produce art (at least) 35-40 thousand years ago---it seems likely that they would also have developed advanced civilizations (trading and gathering centers) located on an estuary by the sea shore.
If so, then these were lost beneath the waves-----leaving only their memories.
And seeking to recreate the essence of those memories, the original builders were more passionate about their work.
That being said, less than 10% of the site has been excavated. There were/are at least 20 different circular structures still buried.
Klaus is dead. I hope that whoever carries on the work is as passionate as was he.
When considering if they buried a city one has to get a framework for reference. Cahokia's Monk's Mound "is 100 ft (30 m) high, 951 ft (290 m) long, 836 ft (255 m) wide and covers 13.8 acres (5.6 ha). It contains about 814,000 cu yd (622,000 m3) of earth. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia.
Much, much more dirt would be needed to bury the city in question.
I think you ere in considering goblekitepi a city.
Because some of the circular structures are built partially on top of older structures, it seems most likely that they were buried one at a time----------------------the "Why" remains an item for speculation.......
I meant an area that size, I used "city" loosely.
but still if the buried one at a time................................?
It would still be a mammoth job.
Did they have mammoths back then?
No evidence of them at this site so far
I have been studying this place for a while now and it seems all it provides is opportunity for speculation.
The site however suggests that perhaps agriculture started earlier than we currently assume in so far as one could think that there must have been a well established agricultural society ticking away for some time prior to any of the work being undertaken.
Although I suppose possible the site is unlikely to have been constructed by hunter gatherers on the basis that it is probably only agricultural societies who could enjoy a surplus and therefore make labour available.
There are various sites around the world where it seems the older parts are "better" and some interpret such to the possibility of two periods of construction, where the second stage was added by a group coming some time after the original builders.
Separate names with a comma.