![]()
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
mongols
romans
crusades
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.
Any thoughts ?
What I find interesting is that they were deliberately buried .
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?
Early on:It could be , but the whole site ? And from what I understand , not all that dissimilar . From one site to another
Early on:
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
and
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?
NO---not at this sightPerhaps
But is there evidence that the flood buried any structures at this site ?
NO
It is just speculation
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.
Based on:
Why would the oldest of the structures be the best constructured?
covering the current structures could be an homage to the previous culture and catastrophe?
(1)Especially when we are communicating about that general area:(1)So say there was a flood , why would you go underground ?
...
(2)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 .
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).[28] It contains about 814,000 cu yd (622,000 m3) of earth.[16] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia.
Much, much more dirt would be needed to bury the city in question.
but still if the buried one at a time................................?I meant an area that size, I used "city" loosely.
It would still be a mammoth job.but still if the buried one at a time................................?
It would still be a mammoth job.
Did they have mammoths back then?