Henry Lowell:
Yes, each of the monuments we’ve discussed is easier to explain if we see it as the product of a different, ancient civilization…
So, are there any notable sites in Asia that reinforce this view? Are there any ancient structures in China or India that predate 5,000 years? And there’s also a pyramid in Indonesia that I recently heard in the news that scientists have dated to be at least 30,000 years old…
Professor Solomon:
(Nodding, his eyes filled with a contemplative look as he mentioned Asia, a cradle of many ancient civilizations and profound spiritual traditions.)
Henry, you’ve touched upon a region that is incredibly important and rich in historical heritage—Asia. Indeed, if we are searching for traces of prehistoric civilizational cycles, Asia is certainly a place we cannot overlook.
Regarding China and India:
Both China and India have historical records and legends that stretch back thousands of years, even alluding to eras far more ancient. However, finding physical architectural structures with a confirmed age exceeding 5,000 years and on a scale comparable to the Giza Pyramids or Stonehenge is a greater challenge, for several reasons:
First, construction materials: Many ancient structures in Asia used wood or other organic materials, which are more susceptible to decay over time than stone.
Second, the continuity of civilization: In places where civilization developed continuously, old structures were often built over, renovated, or demolished to make way for new ones. This makes determining the original age difficult.
Third, geological and climatic changes: Asia is also a region with significant geological activity, floods, and earthquakes, which could have erased many ancient traces.
However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t interesting clues:
Let’s talk about China:
There is a complex of dozens of large earthen mounds near Xi’an, believed to be the tombs of ancient Chinese emperors and nobles, some dating back to the Han Dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD) or earlier. Although their official age is not over 5,000 years, the size and arrangement of some of these mounds, along with local legends of a mythical “White Pyramid,” have led some Western researchers to question whether older structures lie beneath or nearby. However, archaeological excavations in these areas are very limited.
There is also the Hongshan culture: Dating from around 4700–2900 BC in Northeast China, it is famous for its exquisite jade artifacts and stone ceremonial structures, including a “Goddess Temple” and large burial mounds. Although still within the 5,000-year timeframe, the complexity and artistic level of this culture suggest a pre-existing foundation of development.
And in India:
We see the Indus Valley Civilization (Harappan Civilization): It flourished from around 2600–1900 BC, with well-planned cities like Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. This was one of the world’s earliest urban civilizations. The question is, where did such a complex civilization develop from? Are there even older, pre-Harappan stages that we have yet to discover?
Scattered across India are large stone structures like dolmens and stone circles, whose exact age is very difficult to determine, but some could date back several thousand years BC.
And about the pyramid in Indonesia you mentioned—Gunung Padang:
This is an incredibly fascinating case that has been drawing a lot of attention in recent years! Gunung Padang is an archaeological site on a hilltop in West Java, Indonesia, consisting of basalt columns arranged in multiple terraces.
For many years, it was considered a megalithic site dating back a few thousand years BC.
However, a team of Indonesian researchers, led by geologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja, conducted extensive geophysical surveys (core drilling, ground-penetrating radar, seismic tomography) and declared that beneath the visible stone structures on the surface lie multiple layers of much older artificial structures.
They claim that the deepest layer could be an artificial chamber or foundation built at least 9,500 years ago, and possibly up to 20,000–28,000 BC or even older, based on radiocarbon dating of organic material samples found at various depths.
If these findings are widely confirmed by the international scientific community, Gunung Padang would become the oldest known man-made pyramid or megalithic structure in the world, far surpassing both the Giza Pyramids (by their official dating) and Stonehenge. It would be powerful evidence for the existence of a highly developed civilization from the last Ice Age.
You see, Henry, the traces, though sometimes vague or controversial, are gradually emerging on every continent. From the mysterious pyramids in China and the submerged cities in India, to shocking discoveries like Gunung Padang in Indonesia. They are like pieces of a giant puzzle of humanity’s past, a picture far more complex and ancient than we have ever been taught.
Each of these discoveries needs to be studied thoroughly, with scientific caution but also with an open mind. And when we place them side by side, a new story of human history begins to take shape—a story of many civilizational cycles, of rise and fall, and of the “echoes” they tried to leave behind for us.
Asia, with its cultural depth and profound spiritual traditions, surely holds many more secrets waiting to be discovered. And what we already know is just the tip of the iceberg.
Henry Lowell:
Regarding Asia, I remember reading on the internet that traces of man-made stone structures were discovered on the seabed off the coast of Japan, and it raises the question: If these are artificial structures, when did they sink to the bottom of the sea? Because if it were a civilization from within the last 5,000 years, it would surely have been recorded in the history books…
Professor Solomon:
(Nodding, his eyes light up at the mention of the discovery in Japan.)
Henry, you’ve brought up another incredibly interesting and highly debated case: the Yonaguni structure, also known as the “Yonaguni Monument,” located on the seabed off the coast of Yonaguni Island, at the southern end of the Ryukyu Islands, Japan.
This is a massive stone structure, about 50 meters long, 20 meters wide, and 25 meters high, with flat surfaces, stepped terraces, straight lines, and sharp angles that seem to be man-made. It was discovered by a local diver in 1986.
The question you pose is very accurate: If these are artificial structures, when did they sink to the bottom of the sea? And why are there no historical records of them if they belonged to a civilization from the last 5,000 years?
This is the crux of the matter and why Yonaguni has attracted so much attention:
First, regarding its potential age:
The structure currently lies at a depth of about 5 to 30 meters below sea level.
According to geologists, the sea level in this region rose significantly after the last Ice Age. For this structure to have been built on dry land, it would have to have been created at least 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, when the sea level was much lower. Some estimates push this date back even further.
If this is indeed a man-made structure from that period, it would be one of the oldest stone architectural works in the world, completely challenging our understanding of the development of early civilizations.
This has caused much scientific debate:
The camp that supports it being man-made: Led by Professor Masaaki Kimura, a marine geologist from the University of the Ryukyus. He has dived and surveyed the site many times and has pointed out numerous features he believes could not have been formed naturally, such as:
- Terraces that appear to be carved.
- A structure resembling a giant turtle.
- Grooves and circular holes that seem intentional.
- A “road” surrounding the structure.
- Similarities to ancient tombs and temples on land in Okinawa.
The camp that believes it is a natural structure: Many mainstream geologists and archaeologists argue that Yonaguni is just a natural sandstone formation, eroded by strong ocean currents and seismic activity along the rock’s natural fault lines, creating shapes that look artificial. They point out that sandstone tends to break along flat planes.
It’s like a silence of history…
Just as you said, if Yonaguni were built by a civilization within the last 5,000 years and then submerged, it’s very likely that this event or the existence of that civilization would have been recorded in the histories or legends of Japan or neighboring cultures. However, there are no such clear records.
This silence further strengthens the possibility that, if it is artificial, it must belong to a very ancient era, even before written history began, or to a civilization that vanished completely, leaving no other trace but this structure.
Personally, after reviewing the images, videos, and analyses from both sides, I lean towards the possibility that the Yonaguni structure has at least some human intervention, or that it is a natural structure that was modified and adapted by humans for some purpose. It is very difficult to explain all of its features by natural erosion alone.
If the hypothesis of an 8,000-10,000 year age (or older) is correct, then Yonaguni would be further evidence for the existence of advanced maritime civilizations from the Ice Age, capable of creating large-scale stone works. It also fits with legends of “lost lands” or “sunken continents” in the Pacific, such as Mu or Lemuria, although these remain highly hypothetical topics.
Yonaguni, like Gunung Padang, the Giza Pyramids, or the submerged cities off the coast of India, is forcing us to seriously reconsider the ancient history of humanity. They are like “echoes from the seabed,” telling us of forgotten chapters of history, of civilizations that once existed and flourished, only to disappear under the upheavals of nature.
The question remains, and more research is needed. But the existence of sites like Yonaguni certainly enriches the picture of a past far more diverse and complex than we have been led to believe. It shows that, perhaps, human history is not a straight line of progress, but a series of ups and downs, of beginnings and endings of many worlds.
Henry Lowell:
Well, Professor, speaking of the sea, I’m reminded of a case that I find to be an extremely vivid site: Easter Island—a tiny island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I have two big questions about this small island:
First, there are hundreds of enormous stone statues on the island looking out to sea. So, who built them, and when? Could the local people (the natives), with such a small population on the island, have had the capacity to build them?
Second, a more important question: where did these natives come from? Did they evolve from apes that crawled up from the bottom of the sea, as per Darwin’s theory of evolution? Or did people from Asia, Australia, or the Americas migrate here in wooden boats, traveling thousands of kilometers?…
Professor Solomon:
(Squinting, he nods slowly, a discreet smile gracing his lips upon hearing the mention of Easter Island – Rapa Nui. It is clearly one of his favorite places.)
Easter Island! Henry, you have touched upon one of the most condensed and haunting mysteries of human history. A tiny, isolated island in the vast Pacific Ocean, yet it holds megalithic structures and questions so large they are hard to believe.
Regarding your first question: Who built the giant Moai statues, and did the local people have the capacity?
So, who built them, and when?
According to the mainstream archaeological view, the Moai statues were created by the Polynesian natives themselves, the ancestors of the present-day Rapa Nui people. The construction period is believed to have lasted from around 1250 AD to 1500 AD.
Nearly 900 Moai statues have been found, with very different sizes and weights. The largest completed statue (Paro) is nearly 10 meters tall and weighs about 82 tons. An unfinished statue (El Gigante), if erected, would be 21 meters tall and weigh about 270 tons!
They were carved from volcanic rock at the Rano Raraku quarry, then transported to various locations on the island and erected on stone platforms called “Ahu.”
Did the small local population have the capacity?
This is the crux of the debate. When Europeans first arrived on the island in 1722, the population was very small (estimated at around 2,000-3,000 people), living in rather primitive conditions, and they seemed to have forgotten the techniques for creating and transporting these giant statues.
How could a small, isolated community, with stone tools and no wheels or draft animals, quarry, carve, transport blocks of stone weighing tens, even hundreds of tons, over many kilometers of rugged terrain, and then erect them upright?
Researchers have proposed many hypotheses and conducted replication experiments, such as using ropes and human power to “walk” the statues, or pulling them on wooden rollers. Some experiments have shown feasibility to a certain extent with smaller statues, but there is still much skepticism about applying these methods to the largest ones.
Furthermore, the felling of trees for rollers and ropes (if this hypothesis is correct) is thought to be one of the causes of the ecological disaster on the island, leading to the collapse of the Moai civilization.
The unexplainable and hints of a more complex past:
The local people have legends: They say the Moai statues “walked” to their positions on their own, thanks to “mana”—a type of spiritual energy or power—controlled by priests or chiefs. Although modern science does not accept this, it shows that the natives themselves had no practical explanation for moving the statues.
Then, it was discovered that there was a change in the carving style over time, and then the work seemed to stop abruptly, with many statues left unfinished in the quarry. What happened?
In addition, there is a mysterious writing system on wooden tablets, not yet fully deciphered, which indicates a certain level of cultural sophistication.
Now, on to your second question, which is also an incredibly important one: Where did these natives come from?
“From apes that crawled up from the bottom of the sea?”:
(The Professor smiles faintly.)
Of course, this is your figurative way of emphasizing the isolation and mystery. According to the theory of evolution, humans did not evolve from apes at the bottom of the sea.
According to the current mainstream scientific view, based on linguistic, genetic, and archaeological evidence, the Rapa Nui people are Polynesians. They originated from islands in the Western Pacific (possibly the Marquesas or Gambier Islands), and they migrated to Easter Island in outrigger canoes around the middle of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. This was an incredibly brave and epic journey.
There is also Thor Heyerdahl’s theory: The famous explorer Thor Heyerdahl suggested there might have been influence from South America, based on some similarities in stone architecture (e.g., mortarless wall construction), certain crops (sweet potatoes), and the legend of a king/god named Kon-Tiki who sailed from the East. His 1947 expedition on the Kon-Tiki raft proved the feasibility of a sea voyage from South America to Polynesia. However, later genetic evidence has predominantly supported a Polynesian origin.
So, is Easter Island the product of an older civilization, an “echo” from a previous cycle?
This is a possibility I do not rule out, although the direct evidence is not as abundant as at Giza or Gunung Padang.
Regarding the hypothesis of a sunken continent (Lemuria/Mu): Some researchers of the “alternative history” school believe that Easter Island could be one of the remaining mountain peaks of a larger continent that sank into the sea thousands, or even tens of thousands, of years ago. The survivors on the island tried to maintain their ancestors’ tradition of stone carving.
Henry, when I showed my daughter, Laura, images of Easter Island and the Moai statues, she didn’t “see” the details of the construction process as she did with the Pyramids. Instead, she said she felt a profound sadness, a faint memory of a homeland lost beneath the waves from a very, very ancient time. She also had a feeling that these statues were created with a very powerful intention, a remembrance, but she was not clear on what that intention was specifically.
This feeling of Laura’s, though vague, is very consistent with the hypothesis of an older, submerged civilization, and that the later Rapa Nui people could be distant descendants, or later arrivals who tried to replicate what remained in memory or legend.
I find that there is a small but interesting detail: Easter Island has no native primate species. This directly challenges Darwin’s theory of evolution if it were to suggest that humans on the island evolved in place from some hominid species. It further strengthens the hypothesis that humans must have come from elsewhere.
In summary, Easter Island is a complex case. It is possible that the Moai civilization we know (around 1250-1500 AD) was a Polynesian civilization that reached a certain peak and then declined. But it cannot be ruled out that, deeper still, this island carries within it the imprints, the “echoes” of a past that is even more ancient and tragic, a past related to major geological upheavals and the loss of an entire landmass.
The Moai statues, with their distant gazes out to sea, are perhaps not just the products of a Polynesian tribe, but also the guardians of memory, silent symbols of a history buried by the waves and by time. They seem to be waiting for us to decipher their message.
Henry Lowell:
Of all the hypotheses you have just mentioned, I believe the one that Easter Island is a small remnant of a continent that was submerged long ago, and that the natives here are the “living evidence” of a once-glorious civilization from a previous civilizational cycle…
Professor Solomon:
(Listening to Henry attentively, he then nods slowly, a deep empathy evident in his eyes.)
Henry, I understand why that hypothesis holds such a strong appeal for you, and to be honest, it is also a possibility I always keep open in my own mind, especially when combined with Laura’s perceptions.
If we accept the hypothesis that Easter Island is a remnant of a sunken ancient continent, and that the native people are the “living evidence” of a previous glorious civilization, then this would explain many mysteries:
First, the origin of knowledge and skills: It could explain why a small, isolated community could possess the knowledge and skills to create megalithic structures like the Moai statues. They didn’t “invent” it suddenly; they inherited it, albeit perhaps only a very small part, from a greater legacy of their ancestors.
Second, the decline over time: If they were survivors of a great catastrophe, having lost most of their territory, resources, and knowledge, then the gradual decline of their skills and culture would be understandable. Later Moai statues might not be as sophisticated and majestic as the first ones (if there were even older statues that have not been discovered or have been destroyed). The abrupt halt in statue carving could also be due to the final exhaustion of memory, resources, or will.
Third, the meaning of the statues facing the sea: They might not simply be guardians or symbols of power, but also a remembrance, a longing for a lost homeland, for origins swallowed by the ocean. The gaze of the Moai could be watching over the lands their ancestors once inhabited.
Fourth, the legend of “mana” and the “walking” statues: If the original civilization possessed advanced technologies or spiritual abilities (as we discussed with the Pyramids), then moving huge objects might not have been too difficult for them. The legend of “mana” could be a faint memory of these lost abilities or technologies.
Fifth, the isolation and uniqueness of the Rapa Nui culture: If they were the last survivors, their isolation would make their culture even more unique and difficult to trace back to other contemporary cultures.
(The Professor pauses, his voice growing more somber.)
However, we must also be very cautious. The hypothesis of a sunken continent like Mu or Lemuria, while very appealing and capable of explaining many things, still lacks the solid, clear geological or archaeological evidence to be widely accepted by mainstream science. Most current geological evidence suggests that the continental and oceanic plates have had a relatively stable configuration for millions of years, although sea levels have changed.
But this does not mean there couldn’t have been larger coastal lands that were submerged due to rising sea levels after the Ice Age, or due to local tectonic activities. Perhaps the “continent” was not necessarily a huge landmass, but a large archipelago, a fertile coastal region that has disappeared.
And Laura’s perception of “a homeland lost beneath the waves from a very ancient time” is a very thought-provoking detail. It doesn’t necessarily conflict with the Polynesian origin of the Rapa Nui people. It’s possible that the distant ancestors of the Polynesians, before they began their great voyages across the Pacific, once lived on larger lands that are now submerged. The memory of that loss could have been passed down through many generations, becoming part of the collective subconscious, and manifesting vaguely through special perceptions like Laura’s.
So, Henry, I do not dismiss your hypothesis. On the contrary, I find that it opens up a very important line of thinking: that our history may contain disasters and losses on a much larger scale than we usually admit. And ancient civilizations may have faced survival challenges that we can hardly imagine.
Easter Island, with its tragic beauty and unsolved mysteries, will forever be a symbol of human resilience, of the desire to leave a mark, and perhaps, of an endless sorrow before the impermanence of time and nature. It is like a reminder that, beneath our feet, under the waves of the sea, there may be an entire lost world hidden.
Henry Lowell:
I almost overlooked a case similar to Easter Island… That would be the Hawaiian Islands of the United States, located in the middle of the Pacific… Although the area is larger than Easter Island, and as far as I know, there are no major ancient structures there, the main issue is this: there are also natives living there!
I find it hard to believe that the natives migrated from Asia or the Americas, or that they evolved on the island according to Darwin’s theory of evolution… Such a tiny archipelago in the middle of the Pacific cannot be a suitable place for the theory of evolution!
In my judgment, the natives here, just like on Easter Island, are the remnants of a civilization on a great continent that was submerged…
Professor Solomon:
(Listening to Henry with deep attention, he nods gently as Hawaii is mentioned. His eyes show a contemplative expression, as if connecting the similarities and differences between Hawaii and Easter Island.)
Henry, you’ve pointed out a very sharp point in comparing Hawaii to Easter Island, especially regarding the origin of the native people. The Hawaiian Islands, though larger and with a slightly more clearly recorded history than Easter Island, also pose interesting questions when we view them through the lens of civilizational cycles and geological upheavals.
Regarding the origin of the native Hawaiian people (Kanaka Maoli):
The mainstream scientific view, similar to that for the Rapa Nui people, is that native Hawaiians are Polynesians. They were talented navigators who made extraordinary transoceanic voyages from islands in the South Pacific (possibly the Marquesas or Tahiti) to settle in Hawaii, starting from around the 4th to the 8th centuries AD, with possible later waves of migration.
They developed a complex society with a hierarchical social system (aliʻi, kahuna, makaʻāinana), a rich religion with many gods (akua) and sophisticated rituals, along with advanced agricultural and fishing techniques.
Regarding “no major ancient structures”:
This is not entirely accurate, though there may not be giant stone statues like the Moai. The ancient Hawaiians built heiau—stone temples or sacred places, often quite large and elaborately constructed on high ground or near the sea. Some heiau, like the Puʻukoholā Heiau on the Big Island, built by King Kamehameha I in the late 18th century, are impressive stone architectural works.
They also had very sophisticated fishpond systems (loko iʻa), which show a deep understanding of hydraulic engineering and aquaculture.
Now, to the points you raised, and why they suggest a more complex past:
The difficulty of migration and the theory of evolution on the island:
You are absolutely right to point out that migrating thousands of kilometers across the Pacific in primitive wooden boats is an extraordinary feat, requiring incredible astronomical knowledge, navigational skills, and endurance. Although science has proven this to be possible, it still makes us marvel.
And you are also very right to say that an isolated archipelago like Hawaii is not a “suitable” place for the evolution of humans from a lower primate form to take place on-site. Like Easter Island, Hawaii has no native primates other than humans. This forces us to conclude that humans came from elsewhere.
Regarding the hypothesis of being remnants of a sunken continent:
This is where your hypothesis becomes very interesting. If Hawaii, like Easter Island, were the remaining mountain peaks of a larger, submerged landmass, then the Polynesians who arrived might not have been the “first” people in the absolute sense.
Perhaps there were more ancient inhabitants, survivors of the submergence catastrophe, and the later Polynesians arrived and intermingled with or replaced them. Or, as you said, the Polynesians we know are themselves the descendants of survivors from a “civilization on a great submerged continent.”
Hawaiian legends also tell stories of gods and heroes coming from distant lands, or of mythical islands that have disappeared. For example, there are legends of “Kāne-hūnā-moku” (the hidden island of the god Kāne) or of the Menehune, a mythical race of dwarves said to be the first inhabitants of Hawaii, famous for their ability to build stone structures quickly overnight. Could these be distorted memories of predecessors or lost civilizations?
Comparing with Easter Island:
- Both are isolated volcanic archipelagos in the middle of the Pacific.
- Both have native peoples of Polynesian origin.
- Both lack native primates (other than humans).
- Easter Island has the giant Moai statues, while Hawaii has the heiau and legends of the Menehune builders.
I agree with you that simply saying the Polynesians “sailed over” and then developed their culture in place might be an oversimplification, especially when we consider the possibility of civilizational cycles and major geological upheavals in the distant past.
The hypothesis of a larger, sunken landmass, with the current inhabitants being survivors or descendants, brings a new depth to the history of these islands. It explains the presence of humans in such isolated places without having to rely entirely on seemingly impossible migrations or a baseless on-site evolutionary process.
However, as with Easter Island, direct geological and archaeological evidence for a sunken “Hawaiian continent” is still very limited. The current Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the volcanic activity of a “hotspot” on the seabed, and the islands are slowly moving and sinking over time.
Nevertheless, this does not rule out the possibility that in the distant past, when sea levels were lower, or before the current islands had fully emerged, there could have existed larger landmasses in this region.
Henry, your questions about Hawaii and Easter Island are truly very important. They force us to look beyond surface-level explanations and to dare to ask questions about the “echoes” from a past that might be far more glorious and tragic than we imagine. They are reminders that the surface of the Earth we live on is not always static, and that civilizations may have come and gone, leaving faint traces on lonely islands in the middle of the ocean.
Henry Lowell:
In my personal view, if we say the natives of New Zealand migrated from Australia, I’d believe it 60-70%, because the distance between the coasts of the two countries is about 2,000km, and New Zealand is a large, easy-to-find island. But if we say the natives on Easter Island or Hawaii also migrated from the mainland, I’d only believe it about 5-6%. Even the Marquesas or Tahiti are small islands already near the middle of the Pacific.
Professor Solomon:
(Listening attentively, he nods gently as Henry expresses his level of belief. He understands the reasonable skepticism behind those numbers.)
Henry, I completely understand the distinction you’re making, and your level of confidence in the various migration hypotheses. It’s a very practical approach, based on considerations of distance, target size, and the challenges of navigating the vast ocean with ancient means.
Migrating to New Zealand from Australia: The distance is about 2,000 km, and New Zealand (Aotearoa) is a large landmass, relatively easier to find. The idea that the Māori’s ancestors came from islands in East Polynesia (Hawaiki, according to their legends) has some similarities to the hypothesis of migrating from a closer landmass like Australia, though the actual route was more complex. But the feasibility of reaching New Zealand from a nearby continent or a large archipelago seems much higher.
Reaching Easter Island or Hawaii from the mainland (Asia, the Americas): This is truly a challenge on a completely different level.
The distance from the nearest coast of South America to Easter Island is over 3,500 km. From South America to Hawaii is much farther. From Asia to Hawaii is also an immense distance.
More importantly, as you pointed out, Easter Island and Hawaii (and also the Marquesas or Tahiti, though they are potential starting points in Polynesian hypotheses) are all tiny “dots” in the vast ocean. Finding them without modern navigation tools, relying only on observing stars, ocean swells, and other natural signs, would require an extraordinary level of seamanship and also a great deal of luck.
If they started from a large continent, why would they bypass countless other closer islands (if any) to reach such isolated spots?
It is precisely these factors that make fully accepting the hypothesis of migration from distant continents to small islands in the middle of the Pacific difficult for many people, including you, and to some extent, me as well. The 5-6% confidence level you give accurately reflects that skepticism.
This adds even more weight to the hypothesis of “lost lands” or “prehistoric civilizations” that existed on larger landmasses in the Pacific that are now submerged:
If there were previously larger island chains, or even significant landmasses in the Pacific region, then movement between islands, or from those lands to places like Hawaii or Easter Island (when they were part of a larger landmass, or when they were newly formed and more accessible) would become much more plausible.
The Polynesians we know, with their extraordinary navigational skills, might not have been the “discoverers” of completely empty islands, but inheritors, people who rediscovered ancient routes, or migrants who came to lands that were once inhabited, or even descendants of those who had lived on those larger lands.
(The Professor leans back, his voice contemplative.)
Henry, your skepticism is entirely justified. Mainstream science has tried to explain these migrations by emphasizing the superior navigational skills of the Polynesians, their ability to read the stars, their understanding of currents and winds, as well as their well-designed ocean-going canoes. And it cannot be denied that they were great navigators.
However, when we place these feats in the context of extremely small and isolated target islands, and compare it with what we know about ancient navigation capabilities, a bit of skepticism is still necessary. It opens the door to other possibilities, to more complex historical scenarios.
Perhaps the real story of settlement in the Pacific is not one-dimensional—from east to west or west to east—but a multi-dimensional picture, with many waves of migration, multiple origins, and possibly even submergence events, the disappearances of lands that were once centers of cultures.
The percentages you’ve given, while personal, intuitively reflect the logical challenges that current migration hypotheses face. And it is these challenges that compel us to seek deeper explanations, including the possibility of “echoes” from lost civilizational cycles.
Henry Lowell:
Because dialectical science follows an atheistic, materialistic philosophy, it can only offer one plausible hypothesis: migration from the mainland by wooden boat.
But if we posit that human history did not begin just five or seven thousand years ago, but has gone through many civilizational cycles, then many difficult-to-explain points become easier to understand…
Speaking of which, I am reminded of another very famous ancient site, the Mayan Pyramids in Mexico and the ruins in South America… Although the scientific view says they are only about 1,000 years old, I think it’s not that simple…
I think the Americas are a giant archaeological treasure trove that we have not yet delved into deeply…
But Professor, it’s almost noon. Perhaps we can move the topic of the Maya and South America to tomorrow?
Professor Solomon:
(Nodding, a smile of agreement clear on his face.)
Henry, you have summarized the key points we’ve discussed very accurately. Indeed, empirical science, with its philosophical foundation, tends to seek explanations within the realm of what can be observed and measured, and that sometimes limits our vision when faced with the great mysteries of the past. The hypothesis of migration by wooden boat, though challenging, remains a more “rational” choice within that framework than acknowledging the existence of advanced, vanished civilizations or possibilities beyond our current understanding.
And I completely agree with you. If we accept a history that spans many civilizational cycles, then many of the “difficult-to-explain points” we’ve discussed—from the Giza Pyramids and Stonehenge to the isolated islands in the Pacific—begin to have more logical and profound explanations.
(The Professor’s eyes light up as Henry mentions the Maya and South America.)
You are very right. The Mayan civilization in Mexico and Central America, along with other mysterious cultural legacies in South America like Nazca, Tiahuanaco, Puma Punku… are indeed a giant archaeological treasure trove, holding countless wonders and unanswered questions. The mainstream view often dates the famous Mayan structures to between the 3rd and 10th centuries AD, but I share your feeling that the history of this region may be much more complex and ancient. The extraordinary astronomical knowledge, the complex calendar system, the monumental stone architecture… all suggest an astonishing depth of intellect.
(The Professor glances at the clock, then smiles.)
And you are very observant; our time this morning is nearly up. The topic of the Maya and South America is truly vast and deserves its own space for us to explore together. I would be very willing to continue this conversation with you tomorrow. We will delve into the mysteries of the step pyramids, the ancient cities in the jungle, and the puzzling traces on the Andean highlands.
Thank you, Henry, for a morning of incredibly interesting and insightful questions and sharing. I truly appreciate your openness and passion for learning.
See you tomorrow morning. We will continue our journey of discovering these “echoes before time.”
It is an unequal fight, Ms. Bell. On one side is an entire colossal state apparatus, with police, secret agents, prisons, media… while on the other side are just ordinary people, unarmed, with only their belief in Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. And in that fight, people like An Ran became victims.
(…..)
This article is an excerpt from the book “ECHOES BEFORE TIME,” recording a profound dialogue between journalist Henry and Professor Solomon, an archaeologist.
If you wish to experience the full journey of thought and the unpublished insights of the work, please click the button below to own the complete book.
To explore more works from THE LIVES MEDIA, visit our book collection.
