• Facebook Social Icon
  • Mr Keith

China: Lies, damn lies and Megaliths! (Yangshan edition)

Updated: Oct 20, 2018

Are ancient Chinese structures built by ancient Chinese?

A seemingly simple, logically consistent, question. A megalithic mystery, coverups and fake news ensue.

The smaller, more manageable, megalith of Yangshan quarry.(Author for scale)

Of course the Great Wall, majestic palaces, ancient highways and numerous ornate temples are almost without question Chinese. But what about the ancient grandeur, the true megalithic marvels.


Regarding greatness, no known modern or ancient construction would compete with any structure built from Yangshan Quarry stones. They are the largest known megaliths on the planet. Evidence suggests they are hiding an ancient secret.


Why do the 'lifting knobs' extend below the proposed cut mark? Why do they face up? Why not regularly spaced?

The official (somewhat puzzling) storey is brutally paraphrased below:


  • Chinese Emperors took a fancy to big grave stele* on their tomb when they died. (A stele is a rock standing upright on the grave site, Chines Steles are in 3 parts) *”Grave stele” , pronounced grave steal, also caused some confusion with translation from people thinking we were stealing from graves.


  • The steles are usually several tons. Due to the difficulty in moving large stones, the magnitude of the emperor’s reign corresponded to the magnitude of rocks on his grave. So a well-loved Emperor, with a powerful army and a litany of military wins, construction achievements and happy concubines, may warrant a Stele of 5 tonnes. The most notable Emperor of the Ming Dynasty was acknowledged with a 50 tonne turtle stele.


  • In 1405, the Yongle Empower wanted something bigger than the previous extreme 50 tonne stone to be quarried in reverence of his dead dad, Ming. What a good son.


  • The Emperor abandons a 10 tonne stele idea and begins cutting a 31,000 tonne stele.


  • As it reaches completion every man and his chow-chow realise, there is no way to lift, move or place multi thousand ton megaliths, so it was all abandoned. They eventually used an 8 tonne stele.


Does that sound strange?


The master builders of China, who understood their capacity so well, who had moved thousands of Stele for generations, pushing the limits of their engineering and construction, made such a childish, idiotic mistake.


Are the Chinese known for bewildering incompetence when it comes to construction?

No. It doesn’t make much sense.


My premise is that an alternate theory is possible and the quarry is more likely 10,000 years older than the Yongle Dynasty. It is not built by modern Chinese, but rather the modern Chinese created a stele culture based on the interpretation of the 3 quarry megaliths.


If this is true, you would expect certain tells of construction, methodological discrepancies or historic cover ups.

Cover ups! Can we trust the orthodox history?

No, of course not. At the very least the only evidence supporting the story of the Yongle Emperor is from the Yongle Emperor himself, who was well known for rewriting history. In fact, the first paragraph of his personal depiction on wiki describes the motivation for his “wide-ranging effort to destroy or falsify records”

Are there cover ups?



Yup. We were told there was once a protruding marker on a stele, that has since been removed. It was similar to an all-seeing eye and became part of the symbology of the area. (Left is the modern marker for the entire site, a resemblance of the all seeing eye can be interpreted.)


Tho original position of this marker was supposedly on the front edge of the 1st megalith. In this position there was clearly some modern repairs. Although we could not find anyone who would acknowledge the site had been modified in recent history, we took a quick scamper up the face and found, at this position, that the edge had been repaired by concrete and the metal mesh was protruding.


This is probably just local folk lore, but it did seem strange to repair this area and not acknowledge it.

Is the site build with similar quarrying techniques

to other mystery sites around the world?


Yup. The strange 'knobs' supposedly used to carry the stones are extremely similar to those found in Peru, Bolivia, Egypt, Lebanon, Japan etc.

Koricancha walls at Cusco Peru.

As a lifting aid (the orthodox explanation) they fail every basic test of reason. Why are they often below the cut line? (dashed red line) Why do they slope up, making the securing of a rope many times more difficult? (red arrows) Why are they not found on any modern (demonstrable) civilisations quarried stones?


The only key difference between this site and those of Peru, Egypt, Japan is that it is covered in chisel marks. Chiseling is certainly a known construction methodology.


So what about the Chisel marks?


Well, they're fake news.


Although the chisel marks appear over most of the quarry, there are many areas they are not present. These are the exact areas you would expect them to be missing if the quarry was made first, and thousands of years later a Yongle Emperor, renowned for re-writing history, wanted to make it his. He would simply have an army of chiselers, chisel the face of the quarry. Then it would look like any other Chinese quarry.


However the chisel marks are missing from under fallen boulders, between quarried crevasse that are less than 100mm wide, and any area out of arm's reach. In fact you only need to kick aside some dirt and realise the chisel marks stop at current sediment level, while the quarried rock continues below.



At the areas outside of the site fencing, the chisel marks simply stop! The chiseling is contained within the tourist site fence. In hard to reach places the chisel lines also grow in distance becoming far too wide to effectively remove stone.

On the areas covered in concrete the chisel marks continue over the concrete, meaning not only are they not original, but some are more recent than the concrete repair. (Green rock, red concrete)






Could the site be 10k years old?

Yup.


Like all major megalithic sites the sediment layer does not tell the story of recent construction, but rather recent occupation. In this case its the mineral deposits that are the give away. There are heavy white mineral deposits that drape the megalith walls like a waterfall frozen in time.

White mineral deposits that have been chiseled over.

It can be seen from below that the mineral deposits do not permeate the rock, but form a thick white layer (of what I assume is a calcium deposit). The layer is underneath the chisel marks. In some places the deposits are 10mm deep and the chisels marks are deep enough to expose the underlying rock at the their maximum cut. Therefore the stones were quarried, then an enormous amount of time passed that included atmospheric periods conducive to mineral deposits, then the site was chiseled.


Overzealous chiselers removing the entire mineral deposit.

The megalithic elephant in the room.

It appears fairly obvious the site is not ancestral to modern China. What is not obvious is, well, everything else. What was planned for these monsters? Were other megaliths quarried and constructed elsewhere? If construction occurred when sea levels were 100m lower, as they were 10-20 thousand years ago, could the construction be on the seafloor? How were they ever planned to be moved? And the eternal question I ask myself, why is every megalithic site I have investigated, been unfinished? What happened to these ancient master masons?


More questions than answers, for now.


Tom








  • Facebook Social Icon

Megalithology Photo Journal