Young or old Easter Island Statues
Jul 14, 2012 01:33 AM
by M. Sufilight
My views are:
H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
" "The Easter Isles in 'mid Pacific' present the feature of the remaining peaks of the mountains of a submerged continent, for the reason that these peaks are thickly studded with Cyclopean statues, remnants of the civilization of a dense and cultivated people, who must have of necessity occupied a widely extended area. On the back of these images is to be found the 'ansated cross' and the same modified to the outlines of the human form. A full description, with plate showing the land, with the thickly planted statues, also with copies of the images, is to be found in the January number 1870 of the London Builder."
(Secret Doctrine, vol. I, p. 322)
Now has anyone ever seen this map over the number of statues in the area?
A lot was changed in the early days of Western "discoveries" - and - statues removed. And populations died out within a few decades on these islands.
The Cyclopean statues are by science dated to a meagre year 1250 to 1500 After this era.
Which of course account for some of them being covered with several centimeters or rather meters of soil due to natural aging of the environment? Or perhaps not?
Soil levels are for instance shown here "Easter Island Statue Project":
(They still use Routledge map from 1919 it seems - http://www.eisp.org/1781/ )
I still wonder about the very wide margin of difference in views between ordinary Science and Blavatsky on thsi issues.
Both cannot be right it seems.
So who are actually right?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application