Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
I would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to study my various posts and the accompanying images. I hope you are convinced of the importance of this Culture. and of these objects as a window on an art-loving ancient people based in Inner Mongolia. Incidentally this month I paid for Oxford Authentication Ltd to do a thermoluminescence test on a pottery shard I picked up in 2004 from Niuheliang, and they put it at having last been fired between 4,000 and 6,200 years ago. I hope they will show me the TL profile too, but so far they refuse.

Unfortunately we don’t really know what was buried in the bulk of the tombs, most of which had been raided already. It is tragic that my offer in 2004 to raise funds to officially excavate Burial Mound 13 were rejected. But this illustrates that in the game of archeologists versus tomb robbers, the former by and large aren’t interested in the objects themselves. And that is the ONLY thing that interests the tomb robbers. Yet the objects surely should be the archeologists priority when examining an ancient tomb? Prof Guo would not even look into the hole to examine the damage.

I wonder why there is so much denial of the very strong internal evidence on these pieces, especially the jade and agate, except that they make the supposedly authentic pieces on show in museums look like fakes (which I believe most are). Those buried in Niuheliang can be taken with a pinch of salt as they were coated with calcite dissolved from the limestone boxes used there for burial. Even burying a new piece there for ten years would produce a coating of calcium carbonate. And there is evidence the skeletons had been tampered with (such as a femur being placed upside down!)

Regarding the geology of the glass, it seems to me that there is incontrovertible evidence that it came from an extremely unusual meteorite impact of considerable size, and that the glass was deposited somewhere that was accessible to carvers in the late Hongshan period. And also that it was carved by later peoples right up to the Qing (1700 to 1900 AD). There is incontrovertible evidence it is still being quarried (and any way it must be quite superficial to have been accessed 5,000 years ago). I know many people who believe what they are told by the dealers and shops, but I am much more convinced by the evidence from the bags that the mine/quarry is somewhere in Tongliao. Look at my youtube talk for a summary. Obviously I have a vested emotional interest in my twin craters being the impact site; but I am also open to other credible and testable hypotheses. And an eminent physicist (Prof David Dunstan) tells me that only a unique lateral ejection of the glass could produce spheres.

It is inconceivable that there are not Government records of a Shui jing mine or mines, but unfortunately nothing is as it seems in China. Only Chinese scientists, especially geologists, are in a position to locate the mine(s) before they are exhausted. If they are in or around Tong Liao County, then my dumbell bolide/twin craters hypothesis can be tested, and if verified they could turn the area into a Climate-changing Hancock-Anderson Impact Crater and Shui Jing Mine Geopark, which would make the State the only thing of interest in modern China, namely MONEY!!

I am posting images of my model of the impact on a separate thread

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Some final Hongshan thoughts 1062 drdavidanderson 28-Feb-18 19:55


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.