Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00223)

Hello.

In theos-talk M. Sufilight wrote:

> Where did Blavatsky go wrong on the Easter Island issue?


In The Secret Doctrine, vol. 2, HPB wrote:

"Easter Isle, for instance, belongs to the earliest civilisation
of the Third Race. Submerged with the rest, a volcanic and sudden
uplifting of the Ocean floor, raised the small relic of the Archaic
ages untouched, with its volcano and statues, during the Champlain
epoch of northern polar submersion, as a standing witness to the
existence of Lemuria."

She also connects the size of the statues with the giants lived in
previous races.

It contradicts not with modern scientific theories but with
evidences of local people who not long ago were still alive.

1. Local inhabitants say that the statues were made by their
progenitors. The primitive stone axes (of normal size) are found
near the unfinished statues in abundance, and local people know how
to handle with them. Moreover, they have preserved rites and songs
connected with fabrication of these statues. They agreed to make a
new statue to prove that they are saying truth, and they have done
most part of the work, though the new statue was left unfinished.

2. Archaeologists have found in deeper layers other sculptures
(of lesser size) which are obviously more ancient and match those
which are found in the South America. Manner of the stone laying is
the same with the South American, too. On the belly of some statues
one can distinguish pictures of the ships what suggests that their
authors really came by sea from some other continent.

3. Another important evidence is from European seamen. When they
first discovered the Easter Island, the statues stood upright. When
they visited this island afterwards, the statues were laid down.
Aboriginals explained that there was war between them, and one
party, which won, tried to destroy all the symbols of the other
party, with which the statues were associated. So, how these
statues could survive several great cataclysms, when whole
continents were destroyed (first Lemuria and then Atlantis), and
retain their upright position (they weren't fastened but simply
stood), while the bunch of wild people could easily lay them down?

The argument that the existence of such statues proves the
existence of the giant people is also ridiculous. All over the
territory of Russia one can find the big statues of Lenin. Does is
mean that inhabitants of Russia were all giants and wore a kepi?

4. There are paved roads in the island which lead into the sea.
Previously it seemed that it's a proof that the island is a part
of submerged continent. But when the sea bottom was explored no
continuation of roads, neither other buildings were found. The
roads were obviously used to deliver the goods to and from ships.


These are direct arguments but there are several additional ones,
which are indirect. One of them is the following.

5. When we study old stone buildings we see that they were built
where they were needed, not necesserily where is the big supply
of stones. The Pyramides and Stonehenge are the good examples.
Ancient people knew how to deliver big stones for hundreds of
kilometers, and didn't build pyramides and things like that in
rocky areas only. In those areas they rather carved the temples
in rock.

The Easter Island is rather small, and there were two main types
of stones which were used for statues. Noteworthy that both types
are found in the island, just in several kilometers from platforms
with the statues. They bear the traces of mining. If it was a great
continent, it's rather improbable that all this was concentrated in
one place, and just that place only survived.


Most of above data is derived from "Aku-Aku" and other books by
Thor Heyerdahl. We cannot regard him a retrograde who was clinging
to old theories, he rather challenged the theories of the official
science. Most of his conclusions are rather in favour of the
theosophical view of history than against it, so he served a good
service to theosophy. I have read his books when I was a schoolboy
and they in some extent have prepared me for theosophy.

I explain Blavatsky's error as a result of reliance to the
scientific data of her time. She have found this information
somewhere and decided that it fits well to her general theory.
Probably she got from the Masters the general outline only but
had to fill many gaps herself using any material at hand.


With the best wishes, Konstantin
http://www.theosophy.ru