When Robert Schoch says they’re “mostly natural” he means there is some possibility for modification. But, mostly, he’s a mystery-monger who is trying not to alienate his fan-base. Schoch has some controversial speculations that haven’t born fruit in other areas. I used his perspective to show that even a mystery-monger is skeptical of the artificial claim. But, if you bothered to read the rest, you’d see I also included the work of other geologists in the region itself.

Prehistoric humans almost certainly didn’t create the geologic features present. In other words, the site isn’t man-made. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t man-used. There may have been some minor shaping of some small portions of the features. But if you want to just sit there and say I’m “stuck with a paradigm I can’t get out of” you’re going to have to present some evidence that suggests that the paradigm I’m working with should be got out of!

That paradigm, by the way, is evidenced-based archaeology. Science.

Not the mystery-mongering of significance-junkies who get all worked up at something they simply haven’t the education to explain. And I don’t mean that pejoratively. A lack of education in geology and archaeology is not bad… unless you claim to be a “independent scholar” or to “know” something that such an education would require. Most people who hear about “underwater pyramids” and “lost civilizations” are naturally curious and excited. But those that are purveyors of the information are pretending to know something they can’t support with evidence. Which is why I posted on this to begin with. Reality needs its champion.

If anyone has evidence or a reasoned argument to refute the paragraphs I’ve written, I’m all ears … or eyes. I’m completely willing to revise my position. Just show the evidence. Show good reason why this should be considered a man-made site and not a naturally formed geologic structure.

The evidence to support the latter is tremendous! The same features exist above the ocean, the geology is consistent with what is already known about fractured and jointed limestone, there were no cultures of “high civilization” or even cultures that engaged in this sort of architecture at the time, there is no evidence of construction, there is significant evidence of nature… etc., etc.

The “if-you-were-a-scientist-your-mind-would-be-open” mantra is tired, old, and misapplied.

Robert Schoch, a geologist at the University of Boston who has dived at Yonaguni many times, thinks the formations are mostly natural. They are made of bedrock, rather than built with separate blocks, and Schoch points out that the rock is sedimentary, with horizontal layers that break along parallel lines as they erode. The region’s tectonic activity also splits the rock along vertical fault lines. So the strong currents that sweep the area would erode rock along these lines, carving out platforms and steps, he says. “You get a regular blocky structure quite naturally” (New Scientist 2009).

And this is coming from a geologist who has had some spectacular claims of his own about the Sphinx in Egypt, which are well-refuted elsewhere. So it isn’t as if I’m looking for someone who is a staunch skeptic to “debunk” the mystery-mongering.

What is possible, and I’ve never disputed, is that some of the natural formations present could have been modified prehistorically by humans. But the site isn’t formed by moving “blocks” of stone, etc. This is almost certain. As a rule, I never exclude anything from being possible, but there are necessarily some things that are extremely, extremely improbable given current knowledge. That the Sun actually revolves around the Earth and not the other way around is one of those things. It’s possible. But that possibility is so remote as to be silly to believe. That this is a man-made site is improbable at a level just under the Sun/Earth analogy above.

And this for several reasons.

First, the geology below the surface is consistent with the geology above the surface. The same jointing and fracturing is present.

Second, the cultures that were in existence on the island and on neighboring Taiwan (which would have been linked by a land-bridge 10k+ years ago) are not unknown. There’s still mcuh, much left to learn about these cultures. But what’s clear is that they weren’t of the size and technological capability to engage in this sort of megalithic architecture. And I don’t say this lightly. The caloric requirement for this sort of culture is not insignificant. Nor is the amount of labor-hours, which directly affects the number of individuals required. And this sort of labor necessarily creates stratification within a society that just isn’t present in the cultural remains found on the island or on Taiwan.

Third, there is a good bit of geological work that has been done in the region. The geology of the Ryukyu Arc is pretty well understood. Nothing in the photos shown to date is inconsistent with what would be expected given the current understanding of the local geology and tectonics and the site itself likely looked very different 10kya than it does today given the seismic and volcanic activities (Nakamura and Hiroshi 2003).

The region that includes Yonaguni Island underwent a “doming phase” (Glasby and Notsu 2003, p. 300) in the Early Tertiary and resulting tensions led to a fracturing of the brittle crust during the Middle Miocene. “Normal faulting and fault block rotation extended and thinned the crust lowering the surface level. This was the “rifting phase”" (p. 300).

The limestone on the island, including that under the surface is very probably the Naha Limestone, which is up to 20 meters thick, or possibly the Makiminato Limestone, also about 20 meters thick. Both of these are from the Shimajiri Gorup, which originates from the Late Miocene to the Early Pleistocene (Machida 1973; Tsuchi 1975).

To answer Jay’s criticism, I don’t stipulate that “no such culture could have existed,” rather no such culture appears to have existed. In addition, I stipulate that to suggest a culture did exist at the time, which would have been capable of producing the megalithic architecture that is being suggested, so many new assumptions would need to be introduced that it makes saying anthing at all about the past useless. If we allow such assumptions, then anything is possible and anyone’s idea, speculation, or wild guess is as valid as anyone’s evidenced-based hypothesis.

Also, I still haven’t seen anyone, particularly in the “man-made” camp, explain why the “steps” are such that one would need to be a 20 foot giant to traverse them casually.

The more parsimonious explanation is a natural formation that consists of fractured and jointed limestone as a result of tectonic, seismic, and erosional forces.

Selfless Disclaimer: there are likely several misspellings and typos… I actually typed this out in Notepad at work during a couple breaks and lunch. My apologies in advance.

References

Glasby, G.P. and K. Notsu (2003). Submarine hydrothermal mineralization in the Okinawa Trough, SW of Japan: an overview. Ore Geology Reveiws, 23, pp. 299-339.

New Scientist (2009). Yonaguni, Japan. New Scientist, 204(2736), p. 41.

Machida, H. (1973). Tephrochronology of coastal terraces and their tectonic deformation in South Kanto. Journal of Geography, 82(2), pp. 1-24.

Nakamura, Mamoru and Hiroshi Katao (2003). Microearthquakes and faulting in the southern Okinawa Trough. Tectonophysics, 372(3-4), pp. 167-177.

Tsuchi, R.(1975). Geology of southern Okinawa Island, with reference to the formation of the Yamashita-cho cave. Journal of Anthropolical Society of Nippon, 83(2), 131-136.

Holding the opinion that ” Indeed, there is one bit of compelling evidence which stipulates that the features couldn’t be man-made: there was no culture engaging in large-scale stone architecture at nearly 10,000 years ago” directly begs the question of human intervention.

THat is, if you already stipulate that no such culture could have existed, then by virtue of their non-existence, there could be no human influence. The problem is that to have this debate, you cannot simply start with the assumption that no human culture was existent or capable of this. That’s not a debate. That’s begging the question.

Also, the existence of pottery need not have arisen if a set of cultures had technology to make waterproof containers out of reed-like plant materials. All I’m saying here is that we cannot categorically rule out human intervention by stipulating that no such culture existed.

This starts with his assumption that I leave no room for doubt. In my comment above (2010/12/10 at 3:09 am in reply to Kevin Barry), I say, “I, too, may be wrong, and I keep my conclusions provisionally.”

The video linked presents the site spuriously and offers no evidence for human construction. None. Zero. Zilch. It is possible that the site is human constructed, but this hypothesis relies on the assumption that the pre-pottery civilization that resided there was 1) numerous enough to expend the sort of man-hours of work necessary; 2) had the technology required to produce: a) megalithic stone architecture from natural rock, and b) agriculture on a massive scale to provide the necessary calories/energy for workers; 3) that the alleged civilization disappeared without any archaeological evidence of their existence.

These assumptions are not trite. The null hypothesis to the above would be that the site is geologic. This is fully supported simply by examining the geologic features above the surface on the island, which match the below surface geology in strike and structure as well as stratigraphy.

Anthony also makes appeals to the “armchair scientist,” which I am not. I’ve been in the field and observed many sites that are, indeed, megalithic as well as geologic, so I have a rich set of experienced data to draw from. I see no good reason to visit Yonaguni to assess the situation. I would happily go if the trip were funded by Anthony, however, and I keep this offer and my provisional conclusions at the ready. I caution him against funding my trip, though, since cost-benefit analysis does not support confirmation of his biased conclusions (biased toward mystery-mongering and significance-addiction).

Anthony’s appeals to the fallibility of science as a means of supporting his irrational conclusion (which *is* clearly an “armchair” conclusion given his likely lack of experience and education on the topics of archaeology and geology) is also not relevant to the discussion. All science is provisional and my conclusions on Yonaguni are no different. This does not negate the fact that not a single commenter on this post has offered a citation that describes any data that are supportive. The closest that has come is the video which Anthony linked, in which the geologist who is clearly smitten by the idea, shows what he claims to be lithic technology. The camera is on the stones only briefly, but I saw no evidence that these were worked by human hands. Still, without a detailed sketch of the stones, or an up-close examination, it would be difficult to rule that out. Stone tools have clear signs of flaking in a pattern that simply doesn’t occur in nature -which seemed absent in the video.

But lets assume that these were stone tools. How does one date them in context with the geology under the surface? One must assume that Neolithic Japanese fishing societies of 9,000 – 6,000 years ago used various stone tools. There’s no reason to think that they were 100% careful when fishing to not loose them overboard on their flimsy crafts.

The site may, indeed, turn out to be human-constructed. But the evidence isn’t supporting that conclusion. So far, the only data shown are spurious at best.