A problem justifying a point of departure in an alternate history/worldbuilding book

[Jdailey1991]

I've been writing a history book on the geography, geology, history and culture of an alternate Earth compiled by "scientists" and "historians" who have been observing the history of this world unfolding before their non-invasive eyes. But if they know so little about the strange building materials that were used for the construction of aerial cities (like Columbia from Bioshock) and underwater cities (like Rapture, also from Bioshock) that they made no mention, would that be believable?

 

[Rosemary Tea]

To clarify, this alternate Earth has aerial and underwater cities?

If the historians and scientists don't know what materials were used to make them, they wouldn't leave that out of the book, they would mention that it's unknown. And probably include a bunch of theories about how the cities might have been built. Like Stonehenge: you'll never see a history book explaining how the rocks were moved to Salisbury Plain, why they were put there, or who did it, but you will see a lot of speculation on those questions.

 

[Jdailey1991]

To clarify, this alternate Earth has aerial and underwater cities?

That's one of the aims.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I agree with Rosemary Tea that if something is unknown then it would get a lot of attention from scholars. It is only the mundain which is often never mentioned in the account of historians and scientists. So the only way to get them to pay no attention to it at all is to make it as everyday as possible.

 

[piperofyork]

I've been writing a history book on the geography, geology, history and culture of an alternate Earth compiled by "scientists" and "historians" who have been observing the history of this world unfolding before their non-invasive eyes. But if they know so little about the strange building materials that were used for the construction of aerial cities (like Columbia from Bioshock) and underwater cities (like Rapture, also from Bioshock) that they made no mention, would that be believable?

How long have these scientists and historians been observing this alternate Earth? If they've been watching from the very beginning, it might be a bit of a stretch to claim that they know nothing (or next to nothing) about those building materials...

 

[skip.knox]

So, what are these strange materials? Are they natural but rare? Magically created? Knowing some of that might give you clues as to why a scientist might fail to wonder how something got made, or a historian to be uninterested in construction methods.

 

[Jdailey1991]

So, what are these strange materials? Are they natural but rare? Magically created? Knowing some of that might give you clues as to why a scientist might fail to wonder how something got made, or a historian to be uninterested in construction methods.

They are all natural. But can a new material just form in 56 million years or less?

 

[Rosemary Tea]

But can a new material just form in 56 million years or less?

For sure. In our timeline, 56 million years ago was the Eocene Epoch. Most modern species of plants and animals didn't exist yet, or were just coming into being during that time. That allows plenty of time for new building materials to occur, especially if they're derived from life forms: wood, for instance.

For that matter, humans didn't come into being until well after the Eocene, much less any building material that humans have ever used. (Stone existed back then, of course, but the practice of building things out of it did not.)

But presumably, you're not looking for building materials that came into being after the aerial and underwater cities were built, if those cities are 56 million years old (and if they are, there are more problems with that, which I'll go into below). You're looking for something the city builders could have used. That means it would have to be something that existed back then but no longer does, at least not as a building material.

In that case, it makes more sense for whatever was used to build the cities to be extinct. If it's a naturally occurring material, maybe the city builders harvested it to extinction.

But in 56 million years, the cities wouldn't have remained as they were. Even continents wouldn't have. Climates certainly would not. To put it in perspective, our Eocene period had very different climates, worldwide, from today, and in that time, North America was still connected by land to Europe and Asia, and Australia to Antarctica. If, in this alternate timeline, humans have existed that long and been building cities, those early cities would have long since disappeared, due to abandonment, natural disasters, climate change, and whatnot. New cities may have been built on the ruins of the old, but they would be build out of newer, known materials. The existence of the older cities, if known at all, would be the stuff of legend.

 

[skip.knox]

OK. So it's either natural raw or made of natural materials (like steel or cement are). Is it normal to be able to build an underwater city or a cloud city? If it's normal, then I can see scientists not being especially interested. Historians, though, are curious about everything and would ask why the cloud city was built just there, and just then. Cities, btw, are rarely built all at once. They grow over time. Don't know if that affects your question or not.

Why is it important or relevant that no one questioned how such cities were built? Does there come a time when the question is raised?

I still don't really believe the premise, though. People are curious. We ask why grass is green. We have asked how just about *everything* got built, who did it, and what they used. Scientists and historians have different methods and tend to ask different kinds of questions, but neither just shrugs and walks away. The only way I can see to explain this convincingly is for your scientists and historians to be not human and for you to make rather a point of their lack of curiosity.

 

[Jdailey1991]

For sure. In our timeline, 56 million years ago was the Eocene Epoch. Most modern species of plants and animals didn't exist yet, or were just coming into being during that time. That allows plenty of time for new building materials to occur, especially if they're derived from life forms: wood, for instance.

For that matter, humans didn't come into being until well after the Eocene, much less any building material that humans have ever used. (Stone existed back then, of course, but the practice of building things out of it did not.)

But presumably, you're not looking for building materials that came into being after the aerial and underwater cities were built, if those cities are 56 million years old (and if they are, there are more problems with that, which I'll go into below). You're looking for something the city builders could have used. That means it would have to be something that existed back then but no longer does, at least not as a building material.

In that case, it makes more sense for whatever was used to build the cities to be extinct. If it's a naturally occurring material, maybe the city builders harvested it to extinction.

But in 56 million years, the cities wouldn't have remained as they were. Even continents wouldn't have. Climates certainly would not. To put it in perspective, our Eocene period had very different climates, worldwide, from today, and in that time, North America was still connected by land to Europe and Asia, and Australia to Antarctica. If, in this alternate timeline, humans have existed that long and been building cities, those early cities would have long since disappeared, due to abandonment, natural disasters, climate change, and whatnot. New cities may have been built on the ruins of the old, but they would be build out of newer, known materials. The existence of the older cities, if known at all, would be the stuff of legend.

I'm talking about metals or minerals.