Monday, August 22, 2011

Tiahuanaco and Puma Punku





I had to knock out all the pictures in this post in order to actually read the text.  The pictures are the main reason to go to this site so I suggest reading the text here first and then linking to the original post to enjoy and understand the pictures better.

It is clear that the site is hugely destroyed by heavy earthquake activity and from the record alone, it has been often contaminated with more recent carbon sources.  It will take extreme care and substantial excavation to get a secure carbon date and that has not happened for the Great Pyramid either.

Podnansky’s efforts arrived at a celestial date that is fifteen thousand years ago.  Much as I would love to give that credence, it is still speculative as are all such work ups.  Five thousand years ago we had a astronomically sophisticated society that was able to lay out the Great Pyramid and Stonehenge that was still plausibly informed by even older records that understood the thirty degree shift of the crust some 13,900 years ago.  That simple combination would allow aligning structure to preserve per shift alignments.

What is significant is the fifteen thousand year alignment that is unreasonably common all over.  Been part of a global religion than arose with the Atlantean sea borne society that operated from 3000 BC to 1159 BC and built all the suspect structures solves the issue nicely.

As long as I do not have to go back much further than 3000 BC we have mountains of evidence of bustling and changing societies, all plausibly influenced by Atlantean society.

The Alta Plana was a prime source of both copper and tin ores and that was the core of the then unique Atlantean economy.  The advanced megalithic technology blend is all part of the cultural complex we are seeing here and in the Mediterranean.

In general, I have so far found no reason to reach further back anywhere in time anywhere around the globe.  The aptly named Atlantean cultural complex arose on top of a megalithic stone culture and was driven by a emergent global metal economy operated through palace factories.  It altered every culture it touched by supplying desirable metal trade goods likely in exchange for slaves and other goods.

Even the gold mines in South Africa best fit this regime.

It all collapsed in 1159 BC with the destructive Hekla Eruption which may well have been part of a much larger break along the mid Atlantic ridge.  It is clear that something bad happened that we would struggle with today.

This article is important because of the sheer wealth of megalithic rock shaping pictured.  Ignore comments on the shaping itself.  It was all done the hard way.  One callused blow at a time.


Tiahuanaco, Puma Punku the real mystery

Topic started on 25-7-2011 @ 06:05 PM by SLAYER69


Hello.

Over the past couple of years quite a few members have asked me to do a thread on Tiahuanaco {Tiwanaku} I've resisted the idea up till now for a few reasons. I didn't want to simply write a rehash of the same tired stories, old pictures, references and the ever popular {Aliens Did It!} excuse. So, I'll attempt to bring a fresh new perspective on this ancient controversial pre-Colombian Megalithic site. 

For the record and to be completely up front: We will not be discussing or hypothesizes about Tiahuanaco being constructed by refugees of Atlantis, or Ancient Space Aliens 

Sometimes fact is stranger & more mysterious than fiction

Let us begin...

###

The above two images are fairly drastic in both appearance and context. The upper one is from 1903 when the first real "Modern" exploration of the area occurred. I said exploration not excavation. There is a difference IMHO. A real archaeological excavation attempts to not only reveal but to put the site in question in it's proper historical context.

The major issues with Tiahuanaco {Tiwanaku} and the other closely located and related site of Pumapunku (Puma Punka) is the age and it's history. So, the big question, just how old are they? This is an interesting question with no easy answer. Before I get into the controversy over that aspect let us begin with what the prevailing paradigm of modern Academia has to say about the site... 


The area around Tiahuanaco may have been inhabited as early as 1500 BC as a small agriculturally-based village. Most research, though, is based around the Tiwanaku IV and V periods between AD 300 and AD 1000, during which Tiwanaku grew significantly in power. During the time period between 300 BC and AD 300 Tiwanaku is thought to have been a moral and cosmological center to which many people made pilgrimages. The ideas of cosmological prestige are the precursors to Tiwanaku's powerful empire.

Yadda Yadda, Blah Blah Blah... 

I'm trying not to use Wikipedia as a source as often as I have in the past but in this case I've checked out their referenced links and they check out as far as Modern Academia's Paradigm is concerned. The issue I have with the "official" story is the time-line and suppositions with which they use to support it. There has been C-14 dating. 29 such testing of the area if I'm not mistaken. All coming back with a fairly recent dating of around A.D. 400 to 1200. However, the site had been known for thousands of years to the indigenous peoples. Now when discussing those people one group in particular always enters into the topic. 


The Inca people began as a tribe of the Killke culture in the Cuzco area around the 12th century AD. Under the leadership of Manco Cápac, they formed the small city-state of Cuzco (Quechua Qosqo). The first step in the expansion of the Inca Empire was the defeat of the Hanan Chankas...

OK

Here we go...

So we know of the Incas and their impressive history and accomplishments from what the Spanish as well as the physical archeological evidence tells us. Here in lies where the controversy begins IMO. When the Spanish were in the New world conquering {Hence the Spanish name of Conquistador} were looking for and looting peoples and sites of Gold. The story goes as the Spanish were gallivanting about the countryside searching for treasure they came across Tiahuanaco. When confronted with such a site they stopped and asked the Incas if they had built it. The Incas laughed and said no. They explained that it was from before their time. 

I want to stop here and discuss an often quoted fallacy. At this point it is widely believed that the Spanish systematically destroyed the site in search of treasure and to destroy an obviously "Pagen" site. It is widely accepted they used many of the smaller blocks from the site to build a church nearby. Now I've read several references that supports this supposed event, while simultaneously I've also read quite a few other versions and references that tell us a completely different story. The site/sites in question were first recorded in written history by Spanish conquistador and self-acclaimed "first chronicler of the IndiesPedro Cieza de León. Leon stumbled upon the remains of Tiwanaku in 1549. It's at this point we need to stop and think long and hard about the age of the site. 

It was already a wreck with massive exquisitely carved megalithic stones tossed about like some gigantic Lego blocks that had been tossed about and strewn all over the area by an angry giant. With huge multi-ton carved stones and slabs strewn about Helter Skelter. The Spanish may have dug around and possibly moved some of the massive stone slabs and blocks about but nothing on the scale of the destruction they are often given credit for. Now the Incas knew of the site as being Ancient even by their standards. So herein lies the first of many issues with the dating of the site. So just how old is the site?


What I've found while tooling around online and my local library are many inconsistencies regarding that question. It is a controversial subject for many reasons. First off it isn't just the hard to piece together Prehistorical record but even the post-Colombian/Spanish era is also a bit confusing as well. 

OK. 

So the sites in question were ancient by Inca standards, and they used it for ceremonies because they believed the site to be sacred in doing so possibly contaminating the site. {Archeologically speaking} Then the Spanish came along and molested the site further in their search for gold. I want to take a moment here and give a comparative history of the other recently found culture civilizations in the area. Caral Supe... 

When we stop and look at a comparative time-line between the ancient Egyptians and the Ancient South American peoples we can find several dramatic parallels. According to accepted Egyptology Snefru was the first king of the 4th dynasty (2613 - 2589 BC). He ruled for an estimated 24 years. Now in that very short period of time he is credited with the construction of not just one but three pyramids! 

###

Snefru is credited with building the step pyramid at Maidum, the Red and Bent Pyramids at Dahshur. 

###

His son Khufu is the one who built the Great pyramid followed by his son Kefre who built the second largest pyramid at Giza. Now we are to believe that the Pharaohs went from building a much lessor quality step pyramid to building a perfect one in only 45 years? 

###

Meanwhile, over in Peru at Caral Supe we find a similar styled and quality construction and or supposed development in this part of the world. That's supposedly about as far as they got with no further development and then faded away. Yet, they were just as active and were Ancient Egypt's contemporaries.. 

###
###
###
###

Which also included ancient megalithic standing stones. 

###

Of course, there is no direct connection between Caral Supe and Tiahuanaco. There doesn't appear to be any continuity. However it might be helpful if we look at the bigger picture of the region. Peru and bordering countries all seem to be blessed with many ancient sites. Remember, during the period in question there were no artificial imaginary lines drawn on a modern day map. 

###

Now unlike Egypt which was able to maintain power and control even between upper and lower Egypt. The area in question does show signs of massive upheaval. It appears that these ancient people faced a massive cataclysmic destruction of their civilization and the survivors were forced to begin again. Posnansky thought the Ancient Bolivian Tiahuanacans were flooded out. Hence the amount of drastic destruction of their ancient monuments

###
###
###
###
###
###

The age controversy really begins with Arthur Posnansky 

Prof. Posnansky summed up his 50 year study in a 4 volume work entitled Tiahuanaco, The cradle of American Man first published in 1945. He explains his theories, which are rooted in archeoastronomy, as follows. Since Earth is tilted on its axis in respect to the plane of the solar system, the resulting angle is known as the "obliqueness of the ecliptic" (one should not confuse this with another astronomical phenomenon known as "Precession", as critics of Posnansky have done). If viewed from the earth, the planets of our solar system travel across the sky in a line called the plane of the ecliptic.

At present our earth is tilted at an angle to of 23 degrees and 27 minutes, but this angle is not constant. The angle oscillates slowly between 22 degrees and 1 minute miminum to an extreme of 24 degrees and 5 minutes. A complete cycle takes roughly 41,000 years to complete. The alignment of the Kalasasaya temple depicts a tilt of the earth's axis amounting to 23 degrees, 8 minutes, 48 seconds, which according to astronomers, indicates a date of 15,000 B.C. 

Between 1927 and 1930 Prof. Posnansky's conclusions were studied intensively by a number of authorities. Dr. Hans Ludendorff (Director of the Astronomical Observatory of Potsdam), Friedrich Becker of the Specula Vaticana, Prof. Arnold Kohlschutter (astronomer at Bonn University), and Rolf Müller (astronomer of the Institute of Astrophysics at Potsdam) verified the accuracy of Posnansky's calculations and vouched for the reliability of his conclusions.

What exactly was Arthur Posnansky looking at? When we turn back the clock and view the site from his perspective it appears to be a much older megalithic site. To me it resembled the great standing stones of Europe/UK. 

###
###
###
###
###

Now I'm not saying that I agree with the extreme age he came up with. However, if we look at how the site originally appeared to him and then compare it to the modern era misrepresentation it's obvious that in the last two hundred years or so there have been massive amounts of work in it's badly done excavation, exploration and down right contamination of the site. For this reason any C-14 dating should be called into question. The site has been picked at and gone over, gone over and picked at since before the Incas. Not to mention the Spaniards, then much later when the Bolivian Government attempted an ill-advised reconstruction attempt all based on pretty much their imagination as the photos in this thread shows. 

Now some of the earliest images we have are from 1877. They show an area in massive disarray obviously much more than what the Spaniards could have accomplished. I highly doubt the Spaniards would have dragged massive blocks and slabs half way up hills and into ravines while looking for gold just for the hell of it! 

###
###
###
###

Now for those of us who are more familiar with the site will recognize many of these resting places for the massive slabs/stones. Many of those massive & exquisitely carved blocks/slabs still lay where they were back in 1877 

###
###

The following two images are some of my favorites. The first is from 1908 the second is modern times. 

###
###
Notice the huge multi-ton block on the hill behind this now famous statue? We are to believe the Spaniards tore the place apart looking for Gold and dragged these huge blocks and slabs half way up a hill for no better reason than to simply reposition them in their searches.. 

###

The argument about it's date seems to be still a matter of interest to many. If we again look back to 1908 and the following decades worth of horribly conducted excavations in the area we can immediate tell the site has been contaminated. 

###

Now here is another fairly well known statue from the site. Notice something? No temple complex surrounding it. As a matter of fact I don't see a single sign of other blocks surrounding him, Yet in the modern era it is placed and surrounded by what was perceived as how the site originally looked. All based on what? Also, when the following images were taken C-14 dating wasn't around yet. So the site IMHO was again contaminated. 

###
###
###
###
###
###
###

I wonder if the original placement of the statues and standing stones and blocks had some sort of astrological alignments? Apparently we will never know.. 

###

It doesn't take somebody with an engineering degree to see the contradiction between the modern misrepresentation of how it is believed the site once looked and the quality of the stones from the still half buried ones. Here are a few modern images. If you look closely you will spot the original megalithic standing stones mixed in with the much lower quality blocks from what I believe to be form a much more recent period. 

###
###
###

Now compare the above travesty to the other nearby site of Puma Punku. In one location we have what originally looked like a vary ancient megalithic Stonehenge type astronomically aligned site. Then there appears to be an intermediate period of rough cut stones and construction followed by expertly cut and engineered gigantic multi-ton blocks and slabs. 

###
###
###
###
###
###
###

I'm not sure of the age of the site as per Posnansky and I also call into question Academia's findings as well. Is it possible that what we are seeing is the remnants of an ancient peoples who struggled to recover from a massive environmental, geological upheaval which floundered and eventually made it resulting in who we know of as the Incas?

Side note. Many of the ceramic/pottery found in the area over the locations vast history often show races which are not considered endogenous to the continent. I have another thread in the works about the Olmec of Central America in the works which goes into this controversial possibility of a prehistoric connection. Stay tuned 

###
###
###

Controversy: Does this carving remind you of Easter Island

###

Now I know for a fact that many members here at ATS believe in an Ancient Alien Scenario when discussing the site. This cannot be avoided. I'm still on the fence. I'll accept Modern Academia's belief in the simple head binding technique that over the early developmental years of a persons life from that period would create such oddly misshapen head scenario {For now} 

###
###
###

But....

What happens when a very young child's skeleton is found with an already fully formed and perfect elongated skull? 

###
But....

This thread wasn't about that! 

Now was it!?

A short bit of the related comments here to provide flavor.



There are others (Egyptians included) that used cement to form concrete several centuries before Christ, and the earliest suspected use of cement to make concrete was from around 6500 B.C. with the stone-age Syrians.


Either they had their own technology they used (not like ours but something of their own they figured out and not in the sense of lasers and such, most like energy and stuff like that), they got some help from ET or we just truly don't give our ancestors any credit. 

We seem to be pretty adaptable and can make all kinds of things with our hands and our minds. Why couldn't they have done the same thing, even if it is something we don't understand. I often wonder what they would think of a building like the Empire State Building.... 

When I was in Italy and went to Pompeii, it was nothing like I thought and it was 2000 yrs old. I was really impressed at their building and how they layed everything out. It was beautiful! The houses that would be considered mansions and manor there were amazing, so much color and many of the murals on the walls were still there. I tend to think if we want something we will make it  


I have cored may holes in concrete for my profession and it humbles me that these ancients can produce a smooth carved out perfect tube... 

I cannot even get one with a core machine with a diamond toothed core bit....

###


You need to watch this Video it has great information. If I dont get this video to work someone please embed for me 

6          Yet another blockbuster OP. I had thought the same thing about the duality of the layers, just as I observed in Macchu Picchu. One can look at it and see 2 different types of architecture at both sites. I always figured it was a newer civilization that was built upon what had long been there. As you know, PumaPunku is just as much a headscratcher as Tiahuanaco. If they were supposed 'sea ports' then why build seaports over 10 miles from the shore? It was said that pumapunku showed signs of excavation towards the lake, possibly because it had retreated from the dock. But that anomoly is also common with the great causeways of Egypt. Why build a causeway 8 miles from the Nile? As with both accounts, the mystery lies within a fabric of other questions. 

7          In regards to the skulls, one must check cranial capacity. Even though you reshape a skull it will not affect the volume. It will be in the volume in which one can decide if these skulls are off world. Also a DNA check would be even more conclusive. Check out the star child skull. Lloyd Pye has gotten enough DNA sequencing to establish it as being off planet.

###

I dunno. 

I assumed he didn't dwell on this because it is in fact not true (again, facts are appreciated, Slayer.)

The vast majority of stones shown in pics in this thread (and present at both sites) are Red Sandstone.

There is no Diorite there.

The hard stone present at the site is Andesite.

Diorite, Andesite and Granite are all pretty much the same stone, with slight differences in formation.

You don't need a harder stone to shape a stone.

Slayer:              As an aside, your comments about "contamination" leading to faulty C14 dates is outrageously impossible. But no matter.

Also - Posnanski's dating method involved him assuming the positions of certain structures that were no longer there. That might be okay for a ballpark figure, but as you yourself noted, the archaeoastronomy used was by nature extremely succeptible to large errors if the "alignments" were only a degree or two off (which can easily happen if the structure you're "aligning" with isn't actually there anymore!)

Another site has been located next to Lake Titicaca that dates to the same period, BTW.

Harte

9          Thanks for posting about Puma Punku and Tiahuanaco, When I see those places I cannot believe that they where made 300 AD, I just can't. The age of those places give the impression of 10,000 to 15,000 years. In fact this time would be close to the time of that neolithic dig happening now over in Turkey at Göbekli Tepe. Where they dated that the massive stone carvings where done 11,500 BC, when we shouldn't have been able to do that according to mainstream archeologists and anthropologists. In fact we weren't even to have animal husbandry at that point. I think the reason why the remains of Puma Punku and Tiahuanaco and the other places in the area weren't completely buried was it's location and the environment. It's at such a high altitude that Trees don't grow up there in fact what grows is shrubs and stunted grasses. No how did the Amira indians (who didn't have writing at the time they said they built them) move these blocks and carved them. I say that some type of upheaval back around this time threw this and other civilizations back into their stone age and the survivors had to figure out how to rebuild again.

Also that is the first time I have ever seen clay figurines and the well done carvings of faces (and that still gets me thinking, if they where able to carve to such a degree these facial features why keep the big monuments looking like some type of mechanical construct. Blocky and devoid of any type of recognizable human visage). Those faces I don't know if you are aware look closely like they are more asianic and like the Olmecs look more negro. Also slayer are you sending out email or notices when you put out a thread anymore, if not no problem I will just look for your threads in my friend area. And another thing I remember almost two years ago on one of these threads about the Inca's and Mayan's that one person commented that in their legend that they talked about the "walking trees". I've been trying to find out about this off and on.

10        It's known that the first Natives to South America came from Australia. The Americas appear to be, quite literally, the dusty corner of the world where everything lost ends up. Native Americans share genetic information from both Australian natives, Asians, and Caucasians. And quite a number of cultures in mid-america look too similar to not be from India. Of course, how they got there is nobody's knowledge.


1 comment:

francois clermont said...

you should consider aliens construction with much much more advanced technology for rock cutting and carving specially at Puma Punku and Cusco too many precision near perfection cutting and glassing of stone surfaces , base of many building constructed by megalithic block cut and adjusted mean all block are perfectly square and all surface are parallel and extremely flat , without denying all Inca work with more manageable smaller rock all other rock cutting was done by interstellar civilization with means to cut and transport any size of rock , and adjust them perfectly .

There was an error in this gadget