Ancient archaeological site destroys our current notion of "history"

[CrusaderFrank]

Spare me the insults, I read the whole fucking article. It's like calling New York and New Jersey the same place because they're close by each other.

No, because Pumapunku is a temple complex. Which fucking one do you consider a temple complex? New York or New Jersey? I have never even seen crackpots advocating that Pumapunku is not part of Tiwanaku. This is like saying the Capitol is not part of Washington, D.C. to make a better analogy of your suggestion.

But you notice, she does not address the question! How do you account for images of Chinese and Africans in pre-historic Bolivia?
Also, when, oh when, oh when, was Titcaca 10 miles bigger to put Puma Punku on the its shoreline? I've not seen an answer to that yet, but I'm still looking.

Well, he did answer it. He suggests that anyone who sees chinese and afrcians and elephants are all crackpots because it's not there. Today's vocabulary word is "pareidolia". People "see" aliens and spaceships in ancient writing or drawing all the time. It's what they want to see, like Jesus cheetos or the many faces (and even Kermit the Frog) on Mars

As for the Titicaca being 10 miles bigger, I can only find wingnut sites that emphasize it as a port city. According to Paul Heinrich, geologist at LSU:

The available research shows that Tiwanaku was never
a port city on Lake Titicaca. Looking at available maps
and geomorphic studies, it is quite clear that Posnansky
(1943) was an inexperienced geomorphologist. His
so-called shoreline appears to be nothing more than the
valley wall of a river valley cut into the deposits of
Lake Ballivan on which Tiwanaku lies. The plain of Lake
Ballivan, except where cut out by younger fluvial valleys,
extends from the modern Lake Titicaca shoreline eastward
(up-valley) past Tiwanaku. The plain of Lake Ballivan
finally ends at a small fragment of the older and higher
lake plain of Lake Cabana at the easternmost tip of the
valley. Within this valley, younger and lower lake plains
are lacking (Lavenu 1981:Fig. 6, 1992:Fig. 4). The age of
Lake Ballivan is undetermined, but it is at least over a
100,000 years old (Clapperton 1993).

I have also examined the "wharf" described by Posnansky
(1943). So far, I find the same lack of evidence for it
having been a "wharf" as for Tiwanaku having ever been
a port. In my opinion, the claim that Tiwanaku was port
with a wharf is nothing more than the wishful thinking by
Posnansky (1943) for which proof is lacking. This claim
has become part of the mythology surrounding Tiwanaku
that various authors blindly repeat without evaluating
the facts for themselves.

[NOTE: The actual lake port was at Iwawe which was
connected to Tiwanaku by a land road (Browman 1981).]​

\

So in effect you're asking for someone to prove Posnansky's ideas correct when he is one of the people proposing these discrediting pseudoscientific theories. You haven't heard an answer, because it is based on bad information.

They have to be 2 different sites because one is in total ruins and the other isn't! How many times must I state the 2 big facts about Puma Punku:

1. It's a megalithic site, but it is in ruins so something REALLY BIG must have happened, ahs

2. It's a dock so it must have been built when Titicaca was 10 miles bigger! When was that?

Oh my! You're right! Just like Michigan Central Station in Detroit could not be part of the city of Detroit. Just look at it, it's falling apart while Detroit is still an actively occupied city. And look, MCS was a huge structure.

The central site, as is common in the rise of powerful historic civilizations, was abandoned as the power of the society collapsed. When war or famine or other problems cause the authority structure to break down, monumental sites are abandoned since the resources needed to maintain them are no longer available. But still people may occupy the regions around the central site. This appears to be the case here.

According to Alvaro Higueras, Ph.D, who helped with the excavation:

Survey of the Tiwanaku Valley has revealed a four-tier settlement hierarchy, pattern indicative of state-level organization (Albarracin-Jordan and Mathews 1990; McAndrews et al. 1997). The Tiwanaku site was surrounded by a set of secondary sites (e.g., Lukurmata, Pajchiri, Khonko, Wankani), themselves surrounded by extensive agricultural fields. Each of these sites contain lesser amounts of Tiwanaku-style public architecture, including semi-subterranean temples (Spickard 1985; Bermann 1990; Goldstein 1993; Stanish 1994b). biblio. But this spatial pattern will change in the last 200 years of Tiwanaku development: a drastic increase in small rural sites during the Tiwanaku V period (ca. A.D. 800, see below ), after a period clearly dominated by the secondary centers.

It has been suggested that the core of the Tiwanaku polity collapsed around A.D. 1000 in the aftermath of severe droughts that disrupted agricultural production (tubers) in the center's hinterland raised-fields (Ortloff and Kolata 1993). After the collapse of the Tiwanaku center (evidenced by abandonment of buildings and of large parts of raised-fields tracts), spatial patterns in the region (in the post A.D. 1000 period) will be dominated by small hamlets , whose population will continue to work the raised fields, although at a smaller scale (Graffam 1992).​

And it's not a dock, according to Paul Heinrich.

Google Image Result for http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/day/dayimages/zuiyo_maru.jpg

Thank you for proving my point. This picture from the Museum of Hoaxes presented as evidence for claims that are keeping company with these ideas about Tiwanaku. They were presented together.

And now, it's only fair for you to answer some questions. We'll start off easy.

Here are the records of all radiocarbon dating done at the site, including organic material beneath the site.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The oldest date is around 1500 years ago. Why would the oldest material in the entire site be only 1500 years old? Did someone steal all the organic material from the site? Did the site build itself? How do you explain this?

I take the science seriously... to a point.

Beneath the site means what exactly? They moved a 200 ton stone and sampled the ground beneath it?

What did the people use 1,500 years ago to quarry, cut, drill, transport and rebar these stones? Did they ever find any stone tools? Deer antlers showing evidence of wear from carving granite?

I also found it funny that the scientists are discussing "core of the Tiwanaku polity collapsed around A.D. 1000 in the aftermath of severe droughts that disrupted agricultural production" when so much of the site lies in total ruins. Was the earthquake some minor inconvenience?

It must mean that the disaster (earthquake?) befell it some time in the past yet people continued to try to make a go of it. Or perhaps resettled there long after the calamity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I for one seriously doubt they found a way to combine llama skins and dried grass into rebars.

Argument from personal incredulity
"I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is [or claims to be] unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)

You're long on smarts answers for sure, but so far, I've not hear a single coherent answer on the rebar question. Gold sucks as a rebar material because its too malleable.

It can only be some metal alloy long since corroded or stolen

You want to impress me, so sample the rebar holes to see if there's any trace left of the alloy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I looked at several sites, and the only one that I saw that dated the structure had it dated at 500 AD. Since it seems to be a wharf of some sort, dating the time that it would have been on the lake shore would provide a aproximate date for the structure. Looking at some of the pictures, I noted depressions in the stones where they would have set on top of each other much like those at the Partheon. Form and function. As far as the weight of the stones, there are many megalithic structures in the world that have stones of this size. But only a few where the finish is this nice.

That area of Bolivia is extremely geologically active, many large earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. There should be some associated ash falls that would provide a date for this structure.

Thank you for posting this information, this is a structure that I was not previously aware of.

I have a book at home, I'll have to pull it out tonight to quote the relevent portions about dating, it's called Fingerprint of the Gods. It agrees with the dating that Frank brought up. It is fascinating.

Yeah, that book has a giggle factor among actual archaeologists, geologists, and scientific researchers. You see, Hancock makes statements in it like, "we were just beginning to make headway with the deciphering of their (Mayan) intricate heiroglyphics". But actual researchers had already translated about 90% of Mayan heiroglyphics. Just a quick glance at a book published 3 years before Fingerprints called Breaking the Mayan Code would have informed Mr. Hancock of this.

Additionally, his crustal shift theory has been discredited. At first he was given some consideration, but geological testing demonstrated that antarctica has been near the south pole for the last 100 million years or so, and antarctica has been covered with ice for an bare minimum of 160,000 years. Evidence of flora and fauna do not match his predictions either.

Hancock has also written books about a martian civilization that built the famous "face" on Mars along with Hoagland. Despite NASA saying from the beginning that the face was simply an illusion due to shadows and poor resolution, these guys took the photos and constructed an elaborate Martian culture which communicated with ancient earth. Of course, when we sent better instruments to photograph Mars, it was proven to be just a hill- like NASA claimed in the first place.

It's ok to find these guys interesting- just like the history channel, or discovery channel- just realize they are out to make a profit through sensationalism and are not really interested in quality, accurate scientific investigation. That's why Hancock states concerning updates in his later edition of Fingerprints,

Writing new books, rather than going back to tamper with books already written, is also the way I prefer to respond to criticisms of my work. . . . I am proud of this book and continue to stand by it despite the unremitting hostility and criticisms of academics.​

A good scientists would either address the criticisms with detailed data and analysis or alter their hypothesis if the criticisms were valid. Of course, a good scientist would have submitted his hypotheses to peer reviewed journals first to have them critiqued, rather than reaching for a public audience with limited knowledge in the field.

NASA is the most corrupt organization on the planet, they taught the CIA a thing or two about lying to the public.

The Face on Mars is interesting in how NASA was not interested in it all all when it was first photographed! Instead of curiosity, NASA reaction was "Nothing to see, move on"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know that he's a giggle factor for them; however, they are not always completely credible themselves. I've seen them ignore evidence that doesn't fit in with their theory.

If you've seen them ignore evidence, they were wrong to do so. However, they tested these ideas, and they were found wanting. Scientific researchers develop consensus by intensely scrutinzing and criticizing each other's work, and using multiple approaches to confirm or discredit a given hypothesis. It's understood that even if you're part of the scientific community, any research you present will be submitted to peers who almost take a perverse joy at shredding your methods and results. If it is so sound that it can withstand this attack, and if it is confirmed by other lines of evidence, then it begins to be accepted.

Hancock proposes ideas that would falsify a large body of research and testing if it were true. But if his ideas were so sound, why not submit them to scrutiny like every other scientist? The entire idea is that the researcher is very careful to make sure that all of his data, methods, and analysis have a solid basis that would withstand such assault. But he didn't seem to think he should go that route. Still, scientists gave his ideas consideration, but evidence did not conform to what you would expect if his theories were true. So they were rejected. This happens all the time to scientists. Real scientists accept that they were wrong and move on. Einstein did this after it was proven the universe was expanding, though he had spent most of his life arguing and believing it was static- (even adding an unnecessary constant into his equations). Hancock just says it's the man keeping him down.

By "Scientific consensus" you mean how so many scientists agree that my SUV is melting the polar ice caps?

 

[Alan Partridge]

Just curious about this new rebar discusion. I cannot watch the video, is that where the rebar is talked about?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just curious about this new rebar discusion. I cannot watch the video, is that where the rebar is talked about?

The stones have obvious indentations between them where they were reinforced by some metal alloy rebar.

 

[N4mddissent]

As far as the carbon sample, it could come from any carbon based materials. Often, charcoal is used from ancient fire pits. They can also carbon date animal and plant remains found in midden pits. All societies, especially large ones like Tiwanaku, have trash and have to put it somewhere. Finally, if there are any human remains, they could also be tested. No matter where they dig near in the Tiwanaku site, they don't find evidence of human settlement that dates beyond circa 1500 years ago. It just wasn't settled then.

As for the drilling, copper tools were known and used throughout south america. By 900 A.D. the Mayans were drilling teeth and inserting jewels for decoration. The ancients were as smart as anybody alive today. They had less technology, but so did people in the middle ages who built the great cathedrals. The Romans made amazing aqueducts and the beautiful arches of the Colliseum. Just because we have come to rely on modern technology doesn't mean they were restricted by our limitations. People didn't believe a reed boat could carry 100 ton stones either until the archaeologist at the site built an exact replica using only materials available to the original inhabitants and floated one down the river. Ancient skulls with perfectly drilled holes have be known in South America for a long time. If you can drill a skull or a tooth, you can drill a stone. It just might take a bit longer.

As for the "rebar", most likely the holes were drilled, the stones put into place, and then molten metal was poured into the holes forming the "rebar".

As for the rest, I'm not sure what point you're driving at. Some disaster befell the people and the people did try to make a go of it, as you say. It is doubtful that an earthquake would be the event that destroyed the central authority. It would take a prolonged even like a drought or a plague that wiped out most of the community. Instead of artisans and stone-workers and priests, during drought and famine, everyone has to do what is necessary to survive, trying to find food and water. And many might have remained in the region trying to do so. The earthquake could have occured later, and without the central authority structure, there would be no one to organize the labor to rebuild it.

 

[Old Rocks]

As far as the carbon sample, it could come from any carbon based materials. Often, charcoal is used from ancient fire pits. They can also carbon date animal and plant remains found in midden pits. All societies, especially large ones like Tiwanaku, have trash and have to put it somewhere. Finally, if there are any human remains, they could also be tested. No matter where they dig near in the Tiwanaku site, they don't find evidence of human settlement that dates beyond circa 1500 years ago. It just wasn't settled then.

As for the drilling, copper tools were known and used throughout south america. By 900 A.D. the Mayans were drilling teeth and inserting jewels for decoration. The ancients were as smart as anybody alive today. They had less technology, but so did people in the middle ages who built the great cathedrals. The Romans made amazing aqueducts and the beautiful arches of the Colliseum. Just because we have come to rely on modern technology doesn't mean they were restricted by our limitations. People didn't believe a reed boat could carry 100 ton stones either until the archaeologist at the site built an exact replica using only materials available to the original inhabitants and floated one down the river. Ancient skulls with perfectly drilled holes have be known in South America for a long time. If you can drill a skull or a tooth, you can drill a stone. It just might take a bit longer.

As for the "rebar", most likely the holes were drilled, the stones put into place, and then molten metal was poured into the holes forming the "rebar".

As for the rest, I'm not sure what point you're driving at. Some disaster befell the people and the people did try to make a go of it, as you say. It is doubtful that an earthquake would be the event that destroyed the central authority. It would take a prolonged even like a drought or a plague that wiped out most of the community. Instead of artisans and stone-workers and priests, during drought and famine, everyone has to do what is necessary to survive, trying to find food and water. And many might have remained in the region trying to do so. The earthquake could have occured later, and without the central authority structure, there would be no one to organize the labor to rebuild it.

The Parthenon, which was probably built prior to the construction of Puma Punku, had similiar indentations for the joining of the stones. Similiar even to the shape. No contact needed between the cultures, simply form follows function.

The people that built Stongehenge four or five thousand years ago moved stones as large even further than those at Puma Punku. Given enough people, time, and ingenuity, many early cultures performed amazing feats.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have a book at home, I'll have to pull it out tonight to quote the relevent portions about dating, it's called Fingerprint of the Gods. It agrees with the dating that Frank brought up. It is fascinating.

Yeah, that book has a giggle factor among actual archaeologists, geologists, and scientific researchers. You see, Hancock makes statements in it like, "we were just beginning to make headway with the deciphering of their (Mayan) intricate heiroglyphics". But actual researchers had already translated about 90% of Mayan heiroglyphics. Just a quick glance at a book published 3 years before Fingerprints called Breaking the Mayan Code would have informed Mr. Hancock of this.

Additionally, his crustal shift theory has been discredited. At first he was given some consideration, but geological testing demonstrated that antarctica has been near the south pole for the last 100 million years or so, and antarctica has been covered with ice for an bare minimum of 160,000 years. Evidence of flora and fauna do not match his predictions either.

Hancock has also written books about a martian civilization that built the famous "face" on Mars along with Hoagland. Despite NASA saying from the beginning that the face was simply an illusion due to shadows and poor resolution, these guys took the photos and constructed an elaborate Martian culture which communicated with ancient earth. Of course, when we sent better instruments to photograph Mars, it was proven to be just a hill- like NASA claimed in the first place.

It's ok to find these guys interesting- just like the history channel, or discovery channel- just realize they are out to make a profit through sensationalism and are not really interested in quality, accurate scientific investigation. That's why Hancock states concerning updates in his later edition of Fingerprints,

Writing new books, rather than going back to tamper with books already written, is also the way I prefer to respond to criticisms of my work. . . . I am proud of this book and continue to stand by it despite the unremitting hostility and criticisms of academics.​

A good scientists would either address the criticisms with detailed data and analysis or alter their hypothesis if the criticisms were valid. Of course, a good scientist would have submitted his hypotheses to peer reviewed journals first to have them critiqued, rather than reaching for a public audience with limited knowledge in the field.

I know that he's a giggle factor for them; however, they are not always completely credible themselves. I've seen them ignore evidence that doesn't fit in with their theory.

Personally, I like to read ALL versions and then come up w/my own opinion.

Here is information concerning the vulnebility of that area to climate change. Now consider that 15,000 years ago, we were still in the last ice age. So that area would have been much colder than it was during the little ice age. Yes, that book has a considerable giggle factor among those conversant with the sciences of geology and archeology.



environment
Opportunity knocks, again, in the Andes
by
Nicholas Asheshov


The last time global warming came to the Andes it produced the Inca Empire. A team of English and U.S. scientists has analyzed pollen, seeds and isotopes in core samples taken from the deep mud of a small lake not far from Machu Picchu and their report says that "the success of the Inca was underpinned by a period of warming that lasted more than four centuries."





The four centuries coincided directly with the rise of this startling, hyper-productive culture that at its zenith was bigger than the Ming Dynasty China and the Ottoman Empire, the two most powerful contemporaries of the Inca.

"This period of increased temperatures," the scientists say, "allowed the Inca and their predecessors to expand, from AD 1150 onwards, their agricultural zones by moving up the mountains to build a massive system of terraces fed frequently by glacial water, as well as planting trees to reduce erosion and increase soil fertility.

"They re-created the landscape and produced the huge surpluses of maize, potatoes, quinua and other crops that freed a rapidly growing population to build roads, scores of palaces like Machu Picchu and in particular the development of a large standing army."

No World Bank, no NGOs.

The new study is called "Putting the Rise of the Inca within a Climatic and Land Management Context" and was prepared by Alex Chepstow-Lusty, an English paleo-biologist working for the French Institute of Andean Studies, in Lima. Alex led a team that includes Brian Bauer, of the University of Illinois, one of today's top Inca-ologists. The study is being published in Climate of the Past, an online academic journal.

Alex spends a lot of time in Cuzco and he told me the other day that the report "raises the question of whether today's global warming may be another opportunity for the Andes."

The core samples from the sediment of the little lake, Marcacocha, in the Patakancha valley above Ollantaytambo, show that there was a major cold drought in the southern Andes beginning in 880 AD lasting for a devastating century-plus through into 1000AD. This cold snap finished off both the Wari and the Tiahuanaco cultures which had between them dominated the southern Andes for more than a millenium.

Living in Peru » Features : Opportunity knocks, again, in the Andes

 

[CrusaderFrank]

N4, thank you for the info.

The 1500 year carbon dating is hard for me to reconcile. If I understand the implications, it seems that the evidence shows the city was started 1500 years ago and fell into collapse maybe 500 years ago...not sure if I'm drawing the right references regarding the numbers on the C14 dating that you posted earlier. It makes the city far more modern than I thought possible. It just doesn't feel right to me.

My point about the rebars is this: it is a sophisticated trial and error process that lead engineers to understand the purpose of supporting stone with metal rebars and this isn't the only place where ancient structures show absolute signs that the builders were using metal rebars.

As with other sites, my question is: where are the precursors, where are they failed attempts at building megalithic site without the rebars and then realizing their necessity and adding then to new works? You don't find it here! This is a civilization that started building with rebars. They must have carried that knowledge with them to this place....but from where?

Also, I'd be very curious to see where their foundries were, what metal alloy did they use to reinforce the stones?

Also, as far as a drought...I mean the Lake is right there! How can a civilization be so smart to build like that (there are stone ducts throughout Puma Punku) yet not be able to draw water from the lake? Is it like how the Catholic Church tried to sit in the Roman Emperors chair after Rome fell and was not able to keep the aquaducts viable?

 

[N4mddissent]

N4, thank you for the info.

The 1500 year carbon dating is hard for me to reconcile. If I understand the implications, it seems that the evidence shows the city was started 1500 years ago and fell into collapse maybe 500 years ago...not sure if I'm drawing the right references regarding the numbers on the C14 dating that you posted earlier. It makes the city far more modern than I thought possible. It just doesn't feel right to me.

My point about the rebars is this: it is a sophisticated trial and error process that lead engineers to understand the purpose of supporting stone with metal rebars and this isn't the only place where ancient structures show absolute signs that the builders were using metal rebars.

As with other sites, my question is: where are the precursors, where are they failed attempts at building megalithic site without the rebars and then realizing their necessity and adding then to new works? You don't find it here! This is a civilization that started building with rebars. They must have carried that knowledge with them to this place....but from where?

Also, I'd be very curious to see where their foundries were, what metal alloy did they use to reinforce the stones?

Also, as far as a drought...I mean the Lake is right there! How can a civilization be so smart to build like that (there are stone ducts throughout Puma Punku) yet not be able to draw water from the lake? Is it like how the Catholic Church tried to sit in the Roman Emperors chair after Rome fell and was not able to keep the aquaducts viable?

No problem giving the info. Thank you for being so receptive to it. That seems rare these days. You have brought up some interesting questions, and there is still a lot unknown about the Tiwanaku site in general. Besides it's initial reputation started by some poor archaeological work, it's been a site plagued with problems by virtue of its location. Seeing it as a tourism booster, the Bolivian government in the past has tried to "reconstruct" the site. Looters are not unknown in the area, and sometimes political conditions in Bolivia make it difficult for scientists to access the site.

There are many mysteries throughout Central and South American archaeology. The jungle humidity doesn't preserve nearly as well as the dry desert air of Egypt. Mystery is what keeps people interested and I would not want to stifle creativity in trying to find interpretations to the data we find. But I would caution anyone to be wary of information that claims to contradict the general historical timeline that has been painstakingly established through study of many different types of data and research.

It does happen, but usually through a process. The discovery of the first Clovis sites were regarded as highly skeptical among archaeologists. They showed the presence of man in the Americas 10,000 to 14,000 years ago. But as more and more Clovis sites were found and dated, Archaeologists became convinced of their veracity. There have been a few sites claimed to be "pre-Clovis" but many of these are disputable. In many cases, the pre-Clovis sites often contain "artifiacts" that are questionably of human origin. The Clovis sites are determined by a type of spear point made in a certain style, called a "Clovis Point". This spear point technology is clearly distinguishable and has been found among mammoth remains. Clovis is the oldest generally accepted human civilization in the Americas, well-established by evidence. And even given the oldest date for their sites- about 16,000 years ago- we only have signs of stone-age hunter gatherers. There are no signs of Clovis culture building permanent residences of any sort.

It is likely that Tiwanaku along with Wari were the first major "Imperial" civilizations. There is another less-known major civilization called the Chimu. They were an impressive people who built 20 mile long irrigation canals. We have remains of their capital city, Chan Chan. They disappeared around 1470 AD when they ran into the Incas who conquered them and then wrote about their conquest.

The Moche people flourished before the time given for Tiwanaku and they built some pretty elaborate structures as well, including the Huaca de la luna. There's some interesting information there as well.

There's more than enough fascinating mysteries in the real archaeology without sensationalists muddying up the waters. Hope you continue to research and keep your fascination.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank, here is something for you to consider. You question how this culture could have developed the technology of advanced stone dressing and use of 'rebar' for stabalizing the stones in the short span of the life of that culture. That short span is still longer than the time the the US has existed. And we have gone from a horse powered culture to jet planes in our short span of existance as a culture.

These people were no less intelligent than those alive today. Given a stable physical and cultural environment, with enough surplus that not all were required to expend all their energies just surviving, the advancement of the culture was pretty much inevitable. We see the same pattern all over the world. Why do we not see an ealier development that about 10,000 years ago?

The ice age requiered each and every member of a group to expend their total energies just surviving. While they did develop some very interesting technologies, such as the Eskimoes have, they were not the kind of technologies that survive as artifacts.

Are there some earlier civilizations that we might not be recognizing? Possibly, considering the rise in the sea level as the last ice age ended. But I doubt that it would exceed those that developed in the last 6000 years.

To me, the most fascinating part of the subject of what the ancients did in building places like Stonehenge and other old megalithic sits, is the social organization implied, and the ingenuity of the use of very simple tools to achieve amazing results.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, here is something for you to consider. You question how this culture could have developed the technology of advanced stone dressing and use of 'rebar' for stabalizing the stones in the short span of the life of that culture. That short span is still longer than the time the the US has existed. And we have gone from a horse powered culture to jet planes in our short span of existance as a culture.

These people were no less intelligent than those alive today. Given a stable physical and cultural environment, with enough surplus that not all were required to expend all their energies just surviving, the advancement of the culture was pretty much inevitable. We see the same pattern all over the world. Why do we not see an ealier development that about 10,000 years ago?

The ice age requiered each and every member of a group to expend their total energies just surviving. While they did develop some very interesting technologies, such as the Eskimoes have, they were not the kind of technologies that survive as artifacts.

Are there some earlier civilizations that we might not be recognizing? Possibly, considering the rise in the sea level as the last ice age ended. But I doubt that it would exceed those that developed in the last 6000 years.

To me, the most fascinating part of the subject of what the ancients did in building places like Stonehenge and other old megalithic sits, is the social organization implied, and the ingenuity of the use of very simple tools to achieve amazing results.

You should be aware that one of the main reasons I assign far older dates to this and other sites is that I have no problem with the idea that man kind as "Smart" as we are now has been around for 200,000 years or so and that civilization have rose and fell several times already.

I saw an interesting show on SuperVolcanoes and from M-dna studies it appear that after Toba erupted 80,000 years ago, it crunched the entire human race down to a few thousand survivors.

Personally, I'm not giving up the idea that Puma Punku was originally constructed when Titicaca was 10 miles bigger and that the current C-14 dating dates from recent activity but not necessarily from the builders of the site.

What can I say, when I get a feeling about something I'll stay on it like a Gila monster

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Having a hard time reconciling how people using charcoal fires and driving in reed boats, cut these stone which came from the other side of Lake Titicaca 10 miles away and fitted them like this.

I may have to go there and take a look to figure it out.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thought you might like this if you are not already aware of it.

Deforestation Reveals Ancient Amazonian City - Sphere News

archaeological remains of an unknown, ancient civilization have been found.

A study published in Antiquity, a British archaeological journal, details how satellite imagery was used to discern the footprint of the buildings and roads of a settlement, located in what is now Brazil and believed to span a region of more than 150 miles across.

Antiquity
As Brazilian rain forest has been cleared away to make way for animal grazing, the architectural footprint of a network of ancient villages has been revealed.
"The combination of land cleared of its rain forest for grazing and satellite survey have revealed a sophisticated pre-Columbian monument-building society in the upper Amazon basin on the east side of the Andes. This hitherto unknown people constructed earthworks of precise geometric plan connected by straight orthogonal roads," the researchers wrote in the journal.

David Grann, author of the book "The Lost City of Z," points out that the existence of the ruins overturns the previously held belief that this portion of the Amazon basin had always been a pristine wilderness, even though legends of a lost Amazonian city still lingered by the time the Spanish arrived on the continent.

"Although the early conquistadores had heard from the Indians about a fabulously rich Amazonian civilization, which they named El Dorado, the searches for it invariably ended in disaster," Grann wrote on The New Yorker's Web site. "Thousands were wiped out by disease and starvation. And after a toll of death and suffering worthy of Joseph Conrad, most scholars concluded that El Dorado was no more than an illusion."

According to Martti Parssinen, Denise Schaan and Alceu Ranzi, the authors of the study, the community likely had a population of more than 60,000 people. The researchers said they have only uncovered roughly 10 percent of the existing structures, which may date as far back as A.D. 800.