Lake Titicaca archeology

[MG1962]

I was watching on the history channel one of these "Ancient astronaut" shows. As usual they got onto Lake Titicaca and the ruins surrounding it. Anyway the usual plethera of evidence is offered including the stunning comment. "They dont know how some of these buildings where built"

I thought, well I might see what the real world says about the topic. Googling turned up suprisingly little technical info about the site. There are some good general sites, but none that go into the level of detail I am looking for

So.........can anyone recommend any books on the topic that give a reasonable overview of the site, its history, and if possible, what archeologists have figured out on the construction angle

During my googling two questions came up. One...some of the reconstruction on the site is wrong, and dates from a less enlightened era. Two....The gate of the sun has been moved, but they dont know its original location. I would be curious to see what evidence they have, other than the structure seems out of context with its surroundings.

[wendyinthewind]

i would love it if this thread became very active, i am surprised there aren't more archaeology threads here. Lots of debunking is needed in this area of study!

[MG1962]

i would love it if this thread became very active, i am surprised there aren't more archaeology threads here. Lots of debunking is needed in this area of study!

I think a lot of people could be burned out from the Chariots Of The Gods in the 1970's - so in a sense a lot of people have been debunking for a very long time

What I find of continuing interest. Reading how the ancients really did something is infinately more interesting than pointing to a pile of rocks and saying "Aliens done it"

[Stellafane]

i would love it if this thread became very active, i am surprised there aren't more archaeology threads here. Lots of debunking is needed in this area of study!

I know! I used to live in southern NH close to a site that called itself "America's Stonehenge" and claimed pre-Columbian antiquity. I was always pretty sure the whole thing was a 20th century fake/case of mistaken identify, but I'd like to see more definite proof on the subject someday.

[Fnord]

Archeology seems to be largely guesswork anyway, with quite a bit of fantasy thrown in. From a few bones, beads, and shards of broken pottery, an archeologist can invent a person, his or her family, the dwelling they lived in, the culture around them, and even their religious beliefs.

This is not to say that archeologists don't know what they're doing, or that archeology is not a legitimate science. It is to say, however, that so much can be inferred from so little by so many that it sometimes amazes me that we know anything at all about the past that occurred before writing was invented.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw some of that Von Daniken remake yesterday. Couldn't watch it straight through. When the one guy came on claiming, "there just is no other explanation," I kept getting too annoyed to keep it on. It's been on before and the program is a remake of the same stuff from past programs.

When I went to Peru last year, (Skeptigirl's Magical Mythical Tour) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123891), at the museum by the Nazca lines, the museum tour guy (lots of people there want to show you around for a tip) said it was insulting to them to suggest their ancestors couldn't have built structures and made the Nazca lines without help. :)

I didn't make it to the Gate of the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gate_of_the_Sun). I took a side trip to the Bolivian border to see the mud pit meteorite crater (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7001897.stm) but didn't go any further. I did, however see plenty of Inca architecture including Machu Picchu.

There are indeed very large stones and they fit together exactly in many structures. (Lot's of the structures are not so carefully carved and it appears the bulk of the building activity was pretty ordinary.) I suspect they had some means of sliding the stones back and forth in place to grind them to perfect fits. I imagine if you work long and hard enough at something and you are motivated to make a perfect fit or a single large carving, it just takes time, people and motive.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....that so much can be inferred from so little by so many that it sometimes amazes me that we know anything at all about the past that occurred before writing was invented....I think you are underestimating the volume of evidence we have on prehistorical archeology.

And the Inca's had a system of writing, BTW.

Cracking the Khipu Code (http://archaeology.about.com/od/americanancientwriting/a/khipucode.htm)There are several interesting nuances to this. Urton and Brezine found that in addition to summary strings, Levels 2 and 3 khipus each have a set of twelve knotted strings that appear to contain non-numerical data, what they’re calling “introductory” threads. They believe that a symbol consisting of three single knots might represent the name of the town (Puruchuco), and that that information is there so that when the khipu would be passed to administrators outside of Puruchuco, it would still be identifiable as Puruchuco’s khipu. In other words, the introduction wouldn’t be necessary if the information were to be kept in town. Other information that must be stored there, somehow, would be what kind of thing is being counted, and possibly, for what period of time. In other words--there might be a date coded into the khipu. Also, if the khipu are related to groups of people, somehow, who are they? A good guess might be the ayllu, a kin-based, ceremonial group that had specific ritual tasks in Inca society, including ancestor worship and tending to family mummies. Or it might be a reference to the Inca ceque system of shrines along a road. Imagine that; a data record that holds information about the ayllu or ceque systems!

Will researchers be able to figure out what the khipu were counting? That might be more difficult. If the khipu knots and fibers and dye combinations are a language, they are a symbolic language; in other words, there are no little knotted images of alpacas. The finds at Caral reported in early 2005 suggest that an early form of the language exists. But what we don’t know is whether the khipu knots have sounds associated with them or just ideas. Do the three knots that Urton and Brezine consider the town’s name symbolize words or syllables? We don’t know, and it may be that it’s impossible to tell.

[wendyinthewind]

it is completely insulting to suggest that these brilliant ancient people couldn't have created these works.

i would love to see some more archaeology threads here, it seems there is an interest!

[shadron]

Archeology seems to be largely guesswork anyway, with quite a bit of fantasy thrown in. From a few bones, beads, and shards of broken pottery, an archeologist can invent a person, his or her family, the dwelling they lived in, the culture around them, and even their religious beliefs.

This is not to say that archeologists don't know what they're doing, or that archeology is not a legitimate science. It is to say, however, that so much can be inferred from so little by so many that it sometimes amazes me that we know anything at all about the past that occurred before writing was invented.



Carefully, there, Gentle Fnord. A lot can indeed be intimated, when the conditions are right, from little. Take, for example, the remains of all the species of Homo and Australopithecus. All of them, all that have ever been found, could easily fit in bed of a single pickup truck, and yet we infer a great amount about the lives of all these creatures from those remains. I believe that there have only been ten or less skeletons of T Rex which are 50% or more complete, and only five of Archaeopteryx; indeed, many late finds rely on but one specimen, and almost all of those are bones only. Most archaeologists are extremely careful in their techniques, and perhaps only slightly less careful in their squabling than, say, Johanson and Leakey. For example, see http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/preclvis.htm

[shadron]

it is completely insulting to suggest that these brilliant ancient people couldn't have created these works.

i would love to see some more archaeology threads here, it seems there is an interest!

Start one, then, about something specific, and you'll almost certainly draw a crowd.

[Sherman Bay]

I was watching on the history channel one of these "Ancient astronaut" shows. As usual they got onto Lake Titicaca and the ruins surrounding it. Anyway the usual plethera of evidence is offered including the stunning comment. "They dont know how some of these buildings where built"Careful. If Von Daniken and/or kin is involved, you can be sure that: Scientific accuracy is not a factor in any way, shape or form Good Journalism isn't involved, either Wild fantasy and speculation rules If facts refute anything, or anything new is found to refute the fantasy or claims, it is never inserted in old shows, which keep repeating the errors forever Why? "It's only entertainment." "Entertainment" is a cover for "Let's make some money out of the stupid dolts who believe us, because we bow down to P.T. Barnum, our idol." Ha, ha, suckers!

[MG1962]

When I went to Peru last year, (Skeptigirl's Magical Mythical Tour) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123891), at the museum by the Nazca lines, the museum tour guy (lots of people there want to show you around for a tip) said it was insulting to them to suggest their ancestors couldn't have built structures and made the Nazca lines without help. :)

I could not agree more - we are insulting the ingenuity of our ancestors. Because we can not figure something out, does not mean they couldnt

Thanks for the link....seriously cool stuff

A question...Did you stay close to the plains or not?. The reason I ask, a friend camped over night out there long before it was popularised in the early 70's - He mentioned how creepy and unsettling the place was, none of the group could settle down at any stage of the night


There are indeed very large stones and they fit together exactly in many structures. (Lot's of the structures are not so carefully carved and it appears the bulk of the building activity was pretty ordinary.) I suspect they had some means of sliding the stones back and forth in place to grind them to perfect fits. I imagine if you work long and hard enough at something and you are motivated to make a perfect fit or a single large carving, it just takes time, people and motive.

Well one of the claims the show made was stone age technology, however I could clearly see that these people had used some metal for bracing and locking, very similar to Roman technology actually. I also think you might be on the money about grinding. Some seem to suggest they filled the gaps with sand and use that to grind the stones into place

There also seems to be some debate about some of the reconstructions, and a few have commented the reconstructions show worse workmanship than the orgininals - sad if true

[MG1962]

Carefully, there, Gentle Fnord. A lot can indeed be intimated, when the conditions are right, from little. Take, for example, the remains of all the species of Homo and Australopithecus. All of them, all that have ever been found, could easily fit in bed of a single pickup truck, and yet we infer a great amount about the lives of all these creatures from those remains. I believe that there have only been ten or less skeletons of T Rex which are 50% or more complete, and only five of Archaeopteryx; indeed, many late finds rely on but one specimen, and almost all of those are bones only. Most archaeologists are extremely careful in their techniques, and perhaps only slightly less careful in their squabling than, say, Johanson and Leakey. For example, see http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/preclvis.htm

Where people come a-drift is not paying attention to the language the archeologist is using. When you see things like "there are indications of" or we 'suspect from evidence' that the researcher themselves is skating on thin ice, and would cave the second some new evidence or research techique reveals more detailed findings

Then you will see "We know from mulitple sites and sources" There arguement is as strong as they can make it - and they will fight to the death to defend the theory

[Wangler]

When I went to Peru last year, (Skeptigirl's Magical Mythical Tour) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123891), at the museum by the Nazca lines, the museum tour guy (lots of people there want to show you around for a tip) said it was insulting to them to suggest their ancestors couldn't have built structures and made the Nazca lines without help. :)

Did the guide hazard a guess as to why the Nazca lines and artifacts were created? Were they religous in nature? Done for fun? To demonstrate their abilities to otherworldly visitors?

I managed to make it through some of that Van Daniken show that others have mentioned...pretty funny in many respects.

[Mangoose]

I watched the same show last night and had a real fun time adding to rejoinder "and so therefore aliens did it" to any claim that was made seemed ridiculously unrelated to the central premise of the show.

It is such an amazing coincidence that people in both Mesoamerica and Egypt built pyramids. And so therefore aliens did it.

Diorite used in megalithic structures is so hard that it could only be cut with diamond-tipped saws (false claim). And so therefore aliens did it.

The ancient Greeks used a device called the Antikythera mechanism that changes our understanding of how advanced Greek technology was. And so therefore aliens did it.

The Baghdad battery shows that people of antiquity made some use of electricity. And so therefore aliens did it.

It was hilarious how much of the program had nothing to do with the supposed theme unless one continually begged the question and already presumed what was being argued, along with the premise that people in the past were so stupid that they were unable to come up with technological advances by themselves.

[MG1962]

It was hilarious how much of the program had nothing to do with the supposed theme unless one continually begged the question and already presumed what was being argued, along with the premise that people in the past were so stupid that they were unable to come up with technological advances by themselves.

I got a chuckle out of various piles of rocks seemed to be a scale model of the solar system, and the spacing of the planets. I was wondering if any of the piles, given how fast the graphic swept passed - either represented Pluto - assuming it did, the aliens had some serious orbital positioning errors on their charts.

Oh and the lightbulb in the tombs was a highpoint - Archeologists suggest it is a glyph for the fragrant lotus plant - our investigators decided it was a lightbulb :boggled:

[Mangoose]

Yeah the lightbulb thing is like the WTC7 truthers.... Well, it looks like a light bulb, so by golly it must BE a light bulb.

Hey, one hierglyphic looks like a side view of a computer processor (with its pins):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/wikihiero/img/hiero_Y5.png

Never mind the fact that Egyptologists claim that the glyph represents a Senet game board; I say if it looks like a CPU, it suggests that the ancient Egyptians were using primitive PCs to assist in their architectural work. And where did they get those PCs from? You know the answer. Aliens did it!

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Thanks for the link....seriously cool stuffI had a great time. :D

...A question...Did you stay close to the plains or not?. The reason I ask, a friend camped over night out there long before it was popularised in the early 70's - He mentioned how creepy and unsettling the place was, none of the group could settle down at any stage of the nightIt's a very large flood plain. Nothing is there for miles, no roads, no buildings. I did not stay outdoors and saw no one camping in the area. But I think it would be beautiful under a clear sky. As long as it was in a safe situation, I can't imagine why one would feel creepy being there. I loved the Altiplano and wished I could have taken off across the desert hunting fossils and meteorites. But it wasn't practical, of course.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did the guide hazard a guess as to why the Nazca lines and artifacts were created? Were they religous in nature? Done for fun? To demonstrate their abilities to otherworldly visitors?....I believe he agreed with some researchers that the ones on horizontal surfaces were probably ritual trails. The Inca were known to march around in various rituals. When they sacrificed the ice mummies, as many as a couple thousand people went up the mountain to carry out the ritual. There is evidence of that in the trails up the mountains where the mummies were found.

The ones on more vertical surfaces were probably just ritual carvings. The history has been lost and most of what we know comes from archeology research alone. It's a shame there wasn't more passing down of stories like the Australian aboriginals. Most of ancient Latin American history was not kept through traditions except perhaps dress and some aspects like that. And even a lot of those were altered by the newcomer influence.

[Fnord]

Where people come a-drift is not paying attention to the language the archeologist is using. When you see things like "there are indications of" or we 'suspect from evidence' that the researcher themselves is skating on thin ice, and would cave the second some new evidence or research techique reveals more detailed findings ...

I have to admit that this could be my case, since my very first contact with anything resembling "real" archeology occurred when I received a bunch of Erich von Däniken's books as a kid and read them all in one weekend.

Now, when I read the articles in "Biblical Archaeology Review" that are full of political intrigue, sectarian snobbery, and outright deception and thievery, I am inclined to believe that what the public knows about pre-historical events and cultures is merely the prevailing opinion of the most vocal majority of some secret archeological cabal.

Then again, my profession is engineering (a forward-looking application of science), and not archeology (a backward-looking application of the scientific method), so my opinions on this topic really don't amount to much.

[MG1962]

I had a great time. :D

It's a very large flood plain. Nothing is there for miles, no roads, no buildings. I did not stay outdoors and saw no one camping in the area. But I think it would be beautiful under a clear sky. As long as it was in a safe situation, I can't imagine why one would feel creepy being there. I loved the Altiplano and wished I could have taken off across the desert hunting fossils and meteorites. But it wasn't practical, of course.

It may have simply been the desolation, open spaces, and at the time, little studied lines scraped all over the desert. But thanks for the feedback anyway. Aside from you, he is the only person I ever knew who's been down there

[MG1962]

Now, when I read the articles in "Biblical Archaeology Review" that are full of political intrigue, sectarian snobbery, and outright deception and thievery, I am inclined to believe that what the public knows about pre-historical events and cultures is merely the prevailing opinion of the most vocal majority of some secret archeological cabal.

How I deal with this is try and find out....How did they figure this out. And information is being constantly challenged. Troy is a good example. They found a layer that coresponds with the story of Troy's destruction, but it dates from the wrong era. It dates from the wrong era.

While trying to reconcile this problem and increasing number of scholars are now beging to question if the pile of ruins that were found are even the right city

[Marduk]

I was watching on the history channel one of these "Ancient astronaut" shows. As usual they got onto Lake Titicaca and the ruins surrounding it. Anyway the usual plethera of evidence is offered including the stunning comment. "They dont know how some of these buildings where built"

I can well believe that anyone involved with that dreadful program doesn't have a clue how it was built and to be honest they aren't too worried about finding out either

I thought, well I might see what the real world says about the topic. Googling turned up suprisingly little technical info about the site. There are some good general sites, but none that go into the level of detail I am looking for

I can immediately offer you this
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/t03-03a.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/t03-03b.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/t03-03c.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/t03-03d.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/t03-03e.jpg
this is to date every radiocarbon result obtained from the Tiwanaku region, including organic remains from beneath the city and results from the surrounding infrastructure, the oldest date here is around 1500 years old meaning that the city was built around 500CE, So any claims that it dates to 10,000bce and was built by survivors of Atlantis can immediately be discarded

So.........can anyone recommend any books on the topic that give a reasonable overview of the site, its history, and if possible, what archeologists have figured out on the construction angle

don't read anything written by a pseudo history author, it'll be fiction
the university of pennsylvania which is a world leader in archaeological research has this page
http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/research/Exp_Rese_Disc/Americas/tiwanaku/index.shtml
Alvaro Higueras, Ph.D who has excavated at the city has a website here
http://www.tiwanakuarcheo.net/1_main/tiwanaku.html

During my googling two questions came up. One...some of the reconstruction on the site is wrong, and dates from a less enlightened era. Two....The gate of the sun has been moved, but they dont know its original location. I would be curious to see what evidence they have, other than the structure seems out of context with its surroundings.
1. the site was rebuilt quite recently, you just can't get the staff
2. the gate of the sun has been moved, when it was found it was laying on its side, it was placed back upright

any specific questions, just ask
;)

[Wangler]

I believe he agreed with some researchers that the ones on horizontal surfaces were probably ritual trails. The Inca were known to march around in various rituals. When they sacrificed the ice mummies, as many as a couple thousand people went up the mountain to carry out the ritual. There is evidence of that in the trails up the mountains where the mummies were found.

The ones on more vertical surfaces were probably just ritual carvings. The history has been lost and most of what we know comes from archeology research alone. It's a shame there wasn't more passing down of stories like the Australian aboriginals. Most of ancient Latin American history was not kept through traditions except perhaps dress and some aspects like that. And even a lot of those were altered by the newcomer influence.

It's too bad that there are not written histories...they would keep well in a dry locale like Nazca, I think.

With oral histories, decimation of these ancient cultures by external peoples really makes looking back difficult. What a shame.

Whatever the reason for their being there, if my ancestors had made them, I would be proud of that fact.