Tiwanaku

[kerkinana walsky]

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now, clearly you have your own agenda and no amount of hard evidence will make you wake up and smell the coffee

have a nice time talking to yourself

If you let me know when your birthday is I will get you some rolls of rubber wallpaper and one of those nicely fitted white jackets that do up round the back

[Dark_Lord]

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now, clearly you have your own agenda and no amount of hard evidence will make you wake up and smell the coffee

have a nice time talking to yourself

If you let me know when your birthday is I will get you some rolls of rubber wallpaper and one of those nicely fitted white jackets that do up round the back

Actually, you did not reply to a single word of what I posted about geology and optical thermoluminescence at Tiwanaku.

[kerkinana walsky]

Actually, you did not reply to a single word of what I posted about geology and optical thermoluminescence at Tiwanaku.

I have already covered all that in some considerable depth

you chose to ignore it because it came from a factual source thats totally backed by the scientific evidence rather than one that matched your personal belief based on pseudohistory

face it you're entire claim is based on the hypothesis (unproven) of two men who died decades before proper scientific analysis was done at the site

thats why you're a complete waste of time

[Harte]

Also, only by use of optical thermoluminescence could the approximate age of the megalithic architectures be ascertained, while ceramics is a very bad indicator of the site's antiquity, being of possible intrusive origins.

Thermoluminescence cannot be used to date the construction of the site. This sort of dating can only tell you how long it's been since the last time the sample was heated to (approx) 500 deg. C.

It's doubtful that the megaliths were ever at or above 500 deg. since their matrix formed. Hence, you may be able to discover how long the stone has been around but certainly not how long since the structure was erected.

Harte

[Dark_Lord]

Thermoluminescence cannot be used to date the construction of the site. This sort of dating can only tell you how long it's been since the last time the sample was heated to (approx) 500 deg. C.

It's doubtful that the megaliths were ever at or above 500 deg. since their matrix formed. Hence, you may be able to discover how long the stone has been around but certainly not how long since the structure was erected.

Harte

<a href="http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/Is...05/LYRITZIS.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/Is...05/LYRITZIS.pdf</a> [note: PDF article]

It seems optical thermoluminescence has been already successfully applied to the dating of ancient greek megalithic constructions, with remarkably accurate results, while the possibility of further application for the dating of other megalithic sites in Egypt and Europe is currently being explored.

Of course Tiwanaku would be an excellent site to be dated by means of optical thermoluminescence, which might either contraddict or confirm radiocarbon dating.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Dark_Lord

[Dark_Lord]

I have already covered all that in some considerable depth

you chose to ignore it because it came from a factual source thats totally backed by the scientific evidence rather than one that matched your personal belief based on pseudohistory

face it you're entire claim is based on the hypothesis (unproven) of two men who died decades before proper scientific analysis was done at the site

thats why you're a complete waste of time

Still, you are not replying to my previous posts.

If you think geology and optical thermoluminescence are a waste of time, just state it clearly.

[Harte]

<a href="http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/Is...05/LYRITZIS.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/Is...05/LYRITZIS.pdf</a> [note: PDF article]

It seems optical thermoluminescence has been already successfully applied to the dating of ancient greek megalithic constructions, with remarkably accurate results, while the possibility of further application for the dating of other megalithic sites in Egypt and Europe is currently being explored.

Of course Tiwanaku would be an excellent site to be dated by means of optical thermoluminescence, which might either contraddict or confirm radiocarbon dating.

Nice pdf file.

It appears that a sample from in between two megaliths might supply a reasonably accurate date.

Anyone know if this has been done?

Harte

[kerkinana walsky]

its been done and I posted the link earlier (like I have with the geology) . It agreed with the orthodox dating for Tiwanaku

Dark Lord won't accept that of course because hes into pseudohistory

[Harte]

its been done and I posted the link earlier (like I have with the geology) . It agreed with the orthodox dating for Tiwanaku

Dark Lord won't accept that of course because hes into pseudohistory

Sorry Kerky,

I thought that the thermo dates you were talking about came from burial sites. I didn't see where the samples came from between the actual megaliths themselves.

Harte

[kerkinana walsky]

Sorry Kerky,

I thought that the thermo dates you were talking about came from burial sites. I didn't see where the samples came from between the actual megaliths themselves.

Harte

Burial sites that contained items of trade from Tiwanaku in the same region.

like dating a civil war grave at Arlington to get dates on the civil war

[Bokonontheancient]

in that case I suggest that you actually read it yourself. The samples are taken from all over the Tiwanaku region, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no human activity at all before the common era

your problem DL is that you believe something, when you believe something you then go looking for the facts to match that belief and you'll always find them. What you need to do is admit to all the people who know better than you that you don't know what you're talking about and that just because you happen to have been there is not better evidence than that collected by all the qualified Archaeologists and anthropologists over the years

I doubt you'll be able to do that though as so far you haven't shown any signs of understanding the reality of Tiwanaku and seem reliant on the claims made by someone unqualified to make any over 100 years ago. this is typical of all pseudoscientific theorizing that you have ignored the professionally collected data in favour of that which has already been completely debunked by qualified professionals. further to that you have pretended that this evidence presented by professionals is non existant or poor, when in fact that is what everyone is currently thinking of your idea that Tiwanaku is the oldest city on earth

any schoolboy could tell you that the oldest city on earth is Eridu

give it up boy youre going down in flames

now this very scientific paper (from which the radiocarbon dates were taken) has been posted twice. Have you read it, have you understood it ?

<a href="http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0717-...ipt=sci_arttext" target="_blank">http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0717-...ipt=sci_arttext</a>

it completely demolishes your five periods of occupation as a 1930s comprehension error in the first page

it also expalins where all the dates in that list were collected from and why they are relevant, as you were either incapable or unwilling to click on that link the last time it was posted I will copy and paste the relevant data here so you can no longer claim ignorance

your other posts have been quite sensible so ask yourself this question

whats worse

a ) someone who when discovering they are wrong admits it openly

B ) someone on who discovering they are wrong continues to rant and rave that they were right and everyone else is wrong.

this is the final word on the dating of Tiwanaku, it is from this scientific peer reviewed and approved paper which on its own represents more credible data than you have attempted to befuddle the readers of this site with so far

between 520 and 1060 CE.

did you understand what that means ?

chronologically the city of london is older than Tiwanaku,

now unless you're about to claim that archaeologists are involved in some sort of global conspiracy to hide the truth about Tiwanaku from the public you're done here

oh heres your biliographic references which are all used by that paper

that enough or do you want some more ?

All I have to say is well done.

- Regards, Bokonon

[Essan]

As a matter of fact, there is little if no proof at all that the Tiwanaku culture did actually realize the monolithic architectures at the omonimous site of Tiwanaku. It is indeed possible the Tiwanaku culture merely occupied an already existing site, which was already in ruins when the Tiwanaku culture was at its height.

And there is no evidence at all that Tiwanaku is any older than the Tiwanaku culture that is known to have inhabited Tiwanaku. Except a random astronomical alignment - on the same basis of which I've shown proven that New York City could be 10,000 years old.

Yes, it's possible that Tiwanaku was built by people 10,000 years ago who left absolutely no trace whatsoever that they ever existed. Maybe they put their dead in spaceships and fired them into the Sun? And were such keen environmentalist that they recycled absolutely everything? Or, just maybe, the people who we do have evidence lived there also built the place?

Incidently, it's worth noting that my ancestors used to build huge earthwork fortresses and defensive banks, and yet, just a few hundred years later, had not only forgotten that they had built them but attributed their construction to the devil. So I would not expect current local Indians to necessarily remember their ancestors as the builders of Tiwanaku

[Dark_Lord]

See the following picture I took last august of the Akapana wharf at Tiwanaku.

You can clearly see the thickness of the alluvial strata covering the first and second platform, reaching up to a thickness of 9 to 12 meters. Also, water erosion patterns are clearly visible on the blocks forming the first lower platform, while the second platform bears only very limited signs of erosion, an occurrance which is mainly due to the fact that the alluvial strata sheltered the platform preventing it from eroding for centuries if not thousands of years.

If Tiwanaku were actually as old as the city of London, London would probably be an underground city judging from the thickness of the silt deposits.

Also, this would account for ancient Inca traditions that Tiwanaku emerged from lake Titicaca (which also were at the base of Kiss' theories about Tiwanaku having been submerged for centuries under the waters of Lake Titicaca as a consequence of a major subsidence or flooding event). The discovery of Tiwanaku ruins still under the surface of Lake Titicaca would confirm Kiss' assumptions as well as Inca traditions of a pre-flood Tiwanaku.

[kerkinana walsky]

See the following picture I took last august of the Akapana wharf at Tiwanaku.

You can clearly see the thickness of the alluvial strata covering the first and second platform, reaching up to a thickness of 9 to 12 meters. Also, water erosion patterns are clearly visible on the blocks forming the first lower platform, while the second platform bears only very limited signs of erosion, an occurrance which is mainly due to the fact that the alluvial strata sheltered the platform preventing it from eroding for centuries if not thousands of years.

right so its alluvial is it, please link to the laboratory results that prove you know the difference between alluvial silt and wind blown dirt. or post a copy of your geology degree, because funnily enough real geologists who have exmained the same thing you have did not agree with your and graham hancocks conclusions

If Tiwanaku were actually as old as the city of London, London would probably be an underground city judging from the thickness of the silt deposits.

Also, this would account for ancient Inca traditions that Tiwanaku emerged from lake Titicaca (which also were at the base of Kiss' theories about Tiwanaku having been submerged for centuries under the waters of Lake Titicaca as a consequence of a major subsidence or flooding event). The discovery of Tiwanaku ruins still under the surface of Lake Titicaca would confirm Kiss' assumptions as well as Inca traditions of a pre-flood Tiwanaku.

firstly london has been continuously occupied since its foundation and the roman foundations of the original city are underground.

secondly Titicaca has been explored by minisub, guess what they didn't find

the local indian traditions are only reported that way in pseudo historic texts. Every anthropologist who has spoken to the local indians (not the inca) claims that they say that Tiwanaku grew from the shores of the lake. they say nothing about growing from under the surface like you just claimed they did.

are you making this up as you go along now because of a complete lack of any credible evidence

it certainly seems so

[Essan]

Nice photo DL But unfortunatly it doesn't tell us if there are lacrustine (lake) sediments below the more recent aeolian (windblown) sediments covering the ruins - only that would confirm one way or another if the structure was originally on a lake shore. As for erosion - we'd expect wave erosion if it was once a quayside on the lake and I see no sign of that, though of course that's not in any way conclusive.

Love to go there myself but they won't let me out of my country* .....

* mainly because my passport has expired and I can't afford another one

[Dark_Lord]

Pre-Inca ruins were indeed found beneath lake Titicaca

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/892616.stm

[Ancient temple found under lake Titicaca, article also includes photographs]

Moreover, the fact that the ruins were already covered in a thick silt layer in Inca times, should be regarded as a proof that Tiwanaku was indeed extremely ancient (i.e. many thousands of years) in Inca times, and not a mere three hundred years old.

As for the alluvial origins of the silt strata, this might be inferred from the following evidence:

1. the alluvial deposits, reaching up to a thickness of 9 to 12 meters, are definitely omogeneous and not stratified (this would account for a sudden, single cataclysmic event rather than a slow deposition).

2. Windblown sediments seem to require an extremely long deposition period, while ground level has remained substantially constant from Inca times up to now (as might be easily inferred from the many Inca ruins in the Tiwanaku area or on the Copacabana peninsula, which are definitely above ground level, as it is also the case with the modern pueblo of Tiwanaku).

3. The celebrated gateway of the sun bears clear signs of having once fallen and been covered with silt, while its upper part bears strong signs of having been eroded by water.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Dark_Lord

[Pax Unum]

Pre-Inca ruins were indeed found beneath lake Titicaca

Dating back 1,000 to 1,500 years ago... imagine that, the water level changed in 1,000 to 1,500 years (which implies the level was much lower, not higher, in antiquity), that's really amazing...

[kerkinana walsky]

Pre-Inca ruins were indeed found beneath lake Titicaca

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/892616.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/892616.stm</a>

[Ancient temple found under lake Titicaca, article also includes photographs]

Moreover, the fact that the ruins were already covered in a thick silt layer in Inca times, should be regarded as a proof that Tiwanaku was indeed extremely ancient (i.e. many thousands of years) in Inca times, and not a mere three hundred years old.

As for the alluvial origins of the silt strata, this might be inferred from the following evidence:

1. the alluvial deposits, reaching up to a thickness of 9 to 12 meters, are definitely omogeneous and not stratified (this would account for a sudden, single cataclysmic event rather than a slow deposition).

2. Windblown sediments seem to require an extremely long deposition period, while ground level has remained substantially constant from Inca times up to now (as might be easily inferred from the many Inca ruins in the Tiwanaku area or on the Copacabana peninsula, which are definitely above ground level, as it is also the case with the modern pueblo of Tiwanaku).

3. The celebrated gateway of the sun bears clear signs of having once fallen and been covered with silt, while its upper part bears strong signs of having been eroded by water.

this is another clear case of you looking for evidence to match your personal belief

had you bothered to follow up the news report you would have discovered that the temple on closer examination completely vanished and never existed in the first place

that news report was 7 years ago

please show me the photographs or possibly any film of the temple that the company Akakor has released of its astounding discovery. I can provide proof that the company made up this claim if you like but you are the one claiming it is a reality, so where is your evidence. Just one picture would suffice ?

as regards your silt geology

I have already posted a link that once again you have decided to ignore in favour of your fantasies

in future please read all the links provided that answer your questions or stop asking any

here is another crecible site that spells out where the silt came from which in this case is describing a pit inside a building

The mortared stone walls of the pit werewell constructed, with an effort to make a smooth interior surface, and extended to adepth of about 150 cm from the terrace surface. Several protruding stones probablyformed a stairway for easier access. The compacted floor appears flat but is actuallyslightly concave, and it starts at the level of the bottom of the stone wall. There wassome burning in the pit, leaving one or more thin layers of soil with carbon and ashtotalling one to three cm thick directly on the compact floor. Later, an irregular layerof two to fifteen cm of soil with artifacts accumulated in the pit, and this wassubsequently covered by up to ten cm of apparently windblown sand and silt.

http://andean.kulture.org/owen/owen1993appendixa.pdf

now if as you were suggesting the entire place was submerged then surely this pit would be full to the top with silt. as it is only sand wind blown sand and silt your hypothesis once again falls flat.

anyway, most people could tell you that if what you were claiming as silt deposited by water action were true then it would no longer be in existence. see they have this totally incredible meteorological phenomena in the Andes that would have caused it all to be cleaned away

its called rainfall

perhaps you've heard of it

Edited November 7, 2007 by kerkinana walsky

[Pax Unum]

this is another clear case of you looking for evidence to match your personal belief

had you bothered to follow up the news report you would have discovered that the temple on closer examination completely vanished and never existed in the first place

that news report was 7 years ago

please show me the photographs or possibly any film of the temple that the company Akakor has released of its astounding discovery. I can provide proof that the company made up this claim if you like but you are the one claiming it is a reality, so where is your evidence. Just one picture would suffice ?

LOL, I should do more research, since the article claimed the submerged ruins only date back 1K to 1.5K years I didn't bother to check it further... though I don’t really see how this article helps Dark_Lord's theory that Tiwanaku is evidence of antediluvian's anyway...

[The_Spartan]

Ah! how easy is it for anyone to be an armchair geologist, paleaontologist, or whatever-ologist!!!! the magic of internet!!!

Edited November 7, 2007 by coredrill

[kerkinana walsky]

Ah! how easy is it for anyone to be an armchair geologist, paleaontologist, or whatever-ologist!!!! the magic of internet!!!

its far easier to be a armchair pseudo whateverologist apparently. All you need to do is research using outdated and fabricated material and not bother to learn any ology at all

[Dark_Lord]

this is another clear case of you looking for evidence to match your personal belief

had you bothered to follow up the news report you would have discovered that the temple on closer examination completely vanished and never existed in the first place

that news report was 7 years ago

please show me the photographs or possibly any film of the temple that the company Akakor has released of its astounding discovery. I can provide proof that the company made up this claim if you like but you are the one claiming it is a reality, so where is your evidence. Just one picture would suffice ?

Actually, Akakor is not a "company", but a scientific expedition, also funded by various academic institutions.

If you have proof to support your statement that the claim of underwater ruins beneath lake Titicaca is a hoax, I would be very glad to examine them.

As for the age of the ruins found beneath lake Titicaca, I do not know of any dating being done so far. The assumption they might be 1,500 years old is therefore mainly based on analogy with assumed Tiwanaku cronology.

as regards your silt geology

I have already posted a link that once again you have decided to ignore in favour of your fantasies

in future please read all the links provided that answer your questions or stop asking any

here is another crecible site that spells out where the silt came from which in this case is describing a pit inside a building

<a href="http://andean.kulture.org/owen/owen1993appendixa.pdf" target="_blank">http://andean.kulture.org/owen/owen1993appendixa.pdf</a>

now if as you were suggesting the entire place was submerged then surely this pit would be full to the top with silt. as it is only sand wind blown sand and silt your hypothesis once again falls flat.

anyway, most people could tell you that if what you were claiming as silt deposited by water action were true then it would no longer be in existence. see they have this totally incredible meteorological phenomena in the Andes that would have caused it all to be cleaned away

its called rainfall

perhaps you've heard of it

15 centimeters of sand and windblown sediment sureley do not account for over 12 meters (i.e. 1,200 centimeters, just in case you are not that familiar with the metric system ) of silt deposits. I do not see how could the piece of article you quoted prove that:

a. 12 meters of silt could have been deposited by wind over a mere few centuries (as a matter of fact, the article you quoted only explains the origin of 15 centimeters of it)

b.The erosion patterns on the gateway of the sun as well as on other Tiwanaku megalithic structures were not the result of massive water erosion.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Dark_Lord

[bee]

its far easier to be a armchair pseudo whateverologist apparently. All you need to do is research using outdated and fabricated material and not bother to learn any ology at all

I think that Dark Lord has done an admirable job.....why you, and one or two others are so

dead set against Tiwanaku being a few thousand years old....is an unexplained mysyery?

[Dark_Lord]

Also, let's consider the above picture I took of the main entrance to the Kalasasaya.

You can easily see different erosion patterns on andesitic stone and red sandstone. While the two andesite pillars in front of the main stairway show very bad weathering, the bordering sandstone blocks look pretty intact. Since andesite is an extremely hard stone, while sandstone is relatively softer, we would expect sandstone to be much more weathered than andesite, while in fact the contrary seems to be true in the case of Tiwanaku. Either we assume for some obscure reasons the Kalasasaya eludes the laws of physics, or we must recognize the megalithic architectures had been already standing for thousands of years (judging on erosion patterns) before Tiwanaku was built.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Dark_Lord

[bee]

I love this picture....the steps look quite weathered (ie v. old) as well...except for in one or

two places where they look like some repair work might have been done.