Who Built Puma Punku, Why & What Was It For?

[Piney]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Harte jnr.

Harte Mark III! Get it right! 

[Harte]

Not impossible. His production is at times prodigious.

Harte

[Swede]

21 hours ago, Vrcocha said:

I knew you would never be able to admit it.

You can look right at something and not know what to think until one of your sources tells you what to think. Do you not have a mind of your own?

You're whole comment was hilarious though. You remind me of a politician who wants to sound important but never really says anything. 

 

My apologies. Allow me be more succinct:

• You have utterly failed to definitively demonstrate that your contention is correct. All you have provided is a circular argument based upon your ill-informed and non-professional viewing of an amateur video produced by a known fraud.
• You have repeatedly avoided investigating and understanding the professional literature, which contradicts your contention.
• Based upon some of your previous allusions, there is a reasonable probability that you are clinging to your misconception because it is a key underpinning to your larger fantasy.

As noted above, there has been no advancement of your circular and erroneous argument. Thus, barring your provision of credible research that would support your contention, you are merely wasting band width.

Since you would appear to have difficulty with the technical literature:

Originally, the Akapana was thought to have been developed from a modified hill. Twenty-first-century studies have shown that it is an entirely manmade earthen mound, faced with a mixture of large and small stone blocks. The dirt comprising Akapana appears to have been excavated from the "moat" that surrounds the site (emphasis added).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwanaku

Edit: Format.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Swede

[Vrcocha]

13 hours ago, Harte said:

No, Swede just called you ignorant.

Reading comprehension can be either a blessing or a curse.

Harte

I know what he tried to do but he failed miserably at it. Whenever either one of you looses an argument you always resort to insults, In Swede's case it's post a bunch of links or resources. Both are childish and neither one make a person look any smarter. If a person really knows the material then he shouldn't need links to explain his theory

How's that sinking pyramid theory coming along Harte.

It must be the Foerster Phobia.

 

[Vrcocha]

3 minutes ago, Swede said:

 

Originally, the Akapana was thought to have been developed from a modified hill. Twenty-first-century studies have shown that it is an entirely manmade earthen mound, faced with a mixture of large and small stone blocks. The dirt comprising Akapana appears to have been excavated from the "moat" that surrounds the site (emphasis added).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwanaku

Edit: Format.

This quote right here shows you didn't watch the video and don't understand what Wikipedia said.

Quote

faced with a mixture of large and small stone blocks.

in  places it has 8+ feet of dirt over these casing stones 

[Minimalists]

On 9/17/2018 at 6:54 PM, Harte said:

I wish scientists would stop ignoring Puma Punku.

Harte

I can't read the name without hearing "is it possible...Ancient Astronaut Theorists say yes."

[Harte]

5 minutes ago, Vrcocha said:

This quote right here shows you didn't watch the video and don't understand what Wikipedia said.

in  places it has 8+ feet of dirt over these casing stones 

Stones sink into earth over time. I already pointed this out.

There were stones on this mound of earth. Some of them sank in. Others were placed into dug out areas of the mound from the beginning.

What a mystery.

Harte

[Swede]

2 minutes ago, Vrcocha said:

This quote right here shows you didn't watch the video and don't understand what Wikipedia said.

in  places it has 8+ feet of dirt over these casing stones 

You are again ignoring the documented patterns of site modification, lithic material re-usage/cannibalization, and deliberate destruction, not to mention the effects of centuries of erosion. What you need to conclusively demonstrate is that the upper strata soils profiles evidence alluvial deposition, which would also be present at the elevations below the feature. Professional research, which pays notable attention to soils and soils profiles, does not indicate such depositions.

To repeat:

http://web.cast.uark.edu/assets/files/PDF/Tiwanaku/Ernenwein&Koons2007_TiwanakuGeophysics.pdf

.

[kmt_sesh]

6 hours ago, Swede said:

You are again ignoring the documented patterns of site modification, lithic material re-usage/cannibalization, and deliberate destruction, not to mention the effects of centuries of erosion. What you need to conclusively demonstrate is that the upper strata soils profiles evidence alluvial deposition, which would also be present at the elevations below the feature. Professional research, which pays notable attention to soils and soils profiles, does not indicate such depositions.

To repeat:

http://web.cast.uark.edu/assets/files/PDF/Tiwanaku/Ernenwein&Koons2007_TiwanakuGeophysics.pdf

.

Documented patterns of site modification? Why offer credible and resourceful links when it's ever so much easier to trust one's eyes in an old photograph or video? All that reading would be just too much work. 

[Vrcocha]

16 hours ago, Harte said:

Stones sink into earth over time. I already pointed this out.

There were stones on this mound of earth. Some of them sank in. Others were placed into dug out areas of the mound from the beginning.

What a mystery.

Harte

No mystery, both sites were buried. This stuff about rocks getting cover up happens all the time but it in no way explains 8 feet of dirt on the Akapana. I've lived on a farm in the same spot for almost 60 years and I know first hand how things get buried.
None of this explains how the two sites got destroyed so the theory doesn't work anyway.

[Vrcocha]

16 hours ago, Swede said:

You are again ignoring the documented patterns of site modification, lithic material re-usage/cannibalization, and deliberate destruction, not to mention the effects of centuries of erosion. What you need to conclusively demonstrate is that the upper strata soils profiles evidence alluvial deposition, which would also be present at the elevations below the feature. Professional research, which pays notable attention to soils and soils profiles, does not indicate such depositions.

To repeat:

http://web.cast.uark.edu/assets/files/PDF/Tiwanaku/Ernenwein&Koons2007_TiwanakuGeophysics.pdf

.

I see you found another link to try and make yourself look important. We've already established you don't know what you're talking about.  You proved that with your last post and now with this irrelevant post you have only confirmed it.
So they took soil samples from the non-existent soil covering on the Akapana. Maybe you would like to explain how that works.

[Vrcocha]

10 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Documented patterns of site modification? Why offer credible and resourceful links when it's ever so much easier to trust one's eyes in an old photograph or video? All that reading would be just too much work. 

It's too much work if the article has little to nothing to do with the topic.  I would be willing to bet that you hadn't read it either.  And I would never expect you to.

I would rather trust my own eyes than what someone claims on the internet. Especially when it's so cut and dry as this is.

[Swede]

4 hours ago, Vrcocha said:

I see you found another link to try and make yourself look important. We've already established you don't know what you're talking about.  You proved that with your last post and now with this irrelevant post you have only confirmed it.
So they took soil samples from the non-existent soil covering on the Akapana. Maybe you would like to explain how that works.

Except that the paper (Ernenwein and Koons 2007) does not deal with soils taken from the Akapana feature. Nicely done.

The paper deals with a comprehensive geophysical subsurface survey of the areas immediately to the east and northeast of Akapana utilizing GPR, magnetometry, electrical conductivity, and magnetic susceptibility.  This was followed by ground-truthing excavations of selected identified features. At its largest extent (GPR), the surveys encompassed approximately six hectares (14.8 acres).

http://web.cast.uark.edu/assets/files/PDF/Tiwanaku/Ernenwein&Koons2007_TiwanakuGeophysics.pdf

In the above, note the following:

Figure 8, particularly the left. This 1873 photograph presents documentation of surface-visible structural elements to the south of Puma Punku.

Figures 10d, 11b, 12c, and 15d: Note the shallow nature of the artefactual deposits, with some being mere centimeters below the surface.

The following series of photographs are from 2004 excavations of areas to the west of Akapana. Again, note the shallow nature of the artifacts.

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana1.html

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana2.html

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana3.html

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana4.html

In addition to your task of definitively demonstrating that the upper strata of the Akapana feature are composed of alluvial deposits, you are now tasked with rationalizing how your mythical cataclysm selectively deposited some 2.5 - 3 m of soils on limited construct areas while leaving the adjacent areas unaffected.

Edit: Addition.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Swede

[cormac mac airt]

20 minutes ago, Swede said:

Except that the paper (Ernenwein and Koons 2007) does not deal with soils taken from the Akapana feature. Nicely done.

The paper deals with a comprehensive geophysical subsurface survey of the areas immediately to the east and northeast of Akapana utilizing GPR, magnetometry, electrical conductivity, and magnetic susceptibility.  This was followed by ground-truthing excavations of selected identified features. At its largest extent (GPR), the surveys encompassed approximately six hectares (14.8 acres).

http://web.cast.uark.edu/assets/files/PDF/Tiwanaku/Ernenwein&Koons2007_TiwanakuGeophysics.pdf

In the above, note the following:

Figure 8, particularly the left. This 1873 photograph presents documentation of surface-visible structural elements to the south of Puma Punku.

Figures 10d, 11b, 12c, and 15d: Note the shallow nature of the artefactual deposits, with some being mere centimeters below the surface.

The following series of photographs are from 2004 excavations of areas to the west of Akapana. Again, note the shallow nature of the artifacts.

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana1.html

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana2.html

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana3.html

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana4.html

In addition to your task of definitively demonstrating that the upper strata of the Akapana feature are composed of alluvial deposits, you are now tasked with rationalizing how your mythical cataclysm selectively deposited some 2.5 - 3 m of soils on limited construct areas while leaving the adjacent areas unaffected.

Edit: Addition.

Now Swede, we all know it was magic what did it. 

cormac

[Swede]

42 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Now Swede, we all know it was magic what did it. 

cormac

Chuckle!. That, or a very well trained cataclysm.

.

[kmt_sesh]

6 hours ago, Vrcocha said:

It's too much work if the article has little to nothing to do with the topic.  I would be willing to bet that you hadn't read it either.  And I would never expect you to.

I would rather trust my own eyes than what someone claims on the internet. Especially when it's so cut and dry as this is.

No, I haven't read it, but as I've already mentioned, I am not terribly interested in the topic here. I am mostly just observing posters' interactions and how they approach and challenge one another. Something is immediately evident. First, you're very dismissive toward almost everything Swede posts and everything he offers as research material. Are you at all familiar with Swede's knowledge base and background? Your attitude makes you come across as afraid to encounter the offered research material while trying to mask this with haughty confidence.

And second, your eyes are not a legitimate evaluative tool on their own, when there is so, so very much you're not even considering about the professional excavations and research of the site. If you think you can look at a picture and know more about the site than the professionals who've studied it, you are grossly, comically mistaken.

Sorry to be so harsh. Normally I am not. I just think it's important you understand you're not coming across as credible in this debate.

[Swede]

17 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Documented patterns of site modification? Why offer credible and resourceful links when it's ever so much easier to trust one's eyes in an old photograph or video? All that reading would be just too much work. 

Grin! Based upon the established pattern, have now resorted to professional photographic data as per contribution #413. We can then observe if the visual aspect is actually beneficial to furthering Vrcocha's understandings.

.

[Vrcocha]

17 hours ago, Swede said:

Except that the paper (Ernenwein and Koons 2007) does not deal with soils taken from the Akapana feature. Nicely done.

The paper deals with a comprehensive geophysical subsurface survey of the areas immediately to the east and northeast of Akapana utilizing GPR, magnetometry, electrical conductivity, and magnetic susceptibility.  This was followed by ground-truthing excavations of selected identified features. At its largest extent (GPR), the surveys encompassed approximately six hectares (14.8 acres).

http://web.cast.uark.edu/assets/files/PDF/Tiwanaku/Ernenwein&Koons2007_TiwanakuGeophysics.pdf

In the above, note the following:

Figure 8, particularly the left. This 1873 photograph presents documentation of surface-visible structural elements to the south of Puma Punku.

Figures 10d, 11b, 12c, and 15d: Note the shallow nature of the artefactual deposits, with some being mere centimeters below the surface.

The following series of photographs are from 2004 excavations of areas to the west of Akapana. Again, note the shallow nature of the artifacts.

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana1.html

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana2.html

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana3.html

https://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/fieldnotes/akapana4.html

In addition to your task of definitively demonstrating that the upper strata of the Akapana feature are composed of alluvial deposits, you are now tasked with rationalizing how your mythical cataclysm selectively deposited some 2.5 - 3 m of soils on limited construct areas while leaving the adjacent areas unaffected.

Edit: Addition.

Non of that proves anything. You images don't even show location. Of course you can find areas where it's not buried as deep.

Since you called the cataclysm mythical, it shows you know very little about the area. I could post some more videos showing different examples of the cataclysm but it would be like the last one where I showed 8+ feet of dirt on the Akapana and you claim it's not there.

Also if you knew how floods work you wouldn't be asking how some areas were covered deeper than others. Floods will scour the ground in places and leave deposits in others and most of the time these deposits will accumulate back of an object where the flow is slowing down.

[Vrcocha]

16 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

First, you're very dismissive toward almost everything Swede posts and everything he offers as research material. Are you at all familiar with Swede's knowledge base and background? Your attitude makes you come across as afraid to encounter the offered research material while trying to mask this with haughty confidence.

 

That's because he never addresses the topic at hand. It's always been loosely related and never about the dirt covering the Akapana.

16 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

And second, your eyes are not a legitimate evaluative tool on their own, when there is so, so very much you're not even considering about the professional excavations and research of the site. If you think you can look at a picture and know more about the site than the professionals who've studied it, you are grossly, comically mistaken.

My eyes are way more reliable than someone on the internet in there basement typing away. You guys really do take the cake. I show a video that clearly shows 8+ feet of undisturbed dirt on the Akapana, but you guys won't watch it because of the Forester Phobia. Yet I'm supposed to research all of Swede's links to prove they have nothing to do with the topic.

Quote

16 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

 

Sorry to be so harsh. Normally I am not. I just think it's important you understand you're not coming across as credible in this debate.

 

No need to apologize. The debate was over right after I posted the video and everyone refused to watch it. I'm now just watching them squirm trying to prove the area had never been buried. It can't be done.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Vrcocha

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Am I the only one who thinks that this thread have run its course ?

[Vrcocha]

[Oniomancer]

I viewed the indicated parts of the video and I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing. Then again. the more I read, neither side has been all that clear on exactly what they're trying to say. The primary point on the skeptic side though seems to be that the akapana isn't so much covered with earth ,as  it _is_ earth, covered with stones, which has been partially excavated into by looters, quarrymen and others extending back to it's abandonment. Since it's known the pyramid was dug into, it is not unreasonable to then assume this to be the source of the disputed earth covering the covering.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, Vrcocha said:

It’s not dead, it pining for the fjords!

[Vrcocha]

1 hour ago, Oniomancer said:

I viewed the indicated parts of the video and I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing. Then again. the more I read, neither side has been all that clear on exactly what they're trying to say. The primary point on the skeptic side though seems to be that the akapana isn't so much covered with earth ,as  it _is_ earth, covered with stones, which has been partially excavated into by looters, quarrymen and others extending back to it's abandonment. Since it's known the pyramid was dug into, it is not unreasonable to then assume this to be the source of the disputed earth covering the covering.

At exactly 18:48 that what seems to be a brown wall is really a dirt wall that was left behind and hadn't been excavated yet.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Vrcocha

[Swede]

9 hours ago, Vrcocha said:

Non of that proves anything. You images don't even show location. Of course you can find areas where it's not buried as deep.

Since you called the cataclysm mythical, it shows you know very little about the area. I could post some more videos showing different examples of the cataclysm but it would be like the last one where I showed 8+ feet of dirt on the Akapana and you claim it's not there.

Also if you knew how floods work you wouldn't be asking how some areas were covered deeper than others. Floods will scour the ground in places and leave deposits in others and most of the time these deposits will accumulate back of an object where the flow is slowing down.

1) Previously cited Figure 11 presents GPR imagery and the correlating excavation truthing. Previously cited Figures 10, 11, and 13 present aerial imagery overlain with the survey extent and the exact location of the excavated units. Thus, this statement is a falsehood. Fail.

2) That the Akapana feature is primarily constructed of soils was previously cited (and quoted) (Swede #403) is a matter of record. Thus, this statement is a falsehood. Fail.

The issue, which you perpetually avoid, is the nature of the soils. Are the soils of the upper strata of the construct derived from the “moat”, with the casing stones having been removed or displaced through the various documented human actions? Or do they represent an alluvial deposition? You have yet to provide a single iota of credible information that would support your alluvial deposition speculations. Are you even familiar with soils profiles?

3) As one who rather regularly investigates (and is currently investigating) soils structures that are the product of dynamic late Pleistocene glacial wasting, you may be surprised at the extent of my familiarity with the topic.

4) Which puts the lie to your proposition. Said deposits should then be horizontally deposited against the semi-vertical side walls of the construct (not evidenced), not vertically deposited upon the uppermost strata of the construct.

You have had ample photographic documentation of areas in close proximity to, and to the east, northeast, and west of the Akapana feature. All of this photographic documentation clearly illustrates that there is no evidence of cataclysmic alluvial depositions during the timeframe relative to the pre-Columbian/post-Columbian human habitation of Tiwanaku. Nor does the rather extensive valley plain surrounding the Akapana feature evidence such events.

Edit: Format.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Swede