Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
SSilhouette

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

417 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piney
2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Harte jnr.

Harte Mark III! Get it right! :angry:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Harte

Not impossible. His production is at times prodigious.

Harte

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :lol: 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 by Swede
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins
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.":lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :P

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :P

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Swede
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :w00t:

cormac

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
42 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Now Swede, we all know it was magic what did it. :w00t:

cormac

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

.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :P

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.