2,500-year-old solar observatory in Peru reveals advanced culture!

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   


The wonderful archaeological discovery of recent years at Chankillo, Peru, is described by physicist Dr. Brian Cox in the BBC video linked below. As he describes and waits for the sun rising over the top of the hill, to be seen through the niches in the 2,500-year-old monument, Cox has a big grin, like this is the greatest thing he's ever seen.


We astrotheologians and archaeoastronomy afficionados agree! That's why we work so hard to bring attention to the world's great astrotheological traditions that go hand in hand with these fantastic monuments, proving that ancient man was far more advanced than is commonly perceived. We also maintain that these astronomically aligned archaeological ruins found globally, along with the myths symbolizing the knowledge encased therein, represent very important artifacts that need to be preserved.

Regarding Chankillo, Wikipedia states:

Chankillo is an ancient monumental complex in the Peruvian coastal desert... The ruins include the hilltop Chankillo fort, the nearby Thirteen Towers solar observatory, and residential and gathering areas. The Thirteen Towers are believed to have been a solar observatory built in the 4th century BC.... The Thirteen Towers of Chankillo course north to south along a ridge of a low hill and are regularly spaced, forming a "toothed" horizon with narrow gaps at regular intervals. To the east and west investigators found two observation points. From these vantages, the 300m long spread of the towers along the horizon corresponds very closely to the rising and setting positions of the Sun over the year. This suggests that some activities of the ancient civilization were regulated by a solar calendar.

Source: freethoughtnation.com...

Now, watch this video of other type of things in Peru...


Now, you can't tell me these folks were either Extremely intelligent or they had some Freaking help. Seriously.

If not, what the heck happened to them? Were did everyone go?

For example, near by is the BAND of Holes. Ever hear of that one? Check it out.

There just seems to be overwhelming evidence that something special had taken place in Peru and the area.

Amazing stuff.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 

Of course they were intelligent. So were the guys who built Stonehenge ( a long time before these guys built their calendar).

Marking the changing of the seasons is of extreme importance to an agrarian society. But it doesn't take "help". All it takes is careful observation, also of importance in an agrarian society.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Oh yeah, people thousands of years ago, knew alot more than we do today. It is common knowlegde when you look at what they were building, i.e the pyramids, mayan pyramids. These are things in which we cannot even build ourselves, so how can science say a bunch of ancients just threw together in twenty years or so. Anyways, star and flag for an awesome post. I love this topic.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Great post, this is pretty interesting to read and the videos are decent as well. Stars for you!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hello Phage. I hear you but....

When one takes into account the other things in the area etc, how can we in todays world actually believe that the people of those times were able to keep themselves alive (eating etc) let alone taking the time to develope such extensive "things". (in a nut shell).

When I say "help", I guess I should include to the point that they (the Pervians depecited here) were not the inventors or creators of these observatories but rather the current inhabinants at that time. Just as I feel about Egypt/Giza.

PS: I am not so sure I believe the usual expaination of Stone Henge anymore. From what I am reading now-a-days there is more to the whole complex and there appear to be other uses etc for the area? To me, the jury is almost always out when it comes to the past.

And, I will say this, if your concept is correct, that would seem to me that these cultures etc were a lot more advance than we are commonly taught and far more populated than a bunch of tribes in the woods/jungles etc.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


There were cultures doing very advanced things long before stone henge too for example Gobekli Tepe in Turkey was created 6000yrs before Stone Henge!

If they were able to create temples from stone so long ago I don't see why we should be surprised that in 500bc they were capable of creating Chankillo....



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 

That's the problem. I was never taught that ancient people were stupid. I've always been fascinated by their accomplishments.

I've always been amazed by the things that "primitive" people accomplished. The Polynesians were crossing the Pacific Ocean and settling on remote islands while the western world was struggling after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Their double hulled canoes were many times faster and more agile than the ships the Europeans developed. Their navigation skills were just as effective in crossing trackless oceans.

They needed no "help". They needed their wits and their observational skills. People have been smart for a very long time. People are very good at inventing things. Unless maybe you think they were stupid.

edit on 3/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReVoLuTiOn76
Oh yeah, people thousands of years ago, knew alot more than we do today.


Well, they knew a lot more about some things than we do now. Like how to make obsidian arrowheads. Not much call for that these days. Otherwise, though, they were every bit as intelligent as us, but woefully ignorant of many, many things.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


not stupid, primative.

A big difference.

as to the building of these different things around the world that people are mentioning. Again, most of them, if not all, were re-taken over by peoples that came after the ones who built them. IMO.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 

Like those primitive Polynesians who only had stone tools and did not use the wheel. Yet they were able to travel back and forth across the ocean carrying their families and everything they needed. The were able to greatly exceed the capabilities of the "civilized" cultures of the same era.

Working stone is a craft which requires skill and patience, it does not require high technology. Moving large stones requires simple machines (large perhaps, but still simple in concept) and manpower. Creating a calender requires careful observation of the sky. These are all things which "primitive" people (who were just as smart as we are) were capable of. Despite what the sellers of certain books and DVDs would have you believe.

I don't think you give your own species enough credit. I don't think you give the ability of humans to work together toward a goal enough credit.


edit on 3/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by anon72
 

Working stone is a craft which requires skill and patience, it does not require high technology. Moving large stones requires simple machines (large perhaps, but still simple in concept) and manpower. Creating a calender requires careful observation of the sky. These are all things which "primitive" people (who were just as smart as we are) were capable of. Despite what the sellers of certain books and DVDs would have you believe.

I don't think you give your own species enough credit. I don't think you give the ability of humans to work together toward a goal enough credit.


edit on 3/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage, I am sure that the ancient civilizations had a lot of skills that would amaze us, but some things defy all explanation. Take Puma Puncu for example:

www.pacal.de...

I don't care how resourceful they were, simple machines can't move 1,000 ton stones (that's 2 million pounds for those of you that are mathematically challenged) 17km (approximately 10 miles), and cut them precisely with diamond-tip precision, and place them such that a credit card couldn't fit between them. No, methinks there is something else at play here. If that isn't convincing enough, the ruins are estimated to be 17,000 years old. Those cavemen sure were tricky.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by greybeard1
 

The ruins are claimed to be 17,000 years old. It seems that there was a bit of reconstruction of the ruins in fairly modern times (before Posnansky visited the site) which would cast doubt on the validity of the conclusions reached by astroarcheology. There is no way of knowing exactly the original locations of the stones.

There are no 1,000 ton stones on the site. The largest is estimated at 131 metric tons. The largest stones, the red sandstone, came from a quarry 10km from the site.

It's an amazing site but not at all beyond the ability of the people of the time.


hubpages.com...
skeptoid.com...
edit on 3/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, did you read the article I linked above. It states the largest stones weigh 100 tons and were quarried 17 km (10 miles) away. Here is another article which states the largest stones weigh 800 tons and were quarried 10 miles away. That's 2 sources and there are many more. Please provide your sources which say the stones are a maximum of 130something tons and 10 km (6 miles) away. Here is the second article:

hubpages.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by greybeard1
 

Yes I did read it. The article is wrong. The weight of the largest stone is calculated at 131 metric tons. Its volume is 43.2 cubic meters. If it were made of solid gold it would weigh about 834 tons. It isn't made of gold, it's made of red sandstone.


The largest of these stone blocks is 7.81 meters long, 5.17 meters wide, averages 1.07 meters thick, and is estimated to weigh about 131 metric tons. The second largest stone block found within the Puma punka is 7.90 meters long, 2.50 meters wide, and averages 1.86 meters thick. Its weight has been estimated to be 85.21 metric tons.

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...
The original source is:
Ponce Sanginés, C. and G. M. Terrazas. Acerca De La Procedencia Del Material Lítico De Los Monumentos De Tiwanaku. 1970. Publication no. 21. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia

edit on 3/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Here we go again...

That site is not 17,000 years old. There weren't humans in the area 17,000 years ago. That's like 10,000 years off.

Precision cutting stones is not hard, you're just too lazy to do it. Most of the stones were sandstone. Sandstone is very easy to carve. Andesite isn't as easy, but not really difficult, either. But it looks better than sandstone, which is probably why it was chosen for facing and detailed carvings.

If they had help, where's the evidence? Why did their "helpers" leave stone tools laying around instead of lasers and modern or advanced carving tools? Why didn't they built the observatory out of iron instead of stone? Why didn't they build it out of diamond and titanium? Where are the optics for observing the stars? Where is the written record of the helpers building it? Why did their advanced helpers leave tools and evidence of stone-moving structures at the quarry?

Their helpers were pretty primitive, in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by greybeard1
 

Yes I did read it. The article is wrong. The weight of the largest stone is calculated at 131 metric tons. Its volume is 43.2 cubic meters. If it were made of solid gold it would weigh about 834 tons. It isn't made of gold, it's made of red sandstone.


The largest of these stone blocks is 7.81 meters long, 5.17 meters wide, averages 1.07 meters thick, and is estimated to weigh about 131 metric tons. The second largest stone block found within the Puma punka is 7.90 meters long, 2.50 meters wide, and averages 1.86 meters thick. Its weight has been estimated to be 85.21 metric tons.

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...
The original source is:
Ponce Sanginés, C. and G. M. Terrazas. Acerca De La Procedencia Del Material Lítico De Los Monumentos De Tiwanaku. 1970. Publication no. 21. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia

edit on 3/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Here is yet one more article repeating the facts as I have relayed them:
www.about-knowledge.com...

And here are some videos espousing the same data....





The second vid features David Childress, Erik van Daniken, and Giorgio Tsoukalas, from The History Channel's "Ancient Aliens" series. At about 1:20 into the video, Giorgio clearly states that the stones are NOT made of sandstone but are made of granite and diorite, which can only be cut with diamonds. I don't want to say your info is wrong, but if it's right a lot of reputable scientists, editors, publishers, archaeologists and networks didn't get the memo. Case closed. My apologies to the OP for semi-derailing this thread. Certainly not my intention.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by greybeard1
 


Please save yourself the embarrassment and humiliation and never called Von Daniken a scientist again. Also, History channel is a bunch of crap. Until you take an anthropology class, don't think you're information is the right information. Also, take a communications course so that you understand that not everything you see on television is the truth.

Furthermore, there are shows on the history channel about the bermuda triangle, which was debunked like 30 years ago.

Edit to add: Also, Granite is made up of a couple different types of mineral, so it's hardness is not always the same. At it's ABSOLUTE hardest, it would reach a 7 on Mohs hardness scale (It will never be that pure/hard naturally). At that hardness, there are many, many types of minerals that can cut it. Examples include: Ruby, Topaz, Spinel, cubic zirconia, HARDENED STEEL, tungsten, etc.

Straight from wikipedia: It is so hard that ancient civilizations (such as Ancient Egypt) used diorite balls to work granite. Its hardness, however, also allows it to be worked finely and take a high polish, and to provide a durable finished work.

Theres a picture of a diorite vase from Egypt dating to 3600BC. But advanced civilizations built that, too, right? Because advanced civilizations have a lot of use for stone pottery.
edit on 3/10/2011 by Schmidt1989 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by greybeard1
 

You didn't mention a single scientist or archeologist. You listed popular writers.

Are you claiming the measurements of the stone are being lied about? That would be kind of silly. Of course the writers don't mention them do they?

You aren't claiming that it's made out of a material denser than gold are you?

Yes, there is some diorite at pumapunku but the large stones are red sandstone. But as far as the weight goes it really doesn't matter. Diorite has about the same density as sandstone. Those clowns lie through their teeth to sell their books.

geology.about.com...
edit on 3/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
All i have to add is that i have been to Puma Punku and i have seen the ruins and they are unbelieveable.I find it hard to believe the builders of these structures were right out of the stoneage. But then again Human ingenuity has and can go a long way



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReVoLuTiOn76
Oh yeah, people thousands of years ago, knew alot more than we do today. It is common knowlegde when you look at what they were building, i.e the pyramids, mayan pyramids. These are things in which we cannot even build ourselves, so how can science say a bunch of ancients just threw together in twenty years or so.

Well, you've at least made clear that people of thousands of years ago knew a lot more than you.

Harte






top topics



 
6

log in

join