It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Tiahuanaco, Puma Punku the real mystery...

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+231 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 06:05 PM

Over the past couple of years quite a few members have asked me to do a thread on Tiahuanaco [Tiwanaku] I've resisted the idea up till now for a few reasons. I didn't want to simply write a rehash of the same tired stories, old pictures, references and the ever popular [Aliens Did It!] excuse. So, I'll attempt to bring a fresh new perspective on this ancient controversial pre-Colombian Megalithic site.

For the record and to be completely up front: We will not be discussing or hypothesizes about Tiahuanaco being constructed by refugees of Atlantis, or Ancient Space Aliens

Sometimes fact is
stranger & more mysterious
than fiction

Let us begin...

The above two images are fairly drastic in both appearance and context. The upper one is from 1903 when the first real "Modern" exploration of the area occurred. I said exploration not excavation. There is a difference IMHO. A real archaeological excavation attempts to not only reveal but to put the site in question in it's proper historical context.

The major issues with Tiahuanaco [Tiwanaku] and the other closely located and related site of Pumapunku (Puma Punka) is the age and it's history. So, the big question, just how old are they? This is an interesting question with no easy answer. Before I get into the controversy over that aspect let us begin with what the prevailing paradigm of modern Academia has to say about the site...

Tiwanaku (Spanish: Tiahuanaco and Tiahuanacu)
The area around Tiahuanaco may have been inhabited as early as 1500 BC as a small agriculturally-based village. Most research, though, is based around the Tiwanaku IV and V periods between AD 300 and AD 1000, during which Tiwanaku grew significantly in power. During the time period between 300 BC and AD 300 Tiwanaku is thought to have been a moral and cosmological center to which many people made pilgrimages. The ideas of cosmological prestige are the precursors to Tiwanaku's powerful empire.

Yadda Yadda, Blah Blah Blah...

I'm trying not to use Wikipedia as a source as often as I have in the past but in this case I've checked out their referenced links and they check out as far as Modern Academia's Paradigm is concerned. The issue I have with the "official" story is the time-line and suppositions with which they use to support it. There has been C-14 dating. 29 such testing of the area if I'm not mistaken. All coming back with a fairly recent dating of around A.D. 400 to 1200. However, the site had been known for thousands of years to the indigenous peoples. Now when discussing those people one group in particular always enters into the topic.

The Incas
The Inca people began as a tribe of the Killke culture in the Cuzco area around the 12th century AD. Under the leadership of Manco Cápac, they formed the small city-state of Cuzco (Quechua Qosqo). The first step in the expansion of the Inca Empire was the defeat of the Hanan Chankas...


Here we go...

So we know of the Incas and their impressive history and accomplishments from what the Spanish as well as the physical archeological evidence tells us. Here in lies where the controversy begins IMO. When the Spanish were in the New world conquering [Hence the Spanish name of Conquistador] were looking for and looting peoples and sites of Gold. The story goes as the Spanish were gallivanting about the countryside searching for treasure they came across Tiahuanaco. When confronted with such a site they stopped and asked the Incas if they had built it. The Incas laughed and said no. They explained that it was from before their time.

I want to stop here and discuss an often quoted fallacy. At this point it is widely believed that the Spanish systematically destroyed the site in search of treasure and to destroy an obviously "Pagen" site. It is widely accepted they used many of the smaller blocks from the site to build a church nearby. Now I've read several references that supports this supposed event, while simultaneously I've also read quite a few other versions and references that tell us a completely different story. The site/sites in question were first recorded in written history by Spanish conquistador and self-acclaimed "first chronicler of the Indies" Pedro Cieza de León. Leon stumbled upon the remains of Tiwanaku in 1549. It's at this point we need to stop and think long and hard about the age of the site.

It was already a wreck with massive exquisitely carved megalithic stones tossed about like some gigantic Lego blocks that had been tossed about and strewn all over the area by an angry giant. With huge multi-ton carved stones and slabs strewn about Helter Skelter. The Spanish may have dug around and possibly moved some of the massive stone slabs and blocks about but nothing on the scale of the destruction they are often given credit for. Now the Incas knew of the site as being Ancient even by their standards. So herein lies the first of many issues with the dating of the site. So just how old is the site?

What I've found while tooling around online and my local library are many inconsistencies regarding that question. It is a controversial subject for many reasons. First off it isn't just the hard to piece together Prehistorical record but even the post-Colombian/Spanish era is also a bit confusing as well.

So the sites in question were ancient by Inca standards, and they used it for ceremonies because they believed the site to be sacred in doing so possibly contaminating the site. [Archeologically speaking] Then the Spanish came along and molested the site further in their search for gold. I want to take a moment here and give a comparative history of the other recently found culture civilizations in the area. Caral Supe...

When we stop and look at a comparative time-line between the ancient Egyptians and the Ancient South American peoples we can find several dramatic parallels. According to accepted Egyptology Snefru was the first king of the 4th dynasty (2613 - 2589 BC). He ruled for an estimated 24 years. Now in that very short period of time he is credited with the construction of not just one but three pyramids!

Snefru is credited with building the step pyramid at Maidum, the Red and Bent Pyramids at Dahshur.

His son Khufu is the one who built the Great pyramid followed by his son Kefre who built the second largest pyramid at Giza. Now we are to believe that the Pharaohs went from building a much lessor quality step pyramid to building a perfect one in only 45 years?

Meanwhile, over in Peru at Caral Supe we find a similar styled and quality construction and or supposed development in this part of the world. That's supposedly about as far as they got with no further development and then faded away. Yet, they were just as active and were Ancient Egypt's contemporaries..

Which also included ancient megalithic standing stones.

Of course, there is no direct connection between Caral Supe and Tiahuanaco. There doesn't appear to be any continuity. However it might be helpful if we look at the bigger picture of the region. Peru and bordering countries all seem to be blessed with many ancient sites. Remember, during the period in question there were no artificial imaginary lines drawn on a modern day map.

Now unlike Egypt which was able to maintain power and control even between upper and lower Egypt. The area in question does show signs of massive upheaval. It appears that these ancient people faced a massive cataclysmic destruction of their civilization and the survivors were forced to begin again. Posnansky thought the Ancient Bolivian Tiahuanacans were flooded out. Hence the amount of drastic destruction of their ancient monuments.

The age controversy really begins with Arthur Posnansky

Prof. Posnansky summed up his 50 year study in a 4 volume work entitled Tiahuanaco, The cradle of American Man first published in 1945. He explains his theories, which are rooted in archeoastronomy, as follows. Since Earth is tilted on its axis in respect to the plane of the solar system, the resulting angle is known as the "obliqueness of the ecliptic" (one should not confuse this with another astronomical phenomenon known as "Precession", as critics of Posnansky have done). If viewed from the earth, the planets of our solar system travel across the sky in a line called the plane of the ecliptic.

At present our earth is tilted at an angle to of 23 degrees and 27 minutes, but this angle is not constant. The angle oscillates slowly between 22 degrees and 1 minute miminum to an extreme of 24 degrees and 5 minutes. A complete cycle takes roughly 41,000 years to complete. The alignment of the Kalasasaya temple depicts a tilt of the earth's axis amounting to 23 degrees, 8 minutes, 48 seconds, which according to astronomers, indicates a date of 15,000 B.C.

Between 1927 and 1930 Prof. Posnansky's conclusions were studied intensively by a number of authorities. Dr. Hans Ludendorff (Director of the Astronomical Observatory of Potsdam), Friedrich Becker of the Specula Vaticana, Prof. Arnold Kohlschutter (astronomer at Bonn University), and Rolf Müller (astronomer of the Institute of Astrophysics at Potsdam) verified the accuracy of Posnansky's calculations and vouched for the reliability of his conclusions.

What exactly was Arthur Posnansky looking at? When we turn back the clock and view the site from his perspective it appears to be a much older megalithic site. To me it resembled the great standing stones of Europe/UK.

Now I'm not saying that I agree with the extreme age he came up with. However, if we look at how the site originally appeared to him and then compare it to the modern era misrepresentation it's obviuos that in the last two hundred years or so there have been massive amounts of work in it's badly done excavation, exploration and down right contamination of the site. For this reason any C-14 dating should be called into question. The site has been picked at and gone over, gone over and picked at since before the Incas. Not to mention the Spaniards, then much later when the Bolivian Government attempted an ill-advised reconstruction attempt all based on pretty much their imagination as the photos in this thread shows.

Now some of the earliest images we have are from 1877. They show an area in massive disarray obviously much more than what the Spaniards could have accomplished. I highly doubt the Spaniards would have dragged massive blocks and slabs half way up hills and into ravines while looking for gold just for the hell of it!

Now for those of us who are more familiar with the site will recognize many of these resting places for the massive slabs/stones. Many of those massive & exquisitely carved blocks/slabs still lay where they were back in 1877

The following two images are some of my favorites. The first is from 1908 the second is modern times.

Notice the huge multi-ton block on the hill behind this now famous statue? We are to believe the Spaniards tore the place apart looking for Gold and dragged these huge blocks and slabs half way up a hill for no better reason than to simply reposition them in their searches..

The argument about it's date seems to be still a matter of interest to many. If we again look back to 1908 and the following decades worth of horribly conducted excavations in the area we can immediate tell the site has been contaminated.

Now here is another fairly well known statue from the site. Notice something? No temple complex surrounding it. As a matter of fact I don't see a single sign of other blocks surrounding him, Yet in the modern era it is placed and surrounded by what was perceived as how the site originally looked. All based on what? Also, when the following images were taken C-14 dating wasn't around yet. So the site IMHO was again contaminated.

I wonder if the original placement of the statues and standing stones and blocks had some sort of astrological alignments? Apparently we will never know..

It doesn't take somebody with an engineering degree to see the contradiction between the modern misrepresentation of how it is believed the site once looked and the quality of the stones from the still half buried ones. Here are a few modern images. If you look closely you will spot the original megalithic standing stones mixed in with the much lower quality blocks from what I believe to be form a much more recent period.

Now compare the above travesty to the other nearby site of Puma Punku. In one location we have what originally looked like a vary ancient megalithic Stonehenge type astronomically aligned site. Then there appears to be an intermediate period of rough cut stones and construction followed by expertly cut and engineered gigantic multi-ton blocks and slabs.

I'm not sure of the age of the site as per Posnansky and I also call into question Academia's findings as well. Is it possible that what we are seeing is the remnants of an ancient peoples who struggled to recover from a massive environmental, geological upheaval which floundered and eventually made it resulting in who we know of as the Incas?

Side note. Many of the ceramic/pottery found in the area over the locations vast history often show races which are not considered endogenous to the continent. I have another thread in the works about the Olmec of Central America in the works which goes into this controversial possibility of a prehistoric connection. Stay tuned

Controversy: Does this carving remind you of Easter Island?

Now I know for a fact that many members here at ATS believe in an Ancient Alien Scenario when discussing the site. This cannot be avoided. I'm still on the fence. I'll accept Modern Academia's belief in the simple head binding technique that over the early developmental years of a persons life from that period would create such oddly misshapen head scenario [For now]


What happens when a very young child's skeleton is found with an already fully formed and perfect elongated skull?


This thread wasn't about that!
Now was it!?
edit on 25-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 06:20 PM
As I'm overwhelmed by the old pictures of the original state of the site,
and your work on this thread, I'll have to let David Bowman speak for me.

"My god, it's full of stars"
- Dr David Bowman, 2001 a space odyssey.

Though I will mention that I have often suspected that the ancients, both Egyptian and other pyramid builders, knew how to mix and make cement.

But either way,
thanks for the trip
to another place and time.

David Grouchy

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 06:31 PM
It is evident you have spent much more time than the average person looking into this stuff, and for that I applaud you. The difference between the rough cut and precise cut pieces was a great addition to your OP.

Well done.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
As I'm overwhelmed by the old pictures of the original state of the site,
and your work on this thread, I'll have to let David Bowman speak for me.

"My god, it's full of stars"
- Dr David Bowman, 2001 a space odyssey.

I had the same imagery in my head while writing this ....

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:15 PM

Originally posted by boncho
It is evident you have spent much more time than the average person looking into this stuff, and for that I applaud you. The difference between the rough cut and precise cut pieces was a great addition to your OP.

Well done.

That has always raised a red flag with me.
I'm glad you caught it as well!

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

Though I will mention that I have often suspected that the ancients, both Egyptian and other pyramid builders, knew how to mix and make cement.

David Grouchy

They did. The ancient Macedonians and later on the Romans routinely used pozzolan/lime cement to make a type of concrete. The pantheon is one example of a structure at least partly made with concrete.

There are others (Egyptians included) that used cement to form concrete several centuries before Christ, and the earliest suspected use of cement to make concrete was from around 6500 B.C. with the stone-age Syrians.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:21 PM

These are two of my favorite places in South America! The first time I read about and saw Puma Punku I was amazed. I really do wonder what that area looked like in it's prime. It had to be an amazing site.

You really put a lot of information up I had not heard of. I love all the pictures of the sites. I had not see pics of the site when it was originally found. It really does give it a different look and feel with the age.

I don't know what to think about who built it and how. I have a few ideas I go back and forth on..

Either they had their own technology they used (not like ours but something of their own they figured out and not in the sense of lasers and such, most like energy and stuff like that), they got some help from ET or we just truly don't give our ancestors any credit.

We seem to be pretty adaptable and can make all kinds of things with our hands and our minds. Why couldn't they have done the same thing, even if it is something we don't understand. I often wonder what they would think of a building like the Empire State Building....

When I was in Italy and went to Pompeii, it was nothing like I thought and it was 2000 yrs old. I was really impressed at their building and how they layed everything out. It was beautiful! The houses that would be considered mansions and manor there were amazing, so much color and many of the murals on the walls were still there. I tend to think if we want something we will make it

Thanks for this! I will have to bookmark it and check out the links!

Wow between you and BP lately and my thread catch up since i was gone I've been busy

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:27 PM
Some of those precisely carved out stones remind me of cast's use for forging liquid metal.

I have cored may holes in concrete for my profession and it humbles me that these ancients can produce a smooth carved out perfect tube...

I cannot even get one with a core machine with a diamond toothed core bit....

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:30 PM
And I thought I knew mostly what was current info on these sites. It's like there was some sort long drawn out cover up going down at these site. Looking at the turn of the century photos it makes you wonder why they decided to build what's currently on site. And, Puma Punku is just amazing no matter which way you slice it. (no pun intended)

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:43 PM
brilliant slayer,

i dig the old pics.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:52 PM
reply to post by mblahnikluver

I'm actually holding back some rather interesting images and location for another thread in the works

As always, you know me stay tuned!

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Fantastic thread, very interesting and highly possible. It does seem obvious to my untrained eye, the difference in building materials for the 'reconstruction'.
If it's true that the destruction was present for the Spanish, must have been one big jolt to throw them around like that.
Thanks for bringing the outside inside, looking forward to the next.
s & f

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by AussieAmandaC

I'm not making any claims just asking some questions. I'm more than sure there are those who are waiting in the wings to be detractors

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Wow Slayer another epic thread! I thank you.

The sketches and photos of old put an fascinating new twist on things. I had never realized just how much things have gotten messed up over the years... centuries! I wonder how it looked when the Inca got there, let alone the Spaniards.

Sigh... just imagine!

I have always had a deep, inextricable gut feeling that these sites are really seriously old... as old as Posnansky figured at the very least.

That goes for world wide as well. I truly believe that there were civilizations in that time and before who could wow us with their achievements. Without the need for aliens. Although I like that guy's hair, I think all of it is our doing. Maybe aliens visited, hung out and traded, as our equals.

Anyway, it's clear I need to dive in again... I do love this stuff, but I never get to go deep, time, life, all that... there will come a time when I will just give in, go down there and stay, I swear.

The built-in juxtaposition of the new walls built around the old standing stones from the 1900s imagery and the seemingly large areas of the standing ones I was not aware of...

And Puma Punku... well, that place is just special.

There must have been one incredible catastrophe of proportions we can barely imagine...

Okay I'm starting to ramble... thanks, my friend... just fabulous, f and s'


posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:19 PM
Thanks for posting this Slayer.

I have only seen a few of those photos, thanks to other ATS members. Now you painted a full picture of the area. The masonry work is amazing. Makes you wonder if they had their own Levels and T-Squares.

The designs at Puma Punku always remind me of the obelisks of Axum, Ethiopia. The fake windows cut into the megaliths mimic the windows of the Axum obelisks. These two cultures are so far apart, its amazing they picked up the same idea.

This is the Obelisk of Axum before it was repaired - It’s 1700 years old, 78 ft (24 m), 160 tons.

Obelisk of Axum

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:28 PM
reply to post by lostinspace

Sick minds think alike.
I have a massive comparison between those two in reserve

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:51 PM
Somthing you need to seriously take into consideration that you did not mention in your thread is the TYPES OF STONE which these were built out of. They were made out of Granite and Diorite!! The only known stone harder then those is DIAMOND!!! That is insane! Surely you can not actually think man made this without some influence. We are a smart race of beings but even todays technologies would have a hard time!

You need to watch this Video it has great information. If I dont get this video to work someone please embed for me

^_^ Thank you

edit on 25-7-2011 by Talinator because: Updated signature

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:53 PM
I just wanted to take the time to compement you on this thread and thank you for the work you put into it it is so welcome to read stuff that is really studied and that give info not opinion thank you so very much wow

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:53 PM
Sorry here is the link if someone can help.
Thank you

edit on 25-7-2011 by Talinator because: Link issue!

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Yet another blockbuster OP. I had thought the same thing about the duality of the layers, just as I observed in Macchu Picchu. One can look at it and see 2 different types of architecture at both sites. I always figured it was a newer civilization that was built upon what had long been there. As you know, PumaPunku is just as much a headscratcher as Tiahuanaco. If they were supposed 'sea ports' then why build seaports over 10 miles from the shore? It was said that pumapunku showed signs of excavation towards the lake, possibly because it had retreated from the dock. But that anomoly is also common with the great causeways of Egypt. Why build a causeway 8 miles from the Nile? As with both accounts, the mystery lies within a fabric of other questions.

WTG bro!

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in