reply to post by IndianaJoe
The trouble with modern academia is that it is so damn specialised, that persons with solid interest in particular topics can spend entire lifetimes
working on the minutiae of a theory tenuously linked in to the 'larger topic', and yet entirely miss the boat on key developments that affect the
overall study of the subject.
Nazca is not something that can be studied accurately or sensibly by '100s of independent studies', in my humble opinion. Take the totality of what
is there, and look for the overriding connective factors. Skim off the superfluous, or irrelevant data, and review what remains as a holistic problem
- and involve multi-disciplinary specialists WITH OPEN MINDS on resolving the problem. Yes, much study is required to achieve the removal of
superfluous tripe, but without a 'total concept' in mind, it becomes yet more academic facetiousness, scattering trails of ever-specialised
breadcrumbs, that actually lead nowhere concrete..
The trouble with ALL ancient studies, is that certain preconceptions exist, and will not be accepted as viable objects of challenge. For example
Nazca - there is an indefatigable sense that some of these lines simply defy logic, if we are to attribute them to earth-bound primitives working over
a span of thousands of years. No amount of cajoling towards the acceptance of 'primitive ritual' as their motivation will actually reveal that base
speculation to be the truth.
The constancy of the lines, in terms of generic stylings & odd features (such as their cutting across vast spans of gorge or mountain top, emerging
triumphantly, still laser-straight and with all angles intact on the other side) across such wide plains, without substantial evidence that there
exists any lengthy timespan between the first etching and the last, suggests that they are likely to have been carved out by the same group, in a
short period of time, with motivations for doing so UNKNOWN.
Please don't claim that native artifacts littered around the lines can be dated to such & such a date, and that therefore chronology of
'construction' can be established by comparison of artifacts at different locations; that is logically flawed, and every archaeologist knows it,
though very few would ever admit it in so few words. Lines in the sand such as those at Nazca cannot be accurately dated in and of themselves, no
matter who came across, lived around, dropped crap on - or annotated them - over the course of a few thousand years.
Therefore, any attempt to find a holistic 'vision' of the intended purpose of these lines, is entirely valid, and may in fact become more valid,
more fresh & novel in and of itself, more likely to be unencumbered by the 'mountains' of minutiae of aspects of study done previously, when
attempted by a generalist with a unique and original idea, with no preconceptions, who simply does a bit of tracing of lines and says 'Hey - these
appear to show a 3D image set of some sort..'
Now, you can see from the last sentence what the academics' problem is. They are preconditioned to believe that coherent (or semi-coherent) 3D
tracings in sand over vast distances (looking for all the world as though they were etched by some sort of variably-focused electromagnetic beam upon
the 2D surface of the plains & mountains, valleys etc, from a moveable point of origin up in the air) - are simply impossible..!!
So, with that preconception firmly entrenched in the psychology of EVERY SINGLE ACADEMIC WITH A CAREER TO PROTECT, we can perhaps see why hundreds of
studies on the particulars of Nazca have turned up precisely NOTHING in the way of a holistic theory, and have in fact all leaned towards cramming the
data into preconceived notions, loosely connected to 'PRIMITIVE RITUAL'
I know I won't have made a friend of you with this post, but I simply can't be bothered to debate further, knowing as I do that academics have a
reputation & a career to defend, and that if they were to start from the evidence and work up to the theory (as opposed to cramming the evidence into
a pre-conceived notion), they would likely soon be out of professional friends, and looking for a new career.
If it doesn't fit with the established doctrine of the field of research, it will take quite a while for anything other than re-hashes of weak
theories, based on particulars instead of the totality, to be raised to the forefront of the field as truth - heck, even to admit that you're ''not
sure'' is an academic faux pas in most instances - though I suppose for Nazca, it might pass as moderately more acceptable than in other, more
concrete fields of research such as.. Genetics? Oh no wait, that's right - DNA complexes which aren't yet understood are called 'Junk DNA', so
the researchers can pretend to understand more than they actually do.
It goes on throughout academia, to the shame of humanity.