Cyclopean Masonry in Greece and South America

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeep3r
In the meantime, I found at least one more important site in Greece, that also features polygonal masonry which is quite similar to that in Peru: The Oracle of the Dead (Necromanteion), Ephyra ...

Here go a few images:








This one has piqued my interest up to the next level...and while I still believe there is a clear development of technology, I am beginning to suspect that there is also a deeper aesthetic significance.

I found this...

www.perseus.tufts.edu...:image:1989.v1.0026

www.coastal.edu...

Given the example you provide, and that it also appears in Delphi at the approach to the sanctuary of Apollo, which prior to Apollo, who slay the Python, was originally dedicated to the Earth Mother with whom the oracles communicated...I am wondering if, in these cases at least, it is in some way related to the underworld...scales perhaps, though I would maybe have expected to see more uniformity of pattern if that was the case...but still, the principle is there. The ordered chaos representative of the bridge between the realms of the living and the dead.


The following is an interesting, if dry, paper on the polygonal masonry at Larisa, another oracular centre...

www.academia.edu...

I have done a brief search, and although I can find mentions of polygonal masonry at other oracular locations, such as Corinth, I haven't as yet not come across any pictures. Even so, I am wondering if this style is particular to the pre-Apollo Greek world, and is stylised due to it's implied relationship to the feminine aspect of the Earth then worshipped.

Not sure how that can be applied to the South American examples though, other than, in terms of again, same source, neolithic expansionism and convergent technological development. It is not easy to hold all that together though. I suppose the acid test would be whether the practice on both continents ends when the societies become more structured and urbanised. Not really sure...but still very interested.




posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SQUEALER
 

Another reason why build with irregular stones. Nobody steals the building materials (...)
So, the irregular stone design could just be an anti-theft device.

Also an interesting aspect, though it's hard to imagine someone stealing a gargantuan 150 ton boulder!? But who can tell what criminal minds are able to envision and come to think of ... !

By the way: do you have any ideas about the markings/indentations that can be found irregularly on those slabs? They don't seem to be very deep, some of them are on top, others somewhere on the sides but by far most of them on the bottom.

I've been thinking about that for a while and I'm not really sure how to interpret those ...



edit on 27-4-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
 

This one has piqued my interest up to the next level...and while I still believe there is a clear development of technology, I am beginning to suspect that there is also a deeper aesthetic significance.

Thanks for looking into this in such detail, I'm glad it caught your attention! I went through the paper you linked and think it describes the different styles at Larisa (hellenistic, archaic etc.) quite comprehensively. However, I'm not surprised that they couldn't determine the exact date of the archaic masonry work.

Apart from that, I have no idea how one should interpret the pattern of these stones, but I agree that the style seems to have a deeper significance (in whatever way). That's something I'd really like to find out ...




Not sure how that can be applied to the South American examples though, other than, in terms of again, same source, neolithic expansionism and convergent technological development. It is not easy to hold all that together though.

I suppose the acid test would be whether the practice on both continents ends when the societies become more structured and urbanised. Not really sure...but still very interested.

As for a possible convergent and independent development in masonry (concerning this very specific polygonal style with precision fitting), I still think it's too unique and too complicated to have evolved twice. Of course there's no evidence for that claim and the obvious similarities between Greece and South America would rather indicate otherwise, I know ...


And here go some of the more general problems I see when looking at the situation:

Rough Polygons vs. Precision Fitting
There's a major difference between roughly formed polygonal stones in a wall with big gaps being filled with smaller stones, on the one hand, and precisely fitted megalithic stones with almost seamless joints on the other.

Looks Inferior and Simple at First
At first glance, these patterns look rather primitive and like a logical succession to the earlier rough polygonal building style. But when looking closer, it's actually an incredible accomplishment both in Greece and in South America. There are far more edges, faces and sometimes even curves to adjust (occasionally around corners, too, see Ollantaytambo) along the complete width of each massive stone.

Such Masons Could Have Mastered Any Style
This polygonal masonry with precision fitting, as described above, seems to be so much more difficult than any other technique that one would think: masons capable of such precise work could have easily managed to apply later masonry styles as well (eg. bricks & mortar), if they had wanted to. In my view, this style is also much more complex in terms of planning & engineering when compared to techniques using rectangular bricks or stones.

Protrusions and Indentations
When looking at the megaliths in the walls at Sacsayhuaman or Ollantaytambo, we see irregular marks or indentations on the faces of the stones. Their location seems random (some are on top, some on the sides, but mostly at the bottom) and sometimes they are indented or they protude from the rock. Popular interpretations say that these were used to fasten ropes to them, but why then are some of them indented? Why are those indentations and protrusions not very deep or why don't they stick out far enough to actually be of practical use (at least that's what one thinks at first glance)?

_____________________

To make a long story short:

The above aspects are some of the things I'm really interested in and even though I knew about these walls before, I really had to take a closer look in order to appreciate the precision involved in this kind of masonry. Obviously, this thread will have run its course soon and I might dedicate a new thread to polygonal masonry once I've had the time to look into this more in detail!

Thanks again for your pointers & comments!
edit on 27-4-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeep3r
As for a possible convergent and independent development in masonry (concerning this very specific polygonal style with precision fitting), I still think it's too unique and too complicated to have evolved twice. Of course there's no evidence for that claim and the obvious similarities between Greece and South America would rather indicate otherwise, I know ...


I've been looking at photographs and sites, and there are huge differences between Greece and South America, stylistically, and proportionally. I don't know much about South America, it is kind of outside of my interest zone usually, but I do enjoy a good bit of masonry which is why I am dabbling on this occasion. Sooo I'm putting the South American examples to one side, because I cannot, by any stretch of my imagination, understand why the same principles of constructions are employed.

In Eurasia you can see a much clearer line of development. The Hussites seem to have been the first to have employed the technique at Hattusa. What is particularly interesting is that they used a mud brick construction that was then faced/dressed with dry-stone polygonal blocks, seemingly bringing together techniques that they borrowed from Mesopotamia (bricks) and Egypt (stone cutting/facing), as well as local/rustic dry stone walling. Possibly via their rather active involvement in slaving??? Anyway, from Hattusa, the practice spreads, with the Hittites, through Anatolia into Greece, and then later into Etruscan Italy. In the Etruscan case, it ends rather abruptly when Rome becomes an empire and the Fanum Voltumnae is overtaken and disbanded by Rome. I suspect, similarly, that the practice in Greece ended, if not with Apollos arrival, then with the end of the Amphictyonic League.


Originally posted by jeep3r
To make a long story short:

The above aspects are some of the things I'm really interested in and even though I knew about these walls before, I really had to take a closer look in order to appreciate the precision involved in this kind of masonry. Obviously, this thread will have run its course soon and I might dedicate a new thread to polygonal masonry once I've had the time to look into this more in detail!


Again, I cannot comment on how South American may have accomplished what they did, or where they got the idea....that is a conundrum that I can't get anywhere near to solving, other than to guess that dry stone walling was part of the Neolithic Package which they then developed to a much larger scale, but in Eurasia, the Hittites had contact with the Egyptians who were already cutting stone, plus they had iron. To me, it looks like they 'borrowed' the skill base from Egypt, as well as the basic ideas, though without the mathematics necessary to cut angles, and applied iron tools. The 'technique' then spread with them.

In terms of the indentations and protrusions, just running with the techniques employed by the cathedral buildings, post holes? For pulleys, scaffolding and leverage????



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
 

In the Etruscan case, it ends rather abruptly when Rome becomes an empire and the Fanum Voltumnae is overtaken and disbanded by Rome. I suspect, similarly, that the practice in Greece ended, if not with Apollos arrival, then with the end of the Amphictyonic League.

I admire your understanding of the subject matter with all those historical pointers! The Egyptian link you indicated makes sense, but I'd have to do a lot more research to adequately comment on the rest of your reply!




In terms of the indentations and protrusions, just running with the techniques employed by the cathedral buildings, post holes? For pulleys, scaffolding and leverage????

It could have been linked to something like that, yeah, but then again ... hmmm, not sure?! They're irregular, some stones have them, others not, they're not symmetrical and most of them are so inconspicious, they probably wouldn't offer much hold considering the weight. But perhaps it was indeed related to leverage and transport who knows (I have some doubts though)?

Here again an example from Cusco:



This will definitely keep me thinking and I secretly hope to get some input from professional masons who'd be willing to share their take on this (either here or in similar threads). Perhaps that would help us to exclude or favor certain ideas regarding this amazing architecture ... !


P.S.: In case you should come across anything else of interest regarding masonry in Ancient Greece, please do let me know ... !



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeep3r
It could have been linked to something like that, yeah, but then again ... hmmm, not sure?! They're irregular, some stones have them, others not, they're not symmetrical and most of them are so inconspicious, they probably wouldn't offer much hold considering the weight. But perhaps it was indeed related to leverage and transport who knows (I have some doubts though)?

Here again an example from Cusco:




Looking at that picture, I have several doubts...I don't think they serve any movement purposes...alighnment? At a push...maker's marks? I really have no idea. What I thought automatically, looking at that picture, though, is how very tactile they look. Really makes me want to reach out and touch them. But that is just me


Many thanks for the interesting thread, and the conversation. Appreciated.

I look forward to future threads from you.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 

Thanks, Kilgore, I had a good laugh when reading about the tactile properties of the markings!


By the way: I would be very interested to know about the exact consistency of the stones. Both in Sacsayhuaman and Greece. In one case it's said to be andesite, in the other limestone. You know, the kind of thing Joseph Davidovits did with the stones at Gizah ...

I definitely intend to hang on in there and do some more research for a follow-up thread on polygonal masonry. It'll take some time, but I'll post it here ASAP ...


edit on 29-4-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


The knobs left on the surface were anchor spots for ropes.
They are attested to in megalithic constructions.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I'd like add that in the case of the andean masonry, that perfectly fitted joint is purely ornamental and only extends a short distance beyond the joint itself, like 2 inches, and the rest of the joint is very rough.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks10
 

The knobs left on the surface were anchor spots for ropes. They are attested to in megalithic constructions.

Thanks for the pointers, that's quite interesting ... do you have an explanation why these anchor spots were sometimes indented while in other cases they protrude from the rock? And why they have different shapes, sizes and are alltogether absent in other cases (or at least not visible)? Also, there seem to be patterns on some walls (like at Ollantaytambo) that don't seem to relate to fastening anything to the stones. Here's an example:



Could be purely ornamental, perhaps?



I'd like add that in the case of the andean masonry, that perfectly fitted joint is purely ornamental and only extends a short distance beyond the joint itself, like 2 inches, and the rest of the joint is very rough.

I've been thinking about that possibility as well for a while, sounds like some of the stones have been analyzed in detail. Please let me know in case you have any useful links or sources concerning the stone working.

Thanks again for your input!



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


The knobs aren't for attaching anything, but as they wrapped the ropes around the blocks the knobs gave the ropes something to get some traction on. In most case most were removed in the finishing process.
As far as sources go for the knobs and the joint finishing tecniques, they are out there if you look, but you will subs to read real scientific papers.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 

Thanks, punkinworks ... I'm not opposed to reading scientific papers. It's of course more difficult sometimes, but you usually get a good return for the effort!


I know, for example, that Jean-Pierre Protzen from Berkley looked into this quite in detail:
Inca Quarrying and Stonecutting

But in case you know any other publications that are worth reading, please let me know. In the next thread on this topic, I would like to include more academic references.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
At some point we have to start acknowledging that the human race had some form of contact with each other across the continents sometime in the distant past. For now we don't have enough evidence to state that this civilization was advaced as ours, but perhaps were equivalent to our advancement in the late 19th century.

What is the likelihood that various cultures across our entire planet developed the technology to construct these massive structures to such detail and precision, but after several hundred years degenerated into building crude structures that looked like childs play compared to their predecessors? What we are supposed to believe is that the Greeks, Egyptians, Mayans and multiple other cultures across the globe all lost their past knowledge of construction, astronomy, mathematics, etc. at the same time for no specific reason, and became a lot less knowledgeable as their civilization grew in size. Not only that, but none of these cultures even take credit for their great accomplishments in the past. For instance why did the later Egyptian dynasties build such crude and small pyramids, while their ancestors constructed the Great Pyramid of Giza to such precission (perfect alignment to true north, air shafts perfectly aligned, eight sided pyramid, dimensions correlating to Pi and the center of Earth's mass, 80 ton blocks within the inteior)?

What is becoming a lot clearer with each passing year (and discovery) is that an ancient world wide culture did exist at some point in the distant past, but were decimated by some sort of catastrophe (flood, polar shift, etc.).



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by skybolt
At some point we have to start acknowledging that the human race had some form of contact with each other across the continents sometime in the distant past. For now we don't have enough evidence to state that this civilization was advaced as ours, but perhaps were equivalent to our advancement in the late 19th century.


It was called trade and you can prove it by items from different civilization showing up in the other ones, ie the Sumerian, AE and Harappa did trade and some items have been found. People also moved around but their impact cannot be ascertained. 19th century? You mean 19th century England or 19th Siam, Amazon basin or the foothills of Nepal?


What is the likelihood that various cultures across our entire planet developed the technology to construct these massive structures to such detail and precision, but after several hundred years degenerated into building crude structures that looked like childs play compared to their predecessors?


The time lines don't support this. You might want to look at the progression of how the pyramids are believed to have been built. The most accurately built ancient building was the Parthenon not the GP as many think.


What we are supposed to believe is that the Greeks, Egyptians, Mayans and multiple other cultures across the globe all lost their past knowledge of construction, astronomy, mathematics, etc. at the same time for no specific reason, and became a lot less knowledgeable as their civilization grew in size.


As I noted above your time line is very skewed, AE was conquered and stagnate when the Mayan rose, same for the Greeks. The Greeks saw and associated with the last flowering of the AE but were under Roman domination before the Mayans civ got to its peak, etc


Not only that, but none of these cultures even take credit for their great accomplishments in the past. For instance why did the later Egyptian dynasties build such crude and small pyramids, while their ancestors constructed the Great Pyramid of Giza to such precission (perfect alignment to true north, air shafts perfectly aligned, eight sided pyramid, dimensions correlating to Pi and the center of Earth's mass, 80 ton blocks within the inteior)?


The GP is not perfectly aligned to true north, it has a slight error as do all the pyramids - air shafts perfectly aligned??, not eight sided four sides using 'toed in' to the centre to make the line look straight when viewed, and definitely not the center of 'earth's mass'.


What is becoming a lot clearer with each passing year (and discovery) is that an ancient world wide culture did exist at some point in the distant past, but were decimated by some sort of catastrophe (flood, polar shift, etc.).


Actually the opposite is occuring as more data is collected the possibility of an advance earlier civilizatuib becomes less likely, we may however find many more smaller cultures especially in the Asia minor, southern Asia and west coast of South America.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The timelines are all screwed up because archaeologists use organic material from various sites via carbon 12 dating to estimate the construction date. For instance, if 10,000 years from now a group of nomads settle the Mt. Rushmore area and make it their home, would another semi advanced civilization 20,000 years from now give them credit for building it as well? The same things applies to sites like Giza, Puma Punku, Easter Island, Nazca, Petra, etc. There's no written record that the cultures within the past 5,000 years (or in many cases much less) actually built these structures. On the contrary, most of these people give credit to the gods or people that came before them. Sure, the Egyptians settled the Giza area and made it their home. They also used some form of mortar material to patch up the Pyramids, which led to the inaccurate carbon dating. Also, I do agree that there are other crudely built Pyramids dating back before 2400 BC, but this is assuming that the Great Pyramids were built by the Egyptian Pharoes around that time. If we assume the Pyramids and the Sphinx are thousands of years older, then all the crudely built pyramids by the Egyptians came afterwards.

In my opinion, the discovery of Gobekli Tepe changed everything for me. How could these multiple circles of perfectly cut 15 ton columns be constructed at a time that we were just considered hunters and gatherers. IMO, these structures take massive planning, mathematics and engineering skills to construct. Again,as I mentioned above, I do believe that hunter gatherer tribes did make this area their home (due to the animal bones found there), and may have even placed the small stones around the perfectly cut columns, but probably thousands of years after their original construction. If we compare these structures to the Moai statues (and even the "H" symbols in Puma Punku), the similarities are staggering. The long finger hand positioning to the belt area is exactly the same, as well as some of the writing. How could these cultures be 9,000 years apart with Gobekli Tepe being burried for the past 8,000 years or so?

IMO a cataclysm of some sort did occur (perhaps at the end of the last ice age) and these structures were left behind by the orginal builders. As the years went by hunter gatherer tribes began inhabiting these areas again and calling it their home. They left their organic imprint and stone tools there, so this is all we have left to go buy when dating these sites. Unfortunately for us the original builders did not leave there construction tools on site after construction just like us today.

The reason why I mentioned the 19th century is because there's no way that our society could've constructed the pyramids or other sites that are located on top of mountains in South America at that time without massive cranes and other building material. We are talking about flattened mountain tops and huge geometric shapes in Nazca; 1,200 ton stones in Baalbek; multi ton perfectly cut stones being dragged down one mountain and up another, and then pefectly fit together in Peru; machined holes inside of granite stones that are exactly at the same depth to the nearest milimeter at Puma Punku, mountains cut out to make a city in Petra, etc. The credit for all these accomplishments has been given to tribes, that in some cases like Puma Punku, did not even have a written language (let alone being able to put together contract drawings). We are supposed to believe that these cultures over various periods in the past 5,000 years sprang up at different times, built these amazing structures, and then just disappeared without passing on their knowledge. Then a few hundred years later the newer construction by the next tribe is always small and crude and looks like childs play compared to their older counterparts!



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
As far as archaeologists are concerned, I'm not one of those people that believes they're being paid by TPTB to keep things from the general puplic. However, I do believe that they don't tend to think outside the box when it comes to the specific site they're excavating. They also don't try and connect the dots with other sites from various periods if there's a discrepancy in the cabon dating. For instance, as a civil engineer, if by the end of the project my storm sewer design is not properly coordinated with the roadway, structural, electrical, landscaping, etc. design teams then the contractor will run into multiple problems during the construction stage. Same thing applies to crime scene investigators. Finding one clue at a crime scene does not solve the case. They have to interview multiple witnesses, perform background checks, look for motives, search other areas for clues, etc. to piece everything together to hopefully find the perpetrator. If archaeologists did the same thing then many of us wouldn't be so critical of their findings.

If for instance, the Imara Indians were responsible for constructing Puma Punku (based on the cabon dating results), then this tribue should be given credit for their amazing accomplishments and praised in every histiry classroom for being so advanced in their construction techniques, beyond anything prior to the 20th century. They should also be credited with having amazing mathematical and engineering skills instead of being relegated to a couple of paragraphs in the wikipedia pages.

Do many archaeologists sit back and think wait a second, why are the Moai statues so similar to Gobekli Tepe, or the Cyclopean style of stone placement so similar across the globe. Perhaps instead of assuming dates of having these structures being built thousand of years apart, just maybe it's possible that they all occurred around the same time. It's like a future civilization finding the foundation structures for various skycarpers built within the 20th century, but placing then 5,000 years apart because one area was buried for all that time, while the other one was inhabited by nomads. If they connnected all the dots and answered many of these discrepancies, many of us would have a lot more faith in their dating techniques!



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by skybolt
The timelines are all screwed up because archaeologists use organic material from various sites via carbon 12 dating to estimate the construction date. For instance, if 10,000 years from now a group of nomads settle the Mt. Rushmore area and make it their home, would another semi advanced civilization 20,000 years from now give them credit for building it as well?


No in this case there is material from this age contained within the rubble taken from construction, ie construction debris was mixed with trash from the workers, ie pop bottle, etc is mixed in plus the remains of the park buildings themselves plus the images themselves which showed shaved men in eloborate clothing they also would have cranial dimension (perhaps) different from the nomads. The timelines are fine based on the information we have you are ignorning the timelines because of your bias for an unknown unevidence civilization.


The same things applies to sites like Giza, Puma Punku, Easter Island, Nazca, Petra, etc. There's no written record that the cultures within the past 5,000 years (or in many cases much less) actually built these structures.


For the pyramds there is at the workers village and inside the pyramids there is writing, examples below. There is archaeology, pottery analysis, C-14 dating, pollen, sedimentology, strategraphy, etc, etc the fact that you don't realise this makes me wonder.

Inscriptions and writing

ex]
Drawings of the relieving chambers hieroglyphics use the scrolling (scrollen) function to see all the drawings



On the contrary, most of these people give credit to the gods or people that came before them. Sure, the Egyptians settled the Giza area and made it their home.


You really need to read about pre-dynastic Egypt and the peopling of the Nile valley. In this case the AE wrote about their religion they didn't assign the pyramids to other people.


They also used some form of mortar material to patch up the Pyramids, which led to the inaccurate carbon dating.


Nope, they used gypsum mortar to help build the pyramids it is found in every place so far looked at. So you are claiming they couldn't build the pyramids but they could take them apart put in mortar and put them back together again?


Also, I do agree that there are other crudely built Pyramids dating back before 2400 BC, but this is assuming that the Great Pyramids were built by the Egyptian Pharoes around that time. If we assume the Pyramids and the Sphinx are thousands of years older, then all the crudely built pyramids by the Egyptians came afterwards.


To do that you have to deny a great deal of evidence - now before you do that which is easy - do you even know what it is you are going to deny?


In my opinion, the discovery of Gobekli Tepe changed everything for me. How could these multiple circles of perfectly cut 15 ton columns be constructed at a time that we were just considered hunters and gatherers.


'Perfectly' please define. We do agree that GT is amazing but it is well within the technological ability of the people who did so - obviously.


IMO, these structures take massive planning, mathematics and engineering skills to construct. Again,as I mentioned above, I do believe that hunter gatherer tribes did make this area their home (due to the animal bones found there), and may have even placed the small stones around the perfectly cut columns, but probably thousands of years after their original construction.


You'll have to wait 10-15 years until excavation are completed only a tiny part of the site had been seen - wait a bit before you start deny evidence and making stuff up. Define 'massive' you seem to like words like that which in a archaeologist context are meaningless.


If we compare these structures to the Moai statues (and even the "H" symbols in Puma Punku), the similarities are staggering. The long finger hand positioning to the belt area is exactly the same, as well as some of the writing. How could these cultures be 9,000 years apart with Gobekli Tepe being burried for the past 8,000 years or so?


Because that is a common way to stand and more importantly to an artist with weak skills and tools a great way to show arms and hands without putting them in a natural way - which is very very hard to do....ask the Greeks.


will continue in the next message



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
continuing....


IMO a cataclysm of some sort did occur (perhaps at the end of the last ice age) and these structures were left behind by the orginal builders. As the years went by hunter gatherer tribes began inhabiting these areas again and calling it their home. They left their organic imprint and stone tools there, so this is all we have left to go buy when dating these sites. Unfortunately for us the original builders did not leave there construction tools on site after construction just like us today.


So what culture materials do you associate with these constructions?


The reason why I mentioned the 19th century is because there's no way that our society could've constructed the pyramids or other sites that are located on top of mountains in South America at that time without massive cranes and other building material.


Sure we could - go take a look at St Peters no ancient civ could do that. Remember your personal incredulity is not proof of anything.



We are talking about flattened mountain tops and huge geometric shapes in Nazca; 1,200 ton stones in Baalbek;


You know the MP was flatten? People can can cut away stone MP was built in historic times. the 1,200 stone in baalbek was cut but never moved - your point being? There is a 26,000 ton stone in China that was also cut and again not moved.



multi ton perfectly cut stones being dragged down one mountain and up another, and then pefectly fit together in Peru;


Spanish and Inca-Spanish writer wrote about how the Inca and others moved heavy stones, perhaps you should read those instead of fringe websites? Just sayin'....


machined holes inside of granite stones that are exactly at the same depth to the nearest milimeter at Puma Punku, mountains cut out to make a city in Petra, etc. The credit for all these accomplishments has been given to tribes, that in some cases like Puma Punku, did not even have a written language (let alone being able to put together contract drawings).


Why do they need to have a language to cut stone? If you think a language is necessary point to the language of the people you seem to think ran around the world cutting stones - and leaving no other trace



We are supposed to believe that these cultures over various periods in the past 5,000 years sprang up at different times, built these amazing structures, and then just disappeared without passing on their knowledge.


They didn't disappear we know about them and the Mayan are still there as are the descendants of the AE, Sumer and Harappa have mostly disappeared except in the archaeological records and what the Sumerian records tell us about them.

Here is a hint

Look at the civilizations of AE, Summer, Harrapp..what do they share in common?

They left tens of thousands of habitantion sites, tens of millions of relics and hundred of millions of sherds, while your mysterious civilization - by your claim - left only a few large stones - nothing else....not a thing. Even the lesser civilizations, the Minoans, Akkadians, Babylonians, Han, Jomon, Olmec and Mayan all left thousands of archaeological artifacts, you div

NOTHING

How do you explain that?





top topics
 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join