However, I'd be interested to see why you believe that the various methods used to date the sites in question are not able to determine dates for
Rocks and stones in general are difficult to date. Radiocarbon dating is debatable and only works for organics up to about 60.000 years before
present. Unearthed artifacts and writings of those cultures probably are a good foundation to say who was around in that area at a specific
Writing only goes back around 5500 years. I was under the impression that the thread was about this ancient equator from far before that.
That is, if not, don't you think someone would have noticed the Earth tilting over and maybe written something about that?
Regarding C14, yes it "only" goes back 60,000 years. But that's plenty far for every megalithic (at least) site they've used it on. And while
C14 doesn't date rock, as you point out, it does
date any organics found under a rock.
These sorts of organic materials (and, of course, others) have been dated at Pumapuku and throughout the Tiahuanaco site proper, as well as all around
the surrounding countryside.
jeep3rBut that's perhaps just 'part' of the story. So what about cultures that don't even claim having built their most impressive
megalithic accomplishments themselves, yet archaeology officially associates these structures with that particular culture? I think these are also
open issues that make conclusive statements about construction dates & methods impossible at this point in time ...
I assume you mean the Inca here.
It's true that some so-called Inca sites might have been erected by an earlier culture. But the cultures in Peru are all directly related over time.
Mostly, sites are called "Incan" in the press when they aren't because nobody has heard of the Wari, etc.
Note the chart on page 10 of this PDF.
You can see that, while you often note people calling Tiahuanaco an "Incan" site, it is actually not regarded as such.
Other sites dwelt on by fringe believers certainly are Incan. For example, there's little to no doubt at all this is true of Ollantaytambo
That is, there are certainly ranges given with each dating method. But in the cases of most of the sites around this spurious "equator," even
taking into account these ranges will not cause the cultures to overlap.
What we think we know about the history of certain cultures that lived in those areas doesn't overlap, true ... but as mentioned above, when
considering the variety of different construction methods on one site (eg. megalithic vs. non-megalithic etc.), not all of it should be
attributed to that one culture for which we have the most evidence, IMO that would be too much of a generalization and should be left open
until conclusive proof can be delivered.
I don't believe that this is the case, though admittedly you can, as I said, see it happen on websites and newspapers, etc.