Megalithic Cultures: Were They Influenced by an Advanced and Forgotten Civilization?

originally posted by: Harte
The problem is that, at any given latitude, every part of that line of latitude sees the same stars at some time in the day. So if you don't know what time it is, it is utterly impossible to use the stars to determine which point on that line you are at.

Well, the Pacific island tribes were perfectly capable of navigating without any clocks on long sea voyages using the stars and an understanding of the currents.

a reply to: Blue Shift


yep they sure were.

For navigators near the equator celestial navigation is simplified since the whole celestial sphere is exposed. Any star that passes the zenith (overhead) is on the celestial equator, the basis of the equatorial coordinate system. Each star has a specific declination, and when they rise or set, they give a bearing for navigation. Stars are learned by compass point, making a star compass (star compasses list ~150 stars, in some systems[9]). A simplified compass might list only a couple of dozen stars. For example, in the Caroline Islands Mau Piailug taught natural navigation using a star compass diagrammed here. The development of "sidereal compasses" has been studied[11] and theorized to have developed from an ancient pelorus.
The Polynesians also took measurements of stellar elevation to determine their latitude. The latitudes of specific islands were also known, and the technique of "sailing down the latitude" was used.

Ploynesian navigation

I don't think there is any mystery advanced civilization involved .
On the other hand what is not only possible but probile and even some proof to is Egypt had boats ( ships ) good enough they managed to get all over the world and most places would have been easy.
The Americas would have been the big challenge .

But even that was not insurmountable as one guy but a reed boat and went across the ocean an.
But I understand poor humans are so limited with out a god or aliens we would be helpless .
And no way could a human flated a corn field with just a board and rope ( naa has to be aliens

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: Blue Shift


yep they sure were.

For navigators near the equator celestial navigation is simplified since the whole celestial sphere is exposed. Any star that passes the zenith (overhead) is on the celestial equator, the basis of the equatorial coordinate system. Each star has a specific declination, and when they rise or set, they give a bearing for navigation. Stars are learned by compass point, making a star compass (star compasses list ~150 stars, in some systems[9]). A simplified compass might list only a couple of dozen stars. For example, in the Caroline Islands Mau Piailug taught natural navigation using a star compass diagrammed here. The development of "sidereal compasses" has been studied[11] and theorized to have developed from an ancient pelorus.
The Polynesians also took measurements of stellar elevation to determine their latitude. The latitudes of specific islands were also known, and the technique of "sailing down the latitude" was used.

Ploynesian navigation

Just to be clear, in case anyone misses it: The ONLY objection to the maps is that they have accurate longitude.

And longitude is the ONLY part of navigation that can't be done without a clock.

I presume that is what punkinworks is getting at. I just want to make sure it is clear for anyone joining the conversation late.

originally posted by: Harte
You would then assert that the Inca were in contact with the Ancient Egyptians? Even though their existence is separated by millennia?
And that is only one example.

Harte

The hypothesis that Egyptians didn't build the great pyramid, also suggests the Inca did not build the very large stone construction found within their territories.

Instead, they were built at about the same time as the Great Pyramid, but later on people resettled the site and continued living there.

The Inca cities where the large blocks are found, frequently also feature small block construction. This indicates two cultures, with two levels of technology, have both lived at those sites.

New cities often get built on top of old cities. The old structures are useful. Why not use them?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The hypothesis that Egyptians didn't build the great pyramid, also suggests the Inca did not build the very large stone construction found within their territories.

The Inca were very late to the party. They did get organized and took over other groups works then used their conqueror neighbor's skilled workers to build their own structures. The evidence for the earlier cultures is well known and established. The Inca started empire building in the 13th century.

In Egypt the situation is different there are a number of pre-civilization cultures in the area but none with the stone working skills of the AE. They are associated with the stone work and not others. The AE got organized circa 3000 BCE.

So two different situation separated by nearly 3,500 years.

This is a general overview of the other cultures in the area of Egypt

en.wikipedia.org...

Overview of the various earlier culture in the Andean area

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The hypothesis that Egyptians didn't build the great pyramid, also suggests the Inca did not build the very large stone construction found within their territories.

The Inca were very late to the party. They did get organized and took over other groups works then used their conqueror neighbor's skilled workers to build their own structures. The evidence for the earlier cultures is well known and established. The Inca started empire building in the 13th century.

The Inca themselves are probably responsible for the more recent small stone construction. The giant stones could have been there for a longer time. Even the modern cities that replaced the Inca cities still build around and on top of the megalithic structures.

Megaliths stand the test of time. Really well.

In Egypt the situation is different there are a number of pre-civilization cultures in the area but none with the stone working skills of the AE. They are associated with the stone work and not others. The AE got organized circa 3000 BCE.

So two different situation separated by nearly 3,500 years.

This is a general overview of the other cultures in the area of Egypt

en.wikipedia.org...

Overview of the various earlier culture in the Andean area

en.wikipedia.org...

The biggest problem I see with this is what gets pointed out in this film:

www.youtube.com...

Start at 12 minutes 47 seconds and they'll show you a stone sarcophagus perfectly cut to be square, solid straight edges.

Then they look at the writing on it, which ties it to the Egyptian dynasty. It's clearly obvious that the writer was attempting to write in a straight line and failing.

That should prove to any sane person's satisfaction, that the people who wrote the cartouches are not the same people who made the sarcophagus.



The alternative archaeology answer to the question of "who did?" is that it was done in great antiquity, during the ice age. And the ice age came to a violent end with huge earthquakes and flooding. The skilled parts of society either died out, or ended up having to live in hunter gatherer groups where their skills simply weren't useful. (And consequently they didn't teach them to their kids.)

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The problem is the Inca came about just 700 years ago so they were not affected by the end of the Ice age. As noted earlier they did take over earlier structures but they also built a great deal themselves.

If you want to prove that the AE didn't do any of the earlier stone work all you need to do is explain why there is no sign of this other culture while at the same time there are literally millions of AE artifacts from cities to pottery shards, and before the AE other cultures (that the AE most probably evolved from) also on the same ground but yet there is no sign of this other group.

Civilizations leave massive archaeological footprints, yet we are asked to believe that this 'lost civilization only left rocks.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The problem is the Inca came about just 700 years ago so they were not affected by the end of the Ice age. As noted earlier they did take over earlier structures but they also built a great deal themselves.

What megaliths did they build. (Like in a way where we can clearly see it was them doing it?)

It is, of course, quite possible that Europe's megaliths are from both a different time AND a different culture. With the Inca, the Spanish destroyed their records, and we don't know what they knew. In Europe we know they didn't know how to move large stones at any time in recorded history (because the historians never demonstrated any understanding of the process.)

If you want to prove that the AE didn't do any of the earlier stone work all you need to do is explain why there is no sign of this other culture while at the same time there are literally millions of AE artifacts from cities to pottery shards, and before the AE other cultures (that the AE most probably evolved from) also on the same ground but yet there is no sign of this other group.

Civilizations leave massive archaeological footprints, yet we are asked to believe that this 'lost civilization only left rocks.

Thing like Gobekli Tepe only get discovered very rarely. The more recent something is, the more often stuff gets discovered.

But also, during the ice age, the oceans were lower, and if we consider the Piri Reis map to be from that time, then that means the people knew how to navigate the seas effectively. So the most prosperous (and therefore most technologically capable) cities would be near the sea.

And then, of course, there is resettlement of the sites farther from the ocean. Which covers the area in more recent relics, giving an archaeologist quite a lot of noise to sift through.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The problem is the Inca came about just 700 years ago so they were not affected by the end of the Ice age. As noted earlier they did take over earlier structures but they also built a great deal themselves.

What megaliths did they build. (Like in a way where we can clearly see it was them doing it?)

Perhaps you are unaware that the Spanish actually observed the Inca building with megaliths, and even conscripted (or hired) dozens of them to build their buildings.

Or, will you say the Inca lied about what they built?

The fortress at Ollantaytambo was completed less than a century before the Spanish came. There were, at the time, still people living in Peru that had participated in building that structure when the Spanish arrived.

Regarding the Inca and honesty, they told the Spanish that they didn't build the structures at Tiwanaku. Why wouldn't they claim they had built these if they had falsely claimed they had built the others?


Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The problem is the Inca came about just 700 years ago so they were not affected by the end of the Ice age. As noted earlier they did take over earlier structures but they also built a great deal themselves.

What megaliths did they build. (Like in a way where we can clearly see it was them doing it?)

Perhaps you are unaware that the Spanish actually observed the Inca building with megaliths, and even conscripted (or hired) dozens of them to build their buildings.

Or, will you say the Inca lied about what they built?

I'm not aware of it, because you haven't been so kind as to give a link, or even search terms I can enter into google in order to verify it.

The fortress at Ollantaytambo was completed less than a century before the Spanish came. There were, at the time, still people living in Peru that had participated in building that structure when the Spanish arrived.

Regarding the Inca and honesty, they told the Spanish that they didn't build the structures at Tiwanaku. Why wouldn't they claim they had built these if they had falsely claimed they had built the others?


Harte

There is a difference between adding to, and building a structure.

In the case of Saksaywaman, for example, it is actually known to mainstream archaeology that the oral history wherein the Inca claimed to have constructed it is false. That it was, in fact, built by a previous civilization.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The problem is the Inca came about just 700 years ago so they were not affected by the end of the Ice age. As noted earlier they did take over earlier structures but they also built a great deal themselves.

What megaliths did they build. (Like in a way where we can clearly see it was them doing it?)

Perhaps you are unaware that the Spanish actually observed the Inca building with megaliths, and even conscripted (or hired) dozens of them to build their buildings.

Or, will you say the Inca lied about what they built?

I'm not aware of it, because you haven't been so kind as to give a link, or even search terms I can enter into google in order to verify it.

The fortress at Ollantaytambo was completed less than a century before the Spanish came. There were, at the time, still people living in Peru that had participated in building that structure when the Spanish arrived.

Regarding the Inca and honesty, they told the Spanish that they didn't build the structures at Tiwanaku. Why wouldn't they claim they had built these if they had falsely claimed they had built the others?


Harte

There is a difference between adding to, and building a structure.

In the case of Saksaywaman, for example, it is actually known to mainstream archaeology that the oral history wherein the Inca claimed to have constructed it is false. That it was, in fact, built by a previous civilization.

en.wikipedia.org...

From your link:

The complex was expanded and added to by the Inca from the 13th century; they built dry stone walls constructed of huge stones.

Regarding a source for Spanish observations, I couldn't remember names, but I've googled up a couple for you - Pedro de Cieza de Le6n and Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa.

There are several others, but I haven't memorized them and Google will find them for you, if you bother to look.

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


What megaliths did they build. (Like in a way where we can clearly see it was them doing it?)

You mean what did they build? They tended to build useful things not rocks piled on top of rocks

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a list of all the major Inca ruins in Peru - use the menu selector for Inca and they will grouped for ya:

en.wikipedia.org...

It is, of course, quite possible that Europe's megaliths are from both a different time AND a different culture. With the Inca, the Spanish destroyed their records, and we don't know what they knew. In Europe we know they didn't know how to move large stones at any time in recorded history (because the historians never demonstrated any understanding of the process.)

As Harte noted above the Spanish recorded the Inca working on sites, used the same workmen to build their own building and the children of the Inca nobility that married the Spanish wrote about about they built structures and moved large rocks.

You didn't reply to my query about why no sign of these 'others' shows up while at the same time other cultures material remains are found in the same area.

Piri Reis map to be from that time

It isn't

And then, of course, there is resettlement of the sites farther from the ocean. Which covers the area in more recent relics, giving an archaeologist quite a lot of noise to sift through.

A challenge but often overcome.

I've excavated sites that had a number of different occupiers, one site in Cyprus I worked on we went thru British, Turks, Venetians, Arabs, Byzantine, Roman, Greek, and all the way back to an unnamed bronze age culture.

You can tell the difference mainly in pottery and other material remains but also from burial and construction details.

Some folks used Roman concrete, some used ashlars, some well made masonry, some used field stones with rubble fill, etc, etc.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The problem is the Inca came about just 700 years ago so they were not affected by the end of the Ice age. As noted earlier they did take over earlier structures but they also built a great deal themselves.

What megaliths did they build. (Like in a way where we can clearly see it was them doing it?)

Perhaps you are unaware that the Spanish actually observed the Inca building with megaliths, and even conscripted (or hired) dozens of them to build their buildings.

Or, will you say the Inca lied about what they built?

I'm not aware of it, because you haven't been so kind as to give a link, or even search terms I can enter into google in order to verify it.

The fortress at Ollantaytambo was completed less than a century before the Spanish came. There were, at the time, still people living in Peru that had participated in building that structure when the Spanish arrived.

Regarding the Inca and honesty, they told the Spanish that they didn't build the structures at Tiwanaku. Why wouldn't they claim they had built these if they had falsely claimed they had built the others?

The false claims we know of weren't made on purpose.

They were the result of the Inca themselves falsely attributing older stonework to their own recent ancestors. Nobody was falsely claiming to build anything in their own generation. There was no deliberate deceit. Just optimistic story telling.

Harte

There is a difference between adding to, and building a structure.

In the case of Saksaywaman, for example, it is actually known to mainstream archaeology that the oral history wherein the Inca claimed to have constructed it is false. That it was, in fact, built by a previous civilization.

en.wikipedia.org...

From your link:

The complex was expanded and added to by the Inca from the 13th century; they built dry stone walls constructed of huge stones.

Regarding a source for Spanish observations, I couldn't remember names, but I've googled up a couple for you - Pedro de Cieza de Le6n and Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa.

There are several others, but I haven't memorized them and Google will find them for you, if you bother to look.

Harte

That part of the text claims they built that in the 13th century. So there is no direct evedence of when it was built.

Only those same legends that have been shown already to be unreliable.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


What megaliths did they build. (Like in a way where we can clearly see it was them doing it?)

You mean what did they build? They tended to build useful things not rocks piled on top of rocks

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a list of all the major Inca ruins in Peru - use the menu selector for Inca and they will grouped for ya:

en.wikipedia.org...

It is, of course, quite possible that Europe's megaliths are from both a different time AND a different culture. With the Inca, the Spanish destroyed their records, and we don't know what they knew. In Europe we know they didn't know how to move large stones at any time in recorded history (because the historians never demonstrated any understanding of the process.)

As Harte noted above the Spanish recorded the Inca working on sites, used the same workmen to build their own building and the children of the Inca nobility that married the Spanish wrote about about they built structures and moved large rocks.

You didn't reply to my query about why no sign of these 'others' shows up while at the same time other cultures material remains are found in the same area.

It's possible that they simply didn't use pottery. Maybe they preferred to make their containers out of skins or wood.

Also the very ancient builders theory places the builders in the ice age, and anticipates that weather patterns were likely to have been quite different in those times. A dry desert plateau that perfectly preserves 8000 years of history so you can find 8000 year old bones today that look like they've only been left there last week.......... might have been a rainy meadow back in the ice age.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The problem is the Inca came about just 700 years ago so they were not affected by the end of the Ice age. As noted earlier they did take over earlier structures but they also built a great deal themselves.

I told you they built the large stone walls at Ollantaytambo.
Archaeology at the site shows there was construction there before the Inca, and that the large walls were built by the Inca. As you stated, the same is true for Sacsayhuaman.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Archaeology just takes the word of the locals and walks away, like Herodotus or whatever.

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's possible that they simply didn't use pottery. Maybe they preferred to make their containers out of skins or wood.

That would make them remarkable, no pottery, no stone tools, no habitations, no burials, no sign of them whatsoever, not even trash dumps or middens.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's possible that they simply didn't use pottery. Maybe they preferred to make their containers out of skins or wood.

That would make them remarkable, no pottery, no stone tools, no habitations, no burials, no sign of them whatsoever, not even trash dumps or middens.

In other words, it is just like Gobekli Tepe.

en.wikipedia.org...

Which also shows no signs of pottery.



One possibility is that the culture that built it had differing levels of technological knowledge based on status. A technocracy, perhaps? So the rulers would have had technology that might be considered high technology, but the governed had no technology at all? Perhaps they hoarded it.

There is no reason that couldn't be the case. The people who did the physical work would be the have-nots, just doing what they are told, and not even really knowing what they are building.

In that case, you don't typically find the trappings of high technology because only the "1%" had it.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's possible that they simply didn't use pottery. Maybe they preferred to make their containers out of skins or wood.

That would make them remarkable, no pottery, no stone tools, no habitations, no burials, no sign of them whatsoever, not even trash dumps or middens.

In other words, it is just like Gobekli Tepe.

en.wikipedia.org...

Which also shows no signs of pottery.

Hardly. You can't pretend that pottery is the only thing Hans was talking about, and Gobekli Tepe is covered with all kinds of other artifacts.


Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


In other words, it is just like Gobekli Tepe. Which also shows no signs of pottery.

GT is missing pottery but has a number of other signs that people were there, organic remains, stone tools, a quarry. I suspect with only 5% of the site excavated they will find more stuff in the foreseeable future. GT appears to have been founded before pottery, before that wide-spread technology became known there, the baked figurines common to the area have also not been discovered.

One possibility is that the culture that built it had differing levels of technological knowledge based on status. A technocracy, perhaps? So the rulers would have had technology that might be considered high technology, but the governed had no technology at all? Perhaps they hoarded it.

There is no reason that couldn't be the case. The people who did the physical work would be the have-nots, just doing what they are told, and not even really knowing what they are building.

In that case, you don't typically find the trappings of high technology because only the "1%" had it.

What they hoarded stone tools and habitations sites? 1% would mean you'd still find stuff - you don't think the 'elites' would find, make or operate this technology do you?

Now all those other folks would still have habitation sites, burials and eat stuff - which can be found.

Speaking of eating stuff

On the day I visit, a bespectacled Belgian man sits at one end of a long table in front of a pile of bones. Joris Peters, an archaeozoologist from the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, specializes in the analysis of animal remains. Since 1998, he has examined more than 100,000 bone fragments from Gobekli Tepe. Peters has often found cut marks and splintered edges on them—signs that the animals from which they came were butchered and cooked. The bones, stored in dozens of plastic crates stacked in a storeroom at the house, are the best clue to how people who created Gobekli Tepe lived. Peters has identified tens of thousands of gazelle bones, which make up more than 60 percent of the total, plus those of other wild game such as boar, sheep and red deer. He's also found bones of a dozen different bird species, including vultures, cranes, ducks and geese. "The first year, we went through 15,000 pieces of animal bone, all of them wild. It was pretty clear we were dealing with a hunter-gatherer site," Peters says. "It's been the same every year since." The abundant remnants of wild game indicate that the people who lived here had not yet domesticated animals or farmed.

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Yes many years ago on another defunct forum I created the following list of how a civilization could remain undetected How a civilization can remain undetected

1. have very few people - but this will tend to limit your technological advancement
2. don't make fires - ever - and if you do you have to disperse the leftovers
3. don't make pottery or bake clay
4. don't modify the environment in any way
5. don't domesticate animals or plants
6. don't eat shell fish (the middens are easy to spot)
7. don't bury people, destroy bodies at death and disperse the bones - crush the teeth
8. absolutely no use of stone for tools, do not modify ivory, bone or shells either
9. never disturb the earth (by driving in a stake)
10. don't hunt animals and if you do widely disperse their remains
11. move constantly to avoid a build-up of waste, both human and food remains
12. don't live near a lake or other place where sediments, pollen and pollutants gather

There if you do all that you'll be fairly undetectable The real killer is #5 without the food from agriculture you'd have real problems feeding a 'city'.

a reply to: Hanslune

Shell middens will last for tens of thousands of years,there is a 60kyo midden in my county. And a 24kyo midden uncovered in monterey a few years ago.
When I was last in Baja, we were exploring historic overland trails on the motos, the kind you can see if you know what you are looking for, but havent been used in decades of more, and found one that went from the pacific side across the mountains to the Gulf side, in one of the most remote parts of baja, at the time there was one person living within a 25 mile radius of the trail head at the beach.
We found the biggest shell middens I have ever seen there, at the exit of an arroyo 3 miles from the beach there were piles of pismo clamshells the size of a house, and there were a dozen or more middens. About ten miles inland we found rock shelters on a cliff face, that still had seeds stored in rocklined pits.

And even as low impact as Native californians were, they permanently changed the landscape. The oak belt that covers the western slope of the sierra nevada is a product of native horticulture.

a reply to: Harte

One of the coolest things about GT is that tools from jericho and egypt have turned up there and tools from GT have turned up at Jericho.