South Of The Atacama Giant

a reply to: WanDash

You're onto something.
Pretty soon, there will be no more open time-slots for the up-and-coming discoveries of previously unknown (&/or unaccounted-for) civilizations to be plugged in-to...and - what will they/we do, then?

I believe one hundred percent, that one day, all will be revealed.

SnF

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: WanDash

You're onto something.
Pretty soon, there will be no more open time-slots for the up-and-coming discoveries of previously unknown (&/or unaccounted-for) civilizations to be plugged in-to...and - what will they/we do, then?

I believe one hundred percent, that one day, all will be revealed.

SnF

I agree. I just don't see the puzzle being solved in this generation. If we can accurately fit a piece or two together for the next generation we will have done our job.

A common response to alien or advanced ancient civ theories I see is ib"if they were so advanced why did they make stone buildings? I don't personally hold to either of those theories .ir the sarcastic way the question is posed. But I do find the question worth pursuing. All of the sites with the extraordinary stonework were accomplished by a civilisation that contained other buildings technology suited to last in their environment as long or longer than today's dwellings are dedesigns for. So to me why is an excellent question. Why spend the resources terracing Machu Picchu? Why Goblecki Tepi? Other than religion what spurred these oeoplevto create the masterpieces they did?

originally posted by: Jarocal
...A common response to alien or advanced ancient civ theories I see is ib"if they were so advanced why did they make stone buildings? I don't personally hold to either of those theories .ir the sarcastic way the question is posed. But I do find the question worth pursuing. All of the sites with the extraordinary stonework were accomplished by a civilisation that contained other buildings technology suited to last in their environment as long or longer than today's dwellings are dedesigns for. So to me why is an excellent question. Why spend the resources terracing Machu Picchu? Why Goblecki Tepi? Other than religion what spurred these oeoplevto create the masterpieces they did?

Good points.

All braun & no brain?
That doesn't fit.

Maybe they just wanted it to last... But - Why would they care if it lasted?
Did they have some concept of the future that included our eyes stumbling across their ancient works?
Did they care that much about their "impression on History"?
How could the same race that demonstrated such an abstract view of themselves & time & where they fit in time...turn into a race that cares only for "our daily bread"...and screw the rest?

originally posted by: Jarocal

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: WanDash

You're onto something.
Pretty soon, there will be no more open time-slots for the up-and-coming discoveries of previously unknown (&/or unaccounted-for) civilizations to be plugged in-to...and - what will they/we do, then?

I believe one hundred percent, that one day, all will be revealed.

SnF

I agree. I just don't see the puzzle being solved in this generation. If we can accurately fit a piece or two together for the next generation we will have done our job.

A common response to alien or advanced ancient civ theories I see is ib"if they were so advanced why did they make stone buildings? I don't personally hold to either of those theories .ir the sarcastic way the question is posed. But I do find the question worth pursuing. All of the sites with the extraordinary stonework were accomplished by a civilisation that contained other buildings technology suited to last in their environment as long or longer than today's dwellings are dedesigns for. So to me why is an excellent question. Why spend the resources terracing Machu Picchu? Why Goblecki Tepi? Other than religion what spurred these oeoplevto create the masterpieces they did?

Often they lived in places where wood was either limited, subject to rot and termites or fire had become a problem additionally as the structure grew larger wood was not strong enough to use.

For this and other reasons (like piles of earth or dried mud being subject to water damage), and they were experts in stone (from working stone to make stone tools) so they used that knowledge of stone to use it for construction.

originally posted by: Hanslune



For this and other reasons (like piles of earth or dried mud being subject to water damage), and they were experts in stone (from working stone to make stone tools) so they used that knowledge of stone to use it for construction.

I am not as sure. Some cultures along the Amazon solved the frequent flooding issue with mounds. Foundation course of stone with clay brick and clad in a lime plaster would limit flood damage and consume less resources for construction. At worst stone pillars would be needed to support the roof of a larger but the majority the structure could still be done with far less effort and have a reasonable lifespan. Even give the structural shell a solid stone composition, the interior walls are protected so brick/plaster technologies would more than suffice.

I'm not saying there is a convoluted answer dealing with sound frequency or some other forbidden tech explanation. I do think religion, opulent ruler, and best they had to work with are tossed on too casually sometimes.

originally posted by: Jarocal

originally posted by: Hanslune



For this and other reasons (like piles of earth or dried mud being subject to water damage), and they were experts in stone (from working stone to make stone tools) so they used that knowledge of stone to use it for construction.

I am not as sure. Some cultures along the Amazon solved the frequent flooding issue with mounds. Foundation course of stone with clay brick and clad in a lime plaster would limit flood damage and consume less resources for construction. At worst stone pillars would be needed to support the roof of a larger but the majority the structure could still be done with far less effort and have a reasonable lifespan. Even give the structural shell a solid stone composition, the interior walls are protected so brick/plaster technologies would more than suffice.

I'm not saying there is a convoluted answer dealing with sound frequency or some other forbidden tech explanation. I do think religion, opulent ruler, and best they had to work with are tossed on too casually sometimes.

Well great my earlier post disappeared so briefly; yes and religion and rulers ego were main contributors to large scale building, as they were in historic times. Some cultures stayed with mud brick even where stone was available and in some cases mud brick was used when stone was rare (Sumer).

a reply to: Hanslune

Hans, I mean you no disrespect, but comparing the
use of mud brick to what was accomplished at Giza,
Machu Picchu, Gobeckli Tepi etc. Seems to parallel
my point, as they are truly worlds apart. To me it's as
if some great world went before the one we know
today. And it simply progressed in an entirely different
manner than we did in this world. The world before
ours, was capable of this kind of massive stone work
most likely after a long period of working with stone.
Not just showing up out of nowhere in this world with
detailed knowledge and ability even to think of such
things. Not to mention doing it on world wide scale.
Ancient writings and cultures say flat out, a world
came before this one. And the evidence seems to
be getting denied.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Hanslune

Hans, I mean you no disrespect, but comparing the
use of mud brick to what was accomplished at Giza,
Machu Picchu, Gobeckli Tepi etc.

Mudbrick works great ziggurats were built with it, if you don't have stone its the best next option.

Seems to parallel my point, as they are truly worlds apart. To me it's as
if some great world went before the one we know today.

Yes it was called the ancient world and in it were great cultures and civilizations and they left massive archaeological footprints but I believe you are referring to another world for which there is no evidence.

And it simply progressed in an entirely different
manner than we did in this world. The world before
ours, was capable of this kind of massive stone work
most likely after a long period of working with stone.

The civilizations who did this type of work are the ones we know about - which is why GT is so interesting - we don't know who did that.

Not just showing up out of nowhere in this world with
detailed knowledge and ability even to think of such
things. Not to mention doing it on world wide scale.
Ancient writings and cultures say flat out, a world
came before this one. And the evidence seems to
be getting denied.

The problem is they 'didn't just show up' a few are not fully understood (like GT) others have logical evidence supported theories of where they came from. Yes there is a lot of myth and legend; people back then made stuff up just like modern people do. I suspect we will find many more Catalhuyuck and GT's in the future but no great civiizations.

When I began ‘this effort’ (which was a secondary effort), I was first interested in Nazca…
At the time, I had a pretty strong connection to Peru, which added to the likelihood that I could visit, someday.
As the effort expanded to include and focus on a region of the Atacama Desert…the Peruvian connection remained, and a connection was added to Argentina.
The Agentine connection dissipated about 6 months ago, and the Peruvian connection has recently begun to dissolve, as well.
Fortunately, I am intrigued by more than South America.
But - just because I may not get to go there…and lay my hands on it, and touch it and smell it, breathe it…does not mean that I can't consider it publicly, with others.
…just like someone/s…at Google Earth…perhaps.

Why are answers to such questions locked behind lead-glass windows?
Why are they only now being considered?
How can History lose a population of 40,000 (random number selected from a random source) people…around a thousand years ago…in a relatively small geographic area -- then quietly build a new story that introduces them, tacitly acknowledges them, and then…skirts away…back…to the Incan Empire
…and Why would the Incans expend the energy, resources & risk…to take rule over an extremely dry desert ‘society/culture/civilization’…with nothing but the same desert, for hundreds of miles south, east and west, thereof… …?
… …A ‘civilization’ that had intricately (perhaps, masterfully) and extensively developed a desert island similar in size to Manhattan, New York…with efforts of similar autographs extending another 100+ miles to the south, and possibly, east…
… … …What? Were they a stupid people?
Did they construct this work…in hope that the former days of “moister climates” would return?
Was this ‘construct’ in use and fully operational when the Inca decided to…co-opt/usurp…?
Under that scenario…What…might the Inca have envisioned gaining from such a conquest? (more coastline?)
Were they so blind to the need to rule & own anything/everything, that they failed to recognize economy?

Yes – someone-else may be privileged to have studied these things, first hand…and further, to actually be correct in their interpretation of the evidences……but……if they are not willing to engage in conversation as this – as far as I am concerned…their guess is as good as mine…and yours (if yours is your own…and not a rehearsal of…theirs’).

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Hanslune

Hans, I mean you no disrespect, but comparing the
use of mud brick to what was accomplished at Giza,
Machu Picchu, Gobeckli Tepi etc. Seems to parallel
my point, as they are truly worlds apart. To me it's as
if some great world went before the one we know
today. And it simply progressed in an entirely different
manner than we did in this world. The world before
ours, was capable of this kind of massive stone work
most likely after a long period of working with stone.
Not just showing up out of nowhere in this world with
detailed knowledge and ability even to think of such
things. Not to mention doing it on world wide scale.
Ancient writings and cultures say flat out, a world
came before this one. And the evidence seems to
be getting denied.

I agree with you to a degree, but in the opposite sense. Building with stone posed certain engineering difficulty. Forming, moving, and placement. Using mud brick and clay plaster technology greatly alleviated resource allocation to the transport and placement issues but still posed issues that required careful designin considerations and manufacturing process development and refinement.

On an academic or intellectual level it is easy to think "mix some mud, sand, straw, and water. Then pour it in a mould." That is the essence of the process but it is the actual control of the process to provide a consistent product that is problematic. Unlike solid stone the clay and sand are easily contaminated necessitating an alteration of tthe ratio to keep the brick from becoming too brittle or too prone to moisture damage. If one is constructing a normal dwelling all the clay will be extracted from a single spot and the amount low enough that the material will be consistent. Build a ziggurat and your going to start seeing variation in the raw material that has to be accounted for. Variation that has to be recognized by an intimate knowledge of the material or possibly what we would consider rudimentary testing. Now that we have our mix we have to mould and cure them before the can be used as is or fired. Again here the size of the ziggurat will make construction last long enough that process adjustment is required. After you have made the choice to use bricks you have to look at your design.is it going to be a mound of fill/rubble with a facade of brick? If so, a means of stress relief on the walls should be designed in as settlement occurs over time.None of the issues are insurmountable but they do require a level of planning and execution equal to that we more readily acknowledge in stone structures such as at Giza.

As a mason/plasterer by trade I am equally as impressed with the accomplished monuments from a manufactured brick at that time as I am with their ability to shape/move stone.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Jarocal

originally posted by: Hanslune



For this and other reasons (like piles of earth or dried mud being subject to water damage), and they were experts in stone (from working stone to make stone tools) so they used that knowledge of stone to use it for construction.

I am not as sure. Some cultures along the Amazon solved the frequent flooding issue with mounds. Foundation course of stone with clay brick and clad in a lime plaster would limit flood damage and consume less resources for construction. At worst stone pillars would be needed to support the roof of a larger but the majority the structure could still be done with far less effort and have a reasonable lifespan. Even give the structural shell a solid stone composition, the interior walls are protected so brick/plaster technologies would more than suffice.

I'm not saying there is a convoluted answer dealing with sound frequency or some other forbidden tech explanation. I do think religion, opulent ruler, and best they had to work with are tossed on too casually sometimes.

Well great my earlier post disappeared so briefly; yes and religion and rulers ego were main contributors to large scale building, as they were in historic times. Some cultures stayed with mud brick even where stone was available and in some cases mud brick was used when stone was rare (Sumer).

I do not discount the religious or governmental influences that may have aaffected these structures. I just feel they are sometimes used as a crutch in academia to provide a simplistic answer to what could be varied and complex situations. Take the Baalbek stones as an example. The large stones over smaller ones as a retaining wall works but why when design alterations would have allowed them to be the bottom course and facilitate their placement with less resource expenditure. Were the original courses a previously completed construction and the trilithons necessary for newer construction, or did the lower courses provide an elasticity in the foundation to support the behemoth stones above them providing fir movement during settlement the discouraged any failure in structural integrity of the wall over time? A monumenta must be built to honor god/king "Hanslune/Harte/Jupiter/Yhwh"(insert any of tthese or another the name is irrelevant) may give a reason to make a structure but not one as to why they chose the specific materials or developed the knowledge to make such enduring structures when very little if any construct today has more than a fraction of their longevity in it's planning.

a reply to: Jarocal

Ask the Catholic church why they built St Peters out of stone and why most of the 3000 cathedrals constructed over many centuries were also made of the same material; or why the Japanese built wooden superstructures over stone foundations or why the Jefferson memorial is made of various marbles. Tradition and choice.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Jarocal

Ask the Catholic church why they built St Peters out of stone and why most of the 3000 cathedrals constructed over many centuries were also made of the same material; or why the Japanese built wooden superstructures over stone foundations or why the Jefferson memorial is made of various marbles. Tradition and choice.

Tradition works for the ones you listed but that tradition seems to be born of these megalithic structures. Where is the tradition preceding them? As to choice, I think understanding their choice to use these megalith materials far outweighs their capacity to do so even if we don't conclusively understand exactly how they did it. It is this matter of choice I think that gets religion and boss man too casually attributed..

a reply to: WanDash

Yes – someone-else may be privileged to have studied these things, first hand…and further, to actually be correct in their interpretation of the evidences……but……if they are not willing to engage in conversation as this – as far as I am concerned…their guess is as good as mine…and yours (if yours is your own…and not a rehearsal of…theirs’).

Superb writing OP!

a reply to: Jarocal

I agree with you to a degree, but in the opposite sense. Building with stone posed certain engineering difficulty. Forming, moving, and placement. Using mud brick and clay plaster technology greatly alleviated resource allocation to the transport and placement issues but still posed issues that required careful designin considerations and manufacturing process development and refinement.

K now I have to say it. Comparing the usefulness of mud
brick to the megaliths is like comparing the physical
capabilities of the hulk, to Steven Hawkings. To say a
world wide knowledge of of cutting stone in a glorious
fashion, was dropped for mudbrick? Gawd that just seems
so retarded. The fact that stone was not available isn't even
viable. It's obvious that moving the stone where they wanted it
just wasn't a problem.

The megaliths around the world can not be washed away. But the
knowledge of them seems contrived and I believe was washed
away. That explains what we do not know perfectly enough for
me.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Jarocal

I agree with you to a degree, but in the opposite sense. Building with stone posed certain engineering difficulty. Forming, moving, and placement. Using mud brick and clay plaster technology greatly alleviated resource allocation to the transport and placement issues but still posed issues that required careful designin considerations and manufacturing process development and refinement.

K now I have to say it. Comparing the usefulness of mud
brick to the megaliths is like comparing the physical
capabilities of the hulk, to Steven Hawkings. To say a
world wide knowledge of of cutting stone in a glorious
fashion, was dropped for mudbrick? Gawd that just seems
so retarded. The fact that stone was not available isn't even
viable. It's obvious that moving the stone where they wanted it
just wasn't a problem.

I'm saying having worked with both types of materials as a profession for close to three decades, each has it's own challenges as the building material that has to be addressed or the structure will suffer catastrophic failure. To dismiss the knowledge and craftmanship in structures made of mud brick because of your personal lack of experience does not diminish that which was constructed.

Of course moving the stones was a problem. The same as moving all the material to manufacture bricks is a problem. Because something is a problem does not mean it is unable to be done. Even with today's technology I run into process errors and logistic problems on almost every jobsite. It can be something's simple as a flashing installed incorrectly by another trade or lack of space onsite to stage enough material that will last a crew for an entire day.

Your speculation that ancient civilisations shaped and moved megalithic stone like a child making and tossing a snowball does not make It a fact. Again because a problem exists does not make a task impossible. People in developed nations can walk in a grocery store and purchase fresh fruit year round. Often It is from halfway around the world. Because you can walk in the store and get a mango fresh 365 days a year does not mean it is easy or that there exist no problems with making this availability exist for you.

a reply to: Jarocal

As a thirty year glazier I respect a thirty year mason of course.
And know very well how frustrating it can be to have flashing
installed by the wrong trade. Our trades collide often.



Do you have to wear the fema green where you're at as well?

originally posted by: Jarocal

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Jarocal

Ask the Catholic church why they built St Peters out of stone and why most of the 3000 cathedrals constructed over many centuries were also made of the same material; or why the Japanese built wooden superstructures over stone foundations or why the Jefferson memorial is made of various marbles. Tradition and choice.

Tradition works for the ones you listed but that tradition seems to be born of these megalithic structures. Where is the tradition preceding them? As to choice, I think understanding their choice to use these megalith materials far outweighs their capacity to do so even if we don't conclusively understand exactly how they did it. It is this matter of choice I think that gets religion and boss man too casually attributed..

You mean the tradition of smaller temples those exist and in many cases were built over that is clearly seen in Meso America where they specialized in 'onion' construction. The first pyramids were smaller than the apex of their construction and were built after a they had experience with mastaba's.

'Outweighs their capacity'? Yet they did so multiple times, in various cultures thousands of years apart - they do indeed seem to have had had the capacity. On what scale or parameters are you 'rating their capacity?

Many great projects were the wishes of 'great men' just as today's governments and 'great men' undertake great projects.

Look at the seven wonders all of those were created by the wishes of great men/governments which then were the same thing; (except perhaps the colossus which may have been a joint decision by the people of Rhodes)

a reply to: WanDash

So have you made the effort to contact the person who may have the answer to your query?

a reply to: Hanslune
I have not. Thanks for your concern.
And, you are correct that, for me, it would be an effort.
I would not take such an attempted contact, lightly, in that I view such scenarios similar to a 3-wish genie from a bottle. Just my luck, I will ask all three of the wrong questions...just introducing myself.
Besides - I would need some idea of what might actually be expected of him, before considering what question/s to pose.

Nevertheless - and, Again - Thanks for your concern & contributions.

If you are interested in contacting him, please do not think that I would presume to stand in your way.