Over the past couple of years quite a few members have asked me to do a thread on Tiahuanaco [Tiwanaku] I've resisted the idea up till now for a few
reasons. I didn't want to simply write a rehash of the same tired stories, old pictures, references and the ever popular [Aliens Did It!
excuse. So, I'll attempt to bring a fresh new perspective on this ancient controversial pre-Colombian Megalithic site.
For the record and to be completely up front: We will not be discussing or hypothesizes about Tiahuanaco being constructed by refugees of Atlantis,
or Ancient Space Aliens
Sometimes fact is
stranger & more mysterious
Let us begin...[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e664a0fd1f1.jpg[/atsimg]
The above two images are fairly drastic in both appearance and context. The upper one is from 1903 when the first real "Modern" exploration of the
area occurred. I said exploration not excavation. There is a difference IMHO. A real archaeological excavation attempts to not only reveal but to put
the site in question in it's proper historical context.
The major issues with Tiahuanaco [Tiwanaku] and the other closely located and related site of
Pumapunku (Puma Punka)
is the age and it's history. So, the big question, just how old
are they? This is an interesting question with no easy answer. Before I get into the controversy over that aspect let us begin with what the
prevailing paradigm of modern Academia has to say about the site...
Yadda Yadda, Blah Blah Blah...
Tiwanaku (Spanish: Tiahuanaco and Tiahuanacu)
The area around Tiahuanaco may have been inhabited as early as 1500 BC as a small agriculturally-based village. Most research, though, is based around
the Tiwanaku IV and V periods between AD 300 and AD 1000, during which Tiwanaku grew significantly in power. During the time period between 300 BC and
AD 300 Tiwanaku is thought to have been a moral and cosmological center to which many people made pilgrimages. The ideas of cosmological prestige are
the precursors to Tiwanaku's powerful empire.
I'm trying not to use Wikipedia as a source as often as I have in the past but in this case I've checked out their referenced links and they check out
as far as Modern Academia's Paradigm is concerned. The issue I have with the "official" story is the time-line and suppositions with which they use to
support it. There has been C-14 dating. 29 such testing of the area if I'm not mistaken. All coming back with a fairly recent dating of around A.D.
400 to 1200. However, the site had been known for thousands of years to the indigenous peoples. Now when discussing those people one group in
particular always enters into the topic.
The Inca people began as a tribe of the Killke culture in the Cuzco area around the 12th century AD. Under the leadership of Manco Cápac, they formed
the small city-state of Cuzco (Quechua Qosqo). The first step in the expansion of the Inca Empire was the defeat of the Hanan Chankas...
Here we go...
So we know of the Incas and their impressive history and accomplishments from what the Spanish as well as the physical archeological evidence tells
us. Here in lies where the controversy begins IMO. When the Spanish were in the New world conquering [Hence the Spanish name of Conquistador] were
looking for and looting peoples and sites of Gold. The story goes as the Spanish were gallivanting about the countryside searching for treasure they
came across Tiahuanaco. When confronted with such a site they stopped and asked the Incas if they had built it. The Incas laughed and said no. They
explained that it was from before their time.
I want to stop here and discuss an often quoted fallacy. At this point it is widely believed that the Spanish systematically destroyed the site in
search of treasure and to destroy an obviously "Pagen" site. It is widely accepted they used many of the smaller blocks from the site to build a
church nearby. Now I've read several references that supports this supposed event, while simultaneously I've also read quite a few other versions and
references that tell us a completely different story. The site/sites in question were first recorded in written history by Spanish conquistador and
self-acclaimed "first chronicler of the Indies" Pedro Cieza de
. Leon stumbled upon the remains of Tiwanaku in 1549. It's at this point we need to stop and think long and hard about the age of the
It was already a wreck with massive exquisitely carved megalithic stones tossed about like some gigantic Lego blocks that had been tossed about and
strewn all over the area by an angry giant. With huge multi-ton carved stones and slabs strewn about Helter Skelter. The Spanish may have dug around
and possibly moved some of the massive stone slabs and blocks about but nothing on the scale of the destruction they are often given credit for. Now
the Incas knew of the site as being Ancient even by their standards. So herein lies the first of many issues with the dating of the site. So just how
old is the site?
What I've found while tooling around online and my local library are many inconsistencies regarding that question. It is a controversial subject for
many reasons. First off it isn't just the hard to piece together Prehistorical record but even the post-Colombian/Spanish era is also a bit confusing
So the sites in question were ancient by Inca standards, and they used it for ceremonies because they believed the site to be sacred in doing so
possibly contaminating the site. [Archeologically speaking] Then the Spanish came along and molested the site further in their search for gold. I want
to take a moment here and give a comparative history of the other recently found culture civilizations in the area. Caral Supe...
When we stop and look at a comparative time-line between the ancient Egyptians and the Ancient South American peoples we can find several dramatic
parallels. According to accepted Egyptology Snefru was the first king of the 4th dynasty (2613 - 2589 BC). He ruled for an estimated 24 years. Now in
that very short period of time he is credited with the construction of not just one but three pyramids!
Snefru is credited with building the step pyramid at Maidum, the Red and Bent Pyramids at Dahshur.
His son Khufu is the one who built the Great pyramid followed by his son Kefre who built the second largest pyramid at Giza. Now we are to believe
that the Pharaohs went from building a much lessor quality step pyramid to building a perfect one in only 45 years?
Meanwhile, over in Peru at Caral Supe we find a similar styled and quality construction and or supposed development in this part of the world. That's
supposedly about as far as they got with no further development and then faded away. Yet, they were just as active and were Ancient Egypt's
Which also included ancient megalithic standing stones.
Of course, there is no direct connection between Caral Supe and Tiahuanaco. There doesn't appear to be any continuity. However it might be helpful if
we look at the bigger picture of the region. Peru and bordering countries all seem to be blessed with many ancient sites. Remember, during the period
in question there were no artificial imaginary lines drawn on a modern day map.
Now unlike Egypt which was able to maintain power and control even between upper and lower Egypt. The area in question does show signs of massive
upheaval. It appears that these ancient people faced a massive cataclysmic destruction of their civilization and the survivors were forced to begin
again. Posnansky thought the Ancient Bolivian Tiahuanacans were flooded out. Hence the amount of drastic destruction of their ancient monuments.
The age controversy really begins with Arthur Posnansky
POSNANSKY'S DATING TECHNIQUE
Prof. Posnansky summed up his 50 year study in a 4 volume work entitled Tiahuanaco, The cradle of American Man first published in 1945. He
explains his theories, which are rooted in archeoastronomy, as follows. Since Earth is tilted on its axis in respect to the plane of the solar system,
the resulting angle is known as the "obliqueness of the ecliptic" (one should not confuse this with another astronomical phenomenon known as
"Precession", as critics of Posnansky have done). If viewed from the earth, the planets of our solar system travel across the sky in a line called the
plane of the ecliptic.
At present our earth is tilted at an angle to of 23 degrees and 27 minutes, but this angle is not constant. The angle oscillates slowly between 22
degrees and 1 minute miminum to an extreme of 24 degrees and 5 minutes. A complete cycle takes roughly 41,000 years to complete. The alignment of the
Kalasasaya temple depicts a tilt of the earth's axis amounting to 23 degrees, 8 minutes, 48 seconds, which according to astronomers, indicates a date
of 15,000 B.C.
Between 1927 and 1930 Prof. Posnansky's conclusions were studied intensively by a number of authorities. Dr. Hans Ludendorff (Director of the
Astronomical Observatory of Potsdam), Friedrich Becker of the Specula Vaticana, Prof. Arnold Kohlschutter (astronomer at Bonn University), and Rolf
Müller (astronomer of the Institute of Astrophysics at Potsdam) verified the accuracy of Posnansky's calculations and vouched for the reliability of
What exactly was Arthur Posnansky looking at? When we turn back the clock and view the site from his perspective it appears to be a much older
megalithic site. To me it resembled the great standing stones of Europe/UK.
Now I'm not saying that I agree with the extreme age he came up with. However, if we look at how the site originally appeared to him and then compare
it to the modern era misrepresentation it's obviuos that in the last two hundred years or so there have been massive amounts of work in it's badly
done excavation, exploration and down right contamination of the site. For this reason any C-14 dating should be called into question. The site has
been picked at and gone over, gone over and picked at since before the Incas. Not to mention the Spaniards, then much later when the Bolivian
Government attempted an ill-advised reconstruction attempt all based on pretty much their imagination as the photos in this thread shows.
Now some of the earliest images we have are from 1877. They show an area in massive disarray obviously much more than what the Spaniards could have
accomplished. I highly doubt the Spaniards would have dragged massive blocks and slabs half way up hills and into ravines while looking for gold just
for the hell of it!
Now for those of us who are more familiar with the site will recognize many of these resting places for the massive slabs/stones. Many of those
massive & exquisitely carved blocks/slabs still lay where they were back in 1877
The following two images are some of my favorites. The first is from 1908 the second is modern times.
Notice the huge multi-ton block on the hill behind this now famous statue? We are to believe the Spaniards tore the place apart looking for Gold and
dragged these huge blocks and slabs half way up a hill for no better reason than to simply reposition them in their searches..
The argument about it's date seems to be still a matter of interest to many. If we again look back to 1908 and the following decades worth of horribly
conducted excavations in the area we can immediate tell the site has been contaminated.
Now here is another fairly well known statue from the site. Notice something? No temple complex surrounding it. As a matter of fact I don't see a
single sign of other blocks surrounding him, Yet in the modern era it is placed and surrounded by what was perceived as how the site originally
looked. All based on what? Also, when the following images were taken C-14 dating wasn't around yet. So the site IMHO was again contaminated.
I wonder if the original placement of the statues and standing stones and blocks had some sort of astrological alignments? Apparently we will never
It doesn't take somebody with an engineering degree to see the contradiction between the modern misrepresentation of how it is believed the site once
looked and the quality of the stones from the still half buried ones. Here are a few modern images. If you look closely you will spot the original
megalithic standing stones mixed in with the much lower quality blocks from what I believe to be form a much more recent period.
Now compare the above travesty to the other nearby site of Puma Punku. In one location we have what originally looked like a vary ancient megalithic
Stonehenge type astronomically aligned site. Then there appears to be an intermediate period of rough cut stones and construction followed by expertly
cut and engineered gigantic multi-ton blocks and slabs.
I'm not sure of the age of the site as per Posnansky and I also call into question Academia's findings as well. Is it possible that what we are seeing
is the remnants of an ancient peoples who struggled to recover from a massive environmental, geological upheaval which floundered and eventually made
it resulting in who we know of as the Incas?
Side note. Many of the ceramic/pottery found in the area over the locations vast history often show races which are not considered endogenous to the
continent. I have another thread in the works about the Olmec of Central America in the works which goes into this controversial possibility of a
prehistoric connection. Stay tuned
Does this carving remind you of Easter Island?
Now I know for a fact that many members here at ATS believe in an Ancient Alien Scenario when discussing the site. This cannot be avoided. I'm still
on the fence. I'll accept Modern Academia's belief in the simple head binding technique that over the early developmental years of a persons life from
that period would create such oddly misshapen head scenario [For now]
What happens when a very young child's skeleton is found with an already fully formed and perfect elongated skull?
This thread wasn't about that!
Now was it!?
edit on 25-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)