Talk:Pumapunku/Archive 1

Compliments

very informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.165.110 (talk • contribs)

Largest megalith

Does anyone have a source for the claim that the largest megalith is 200 tons? We went through this on the Tiwanaku page and came to the conclusion that there are several between 100 and 131 tons. this was backed up by several sources. Unless anyone has a better source I'll probably review this page and bring it in line with the Tiwanaku page. One way or another they should agree since this is considered part of Tiwanaku. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the weights and altitude but there may be more inaccuracies here including the fact that the platform isn't a pyramid and there is more conjecture than usual for wikipedia articles. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the platform is a pyramid, but excavation has only recently begun in the last few years to reveal its true shape, much like the pyramid at Tiwanaku. I was just there a few weeks ago and you can plainly see recent excavations bringing the pyramid into shape. This, along with the the archeological information at the site, including the entrance sign itself which depicts the site with pyramid, makes no mistake Puma Punku indeed sits on a pyramid. The pyramid at Tiwanaku looks like a massive pile of dirt, but recent excavations have defined the western side of the structure clearly identifying it as a pyramid. The same thing has begun at Puma Punku.thanos5150

That was sheer original research, I've deleted the 'analysis' section completely. And made the references visible. dougweller (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The History Channel show called Ancient Aliens stated that there are carved stones weighing 800 tons there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.220.128 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

History Channel has become pretty useless, unfortunately. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a ref with a direct link to an academic source available on google books that indicates the largest stones were about 100 tons. There is nothing in the academic research I can find that indicates 500 or 800. A "mystery mongering" tv show isn't a very good source for such a claim. Lots of people on message boards throw out 500 or 800 ton claims but no one actually documents that source. History channel may very well simply be repeating this "urban legend". Mindme (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Tiwanaku page is a mess. Gingermint (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mystery

This page does not address the mystery of how such a structure was built. It states that "Archaeologists believe that the answer may lie in the labor force of ancient Tiahuanaco." Really? The people did not have writing, they did not have a wheel, they did not have trees to aid in its construction. The stones are made of granite and diorite. The only stone harder than these two is diamond. And people that did not have access to the invention of the wheel are advanced enough to create a structure composed of complex, interlocking pieces? It would take more than a large group of people and some rope.

Your source for your claims seems to be the recent Ancient Aliens special on History channel it contridicts other sources that say the stones are sandstone and andisite. There is a ligitimate mystery here but jumping to conclusions without checking facts won't help solve it. Ancient Aliens was full of hype and propaganda including a fair dose of exagerations. If you want your edits to citing stick better sources are advisable. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources cited says that the megaliths are made of andisite and sandstone. there is no mention of corundum although it doesn't mean it isn't there. I'll double check the source for andisite and sandstone which I think I added to Tiwanaku months ago and if its right i'll add it here. If there is corundum could someone please provide a source since this would be a big difference. Thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that there is no age of the site on here? I have read numerous articles on this structure and all either point to a date up to 17,000 years old or say that dating is impossible for this particular dig site. Also, the brackets that were used to secure the stones together: why is it that there is nothing about this building procedure? The only other place in the world where they have found this building strategy is in ancient Greece over 6000 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.62.128 (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read the time it was ocupied was from 1,500 BCE to about 1,200 CE. The main occupation was for a shorter period. I think this is from Michael Coe, I'll look it up and add it another day. I have seen the 17,000 date from one source which didn't appear reliable. If there is such a date it would help to explain how they came to that conclusion and verify it. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember, Posnansky thought Tiwanaku was that old (based on measurements of stones that had been moved anyway). I think that's the confusion. Greece 6000 years ago? I think not. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Understanding that you believe the recent History Channel special entitled "Ancient Aliens" and the information that is presented therein regarding Pumapunku to be biased and sensationalized, this article still remains incomplete. Regardless of whether the claims made in that special are accurate, some important facts about Pumapunku remain that are neglected in this article. At a minimum, the article should more directly state that there is a controversy surrounding the methods by which these megaliths were transported, processed, and built into a larger structure. The article doesn't even mention the grooves that are cut into the stones, nor the holes that are drilled at equal distances within those grooves. The few sentences regarding the transport is blatant speculation as evidenced by the "citation needed" note. If the article is going to contain speculative statements, it should contain speculative statements on both sides of the argument.

"Perhaps, several hundred laborers made a harsh trip carrying a 130 ton stone block from a quarry to the platueau. Early engineers needed a strong labor force to accomplish their tasks." These are essentially meaningless statements. These are broad generalizations that may or may not have any relevance to Pumapunku. The bottom line is that nobody knows. This article would be much more informative if it contained a comprehensive list of the facts that we do know about Pumapunku as well as statements that there are several controversial theories. Instead, you have told an editor that his edits are not sufficient to include in the article because he has no reliable source. Meanwhile a significant part of the article in its current form is also highly speculative and lacks a reliable source. There are a lot of unknowns about Pumapunku, the article needs to more accurately present it that way rather than neglecting important facts and making speculations about the labor force at the time, about which we have a minimal understanding at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcorbitt (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. It needs to represent "all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." So bring some sources to the table. I've just added another one, and deleted an unsourced statement. But please be aware of what we mean by reliable sources -- read WP:RS and make sure they represent significant views. As for aliens, see WP:REDFLAG and WP:Fringe. What are your sources for holes, etc? Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading my response. I'm glad to see that you made one change. One thing I would say though is that it is not the holes that are 6mm deep, it is the grooves that are 6mm wide. I think it would be informative to include a picture such as this one: http://www.pacal.de/Puma4.jpg, to demonstrate the absolute precision with which these stones were tooled. Do you have a source for the statement, "Thus, the proces of moving stone blocks was performed by pulling the blocks with ropes made of llama skin?" I agree that the article should present all significant views fairly but I have never seen or heard anything like this and the statement reads as if it was fact. I think a more unbiased presentation of a significantly held view on how the stones were transported would be something like "It remains unknown today how these large stones were transported. Several theories have been postulated including those involving the use of ramps and/or ropes made of llama skin. Either of these methods would have required an extremely large and well-coordinated labor force and modern scholars remain puzzled as to how this was accomplished." Another piece of information that I think is relevant to the article is the age of the structure. I noticed that this was brought up earlier in the discussion and there is some debate as to the validity of the sources but at a minimum, I think the article should present a range of how old it is believed to be.

I know this is a difficult subject to write about due largely to the lack of reliable source information that is available. My only qualm with the article is that it could do a better job of presenting the significantly held view that there is still a great deal of mystery about this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcorbitt (talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We do need a source for the llama skin, although we know they made ropes of llama skin. We need sources for everything controversial. There isn't much serious debate about the age of the structure and I don't think we need to put forward every fringe view. Are you aware of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE? I'll try to work on this when I can, but I'm having a hand operation in 2 days... Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If the age of the site is not controversial, I think it belongs in the summary section at the top of the article. What do you think about including the picture or an image similar to the one I referenced above? I believe it is relevant in demonstrating the quality of the stone work. I also think that there should be a statement in the summary overview that the level of technology that is evident in these ruins is difficult to grasp given what we know of the technological capabilities of this civilization, ie the lack of a writing system and no knowledge of the wheel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcorbitt (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You know we would need a copyright free photo, I presume? I would like to find a source for the holes, I can find this "Some blocks feature elaborate cutouts of grooves and communicating drill holes [Figure341. For lack of a better term, we call such cutouts "hoisting grips" because ropes could be threaded through the holes and used to lift blocks. These grips are ingenious, for in contrast to bosses, which must be removed when between two stones, hoisting grips allow the tight joining of neighboring stones with the ropes in place" but are they the same holes? Holes and grooves... Use of grooves at Tiwanaku "These grooves

most likely held ropes used to position the blocks." Any statement would need a source, we can't make one up ourselves, see WP:OR, and we are talking about the Tiwanaku culture, this is just a particular (and late) complex within that culture. I'll see what I can do about sourcing the dates. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Found . Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reading. I appreciate you looking into getting a source for the age and including it in the article. I realize that there would need to be a copyright free image to include a photograph of a processed block with grooves and holes. If we can find one, I think it would be a nice addition. That is an interesting quote, what I like about it is that it captures how amazing and ingenious these constructions are whereas the article in its current form does not really leave readers with that impression. Do you have a source for or have you considered including the idea that it is generally agreed that the creators had no known writing system?

What do you think about the following edit to the Engineering paragraph?

"Some of the blocks used in the construction of the temples are said to weigh in the range of 100–130 tons.[1][2][3] The processes and technologies involved in the creation of these temples remain a mystery to modern scholars. Our current understanding of the Tiwanaku culture holds that they had no writing system and also that the invention of the wheel was most likely unknown to them. Some archaelogists have theorized that the process of moving the blocks was performed by a coordinated labor force, pulling the blocks with ropes made of llama skin and utilizing ramps to transport the stones up to the plateau. The transportation of these stones is an architectural feat in and of itself, however the processing, fabrication and assembly of the stones is noteworthy as well. Each stone is finely cut to interlock with the surrounding stones and the blocks fit together like a puzzle, forming load-bearing joints without the use of mortar. Several of the stones have also been inscribed with precise straight lines of consistent width and depth that span the entirety of the stone. Within these lines, equidistant holes have been tooled into the blocks." At this point, the paragraph could transition to the quote that is currently in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcorbitt (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a source for the quote. We'd still need citations for most of the above, eg precise straight lines, equidistasnt holes, coordinated labor force, ropes. My operation tomorrow will slow things down. If you email me, using the link on my talk page, I can send you my source. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the surgery went well. I only included the sentence regarding the use of llama skin ropes and ramps because they exist in the current article. I believe these both to be speculation and I don't know that they should remain in place.

Could the following statements be included?

"The processes and technologies involved in the creation of these temples remain a mystery to modern scholars. Our current understanding of the Tiwanaku culture holds that they had no writing system and also that the invention of the wheel was most likely unknown to them."

"Each stone is finely cut to interlock with the surrounding stones and the blocks fit together like a puzzle, forming load-bearing joints without the use of mortar."

I understand the importance of citations but I believe the above two sentences are generally agreed upon and the second sentence is partially a reference to source number 3 referenced in this article.

Do you have a citation for the statement that the holes could have been created with the use of a hammer and a chisel? I suppose it's possible but it would be extremely difficult given the precision that is evident in the remaining stones we see today and I think that statement is speculative and not necessarily accurately representative of the generally accepted point of view. I believe the generally held point of view to be that we do not know how much of this was done.

Surgery is tomorrow am, no time now to comment on the rest. 'Mystery' is too strong a word as there are papers (by scholars) discussing the techniques used. I've seen the word 'drill' used by the way.Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As verified by Cieza de Leon, B. Cobo and Alexei Vranich (see Vranich dissertation, pg. 67), a large stone was indepedently measured by each of the aforementioned scholars. Vranich confirms that the measurement was accurate to within centimeters. The measurement of one stone, not that this was the largest stone or that it was accurately representative of the majority of the stones, was 32 feet x 16 feet x 6 feet. That's a total of 3,072 cubic feet.

Please see http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html for weight by material. The possible materials that I have seen scholars point to at this location are:

Andesite: 173 lbs./cubic foot

Sandstone: 145 lbs./cubic foot

Granite: 168 lbs./cubic foot

The stones could have been composed of a different material, but these numbers will give us a potential range that a stone that size would weigh given what we know of the materials available in this area. On the low end, if this stone was sandstone or a similar material, 445,440 lbs. If it were andesite or a similar material, it would be closer to 531,456 lbs. So based on the facts that we know, eg the dimensions of this stone, the weight of potential materials, there is a high probability this stone weighed in excess of 200 tons at a minimum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcorbitt (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Calculations would be WP:OR. The area seems basically sandstone. [1] [2] Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is sufficient information I think rough estimates should be acceptable assuming the information is accurate. This would require knowledge of whether or not the megalith in question is a full ashlar or not. If the ashlar doesn’t have 6 flat sides and these are the maximum dimensions then the volume could be much lower infact if this is the case it could be that this refers to the megalith estimated at 130 tons. If on the other hand there is sufficient information to indicate that the dimensions are accurate and the sides are flat a rough estimate with a large margin of error is worth considering. The WP:OR rule like all others should be subject to reasonable discretion. If there isn't sufficient information the 130 ton estimate should remain in my opinion. It would be helpful if you also had a source for the type of stone. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the word "mystery" is too strong as some scholars have presented theories that they believe explain some of what took place here. I believe that the following statements are relevant, significant, and more accurately representative of the generally held view than the current article is.

"We also know that, in spite of our findings to date, we are not even close to comprehending Tiwanaku architecture." From Protzen's On Reconstructing Tiwanaku Architecture,

"But to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and exterior angles on the finely dressed stones, they resorted to techniques unkown to the Incas and to us at this time." From Protzen's Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills. Again, a clear statement that we do not know. Immediately prior to that statement, Protzen speculates on various tools which could have been used and then states that none of these tools have ever been found. He goes on to state that "No matter how fine the hammerstone's point, it could never produce the crisp right interior angles seen on Tiwanaku stonework." So he speculates that they used a certain tool, then admits that such a tool has never been recovered, and finally states that, even with the use of that tool, they "could never produce" the stonework that we see today.

"The construction tools of the Tiwankans, with perhaps the possible exception of hammerstones, remain essentially unknown and have yet to be discovered." Same article as above.

"The Inca and Tiwanaku builders created some of the most precise and most beautiful stonework every made." Same article as above.

"Aspects of the lives and crafts of the ancient Tiwanaku will remain a mystery, always." From Golembiewski's Tiwanaku Masonry. This is the final sentence in an article in which Golembiewski attempts to recreate some of the tools and techniques of the Tiwanaku in an experiment to replicate certain aspects of their stonework. In this article, Golembiewski admits that he cannot replicate a significant portion of the stonework and states that "the very fabric of the site is so fractured it's really hard to draw any firm conclusions from the physical evidence." So although we can speculate as to some of the technologies and processes, we still have only a vague understanding.

The statements referenced above all point to the same conclusion; based on the technologies that we believe to be available at the time, much is unknown about how the Tiwanaku culture was able to achieve what they did in creating Pumapunku. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.98.238 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A few more pictures here, obviously privately held http://www.kassablanca.de/zo/thema/messages/pumapunku/mehrbilder.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.207.54.51 (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

much more interesting then the previous source A forum, including various sources http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=110144&st=30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.207.54.51 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source indicating why Posnansky's dating was discredited. I read that it had been but the source was not reliable and I didn't come across him being discredited in any of the materials I've read. I have no problem with keeping the article as is but I was just curious why he was discredited.

What about the Toxodon? I do have a sholarly source indicating that there are sculptures and drawings that bare a clear resemblance to this animal. I understand we can't draw undue attention to a fringe belief, but I think it is relevant unless it is discredited somewhere in the literature as well. Maybe we could mention it briefly in the sentence about Posnansky's theory being discredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcorbitt (talk • contribs) 13:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's one, did you look at Talk:Tiwanaku? Oops, gotta go. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading recent research studies on the site as of 2011, and have found data that suggests a strange anomaly with the dating, as well as information on stone composition and description of the sedimentary layers found in many different areas of the site. From what I have read, there are many instances of the oldest parts of the site being covered in a layer of calcium, which has found to be consistent with being submerged at some time in the past, during the post construction period of the site. Also, bone sediments found at different depths that have been found and are strangely consistent with a flood effecting the area many thousands of years ago, due to the mixed concentration and lack of complete remains. Also, new case studies do not refer to any stone other than diorite being used in the construction of the site. Lastly, recordings of anomalous magnetic signatures have been found both on the stones themselves, and on various parts of the site. There should be at least some mention of the new studies done on the site and the new information in this article. After reading it, most of the information on this page seems to deal with the old studies done in the 70's and 80's, and deliberately makes the article sound like fact, instead of saying the truth; that we honestly don't know how old it is, how it was made, or who made it. Honestly, even Erich Von Daniken's work sites a lot of this in his books as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.24.176 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How can we mention any new studies when you haven't told us what they are and where they are published? Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A specific citation as to where the above claims is definitely needed since the existence of "bone sediments" indicative of "a flood"; "oldest parts of the site being covered in a layer of calcium"; and so forth, which are discussed in the below "Age of Pumapunku Revisited" section, are repeatedly contradicted by numerous published papers on the Tiwanaku Site. Also, given that articulate burials have been found at the Tiwanaku Site, the "lack of complete remains" is a fictional observation that suggests that whatever source this claim from is unreliable in nature. In addition, mixing of material normally occurs in the formation of midden deposits. Thus, there is nothing unusual about it. Finally, there more than enough published material, including Arthur Posnansky's monographs, on both the Tiwanaku Site and the Pumapunku that clearly demonstrate that their stonework consists of rock types, red sandstone, in addition to diorite. Finally, it should be noted, your observation that "old studies done in the 70's and 80's" is completely wrong. If a person looks at the bibliography, they will find the research dates to the late 1990s and as recent as 2007 in case of the subsurface imaging performed at the Tiwanaku Site by E. G. Ernenweini and M. L. Konns.

A specific citation for the above claims is needed because there are innumerable articles, books, and web pages that contain completely fictional material, i.e. the 440 ton block, which is unsupported by any reliable documentation, about what is and is not found at the Tiwanaku Site and in the Pumapunku. The publications of Erich Von Daniken are a classic example of factually unreliable and scientifically bankrupt fringe material that spread such misinformation and falsehoods about South American archaeology.Paul H. (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Another source to the above material would be found in the German journal or archeology, including magnetic field testing of the stones, which has variations that should be noted. Hartwig Hausdorf - Neu Ratsel im Hochland der Anden, Brisante Archaologie - 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.24.176 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hausdorf?! That's not a journal of archaeology, that's a book of pseudoarchaeology edited by Erich von Daniken. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

[3] [4] [5] [6] Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What are these sources in reference to? Carbon dating?Thanos5150 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Posnansky

There is a line here and in other places that Posnanky's dating has been summarily "discredited" yet there is no reference to who is discrediting this and how they came to this conclusion. On the contrary Rivera and Steede have independently confirmed a date of 12,000 B.C.. I have edited the article to reflect this. If you have sources discrediting Posnanky then they need to be included otherwise this seems to be OR.thanos5150

You searched and couldn't find anything? I've pointed out above that there are some at Talk:Tiwanaku At the moment you've left the article with the fringe view getting more space than the mainstream one. And you've used a book on management as your source. Anyway, there are plenty of sources at the Tiwanaku talk page towards the bottom (see my edit in the section 'sources' for a start. I don't have time to work on this but I'm hoping you want this to be NPOV, so here's your chance. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it have already been there? This is the point. You say you want this to be NPOV yet you clearly disparage the opposing view without context. I am saying to whomever-if that is what you want to say then add the references and if what you want is for it truly to be NPOV then you would fairly represent Posnanky and those that support him. But, of course this wasn't done. Oh, I'm sure I can find many other references if I must, but like you my time is limited and at least I have a reference that isn't from a "fringe" source. It should be balanced and clearly before my edit it was not. The onus is on you, or whoever to balance it again if you do not agree with the edit, but at least be fair.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In the dating section of talk? You mean 3 different posts by skeptic Garret Fagan, "Assistant Professor of Classics and History at Penn State", written for a skeptical review website aimed specifically alternative history and one from a nobody from a reprinted blog posted on a newsgroup? And you have a problem me quoting from a benign to the topic management book? I can see why these would not have been added to the article. Isn't there a source you can site by an actual academic involved with Tiwanaku that isn't a professional skeptic with a personal axe to grind against Graham Hancock? Posnanky spent nearly 50yrs at the site and has published a 4 volume study of his findings-this isn't about Graham Hancock. And where has Posnanky's finding been "discredited"? Challenged by an assistant professor of Classics who apparently has a thing against Graham Hancock, yeah I guess, but discredited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring the numerous references from the 'reprinted blog' - written by a professional geologist? It wasn't the reprint I meant, it was the references - on all of the links, even if you don't like the links. Also the sources above. Posnansky's work is very good in parts, but not all of it. There's a large list of references on those links from academics involved in Tiwanaku with no interest in Hancock. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, I don't see any sources in the blog that specifically dispute Posnanky as it is only the personal opinion of the blogger himself that provides the dispute and not actually those of the works he references. And it appears this post is some sort of personal correspondence with you personally which is odd. The blog itself does not qualify as reference and unless any of his sources specifically dispute Posnanky neither do they.

My post about my trip was not meant to be a forum and certainly not an invitation to you for debate. I think it is unfortunate, however, if not rude, you just chopped it out entirely as did I not see a post very similar in these pages where the text was minimized to a link the reader could follow if they were interested? Wouldn't that be more appropriate? What would readers do if you didn't make up their mind for them? I see many a ramblings in support of mainstream opinion that you gleefully chime in on and do not take exception to, but sure enough, a similar post from me and you can't seem to remove it fast enough. Very boring.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"This is not the place for your stories - it is indeed OR and you know it doesn't belong here. No one has said the people who built Tiwanaku had no contact with the sea and wouldn't know about crabs, and as for your races, I am not going to get involved with OR myself here as tempting as it is - this is not a forum and you are trying to turn it into one. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)"

Geez. A little testy there aren't you Doug?Thanos5150 (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, these are not "my races" (what an odd thing to say!), but if you actually went to the museums yourself you would see them. Really, its no mystery. You can see them yourself and actually this was something that was pointed out by our Bolivian guide so it's obviously no mystery to them either.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I chopped out nothing. As for guides, you should hear some of the stories Egyptian guides tell. But as I said, I'm not debating 'races' or beards here, I already said too much. Dougweller (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gee sorry, I guess a "Moreschi" beat you to it. Given your post I assumed it was you. Me and my stupid "stories". And I know what stories Egyptian guides tell Doug. I have actually been there to hear them. The point is not that we need a guide to tell us something so obvious, but that it was a point of interest for them to do so which they seem to be quite proud of this fact. We have eyes and brains and certainly know a Caucasian, Asian, and Negroid face when we see one, not to mention beards. These faces lend particular credence to the Bolivian stance that Tiwanaku was a metropolitan center and not just a religious site as Westerners traditionally have simplified it to be, and also that sea faring peoples traveled the globe in antiquity, which is really the main point of contention here for the simple reason Western academics are too stupid and proud of their established historical time-lines to get over this painfully obvious fact. I certainly don't need you to debate me, but if you have some other information about these faces I would be happy to hear it. The fact is, they do exist, they are genuine and have been conclusively dated to be pre-Columbian. Unfortunately we can't wish it away.Thanos5150 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The method listed to establish dates for Posnansky is "astronomical allignment" which doesn't seem like a credible dating method to me. I would prefer to see the method listed regardless of the source but especialy for something so far out of the accepted belief. The credibility of Michael Coe seems better than what little I've seen about Posnansky. I would consider his date far more reliable although I would like to see the work behind his conclusions to. good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that just because something is from a journal, it is not necessarily true, nor is it necessarily good science. The Pumapunku site is mysterious and terribly ancient. These rocks are the inspiration of many fantasies, some of which are marked with the seal of officialdom. No one knows anything (and I mean that "anything") about the people of Pumapunku or Tiahuanaco (I prefer the old spelling). We don't know the ages of the sites, the people who lived there and we aren't sure if they were cities which fell into ruin and later were occupied by other people (people who then had their own problems and then the sites fell into ruin again). I mean it. As far as I know (or anyone else) the freakin' space aliens used to have a space port there! There is a lot of really bad archeology coming out of the universities in the US and England where rather grand statements are many times being made with scant evidence. These things are being said as though they were rather solid facts. I tell you, it is bad science and it gets in the way of figuring out the truth. Pumapunku and Tiahuanaco are mysterious and places of a great void of knowledge. Ignorance and wisdom are hand in had in abhorring a vacuum. Gingermint (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Native Americans are not hairless, just less hairy than Europeans. I've seen a photo of a Yamamamo with a goatee, also see [7]. Moctezuma was described as having a moustache. Dougweller (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "hairless", I said "little to no facial hair" which is an accurate description despite the occasional oddity, but regardless these are not mustaches or goatees depicted, but full beards. Full beards on white faces. Quatzequatel among others was depicted as a white man with a beard so such things are not unheard of.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to understand color symbolism then. And yes, he was portrayed as white, among the other colors used to portray him. White as in real white, not as in the skin color we mistakenly call white. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to get out more Doug. Given the depiction of skin color, with beard, not to mention the tales of his coming from across the sea, i.e. where white people live, it's quite a stretch of the imagination to think he was anything other than a "Caucasian". Why is it then that the locals thought the Spanish to be the return of Quatzequatel-because of color symbolism? No, because of the actual color of their skin. Regardless, faces are the most recognizable shape to humans and when it comes to different races it is what it is. When you have a mask with clearly negroid features painted black next to a bearded mask with with Caucasian features painted "white", as in a pink tone and not white-out white as you are suggesting-I don't think this is "color symbolism" depicting the same race of people.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since he is usually seen with a duckbill mask, he is clearly some sort of chimera. Of course, when he is shown without the mask in codices, he is always shown with a black face or a black face with yellow stripes. Similar (they aren't identical to the Uru and Aymara canoes of Lake Titicaca) reed boats are still used elsewhere in South America and on Lake Chad and elsewhere in Africa. Where are these Egyptian clamps? Maybe it's time to delete all of this as off-topic. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quick link to the Egyptian clamps Sorry Doug, but I believe I cut and pasted your comment above with some of my own text and tried to put it back where I thought it was.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Inka myth, Tiwanaku was the site where "Viracocha created the ancestral couples of all the ethnic groups of the world before sending them out to populate and rule their respective homelands" . So, apparently the depiction of all different races at Tiwanaku was a fact not lost on the Inka as well. Maybe they didn't understand color symbolism either.Thanos5150 (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

More Mysteries

First, if the builders had the beginnings of metals technology in the construction of Puma Punku, what happened to it? When Europeans began arriving in the early 16th century, they found no useful metals technology whatsoever. (Gold and Silver-smithing is not what I would call useful metals technology.) The indigenous Americans used stone, bone, and wood exclusively and when times got tough couldn't survive as societies.

Second, what destroyed Puma Punku or was it ever completed? Supposedly, parts and pieces of the structure fitted together in an interlocking pattern. But the pieces we see today lie about in a broken jumble with no sign of ever having been assembled. Has anyone inventoried the parts and pieces to see if enough are there to build a complete structure in whatever form? What's left at Stonehenge begs the same question. On the other hand, we have a pretty good idea what happened to the missing parts of the Egyptian pyramids and their temples. Did the original builders at Puma Punku bite off more than they could chew? --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Throughout history technologies are often lost to subsequent generations, so this in and of itself is not necessarily a mystery, but in this case, at least regarding the smelting and pouring of the cramps, I believe you don't see it any more because the people who used it were long gone when the Tiwanaku culture arrived. Puma Punka uses this technology, Tiwanaku does not with the exception of one stretch of a canal at the base of the Akapana pyramid which is almost guaranteed to be a remnant of the Puma Punka culture. Makes me wonder, however, if they had the ability to make portable smelters and alloys-what else did they make that was lost?

That is an interesting thought, but there is quite a bit of material there dispersed in such a random pattern it makes one hard pressed to come to any other conclusion than they were standing structures that were toppled. The main ruins at Puma Punka are at the plateau of the pyramid which is generally what you see in pictures, but all around the sides of the pyramid there are piles and piles of jumbled stones as well. Like most ancient structures, abandoned material that could be moved would have been carried off to use elsewhere so how much is missing is hard to say. There is known to have been large earthquakes in the past which is likely the cause and also what necessitated the need to use an over-abundance of metal cramps for structural reinforcement.

There is little doubt it was abandoned at some point, but did they fully complete construction before the catastrophe occurred? Given the bulk and nature of material at the site I would think the likely conclusion to be yes and if no they were pretty damn close.Thanos5150 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "overabundance of metal cramps" to be found at the Tiwanaku Site. As discussed in the Tiwanaku Site article, the metal cramps are only used to hold together the stone lining of the drainage conduits at the site. It is physically impossible given their limited use that the metal cramps could have functioned as any sort of "structural reinforcement".Paul H. (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, there's not, but we were not talking about Tiwanaku, we were talking about Puma Punku which they found dozens of cramps. The fact that only one place at Tiwanaku, like I said, the canal at the base of the Akapana, uses these cramps it seems obvious whatever culture built Puma Punku built that canal which was before the Akapana.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the historic accounts written and maps made by by people, who visited the Pumapunka in the 1800s, there is no need to invoke a prehistoric hypothetical and geopoetic cataclysm in order to explain the "dispersed" and "jumbled" nature of the modern Pumapunka. First-hand observations provided in historical accounts mentioned in Vranich (2006) demonstrate that the Pumapunka was systematically plundered and dismantled when it was quarried of its stone for the construction of the local church and other buildings. Maps made of the Pumpunka in 1848 and 1892 clearly refute the idea that any prehistoric earthquake caused the destruction of the Pumpunka of which Thanos5150 talks about above. Rather, they show that the primary destruction of the Pumapunka occurred between 1848 and 1892 as it was mined (looted) for building building stone as briefly discussed by Vranich (2006).Paul H. (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference Cited:

Vranich, A., 2006, The construction and reconstruction of ritual space at Tiwanaku, Bolivia (A.D. 500–1000): Journal of Field Archaeology. vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 121–136.Paul H. (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While true, these sites were "plundered" and "dismantled", as was Tiwanaku, this alone by no means would account for such a wide and all encompassing random scattering of blocks covering the whole site on all sides. As you say they were "systematically" dismantled suggesting starting in one area and taking away blocks as you go, but this is clearly not the case with what remains. And do these first hand accounts describe the site beyond it being "plundered" and dismantled"?

Yes, they do. In fact, sketch maps made of the Pumapunka during this period clearly show that the "random scattering of blocks", which you talk about clearly did not exist before the ruins were plundered for stones and dug up by treasure hunters. The historic accounts and maps clearly demonstrate that "random scattering of blocks" came into being at the time that the Pumapunka was plundered for stone. There is more then enough historical data to prove this as discussed in Vranich (2006), his 1999 PhD. dissertation, Interpreting the Meaning of Ritual Spaces: The Temple Complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia, and in the various books and papers about the Tiwanaku Site by Kolata.

What structures do they describe as still standing at the time they were taken apart?

The historic accounts and descriptions indicate that the entire Tiwanaku Site was largely intact except for the normal wear and tear that a person would expect from thousands of years of weathering. There is nothing in the historic accounts and maps that make any mention of slabs and blocks being randomly scattered about prior to the Tiwanaku Site being mined for stone. Again go see the discussions of the historic accounts and maps by Vranich, Kolata, and other archaeologists, who have written about the Tiwanaku Site.Paul H. (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they describe blocks being all over the place as they are today or just that blocks were removed?

Prior to being mined for stone, there is a lack of any mention of there being stone blocks "being all over the place" in the historic record that appear in the historic accounts written during and after the period of time during which the Tiwanaku Site was looted for stone. Also, some accounts mention the fact that at times, people dug holes throughout the entire Tiwanaku Site looking for gold and silver that was rumored to have buried there by Native AmericansPaul H. (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And also, they took what was available to them in which since that time areas have been excavated, areas untouched by these "plunderers", that reveal the same devastation. Some earth shattering global catastrophe does not need be the culprit to explain this, but this does not change the likely fact that obviously some form of natural deviation occurred rendering the site to its current state. Something like gee, I don't know, a big earthquake. Or two.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The historic accounts are quite clear that the destruction of all of the structures at the Tiwanaku Site was the result of people mining the site for stone and digging around for imaginary gold, silver, and other treasure at this site. There is not a single shred of evidence to be found in what has been published about the Tiwanaku Site in reliable venues to support there having been any damage done to the Tiwanaku Site by earthquakes. If you are going to postulate eathquakes as a cause of the destruction at the Tiwanaku Site, you need to provide reliable sources where the evidence for their occurrence having been published. In contrast to the abundance of historic accounts and maps documenting the destruction of all of the structures by stone mining and treasure hunters, the published evidence and arguments for earthquakes having done this damage to the Tiwanaku Site is nonexistent.Paul H. (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read what you are saying here and what I see repeated over and over is you refer specifically to Tiwanaku and not Puma Punku. I am aware Tiwanaku was found largely undisturbed and when I say that some "natural disaster" decimated Puma Punku I do not mean Tiwanaku as well and am specifically referring to only the ruins of Puma Punku itself. But is Puma Punku specifically cited in any of these accounts as being found intact? I don't think so. I'm not trying to hassle you, I am actually very interested. All of the drawings I have seen of Puma Punku from any period are reconstructions of the artist based on the blocks found at the site and not a representation of a first hand observer who saw them intact.

Both sites as we now know through ground penetrating radar, satellite photos and the like (not to mention local and ancient lore) were at least during some phases all part of one large community, so today it is understood if talking about "Tiwanaku" it may possibly refer to the entire community including Puma Punku, like when we say "New York City" this includes the Bronx, Manhattan, and surrounding burroughs though literally they are considered different places, but except from myth this would have been unknown to early explorers and accounts of the 1800's which suggests they were likely considered 2 different places entirely. Though technically, from a modern archeological point of view this may not be the case, but still today, for all intents and purposes, to the layman and traveler alike they are still considered two different places. Puma Punku is almost a mile away from Tiwanaku and up until recently what lies between has been relatively unknown. I have read excerpts of the Spanish from the 1600's who describe Tiwanaku in detail as being relatively intact, but they make no mention of Puma Punku. Maybe some do, which I would love to find, but from what I have read I don't see it. Also, even today, most people that go to Tiwanaku don't even know there are other ruins in the area. Tours don't even go to Puma Punku which is crazy to me. I was at the site for at least an hour or more and the whole time I was there saw only 3-4 other people at any given time and for about 20 minutes there were none, whereas Tiwanaku had a steady flow of at least a few hundred at a time. When I stood atop the Akapana Pyramid, even though only a mile a way, Puma Punku was barely discernible as anything other than a hill, like any other hill, let alone ruins and this with the site having been developed for tourism and much of the tall grass around the site being cut or removed.

In this context, I must wonder if these early accounts specifically refer to the state in which Puma Pumku was found. I am skeptical that they do and would be greatly interested if they did. If not, as I suspect, then I believe one needs to be extra cautious not to superimpose early accounts of Tiwanaku onto Puma Punku passing off what is known about one as fact about the other.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Age Section

This section is about the age of Puma Punka and not a place for a dissertation about why Posnanky may be wrong. While it should be duly noted with reference why this is the case, the material given is excessive in it's scope and could easily be summarized for brevity and be equally effective.

Also, it says:"...obtained from organic material, sample OS-17860, collected from the clay fill that forms the main platform of the Pumapunku complex and underlies the stonework on which Posnansky's archaeoastronomical dating is based". If this material dates Puma Punka to 1500B.C. then why is the site dated to 200B.C? Tiwanaku is dated to 1500B.C., so is it possible this is an error applying Tiwanaku dating to Puma Punka? If so it needs to be corrected, if not then what you are arguing is Puma Punka is 3,500yrs old and not 2,200 as currently accepted which needs to be explored in it's own right. And also, to my knowledge, Posnanky is not acheoastronomically dating Puma Punka, he is dating Tiwanaku from one only particular wall of the courtyard, so how does this dating of organic material supposedly found under Puma Punka affect Posnanky's findings regarding Tiwanaku or vise versa?Thanos5150 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the wall that used by Posnansky to "date" this ruin is built on the artificial clay fill from which the radiocarbon date was obtained. Before the clay, sand, and cobble mound, on which this wall was built, the base of Posnansky's wall would lie a couple of meters up in the air. To have been built around 15,000 BC., the wall would have had to have been built in midair and hover in midair for thousands of years until the mound was built up to the level of the base of the stone wall. This is a physical impossibility. It is simply physically impossible for the wall and associated stone facing on this mound to have been built before the the mound, on which it lies, was built. Thus, Posnanky's wall and associated stonework that forms the Pumapunka, including Posnansky's wall, must have been constructed sometime after the mound, which is dated by the radiocarbon date was built. The stonework that comprises the Pumapunka were added after the artificial mound likely as a later renovation long, even thousands of years, after the clay mound was originally built. The radiocarbon dates only indicates when the mound was built, but not when the stonework, including Posnanky's wall, were later added. Such renovations are common in typical mounds and many, but not all, pyramids.

On the other hand, Thanos5150 completely ignores the the fact, which is documented in numerous modern papers and historical accounts, that the stonework on the Pumapunka had been greatly disturbed and partially dismantled for use in local buildings and crushed for railroad ballast. Unfortunately, Posnanky simply disregarded the fact that the in situ stonework and structural integrity needed for making valid astroastronomical observations at the Pumapunka is completely lacking.Paul H. (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Paul-you are completely ignoring or either do not seem to understand what what I am saying. I am not debating you about Posnanky. You seem to think I am some huge Posnanky lover for some reason, but the fact is Posnanky studied the site for 50 years and regardless of his dating, he is arguably the most important figure in the study of Tiwanaku and should be referenced. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Posnanky. Or you. And by the same token, as I said the opposing view should be noted, but it is not a lecture on why Posnanky is wrong so a summary is appropriate. Statements are repeated and even such superfluous details as the log # of the carbon sample is listed-is this really relevant to the age section or even Posnanky?

But also, Posnanky astronomically dated Tiwanaku, not Puma Punku. The article has it wrong. The wall you are referring to is not at Puma Punku-there is no wall there, it's at Tiwanaku. These are 2 different places. Puma Punku is about 1mi away. Therefore, being the wall is not at Puma Punku, this means the carbon sample was actually taken from Tiwanaku and not Puma Punku. If not, them Puma Punku is now 2500yrs old? No, you said it was found under the wall which is at Tiwanaku, not Puma Punku. Understand what I'm saying? These are glaring factual errors.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I would also add, that the reports you are referring to I am almost certain are related mainly to Tiwanaku and not Puma Punku. Yes, there is much information about how Tiwanaku was robbed of many of its stones, most of all to build the railway and the church. Saw it, heard all about it when I was there. Tiwanaku has been greatly restored including most of Posnanky's wall so the reality is Posnanky could well be totally wrong or at least in error. Steede and Oswaldo Rivera have done the math as well and they conclude 12,000BC, which again may be wrong, but there is little doubt, however, that Tiwanaku was astronomically aligned and the wall Posnaky dates does seem to have astronomical significance. What does this mean as far as dating the site goes-who am I to say, but this does not at least, regardless of restoration, take away the likelihood the Posnanky wall was used as an astronomical marker which if to know exactly what it originally stood at could presumably date the site. Archeoastronomy is not blasphemy and is a useful tool in dating sites. Puma Punku on the other hand, as far as taking stones go, I assume the same was done there, but I have not read any accounts about it and no one talked about it when I wa there and regardless, does not appear physically to be the case at the site. Keep in mind Puma Punku is some distance away and a bit of a shlep to haul those stones to the railway and church.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of Vranich dissertation as a reference is a little suspect to me for several reasons. For one, this citation: "Vranich, A., 2006, The construction and reconstruction of ritual space at Tiwanaku, Bolivia (A.D. 500–1000): Journal of Field Archaeology. vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 121–136" is not a direct citation but is copy and pasted from another author's (who is it we don't know) references and passed off as an original cited source. This has not been acceptable in other edits so there is no reason it should be allowed here. Secondly, this is Vranich's dissertation reprinted in the Journal of Field Archeology which is not a publicly accessible review so whoever wrote the edit: "The age of the Pumapunku is constrained by radiocarbon date of 1510+/-25 BP obtained from organic material, sample OS-17860, collected from the clay fill that forms the main platform of the Pumapunku complex and underlies its stonework" likely did not get it from the actual document being from another secondary source as well that has cited Vranich and also the edit itself is likely OR as we do not know the context of the sample. (This was written by Thanos5150 )

The above claims by Thanos5150 are complete fabrications. Contrary in the above misstatements of fact, I bought and downloaded the PDF version copy of Vranich's dissertation from Proquest for 37.00 dollars. As a result, I have a copy of this reliable, published source on hand to personally consult. For 37.00 dollars, Thanos5150 or anyone else can obtain a copy of this dissertation. Also, I obtained, as either Thanos5150 or anyone else can, first a photocopy of the 2006 article of Vranich from the research library of my local University. Later, I obtained a PDF file of the same article, when the same library subscribed to the electronic edition of the Journal of Field Archaeology. The material that I cited from both reliable, published sources are available to the public either online for a nominal price or in university research libraries contrary to the above misstatements of the facts. The statement that that I "copied and pasted the material from from another author's (who is it we don't know)" is nothing more than a slanderous falsehood, for which Thanos5150 needs to apologize in public. These statements appear to me to be nothing more than fabrications meant to discredit and censor significant scientific data that contradicts Posnanky's ideas about the age of the tiwanaku Site.Paul H. (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To prove that have and directed cited from reliable copies of Vranich's publications, both of which meet the criteria to use in Wikipedia, I can send Doug Weller PDF files of both the Vranich's disseration and Journal of Field Archeology. My pocession of these PDF files demonstrate that I have direct access to both publications and that the claims that I am using second-hand sources for citing this information are factually bankrupt and quite silly. I should note, that Thanos5150 did not even bother to contact me about whether I have access to these publications before making his nonsensical and baseless claims about me about using second-hand sources.Paul H. (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

\And lastly, it would also appear this edit was written by Paul H. who is apparently confused about what is Puma Punku and what is Tiwanaku, so this only further challenges the accuracy of the edit as we don't know if the editor even got it right as we can't verify the statement from the original or even a secondary source. So, on all counts, we as editors cannot verify the veracity or context of what is cited and in neither case is it likely to be a direct reference having been extrapolated from a secondary source or data reproduced as an OR statement and the editor who wrote it could possibly made an error. All of which are grounds for removal of this edit. Thanos5150 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have made a mistake in this case. However, if Mr. Thanos5150 would bother to look through what he has written about the Tiwanaku Site, he would find that he has made more than his share of mistakes. Given, that he has made many, many more and serious mistakes in terms of what is known about Lake Titicaca and the Tiwanku Site, he is certainly not a person to complain about the relatively few errors that I have made. If Mr. Thanos5150 believes something that I wrote is in error, he quite free to take the time and effort that I have taken to consult the reliable published sources, which are all acceptable for use in Wikipedia and from which I obtained my information, and correct it based on these sources. That he wants anything I have written rejected, when he has made many more errors then I had made and repeatedly confuses valid scientific research with silly psuedoscience about the Tiwanaku Site, strikes me, in my opinion, as being nothing more than a blatant excuse fabricated by him to censor valid scientific interpretations and facts that contradicts interpretations and beliefs about the Tiwanaku Site. I might be wrong about this impression, but the blatantly false and factually bankrupt claims that he made about me and my sources above certainly indicates to me that this might very well be his intention.Paul H. (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, right after they were pointed out, I long ago corrected the mistakes in the "Age Section" concerning the dating of the Pumapunka using reliable published sources that are all acceptable to Wikipedia. If there are any problems with them, Thanos5150 need to discuss the problem with specific facts in the article instead of fabricating false claims about me and my sources.Paul H. (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all Paul H., you messed up the whole page here on your edits so if you could fix that it would be helpful. Secondly, NO WHERE IN ANY OF MY EDITS OF ANY ARTICLE will you find that I have "made a mistake" of facts beyond inconsequential typos. Not one. Nor do I, for example, like others like yourself inject my own OR and attribute it to authors who didn't actually say it or take things out of context that were talking about something else and apply it to a different topic just to further my own POV. You may not agree with me, but I am honest and accurate in my citing and presentation of material in an article. And thirdly Paul H., once again you apparently do not actually read what was written or understand it and in the process attack me on a personal level for something not related to the topic.

"Fabricating false claims"? Wow. No, I'd say I was pretty spot on. The point, again, about the Vranich source is for 1) it does not appear to have been cited from the original source, but rather from a secondary source which is what needs to be cited, 2) the original source is not a public document (in which your personal collection doesn't count) that can be verified as accurate by other editors which is rendered even more critical given it appears you are confused about which site is which, and 3) The statement: "The age of the Pumapunku is constrained by radiocarbon date of 1510+/-25 BP, "calibrated to AD 550 with a I-sigma range of AD 535 to AD 600)", obtained from organic material, sample OS-17860, collected from the initial construction fill that comprises the main platform of the Pumapunku complex and underlies its stonework" is OR being YOUR interpretation of the data. The statement you make is "constrained by" i.e. "limited to" 1500B.C. which is based on as far as we know your interpretation of the data, but is this Vranich's conclusion? Does he say that Puma Punku can be no older than 1500B.C. specifically because of this carbon dating sample? No? The only direct quote you give is ""calibrated to AD 550 with a I-sigma range of AD 535 to AD 600)" which without context is absolutely meaningless.

And again, why the personal attacks? You don't like being challenged so you attack me on a personal level though you don't even read what was written and then rant about my "crazy" ideas for things I never even said. It is you who are imposing your beliefs on me, not the other way around. And then you threaten me with some sort of action despite the fact it is you who have now ADMITTED your edits were WRONG which is the whole reason I edited it in the first place. It was wrong, and also the fact the section no longer had anything to do about the age but was turned into, by you, and expose' about why Posnanky is wrong. And so in the end, your edit is little different than mine and yet if I DO IT you all freak out and if you do it's all good.? This all seems pretty sad to me and your are coming across more like some inconsolable religious zealot then a sober individual defending his point of view.Thanos5150 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Original Research on current state of Puma Punka/Tiwanaku. "This page is to discuss the article but we can't use editors' own ideas/research." Click blue button at right to see text

I am just returning from a 2 week megalithic ruin research trip to Peru and Bolivia. I can tell you that Puma Punka indeed sits on a pyramid that is currently being excavated in which the structure on one side is now clearly taking shape. Much like the Akapana pyramid at Tiwanaku, at a glance it looks like a massive pile of dirt, a hill, but the recent excavations at both sites are revealing well defined pyramid structures. Calling it a "stepped platform" instead of what it is, a pyramid, is rather odd when considering the majority of Southern Hemisphere pyramids are all "stepped platforms", i.e. stepped pyramids with a leveled peak usually with a room of some sort.

Another thing of note which may relate to this from Tiwanaku, dating at least 1000yrs old mind you, busts and figures are found depicting all different races of people-Caucasians with beards, Asians, Negroes, and locals. There is no mistaking the differences. The Tiwanaku culture believed Tiwanaku was the center of the earth and apparently peoples from all over the world believed the same. Considering the local people of today in Bolivia and Peru have little to no facial hair, and definitely not beards-why are there busts of white people with beards found at Tiwanaku let alone Asians and Negroes? These are not just the faces of the found at the sunken temple, which are arguably open to interpretation given their current state, but very high quality busts and figures found in local museums. This suggests to me that Tiwanaku was quite a gateway for international travelers of the time, which given the current geographical state the area is in today, can only mean it was much more easily accessible even only 1000 years ago, which almost certainly would have been by water. Either that or the Tiwanaku culture sailed the globe and when they got home made detailed depictions of the different races of people they saw. Take your pick, but either way, someone, if not lots of people, were sailing the global seas at least 1000yrs ago, in stark contract to what is taught in schools.

In closing, I leave Tiwanaku/Puma Punka with the clear impression that Puma Punku is definitely much older than the majority of Tiwanaku and that the foundations of Tiwanaku itself are rooted in the time of Puma Punka. Lake Titicaca was definitely much closer to Puma Punka in ancient times and was most certainly a port, which consensus at the site leads more to it being an ancient river port which led to a much closer lake than a port off the actual lake itself. Either way, given the layout of the land and the relative proximity of the lake, it seems like common sense the site would have been built accessible to such a major body of water instead of so far away as is claimed.

The statement that "Lake Titicaca was definitely much closer to Puma Punka in ancient times and was most certainly a port" has been completely refuted by innumerable published peer-reviewed papers, PhD dissertations, M.S. theses, and many other professional publications. The prehistoric lake levels and paleohydrology of Lake Titicaca are now well know in significant detail as the results of decades of geomorphic studies; intensive study of the sediments underlying the lake bottom using seismic techniques and innumerable cores; study of the Rio Desaguadero’s terraces, and recent research conducted as part of the Lake Titicaca Drilling Project. Starting with "Chapter 17, Quaternary Palaeolakes of the Arid Regions of South America" as part of Quaternary Geology and Geomophology of South America by Dr. C. Clapperton in 1993 by Elsevier Science B.V. (Amsterdam), the prehistoric lake level variations of Lake Titicaca have been documented in detail. The third oldest known lake level was Paleolake Ballivan, at an elevation 3860 meters above sea level, at about 191,000 BP. It was at that time, that the terrace on which Tiwanaku lies was the bottom of Paleolake Ballivan. After that, the Rio Desaguadero continued to cut its valley into the ridge separating the Titicaca drainage basin from the Central Altiplano drainage basin and permanently lowered the level of Lake Titicaca below the level of Paleolake Ballivan leaving the ancient bottom of Paleolake Ballivan, on which Tiwanaku now lies, high and dry. Because of the deep valley cut by the Rio Desaguadero since Paleolake Ballivan existed, the next time that the shoreline shifted back towards Tiwanaku, during the high lake levels of Paleolake Minchin, its levels only reached an elevation of about 3825 meters above sea level. As a result, the highest lake levels of Paleolake Minchin, which occurred at 34,000 to 44,000 and 68,000 to 72,000 BP, lay 15 meters below the level of the current location of Posnansky’s alleged “port complex” at Tiwanaku according to his own topographic map of the site. Because of the continued downcutting of theRio Desaguadero outlet to an elevation of 3,805 meters, the last high lake level of Lake Titicaca, called Paleolake Taucu, reached only a maximum elevation of 3,815 meters above sea level and at times has been significantly below modern levels. This means that it is physically impossible for Tiwanaku to have ever been a port on Lake Titicaca. Even during the age of Tiwanaku proposed by Posnansky, circa 15,000 BC (17,000 BP), Posnansky’s alleged “port complex” lay 25 meters above the maximum level, Paleolake Taucu, of Lake Titicaca. Tiwanaku would have to be around 180,000 years old for Posnansky’s alleged “port complex” to have been on the shoreline of Lake Titicaca. (Note: a good place to start researching the history of Lake Titicaca is Lake Titicaca: A Synthesis of Limnological Knowledge, C. Dejoux and A. Ilti, editors (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992) ISBN: 0792316630).

In addition, the "consensus" about Tiwanaku being "an ancient river port", as far as I can find in any of the literature about Tiwanaku, is a purely imaginary one. The references, both Posnansky, fringe archaeologists, catastrophists, and so forth refer to Tiwanaku as being either a sea port or lake port. The river is far too small and its valley is too deep for it ever to have been a river port. Also, Posnansky's alleged "port complex" is far too high on the valley wall of the river's valley from them to have functioned as part of a river port. Paul H. (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My guide was a Bolivian archeological graduate student, and when I asked if Posnanky was correct in that Lake Titicaca came to Puma Punka and was a port, she said yes it was a port, but that water access was not from Lake Titicaca which at the time she said was still some distance away, but rather an ancient river that came right next to Puma Punka that led to the Lake. While standing on top of Puma Punka it was she who pointed out the barely discernible dried river bed that wound its way towards Puma Punka. Hard to see, but there was definitely a slight recess stretching towards the lake for some distance. So, I guess her university "imagined" the river and taught it to her and showed her where it was which can still be "imagined" to be seen today. If only as a matter of common sense, why would there not be a port located near or at Puma Punka? They were not afraid of invaders in which the site obviously received masses of visitors from far places, so why build so far away from access to a major waterway? And as far as what the Lake levels were, you can see today where water levels have receded over 30ft in from what we were told in only the last 5 years alone. The altiplano is incredibly flat which rising and falling lake levels would have been very shallow in places and may not have lasted very long either way. To actually be there and look at the lay of the land it is obvious that Lake Titicaca was once much larger. It is common knowledge in Bolivia this was the case and that lake levels have and advanced and receded often throughout history. It is not necessary to invoke a history of 15,000B.C. to come to the obvious conclusion Puma Punka no doubt had ready access to Lake Titicaca via the lake itself that was closer or as the Bolivians believe from a transport river. My impression of the site is a river is likely, but as well the lake was much closer.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The lake level history of Lake Titicaca for the past 20,000 years years is quite well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It is well documented that the Pumapunka never had any access to Lake Titicaca either during or after it construction. In fact during the entire Holocene the level of Lake Titicaca was never above its present elevation and was often several to, at one time, over 100 meters below it present level. For the lake level curves and documentation, a person can go read:

Abbott, M. B., M. W. Binford, M. Brenner, J. h. Curtis, and K. R. Kelts, 1997, A 3,500 14C yr high-resolution sediment record of lake level Erickson, C. (1993). The social organization of prehispanic raised field changes in Lago Titicaca, South America. Quaternary Research. vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 169–180.

Rowe, H. D., and R. B. Dunbar, 2004, Hydrologic-energy balance constraints on the Holocene lake-level history of lake Titicaca, South America. Climate Dynamics. vol. 23, pp.439-454.

Wirrmann, D., and L. F. deO. Almedia, 1987, Low Holoecen Lake Level (7700 to 3650 Years ago) of Lake Titicaca (Bolivia). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. vol. 59, pp. 315-323.

If an independent arbitrator wants to verify that I am obtaining this information from primary, not second-hand sources, I can email him or her copies of PDF files of all of all of the above papers and many more reliable peer-review sources that completely refute the speculations made above by Thanos5150 as solid proof that I am not consulting second-hand sources.Paul H. (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Independent arbitrator? Relax man. Lake Titicaca has receded 20-30ft in the last 5yrs alone and is at it's lowest level since 1949. The Lake has advanced and retreated several times in the last 30,000 +yrs including the last 5000 which these recessions are also known to coincide with the collapse of Tiwanaku suggesting Lake Levels, i.e. proximity of the lake to the city, was of vital importance. Prior to the mid/late Holoecene (6,000-3,500BP) there were obviously much wetter conditions on the Altiplano in which Lake levels were known to be much higher at times and it was during late this time, 1500B.C., that Lake levels were their lowest in the last 30,0000 years, lower than they are today I wonder. And if I am not mistaken, was not the Altiplano not a sea as late as 190,000BP which spanned quite a large geographical area? This didn't just disappear overnight. I do not claim to be an expert on Altiplano historical water levels by any means, and am very interested in the subject so I will gladly look over your references.Thanos5150 (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

While skeptics can rail against interpretations of seashells found nearby or the depiction of pre-historic animals-one thing that cannot be ignored are the sea crabs found depicted on a monolithic statue and the fact races from all over the world, whether they sailed there or vise versa, were depicted by the Tiwanaku culture, suggesting an accessible avenue to the oceans not present today not to mention mainstream opinion about ancient mariners traveling the oceans is once again completely wrong. The reed boats still found today as sailed by Thor Hyerdahl would certainly attest to this as well.

So-called “skeptics” “rail” against interpretations of “seashells” because such interpretations are extremely bad, if not outright junk, science that argue that the presence of Middle Cretaceous and Devonian marine fossils, your “seashells”, indicate that Lake Titicaca was connected to the Pacific Ocean hundreds and tens of millions of years later around 15,000 BC (17,000 BP). Your so-called “seashells” are part of the local folded and faulted bedrock. As a result, they are meaningless in terms of determining whether Lake Titicaca was once connected to the Pacific Ocean. For the details about the age of these seashells a person can read Geology of the Lake Titicaca region, Peru and Bolivia.” by Norman Dennis Newell, Geological Society of America Memoir no. 36. Paul H. (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying, I thought clearly, is that while these "so-called skeptics" waste their time railing against "my" seashells (and are they really "my" seashells?) to debunk evidence of a later antiquity, the obvious is overlooked in the process and the real point is lost in that man widely traveled the oceans in antiquity. There is no doubt some form of readily accessible maritime access was available to the Puma Punka people of the time in which seashells are not required for the debate. No where have I defended "my seashells" as being proof on anything. Having been to the site, I believe it is naive to think Puma Punka is much later than Tiwanaku and most definitely the opposite is true which is the opinion of the Bolivians themselves, so I think I'm in good company. They think it's kind of funny actually.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because a person believes something to be true do not make it true. The fact of matter is that you lack a single shred of hard, reliable scientific evidence that supports your personal speculations about the Pumapunka being older than the rest of the Tiwanaku Site. If you look the time to read what Dr. Vranish has published about his personal excavations at the Pumapunka, you and anyone else will find that in his excavations found a complete absence of any evidence of the Pumapunka being as old as you claim it to be. Wikipedia has nothing to do with what you or any other person wants to believe is true. It is only about what has been demonstrated to be true as documented in reliable published sources such as Vranish's dissertation and peer-reviewed, 1996 Journal of Field Archaeology paper about the Pumapunka. Also, no matter how you might feel "there is no doubt some form of readily accessible maritime access was available to the Puma Punka people" when Tiwanaku was occupied, this remains nothing but pure personal speculation on your part that completely lacks any reliable documentation, evidence, or proof to substantiate it. Instead making false and fabricated accusations against anyone and any source, who disagrees with what you want to believe to be true,and mindlessly parroting pseudoarchaeologists like Niel Steele and hopelessly demolished and discredited theories such as those developed by Posnanky decades ago, you need to provide credible, reliable source to back up your speculations.Paul H. (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

But, your Vranich reference states organic material from Puma Punku at the beginning of construction is at least 1,500B.C. so according to you this actually makes it at least as old as Tiwanaku right? Or is this not "a single shred of hard, reliable scientific evidence"? And how old do I claim Puma Punku to be? I never gave a date Paul. All I said was that it seems apparent to me it is "older", isn't that right? You are making assumptions based on YOUR preconcieved ideas of what you think I think and not from what I actually say. And also, given the limited # of samples taken from the sites, which some anomolous samples came back twice as old if I am not mistaken, and as you say the excesive looting and vandalisim of the site which no doubt was going on well before the rail roads of the 1800's, not to mention 3,500yrs of occupation in which there was no doubt repairs, reconstructions, and additions, it's really hard to say how accurate these samples really are isn't it? Comparable sites in Peru, namely Caral, have been reliably dated to over 3,000BC so its not like advanced cultures were not in the geographical region at an accepted earlier date. Carbon dating says the Great Pyramid is as much as 300-1000yrs older than currently accepted but this is thrown out and blamed on "old wood" because it does not fit accepted dogma, so carbon samples seem to be relative to the observer. If we take into account the +/- error of carbon samples, according to you Puma Punku is at least 3500yrs old and Tiwanaku we know is at least 3500yrs old, so indeed, as I have suggested, Puma Punku may actually be older. If you consider the only metal cramps used at Tiwanaku were found at the canal at the base of the Akapan Pyramid which run under it if I am not mistaken, suggests it was the same culture who built the canal and Puma Punku and are contemporary so Puma Punku should be considered at least as old as the Akapana. Please enlighten me how anything I have said is remotely akin to pseudoscience or any other negative connotation you associate with me for no apparent reason other than your own enjoyment? If you actually read what I say, my main tool of reason is common sense which is tempered by 15+yrs of study, and unlike you, I have travelled litterally all over the world and have actually seen these places for myself and done so specifically for this purpose. Do not suppose to know me Paul and put words in my mouth.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, detailed research conducted about the tectonic development of; the distribution and origin of metallic ores within; and the petroleum geology of the Andes; and deep coring of the bottom sediments of Lake Titicaca for recovering long term paleoenvironmental records have refuted various proposals that Lake Titicaca was ever either connected to or part of the Pacific Ocean. As discussed by Marocco et al. (1995), the basin now occupied by Lake Titicaca is one of several intermontane basins that formed between the Eastern and Western cordilleras of the Andes mountains. It formed as a pull-apart basin as the result of strike-slip faulting along the crest of the Andes. As dated by sedimentary and volcanic strata filling these basins, their formation was initiated during the late Oligocene about 26 to 28 million years ago with reactivation of Andean tectonism and ceased during the latest Miocene about seven million years ago. Since then, the Titicaca Basin has been slowly filling with lake and river sediments. This basin formed long after the Andes had been uplifted and, thus, Lake Titicaca at no time had any connection with the Pacific Ocean (Marocco et al. 1995, Noblet et al. 1988).

Similarly, the detailed analysis of over 136 meters of core of sediments underlying the bottom of Lake Titicaca, Bolivia-Peru, enabled the reconstruction of 370,000 years paleoenvironmental change for Lake Titicaca. For this period, Hanselman (2007), Baker et al. (2007), and other researchers were able to reconstruct the environmental changes associated with four cycles of regional glacial advance and retreat within the Lake Titicaca basin. This research demonstrates that for the last 370,000 years, Lake Titicaca has been an intermountaine lake isolated completely from the Pacific Ocean. This research also demonstrated the complete absence of any catastrophe events having affected Lake Titicaca during the last 370,000 years.

References:

Fritz, S .C.,P. A., Baker, G. O. Seltzer, A. Ballantyne, P. Tapia, H. Cheng, and R. L. Edwards, 2007, Quaternary glaciation and hydrologic variation in the South American tropics as reconstructed from the Lake Titicaca drilling project. Quaternary Research. vol. 68, pp. 410-420.

Hanselman, J. A., 2007, A 370,000-yr history of vegetation and climate change around Lake Titicaca (Bolivia/Peru), unpublished PhD. dissertation. Florida Institute of Technology : Melbourne, Florida. 210 pp.

Marocco, R., A. Lavenu, and R. Baudino, 1995, The intermontane Late Paleogene-Neogene basins of the Andes of Ecuador and Peru: Sedimentologic and Tectonic Implications, In: Petroleum Basins of South America, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir no. 62, pp. 597-613.

Noblet, C., A. Lavenu, and F. Schneider, 1988, Étude géodynamique d’un bassin intramontagneux tertiaire sur décrochements dans les Andes du Sud de l’Équateur: l’exemple du bassin de Cuenca: Géodynamique, Paris. vol. 3, pp. 117–138.

Data can be found at:

Fritz, S.C., et al., 2007, Lake Titicaca 370KYr LT01-2B Sediment Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2007-102. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA Paul H. (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The stone technology of Puma Punka (not present at Tiwanaku) namely the squared "machined" blocks, can only be compared to the finest works of the Egypt (G.P., Osirion, Valley and Sphinx Temples), and considering Egypt is the only other place in the ancient world (other than neighboring Ollantaytambo)to use the identical I-clamp, it definitely makes one wonder about a possible connection. Another fact to support this idea is that the only other place to use the kind of reed boat found at Lake Titicaca is Egypt. How they were able to move the larger stones is always a mystery, but the technology itself is most definitely of a uniquely higher order seemingly well beyond the ability of the culture they are ascribed to. Given the high level of sophistication of the machined blocks and massive size of the stones, it is clear to me that this site (accepting mainstream dating) is chronologically at the least contemporary with other megalithic cultures of 2,500BC and earlier.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Since he is usually seen with a duckbill mask, he is clearly some sort of chimera. Of course, when he is shown without the mask in codices, he is always shown with a black face or a black face with yellow stripes. Similar (they aren't identical to the Uru and Aymara canoes of Lake Titicaca) reed boats are still used elsewhere in South America and on Lake Chad and elsewhere in Africa. Where are these Egyptian clamps? Maybe it's time to delete all of this as off-topic. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pumapunku

I have warned Thanos5150 that having reverted the edits by three different editors three times within 24 hours that he has violated the "three-revert rule" and is engaged in an edit war. If he insists on further reverts, he will be reported to the edit warring noticeboard.Paul H. (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is you, Doug Weller, and Clovis Point, who all might as well be the same person, that have reverted my edit 3 times. I shortened the age section for brevity and summarized the material. This by no means meant to support Posnanky's point of view, but rather to return the section to what its about-age-and not a diatribe about why Ponsnaky is wrong. It should be duly note, yes, but to that extent? That's not what the section is about. If you want to go on at length about why Posnanky's finding are wrong, go ahead, but is it really appropriate there? If so, then should a detailed analysis of Ponsnanky's or the German's finding be given as well? Of course not. Ask yourself-what is said debunking Posnanky that can't be summarized instead of a lengthy detailed analysis of several key points? I mean, is it really necessary to include the log # of the carbon dating sample? And the last sentence is repeating the first in a different way. And furthermore, I do not believe the information provided is correct. It says Puma Punku was cabon dated to 1500B.C. and that it is the underlayment of the Puma Punku stones which Posnanky gets his astronomical dates, but I do believe it is Tiwanaku this is referring to and not Puma Punku and Ponanky does not astronomically date Puma Punku, he dates Tiwanaku.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on my Tiwanaku and Lake Titicaca Research Collections

People both contributing and lurking on this list might be interested to know that I have been collecting papers, reprints, topographic maps, GIS data, personal communications, site maps, pictures, and all sort of other material about the Tiwanaku Site, Lake Titicaca, and Andean metallurgy starting with the first showing of The Mysterious Origins of Man. It is only at this time, that I have finished scanning, OCR processing, and converting innumerable photocopies that I made of papers into PDF and other digital files. I can now read any part of these files, if needed, to refresh my sometimes faulty memories of what was written in them. I still have a problem with indexing. That is another issue. Also, this will make it very easy for me to document the quality and primary nature of the sources that I use in any future editing of this article and their acceptability for use in Wikipedia articles to independent third parties should anyone fabricate fraudulent complaints about me using either second-hand or unacceptable source material.Paul H. (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is "fabricating" anything against you Paul. One of the Vranich citations was obviously copy and pasted from a secondary source, and the original source is not independently verifiable as it is not a publicly available document which also seems to support the former.

Yes you are fabricating false claims against me. In the very first sentence of your reply about me using "secondary sources" is an complete fabrication for which you have absolutely no proof beacuse I have not done it. You should know that what you stated above is a fabrication because I have repeatedly informed you that I have official PDF versions of both Vranich's 2006 paper and his 1999 dissertation. Having official PDF files of publications, I have no reason "copy and pasted from a secondary source" as you have repeated falsely claimed despite me having told you otherwise. The only reason for you to continue this deceptive charade is a contrived attempt to get the radiocarbon data censored from the Wikipedia articlePaul H. (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul-it is obvious to me you are not well. All of your indignantly pejorative expletives aimed at me have nothing to do with what I have said, which I will leave to to the psychiatrists to determine what your malfunction is, and regardless, your edits in response to my comments only have proven me correct. And do you realize how stupid it is of you to accuse me of all people of trying to "censor" carbon dating that shows a site to be older than it actually is, especially one that I have championed as there being no doubt is the case?Thanos5150 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you give any source, secondary or primary, that the section of the Vranich dissertation you cite can be viewed or verified as accurate in the context in which you provide it?

The details about the radiocarbon date can be found on page 171 of Vranich's dissertation. His dissertation is a primary source that is available to the general, like many monographs, for a reasonable price. In fact you can download it. This radiocarbon date is also discussed and accepted as valid by:

Isbell, W. H., 2004, Palaces and Politics in the Andean Middle Horizon. in S. T. Evans and J. Pillsbury, eds., pp. 191-246. Palaces of the Ancient New World. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, D.C.

Like Vranich's dissertation, this book can be freely purchased either as a hard copy of PDF file by the general public. Thus, your misleading complaints that it is neither public publicly viewable source material nor independently verifiable is completely and utterly false.

So, you are saying the only way to verify your claims is to purchase these otherwise privately held documents? Isn't that what I just said? Regardless, again, the point is does Vranich SAY the site is dated to 1500B.C. or is this your OR or the conclusion of a secondary sources interpretation of Vranich's data? Well, gee whiz-enter Isbell, which according to your recent edit is EXACTLY what I said in that Vranich does not make these claims, though you have made it appear so, and in fact it comes from the secondary source, Isbell, which is where the citation was copy and pasted from the bibliography. Are you retarded or something? You say I'm fabricating this or that and all this other BS, but with every edit you prove EXACTLY what I have been saying all along to be true.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are using Vranich to say that Puma Punku can be dated to 1500B.C., or cannot be older than, however you want to put it, which directly contradicts the accepted date of 200B.C..

From what I can find in the current literature, the currently accepted date for the Pumapunka is not 200 BC as you incorrectly claim in your reply. If you bother to examine the primary literature, instead of replying on often inaccurate popular sources and antiquate literature, you will find that the currently accepted age for the construction is during the Tiwanaku Phase III, which matches the interpretation from the radiocarbon date Vranich's dissertation. The problem here is that the person, who originally wrote the "Age Section" of the Wikipedia article failed to properly research what what is regarded to be the current age of the Pumpapunka and made some bad mistakes about what archaeologists regard the age of the Pumpapunka to be.Paul H. (talk)

Inaccurate and popular sources, say like this very article itself that has indefinitely given a date of 200B.C. which you have only now edited out? Why didn't you do this before? And really, wouldn't the appropriate thing to say, since Puma Punka is popularly accepted to be 200B.C.; "though commonly accepted to date to 200B.C., recent carbon dating by Vranich in 2006 has now shown the site to be as much as 1500B.C"?. So, apparently you have the authority to wipe out popular consensus and eliminate the accepted date of 200B.C. in lieu of one carbon sample by Vranich? Wow.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Vranich actually state that he concludes the site is as old or can be no older than 1500B.C. or are you extrapolating this from a carbon sample test list and making an OR statement based on your interpretation of the data?

Both Vranich's dissertation and Isbell (2004) conclude and directly state that this radiocarbon date demonstrates that the construction of of the Pumapunku began around at 1510 ±25 B.P. (A.D. 440; calibrated, A.D. 536–600). I am neither extrapolating nor making my own interpretation as you falsely claim. I am only reported first-hand the conclusions and interpretations from Vranich's dissertation.Paul H. (talk)

Then why do you only attribute this statement to only Isbell now and not Vranich being he is the one who provides the data? If the primary source says what you claim then why quote the secondary source? All you have given so far from Vranich is a carbon dating sample and the interpretation of that sample you now attribute to a secondary source, Isbell, si is this not exactly what I have been saying all along?Thanos5150 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You were obviously wrong before, which you admitted to, and what remains of this edit is questionable and as of yet not independently verifiable so all that is being asked of you is to provide some sort of publicly viewable source material for your claims.

Contrary to what you falsely claim above Vranich's dissertation is a independently verifiable source. Like many monographs, it availabe to the general public. It can be even purchase online as a PDF file. If you wanted to verify the radiocarbon date provided in you could do it and anyone else. As far as I am concerned, the claim that the information about the radiocarbon dates in Vranich's dissertation not being a public publicly viewable source material, not being independently verifiable, and "what remains of this edit is questionable" are deceptive falsehoods according to Wikipedia standards that you should stop repeating.

If you really wanted to, you could obtain copies of Vranich's dissertation and other sources and easily verify what I reported from them. However, all you can do fabricate misleading and bogus claims about my sources not being a public publicly viewable source material and not being independently verifiable. Instead of researching what is available about the Tiwanaku Site and the Pumapunka, you chose to simply to make completely speculative, undocumented, and deceptive claims about me using secondary sources.Paul H. (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd say by your recent edits you have once again proven me to be exactly correct. Nice going.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been asked this several times now, but all you seem to be capable of is making personal attacks and blustering on about "pseudoscience" that isn't even part of the discussion.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The material that I cited in independently verifiable. Constantly making completely false and deceptive claims about this material not being independently verifiable is not going to change that fact. The fact of the matter is that the sources that I cite can be obtained by anyone (even you), who wants to take the time and trouble, can acquired the sources that I cite. The material, like many other sources cited in Wikipedia is available for for a nominal price. I cannot send a free copy of Vrnaich because it is copyrighted material. Besides, it is not my duty to spoon-feed you everything want. If you want to contribute to an Wikipedia article, you need take the time and effort to conduct your own research as I have done.Paul H. (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you have once again proven me correct by your recent edits, and given your manically over the top defense of yourself and incessant and baseless derogatory claims against me personally, in my opinion this only further erodes your credibility as an editor and sane individual. For my part, I am done here with you. You were wrong about the facts in your edit by not even knowing which site was which that you have now admitted to. There WAS a secondary source as I said all along which you have now provided, Isbell, who was in fact apparently the source of the interpretation of Vranich's data and Vranich himself otherwise you would quote Vranich directly, all of which leaves little doubt the reference in question was copy and pasted from the Isbell or another's bibliography and not directly from Vranich. I could tell this by the way it was written as I had seen it before. What a maroon. And all of this only to prove my point Puma Punku is much older than the currently accepted 200B.C.. Thanks Paul. Good job.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A final thought I have on the matter is this whole rigmarole started for no other reason than my, Thanos5150, making an edit of a section that included alternative material. Clovispoint, Doug Weller, and Paul H were IMMEDIATELY on the case to revert my edits with no regard to why. But why did I edit it and why did they immediately knee-jerk revert my edits? The reason for the edit, to summarize for the 5th time, is 1) Paul H., as he has admitted, had the facts all wrong having imposed facts of Tiwanaku onto Pumu Punku and vise versa with the sole purpose to discredit Posnanky at length which he has made perfectly clear is his POV, one shared with D.W. and C.P.. Whether this was on purpose or an honest mistake, who is to say given Paul H.'s obvious disdain for any POV not his own. 2) It was a section about age, not a diatribe about why Posnanky may be wrong as it had turned into in which I CLEARLY said, this was inappropriate and beyond the scope of the section though I STRESSED the need to give a concise opposing argument to Posnanky. How does this in any way support Posnanky other than to limit the needless abundance of material to refute his ideas which could have ealy been reduced to a sentence or to and still provide the same effect? This is called good writing, not supporting a particular POV. 3) The references cited did not appear to be from the original source as claimed, but rather seemingly from a secondary source which was dubiously ignored and attributed to the primary source from the secondary sources own bibliography. Paul H. has since corrected this and only now attributes the edit to the secondary source in which the primary source is STILL not directly quoted which only gives further credence to this claim. Why would this be? Well, because as I have pointed out the Vranich dissertation is not a publicly available document and is only obtainable by purchase through a private source. This does not invalidate Vranich's dissertation as a source, in fact I suspect it is a great source, but the problem, as I stated, is that the claims made in the edit do not support this source having been quoted accurately if directly at all which given Paul H. having corrected the edit still only cites directly the secondary source, Isbell, it appears this assumption was correct.

So, in conclusion what we have are 3 "modern skeptic" editors who all share the same POV working in collusion to 1) suppress correction of erroneous facts that support their POV and/or disparage others , 2) ignore undue weight and off topic material that supports their POV with the sole purpose to disparage an alternative idea, and 3) allow the bibliographies of secondary sources to be passed off as primary sources without due diligence or correction. And yet lets see what words these editors, or to be fair Paul H., associates with me: "fabricate", "misleading", "bogus", "completely false and deceptive", "you chose to simply to make completely speculative, undocumented, and deceptive claims", "deceptive falsehoods", "Contrary to what you falsely claim", "as you incorrectly claim", "If you bother to examine the primary literature, instead of replying on often inaccurate popular sources and antiquate literature", and I could continue ad nauseam. In fact, if one were to remove all of these statements made by Paul H. it is hard to believe there would be anything left of what he has written which in the end leaves only the truth, which obviously doesn't sit too well with Paul H.. Good job fellas.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The entire time we have been arguing about this, I had always read the carbon date as "BC" not "BP", as in 3.500yrs ago, not 1500yrs ago. Whether I first read an early typo or my brain played a trick on my eyes (which I am perfectly willing to concede was the case) because Tiwanaku being dated to 1500BC it was logical this carbon date would coincide with that, several points I have made have revolved around this assumption, which strangely was never corrected in opposing arguments. 1500BC is a perfectly logical conclusion whereas, to me, 1500BP is completely ridiculous for one simple reason in that, for this to be true, the fact is mindbogglingly completely lost on anyone that this would make it one of the most amazing archeological sites on earth given the technology of construction and size of blocks used, not because it is so old, but because it is so young!!!. Accepting mainstream dating, humans had abandoned/lost this kind of architecture and technology for over 2000yrs prior and never used it again since and yet here sits at Puma Punku at "500AD" and this is not curious to anyone on any level? Really?

This can only mean one of two things: 1) the dating is completely wrong which is supported by the context of dating similar technology and construction found around the world not to mention S. America or Tiwanaku itself, common sense, and local myth, or 2) the Puma Punka culture miraculously "rediscovered" technology lost for over 2000yrs and as quickly as they "rediscovered" it it was lost just as quick never to be displayed anywhere else since. The fact is, to date Puma Punku to 500AD is as equally preposterous as to date it to 15,000BC because just as we are told there was no one capable 17,000 years ago able to build this monument, there was no one around in 500AD either given the overwhelming fact not one other site of the time displays the use of megaton stones. No where in the world do you find even close to this kind of megaton architecture at this time, let alone 2,000yrs prior or since. Every single South or Central American site of this time period used exclusively small cut blocks with any large blocks being only a few tons placed in strategic locations with singular purpose. Compare for example, Puma Punku to Chichen Itza dated to the same time-there is no comparison. I have been to both places and can tell you they are night and day. Chichen Itza is how peoples of this time built, not like Puma Punku. Compare Puma Punku to any construction anywhere on any continent of this time and there is no comparison. If we accept the date of 500AD, Puma Punku is literally one of a kind; a singular throwback to a construction style and technology that was lost for over 2,000yrs. Sorry, but there is no way.Thanos5150 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a terrible article

That focuses almost entirely on a fringe theory and contains tons of irrelevant facts and straight-up speculation. It was almost physically painful to read. --99.128.255.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Agreed, if you read this talk page you can probably guess why. You can edit this yourself even without an account, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very terrible indeed. It has devolved into a feud between a mere two people. I guess no one else cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.150.255.226 (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know."

Let's keep it factual here. The fact is we don't KNOW how old it was or how it was built. Everything at this point is theory. So lay out the theories and stop with the original research.

The age and engineering sections should be divided as follows:

Age: Unknown - Theory 1 - Theory 2 - Theory 3

How Pumapunku was built: Unknown - Theory 1 - Theory 2 - Theory 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.245.107 (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Age of Pumapunku Revisited

Recently, some comments concerning the age of Pumapunku were posted to the Wikipedia article about it at Pumapunku, Revision as of 00:44, 18 January 2011. These comments were removed because they consisted of a disjointed collection of fringe misinformation and misinterpretations about the Tiwanaku Site. The comments stated:

Although C14 testing of the oldest layer of sediments dates to 1510 B.P., a layer of limescale that covers the diorite blocks (which has to be scraped off with a knife), as well as tide marks on the surrounding cliffs indicate the entire site was submerged under water sometime after it's construction, which would date the site to some time during the last Ice Age (which contradicts contemporary archeology). A layer of sediment that surrounds the site, which extends to under the local railway, is rich in a multitude of mixed mammal bones & pearl shards, indicating that a large flood may have occurred some time after the structure was completed, and may have been the cause of it's destruction. This makes accurate dating of the site a difficulty for archeologists until more information emerges.

First, the comments that “a layer of limescale that covers the diorite blocks.” Looking through the detailed descriptions about Pumapunku that can be found in numerous published papers and monograph, i.e. Ponce Sanginés and Terrazas (1970), Protzen and Nair (2000), and Vranich (1995), a person finds first that the blocks of the Pumapunku consist of andesite and red sandstone instead of diorite. Furthermore, these papers clearly demonstrate that the blocks forming the Pumapunku lack any continuous layer of “limescale” that covers them as incorrectly stated in the above text. Because of the arid climate of the Tiwanaku region, it is possible that the buried and previously buried surfaces of the blocks might be coated with patches of caliche. Because caliche, also called either “petrocalcic horizon” or “calcrete,” forms over significant periods of time in the B Horizon of soils developed in sediments underlying subaerially exposed surfaces (Wright 2007, Wright and Tucker 1991), it is impossible to argue that such “limescale” is evidence of the Pumapunku having ever been submerged underwater.

Second, the above text stated; “tide marks on the surrounding cliffs indicate the entire site.” It is true that prominent white bands associated ancient water bodies can be seen along the edges of Lake Titicaca Basin. Detailed research conducted about the Quaternary geology and lakes of the Lake Titicaca Basin since Posnanky first noticed these white bands have demonstrated that the so-called “tide marks” are algal bioherms that formed along the shoreline of prehistoric Pleistocene lake levels that lie well below the level of the base of the Pumapunku and predate it by a considerable period of time (Rouchy et al. 1999). For example, the algal bioherms (“tide marks”) of Paleolake Minchin date to about 34,000 to 44,000 and 68,000 to 72,00 years ago. At this time, the lake levels of Paleolake (North) Minchin varies between 3815 and 3825 m in elevation. Thus, the maximum lake level of Paleolake (North) Minchin in the Lake Titicaca Basin once lay 19 m above the average modern lake level of Lake Titicaca at an elevation of 3806 m and 22 m below the elevation of the base of Pumapunku (Fornari et al. 2001). The algal bioherms of Paleolake Tauca date to 12,000 to 16,000 years ago (Rouchy et al. 1999). The Paleolake Tauca shorelines lie within in the lower and separate basin of Salar de Uyuni and once had a lake level elevation of 3780 m. The surface of Paleolake Tauca lay 26 m below the modern level of Lake Titicaca and 67 m below the elevation of the base of Pumapunku (Fornari et al. 2001). Therefore, the “tide marks” mentioned in the above text fail miserably and completely as evidence of the Pumapunku having ever been submerged at any time.

Finally, the text mentions a “...layer of sediment that surrounds the site, which extends to under the local railway, is rich in a multitude of mixed mammal bones & pearl shards...” An examination of any of the numerous published papers about the Tiwanaku Site reveals that the reported “layer of sediment” is likely only the midden deposits that are normally associated with an archaeological site such as the Tiwanaku Site. The physical characteristics of the midden deposits at the Tiwanaku Site readily refute the idea that they were deposited by any sort of "large flood". Fossil shells and bones can be found in the precultural, Pleistocene lacustrine sediments of Paleolake Ballivian that underlie the Tiwanaku Site (Clapperton 1993). However, Paleolake Ballivian dates to the Middle Pleistocene (Servant and Fontes 1978). As a result, any fossil shells and bones that it contains predate the Pumapunku and the rest of the Tiwanaku Site by at least 200,000 years. Given their age and stratigraphic position, they, along with the midden deposits, cannot be used to argue that the Pumapunku and the rest of the Tiwanaku Site was underwater at any time in the past.

References cited:

Clapperton, C.M., 1993, Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology of South America. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 779 pp.

Fornari M., F. Risacher, and G. Feraud, 2001, Dating of Paleolakes in the Central Altiplano of Bolivia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. vol. 172, no. 3, pp. 269-282.

Ponce Sanginés, C., and G. M. Terrazas, 1970, Acerca De La Procedencia Del Material Lítico De Los Monumentos De Tiwanaku. Publication no. 21. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia

Protzen, J.-P., and S.E.. Nair, 2000, On Reconstructing Tiwanaku Architecture: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 358-371.

Servant, M., and J. Ch. Fontes, 1984, Les basses terrasses fluviatiles du Quaternaire recent des Andes boliviennes. Datations par Ie 14C. Interpretation paleoclimatique. Cahiers ORSTOM, série Géologie. vol. 14, pp. 15-28.

Rouchy, J.M., M. Servant, M. Fournier, and C. Causse, 1999, Extensive carbonate algal bioherms in upper Pleistocene saline lakes of the central Altiplano of Bolivia. Sedimentology. vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 973-993.

Vranich, A., 1999, Interpreting the Meaning of Ritual Spaces: The Temple Complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania.

Wright, V.P., 2007, Calcrete. in D.J. Nash and S.J. McLaren, eds., pp. 10-45, Geochemical Sediments and Landscapes. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, New York, 488 pages, ISBN-13: 978-1405125192

Wright, V.P., and M.E. Tucker, 1991, Calcretes. IAS Reprint Series, vol. 2. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.Paul H. (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Age Revisited Part II

Age of an archaeological site may be determined from any and all of (a) carbon dating (b) astronomical alignment (c) thermoluminescence (d) dendrochronological (e) stratigraphic etc. and several more. A problem I see with the current article is that the age of the site in the article is based on a single paper -- by a single graduate student. I suspect the astronomical orientation date is not mentioned because it is so old. Yet Gobekli Tepe is currently dated at 11,500 BP and that is not considered controversial. I understand that unfortunately there is all kinds of breathless blather about aliens and other stuff related to Puma Punku from all kinds of pseudoscience web sites. That said, I think if the age of the site is to be referenced in the article, then the astronomical alignment papers should be referenced even though they give remarkably early dates.

We now have evidence (for example here that humans were already at Monte Verde in South America by 14,000 years ago and evidence here for humans in North America 14,000 years ago. There are even claims of dates for humans in the Americas as long ago as 30,000 to 60,000 years (see here).

I therefore think citing Posnansky should be considered as valid by wikipedia standards, and then stating that the age of Puma Punku is currently undetermined but that two separate dating techniques give ages of 15,000 BP versus 1,500 BP. Otherwise this is not WP:NPOV. In fact strictly speaking a 4 volume work by a full professor, validated by should outweigh a single paper by a single graduate student from the WP:NPOV perspective, even though the professor's date appears far less conservative. SunSw0rd (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Posnansky’s title of “professor” is an honorary title that was awarded him by decree by the German government in 1914. According to what I have been able to find, he was never a graduate student in archaeology. Posnansky was at various times an engineer, “manufacturing chemist,” explorer, ship’s navigator, “director of a river navigation company,” entrepreneur, and La Paz city council member. The only academic position that he held, which I can so far find, was Director of the National Museum. The published material that I have been able to find about him lacks any indication that he had any formal training in archaeology. He definitely did not have any access to modern methods of dating archaeological sites. According to a short biography that I have found, he received his education at a (German?) Naval Academy and, at best, was a self-taught, avocational archaeologist. Being an engineer, he did a marvelous job of mapping, measuring, drawing, and collecting information about the site, including its architecture. With one major exception, the cultural interpretations and other inferences that he published in Posnansky (1945), Tihuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, are regarded to be quite antiquated, based largely on speculation, and lack any credible supporting evidence. However, he did guess, likely correctly, that prehistoric climatic change was a major factor in the demise of Tiwanaku. The consensus of conventional, mainstream archaeologists is that later archaeological research has completely discredited his inferences about the age and identity of builders of the Tiwanaku Site (Kolata 1993).

Second, the “astronomical orientation” date of Posnansky (1945) is not mentioned mainly because overwhelming majority of professional archaeologists, i.e. Dr. Alan L. Kolata, Dr. D. L. Browman, Dr. J.-L. Protzen, Dr. W. H. Isbell, Dr. C. Ponce Sanginés, and others who have studied and written about the Tiwanaku Site regard Posnansky's dating of the Tiwanaku Site as being so badly flawed and lacking in any scientific rigor as to lack any credibility. Citing Posnansky's astronomical arguments as dating the age of Tiwanaku is identical to citing Lord Kelvin’s estimates of the age of the Earth. If this date is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, it should be also noted that like Lord Kelvin’s estimate of the age of the Earth, it validity is now overwhelming rejected by the scientific community on the basis of fatal flaws and errors in the assumptions and reasoning used by Posnansky (1945) in dating the site using astronomy (Kolata 1993).

Third, it is incorrect to say that the age of the Tiwanaku Site is based upon a single radiocarbon date. In fact, the age of this site is based upon at least 29 radiocarbon dates and on the basis of very distinctive pottery types that are found within archaeological deposits at the Tiwanaku Site (Kolata 1993, 2003). The details of these radiocarbon dates are listed in Ziólkowski et al. (1994). The significance of these radiocarbon dates is discussed in Analysis of Hancock's Position Statement on C-14 Dating by Garrett Fagan and An Answer to Graham Hancock by Garrett Fagan. The latter article lists 29 of the many radiocarbon dates that have been obtained from the Tiwanaku Site. The age ranges of the different pottery types found at the Tiwanaku Site are known from at least 130 radiocarbon dates from the archaeological deposits containing this pottery from numerous sites in the area of and including Tiwanaku (Augustyniak 2004).

Finally it is rather incorrect and somewhat demeaning to dismiss Dr. Alexei Vranich, as a "single graduate student." Dr. Vranich, is a well-trained and internationally well-respected professional archaeologist as can be seen in Interactive Dig at Tiwanaku by Dr. Vranich. If anything, he is infinitely more qualified as a professional archaeologist than Posnansky ever was. He has the formal training, experience, and understanding of archaeology, including proper ways to excavate, date, and interpret archaeological sites that Posnansky completely lacked. In terms of formal education, professional expertise, and recent research at the Tiwanaku Site, Dr. Vranich’s credentials far outweigh Posnansky's greatly disputed reputation among mainstream Andean archaeologists.

Augustyniak, S., 2005, Dating the Tiwanaku State: Analisis Cronologico del Estado Tiwanaku. Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena. vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 19-35.

Kolata, A. L., 1993, The Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Andean Civilization. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Kolata, Alan L., 2003, Tiwanaku and Its Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology of an Andean Civilization, Vol. 2. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Posnansky, A., 1945, Tihuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, Vols. I - II (Translated into English by James F. Sheaver), J. J. Augustin, Publ., New York, 1945; Vols. III - IV, Minister of Education, La Paz, Bolivia.

Ziólkowski, M., M. Pazdur, A. Krzanowski, and A. Michczynski, 1994, Andes. Radiocarbon database for Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. Andean Archaeological Mission of the Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University & Gliwice Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Institute of Physics, Silesian Technical University. Warszawa-Gliwice.Paul H. (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above then you should have no problem providing the appropriate citations for that section of the article. My criticism of the article is based on what it currently says and the current citations. I have no objection to you updating the article in the age section and providing the appropriate citations there.

Regarding however your comparison of Posnansky with Vranich it is not relevant. The citation is not to work that Vranich has done today, it is to his graduate thesis and thus to his experience at that point, and so therefore it is to that citation that I referred, and that alone. And for Posnansky -- the way to handle that is to cite him, then cite those who criticize him. Apparently his ideas were "common at that time" see here.

So rather than posting extensively here in talk, make the appropriate changes, with citations, to the age section of the article itself. Please provide the citations in the article (and not here) to those current mainstream archeologists specifying the age of the site and this will be effectively resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. Regards, SunSw0rd (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that Posnansky (1945)'s attempt at dating the Tiwanaku Site involved soley the Kalasasaya instead of the Pumapunku, it would be more appropriate that any discussion of his archaeoastronomical dating be added to either in the Tiwanaku article or the Kalasasaya article instead of the Pumapunku article. If a person looks through what he has written, he states nothing in terms of specific dating of the Pumapunku.

By the way, a detailed discussion of Posnansky (1945)'s attempt at dating the Tiwanaku Site can be found in Kelley and Milone (2002). They characterize his use of archaeoastronomical techniques to date the Tiwanakua Site as a "sorry example of misused archaeoastronomical evidence."

References Cited:

Kelley, D. H., and E. F. Milone, 2002, Exploring Ancient Skies An Encyclopedic Survey of Archaeoastronomy. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., New York, NY 616 pp.

Posnansky, A., 1945, Tihuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, Vols. I - II (Translated into English by James F. Sheaver), J. J. Augustin, Publ., New York, 1945; Vols. III - IV, Minister of Education, La Paz, Bolivia.Paul H. (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please then update the Age section with a couple of more sentences and some more citations? Can you use Kolata? Or Ziólkowski? Thank you. SunSw0rd (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I will start working on a revised Age section.Paul H. (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fictional claims of diorite and granite blocks in the Pumapunku

There are a number of web pages on the Internet, i.e. Anonymous (nd), exlexmk (nd), Nilsson (2009), and many others that state that stonework of the Pumapunku consists of granite, and diorite. All of these web pages are wrong about the composition of the stonework that forms part of the Pumapunku. It is well documented in the published literature, i.e. Ponce Sanginés and Terrazas (1970), Ponce Sanginés et al. (1971), and Vranich (1999), that neither granite nor diorite comprises the stonework of the Pumapunku. Instead, these and other papers clearly demonstrate that the stonework used in the Pumapunku consists of andesite (andesita) and red sandstone (arenisca roja). In addition, the published literature about the Tiwanaku Site also demonstrate that claims of 400 to 800 tons stone slabs existing at the Tiwanaku Site by many Internet web site are just as fictional and false as the claims that granite and diorite stonework comprise part of the Pumapunku. Unfortunately, the claims about granite and diorite stone blocks are only part of the many false claims made by many Internet web pages about the Pumapunku.

References Cited

Anonymous, nd, Ancient aliens | The Puma Pimka Ruins. Extra-Terrestrial community.

exlexmk, nd, The Mystery PUMA PUNKU, Youtube

Nilsson, 2009, Puma Punku built by alien visitors

Ponce Sanginés, C. and G. M. Terrazas, 1970, Acerca De La Procedencia Del Material Lítico De Los Monumentos De Tiwanaku. Publication no. 21. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia

Ponce Sanginés, C., and others, 1971, Procedencia de las areniscas utilizadas en el templo precolombino de Pumapunka (Tiwanaku). Publicación no. 22. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia. 341 pp.

Vranich, A., 1999, Interpreting the Meaning of Ritual Spaces: The Temple Complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania.Paul H. (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul, it's obvious that your primary objective here is not to update and improve the article, but rather to discredit the so-called "Ancient Astronaut" theory. It's interesting that, as a geoscientist, you jump directly to calling the claims "fictional" and cite resources that are a decade or even several decades old, instead of doing a bit more research into the current findings on the subject. Firstly, you have to keep in mind that scientists, even those openly associated with the "Ancient Astronaut" theory, are credible researchers - their findings are no less valid than any others. Secondly, the "Ancient Astronaut" theory has received widespread media coverage, and Pumapunku in particular has been the subject of several articles/programs, most recently, History Channel's "Ancient Aliens." It is NOT a fringe concept addressed only in dark corners of the internet. That said, mainstream archaeology now acknowledges that the ruins of Pumapunku ARE constructed primarily from diorite and granite. The only reason that the stones were intitially believed to be red sandstone was that there were no known diorite or granite quarries at the time. It has since been discovered that there are substantial diorite/granite deposits that had been quarried approximately 50-60 miles from Pumapunku, which archaeologists now believe were the source of the stones. Red sandstone (presumed to have been quarried from the Lake Titicaca site) was indeed used in the construction of the main Tiahuanaco complex. I have a couple acquaintances who are experts in the fields of geology and archaeology, who've actually been to Pumapunku and studied the ruins in person. They claim that there have been MANY discrepancies in previous research, and that the ruins have proven to be far more mysterious than anything they've previously encountered (and they don't even subscribe to the "Ancient Astronaut" theory). Why not try and do something constructive for this article; find some current references. Zargabaath 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what you want to believe to be true, the claims that Pumapunku is constructed primarily from diorite and granite are indeed completely false This conclusion is well documented in both old and recent peer-reviewed publications, which were authored by well-trained and experienced geologists and archaeologists. In addition, geologists and archaeologists, whom I have contacted about this topic over the years and who have worked the site, have also confirmed that the Pumapunku is constructed primarily from andesite and red sandstone. I can see how nonscientists, who know little if anything about geology, can be utterly confused about terminology and incorrectly label andesite as diorite. In popular websites and documentaries, such mistakes are common and forgivable. However, just because web sites and television documentaries are hopelessly confused about the difference between andesite and diorite does not change the facts as reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There are a few scattered blocks of granite present in the Tiwanaku Site. However, the granite blocks comprise only part of a few drains and are an insignificant part of any structure at this site. I have not yet found in the published literature any mention of such blocks being part of the Pumapunku. Given that a person would have to be completely illiterate in their understanding of geology to misidentify granite, using both hand specimen and petrographic thin sections, as red sandstone, it is extremely unlikely that this has happened in case of the well-trained and experienced archaeologists and geologists who have studied the Pumapunku. If Zargabaath would research what has been published in the peer-reviewed literature, he would find that the claim that “mainstream archaeology now acknowledges that the ruins of Pumapunku ARE constructed primarily from diorite and granite” is also a utterly false claim. According to even recently published peer-reviewed publications, mainstream archaeologists and geologists still agree that the Pumapunku is built primarily of red sandstone and andesite. The claims that this structure is composed of diorite and granite are indeed nothing more than fiction that gets mindlessly repeated on fringe web pages and sometimes carelessly included in television “documentaries.” That, according to the above comment, the History Channel's "Ancient Aliens" has incorrectly reported this folklore as fact only demonstrates how error-prone and lacking in reliability and credibility that television "documentaries" often are. This has nothing to with what I or anyone else thinks of Ancient Astronauts. It is about Wikipedia not being a place for repeating scientifically bankrupt and illiterate claims that are soundly refuted by published peer-reviewed literature even if they carelessly make their way into a television “documentary.“ Paul H. (talk)

Architectural cramps

Wolfsangel? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)