Archaeologica.org

http://www.maa.uw.edu.pl/polski/baza_da ... blems.html

Concluding remarks
The problems presented above concern the process of collecting radiocarbon dates and the various limitations concerning the possibilitiess of their use for forming chronological scales, might give the impression of denigrating the C14 method itself and the reliability of the results. Omitting the question of various corrections and associated question of the exactness of the measurement itself in conventional radiocarbon years, especially discouraging seems to be some of the results of calibration, where we obtain a range of perhaps 800 years and not only for the dating of layers from the early Preceramic or Palaeo- Indian phases, but from about 2500 BP (see e.g., the dating TK-344 in the Peru section). Have we in creating our database and critically examining the data collected here unwittingly provided arguments for those archaeologists who question the usefulness of the C14 absolute dating method? It seems to me that from a certain moment archaeologists began to expect too much of the C14 method, treating it as a „deus ex machina” (nomen omen) completely authoritative in questions of chronology. In such a situation successive corrections and qualifications in the interpretation of the results of the radiocarbon dating created disappointment which in turn created distrust. This was perhaps more an emotional than analytical approach to the problem. We all are aware for example that such fundamental techniques such as stratigraphy also hold many surprises, and we often have to alter some earlier interpretations. Nobody however has questioned the sense of using the stratigraphic method in fieldwork and the interpretation of the results of excavations. Our approach to C14 dating should be similar, especially now in a situation where we are acquiring successive improvements in the dendrochronological calibration and it is now beginning to regain the trust of investigators.

This is a report on the dating techniques used concerning Andean civilizations. The C14 dates that are often used were from testing in the 1960s, which is as early as the C14 test itself. Many methods of taking samples then are no longer employed.

It was a surprise to me that early dendrochronology tests failed to account for the fact that Bolivia is in the southern hemisphere.

Yes, that is interesting. Certainly there is no question that the technique has been constantly refined since the earliest use of C14. In the Old World, as memory serves, C14 was used to date the contents of the tomb of a known pharoah with dates which could be cross-referenced through written sources.

I wonder if they had that same level of certainty for New World dating?

Minimalist wrote:You know, Beags, something about the 400 ton stones at Tiahuanaco makes me wonder WHY? Just like in Egypt or Baalbek.

There is absolutely no reason to use stones that big and, since they had to be quarried and dressed, one has to reach the conclusion that a conscious decision was made to do so. Smaller stones work just fine. As the Romans proved, bricks work just fine.

Why cut a 400 ton stone? It is almost as if they had a means of moving such a weight easily.

Boy it makes me wonder too! So far as I know, there aren't any stones there anywhere near that size. Oh, I can see claims on various esoteric sites, but not on any serious sites.

From: "Bu Hao" <B...@Hao.com>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, alt.archaeology
Date: 5 Mar 1999 07:58:09 GMT

Mystery of mysteries,
It's a wonder to relate-
The Mussolini monolith
Moved in nineteen twenty eight


'Twas a team of sixty oxen
That had moved the mighty weight
Just like Henry's massive statue
Set in place eighteen-o-eight


Then there was the Empress Catherine
With a stone twelve hundred tons
Dragged for miles on a sledge
But we've only just begun...


Tools were found at several sites
High-tech tools of stone and horn
Which cut out massive blocks of stone
'ere the first Pharaoh was born


The megaliths still bear the marks
Of these humble, fragile tools
Fifty thousand sites in Europe
Still marveled at by fools...


Better yet, they've found the rope
Under several stones that fell
The very ropes that dragged the stones
Have been dated pretty well


Obelisks were raised in France
In the sixteenth century
The details are on record
At the Pontiff's library


Those records are detailed enough-
So clear for all to see
That they were used as reference
Back in eighteen thirty three


When Luxor's obelisk was set
By France's Louis ten
Egyptians set it up at first
Louis set it up again


Megaliths of massive size
Have been found the world round
In Korea, China, Micronesia,
Many megaliths were found


The Greeks and Romans moved huge stones
As in Borneo and France
Belgium, England, and the Yucatan
And Eurasia's vast expanse


All saw megalithic work
Done with ropes and human sweat
Is the mystery any clearer now?
Or don't you get it yet?


The Bougon stone was dragged and set
By a team of willing men
On wooden rollers, wooden rails
And they'd do it all again


But that was nineteen seventy nine
In a dim and distant age
That technology must be long lost
Beyond the ken of any sage


Perhaps the stone of eighty-five
Could offer up some hints
To a person that would take them
To a person with some sense


Perhaps the extant records
Of the stones set in Japan
Would give a tiny little clue
To a reasonable man


First-hand accounts from Borneo
Dated nineteen fifty-nine
Might make some small impression
Even on a clueless mind


Madagascar's mighty stones
Are of very recent date
Europeans there took photos
And it pains me to relate


That all these facts are widely known
And they have been known for years
It's really not a secret, bud
Despite the tripe one hears


Are the castles throughout Europe
All a source of wonder too?
Check the sizes of the stones
And perhaps you'll get a clue...


Lots of men and lots of rope
Back in Neolithic times
Set up a stone, three hundred tons
But I'm wasting all my rhymes...


Buy a "mystery" in the grocery store
For a dollar ninety-eight
And by all means, enjoy it,
But don't give it any weight


Selling "mysteries" is too lucrative
For those jerks to tell the truth
Do a half an hour's research
And I think you'll find the proof
Kindly send your hate by e-mail
'Cause I'm finished with this thread
It's a waste of time to argue
With the hopelessly brain-dead...


\..\
/../
\..\
(o o)
\. ./
\
^


We PREFER to be called "Intellectually Challenged."

Ouch! That was hard to read. I hate poetry. Sounds like a burn though. People do try to make things much more complicated than they really are. How big would a stone have to be to weigh 400 tons?

1/3 the size of this.

Another even larger stone lies in a limestone quarry a quarter of a mile from the Baalbek complex. Weighing an estimated 1200 tons, it is sixty-nine feet by sixteen feet by thirteen feet ten inches, making it the single largest piece of stonework ever crafted in the world. Called the Hajar el Gouble, the Stone of the South, or the Hajar el Hibla, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, it lays at a raised angle with the lowest part of its base still attached to the quarry rock as though it were almost ready to be cut free and transported to its presumed location next to the other stones of the Trilithon.

Why these stones are such an enigma to contemporary scientists, both engineers and archaeologists alike, is that their method of quarrying, transportation and precision placement is beyond the technological ability of any known ancient or modern builders. Various ‘scholars’, uncomfortable with the notion that ancient cultures might have developed knowledge superior to modern science, have decided that the massive Baalbek stones were laboriously dragged from the nearby quarries to the temple site. While carved images in the temples of Egypt and Mesopotamia do indeed give evidence of this method of block transportation - using ropes, wooden rollers and thousands of laborers - the dragged blocks are known to have been only 1/10th the size and weight of the Baalbek stones and to have been moved along flat surfaces with wide movement paths. The route to the site of Baalbek, however, is up hill, over rough and winding terrain, and there is no evidence whatsoever of a flat hauling surface having been created in ancient times.

Of course, if one is wedded to the status quo, it is simply easier to deny their existence.

I got the red X in a box, but I know what stone you're talking about now. Who are you quoting there and do they know WTF they're talking about? Is it Hancock? How do you weigh a rock that's still attached to the ground?

Do I gather we agree that no one has presented evidence for 400 ton stones at Tiwanaku?

As for Baalbek, evidence would help there as well.

They failed to be able to move the biggest stone, right?
The 3 they moved weighed about 800 tons each, pretty big.

But uphill? No, downhill, although not a lot, just about 15 meters. Straightline they would have had to move them 600 meters, to get around a ditch, 1100 meters. I don't see why anyone should think the Romans needed special secret knowledge to move the stones.

The problem here is that these fanciful claims rely upon 2 sources, a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" -- both written before any serious work was done at Baalbek.

DougWeller wrote:Do I gather we agree that no one has presented evidence for 400 ton stones at Tiwanaku?

As for Baalbek, evidence would help there as well.

They failed to be able to move the biggest stone, right?
The 3 they moved weighed about 800 tons each, pretty big.

But uphill? No, downhill, although not a lot, just about 15 meters. Straightline they would have had to move them 600 meters, to get around a ditch, 1100 meters. I don't see why anyone should think the Romans needed special secret knowledge to move the stones.

The problem here is that these fanciful claims rely upon 2 sources, a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" -- both written before any serious work was done at Baalbek.

I just ran a search for Puma Punko and found multiple references to one particular 440 ton stone at Tiahuanaco. You can use Google, too. Look it up. Hancock makes the same reference and footnotes it with a book on Bolivia but it is difficult to tell if he is citing that particular stone or something else.

As for Baalbek, I apologize that the link did not come through on the original post....I'm usually less careless than that.

Anyway:

http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/ ... aalbek.htm

What in the hell is wrong with you people from THOM?

Would you PLEASE exercise a little impulse control and leave this topic alone until we are finished.

Don't you have any manners at all?

When we're done, I don't mind if every one of you come in and have a good old-fashioned Nazi book burning.

Your behavior doesn't speak well for you or your website.

Ouch!

I am interested in all this, of course, and I looked a pictures from
Tiwanako, but I still don't know which stone was supposed to weight 440 tons. Is it the one the steps are carved into?

This is Puma Punku, theorized to be a wharf complex from a time when Lake Titicaca actually reached Tiahuanaco.



That sucker in the top rear corner looks pretty big.

I'm gonna post once more and call it a night.

This forum just added 5 new very nice people who want to talk about these various subjects.

And they see these ridiculous web site "panty raids" going on.
What are they to think? I'll be surprised if they think THOM has any professional people over there.

NOT cool people - not cool.

: members.cox.net/.../ inca/day12_Tiwanaku.htm

Here's a nice chapter on Tihuanaco with pictures by a guy who read FOTG:

Please double check the link, Stan.

Minimalist wrote:

DougWeller wrote:Do I gather we agree that no one has presented evidence for 400 ton stones at Tiwanaku?

As for Baalbek, evidence would help there as well.

They failed to be able to move the biggest stone, right?
The 3 they moved weighed about 800 tons each, pretty big.

But uphill? No, downhill, although not a lot, just about 15 meters. Straightline they would have had to move them 600 meters, to get around a ditch, 1100 meters. I don't see why anyone should think the Romans needed special secret knowledge to move the stones.

The problem here is that these fanciful claims rely upon 2 sources, a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" -- both written before any serious work was done at Baalbek.

I just ran a search for Puma Punko and found multiple references to one particular 440 ton stone at Tiahuanaco. You can use Google, too. Look it up. Hancock makes the same reference and footnotes it with a book on Bolivia but it is difficult to tell if he is citing that particular stone or something else.

As for Baalbek, I apologize that the link did not come through on the original post....I'm usually less careless than that.

Anyway:

http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/ ... aalbek.htm

I used Google too, and found nothing that looked like a scientific report that mentioned the stone. That doesn't mean there is on.
And your sacredsites url isn't any better -- it clearly doesn't like 'scholars'.!