Jump to content

Talk:Pumapunku

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Retinoblastoma (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 12 June 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Regarding material science section

I added a section about the material science perspectives on the Pumapunku site. These perspectives are different to what has been previously inferred by archeologists, but not less legitimate. They are affiliated to bona-fide research institutions, they have employed scientific rigor, they've had their research peer reviewed, they've published their research in bona-fide journals, they have been cited. This is not pseudoscience, please refrain from treat it as such. This edit was not inspired from late-night History Channel content.

--Retinoblastoma (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Why did you removed the "liquid stone hypothesis" section? It doesn't matter if this theory is true or false. Materials Letters and Protzen are definitely reliable sources. If an other author publishes a "debunking" which says "this is completely bullshit" because of "reasons X-Y-Z" of course it will be mentioned too. Furthermore, there is no reason to remove the documentation of this historic hypothesis of the theory by Protzen.--JonskiC (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the material science section. It is based on published research that meets all the criteria for citation. It is not fringe theory despite the repeated, unsubstantiated claims from certain users. Do you also happen to be skeptical of cement and concrete? Were the buildings in your city built by carving stones? Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed of Unreliable and Refuted Fringe Material From "Age" Section

In the Revision of 17:58, August 10, 2012], I removed text that consisted of an odd mixture of highly questionable and completely discredited claims of dubious reliability.

Claim #1. The Gateway of the Sun at Tiwanaku is precisely aligned to the solar events around 15,000 BC. – Arthur Posnansky, who claimed that Tiwanaku dated to 15,000 BC, did not use the Gateway of the Sun to date the Pumapunku. Instead, he argued that various parts of the Kalasasaya were erected when the obliquity of the ecliptic was 23°8"48', which he stated indicated a date of 15,000 BC. Archaeologists, who have later reviewed his arguments, concluded that they were invalid as they were a "sorry example of misused archaeoastronomical evidence." Go read:

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.

Also, visitors in the 1800s found the Gateway of the Sun broken and shifted from its original position. It was later re-erected in its current position. It is impossible for it to have been used to date the Tiwanaku Site using its position.

Claim #2. Tiahuanacu is a port with wharfs. – This claim is nothing more than speculation by Arthur Posnansky for which he failed to provide any credible supporting evidence or arguments. There is a complete lack of any support, which can be found in reliable, mainstream, peer-reviewed literature, for either the presence of wharfs at the Tiahuanacu or Tiahuanacu ever having been a port. In addition, at no time during the last 98,000 years was the level of Lake Titicaca anywhere near the elevation of Tiwanaku. For example, Lake Minchin (44,000 - 34,000 BP at its youngest) only reached an elevation of of 3,825 meters asl, which is 15 meters (49 ft) below the level of Tiwanaku. Also, go see the references in Claim #3.

Claim #3. Yellow-white calcareous deposits from long, straight lines indicating pre-historic water levels. – Yes, these deposits are shorelines. However, they belong to various prehistoric lake levels (stages) of Lake Titicaca that have occupied the Tinajani Basin over the last 14 million years. These shorelines belong to Lake Mataro (Late Pliocene ?), Lake Cabana (Middle Pleistocene ?), Lake Ballivián (120,000 and 98,000 BP), and Lake Minchin (72,000 - 68,000 BP and 44,000 - 34,000 BP). For more information, go read:

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

Rouchy, J. M., M. Servant, M. Fournier, and C. Causse, 1996, Extensive carbonate algal bioherms in Upper Pleistocene saline lakes of the central Altiplano of Bolivia: Sedimentology 43(6):973–993.

Placzek, C., J. Quade, and P. J. Patchett, 2006, Geochronology and stratigraphy of Late Pleistocene lake cycles on the Southern Bolivian Altiplano: implications for causes of tropical climate change. Geological Society of America Bulletin 118(5-6):515–532.

Fritz, S. C., P. A. Baker, P. Tapia, T. Spanbauer, and K. Westover, 2012, Evolution of the Lake Titicaca basin and its diatom flora over the last ~370,000 years. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 317-318:93-103.

Claim #4. These ancient shorelines are strangely tilted. – There is nothing strange about how these lake shorelines became tilted. The distortion in the shorelines is the result of local differences in isostatic rebound of the crust beneath the ancient Pleistocene pluvial lakes after the weight of their water was removed. The reason for the tilting of these shorelines is discussed in:

Bills, B. G., S. L. de Silva, D. R. Currey, R. S. Emenger, K. D. Lillquist, A. Donnellan, and B. Worden, 1994, Hydro‐isostatic deflection and tectonic tilting in the central Andes: Initial results of a GPS survey of Lake Minchin shorelines. Geophysical Research Letters. vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 293-296.

Claim #5. The surrounding area is covered with millions of fossilized sea-shells. – This is true. However, these are Middle Cretaceous and Devonian marine fossils that are part of the local folded and faulted bedrock. As a result, they are completely meaningless in terms of either dating either Tiwanaku or interpretating paleoenvironmental changes associated with it. A person would have to presume that Tiwanaku was built by either dinosaurs or armored fishes to argue that these seashells are associated with it in any fashion. Go read:

Newell, N. D., 1949, Geology of the Lake Titicaca region, Peru and Bolivia. Memoir no. 36. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

Claim #6. That tremendous uplift, which geologists estimate that this happened roughly around "100 million years ago," of land has taken place sometime in the ancient past. – As previously noted, these shorelines are those of pluvial glacial lakes. They reflect lake level changes resulting from climate change and the distorting effects of local isostatic rebound. Only to a limited degree do they reflect the ongoing regional tectonic uplift of the Andes. The basin, in which Lake Titicaca lies, has been in existence for about the last 15 million years. Go see:

Marocco, R., R. Baudino, and A. Lavenu, 1995, Intermontane Late Paleogene–Neogene Basins of the Andes of Ecuador and Peru: Sedimentologic and Tectonic Characteristics. in A.J. Tankard, R. Suárez Soruco, and H.J. Welsink, eds., pp. 597-613, Petroleum basins of South America: Memoir no. 62. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Bills, B. G., S. L. de Silva, D. R. Currey, R. S. Emenger, K. D. Lillquist, A. Donnellan, and B. Worden, 1994, Hydro‐isostatic deflection and tectonic tilting in the central Andes: Initial results of a GPS survey of Lake Minchin shorelines. Geophysical Research Letters. vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 293-296

Claim #7. toxodons and elephants are illustrated in carvings at Pumapunku – There is a lack of any credible source demonstrating that toxodons and elephants are illustrated in carvings at Pumapunku. This is simply speculation supported by fringe sources.

7. In the layers of rock that date to the same time, now-extinct species of plants and animals can be found mixed in with human skeletal remains. – There is a lack of any credible source that documents that the remains of now-extinct species of plants and animals were found mixed in with human skeletal remains.

and in previous edits, 8. stone was dated using C14 at Pumapunku. – Vranich did not radiocarbon date stone. Go see:

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

By the way, part of the material, which I removed, seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a fringe web page "Port of Puma Punka" or another website with the same text. Paul H. (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even this nonsense is part of its history. Kortoso (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claim #8 Andesite carved with stone pounding and polishing with abrasives. The Peer reviewers have discounted their validity with this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CD01:603:ECC8:3DB1:9CC2:C39A (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How old is this ?

After reading the age section I cannot yet understand how old is this place, can someone please fix this ? NN BC or NN AD thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.55 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says ", the stonework must have been constructed sometime after CE 536–600". I'm sure you know what CE means, and you might want to read WP:ERA. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it means... common era/Christian era/cheeseburger era. its an alternate age denotation that's interchangeable with a.d. aka latin gibberish for "in the year of are lord". that said, it should be written xxxx ce. as writing it ce xxxx is a throw back to a.d. xxxx; as in "in the year of are lord, xxxx" so no... not only do people not know what ce means, they don't even know how to use it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.252.232 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it, but in fact our guideline says "AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD)" - but only AD. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's "our Lord," not "are Lord." GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

radiocarbon date clearly stated that it was constructed around 536–600 AD. I guess, it's not really impossible to achieve the precision. Some Youtube clips stated it's constructed 12000 years ago, but it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.8.38 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot radio carbon date stone. 86.140.5.124 (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The article doesn't suggest anyone did. Read it and you'll see what was carbon dated. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article says "536–600 AD (1510 ±25 B.P. C14, calibrated date)". But the B.P. given in parenthesis does not correspond to the AD dates given. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have some nice pictures

I have some pictures, taken by me, that show the great level of precision in the cutting of the stone. I dont know how to attach them (i leave it up to some of you) boricmk@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.123.94 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 3, 2016 - Ongoing vandalism to Pumapunku

Since June 28, 2016, there has been ongoing vandalism by editors 69.63.83.102, 108.195.128.57, and 155.229.209.58 to the opening paragraph of Pumapunku. Someone needs to do something about it. There is a need to semi-protect / protect this article. Paul H. (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Running list: Special:Contributions/4.15.163.43, Special:Contributions/45.21.46.49, Special:Contributions/63.92.245.9, Special:Contributions/68.165.44.99, Special:Contributions/69.63.83.102, Special:Contributions/108.195.128.57, Special:Contributions/108.253.200.195, Special:Contributions/155.229.209.58, Special:Contributions/162.254.216.58, Special:Contributions/209.36.32.253, Special:Contributions/216.3.116.243...
They've (by which I mean gender-neutral singular because I'm believe it's the same person) also been screwing up Amen, Nyx, Lilith, Belial, Lucifer, and other articles. Looking up the addresses on whatismyipaddress.com reveals different ISPs and in one case different locations, but the contributions reveal that they go through a cycle. They may be using a VPN for the NY IP (which is the only one that they seem to be sharing with anyone else), otherwise they're all near LA. Although I'm gonna be useless for at least a week starting tomorrow, I'm gonna leave those IP contribs pages open in other tabs, and if any of them start to act up again, I'm thinking it's reasonable to block all of those addresses accordingly (they appear to be the same user). This could result in a touch of escalation but if it's quick and consistent it might nip the problem in the bud. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, 4.15 went after Erebus again. Blocked all of them for two weeks to match Materialscientist's block on 108.195. I'm not going to protect the page because either this should solve the problem or we'll find more addresses (and thus more articles this vandal has screwed up). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found Special:Contributions/63.92.245.9. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand Special:Contributions/45.21.46.49, Special:Contributions/68.165.44.99, Special:Contributions/108.253.200.195, Special:Contributions/209.36.32.253, and Special:Contributions/216.3.116.243.
The last few haven't been active for over a week, though... And I'm getting kinda hungry. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same edits to this article have just been made as Special:Contributions/67.142.203.140. They have been reverted by another editor, thankfully. Paul H. (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just got back from lunch. Looks like blocking all of the IPs just isn't an option. Page protected. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pumapunku stonework

In July 31, 2016 edit comments, it was stated (with obscenity censored): "Actual facts not bull xxxx from a documentary."

The information about the composition of the stonework at the Pumapunku does not come from a "documentary" as is incorrectly claimed the above July 31, 2016 edit comments, identification of rock types come from Ponce Sanginés and Terrazas (1970). In addition, Posnansky (1957) lacks any mention of "diorite" being present at the Pumapunku. He correctly identifies the rock types that comprise stonework at the Pumapunku as sandstone and andesite.

References cIted:

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.

Posnansky, A., 1957, Tihuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, Vols. II - IV. (Translated into English by James F. Sheaver), J. J. Augustin, Publ., New York and Minister of Education, La Paz, Bolivia.

A 2013, English language paper is:

Janusek, J. W., P. R. Williams, M. Golitko, and C. L. Aguirre, 2013, Building Taypikala: Telluric Transformations in the Lithic Production of Tiwanaku. In N. Tripcevich and K.J. Vaughn (eds.), Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes, 65 Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-5200-3_4, pp. 65-97.

It summarizes the research concerning the lithology of the rocks used to build the structures in Tiwanaku and their source quarries. One interesting note is that natural blocks created by tectonic jointing were used to save the effort of quarrying rectangular blocks of stone that were modified to the required size and shape. Paul H. (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The unsourced changes by self-proclaimed expert reverted (by another editor who is faster than I am). --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I found a PDF file of the above paper at either Building Taypikala: (Researchgate) or Janusek et al (2013) PDF file. Paul H. (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek

Much has been written about 'alien' involvement in this thing, given that technology to produce such precision work did not appear for thousands of years after this. Comparable cuts with lasers and modern diamond cutters have been unable to reproduce the precise planes and angles of any of these stones. Then you have the question of transportation (assuming they were prefabricated elsewhere and brought to the site). The entire area is above the treeline. No trees have ever grown there, which rules out the only, obvious technique of rolling. Not saying we need an 'alien' section 😀 - but maybe a quick mention that this has been hypothesised? Hanoi Road (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we need such a section. If reliable sources report about those pseudoscientific theories (which they do) we have to report about them too. In all cases those pseudoscientific theories belog to the history of this monument. I will see what i can do.--JonskiC (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"mysterious technology"

I attempted to clean up this article but left it for later as it has so very many problems. It reads like a normal archaeological article was invaded by von Daniken. There are sentences that make no sense, like the one in the first section about other sites in Bolivia having no historical signifigance and Pumapunku being known from the 17th century???? And the construction methods section asserts falsely that the methods are unknown, that the quality of the work could not be achieved with the stonework methods available to indigenous people, etc. Since I'm not going to work on this till later, I'm sticking this debunking link here for future reference: https://www.ancientaliensdebunked.com/puma-punku Lucy Kemnitzer (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Lucy Kemnitzer[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pumapunku&oldid=1028158533"