<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Puma Punku<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Sources at the bottom of the screen<\/p>\n
Section: Pumapunku<\/p>\n
Ancient Aliens: \u201cPumapunku is so unique in the way it was constructed and shaped and positioned that it is the most intriguing ancient site on the planet.\u201d<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cWhile the pyramids at Giza are an incredible feat of achieved, compared to Pumapunku, the pyramids are child\u2019s play.\u201d<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cIn my opinion, the most significant piece of evidence that we have in this entire ancient alien astronaut puzzle is Pumapunku in the highland of Bolivia.\u201d<\/p>\n
Well, if Pumapunku is considered such good evidence for the Ancient Astronaut theory, we should probably start by looking at it. After all, it\u2019s the one that they say was built directly by extra-terrestrials.<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cPumapunku is the only site on planet Earth that, in my opinion, was built directly by extraterrestrials.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ancient Aliens starts off with a false dilemma by making people think that it was absolutely impossible for ancient people to construct Pumapunku, even to the point of making outright false claims.<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cOne of the most intriguing thing there is it that the stones that were used there weren\u2019t sandstone, they\u2019re granite and diorite. The only stone that is harder than diorite is diamond, so the only way this could have been achieved is if the tools were tipped with diamonds.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is funny because it\u2019s totally wrong, the stones are not granite or diorite at Pumapunku, they are Red Sandstone and Andesite[1][2][3], but this is also funny because of the way he says it.<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cThe stones that were used there weren\u2019t sandstone, they\u2019re granite and diorite.\u201d<\/p>\n
Well yeah, actually it is sandstone. You can\u2019t blame him though for it becomes obvious that throughout the series he often just repeats things he has heard in Eric Von Daniken\u2019s books. Von Daniken\u2019s books are what the Ancient Aliens series is based on. Later we see Eric Von Daniken himself make the exact same, totally wrong claim.<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cOf course [Pumapunku was] made out of stones found on Earth, because you don\u2019t transport granite or diorite from another solar system.\u201d<\/p>\n
Von Daniken continues building up this false dilemma:<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cOne of these platforms is 800 tons.\u201d<\/p>\n
That is very incorrect, the heaviest block at Pumapunku is 130 tons[4], and most of the stones are much smaller than that. So he is off by a whopping 670 tons! Unfortunately we will come to expect this kind of thing from Von Daniken as we progress.<\/p>\n
Ancient Aliens spends quite a lot of time pointing out the various features in the stone masonry at Pumapunku before declaring it impossible to do without power tools.<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cEach of these small drills holes are basically evenly spaced along this routed groove. To me it\u2019s clear that power tools have been used on this unusual block of stone here.\u201d<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cThis surface is as smooth as a table top, like in your kitchen. There\u2019s no wave to it. This was machined.\u201d<\/p>\n
The sandstone and andesite stones at Pumapunku would have been easily worked with the most basic stone working tools[5][6], the idea that diamond tipped power saws were needed is ridiculous. The red sandstone was relatively soft and easy to work with, and even though andesite is pretty hard, because of the way it cooled it could be easily flaked off using stones as soft as 5.5 on the Mohs scale.[7] Such pounding stones were found all over andesite quarries in the area.[8]<\/p>\n
Contrary to Ancient Aliens\u2019 claims that archeologists are baffled by Pumapunku, Archeologists know the basics about how Pumapunku\u2019s stones were cut and shaped.[9][10] This is partly because there is evidence for this all over the site itself.<\/p>\n
They actually used a method that almost all ancient stone workers used. They used hard -pounding stones to pound out troth like depressions; later on they used flat stones and sand to grind the stone to make a polished surface.[11] We will see later on that this is also how the Egyptians, 1000\u2019s of years before this, made their flat surfaced granite monuments like obelisks.[12]<\/p>\n
Sand, as we will see later when we look at Egypt, has extremely hard particles in it and, if placed between a flat surface and a rock, can polish even the hardest stones known to man. In fact, the harder the stone is the better it can be polished using sand.[13]<\/p>\n
We will also see that how sand can turn a piece of copper into a very efficient granite saw or granite drill \u2013 a method which the Egyptians utilized quite well.[14]<\/p>\n
Some stones at Pumapunku that Ancient Aliens would never show the cameras are the ones that were in the middle of this process. They show that at the same time a stone was being pounded by stone hammers, which created these troth like depressions, the grinding and polishing was taking place on the other end of the stone.[15] Unfinished stones like this one clearly show how they were shaped \u2013 and it wasn\u2019t with lasers.<\/p>\n
There is also unmistakable evidence of stone hammers having been used in the places that were never meant to be visible, like where certain stones would be connected with one another.[16] And because of that, it\u2019s hard for me to believe Eric Von Daniken\u2019s next claim, because it would mean that the alien tool box had a laser gun right next to a stone hammer.<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cExtraterrestrials arrive; the spaceship stands in orbit. Only a small spaceship can stand, like a space shuttle. So, to protect their instruments they (the aliens) make, overnight, with their technology, what we call a base camp. Of course [this was] made out of stones found on Earth, because you don\u2019t transport granite or diorite from another solar system. Then they disappeared, but the wall of their base camp is still there.\u201d<\/p>\n
It is true that stone tools would not be enough to construct Pumapunku, especially for some of the finer points. For those they would need metal chisels, and the equivalent of a carpenter\u2019s square.[17]<\/p>\n
Entire studies have detailed how these cuts were made, and nothing spectacular is required except some metal tools like chisels.[18] The arguments against this are usually either that a particular culture did not yet know how to cast metals, or that copper chisels would have been too weak.<\/p>\n
On the first point, we know that the Pre-Incan Andean culture was very skilled at fashioning metals and creating metal alloys.[19]<\/p>\n
In fact, the people who built Pumapunku were even pouring copper alloys into molds right on site,[20] showing that they had more than enough capability to form all kinds of metal tools. The question is: what about the tool\u2019s strength?<\/p>\n
Even if they were pouring pure copper into the mold it would still work, but it would need sharpening often but, because archeologist actually found a few of these metal cramps used by them on site,[21][22] we now know that they were using a very strong copper arsenic nickel alloy,[23]\u00a0 Which made a much stronger final product.<\/p>\n
Arsenic acts as a de-oxidant preventing the metal from becoming too brittle[24], and nickel was used in copper alloys specifically to make stronger chisels.[25] Once you understand that they had the ability to make strong metal tools in a huge variety of shapes, there is no part of Pumapunku\u2019s stone work that would have been too difficult for them.<\/p>\n
Well what about these 90-degree right angles that Ancient Aliens\u2019 makes such a fuss about?<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cOne of the amazing things here at Pumapunku is the precision of the blocks. You can see with this block of granite that it\u2019s really been cut at very accurate 90-degree angles.\u201d<\/p>\n
To make flat surfaces with right angles you don\u2019t need alien technology, you only need a square or a simple equivalent. It\u2019s important to keep in mind that Pumapunku would have been built 1000\u2019s of years after the Egyptians, who had all kinds of squares and plumb bobs and levels and so on[26], it\u2019s a pretty basic stone working tool.<\/p>\n
That being said, despite what Ancient Aliens says, Pumapunku is not all perfect right angles. You can even see this, ironically enough, as the Ancient Aliens crew goes around with carpenters squares. You can see some of them simply are not square.<\/p>\n
Also they make claims like all the H blocks are the same dimensions, which they say suggest they were made by a big machine, but not only would that not be the only conclusion if it were true, it\u2019s not even true.<\/p>\n
The dimensions of the H blocks are not all the same, though they are close[27]. It is probably the case that there were made using the same plans.<\/p>\n
Speaking of plans\u2026<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cMainstream archaeologists say that Pumapunku was built by Amara Indians. [However] we would all have to agree that, in order to build something like Pumapunku, you need writing; you need planning, and you also need some sort of idea where which piece goes and how it ultimately all fits together. But there is one thing that mainstream archaeologists agree upon [and that is] that the Amara didn\u2019t have any writing. How is it possible that the Amara built all this without any plans?\u201d<\/p>\n
The builders of Pumapunku may not have had an alphabet, but they did use the common iconography or artwork of their culture called Yaya Mama.[28][29]\u00a0 All the icons on the site are Yaya Mama, not secret alien code, and this is but one of the many indications of the culture and time that it was built.[30]<\/p>\n
But my point is that, like many cultures, they used pictures instead of an alphabet and, like most building plans, they used pictures like blueprints. So saying that no alphabet means no planning is, in my opinion, pretty ridiculous.<\/p>\n
Well, what about moving the stones and lifting them into place? Surely that would have required levitation\u2026<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cHow these massive blocks of granite were moved from their quarries and brought here to Pumapunku would have required some kind of super technology. Levitation; anti-gravity, huge lifting vehicles\u2026something that ancient aliens would have had.\u201d<\/p>\n
If they did know how to levitate these stones then they put far too much effort in creating places in the stones to attach ropes to.<\/p>\n
Many stones have grooves several centimeters in width and depth on two adjacent faces for holding ropes.[31] They even had special places cut into the stones that Pumapunku scholars call \u201choisting grips.\u201d[32] These are all very strange things to do if they could simply levitate these blocks.<\/p>\n
To make matters worse for the Ancient Astronaut theory, according to archeologist Jean-Pierre Protzen, an expert on Pumapunku, there is almost no stone at the Pumapunku site that does not have what he calls \u201cdrag marks\u201d on one of its faces[33], where it has been\u2026well dragged to the site.<\/p>\n
Ancient Aliens throws another false dilemma here:<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cWhat nobody talks about is the irrefutable fact that we are at an altitude of 12,800 feet which means we are above the natural tree line. No trees ever grew in that area, meaning that no trees were cut down in order to use wooden rollers. The wooden roller theory falls by the wayside.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is like saying that there is no way that the Egyptians used wood because trees didn\u2019t grow in Egypt. The difference is that while the Egyptians had to import wood from places like Lebanon, it would have been far easier for those at Pumapunku to solve this problem for all they would have had to do is walk down the hill a little bit.<\/p>\n
Ok well what about this claim:<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cLogic does not exist at Pumapunku because there we have megalithic structures which just lie around this entire site as if ripped apart by some great force.\u201d<\/p>\n
I propose that logic still exists at Pumapunku, and that the scattered state of the complex can be easily explained. To quote from archeologist Alexi Vranich: \u201cthe high quality of the stones made it attractive building material for houses, churches, plazas, bridges, even railways.\u201d[34]<\/p>\n
In other words, the stones were pulled down and hauled off by locals for building material. In fact, we even have the 400 year old writings of a visitor to Pumapunku who said that the looting was in full swing even back then. He wrote that if the site was closer to town, he didn\u2019t think there would have been any stones left at all.[35]<\/p>\n
Ancient Aliens says that Pumapunku is 17,000 years old!<\/p>\n
This is what Vranich said of this claim:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe idea that Tiwanaku is 14,000 years old is based on a rather faulty study done in 1926. Since then, there has been a huge quantity of work both on the archaeology and geology of the area, and all data indicates that Tiwanaku existed from around A.D. 300-500.\u201d[36]<\/p>\n
For more information on the faulty study he is referring to here I will quote at length from Jason Colavito, who has been debunking ancient astronaut theories for years in his books and blogs. He said the following about this claim.<\/p>\n
\u201cTiwanaku is not 17,000 years old. This date derives from the work of Arthur Posnansky, who tried to apply archaeoastronomy to the site but did so in ways that modern scholars do not recognize as legitimate. Posnansky proposed a date of 15,000 B.P. (before present, i.e. 13,000 BCE), which the geniuses on Ancient Aliens misread as 15,000 BCE, adding an extra 2,000 years to Posnansky\u2019s already flawed dates.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what he did wrong. Posnansky assumed that the Kalasasaya temple at Tiwanaku was laid out with perfect accuracy to align to the equinoxes and solstices that he felt (but could not prove) were important to the Tiwanaku people.<\/p>\n
Thus, on a certain day the sun was supposed to rise above one rock at the temple and set behind another \u2013 ah, but which rock should we choose? Since the current ruins do not align with these celestial events accurately, he concluded that the ruins must have been built at a time when they would have aligned with that event.<\/p>\n
Since the sun and sky change positions at a predictable rate due to gradual changes in the angle of the earth\u2019s axis, he concluded that Kalasasaya was built in 13,000 BCE as a solar observatory, despite no other evidence of solar astronomy at the site.<\/p>\n
The long and short of it is that Posnansky assumed celestial alignments and assumed flawless construction and then used his assumptions to \u201cprove\u201d that his assumptions were correct.<\/p>\n
Colavito also has this picture of the site with the caption: \u201cPick a rock, any rock. One of them must align with something\u201d<\/p>\n
This site has been dated using a huge variety of methods. Things like carbon dating; the type of metals they used, the debris found in certain places, the type of iconography they used. Literally every kind of dating method applied comes to the same conclusion: It was constructed in the early middle ages.[37]<\/p>\n
Before we conclude this section on Pumapunku there are two other claims I wanted to address:<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cThe Spanish asked the Inca, the people living there, including the king of the Inca \u2018What is this Pumapunku?\u2019 and they all said \u2018It\u2019s not us. It\u2019s not our forefathers that made this. This was made by the gods in one, single night.\u2019 Usually a king is proud of what his people did, about the precision. [However] in this case the chief of the people said \u2018No. It was not us. It was the gods who made it\u2019.<\/p>\n
If you understand a little about the Incan imperial system and religion, you will understand why the Incans didn\u2019t claim the site and why they claimed that it had a supernatural origin.<\/p>\n
Part of the Incan state religion was that the Incan empire was the first civilization and was created by God himself. It was a very convenient idea for bolstering the Incan case for the right to rule everyone else.<\/p>\n
When the Incans arrived at Pumapunku the site had already been abandoned for at least 100 years.[38] Admitting that there was a pre-Incan culture at all, let alone one with more skill than them, would have been detrimental to the whole scheme.<\/p>\n
So they slightly modified their already existing mythology to include Pumapunku. So, instead of Virachoca creating the Incan capital, he also created Pumapunku. Just like that the Incans were still the oldest and greatest civilization, even though everyone probably knew it wasn\u2019t true.<\/p>\n
Finally, Ancient Aliens says the following about what the ancient local people believed regarding who constructed Pumapunku:<\/p>\n
AA: \u201cLocal legend suggests that Tianaka was built as a site of religious pilgrimage to celebrate the arrival of sky gods.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is a total lie. Viracocha came from the sea not the sky. This is a very sneaky move by Ancient Aliens in my opinion.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, the stones are not made of Granite and Diorite. The stones were easily workable with the tools available to the Andean culture \u2013 tools which we know included high-quality metal-alloyed chisels.<\/p>\n
These tools would have been more than sufficient to make the angles seen at Pumapunku. The faces of the rocks have been finished using a polishing technique after being rough cut using stone hammers \u2013 evidenced by the unfinished stones and hidden areas of the finished stones.<\/p>\n
The moving of the stones was not as difficult as Ancient Aliens makes it seem, especially when you take into account they are telling people that the stones weigh 600 tons more than they actually do. The stones have tell-tale drag marks and hoisting holes for ropes, all showing that they were not levitated as Ancient Aliens would have us believe.<\/p>\n
We know the culture which built this monument, and all the iconography and sculptures are consistent with that culture. The various methods of dating that scientist use all point to the same time period. The idea that Pumapunku was from Atlantean times we now know is based on a very transparently flawed presupposition which, with modern equipment, can be easily demonstrated to be false.<\/p>\n
[1] Ponce Sangin\u00e9s, C. and G. M. Terrazas, 1970, Acerca De La Procedencia Del Material L\u00edtico De Los Monumentos De Tiwanaku. Publication no. 21. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia<\/p>\n
[2] https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pumapunku#cite_note-Isbell2004a-0<\/p>\n
[3] Isbell, William H. (2004), \u201cPalaces and Politics in the Andean Middle Horizon\u201d, in Evans, Susan Toby; Pillsbury, Joanne, Palaces of the Ancient New World, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,<\/p>\n
[4] Sangin\u00e9s (1970)<\/p>\n
[5] Jean Pierre Protzen, \u201cWho Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry,\u201d The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 146-167.<\/p>\n
[6] Sangin\u00e9s (1970)<\/p>\n
[7] Jean Pierre Protzen, \u201cInca Quarrying and Stone Cutting,\u201d The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May, 1985)<\/p>\n
[8] Protzen (1997)<\/p>\n
[9] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[10] Sangin\u00e9s (1970)<\/p>\n
[11] Protzen (1997)<\/p>\n
[12] Dieter Arnold. \u201cBuilding in Egypt; Pharaonic Stone Masonry.\u201d Building in Egypt; Pharaonic Stone Masonry, n.d. https:\/\/hbar.phys.msu.ru\/gorm\/ahist\/arnold\/arnold.htm.<\/p>\n
[13] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[14] Archae Solenhofen. \u201cAncient Egyptian Stoneworking Tools and Methods.\u201d Ancient Egyptian Stoneworking Tools and Methods, March 31, 2002. https:\/\/www.oocities.org\/unforbidden_geology\/ancient_egyptian_copper_slabbing_saws.html.<\/p>\n
[15] Protzen (1997)<\/p>\n
[16] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[17] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[18] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[19] COLIN A. COOKE, MARK B. ABBOTT, ALEXANDER P. WOLFE. \u201cMetallurgy in Southern South America.\u201d Metallurgy in Southern South America, n.d. https:\/\/faculty.eas.ualberta.ca\/wolfe\/eprints\/cooke_encyclopedia_chp.pdf.<\/p>\n
[20] Protzen (1997)<\/p>\n
[21] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[22] Lechtman, H.N., 1998, Architectural cramps at Tiwanaku: copper-arsenic-nickel bronze. In Metallurgica Andina: In Honour of Hans-Gert Bachmann and Robert Maddin, Deutsches, edited by T. Rehren, A. Hauptmann, and J. D. Muhly, pp. 77-92. Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, Germany.<\/p>\n
[23] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[24] The New Scientist. \u201cA Chronology of Prehistoric Metallurgy:\u201d A Chronology of Prehistoric Metallurgy:, October 23, 1993. https:\/\/www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk\/metallurgy.htm.<\/p>\n
[25] See 19.<\/p>\n
[26] See 12.<\/p>\n
[27] Protzen (1997)<\/p>\n
[28] Vranich, A., 1999, Interpreting the Meaning of Ritual Spaces: The Temple Complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Doctoral Dissertation<\/p>\n
[29] Andean Archaeology edited by Helaine Silverman https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=GXcwi84zNokC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false<\/p>\n
[30] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[31] Protzen (1997)<\/p>\n
[32] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[33] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[34] Vranich, A., 1999<\/p>\n
[35] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[36] archaeology.org. \u201cTiwanaku Q&A.\u201d Tiwanaku Q&A, n.d. https:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/interactive\/tiwanaku\/qanda.html.<\/p>\n
[37] Ibid.<\/p>\n
[38] Protzen (1997)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
– See more at: https:\/\/ancientaliensdebunked.com\/references-and-transcripts\/puma-punku\/#sthash.oBBQs3K3.dpuf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Puma Punku Sources at the bottom of the screen Section: Pumapunku Ancient Aliens: \u201cPumapunku is so unique in the way it was constructed and shaped and positioned that it is the most intriguing ancient site on the planet.\u201d AA: \u201cWhile the pyramids at Giza are an incredible feat of achieved, compared […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5322],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archive"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43754"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43754\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}