Contents
- Baalbek Acropolis
- The Egyptian Sphinx
- The Great Pyramid
- Rockwall Texas
- Tiahuanacu
- Cuzco & Sacsahuaman
- The Nazca Lines
- The Lixus Ruins
Enigmas and Mysteries
Certain ancient ruins and monuments scattered throughout the world stand haunting, mysterious, unexplained. Archeologists write or speak of them matter-of-factly, unemotionally, as if they presented no problem. Dates and data are bandied about as if every thing about the ruins was cut and dried. However, the particular ruins discussed on this page do present problems which to this day have not been solved. This quick sketch isn’t intended as a detailed dissertation on all the archeological work that’s been done: these ruins deserve much more than can be allowed here. The sole purpose of this page is to bring to the forefront some of the enigmas involved with these sites which tend to be ignored in professional publications.
BAALBEK ACROPOLIS
Located just across the Leontes Mountains from Beirut Lebanon, the Baalbek acropolis stands as eloquent testimony of the skill and abilities of ancient man. The complex consists of several temples, now in ruins, but built originally by the Romans in the classic Corinthian style. The four temples are commonly known as the Temple of Jupiter, the Temple of Bacchus, the Temple of the Muses and the Temple of Venus. Several other impressive buildings are in evidence.
Sir Mortimer Wheeler has described Baalbek as “one of the very great monuments of European architecture.” (Ragette, 1980) Baalbek is truly both stupendous in its size and magnificent in its classic beauty. Any words in the human vocabulary fall short of describing the wonder of these buildings. No doubt, the megalithic platform—already in place when the Romans arrived on the scene—inspired the latter to stretch their abilities to the absolute limits (and they were extremely capable), for they did their finest and most magnificent work here at Baalbek. Surprisingly, no one to my knowledge has commented about the polygonal-style stonework, closely resembling that of prehistoric Peru and Bolivia, prominent at the site. With the great Atlantic Ocean separating the two locations, it’s a bit surprising to encounter this feature.
It is the so-called Trilithon, the three mammoth stones incorporated into the base of the platform, which commands our attention. Sir Mortimer Wheeler calls them “the largest hewn stones in the world” (Ragette, 1980). Each of these measures about 64 feet in length, 12 feet in width and over 14 feet in height. Weighing roughly 800-1000 tons each. A fourth stone, the largest quarried stone in the entire world (almost 70 feet long and weighing 1000-1200 tons) still lies in the quarry over a half-mile away. (Mitchell, 1969) [1]
These massive stones were somehow cut from the bedrock, moved a half-mile to the hilltop “acropolis,” and placed into position some four courses above ground level atop other stones in the platform under construction. The course of stones lying immediately below the trilithon contains at least twenty-four stones 30-33 feet in length and weighing up to 450 tons each. How were these gigantic stones moved from the distant quarry and set so perfectly in place. The hill on which the acropolis was built slopes away on all sides, making it a puzzle as to how cranes or any other lifting devices could have been positioned. There are no traces of ancient ramps leading to the acropolis.
Did the Romans build this platform as some archeologists believe, or was it already in place when the Romans arrived to take advantage of it? If not Roman, then how old is it? Even more puzzling is the fact that the megalithic portion of these ruins was never finished (Ragette, 1980). What halted the construction? Were the builders interrupted by some tremendous cataclysm? If the Romans really built the platform, why couldn’t they also move the monolith still in the quarry? And if they “finished” the project by building the beautiful temples, why would they have wasted the effort expended to cut out this huge monolith, yet have failed to use it? In spite of what some “authorities” have indicated, the platform is thousands of years older than the Roman temple built upon it, indicated by the extreme weather erosion exhibited on the surfaces—totally absent on the temple ruins above.
Early archeologists were firmly of the opinion that the platform was far older than the Roman temple built upon it. Louis Felicien de Saukey, a French archeologist who visited Baalbek in 1851, believed the platform to be pre-Roman. Even the famous Ernest Renan (who intended to prove that the entire ruin was Roman) came to agree with earlier opinion after investigating the ruins. Not only was the weather erosion clearly a deciding factor, he could find “no inherent relation” in design between the Roman temples above and the megalithic foundations below. (Ragette, 1980) His personal investigation resulted in a complete reversal in his opinion concerning the megalithic portion of these ruins. More “modern” archeologists have difficulty with the idea that people living thousands of years before the Romans had the technology to manipulate such massive stones, so they call on flimsy archeological data to convince themselves that it is all Roman. [2]
NOTES
1 Encountering widely differing estimates of the weight of these monoliths (some critics claiming the estimates to be exaggerated), I consulted the head engineer of Goucher Engineering, Inc. (Clinton, Oklahoma) to obtain the outside weight parameters given above: the lower number representing the lightest limestone in existence for blocks this size. [Back]
2 For solid archeological proof that the Romans did not possess the technology to have built the Baalbek terrace, click here on the Baalbek Terrace. It is truly a pity that most modern archeologists shy away from facing this age old problem squarely. [Back]
[To Top]
THE EGYPTIAN SPHINX
I have two old history books in my personal library which have photographs of the Egyptian Sphinx covered with sand: one written by West (1904) in which the Sphinx is covered up to the neck in sand and another by Myers (1904) which shows the Sphinx with the “chest” only partly excavated. People used to speculate as to what the body of the Sphinx might look like. Of course we now know that the body of the Sphinx is a lion. But why a lion?
John Anthony West and Graham Hancock, who allege that the Sphinx was sculpted by non-Egyptians ca. 10,500 B.C., say there is good reason for this, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the historical Egyptians. They explain that the Sphinx has been covered in sand for most of its long history, and why not? If it wasn’t continually being cleared by modern workers, it would be re-buried up to its neck in sand in less than fifty years. The shifting sand has to be fought back on almost a day-to-day basis. So, if it has been under the sand for most of its existence, why is it so weathered?
West called upon a colleague, Dr. Robert Schoch, professor of geology at Boston University, to evaluate the nature of the erosion of the Sphinx. After careful investigation, Schoch concluded that the “weathering” of the Sphinx was done by water, rather than by wind and sand as commonly believed; that it was first created back during the alluvial period toward the end of the Ice Age when Egypt was experiencing copious amounts of rainfall; and that the Sphinx must be at least 7,000 years old (a conservative estimate by his own admission; Schoch, 1992). He presented his findings to a large forum of geologists, and his conclusions that the weathering patterns evident on the sphinx were the result of water erosion, rather than wind, were generally accepted. Egyptologists, however, were outraged; but Egyptologists have never welcomed geologists into their play pen. But what has all this to do with lions?
It seems that West, following the work of an earlier researcher, Robert Bauval, determined that in the year 10,500 B.C., on the day of the Spring equinox, the Sphinx would be looking at his own counterpart in the morning sky, Leo the lion (West, 1979). In fact, they speculate, several other authorities agreeing, that the Sphinx was originally sculpted with head of a lion.
Colin Reader (1998), a London University geologist, Egyptologist, and secretary of The Manchester Ancient Egypt Society, noticed that the Egyptian “pharaoh-like” head we see today is much too small in proportion to the body of the Sphinx; and that, even though it has suffered damage from vandals, the face is not eroded like the body (if the head has always been exposed to the weather, it should be more eroded than the body). Reader believes the head of the original sphinx has been re-sculpted from an original lion’s head into an Egyptian pharaoh-style head. Take away the pharaoh-style head and, lo, all the “Egyptian” traits disappear.
Dr. Schoch’s conclusions as to the age of the Sphinx are supported by two additional studies by competent geologists: that of Colin Reader (1998) and David Coxill (1998). All in all, the evidence seems to point to a Sphinx originally sculpted by an unknown culture in the far distant past—conservative estimates place it at the very beginning of Predynastic times. The Sphinx seems to be depicted with a lion’s head on numerous pieces of Predynastic ivory labels.
So why a Lion? We know that the mean (“central”) date of the age of Leo is 9,825 B.C. We also know that the geological epoch known as the Pleistocene came to a close near that date; that a mass extinction of animals accompanied that end; that all Upper Paleolithic cultures ended on or near that date; that human population was decimated at that time; and that this Great Event was accompanied by worldwide volcanism (Hibben, 1946).
In addition, Manetho, the Egyptian priest-historian, records an abrupt interruption in his king-list at that time. In other words, worldwide changes of unimaginable magnitude happened during the age of Leo, events which were centered close to the date of 10,000 B.C. This is reflected in the famous Dendera Zodiac which begins with the sign of Leo. Did it herald a new beginning? The appearance of the famous Lion-sphinx in Egypt was no mere astrological coincidence. I suspect that the ancients knew when the geological cycles were due to occur, and that the Sphinx was a reminder of an event large and significant enough to affect all mankind.
[To Top]
THE GREAT PYRAMID OF GIZEH
The Great Pyramid has always been one of the most controversial ancient monuments in the world. It is definitely different from all other pyramids in Egypt. How so? First of all, it is completely devoid of any inscriptions whatsoever, whereas the others all have internal inscriptions—many of them with the burial chamber walls and ceilings literally covered with funerary texts. Secondly, the preciseness of its proportions and orientation exceeds any of the others (even in the Gizeh group). Thirdly, its chambers and passageways are mostly above ground, and so every block had to be shaped before it was laid to allow for the existence of these features: an extremely complex undertaking. The chambers and passageways of the other pyramids were simple in comparison, mostly below ground level, and a virtually solid pyramid was constructed above.
Although certain of the other pyramids were built as tombs (judging from inscriptions within the burial chambers) there is no indication whatsoever that the Great Pyramid was meant to be a tomb. The so-called “sarcophagus” in the “King’s Chamber” (so-named by Egyptologists) is the sum-total of evidence for that theory. Calling it a “sarcophagus” doesn’t make it so: it could have had some initiatory, or some other undetermined, function. As a point of fact, no mummy or other human remains was ever found anywhere within The Great Pyramid. Neither is there a single scrap of evidence that it was built by Cheops (Pharaoh Khufu) that will stand up under close scrutiny.
The relationship of the Great Pyramid to Atlantis hinges upon the date it was built. Since it is the most perfect, and since Egypt is literally littered with pyramids which are less perfect, we, in our usual “onward and upward” frame of mind, assume the most imperfect of them to be the earlier experimental versions, and the most perfect being the latest. Quite the opposite is more likely. Having a near-perfect example before them, the Egyptians could have been trying to emulate what some more advanced civilization had already accomplished, and the poorly constructed examples found scattered all over Egypt may be the result of their futile attempts to copy that unattainable technology.
Accepting for the moment the orthodox chronology of Egyptologists, it is not widely known to non-professionals that there are a large number of pyramids in Egypt which were built after the Great Pyramid; in fact, pyramid building continued for several hundreds of years afterward. Yet the fact is that they are all inferior both in size and quality of workmanship to those at Gizeh. Why, once they had conquered all of the engineering problems involved, would they have suddenly reverted back to such shoddy methods? Had they forgotten all they had once learned? This seems most incredible to me. It is evident on the face of it that the Egyptians never actually attained the level of technology exhibited in the Great Pyramid. But it’s entirely possible that a modern Latvian has stumbled upon the ancient technique.
What other kinds of evidence are there indicating that the accepted dating scheme of the Pyramids of Gizeh might be faulty? Joseph Jochman offers the following observation. Recounting the usually accepted sequence of Khufu, Khafre and Menkhare (all pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty), he points out that the relative size of the pyramids belie the accepted order of construction. Egyptologists tell us that the first Pyramid in the Gizeh group was built by Khufu. If the “onward and upward” viewpoint has any validity, wouldn’t Khafre, who ruled next, be expected to build a bigger and better one than his predecessor? To do otherwise would have seriously jeopardized his status as pharaoh. Yet the second pyramid is considerably smaller and less precise than the Great Pyramid. And shouldn’t Menkhare, the next pharaoh to rule, be expected to outdo both his predecessors? Yet his is by far the smallest of the three. Although patently contrary to human nature, we are asked to buy into the accepted chronology as if it were an established fact.
Robert Bauval and John Anthony West have a much more believable scenario, and theirs is based upon astronomical considerations (frequently used in the erection and orientation of ancient sacred structures) which can be checked and verified by modern science. They have learned that the careful positioning and the relative sizes of the pyramids reflect the exact positions and luminosity of the stars in the constellation of Orion. And we have learned from ancient Egyptian texts that the constellation of Orion represented the deity Osiris who, according to Herodotus (History, Bk. II), ruled 15,000 years ago during the so-called “reign of the gods”.
And just as 10,500 B.C. was found to be the most likely date for the carving of the Sphinx, as if by magic it turns out that the orientation of the passageways of the Great Pyramid point to the very same date. (Bauval, 1994) This date was determined by means of modern day computers which can literally “turn back the clock” and tell us where these constellations were in the sky on any given date. And these dates fall within the era of Atlantis.
[To Top]
ROCKWALL TEXAS
Over a hundred and fifty years ago a discovery was made less than 10 miles east of Dallas, Texas, which has been embroiled in controversy ever since. Both amateur and professional archeologists and geologists have investigated and/or excavated the site on several occasions, yet to date no agreement has ever been reached over whether the formations are natural or manmade.
It all began in 1852, when T.U. Wade and his family were building their house near the east fork of the Trinity River in northern Texas. In the process of digging the homestead well, Mr. Wade hit what seemed to him like bedrock. Further digging and investigation revealed this to be a rock wall buried some three feet below the surface. Still further digging proved that the “wall” seemed to run for an extended length. (Eventually an extremely large quadrangle was mapped extending over several frontier ranches.)
Mary Pattie (Wade) Gibson, granddaughter of T.U. Wade, made a report to the Rockwall County Historical Foundation describing a dig by her grandfather and other men at the site. They had discovered that the wall thickened near the bedrock “floor” forty feet down. However, on the other side—which turned out to be the “outside”—the bedrock supporting the wall dropped off. It seems that at least this portion of the wall was built along an ancient cliff.
A 1907 New York Times article entitled “Digging for a Buried City” reported that a Mr. J. E. Hess was excavating around the wall in hopes of locating a buried city. Hess reported that the wall was made up of regularly sized and shaped native sandstone slabs, that the wall was buried to a depth of about three feet, and that it extended downward for another 40 feet.
reprinted by the Rockwall Historical Foundation in 1992.
In 1949 a Mr. Sanders of Fort Worth, aided by Dr. James Glenn, a local historian, did an excavation of the wall. Four large stones were unearthed, the largest weighing approximately two tons. Inscriptions were found which in some ways resemble early Semitic characters; but geologists dismiss these as “random scratches”. Patination, which has not been tested, is consistent with that deposited on tool marks found on the blocks. A good photograph of the rock bearing the inscriptions can be found at the Quivira Gallery.
Basically, the walls form a quadrangle approximately 5.6 miles long and 3.5 wide, covering an area of a little less than 20 square miles. Several “architectural” features seem to be in evidence, such as several cubicles, windows measuring 2 ft. by 2 ft., arched corridors, and an arched doorway roughly five feet wide. The quadrangle runs lengthwise northeast to southwest, being offset roughly 15 degrees from true north (as are a number of ancient Mesoamerican ruins).
John Lindsey, a Harvard educated architect, confirmed that the walls of the quadrangle are contiguous by “walking the walls” several times. Lindsey was aided by NASA GPR maps to give him the elevations of the tops of the walls and thus a better idea of where to establish his contact points. Additional geological surveys were combined to produce the first comprehensive geological maps of the Rockwall Quadrangle used by the U.S. Geological Survey (Walker, 1948; Wilson, 1949).
Most of the architectural features were found on the Canup property, where one of the first encounters with the wall occurred. In addition to what appear to be windows, doors, and corridors, an aqueduct-like feature was unearthed in 1976 by Dr. Kenneth Shaar, Architectural historian at the University of Texas, Arlington. Unfortunately, this excavation was halted prematurely and finally aborted because of interpersonal disputes with the property owner.
Most of the geologists investigating the site appeared convinced that the walls are purely natural formations, and therfore not man-made; however, each of them gave totally conflicting mechanisms for the so-called “natural origin” of the formations (Burleson, 1874; Hill, 1901; Kelsey & Denton, 1933, et al.). This was, of course, before the complete mapping survey was done. Many have pronounced judgment without ever having visited the site. Likewise, archeologists seem to be in considerable disagreement among themselves over the same issue.
Dr. S. Alan Skinner was involved in an archeological survey and consultant work in Rockwall County for AR Consultants Inc. Skinner’s report denies the presence of pre-Columbian artifacts along the gas line route he surveyed from the southern to northern limits of Rockwall County (Skinner, 2005); which is in stark contrast to the plethora of artifacts discovered in 1964 (Ross, 1966). However, Skinner’s purpose in the project was to find a route for the pipeline that would avoid encountering (thus destroy) valued artifacts.
Dr. Randall Moir, an archeologist of Dallas, Texas, has pointed out that geologists do not know the precise processes that created these features, and that a systematic and detailed study of the formation has the potential to expand our knowledge of the prehistory of the area. While geologists, using a number of scientific techniques, have dated the rocks themselves, there has been no determination of when the walls were built or who might have built them. So far, they must be classified as merely “prehistoric”.
James (Bud) Shelton, a petroleum geologist trained in geophysics, petrophysics, and basin analysis at the University of Texas, Austin, has issued a detailed 14 page Unsolicited Plea for assistance in a re-evaluation of the Rockwall Anomaly. In it he states: “The author has visited Lindsey’s present excavation site and observed the seemingly out of place and context stone, possibly mortar and plaster like materials related to distinguishable architectural like features.” (Shelton, 2000)
Any site exhibiting apparent architectural features, sophisticated masonry-laying techniques, intelligent orientation, inscriptions as well as artifacts—which has so far been classified as a “natural formation”—is more than due a thorough, systematic re-evaluation by professionals. Only recently the popular geologist Scott Wolter (2014) had the stones tested for magnetic orientation, and the test indicated that the formation is entirely natural. Such a test sounds rather definitive; but I’m reluctant to accept a conclusion based solely on a single test presented on a TV show. Intensive work is necessary before the question can be settled decisively.
[To Top]
TIAHUANACU
Tiahuanacu has been called “the Baalbek of the New World.” It is a prehistoric ruined city, complete with harbor (Posnansky, 1945), located in the Bolivian Andes some 15 miles from Lake Titicaca, lying 12,500 feet above sea-level! Why would a seaport be built more than 2 miles above sea-level? Theories about how this happens to be are several, one of which will be mentioned here. Although a lot could be written about Tiahuanacu, my treatment of it here will be extremely limited.
The port area of Tiahuanacu (once thought to be a separate ruin) is known as Puma Punka (“Port of the Puma”). In this area, close to the marks of ancient shorelines, are buildings and wharfs constructed of enormous stone blocks. But today we see them scattered hither and yon like so many matchsticks, except that these little items weigh variously between 100 and 150 tons—one block weighs an estimated 440 tons! Geologists have determined that some of the blocks were brought from quarries 200 miles away (Hemming 1979). One wonders, of course, how such blocks were quarried with no metal tools, how they were transported to the building site, and how they were assembled to form the piers and docks that once existed. But even more puzzling, how did they get scattered about in such disarray? Did some tremendous geological cataclysm tumble these gigantic monoliths into this horrible disorder?
Then there is the ceremonial center with its pyramids, temples, stone idols, and the 10-ton Puerta del Sol (“Gateway of the Sun”). This large monolith was originally found broken down the middle and almost completely covered in solidified mud. Carved from a single block of Andesite, it is about 10 feet high and over 12 feet wide (Mason, 1968). Its upper portion is exquisitely carved with beautiful and intricate designs, including various symbols, condors, toxodons, elephants, and with a human figure in the center. It has variously been thought to represent the Sun god, Viracocha, as well as the “Weeping god” (what appear to be tears are depicted on both cheeks). He is holding a stylized staff in each hand, one of which may represent bolts of lightning. The birdlike figures flanking the central figure are unfinished, leading some of the early researchers (Mason, 1968) to think that something interrupted the builders (a cataclysm perhaps?).
In the above instance it is important to point out that animals such as the toxodon and mastodon (the only “elephant” ever to be present in South America) have been extinct since the close of the Pleistocene Epoch, roughly 10-12,000 years ago. And these ruins are being dated ca. 1000 A.D.?
The various buildings in the complex are known as the Kalasasaya, the semi-Subterranean Temple, a so-called “Palace,” and the Acapana Pyramid. A few minor buildings are also present. Many of the building blocks weigh close to 200 tons (Posnansky, 1945). The Acapana Pyramid is a step pyramid, and, like the Great Pyramid, is aligned perfectly with the cardinal directions. It was originally covered with smooth Andesite stone, only 10 percent of which is still in sitü. The ruinous state of the pyramid is due to stone pirates who have carried off the stones for building materials in the nearby city of La Paz.
In the center of the semi-Subterranean Temple was a huge 24-foot tall monolithic statue sculpted out of red sandstone. Although carvings cover much of its body, the lower half of the statue is covered with fish-scales, reminding one of the Mesopotamian deity called Oannes, who conveyed special knowledge to mankind. This huge monolith was unknown until uncovered during Bennett’s excavations in 1934. It has since been carried to La Paz and erected in a plaza there (Mason, 1968).
Beside the much larger stone image, Bennett found a bearded statue. It has large round eyes, a straight narrow nose, and an oval mouth, and stands about 7 feet tall. Rays of lightning are carved on the forehead, and unidentifiable animals are carved around the head. His arms are crossed over his ankle-length tunic, which is decorated with pumas around the hem. Serpents ascend on each side, reminding one of Quetzalcoatl, the culture-hero of the Toltecs.
The conventional practice of dating Tiahuanacu is based on carbon dates of numerous examples of pottery, small statues and other artifacts. An obvious fact ignored by orthodox archeologists is that it is common for late arrivals to be awed by old ruins (attributing their origin to gods or giants); who then incorporate those very images in their own pottery, textiles, etc. It may be a colossal mistake to fuse the cultures into one, skewing dates of the megalithic stone ruins to match those of later artifacts.
As a result of these problems, several major archeological authorities describe the dating of the buildings and sculptures at Tiahuanaco as “insecure.” (Mason, 1968; Willey, 1971, et al.) Except in certain rare cases, stone ruins cannot be carbon dated. The only way the erection of these stone buildings can be dated is if perchance organic material happened to be mashed beneath stones during the actual erection of the edifices—carbon dating techniques may then be applied to such recovered organic material.
The fact that some “renegades” do not accept the usual dating of the stone ruins themselves is no indication that years of archeological work is being ignored, as some complain. It is the depiction of extinct Pleistocene animals (not being addressed by most experts) which prohibits the acceptance of the dates usually applied to the megalithic constructions. How can an animal which has never been seen be carved onto monuments? In addition, there are several geological anomolies which are not being faced.
An important edifice for dating purposes is the Kalasasaya (“Place of Vertical Stones”). Rather than being in alignment with the cardinal directions, it is slightly offset to the northwest. In its southwest corner is a large statue called “the idol,” opposite the Sun Gate. Knowing that many ancient cultures incorporated astronomical alignments into the orientation of their most sacred buildings, the orientation of the Kalasasaya caught the attention of Prof. Arturo Posnansky, a German engineer who studied the ruins during his many years of archeological work at the site. (Hancock, 1995)
Since Earth is tilted on its axis in respect to the plane of the solar system, the resulting angle is known as the obliqueness of the ecliptic. At present our earth is tilted at an angle of 23 degrees and 17 minutes. But it was not always so. Earth’s axis oscillates between 22 degrees and 1 minute to an extreme of 24 degrees and 5 minutes. One complete oscillation takes roughly 41,000 years to complete. Posnansky had a number of astronomers from highly respected institutions check this theory, and they concluded that the Kalasasaya temple indicated a tilt amounting to 23 degrees, 8 minutes, 48 seconds. (Posnansky, 1945) This seemed to point to a date of circa. 15,000 B.C. Of course the professional archeologists went into orbit.
Such a date would explain the depiction of animals extinct for 12,000 years. The fact that Tiahuanacu appears to include piers and docking areas for hundreds of ships, yet is now elevated to an altitude of over 2 miles above sea-level, has caused some archeologists to seek another purpose for these features. Finally, the transport of 200-ton stones over immense distances could only have been accomplished by a civilization (hitherto unknown) with advanced technologies. (I have witnessed some of the “demonstrations” by which modern engineers pacify common curiosity concerning this—accept them, if they seem credible to you.)
It’s not out of the question that a worldwide cataclysm could create mountains almost overnight in certain places, thereby raising a seaport high above its original level. Salty Lake Titicaca itself seems to be a slowly dissipating remnant of the ocean (its shoreline now lying some twelve miles distant from the docks). Could this same geological upheaval have caused the Pleistocene extinction, ended the Ice Age, decimated Paleolithic mankind, and destroyed Atlantis around 12,000 years ago?
[To Top]
CUZCO AND SACSAHUAMAN
Cuzco was the capital city of the Inca empire and Sacsahuaman seems to be a place of refuge to which the Inca people retreated when attacked. The Inca empire had only existed about a hundred years or so before the Spanish conquest; so, what could these ruins have to do with Atlantis?
Even the non-professional visitor to any of these ruins will notice something which jumps out at first glance: the beautiful ashlar blocks for which the Incas are so well-known are often sitting directly atop constructions consisting of magnificant megalithic stones intricately cut in a complex polygonal-style. Most archeologists, American and Peruvian alike, agree that while the evenly laid ashlars are classical Inca, the larger, more complex polygonal blocks belong to an earlier, undated “megalithic” culture. Archeological dating of the polygonal componant of these constructions “hangs in the air” (Mason, 1968).
It is the megalithic portions of Cuzco, Sacsahuaman, and other so-called “Inca” sites, which are of interest here. These constructions have never been dated, and therefore no one knows how long they had been there before the Johnny-come-lately Incas arrived on the scene. Most of the Inca-style ashlars weigh a mere 2-3 tons. The largest megalithic stone at Sacsahuaman is estimated to weigh in the neighborhood of 300 tons! A human being is dwarfed standing near one of these cyclopean giants.
Another impressive fact concerning the older ruins is that instead of cutting the stones entirely regular in shape, as in the Inca style, the megalithic builders chose to use very irregular shapes. Incredibly, one very large stone has a total of 32 different angles, yet it fits the stones around it so perfectly on every side that a knife blade cannot be inserted in the joints (Mason, 1968). And it doesn’t look as if mortar has been used. How could anyone carve a 32-sided block of this size and expect it to fit perfectly once in place? A 100-ton block can’t be lifted in and out and modified over and over until it finally fits. Once it’s down, IT’S DOWN! I think our modern engineers would decline involving themselves in such a difficult project. We know the Inca didn’t have modern cranes and power machinery such as we do today; but we know nothing of the technological expertise of this “undated” civilization.
All the stones are slightly convex, giving them a slight bulging appearance, and are beveled at the edges—so they are not rough fieldstones. They have been precision cut and shaped to fit perfectly into all sorts of angles, and for a very good reason. The Andes region is known for its violent earthquakes, and these odd-shaped blocks make the walls virtually earthquake proof, even though many of the walls are 60 feet (that’s six storeys!) high. Again we have the same mysterious characteristics of massive stone quarrying and transportation (Hemming, 1979). And the same problems in understanding how anyone without cranes, power machinery (steam or otherwise). steel cables and pulleys—in other words, modern technology—could quarry, transport, shape, and lay these blocks, often weighing over a hundred tons, with such extreme precision (Mason, 1968). Clearly, the technology is beyond any known ancient South American culture.
[To Top]
THE NAZCA LINES
One aspect of the Nazca Lines that I have never seen a comment on is the removal of enormous masses of solid rock, basically leveling off the upper portions of numerous hills and mountains for distances of hundreds of yards. In some cases we’re talking about solid granite, one of the hardest materials known to man. The Nazca people—believed to have lived in the area between 300 BC. and 800 AD.—possessed the kind of technology to do this??
Whoa! Back the truck up! Remove the entire tops of mountains with primitive tools? Any feat this massive could never have been accomplished with primitive pick-axes and grubbing hoes! Such a fantastic feat could only be accomplished using explosives and extremely sophisticated machinery, or a technology beyond that! I have never encountered a single archeologist who has so much as mentioned this aspect of the famous Nazca Lines Mystery.
I have watched several TV documentaries which clearly show this fantastic accomplishment! Also the Frontispiece of a book by Morrison & Hawkins (1978) features a black-and-white photo showing no less than five such mountaintops leveled off to accommodate these long trapezoidal creations. Yet not a word is ever breathed about the obvious, clearly visible, leveled-off mountains!
The mountaintops are leveled as flat as an ironing board, tens of yards wide, and sometimes extending for hundred of yards. Yet we are led to believe that the scene we are looking at was produced by the primitive, relatively recent, so-called “Nazca people” who had no explosives, jack-hammers, or powered earth-movers, i.e., nothing to work with but primitive stone or copper pick-axes and baskets. And what has happened to all the material that was removed? It is nowhere in evidence.
On 25 July 2009 the History Channel featured an ancient astronaut oriented program having the title “Ancient Aliens”. The program showed numerous aerial videos of the Nazca Lines area in which the artificially flattened tops of manifold mountains and hills were clearly visible. Mr. Eric von Däniken of ancient astronaut fame commented during the show: “See, they made the mountains flat.” That is the very first reference to this phenomenon I have ever heard; and to this day I have neither read nor heard a single such comment from a bonafide archeologist.
The area of the lines is over 200 square miles in size and some of the images are nearly 900 feet in length. Nobody knows how old the actual lines are, since as yet there is no sure way to date them. The inhabitants of Cahuachi no doubt knew of the lines and reproduced some of the zoomorphs on their pottery—and maybe even performed religious ceremonies there. But to assume these so-called “Nazca people” created the lines is a raw assumption on the part of cultural anthropologists. Where is the tangible evidence? So far, it does not exist. To assume the people of Cahuachi created them simply because the same designs appear on pottery discovered at Cahuachi is no more than a leap of faith, and faith is not a part of scientific method.
[To Top]
THE LIXUS RUINS
Another interesting ruin is that of Lixus in Morocco, North Africa. Lixus has been largely ignored by archeologists: only about twenty percent of the ruins have been excavated. There are no overseeing personnel or facilities anywhere nearby, and tourists are allowed to roam around the premises at will, picnicking, scattering trash, and picking up anything they see that looks interesting—a deplorable situation.
Located between Rabat and Tangier, perched on a hilltop overlooking the Atlantic Ocean near the meanders of the Loukkos River, Lixus was once a prehistoric seaport. The style of polygonal masonry used at the lowest (i.e., the most ancient) level reminds the investigator of a similar style of stonework found incorporated in the pre-Columbian ruins of ancient Peru and Bolivia across the Atlantic Ocean in South America. The Carthaginians, building on top of these ancient megalithic walls and foundations, occupied this port around 800 B.C. But serious work needs to be done to determine the date of the culture which initially built here.
According to Dr. Gerald S. Hawkins, of the Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory, the lower (megalithic) walls are carefully aligned with the sun: in fact, the earlier name for the city was Maqom Shemesh, or “City of the Sun” (Hawkins, 1973). The Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl noticed the marked similarity of the polygonal style of masonry with that of Peru and Bolivia—this same style of masonry can also be found in Andalusia (southern Spain) and among submarine ruins along both coastlines of the Atlantic.
In the view on the right one gets the full impact of the superior style of the lower courses of masonry (notice the mortarless, fine joints between the larger stones). Also that stones of various shapes (polygonal) are mixed in with more regular ones, which is one of the masonry techniques used by the ancients to guard against earthquakes. It seems that the jigsaw-puzzle arrangement of the stones breaks up the effect of seismic waves coming from below (each size stone would respond only to its own frequency) with the result that such walls are all but earthquake proof. Even though the later Roman and Carthaginian constructions have mostly fallen, the oldest polygonal-style walls remain essentially in place.
When I saw the ruins in 1975—via the Morocco Exploration sponsored by Europa House at the University of Illinois—my investigations revealed that there are clearly and indisputably three levels, representing three totally different cultures: the top layer (the most recent) was Roman; beneath it lay Carthaginian; but the lowest level is what attracted my interest: stone masonry representing some totally unknown, prehistoric culture. This bottom level literally jumps out at the observer, since it incorporates massive stones and a peculiar polygonal style similar to that used in prehistoric South America. The question which occurs to me is: What are these similar masonry styles doing on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean?
[To Top]
CATCH-ALL CATEGORY
There are other specific ruins scattered about the world which could possibly be associated with Atlantis, some of which I have visited and some not. Since these are several, I will merely list them.
Man-made pyramid under 40 metres of water near Terceira Island in the Azores.
The Malta Island megalithic ruins with “ruts” going into the sea
The Bahama Island underwater ruins (Atlantic Ocean)
Reported ruins in Atlantic waters offshore near Cadiz, Spain.
Underwater ruins located off Morocco in 50-60 feet of water.
Mysterious ruins on the sea floor near the Canary Islands.
The Stone Circles in Brittany, trailing off into the Atlantic.
Several of these are totally underwater, while others are only partially submerged. Some appear to be ports having harbours. Since nobody in their right mind would suggest that the ancient builders built the structures under the waters originally, the only other option is that the rising sea covered them—and this happened 10,000 (± 3,000) years ago. So they would have to be at least that old.
[To Top]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauval, R. & Gilbert, A., “The Orion Mystery,” William Heinemann, 1994.
Bennett, Wendell, C., “Excavations at Tiahuanaco,” Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. xxxiv, Part III, 1934.
Burleson, Robert T., “Report of Assistant State Geologist,” Geological Agricultural Survey of Texas (1st Annual Report), 1874. (Earliest known scientific description of the Rockwall phenomenon.)
Coxill, David, “The Riddle of the Sphinx,” INSCRIPTION: Journal of Ancient Egypt, Issue 2 [pp. 13-19], Spring 1998.
Hancock, Graham, “Fingerprints of the Gods,” Crown Trade Paperbacks, New York, 1995.
Hawkins, Gerald S., “Beyond Stonehenge,” Harper & Row Publ., New York, London, 1973.
Hemming, John, “Discovery of Lost Worlds,” Edited by Joseph J. Thorndike Jr., Simon & Schuster, New York, 1979.
Herodotus, “History”: Book II, Euterpé (Rawlinson’s translation), 450 B.C.
Hibben, Frank C., “The Lost Americans” (Apollo Edition), Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York, 1946.
Hill, R.T., “Geography and geology of the Black and Grand Prairies,” Texas, U.S. Geological Survey (21st Annual Report), 1901. (Stated that the walls were igneous intrusions.)
Kelsey, M. & Denton, H., “Sandstone dikes near Rockwall, Texas,” Bulletin No. 3201 (139-148), University of Texas, 1933. (Stated that the walls were sedimentary marine deposits of the Cretaceous.)
Mason, J. Alden, “The Ancient Civilizations of Peru,” Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1968.
Mitchell, John, “The New View Over Atlantis,” Sago Press, Great Britain, 1969.
Myers, Philip Van Ness, “Ancient History,” Ginn & Co., New York, 1904.
Morrison, Tony & Hawkins, Gerald, “Pathways to the Gods: The Mystery of the Andes Lines,” Harper & Rowe, New York & London, 1978.
Posnansky, Arturo, “Tiahuanacu, The Cradle of American Man,” 4 Vols., (translated by James F. Shearer), Locust Valley, N.Y., 1945.
Ragette, Friedrich, “Baalbek,” Noyes Press, Park Ridge NJ, 1980.
Reader, Colin, “Khufu Knew the Sphinx,” illustrated scientific paper, July 1998.
Ross, Richard E., “The Upper Rockwall and Glen Hill Sites: Forney Reservoir,” Papers of the Texas Archaeological Salvage Project, No. 9, 1966.
Schoch, Robert M., “Redating the Great Sphinx of Gizeh,” KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 3, No. 2, Summer 1992.
Skinner, S. Alan Skinner, “A Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed East Fork Water Reuse Pipeline Route . . . etc.” AR Consultants Inc., June 6, 2005.
Walker, K.F., “The Geology of the Northern Half of the Rockwall Quadrangle, Texas” (unpublished master’s thesis) Dept. of Geol., University of Oklahoma, 1948.
Wilson, G.W., “The Geology of the Southern Half of the Rockwell Quadrangle, Texas,” (unpublished master’s thesis) Dept. of Geol., University of Oklahoma, 1949.
West, John Anthony, “Serpent in the Sky,” Harper & Row, New York, 1979.
West, Willis Mason, “The Ancient World,” Allyn & Bacon, New York, 1904.
Willey, Gordon R., “An Introduction to American Archaeology,” Vol. II, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1971.
Wolter, Scott, “America Unearthed,” aired on the H2 channel, 18 January 2014.
[To Top]
Copyright © 2001 by Atlantek Software Inc.
Version 2.5: Last update: 18 Jan 2014
URL: https://atlantisquestscience.wordpress.com/
Quest for Atlantis 