• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Shermer vs. "alternative history" Hancock and Crandall

King of the Americas said:
I am fairly certain, that the fact that the site has been continuously vandalized, and mined for its stone means that dating accurately would be difficult.
Click to expand...

No. It's not a problem at all.

"Puma Punku is instead a terraced mound resembling a low pyramid with only three steps. A radiocarbon date from the soil fill of the lowest terrace of the structure is 1500 ± 25 bp, which calibrates to 569 ± 21 CE (527-611 CE at 2σ, meaning that there is a 98% chance that the sample falls in that date range), gives us a terminus post quem. This is an important archaeological principle by which a deposit cannot be older than the date of the youngest object in it: in other words, there is a 98% probability that Puma Punku dates from after 527 CE."
https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/tag/puma-punku/
 
Matthew Ellard said:
No. It's not a problem at all.

"Puma Punku is instead a terraced mound resembling a low pyramid with only three steps. A radiocarbon date from the soil fill of the lowest terrace of the structure is 1500 ± 25 bp, which calibrates to 569 ± 21 CE (527-611 CE at 2σ, meaning that there is a 98% chance that the sample falls in that date range), gives us a terminus post quem. This is an important archaeological principle by which a deposit cannot be older than the date of the youngest object in it: in other words, there is a 98% probability that Puma Punku dates from after 527 CE."
https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/tag/puma-punku/
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right.

And for those who dislike just one date:

or clarity's sake, here are all the C-14 dates from Tiwanaku (since the samples were collected in the late 1950s, 1980s, and 1990s, the absolute dates are approximate, ± 40 yrs)

Gak-194 (Kalasasaya, layer 6, Epoch I), 3530 ±120 BP (ca. 1530 BC)
Gak-195 (Kalasasaya, layer 5, Epoch II), 1750 ±100 BP (ca. AD 250)
B-488 (Kalasasaya, level 7 (-255cm)), 2400 ±200 BP (ca. 400 BC)
B-489 (Kalasasaya, level 7 (-270 BC)), 2530 ±200 BP (ca. 530 BC)
B-490 (Kalasasaya, level 6, layer 4), 2100 ±120 BP (ca. 100 BC)
ETH-5639 (Akapana), 1090 ±60 BP (ca. AD 910)
ETH-5640 (Akapana), 1090 ±85 BP (ca. AD 910)
Gak-51 (Kalasasaya, layer 3), 630 ±110 BP (ca. AD 1370)
Gak-52 (Kalasasaya, layer 6), 2190 ±130 BP (ca. 190 BC)
Gak-53 (Kalasasaya, layer 6), 2410 ±140 BP (ca. 410 BC)
Gak-192 (Kalasasaya, upper part of layer 7, Epoch I), 1990 ±110 BP (ca. AD 10)
Gak-193 (Kalasasaya, lower part of layer 7, Epoch I), 1850 ±90 BP (ca. AD 150)
Hv-17 (Kalasasaya, 50 cm depth on platform), 240 ±80 BP (ca. AD 1760)
Hv-18 (Kalasasaya, 175 cm depth on platform), 1630 ±130 BP (ca. AD 370)
Hv-19 (Kalasasaya, 180 cm depth on platform), 1645 ±80 BP (ca. AD 355)
INAH-972 (Akapana), 1120 ±140 (ca. AD 980)
P-119 (Tiwanaku, level 8, 2.3 - 2.85 m down), 1460 ±200 BP (ca. AD 540)
P-120 (Tiwanaku, level 9, 2.0-2.25m down), 1702 ±103 BP (ca. AD 308)
P-120A (Tiwanaku, levels 8-10, 1.75 to 2.5 m down), 1226 ±100 BP (ca. AD 774)
P-121 (Tiwanaku, levels 6 and 7, 1.25-1.75 m down, associated with classic Tiwanaku pottery), 1423 ±175 BP (ca. AD 577)
P-123 (Tiwanaku, level 15, 3.5 to 3.75 m down; digging continued for 4.74m below with no pottery below 4m), 1817 ±103 BP (ca. AD 183)
P-146 (Tiwanaku, level 1 0.0-0.75 m down), 949 ±98 BP (ca. AD 1151)
P-147 (Tiwanaku, levels 6 and 7, 1.8-2.3 m down), 1576 ±104 BP (ca. AD 424)
P-149 (Tiwanaku, level 12, 2.75-3.0 m down), 1701 ±93 BP (ca. AD 299)
P-150 (Tiwanaku, levels 14, 3.25-3.5 m down), 1692 ±104 BP (ca. AD 308)
P-531 (Kalasasaya, 85-100 cm deep), 295 ±192 BP (ca. AD 1705)
P-532 (Kalasasaya, 3.64 m down), 1653 ±61 BP (ca. AD 447)
P-533 (Kalasasaya, 1.1-1.35 m down), 778 ±133 BP (ca. AD 1222)
P-532 (Kalasasaya, 2.15-2.17 m down), 1866 ±62 BP (ca. AD 234)

It is noteworthy how all the dates are so consistent, falling mostly in the era of ca. AD 100-900. Within each series, too, the dates are consistent: the GaK and B series have the earliest dates drawn from the lower levels of the Kalasasaya (further corroborated by the P-500 series, also from the Kalasasaya); the HV series has the anomolous later date (but not the only one, cf. P-531); even with series, the dates are as one would expect, e.g. the deeper one goes in the P-100 series, the older the dates tend to become (with fluctuations, to be sure, but not unaccountable for by the deviations).
Click to expand...

From my link above
 
Hans said:
Really, but guess what, the professionals disagree with you. Surface disturbances wouldn't affect organic materials buried deeper. Nor would it disturb pottery. Seeing a disturbance of the soil is easy to detect once you dig into it. You might want to look at something called stratigraphy and cross-dating.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Hans said:
Surface disturbances wouldn't affect organic materials buried deeper. Nor would it disturb pottery.
Click to expand...

This has evolved into a comedy thread.

One of the loveliest concepts implied from King of Americas claims, is that ancient civilisations dug up and washed off any biological material off pottery shards that were older than a certain date. :)
 
Matthew Ellard said:
This has evolved into a comedy thread.

One of the loveliest concepts implied from King of Americas claims, is that ancient civilisations dug up and washed off any biological material off pottery shards that were older than a certain date. :)
Click to expand...

That flood did it.
Obviously the younger artifacts were put there after the flood washed all the ancient stuff away.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
No. It's not a problem at all.

"Puma Punku is instead a terraced mound resembling a low pyramid with only three steps. A radiocarbon date from the soil fill of the lowest terrace of the structure is 1500 ± 25 bp, which calibrates to 569 ± 21 CE (527-611 CE at 2σ, meaning that there is a 98% chance that the sample falls in that date range), gives us a terminus post quem. This is an important archaeological principle by which a deposit cannot be older than the date of the youngest object in it: in other words, there is a 98% probability that Puma Punku dates from after 527 CE."
https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/tag/puma-punku/
Click to expand...

*Let's move a stone that has NOT been moved, since its original placement, test the organic material under there, and I'll take carbon evidences...

Otherwise there was mention of some kind of stone surface testing about to be done, wherein they crush and analyze the surface of the stone for cosmic bombardment, literally how long the surface has been exposed to x-rays, gamma, rays, or some other cosmic media. They do however need funding.
 
How do we know you would accept any new evidence?

You reject all the current evidence that doesn't support your position and ask for new evidence.
This is a common tactic seen among conspiracy believers. Asking for evidence that doesn't exist and insisting that it it will settle it.
 
King of the Americas said:
*Let's move a stone that has NOT been moved, since its original placement, test the organic material under there, and I'll take carbon evidences...

Otherwise there was mention of some kind of stone surface testing about to be done, wherein they crush and analyze the surface of the stone for cosmic bombardment, literally how long the surface has been exposed to x-rays, gamma, rays, or some other cosmic media. They do however need funding.
Click to expand...
Yes they need funding; and they are looking for public subscriptions rather than grants from science funding bodies.

As I have pointed out, they hope to make sense of the stories in the Bible, and they may revolutionise society by discovering these advanced technologies known in ancient times, they believe. They give no detail on how the sensitivity of their proposed methodology compares with carbon dating, and in fact they give no reason why carbon dating is not acceptable, or why they reject the results already derived from carbon dating, if they do in fact reject these.

Why will you take carbon evidence only from under a stone that has not been moved since the original placement? You have already suggested that you don't believe there are any such unmoved stones, as they have all been disturbed or vandalised.
King of the Americas said:
I am fairly certain, that the fact that the site has been continuously vandalized, and mined for its stone means that dating accurately would be difficult.
Click to expand...

What do you have against carbon evidence taken from traces of the organic materials found in the normal way, having been deposited by activity at the site over several centuries? A list of the results of such analyses has already been given in this thread. Do you refuse to accept it? If so, why?
 
Last edited:
Matthew Ellard said:
This has evolved into a comedy thread.

One of the loveliest concepts implied from King of Americas claims, is that ancient civilisations dug up and washed off any biological material off pottery shards that were older than a certain date. :)
Click to expand...

Yes it does have a certain unintended comedy value.

I suspect a large fringe reset coming. His only remaining 'argument' is pure denial so I suspect he'll just try to reset the 'debate' back before we showed all the evidence to the lurkers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the mysterious 'tarp' people, before they did anything 'civilized' they put down a huge tarp so that no signs of their presence was left behind. When they left after building/or pouring mysterious stone building they would roll up the tarp and take it with them......somewhere. lol
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
How do we know you would accept any new evidence?

You reject all the current evidence that doesn't support your position and ask for new evidence.
This is a common tactic seen among conspiracy believers. Asking for evidence that doesn't exist and insisting that it it will settle it.
Click to expand...

That's a straw man argument. You are mischaracterizing my stance.

I accept carbon dating as a valid form of dating organic material. I believe the science is sound. If we were indeed looking for the actual age of these stones, finding one in its original place, and testing the material under it would seem to me- elementary.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
That's a straw man argument. You are mischaracterizing my stance.

I accept carbon dating as a valid form of dating organic material. I believe the science is sound. If we were indeed looking for the actual age of these stones, finding one in its original place, and testing the material under it would seem to me- elementary.
Click to expand...

....and by reading the detailed site reports you know or don't know if that was done? It is as you say an elementary step are you stating you know it wasn't done before? If a stone was toppled by an earthquake or moved by humans why would a sample underneath be 'invalid' or not as good as one from under a stone that may or may not have been moved once it was first placed. Remember disturbance of the soil can be detected.

Like this one:

P-123 (Tiwanaku, level 15, 3.5 to 3.75 m down; digging continued for 4.74m below with no pottery below 4m), 1817 ±103 BP (ca. AD 183)

The ones above went down 4.74 meters or 10 and half feet but you feel the stone having been moved would have magically deleted the 10,000 year old stuff? lol
 
King of the Americas said:
That's a straw man argument. You are mischaracterizing my stance.

I accept carbon dating as a valid form of dating organic material. I believe the science is sound. If we were indeed looking for the actual age of these stones, finding one in its original place, and testing the material under it would seem to me- elementary.
Click to expand...
That would be interesting but you are the very person who says no such stones can be found. What about this? People lived in or visited Tiwanaku. And while there, they left organic material, by lighting fires or processing food, or being interred. This went on for centuries, and the dates of use or occupation can be determined by carbon dating.

What is the alternative? That among the 600 CE ashes or whatever, there are no 14000 BCE ones because they were washed away by your magic flood? But if there are many samples datable around 600 CE we may surely assume that the site was in use at that time. And if none are found from 10000 BCE we may also assume the place was not visited at that early time, probably because there were as yet no buildings in the site.

Is it your contention that the magic flood couldn't wash organics out from under the stones, so the missing 10,000 BCE readings will turn up there, and solely there, because that's the only place where organic material could have survived?

I find that hard to accept, and anyway your own concerns about disturbance and vandalism rule out any such finding as you propose. If stones are removed and a 600 CE turd is found beneath them, you will no doubt attribute it to a later vandal visiting Tiwanaku for the purpose of looting and desecrating the site.
 
One favorite fringe tactic is to try to isolate the work of the local people from the societies that built them and which leave vast amounts of material evidence of their existence. Take said pile of rocks and make it mysterious so one can associate it with Atlanteans and the other imaginary places - places which oddly leave no traces at all.

Now in the case of PP the Tiwanaku had a long history in the area before building the ceremonial city.

zDwPXHu.jpg


So what existed in the area before 1350 BC? Not a lot.
 
Hans said:
I suspect a large fringe reset coming
Click to expand...
King of the Americas to another member said:
You are mischaracterizing my stance.
Click to expand...
I ask King of Americas to clearly set out exactly what his claims are in point form, stating exactly which location he is making the claim about.
 
And when people do watch the video and want to discuss specific points brought up in it, you'll dismiss their questions and try to reset your thread.
You did the exact same thing in your 'Jews founded Atlantis in Spain' thread.
 
King of the Americas said:
I side with Graham Hancock...

Watch the video.
Click to expand...
As before. You can't say a single thing for yourself, or formulate a single argument. You simply name junk videos to us.

Yet your opponents have gone to great trouble to formulate ideas and evaluate sources. Have you no consideration or respect for them, responding in this pointless way?

It is equivalent to an admission that your ideas are worthless, or you don't have any of your own, so you can only channel Hancock. NO, not even that. You can only switch on a video and then sit back in an intellectual torpor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom