Stone formations in the Peruvian Andes that were recently claimed to be the possible ruins of the ancient city of Paititi are now thought to be naturally occurring phenomena, officials say.
Photographs courtesy Peru Instituto Nacional de Cultura
Posted on 02/27/2008 5:08:52 AM PST by Renfield
Stone structures in Peru recently suggested to be the ruins of an ancient "lost city" were actually shaped by natural forces, not Inca stone workers, officials say.
The announcement comes from archaeologists with Peru's culture ministry, clouding the prospects of one local politician to turn the site into a tourist attraction.
On January 10, Peruvian state media reported that a stone fortress had been discovered on the heavily forested eastern slopes of the Andes Mountains (see map). .
The story quoted the local mayor as saying the structures were discovered under heavy vegetation by villagers, who dubbed the site Manco Pata.
Guillermo Torres, the mayor of nearby Kimbiri, suggested that the complex could be the lost city of Paititi, described in local legend as a citadel built by the Inca hero Inkarri after the Spanish conquest.
Weeks after the initial report of the find, experts from the Peruvian government's Cusco-based National Institute of Culture (INC) arrived at the site and issued their findings in a report on February 12.
In the four-page report, the researchers deliver what one INC official described as "alarming news": Natural chemical and physical processes, including seismic activity, created the stone blocks found at the site, causing them to "appear to be walls or surfaces made by hand," the report states.
The team found "no evidence of archaeological structures or buildings … that could suggest a human presence," it adds.
"Too Good to Be True"
Geological analysis identified the formations as sandstone, the report says.
"The stones do not show signs of wear or of intervention from the hands of men from the act of cutting stone," it states.
Scientists also found no mortar on the corners or sides of the stone blocks.
"Additionally no evidence exists that in any moment the sector in question could have been used as a stone-working site for the preparation of stone elements," it says.
The team, which notes that similar naturally occurring structures have been found in Machu Picchu, also found no construction foundation for the walls.
In January, experts interviewed by National Geographic News expressed doubts about the Paititi claim, stating that historical records put the probable location of the legendary city in another part of the Amazon.
Nonetheless, based on photographs of Manco Pata, some remained optimistic that the site would prove to be an important artifact of Inca or perhaps pre-Inca culture.
"The claims of it being such an extensive site seemed, as well, too good to be true," said Gregory Deyermenjian, a Massachusetts-based psychologist and explorer who has led expeditions to investigate the Paititi legend.
Tourism Hopes?
Days after Torres, the local mayor, announced the discovery of the find to the press, he met with INC officials, who in turn announced that Manco Pata would be declared a national heritage site.
As scientists headed to the site to determine its origins, rumors surfaced that Torres owned a local tourism company, and that villagers had known about Manco Pata for years.
Alex Lizaraso, an aide to Torres, confirmed in an interview that some locals had known of the site's existence for some years but kept its location quiet.
He also said Torres owned a small company that provides recreational space and a swimming pool to schoolchildren in a nearby town, but he did not expect to gain profits from tourism related to Manco Pata.
"Personally, I considered it an exaggeration to think the mayor would promote Manco Pata for personal ends," Lizaraso said.
Torres's office did not comment on the new INC report.
Stone formations in the Peruvian Andes that were recently claimed to be the possible ruins of the ancient city of Paititi are now thought to be naturally occurring phenomena, officials say.
Photographs courtesy Peru Instituto Nacional de Cultura
GGG ping.
What fools these "experts" are.
The bottom photo doesn’t look natural to me.
OK - I will bite, if they can tell me the specific “natural” geological forces that result in said formations. A generic “natural forces” answer won’t cut it.
Seriously - I don’t have a problem if they can specifically explain the forces involved, possibly with additional examples from other areas to support it.
Or is this another “evolution” theory - just with non-biological subjects?
I find this very difficult to believe.
Sure does look like nature got real inventive with those "falling" stones.
looks like naturually occurring basalt formations to me
I don't suppose this newly found ruins site might be on private land who's owner/s had wanted to keep private?
Nature abhors a vacuum.....and a straight line.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Renfield. Long live rock. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Of course if we could see the corners and endwalls of the formations, that would be the tell.
Nature loves a straight line.
Search “columnar basalt.” (We have a naturally formed hexagonal basalt column installed in our landscaping.)
And consider all the other natural structures with geometric pattern, like sedimentary layers, honeycombs, spiderwebs, flower and insect patterns, crystals.
Nature ain’t random.
No geometric forms in nature? That's just absurd. Might be the most blazingly odd claim I've heard in a while.
Others more subtle than you have already posted the geological formations in nature. I made an error. mea culpa
Actually, nature is quite okay with straight lines. You ever look at minerals? I see you’re in PA: if you want to blow your mind, I can send you to some marvelous examples of planar striations in sandstone. Or even easier, dig up some quartz or tourmaline.
Oh? I suppose you’re saying that the ol’ thumb sucker himself, Mr. Finn MacCool, didn’t build the giant’s stairway?
Dang revisionists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.