Ancient Enigmas and Anomalies
People who do not read ‘esoteric’ or mythology related books will probably not be aware of the numerous strange artifacts and puzzling structures that can be found all over the world. I would here like to present some of these to the visitor, without too much of my own interpretation.
- Underwater structures 10 000 BCE
- The Orion Correlation Theory Expanded
- The age of the Sphinx
- The concavity of the walls of the Great Pyramid
- An escape route for the soul of the King?
- Marvellous Masonry
- Drilling, cutting and machining of stone
- The Antikythera Mechanism
- Ancient Telescopes
- The Baghdad Battery
- Ancient 'astronauts'?
- The Palpa Mountains
- The Nazca Lines
- Megaliths - Markers of the Gods?
- Vitrified Hill Forts
The photograph in Figure 1 below shows some of the 65 charcoal stencils of human hands discovered in the Cosquer cave in southern France. Other images in the cave include 187 of animals and numerous geometric signs in various shapes. Small handprints of children had also been found in the cave, and a child must have been lifted by an adult to make a handprint on the rock surface 2.2m from the ground. The images have been dated to between 27 000 and 19 000 BCE. Similar images dating back to that period have also been found at the Chauvet cave in southern France, including images of mammoths and woolly rhinoceroses.
The cave seems to have been used as a source of calcium carbonate for medicinal purposes, but also as an art gallery as the images would be protected from the elements. Incredibly, though, the entrance to the cave is 37m below sea level (Figure 2), suggesting that human beings existed long before the Ice Age. In terms of my theory about a comet strike at the Scotia Plate, could the European continent have been forced downward by the impact?
Figure 1. Human hand stencils in the Cosquer Cave, dated to 27 000 – 19 000 BCE [Faga, Discovery!]
Figure 2. The entrance to the Cosquer Cave, 37m below sea level
A graph of the rise in sea level over the past 24 thousand years (Figure 3a below) shows that the sea level was below -40m with respect to the present level up to about 10 000 years ago, or 8 000 BCE. This confirms that the Cosquer cave paintings date back many thousands of years and that the dated period of 19 000 BCE is indeed possible.
Figure 3a. Post-glacial sea level [R.A. Rohde, Global Warming Art]
The Cosquer Cave is not the only evidence of intelligent human life before the last ice age. Discovered in 1968, these rock formations near Bimini island, dubbed Bimini Road, have been the topic of much debate, some arguing that it represents no more than a geological rock formation, while others have no doubt that it is man-made:
“The sizes of the rectangular formations vary somewhat with the largest about 15 x 30 feet, however, most of them are smaller, 8 x 10-feet, about the size of small buildings. Their depth (100-feet) is actually just above the sea level at 10,000 B.C. It is known that in 10,000 B.C. the sea levels were about 110-feet lower than today, meaning that these structures were once elevated just above the ancient shoreline. … In essence, our research showed that the Bimini Road was actually the remains of an ancient harbor with the stone formation serving as a breakwater and quay. The discovery of dozens of stone anchors there, with obvious rope grooves on them, has verified that there were ancient harbor formations in use.”
Figure 3b. Marble Building Ruins (?) at Bimini Road, 30m below sea-level
Another contentious underwater site was discovered near the Japanese island Yonaguni , which according to some represents an ancient underwater temple, but to others is nothing but natural geological formations. If man-made, it would likewise suggest the presence of a human civilization thousands of years before what is generally accepted.
Figure 3c. Yonaguni underwater site – natural rock formations, or man-made?
In 1994 Robert Bauval together with Adrian Gilbert published his book The Orion Mystery in which he claimed that the layout of the Giza pyramids represented the Orion constellation in space. This theory caused quite a stir amongst Egyptologists but it was not long before the theory was debunked and it now seems to be forgotten. The principal counter argument was that the correlation between the Giza pyramids and the Orion constellation was not perfect (see image below).
Figure 4. Not quite a perfect match – Giza pyramids overlaid onto Orion stars
[Lawton & Ogilvie-Herald, Giza the Truth]
In his book The Hidden Records, Wayne Herschel expanded the ‘mapping of the heavens’ idea substantially and managed to align in the order of 30 or more pyramids with corresponding visible stars in the heavens. Some of his maps are shown below. These demonstrate that the mapping of the pyramids to corresponding stars was not perfect, but that there may indeed be a correlation between the pyramid locations and the corresponding stars.
Figure 5. Star/Pyramid Map I [Herschel, The Hidden Records]
Download Larger Image [830 kB]
Figure 6. Star/Pyramid Map II [Herschel, The Hidden Records]
Figure 7. Orion and Giza Pyramids [Herschel, The Hidden Records] | Download Larger Image [718 kB]
Figure 8. Saqqara Pyramids and Andromeda constellation [Herschel, The Hidden Records]
Herschel presents several other ‘star maps’ which the reader may find interesting.
Figure 9. The Sphinx of Giza
Much has been speculated about the age of the Sphinx in the Giza complex, specifically following the conclusions of Lubicz, West and Schoch, that the erosion of the walls of the Sphinx could only have been caused by prolonged and extensive rain (see image below).
Figure 10. Rain erosion of the walls of the Sphinx [West, Serpent In The Sky]
This theory has been rejected by Egyptologists in general as it would otherwise suggest that the Sphinx was built long before the era of the First Dynasty (3000 BCE). Egypt (the Sahara) experienced significant rainfalls up to about 6000 BCE, so the Sphinx would have had to be constructed prior to or during this time frame. Every conceivable alternative form of weathering has been proposed, but even to the layman it should be obvious that this type of corrosion could only have been caused by significant rainfall.
Another characteristic of the Sphinx that suggests a much older age is its size of the head (see images below).
Figure 11. Composition of the Sphinx showing unusually small head [Jordan, Riddles of the Sphinx, Lehner]
Figure 12. Artist’s impression of the Sphinx, emphasizing the small head [Bauval & Hancock, Keeper of Genesis]
There appears to be little doubt that the body of the Sphinx is that of a lion and one can reasonably assume that the original structure would have represented a lion in full. Given the size of a male lion, the Sphinx may have been carved from a huge outcrop of limestone, which became deformed because of thousands of years of wind erosion.
Figure 13. Side profile of resting lion
Could the Egyptians really have had such an appalling sense of proportions? The body of the Sphinx had been covered by sand for most of its existence, as confirmed by this photographs dating back to 1849 and 1867, respectively.
Figure 14. Body of Sphinx buried beneath the sand, 1849 [Jordan, Riddles of the Sphinx]
Figure 15. Body of Sphinx buried beneath the sand, 1867
These photographs suggest that the body of the Sphinx had remained protected for probably thousands of years, while the head would have been exposed to wind erosion all this time. If the head of the Sphinx had indeed been exposed to thousands of years of wind erosion, practically all its features would most likely have disappeared. It appears logical then that at some stage an Egyptian pharaoh had decided to carve his own image into the featureless protrusion that remained above the body of the Sphinx. Thousands of years of wind erosion again implies that the Sphinx dates back to long before 3000 BCE.
Tuthmosis IV supposedly came to power because the Great Sphinx of Egypt promised him, in a dream, that he would become king should he restore the Sphinx’s ruined body. Tuthmosis erected a carved stone tablet, now known as his Dream Stele, between the paws of the Sphinx, either before restoration started, to justify himself having usurped power, or after restoration had been completed. At the top of the Dream Stele we find mirror images of a Sphinx which one can assume to be the shape of the Sphinx that Tuthmosis had in mind (where else would this shape have come from?). From what is visible today, it would seem that he had not been able to complete the restoration of the Sphinx.
Figure 15a shows an overlay of a drawing of the Sphinx’s current shape and the Sphinx relief on the Dream Stele. The current shape and size of the head is significantly different from what appears to be its original form. In other words, the original head of the Sphinx must have been significantly higher and bigger, but most likely lost its facial features and overall size due to wind erosion over hundreds if not thousands of years. At some point a pharaoh named Khafra then decided to re-carve the head in his own likeness, or in other words, the Sphinx existed a long, long time before the Old Kingdom. Do you agree?
Figure 15a. Overlay of Sphinx drawing and Sphinx on Dream Stela
For opposing views, you'll find a good summary here
A photograph rather fortuitously snapped by Brigadier General Groves and first published in 1929 shows the vertical bisection of one of the sides of the Great Pyramid as revealed by the sun illuminating only one half of this side. The Great Pyramid therefore actually has eight sides, not four, but this hollowing-effect is not visible to the naked eye. It does not exceed 37 inches on any face of the pyramid. Why would a tomb for a pharaoh have been designed to have concave sides?
Figure 16. Photograph showing vertical bisection of the south side of the Great Pyramid [Temple, The Crystal Sun]
Figure 17. Satellite image of the Great Pyramid, bisected left side clearly visible.
The Great Pyramid remains one of the greatest mysteries ever. Its internal construction is precise beyond comprehension, yet the official reason for its very existence remains that it was meant as a tomb for a king. Several shafts were cut with utmost precision at oblique angles through tons of stone. Orthodox Egyptologists maintain that these shafts were an escape route for the soul of the king. A robot with a camera was sent up one of these shafts, only to discover that it was blocked by a small door (see below). A hole was later drilled through this door, only to find another on the other side. Could this really have had anything to do with the soul of a king having to pass up this shaft? Surely, as argued by many, there must be a scientific reason for the existence of the pyramids!
Figure 18. Internal structure of the Great Pyramid [Luberto, The Great Mysteries of Archaeology - The Pyramids]
Figure 19. A ‘door’ blocking a Great Pyramid shaft as filmed by a robot equipped with a camera [Von Daniken, Return of the Gods].
Read more about the secret doors here. Some interesting statistics and calculations on the volume and number of stone blocks in the Great Pyramid can be found here and here.
Apart from the Great Pyramid itself, numerous ancient structures have been found with masonry that is simply mind boggling. How did the ancients manage to transport these massive blocks of stone and cut it so accurately and seemingly effortlessly?
Figure 20. A 120-ton stone in a wall at Sacsayhuaman, Cuzco, Peru [Alford, Gods of the New Millenium]
Figure 21. A 12-angled stone at Sacsayhuaman, Cuzco [Alford, Gods of the New Millenium]
Figure 22. Jigsaw puzzle in stone, Sacsayhuaman, Cuzco [Images of Anthropology]
These megaliths at Ollantaytambo, Peru, were cut from a porphyry quarry 8km away and 900m above this site, on the opposite side of a river valley. The blocks, on average 1x2x3.8m in size (mass about 19 tons), therefore had to be transported that far, down to the valley floor, across the river and then up a steep slope to Ollantaytambo.
Figure 23. Ollantaytambo megaliths [Hancock and Faiia, Heaven’s Mirror]
Why go to all this trouble, unless it was relatively easy to do? Can we repeat this exercise today without the use of modern machinery?
Figure 24. “The absurdly difficult method of fitting the great granite blocks together” [Picknett and Prince, The Stargate Conspiracy]
These blocks almost appear to have been finished off in situ.
Figure 25. Unfinished obelisk (42m, 1200 ton) at Aswan [Parry, Engineering the Pyramids]
How did they plan to raise and transport this obelisk? What was this to be used for?
Figure 26. Baalbek foundation blocks
Figure 27. Baalbek monolith
A newly discovered megalith at Baalbek literally outweighs anything similar discovered so far – a block of stone measuring 19.6 x 6.0 x 5.5 meters with an estimated mass of 1650 tons (Figure 27a) – read more here. Scientists agree that the ancients had every intention to lift this block as one piece – how would they have been able to so?
Figure 27a. Baalbek megalith weighing 1650 tons, with Graham Hancock
How, when, who, what for? Why was this technology lost?
At numerous ancient sites evidence has been found of stone blocks that have been ‘machined’, drilled or cut with high accuracy that seemingly would require 20th century tools and equipment. Some of these are shown below.
Figure 28. A carved stone at Puma Punku displaying a precision-made 6mm wide groove with equidistant drilled holes [Alford, Gods of the New Millenium, Ingold]
As recorded originally by Flinders Petrie in 1883, the Egyptians had made use of tubular drills to cut into materials like granite and other types of stone: “These tubular drills vary in thickness from 1/4 inch to 5 inches in diameter, and from 1/30 to 1/5 inch thick. The smallest hole yet found in granite is 2 inch diameter." "...there is a still larger example, where a platform of limestone rock has been dressed down, by cutting it away with tube drills about 18 inches diameter; the circular grooves occasionally intersecting, prove that it was done merely to remove the rock.”
It is unthinkable that such an advance technology could have existed in ancient times. Why is there no trace of such machinery to be found, yet ample evidence of its former existence does exist? Technology developed by a nation or group of people will continue to be developed and expanded, but a less advance civilization who have not mastered the basic principles will in time lose this technology.
Figure 29. Tube-drilled hole in granite [Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald, Giza the Truth]
Figure 30. Tube-drilled piece of granite displaying spiral grooves characteristic of tube-drilling [GEP, details below].
Figure 31. Granite drill-core [Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald, Giza the Truth]
Figure 32. Drill hole at the Aswan quarries, 12 inches in diameter and 3 feet deep [GEP].
Today this can be done with relative ease, but requires sophisticated power tools.
Figure 33. Core drilling at Abusir [Ingold]
The ancients also seem to have mastered a method to saw through rock and stone, as shown in the image below. There is no indication of the ‘wobbling’ of the blade that would be associated with a hand-drawn saw. It rather represents the saw marks left by a rotating blade held steady.
Figure 34. An example of saw grooves found in basalt blocks close to the Great Pyramid [GEP]
Figure 34.b Additional examples of extreme masonry, from Giza and South America by Lee Anderson (Thanos5150) at GHMB.
All done with ropes and primitive copper tools, of course.
The ancient Egyptians had the technology to machine vases and other objects from the hardest materials and in ways that we cannot perform today. The vase below is described as follows [GEP]:
“At least one piece is so flawlessly turned that the entire bowl (about 9 inches in diameter, fully hollowed out including an undercut of the 3 inch opening in the top) balances perfectly (the top rests horizontally when the bowl is placed on a glass shelf) on a round tipped bottom no bigger than the size and shape of the tip of a hen's egg! This requires that the entire bowl have a symmetrical wall thickness without any substantial error! (With a base area so tiny - less than .15 square inches - any asymmetry in a material as dense as granite would produce a lean in the balance of the finished piece.) This kind of skill will raise the eyebrows of any machinist. To produce such a piece in clay would be very impressive. In granite it is incredible.”
Figure 35. Description of incredible machining accuracy in granite [GEP]
Other extraordinary objects include a ‘horn’ of schist, a brittle type of rock, machined to have paper-thin edges, an asymmetric schist bowl with ‘lobes’ (an ancient propeller?) and an ‘ornamental toilet tray’ of equal complexity. How did the ancient Egyptians manufacture these, and why was the technology lost? It would be a challenging task for any modern machinist working with aluminium, not to mention stone!
Figure 36. Schist horn with paper-thin edges [GEP]
Figure 37. Tri-lobed schist bowl in Cairo Museum [Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald, Giza the Truth, John Reid]
Figure 38. Schist Bowl [Bodsworth, The Egypt Archive]
Figure 39. Schist bowl asymmetry [Sakovich]
Figure 40. ‘Ornamental toilet tray’ and representation of missing centre portion [Bodsworth, The Egypt Archive]
An excellent overview of ancient stone technology in Egypt can be found here. The images referenced as [GEP] come from this website, where many more examples and details regarding the pyramids and other structures are presented. As summarized on this website, the technologies employed by the ancient Egyptians included the following:
- They had tube drills - drill bits and the machinery to hold them steady and apply rotational torque.
- They had saws that would cut granite with ease and precision.
- They had the ability to sculpt the hardest of rocks.
- They were accomplished at finishing granite in situ - after a block had been placed in a wall or on the surface of a pyramid.
- They had the ability to cut, level and polish granite to a sophisticated degree of flatness.
- They had lathes that would turn and polish granite, schist, basalt, etc (in ways we have not duplicated).
- They had the means to cut extremely accurate parallel limestone joints with remarkable flatness over large surface areas - 35 sq.ft.or more, and apparently had mastered the technique before beginning the casing of the Great Pyramid at Giza.
- They had the knowledge and technology to consistently lift, exactly maneuver and delicately place enormous weights of stone.
- They had the means and motivation to quarry and move millions of stone blocks.
The Egyptian reliefs shown below have been interpreted by many as some kind of a power tool (a power drill?) or as ‘lights’. Whatever it represents, it does appear to be some kind of instrument. It is possible that the serpent symbols may indicate ‘serpent power’ and the size of the operators compared to the other human beings suggests that the operators may have been regarded as ‘gods’ or ‘giants’.
Figure 41. Egyptian “Power Tools” [Childress, Technology of the Gods]
Figure 42. “Dendera lights” [Ingold]
The photographs below show imprints of what must certainly be metal clamps intended to join these blocks of stone. Scanning electron microscope studies have revealed that the clamps were poured molten into the imprints, requiring a portable smelter, and a spectrographic analysis of a clamp found in Bolivia revealed that it contained 1.7% nickel, of which there is no source in Bolivia.
Figure 43. Ancient metal clamps (TL Dendera Egypt, TR Angkor Wat Cambodia, BL Tiahuanaco, BR Ollantaytambo, Peru) [Hancock and Faiia, Heaven’s Mirror]
Figure 44. Puma Punku andesit stone block (note the clamp indentations)
Why was this technology lost?
An extensive and well worth reading overview of techniques that may have been used by Egyptians to work these stones can be found here, under the topics
Rock Properties: Why the ancient Egyptians can carve rock with stone and copper tools.
Ancient Egyptian Materials: Greywacke (schist)
Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessel Making
Ancient Egyptian Copper Slabbing Saws
Ancient Egyptian Copper Coring Drills
The Tomb of Sabu and the Tri-lobed Ornamental Bowl
Whether these methods could realistically have been used as proposed will be left for the reader to decide. The question nevertheless remains – why had this technology been lost? Had it been invented by the Egyptians a couple of millennia ago, surely they would have continued improving these technologies in much the same manner that integrated circuits (‘chips’) for computers and numerous other modern sciences continue to become more advanced with each passing year. Why do foreigners today have to attempt to unravel the mysteries of ancient Egyptian technologies if these had been invented by the Egyptians themselves?
This complex mechanism, found on the wreck of the Antikythera in 1901, has been dated to 150-100 BCE. Although this date is fairly recent in human history, nothing similar has ever been found as one might expect. Could this mechanism be a relic from a much earlier date, preserved through hundreds if not thousands of years, but lost at sea during transportation? It is believed to have been used to calculate astronomical positions and would have required advanced mechanical engineering knowledge and sophisticated manufacturing techniques.
Figure 45. The Antikythera Mechanism [Von Daniken, Odyssey of the Gods]
Figure 46. A conceptual drawing of the device [Childress, Technology of the Gods]
The photograph below shows cogwheels displayed in the Cairo museum. When were they manufactured, and which type of metal alloy was used? What were they intended for?
Figure 47. Cogwheels in the Archeological Museum of Cairo [Ingold]
The first functional telescopes of the modern era were invented in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 17th century. The knowledge of lenses however dates back much further in history, as attested to by numerous ancient lenses that have been discovered by archeologists, including the so-called Cairo lens shown below. The Peruvian carving depicting a man with a telescope and an approaching comet suggests firstly that the ancient possessed telescopes, and secondly that this telescope enabled them to detect an approaching comet in time to prepare to depart from Terra Australis and the surrounding areas.
Figure 48. The Cairo lens (left) and a 4th century BCE Greek pottery shard showing man with telescope (right) [Temple, The Crystal Sun]
Figure 49. Peruvian stone showing a man studying the heavens with a telescope, with a fiery comet approaching?
These stones, know as the Ica Stones, were collected by Javier Cabrera but are generally believed to be a hoax. The location of the caves and streams in which they had been found has never been revealed. Amongst the 15 000 stones are images of men fighting dinosaurs. Remarkable indeed, if the stones are authentic. Could any of these stones be real?
The curious artifact shown below is usually referred to as the Baghdad Battery. Several such terracotta jars have been found, 150mm in height containing a copper cylinder that houses an iron rod. It has been argued to represent an ancient battery (not universally accepted), dating from the first centuries CE, and has been demonstrated to produce electricity using grape juice as an electrolyte. An interesting possibility.
Figure 50. The Baghdad Battery [Childress, Technology of the Gods]
In Section 1.4 of Terra Australis Incognita above I have argued that the origin of the fire-breathing dragon myth can be traced back to the ability of the ancients, known as ‘Serpents’ to other nations, to fly and attack their enemies from the air with fire. Shown here are several ancient enigmas which may or may not suggest that the ancients could fly.
Figure 51. El Baul, Guatemala, Monument 27 (“Ball Player”) - A helmeted man breathing fire [Alford, Gods of the New Millenium]
Figure 52. “Ball player” – misunderstood technology? Ingold
Figure 53. “God” with a helmet – Mexico Ingold
Figure 54. “Snake god with helmet” [Ingold]
Figure 55. Helmeted man inside a “dragon” [Ingold], Flying Creature at Candi Sukuh [Troxler]
What do these carvings and statues represent?
Figure 56. “Star Man” [Sitchin, The Earth Chronicles Expeditions]
Figure 57. Diver / space suit? Space suit? [Von Daniken, According to the Evidence]
Figure 58. The Mayan Lord Pacal in a flying contraption?
Figure 59. Lord Pacal enhanced [Herschel, The Hidden Records]
Figure 60. Helicopter, ‘space ship’ and side view of an aircraft at Abydos, Egypt?
Figure 61. Flying gods – Osiris on his solar boat between the stars, gods on a cloud at Borobudur
Figure 62. Columbian insects or jets? [Childress, Technology of the Gods; Coppens]
These ‘insects’ of solid gold discovered in Columbia seem to resemble modern jets rather than insects which have their wings on top of their backs. Three German model enthusiasts, Eenboom, Belting and Lübbers, constructed at first a propeller-driven and then a jet-engine driven scale model of the ‘insect’ on the right. Both models flew perfectly, demonstrating that these artifacts may very well represent ancient aircraft of some kind, as unthinkable as that may be.
Figure 63. ‘Goldflyer’ scale models.
The Palpa Lines appear to be less known than the famous Nazca Lines (Section 13 below), but are in many ways significantly more intriguing. There are numerous mountains with flattened tops, perfectly straight lines running across mountains and valleys as well as drawings and images similar to those found at Nazca. On of the greatest collections of photographs of both the Nazca and Palpa sites can be found here – the images below have all been duplicated from this website.
Figure 64. Were it not for the uneven surfaces, these ‘strips’ may very well have been landing strips. They appear to have been created by a giant with a spray gun directly from above. Could these lines have been created by some kind of airborne machine?
Figure 65. Flattened mountain tops - landing strips (left & centre)? Note the numerous straight lines crossing mountain ranges and valleys (right). How were these created, and for what purpose?
Figure 66. More crisscross lines across valleys and mountains
Figure 67. Flattened mountain top – how many tons of rock would have had to be removed, for what purpose? Note the ‘band of holes’ and the part at the top that has not been levelled (lighter with woolly appearance).
Figure 68. Band of holes (holes 1m diameter, 1m deep, 1 km long) at Pisco, Peru.
For what purpose were these holes created? Graves they were not, as no bones have been found inside.
Figure 69. Skimmed mountain tops – did they do this just for fun? These flat surfaces certainly appear to be man-made.
Figure 70. Map of Palpa geoglyphs [Morseski]
Noticeable geoglyphs at Palpa.
Figure 71. ‘Knife’ (left) and ‘Radiant People’ (right, compare to Figure 53 of Terra Australis above)
Figure 72. ‘Radiant’ people elsewhere in the world (see Section 1.4 above)
|Top Left||Australia [Return of the Gods]|
|Top Right||Italy [M&S Aldhouse-Green, The Quest for the Shaman]|
|Bottom Left||Navoy [Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods]|
|Bottom Right||Russia [Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods]|
Figure 73. “Star” geoglyph at Palpa
The “Star” geoglyph above is simply mind-boggling. It was constructed with precision over a mountainous terrain, seemingly from high above! What could it have been used for? To impress the gods?
The Nazca lines remain one of the greatest enigmas of ancient times. The map below shows the general lay-out of the famous lines, the largest of the figures over 200m long.
Figure 74. Nazca map [Morseski]
The purpose of these lines is hotly debated, the general consensus being that they were drawn for some religious purpose, to placate or bemuse the gods. If this was not the reason, it would otherwise imply that the images were drawn to be visible from the sky, and therefore that human beings could fly in ancient times. The lines are generally believed to have been created during the last centuries before the Christian era, but it could be much older, as generation after generation my have preserved the lines for posterity.
The collection below displays some important aspects of all these images, namely that they were drawn continuously, starting at one point and ending at another, but more curiously, that they all required a “touch-down” and a “take-off”, in a manner of speaking. If these lines had been created by men manually clearing the lines in specific shapes, there would have been no need for these ‘approach’ lines, or in fact for any of the drawings to be continuous. Do these characteristics point to the use of some kind of machinery (airborne?) to create the drawings?
Figure 75. Nazca collection [Herschel, The Hidden Records]
Figure 76. Nazca spider
Figure 77. Maria Reiche, preserver of the Nazca Lines, at the Dog’s Foot.
Megaliths in the context of this chapter refer to standing stones of enormous size found all over the world, erected for purposes unknown to us. Opinion appears to be split between two theories, one being that they were erected for religious purposes only, and the other that they were erected for astronomical purposes or some other scientific application. I have included some photographs of monoliths below, for the reader to consider. Also included are some famous megalithic statues, many of which must have been extremely difficult for the ancients to manufacture.
Figure 78. Stonehenge - one of the most famous.
Some blocks in the Stonehenge weigh an estimated 50 tons. It would not have been an easy task to construct in ancient times, why go to all that trouble?
“In April 1722 a Dutch expedition under Admiral Jacob Roggeveen became the first Europeans to set foot on Rapa Nui. They named it Easter Island as they landed on Easter Sunday. They spent one day there, and reported that the natives worshipped huge statues with fires while prostrating themselves to the rising sun.” [Prat, Easter Island: Land of Mystery.]
The reference to ‘fires’ may link this culture to Tierra del Fuego and the destruction of Terra Australis Incognita as argued in Section 1.1.3 above.
Figure 79. Easter Island statues (Ahu-Akivi)
Figure 80. Easter Island statues (Ahu Tongariki)
Figure 81. Moai statues [Alford, Gods of the New Millennium; Prat Easter Island: Land of Mystery]
Some of these statues are 10m tall and have been estimated to weigh 82 tons. The largest statue ever made, El Gigante, still lies unfinished at Rano Raraku. It is 21.6 m (71.9 ft) long and has been estimated to weigh up to 270 tons. How did they plan to raise this? The excavation shown in the photograph on the right revealed a thick layer of compacted volcanic ash. When these ash deposits occurred is not known, but if it could be determined, it should reveal the youngest age of these monuments.
Figure 82. Toltec statues similar to those at Easter Island [Levy, The Atlas of Atlantis and other lost civilizations]
Figure 83. Easter Island Sea Wall [Prat, Easter Island: Land of Mystery]
Figure 84. Similar masonry at Silustani, Lake Toticaca [Prat, Easter Island: Land of Mystery]
Does the similarity between the Easter Island and Toltec statues not suggest that the natives who lived here were exposed to the same influences (of an older and more advance civilization)? Likewise for the masonry found on Easter Island as compared to that found at Lake Titicaca?
Several huge monoliths are to be found in New Zealand. Are these natural rock formations, or could they be man-made (erected)? If so, for what purpose? Solstice markers?
Figure 85. “The Old Man” and “Rangitata Sentinal” rocks in New Zealand. [Pearson]
Though strictly speaking not ‘standing stones’, the Olmec heads are remarkable not only for their size (3m high, weighing up to 50 tons), but also for their African-like facial features. Could these rulers indeed have been Africans?
Figure 86. Olmec head No 1.
Europe has numerous megalithic sites, as indicated in the map shown below. What were these used for?
Figure 87. Megalithic regions of Europe [Mohen, Standing Stones]
Figure 88. 3m standing stones Orkney Islands [Phillips, The End of Eden]
Figure 89. Callanish standing stones (Hebrides Islands, Scotland)
Figure 90. Morbihan Locmariaquer (Brittany, France), estimated mass 280-350 tons
Figure 91. Kerloas menhir (Brittany, France), 9.5m tall (150 tons)
Figure 92. Rudston Megalith (UK), 7.6m (40 tons) [Thornton]
Much has been speculated about the origins of the Great Zimbabwe Ruins (Figure 93). Whoever had built them seems to have been influenced by the same culture that erected standing stones elsewhere in the world (Figure 94).
Figure 93. Ruins of Great Zimbabwe
Figure 94. Lone monolith at Hill Ruin in Great Zimbabwe [Africa's Glorious Legacy]
Do these standing stones not suggest the presence of an older, worldwide civilization?
The vitrified forts of Scotland and certain parts of Europe pose somewhat of an enigma, although not necessarily suggesting an ancient age.
Vitrified fort is the name given to certain crude stone enclosures whose walls have been subjected in a greater or less degree to the action of fire. They are generally situated on hills offering strong defensive positions. Their form seems to have been determined by the contour of the flat summits which they enclose. The walls vary in size, a few being upwards of 12 feet high, and are so broad that they present the appearance of embankments. Weak parts of the defence are strengthened by double or triple walls, and occasionally vast lines of ramparts, composed of large blocks of unhewn and unvitrified stones, envelop the vitrified centre at some distance from it.
No lime or cement has been found in any of these structures, all of them presenting the peculiarity of being more or less consolidated by the fusion of the rocks of which they are built. This fusion, which has been caused by the application of intense heat, is not equally complete in the various forts, or even in the walls of the same fort. In some cases the stones are only partially melted and calcined; in others their adjoining edges are fused so that they are firmly cemented together; in many instances pieces of rock are enveloped in a glassy enamel-like coating which binds them into a uniform whole; and at times, though rarely, the entire length of the wall presents one solid mass of vitreous substance.
Figure 95. Vitrified wall at Sainte Suzanne, France.
It is not clear why the walls were subjected to vitrification. Some antiquarians have argued that it was done to strengthen the wall, but the heating actually weakens the structure. Battle damage is also unlikely to be the cause, as the walls must have been subjected to carefully maintained fires to ensure they were hot enough for vitrification to take place. Currently, the most popular suggestion is that the process was a symbolic demonstration of power, spectacularly removing the seats of a warrior aristocracy. The dating of the construction of these forts varies from 700 BCE to 900 AD.
It is not only the possible reason for the vitrification of these walls that is puzzling, but also how the builders managed to apply such intense heat over such large surface areas. A good overview of the process can be found here.
- Hits: 100264