> Hi DScribr,
> Thanks for the radiocarbon link.
> I went through that thesis. I'm not sure that its
> contents are precise enough to definitively date
> Puma Punku. Excerpts include :
> "Because of the changing amount of 14C isotope in
> the atmosphere, results obtained in laboratories
> should be converted from radiocarbon years into
> calendar ages. This transformation called
> calibration is unfortunately not a one-to-one
> This collection consists of more than 130 dates.
> More than one in every five dates gathered here,
> however, do not mention when they were produced.
> It was assumed, that the six `not-fully-described'
> dates from Chile were probably produced in 1960s
> or 1970s (according to date of publication by
> Berenguer 1978).
> The set of Tiwanaku radiocarbon dates gathered
> here is certainly not complete nor is it
> statistically very large, therefore it is
> difficult to treat the results presented here as
> precise answers to above mentioned aims.
> 98 dates form the set from the Titicaca lake
> basin. Cultural/stylistic contexts of samples were
> determined from original publications as Tiwanaku
> I, II, III, IV, V, Early, Classic, Late Formative
> 1 or 2, or the dates were related to construction
> phases of supposed state / ritual architecture.
> There are 62 dates from samples collected from the
> Tiwanaku site: 14 from Kalasasaya, 13 from
> Akapana, 5 from the area "between Akapana and
> Putuni", 4 from Kantatayita (Ziólkowski et al.
> 1994), 12 from Akapana East sector, 7 from Putuni,
> 1 from Kheri Kala, and 1 from Puma Punku
> (A.Vranich, 1999).
> Although newer dates produced in the 1980s and
> 1990s (mainly from the Wila Jawira Project)
> represent almost half of collection, they come
> only from sites in the Moquegua valley and
> Titicaca basin. The cultural context of all
> gathered dates is often not described according to
> Tiwanaku I-V phases. Furthermore, in most cases,
> sample materials were charcoal, but often
> references lack any information about sample
> With only one sample being from Puma Punku and
> stone being undatable, do you have any more
> reliable data to accurately date the site of Puma
The fact that the set of Tiwanaku radiocarbon dates gathered here is not complete or statistically very large, and/or when they were taken doesn't affect the accuracy of the test results. (Like most, I'd like to see a smaller range of dates given in the results.)
IMO, the most important test, (relating to this thread and this site) and test-location in the link is the test of the organic plant material taken from the Pleistocene layer under ALL the fill layers the builders laid down to form the foundations of PP. The paper gave a range of 450-600 A.D. for the R-C test results. This date is attributed to the first, (of three) construction phases @ PP. (The paper is a bit difficult to follow, BUT, IMO, the 450 A.D. date is reasonably close to the actual date of its construction, and there's no good reason it shouldn't be accepted as valid.)
They tested what they could. Charcoal is a good indicator, assuming they documented its location, etc. properly. Cultural context is much less important than accurate dating, IMO. This site simply doesn't attract the amount of scientific interest as the GP, etc....w/ that said, this site certainly attracts more than its fair share of Alts.
This paper is the only one w/ test-results of Tia. that I know of...you are welcome to search for more.
Edit to make changes.
Campbell's Chamber roof blocks are Tura Limestone until proven otherwise.
THE Cartouche in Campbell's Chamber IS Authentic, as are ALL other RC's Glyphs, until proven otherwise.
"This Forgery 'theory' has more holes than a sieve basket."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Nov-15 17:47 by DScribr.