Page 4 of 4
13. The Nazca Lines
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.
14. Megaliths – markers of the Gods?
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?
15 . Vitrified Hill Forts
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.