Nazca civilisation - Peru

[Greg Boyles]

It is strongly suspected that yet another great human civilisation fell in part due to over population and in part due to climate change. Deforestation to build and maintain their civilisation and to grow their crops contributed to the regional climate altering the desert advancing across what was once a fertile region.

 

Are we going to learn the numerous lesson of history or wil we allow our global civilisation to fall like all the rest that have gone before us?

[JohnB]

It is strongly suspected that yet another great human civilisation fell in part due to over population and in part due to climate change.

 

Suspected by whom? References please.

[Greg Boyles]

Suspected by whom? References please.

 

 

Here is the documentary: http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/secretsofnazca/about/synopsis

 

But I can find any where that it lists the archeologists inolved.

[JohnB]

Thanks for that link. Looks like an interesting program.

[Greg Boyles]

Thanks for that link. Looks like an interesting program.

 

It was facinating.

 

The idea was that the pictures and geometric shapes were part of rituals aimed at getting the gods to make it rain. There was also a certain amount of clan rivalry in creationg of them and hence they gradually got bigger and more elaborate over time. Entire clans walked along them and arranged themselves along them while performing the rituals. Shards of pottery baring the same picture or pattern were found along some of them. The region was undergoing desertification and their civilisation was collapsing. In the end they were forced to abandon the region and move to central America and Mexico etc. where they may have founded the Incan empire.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[JohnB]

Definitely an interesting theory. It took me a minute to realise it could be watched online, but it's now saved to disc as well. (The benefit of Realplayer. )

 

I'll look into it some more as it's a new and novel interpretation. Perhaps the only real reservation I have is that after reading as much archaeology as I have, the "religious" explanation is wearing a bit thin. Got a large building you can't identify? Or an impliment you don't know the use for? File it under "Possibly/Probably of religious significance."

 

Religious/Spiritual reasons are a bit of a catch all in archaeology. A secondary difficulty with the Nazca people is that they had no written language so everything is surmised and falls into the "as if" category. (The second was used a couple of times in the doco.)

 

Having said all that, the core data, etc would definitely imply climate change as the best reason for the fall.

 

WRT the OP. I didn't see any mention of overpopulation or deforestation as factors. The climate changed and became desert, they were forced to move or die.

[Greg Boyles]

Definitely an interesting theory. It took me a minute to realise it could be watched online, but it's now saved to disc as well. (The benefit of Realplayer. )

 

I'll look into it some more as it's a new and novel interpretation. Perhaps the only real reservation I have is that after reading as much archaeology as I have, the "religious" explanation is wearing a bit thin. Got a large building you can't identify? Or an impliment you don't know the use for? File it under "Possibly/Probably of religious significance."

 

Religious/Spiritual reasons are a bit of a catch all in archaeology. A secondary difficulty with the Nazca people is that they had no written language so everything is surmised and falls into the "as if" category. (The second was used a couple of times in the doco.)

 

Having said all that, the core data, etc would definitely imply climate change as the best reason for the fall.

 

WRT the OP. I didn't see any mention of overpopulation or deforestation as factors. The climate changed and became desert, they were forced to move or die.

 

Well gods and religions in one form or another did rule the lives of the vast majority ancient people until perhaps until the late 1800s or so.

 

So I would have thought that it is not unreasonable for archaelogists to assume that structures had a religious function when there is no obvious daya to day practical function discernible.

 

What practical function could a drawing in the dirt possibly serve anyway?

[JohnB]

Well gods and religions in one form or another did rule the lives of the vast majority ancient people until perhaps until the late 1800s or so.

 

So I would have thought that it is not unreasonable for archaelogists to assume that structures had a religious function when there is no obvious daya to day practical function discernible.

 

What practical function could a drawing in the dirt possibly serve anyway?

 

Fair enough as far as it goes, but things are far too easily classified as "religious" at times. I'm speaking in general, rather than the specific of Nazca here.

 

Here are a few things that have no obvious day to day practical function, are they religious too?

 

 

 

See my point? Just because we can't see an obvious use for something doesn't mean that those who built it did so for religious reasons.

[Greg Boyles]

Fair enough as far as it goes, but things are far too easily classified as "religious" at times. I'm speaking in general, rather than the specific of Nazca here.

 

Here are a few things that have no obvious day to day practical function, are they religious too?

 

 

 

See my point? Just because we can't see an obvious use for something doesn't mean that those who built it did so for religious reasons.

 

 

Point taken. But wasn't pretty much all major art associated with religion and temples in ancient times. Perhaps except for brief periods of time such as the Ionian awakening.

 

If the Nazcas were going to engage in art or art's sake then surely it would have been around their homes, palaces and settlements rather than on a remote plain in the middle of no where.

[michel123456]

(...)the "religious" explanation is wearing a bit thin. Got a large building you can't identify? Or an impliment you don't know the use for? File it under "Possibly/Probably of religious significance."

 

Religious/Spiritual reasons are a bit of a catch all in archaeology.

 

See my point? Just because we can't see an obvious use for something doesn't mean that those who built it did so for religious reasons.

 

I agree.

It comes under the moto: "a wrong interpretation is better than no interpretation at all", because no interpretation is an open door to complete nonsense.

Edited August 9, 2011 by michel123456

[imatfaal]

John - where are those sculptures? I love outdoor sculpture on a massive scale - but I guess they are probably a few continents away. And if I had the resources I would create drawings the size of the Nazca lines - so far the biggest I have done were crop circles about 100m across; people interpreted those as religious/alien as well

[Janus]

Fair enough as far as it goes, but things are far too easily classified as "religious" at times. I'm speaking in general, rather than the specific of Nazca here.

 

Here are a few things that have no obvious day to day practical function, are they religious too?

 

 

 

See my point? Just because we can't see an obvious use for something doesn't mean that those who built it did so for religious reasons.

 

The difference is that the structures in these pictures were made by a a civilization that was technologically advance enough to be able to afford to divert resources for such luxuries as large structures which are just "art for art's sake." A pre-industrial civilization wouldn't have that kind of freedom with it resources.

[Greg Boyles]

The difference is that the structures in these pictures were made by a a civilization that was technologically advance enough to be able to afford to divert resources for such luxuries as large structures which are just "art for art's sake." A pre-industrial civilization wouldn't have that kind of freedom with it resources.

 

Agreed. That did cross my mind but I didn't end up posting it.

[JohnB]

imatfaal. I googled "modern sculpture" pictures.

 

The first is a modern sculpture near the highway exit in Florence, Italy.

 

The second (which I think is a beauty, BTW) is "Solfar Suncraft Sculpture by Jon Gunnar Arnason" and is in Reykjavik.

 

The third is the HOMA Hotel, "Hotel of Modern Art" in Yangshuo, China. The pic is from Mr and Mrs Smiths Travelblog.

 

You're a circle maker? Cool! Would you consider starting a thread on the subject? There are heaps of questions I'd like to ask. I've sometimes wondered if all circles could be made by man as I don't see how the really big and complex ones can be done fast enough. A discussion and some answers on the subject would be great.

 

Greg,

Point taken. But wasn't pretty much all major art associated with religion and temples in ancient times. Perhaps except for brief periods of time such as the Ionian awakening.

 

If the Nazcas were going to engage in art or art's sake then surely it would have been around their homes, palaces and settlements rather than on a remote plain in the middle of no where.

 

The problem is the never ending cycle. We classify things we don't identify as "religious" due to the idea that religion played a large part in their lives, but we assume religion played a large part in their lives due to all the items classified as religious. What people miss is that "religion" in early cultures was often very pragmatic. If you were defeated in battle, then the other guys God was better then yours and people would worship the new God. If rain didn't come and prayers to your God didn't work, then you try praying to other Gods, the one being prayed to when the rains came was the winner. Gods that didn't supply the needs of the people were discarded or absorbed into the new Gods. Bottom line is that religion then is nothing like religion now.

 

Note that the early glyphs were done so that they could be viewed from the lower regions. We are perhaps assuming the human figures are Gods, they might have been Kings, carved into the hillsides to show how they watch over their people or to declare who the land belongs to. A modern version being;

 

The later glyphs are on the plateau. Maybe they didn't want to overwrite the traditional "Kings" ones? As to the change in style, styles in art change? Impossible! Artists today are still painting the same way as Leonardo, aren't they? Styles in art change and there doesn't have to be a reason.

 

The above isn't to say that the theory in the doco is wrong, it may well be right. I'm really just cautioning against accepting a "religious" interpretation (or any, for that matter) in an uncritical fashion. The theory could be right or wrong, without a written language it's hard to make a definitive statement as to the cause of something.

 

If those who are reading this thread haven't seen it, do follow Gregs link to the show and take an hour to watch it. It is very, very good.

 

Janus,

The difference is that the structures in these pictures were made by a a civilization that was technologically advance enough to be able to afford to divert resources for such luxuries as large structures which are just "art for art's sake." A pre-industrial civilization wouldn't have that kind of freedom with it resources.

 

I think that you are underestimating the abilities of those old cultures. The existence of large silos or storage facilities implies that feeding the population wasn't a constant thing, there were growing seasons. The best example of this is the inundation of the Nile in pharonic Egypt, where for 3 months of the year your farmers were idle due to flooding. Why not have them work on large structures rather be idle and cause trouble? If the original climate at Nazca caused a similar situation, why not keep the people busy with "Art for arts sake"?

 

The ancient peoples were different. The pyramids were built without wheel or pulley, the great cities of South America were built without the wheel. These peoples developed technologies that we simply cannot imagine. It's not magic, or anything silly like that. Simply the logical conclusion from understanding that while human thought shapes technology, so does technology and available materials shape human thought. Due to the differences in technologies and resources, they approached problems differently to the way we would. Even something as recent as "Archimedes Claw" is a mystery to us because we don't think the same way.

 

Why did the Aztecs at Sacsayhuaman build the walls the way they did?

 

Why not square up the blocks? Because they didn't think the way we do. What I'm getting at is that with the obvious fact that they didn't think the same way, we should be very wary when using modern modes of thought about things to ascribe motives to an ancient culture.

 

Again, I'm not saying the theory in the doco is wrong, simply that I don't think that there is enough clear evidence to declare it right.

[Greg Boyles]

Why did the Aztecs at Sacsayhuaman build the walls the way they did?

 

Why not square up the blocks? Because they didn't think the way we do. What I'm getting at is that with the obvious fact that they didn't think the same way, we should be very wary when using modern modes of thought about things to ascribe motives to an ancient culture.

 

Perhaps because it was more cost effective to work with the existing shape of the stone and just flatten off existing approximate faces rather than square the whole block.

 

Again, I'm not saying the theory in the doco is wrong, simply that I don't think that there is enough clear evidence to declare it right.

 

Perhaps John, who knows.

[imatfaal]

imatfaal. I googled "modern sculpture" pictures.

The first is a modern sculpture near the highway exit in Florence, Italy.

The second (which I think is a beauty, BTW) is "Solfar Suncraft Sculpture by Jon Gunnar Arnason" and is in Reykjavik.

The third is the HOMA Hotel, "Hotel of Modern Art" in Yangshuo, China. The pic is from Mr and Mrs Smiths Travelblog.

 

I am a little in awe of Oz - and had just assumed they were the brave new world down under; oops.

 

You're a circle maker? Cool! Would you consider starting a thread on the subject? There are heaps of questions I'd like to ask. I've sometimes wondered if all circles could be made by man as I don't see how the really big and complex ones can be done fast enough. A discussion and some answers on the subject would be great.

As it is definitely criminal damage and possibly aggravated trespass I think I should make it clear I was talking hypothetically - I will answer any questions (from a hypothetical viewpoint) that you might have. The bigger the pattern, the more complicated, the better the organisation that is required; you only have a few hours, so preparation and planning are essential. You do not go drunk or without knowing exactly which pattern and at what location. It's a nerds pastime - ie it requires detail, planning, forethought, and a general lack of spontaneity.

 

 

 

 

Why did the Aztecs at Sacsayhuaman build the walls the way they did?

 

Why not square up the blocks? Because they didn't think the way we do. What I'm getting at is that with the obvious fact that they didn't think the same way, we should be very wary when using modern modes of thought about things to ascribe motives to an ancient culture.

 

Again, I'm not saying the theory in the doco is wrong, simply that I don't think that there is enough clear evidence to declare it right.

 

Why did the Aztecs at Sacsayhuaman build the walls the way they did?

Because they were in a hurry to get back to Mexico before the Incas realised they were there.

 

I think the Incas thought in a very similar way - if those blocks were square they would be an impressive but fairly boring wall. Irregular - but tooled to fit together almost perfectly (you cannot fit a postcard in the gaps) they bridge the gap between nature and technology. They look like a histologically prepared slide - they create continuity in a way that regular blocks cannot. damn I am waxing lyrical...

[JohnB]

I am a little in awe of Oz - and had just assumed they were the brave new world down under; oops.

 

Nah, they make too much sense for them to be from Oz. We do things like "brown cardboard set in concrete". Seriously, it's in the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre. The artist got $25,000 for 20 square bits of concrete with torn carboard set into them. I guess it's a good lurk if you can get it.

 

As it is definitely criminal damage and possibly aggravated trespass I think I should make it clear I was talking hypothetically - I will answer any questions (from a hypothetical viewpoint) that you might have. The bigger the pattern, the more complicated, the better the organisation that is required; you only have a few hours, so preparation and planning are essential. You do not go drunk or without knowing exactly which pattern and at what location. It's a nerds pastime - ie it requires detail, planning, forethought, and a general lack of spontaneity.

 

Of course any discussion would have to be on a purely theoretical basis.

 

I think the Incas thought in a very similar way - if those blocks were square they would be an impressive but fairly boring wall. Irregular - but tooled to fit together almost perfectly (you cannot fit a postcard in the gaps) they bridge the gap between nature and technology.

 

When you're building without wheels, I think that this might then classify as "Art for arts sake". They might have wanted their walls to be works of art and not just walls. Choosing the more difficult path out of a love of form rather than function. There have been some amazing civilisations in the past and frankly I don't think we've found them all yet, I think that there are surprises yet to come.

[imatfaal]

Nah, they make too much sense for them to be from Oz. We do things like "brown cardboard set in concrete". Seriously, it's in the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre. The artist got $25,000 for 20 square bits of concrete with torn carboard set into them. I guess it's a good lurk if you can get it.

i keep trying to get it - but they want me to work for my money

When you're building without wheels, I think that this might then classify as "Art for arts sake". They might have wanted their walls to be works of art and not just walls. Choosing the more difficult path out of a love of form rather than function. There have been some amazing civilisations in the past and frankly I don't think we've found them all yet, I think that there are surprises yet to come.

I worry that the damned industrious victorians might have pulled half of them down because they didn't fit with the neo-gothic phase they were in. Edited August 10, 2011 by imatfaal

[JohnB]

Mate, keep trying. In the Queensland Art Gallery is a painting about 6 foot wide and 4 high. It's a light sandy colour with a smattering of green drops on it. The title is "The Australian Outback from 30,000 feet". Many of the artworks go downhill from there.

[imatfaal]

I once sold a construction of dollar bills for over six times the actual worth - I was completely made up; the fact that the price valued my time at about 5 dollars an hour did not detract from my pleasure.

It was a construction like this one ------------------------------>

Edited August 11, 2011 by imatfaal

[michel123456]

Why did the Aztecs at Sacsayhuaman build the walls the way they did?

 

Why not square up the blocks? Because they didn't think the way we do. What I'm getting at is that with the obvious fact that they didn't think the same way, we should be very wary when using modern modes of thought about things to ascribe motives to an ancient culture.

(...)

 

Why did the Aztecs build the walls the way they did?

 

First of all at Sacsayhuaman it was the Incas, not the Aztecs.

 

I went looking on my shelves, and found a book about ancient Egypt where I remembered mentioning that the stones join perfectly only at the surface of the wall. (Egypte, J.L. de Cenival, H.Stierlin, Edition D.Vincent L'equerre, Paris © Office du livre, Fribourg 1964,) page 140 about the Djeser complex. The mention is about a different type of masonry, since the blocks are rectangular and not polygonal like the Inca's.

 

About ancient Greece where one can find cyclopean walls that match the incas, I found nothing on my shelves, nor on the Internet.

 

 

So I went to the Aigosthena site yesterday where there is a polygonal-style wall on the north side of the citadel.

Here are the pictures from the wall in front, above, and behind.

 

 

 

The joining is only at the exterior surface of the wall. The blocks have their natural shape on the other sides. The same goes for the other orthogonal walls of the citadel (photos upon request).

 

The technological basic principle in all ancient cultures is the same for Incas, Mayas, Egypt, Greece, China,etc.: you build 2 parallel walls of organized well-done masonry, and you fill the gap with wathever material you can get, stones, mud, earth, etc. This is the way the pyramids were build, antique & medieval fortresses, the great wall of China.

 

The concept is economy of material and economy of specialized workers. These are not different preoccupations, ancient people did think the way we do.

The Incas and other ancient civilisation build that way because it was more economic to them to transport unequal gigantic stones than to quarry everything into rectangular shape. They followed the natural cracks of the stones and worked the material as less as possible.

Edited August 18, 2011 by michel123456

[imatfaal]

Thanks Michel - great post.

[CharonY]

Wait, you actually took the pictures? Brilliant.

[michel123456]

I am making an obsession. today i went to the Keramikos archeological site in Athens Greece and incidentally found a beautiful example of polygonal masonry.

 

here are the pictures front above and corner, the stairs on the left give an idea of the dimensions. Again the perfect joining is only at the external surface. The interior is filled with a kind of mortar and small stones.

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2011 by michel123456

[JohnB]

Thanks for taking the time michel, the photos are incredibly informative.

 

(You do realise that you are making me disgustingly jealous of your access to amazing archeaological sites, don't you? )