Talk:Arthur Posnansky

Untitled

It is my concern that you have (as of yet) provided no sources for your information (other than that citation from one of Posnansky's books). To keep this article from being nominated for deletion, it'd be advised that you add outside references as soon as possible. In the mean time, I'll try to help you with the article as much as I can. OverSS (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added material from a short biography, Parker (1922) and other sources. If I am happen to come across a copy of Ponce Sangines (1999). I will eventually add information from it.

References Cited:

Parker, W.B. (1922) Bolivians of To-Day, 2nd ed. The Hispanic Society of America. New York, New York. 332 pp.

Ponce Sangines, C. (1999) Arthur Posnansky: Biografia Intelectual de un Pionero. Producciones "CIMA", La Paz.Paul H. (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The 4 references listed as discrediting Posnansky, when checked by me, do NOT support the statement that Posnansky has been discredited. In some cases they don't even mention Posnansky. If you're going to say a man's chief work is discredited (especially 4 volumes worth) you need to be specific about what is being discredited, and exactly where it is being discredited. Repeating someone else saying he has been discredited is not a proof. The proof I offer is the references cited by the author of the article. I pulled all 4, read them, and found nothing of the sort suggested.

Posnansky's theories about the age of Tiwanaku and it being the origin point of civilization throughout the Americas have been completely discredited by modern research. The Wikipedia articles about Tiwanaku, Pumapunku, and Kalasasaya illustrate how completely incorrect, fanciful, and discredited Posnansky's interpretations about their age and cultural significance were according to subsequent research. The 4 references that are listed as discrediting Posnansky, contrary the false claims made above, do in fact support the statement that Posnansky's ideas has been discredited even if some do not mention his name. For example, modern radiocarbon dating and Kelley et al. (2002) have discredited Posnansky's dating of Tiwanaku by archaeoastronomy. Kolata (1993) discusses and summarizes current research that discredits Posnansky's ideas about Tiwanaku being the "Cradle of American Man." Posnansky’s chronology of Tiwanaku’s prehistory involving two races, one inferior and one superior, was discarded by later researchers as soon as the first set of radiocarbon dates became available for Tiwanaku. Paul H. (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, restating the word discredit does not improve the argument.As for radiocarbon samples, having reviewed the research 'cited' all it does is demonstrate another group of peoples lived at the site after it was built, and that the temples were repaired by them. The same can be said for Sacsayhuaman to the north. No one has determined when it was built or by whom, but they know the site was used by subsequent peoples. The radiocarbon argument does not address the fact that the 6 meter depth of the canals used to move the blocks of stone are completely useless unless the depth of the lake is at a level prior to 10,000 BCE. It ignores Posnanky's discovery of wooly mammoth remains under the site - critters that disappeared from South America before 10000 BCE. I have reviewed all the radiocarbon studies of the site. There is one radio-carbon sample often cited from the center of Puma Punku, in a dissertation that "may" challenge the age of construction, but the sample control did not follow protocol and the description of the material sampled has been changed by the author three times in three different published works. It is a very unreliable reading. As for the criticism on race, what is discredited?? He did find two different types of skulls. Are you suggesting he didn't find two types of skulls? Are you saying that one of the two groups was not dominant, and if so what is that source. As for saying my claims about your sources are 'false', I suggest arbitration on this. I am fairly confidant an independent review will demonstrate your sources are both ambiguous and do not support your claim.I got the volumes from the library and checked them thoroughly. 2604:2D80:6812:A500:C95B:5084:2DA7:9F6E (talk 08:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Pete M

There were no woolly mammoths in South America, the remains probably refer to those of Notiomastodon. Theres no way the site is over 10,000 years old. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In any case, “under” means earlier, surely? If bones had been found above the site it might indicate that the site was earlier than the extinction of whatever they came from, but ones found under the site just means that the site is later than the bones. Brunton (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The criticisms by User 2604:2D80:6812:A500:C95B:5084:2DA7:9F6E and / or 150.195.97.43 and / or User talk:2604:2D80:6812:A500:DAE:BD48:F031:8C2F ??? are:

1. "It ignores Posnanky's discovery of wooly mammoth remains under the site..."

As it has been said before, woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) have been found neither in South America nor at the Tiwanaku Site. There are various speculations and fringe claims that images of Smilodon, Toxodon (ungulates), and / or Cuvieronius carved on the Gate of the Sun and / or Viracocha statue at the Tiwanaku have been reported. Of these, I have so far confirmed in his original source material only where Posnanky's interpreted without providing any justification that images of Toxodon were carved on the Viracocha statue. For details, read the popular article Rock Art Blog byPeter Faris . Without providing any source, one popular article reported that a Toxodon, not woolly mammoth, skull was found beneath the Akapana. However, given that the Tiwanaku lies on a Pleistocene lake terrace, finding Pleistocene vertegrate fossils in them means nothing as to the age of Tiwanaka. Reliable, non-fringe sources are needed for verification of many of these claims and reports.

2. "6 meter depth of the canals used to move the blocks of stone are completely useless..."

I have so far found a lack of any hard evidences, specifically from reliable souces, that the canals were used to move blocks. As far as I have found this claim can be found only in unreliable, fringe sources that are unacceptable for use in Wikipedia. In addition these canals have been clearly explained using hydraulic/hydrological analyses in terms of surface and ground water management. Go see:

Ortloff, C.R., 2014. Groundwater Management in the 300 bce-1100ce Pre-Columbian City of Tiwanaku (Bolivia). Hydrology: Current Research, 5(2), p.1.

Ortloff, C.R., 2016. New Discoveries and Perspectives on Water Management and State Structure at AD 300–1100 Tiwanaku’s Urban Center (Bolivia). MOJ Civ. Eng, 1, pp.57-66.

Ortloff, C.R., 2020. Water Engineering at Precolumbian AD 600–1100 Tiwanaku’s Urban Center (Bolivia). Water, 12(12), p.3562.

Where are the hydraulic/hydrological analysis / analyses that support that these canals could have been used to transport blocks and are 6 metters deep?

Finally, the ancient lake levels of Lake Titicaca are extremely well documented and dated as discussed in:

Clapperton, C. M., 1993, Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology of South America. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 779 pp.

Placzek, C., J. Quade, and P. J. Patchett, 2006, Geochronology and stratigraphy of Late Pleistocene lake cycles on the Southern Bolivian Altiplano: implications for causes of tropical climate change. Geological Society of America Bulletin 118(5-6):515–532.

Blard, P.H., Sylvestre, F., Tripati, A.K., Claude, C., Causse, C., Coudrain, A., Condom, T., Seidel, J.L., Vimeux, F., Moreau, C. and Dumoulin, J.P., 2011. Lake highstands on the Altiplano (Tropical Andes) contemporaneous with Heinrich 1 and the Younger Dryas: new insights from 14C, U–Th dating and δ18O of carbonates. Quaternary Science Reviews, 30(27-28), pp.3973-3989.

3. In terms of radiocarbon dates and Posnansky’s star-alignments and the age of Tiwanaku, go read Hancock Position's position Statement on C14", Papers by topic, Hall of Ma'at and Dating of Tiwanaku (Tiahuanaco) Site, Bolivia, Papers by topic, Hall of Ma'at.

If Tiwanaku was first occupied 17,000 years ago, where are the midden deposits and artifacts that date to that period? Where are the reliable, non-fringe source(s) that support this speculative proposal?

4. "for the criticism on race, what is discredited?? He did find two different types of skulls. Are you suggesting he didn't find two types of skulls?"

There are not the two sets of skulls based upon racial science that are different enough to serve as evidence of two distinct racial groups as he proposed with one being distinctly superior and the other inferrior associated with two cults, two levels of intelligence, and two levels of customs and techniques. As noted by Kolata 1993:16). Posnansky’s fundamental message in his interpretations involving two distinct racial groups was that "... the contemporary Indian could not possibly have been the creator of Tiwanaku civilization.."

Note: Kolata (1993:16) stated: "Despite the research of modern archaeology that has thoroughly debunked Posnansky's climatic, cultural, and hyper-diffusionist interpretations, an astonishing number of his acolytes in Latin America still keep the flame burning, recapitulating exegesis of Tiwanaku history and culture, clinging to a vision they as accurate, fitting, even noble."

and Sammells (2012) stated: "Today, because of his now largely discredited interpretations of the Tiwanaku archaeological site, his disparaging views on indigenous peoples, and his interest in scientific racism, Posnansky is dismissed out of hand by many U.S. archaeologists."

References

Kolata, A.L. and Kolata, G., 1993. The Tiwanaku: portrait of an Andean civilization (p. 38). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Sammells, C.A., 2012. Ancient calendars and Bolivian modernity: Tiwanaku's Gateway of the Sun, Arthur Posnansky, and the World Calendar Movement of the 1930s. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 17(2), pp.299-319.

For background about Posnansky’s worldview, look at:

Qayum, S., 2011. Indian Ruins, National Origins: Tiwanaku and Indigenismo in La Paz, 1897–1933. In Histories of Race and Racism (pp. 159-178). Duke University Press. Paul H. (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

page citation needed note 5: <ref>Prof. Ing. Arthur Posnansky, F.R.A.I, Tihuanacu: The Cradle of American Man, Volume II, J.J. Augustin, New York, 1945, English Translation by James F. Shearer, page 70, note 69.; Chapter 3 of Tiahuanacu, the Cradle of American Man, Volumes I-II; Zecharia Sitchin, The Lost Realms, Harper Collins, 1990/2007, pages 222-224; E.P. Matrejek, Appendix IV: In Defense of Posnansky’s Dating, in --Pmatrejek (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Enoch and the Watchers: Chronology of the Primeval Gods and the Western Sunrise, 2016.<ref> Pmatrejek (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Added page number. Disregarded unreliable, fringe sources such as Zecharia Sitchin and Enoch and the Watchers. Paul H. (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)