THE RAIMONDI STELA
An Oopart in ancient pre-Columbian Peru
Article written by-il Pensatore-, August 14th 2014
(Translated from Italian)
I consider the academic archaeology, as taught in the universities and then disclosed to the public, a large scam when deals with periods prior to the Classical age based on ancient Greece and Rome. This becomes even more striking when the topic is based on civilizations born and developed outside the European context. The archaeological evidences -i.e. artifacts and ancient documentary sources- can be dated with a better degree of verisimilitude when the connected periods are fairly close to us, because we can observe their cultural and technological evolution -in form of written documents, graphical representations and technological innovations- developing throughout the centuries and arriving until today. However, be careful my dear Reader, since everything is sieved trough the grid of the establishment. For explaining this concept I want to make the following example. During the so-called barbarian invasions, the Western World lost a huge amount of very precious books, but - according to the official mindset - there is no mystery about this loss: the main reason was the indiscriminate destruction of libraries perpetrated by the invaders… but in reality not the only one. The official historiography always neglects to give the due importance to a pivotal event; after 314 AD, Constantine the Great was the unique owner of the Roman Empire, he stopped the persecutions against the many and different Christian sects and, above all, after the Nicene council –this was a big and fundamental meeting of bishops and scholars that lasted from May 20th to July 25th, 325 AD- he started to give important positions inside the administrative power to Christian functionaries. This practice grew with his sons and successors, Constantius II and Constans, who began also to discriminate the pagan subjects, but without the use of violence against the traditional Roman temples and simulacra. But those bishops forming the emerging, powerful and dreadful Roman Catholic faction did not accept other competitors: the emperor Theodosius the First was a very devout Nicene Christian and declared, in February 27th 380 AD, the Roman Catholicism as state religion. The true winner was Ambrose (Aurelius Ambrosius) bishop of Milan; he was the most important imperial counselor and also a man full of rancor toward other people’s opinions. Ambrose convinced Theodosius to impose, even with the use of violence, the Roman Catholicism as the only creed permitted in all the Empire, promulgating the so called “Theodosian Decrees”. So, in 391 AD, the persecutions started against the pagans -who, anyway, were still the majority of the population inside the Empire’s borders- and also against all the symbols of ancient gods. The other different Christian sects were ravaged without mercy too. Surely the books were a legitimate target: at that time, the Christian literature was at an embryonic state compared to the immeasurable Greek-Roman literature. Many public libraries were dedicated to ancient gods, some others were installed inside shrines. A the beginning of the 3rd century, emperor Caracalla closed the Musaeum, the huge building that was the main and first location of the very famous Library of Alexandria. Many years later, in 264 AD, the books were relocated in the Serapeum of Alexandria, shrine dedicated to Jupiter Serapis. A few weeks after the “Theodosian Decrees”, the shrine was destroyed completely by a crowd of Christian fanatics acting on behalf of bishop Theophilus; the books burnt together with many other absolute masterpieces of Art, such as sculptures, mosaics, frescos and paintings. This is an useful way always loved by the power -above all when it is undermining an older one- for deleting concepts, ideas, memories and for perverting the History: the nazis were not the first to burn books. It has always been told that the medieval monks were the saviors of the Western civilization, during and after the barbarian invasions; sadly, this is just partially true. The amanuensis monks, during the Middle Ages, had the complete possibility to choose –through the repeated copy of the original old manuscripts- what to transmit to the posterity and what don’t. That was the first kind of censorship applied in the Western World after the fall of the Roman ecumenism, with the plain purpose to allow the surviving of ideas, concepts and memories in line with -or, using the opportune manipulations. could be in line with- the Papal supremacy, because this one was the power’s intolerant ideology and not just its simple religion. Probably, the so called Barbarians were less barbaric than, or at least as barbaric as, many fanatic Christians who inflicted to other people –but with an extension a lot wider- the same persecutions that some Christian followers suffered at one time. Even the masterpieces of the Greek-Roman canon were vandalized because of the nudity and because often showing the ancient gods; the Taliban, when destroyed the icons of Buddha in south Afghanistan, were not the first to demolish the relics of past religions1. Therefore, the sublime artistic value of the very famous bronze statues from Riace, Italy, (I Bronzi di Riace) is absolutely pertinent to the most sumptuous period of ancient Greece, when operated such sublime artists as Phidias, Polykleitos and Praxiteles; at that time, is positively established the high Hellenic mastery2 in metal casting technology. Then this artistic inspiration and the manual ability were transmitted to Imperial Rome and further enriched. With the fall of Rome many traumatic changes occurred throughout the Old World: those knowledge heritage, skills and crystallinity of views decayed during the next Middle Age (up to Nicola Pisano: this multi-faceted genius for me marks a pivotal moment). The European artists, followers of that past splendor, found themselves unable to rise to the levels of their ancient inspiring and far mentors. In this deficiency they were the sons of their cruel, bigoted and asphyxiated time. This can also be seen in the delay with which the majesty of buildings such as the Parthenon, the Pantheon and the Imperial Basilicae, just to name some of them, was first equaled and then in some cases exceeded by Gothic cathedrals. Namely, during the Dark Ages, European sculptors and architects even if are not starting from zero, in reality they have practically almost to improvise. This means that, for example, at the time of Charlemagne, the construction of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus3 and the creation of the Discobolus of Myron were truly impossible, they would have been OOPART, i.e. of Out of Place Artifacts. All this notwithstanding, I repeat, the European civilization had, parked into oblivion, all the knowledge and skill to continue on that bright path: the fall of the Roman world had signed a hiatus, its ideals had been almost destroyed. But if this sort of handicap is surely true in a period of decline which follows a period of splendor, it's strongly truer and oppressive when it is referred to a civilization that in its past -i.e. the cultures of the so-called Formativo Inicial- didn't have, as well as in its present -precisely the period Chavín- doesn’t have and even will not have in its future either the technology or the skill and the appropriate gesture, during the apotheosis of the Inca period. There is no sign, no hint, that could match the sublimity of that peculiar and elusive intermezzo –i.e. the monolith that we will see below- according to the dictates related by the captious official archaeology; I'm referring to the succession of civilizations in the ancient Peru until the arrival of the Conquistadores, in particular to the so-called Chavín de Huantar age. This may sound like a rhetorical assertion, but actually reflects the situation of an enormous amount of knowledge and artifacts of civilization very far away from us in time and distance, for example the pyramids of Giza, the astronomical knowledge of the Mayas, the cyclopean walls of Sacsayuhaman on the top of Cuzco, the Trilithon of Baalbek in Lebanon (just to name some examples). All these are archaeological evidences in front of anyone, but the pharisaic official scholars distort, pervert and displace temporally them to their use and consumption. In this article, for obvious reasons of brevity and lack of financial resources to go wherever I felt the need, but above all for personal sympathy towards the topic, I will focus on an element belonging to the pre-Columbian world, to the pre-Inca period of that huge area known, in its apotheosis, with the name of Tahuantinsuyo, i.e. the -Empire of the Four Corners of the World-, exact name of the Amerindian Empire with capital the Andean city of Cuzco, which in Quechua language4 means –Navel of the World -. I'm talking about the so-called "Antonio Raimondi Stele”, unique and unappreciated artifact.
Antonio Raimondi5, who was this man? Yes, he was one of the many that, in our history, have left a forgotten inheritance even if very precious: one of those who have made for the neighbor and the posterity a lot more than many of us might be able to do, but he never will reach in his homeland the reputation of Piero Angela. He was first a patriot on the barricades in Milan, between March 18th and 22nd, 1848, and then, due to the final Austrian victory, an exiled in the New World, where he arrived with no means but rich of genius; Peru became his new home. That nation was still consolidating its independence and identity, since it was for a long time, thanks to the city of Lima built three centuries earlier by Francisco Pizarro, the cradle of the Hispanic Viceroyalty in South America. He was one of the first foreign teachers at the University of Lima and one of the founders of the Faculty of Medicine, but above all he was the first modern explorer of those places, which traveled in every possible direction. Talented illustrator, Raimondi has left thousands of representations of plants, landscape and pre-Columbian artifacts. He was an Indiana Jones that has existed for real, but with his hands without the blood of his fellow man. When the young officer Leoncio Prado6, son of the constitutional President of Peru Mariano Ignacio Prado, was missed during an exploratory mission led by a platoon of soldiers in the Amazon jungle, Raimondi, assisted by some native guides, was able to find and bring him back to civilization safely. It does not appear that he loved guns, but he became skilled to use the machete to open the path in the tangled rainforest. When the city of Lima, at the end of the South-Pacific war, was occupied in January 1881 by Chilean soldiers, he exhibited on the balcony of his house the Italian flag and, during that long terrible period, tens of people of every gender and age were able to find there a shelter, escaping from the violence constantly committed by enemy soldiers. So big was his prestige that de facto the big and old mansion became a territory protected by diplomatic immunity. Nowadays, two of the best schools in the Country have his name.
Picture I-Antonio Raimondi and the top of the statue to him inspired in the limeña square that could only be called Plaza Italia
In 1860, Raimondi was investigating the vast archaeological site currently known as Chavín de Huantar7 and was approached by a farmer, the native Timoteo Espinoza, who spoke in Quechua; no problems at all, the Italian explorer was already very fluent in this language. More or less, the campesino told him: "Stranger, I know you are looking for ancient things, so do you want to see something really unique?”. In the following, almost farcical, way happens one of the most important discoveries in the history of American archeology; below the Italian’s amazed eyes, the great stone slab used as dining table, at the Espinoza’s home, shows her truly identity: a magnificent, very ancient, finely and intricately carved stele. These are its measures, height 198 cm, width 74 cm, 17 cm thickness. It depicts the so-called Dios de Los Dos Baculos, i.e. the – God with two sticks-. Despite its obvious importance, this relic remained in oblivion for thirteen years; finally, President José Balta ordered the transport in the capital. But the vicissitudes were not finished: during the looting perpetrated by Chilean soldiers in the first months of 18818 against all the Peruvian cultural heritage, the stone, still wrapped in a heavy blanket, was struck by those who were plundering the Museo de Historia and fell badly on the floor, breaking in two pieces. When the looters looked at what lied at their feet just saw the back completely smooth and did not gave further importance; thus the Raimondi stele remained fortuitously in its Peru. In 1940, it suffered another shock but with minimal consequences: the great earthquake of that year caused the rupture of some parts of the frame.
Picture II – the original
Picture III: graphic transposition with better resolution
Picture IV: thanks to this comparison, we can see that the central figures, flipping the stele, have another expression
In August 2001, I could directly see this masterpiece at the Museo Nacional de Arqueología Antropología e Historia del Perú, that los Limeños call proudly and simply El Museo de la Nación. Thanks to the fact that, in those days, I was involved in the excavations at the Huaca Pucllana9, a pre-Inca site located now in the current context of Lima, I was allowed to get close and make some summary measurements about which, unfortunately, I am not satisfied at all. I was not allowed to put on the surface of the stone either the centesimal gauge or the measuring tape. In addition, since that time the Museum was preparing a new edition of the catalog, the Director denied also the permission to take some photographs of any exhibit and above all of the stele; at least, I was allowed to touch it with bare hands and that, for its time, was a real concession. Apparently, in recent years, since there are several pictures portraying the stone available on the Web, something has changed in the direction of that Museum. The protagonist is literally a dwarf of about 90 cm, with his head covered by a full helmet depicting a large feline, probably a jaguar or puma. This helmet/mask is surmounted by a series of complicated elaboration of feline and snakelike elements that take turns to each other, especially big snake heads. Flipping the picture the expression of various characters changes, the feeling is the transition from threat to happiness. This technique, which in the Raimondi stele reaches the climax, is indicated by Prof. N.J.Wade10 as -Binocular Rivalry- (or Contour Rivalry). In short, this phenomenon describes the effect of visual perception of different and alternate contiguous images, shown at the same time to both eyes. The first scholar to become aware of this very intriguing phenomenon was, according to Wade, the Neapolitan mathematician and physicist – but especially alchemist- Giambattista della Porta; the argument is explained, for the first time in literature, in his book De Refactione Optces, 1589. Now I urge you to look carefully at the pictures of the stele: technically speaking, it presents the most carved areas all around the figure (i.e. along its boundaries); this contrivance allows the figure almost to emerge from the frame, having a three-dimensional effect of some sort. The pygmy’s features and the ones belonging to the other figures - i.e. the marks on the central part- are generally less deep; the same it’s true for the two sticks. The external carved sectors have a consistent depth of about 3 cm (surely not deeper than 5 cm) and the angle of 90° is respected along its entire perimeter. I was literally astonished when my fingertips could feel that perfect and continuous edge –truly almost cutting- as far as my hands arrived. Instead, the lines (we can certainly call them continuous engravings, rather than superficial graffiti) forming the dwarf’s outlines have a consistent depth of about 3 or 5 mm and an equal width; the same it’s true for the headdress. The pygmy’s nostrils, the dragons’ eyes -or the big snakes forming the central headdress sector on the mask- have a depth apparently equal to the areas carved between the figures and the frame; even the 90° angle is respected. At the touch, the inner surface of the figures is almost mirror polished, it is interrupted only by the figures’ outlines and the diagonal split -the sad memory from 1881- immediately above the helmet/mask. My fingertips don’t perceive any coarseness; same for the sides and the posterior part, which are completely devoid of engravings. Also the lateral carved sectors are very smooth. The character is enclosed in a frame about 3 cm thick; that thickness is consistently maintained along the perimeter of the stele. All the different measures: depth, width, straightness, curves and angles are almost always consistent; i.e. there are no deviations, the few errors are subtles; the repetition of the drawings is precise. Where this precision does not exist, I think about flaws, first of all, due to the effect of weathering and the vicissitudes of Millennia, rather than to the author's mistake. The execution seems to have been made by placing on the surface of the slab a sheet of graph paper, on which was drawn first one half and then symmetrically the other. Antonio Raimondi wrote, among other things, regarding this topic in the report sent to the Government in Lima: "This stone is worthy of great respect for the complicated and refined design, for the amazing and precise symmetry; you notice a work so difficult that the best artist could not overcome this perfection."11. Over a century later, in his masterpiece Historical Atlas and World Mythology, prof. Joseph Campbell12 speaks of the chisel work necessary to reach such a preciosity but without facing the question of its working methods. In addition, since Campbell was also a brilliant scholar (and likely practitioner) of esotericism, he believes to find -hidden in the complicated pattern- the fourth chakra of Hinduism, that of the heart called Anahata, which in this case symbolizes the union of immanence and transcendence. At this point it is necessary to speak about the period in which this extraordinary artifact was created: well, the official historiography attributes it to the Chavín culture, existed in Peru between 1200 BC and 200 BC. Nowadays, its most important location is the huge archeological site named Chavín de Huántar, Conchucos Valley (3,180 m above sea level); current province of Huari, Department of Ancasch, approximately 462 kilometers Northwest of Lima. The etymology of the name Chavín de Huántar is obscure13 and the language is Quechua. However, very probably this denomination is more recent than the period in question; therefore, it is not certain that it was the name used by the natives to indicate their nation. Generally, it is recognized as the most important pre-Inca period, albeit still dotted with more gaps and questions than certainties. The supposed date of the stele’s manufacture collecting the wider consensus is proposed by Campbell, i.e. around 900 BC. However, the official historians making this declaration wrap themselves in a huge contradiction: why? Simple: the Spaniards, when face and destroy the great pre-Columbian civilizations, have the good fortune to come across enemies that cannot defend themselves with similar advanced weapons. The Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas have a primordial metallurgy: they do not know either the iron or steel; in South America, the first attempts to get the bronze casting (the bronze is an alloy produced by combining copper and tin) is supposed to have occurred only after the 9th century AD; for instance, in Europe at that time the bronze was used just as material apt for sculptures using the casting methods, starting from the 10th century BC at least. However, according to the official historiography, metallurgy has always represented a minor entry in the economy of that time, even during the Inca imperial age.
At least, this is true according to the agenda asserted by the academic establishment. Gold, silver, and copper are malleable metals and for this reason, in the context of human progress, have given way to those harder and resistant, in order to create more robust tools for all kinds of jobs. Even if more resistant than copper, bronze remains fragile and to overcome this problem it has to be used in large quantities for each product; for example, statues, bells and cannons. The so-called Chavín did not know even the bronze but had the ability to create this gem, working a huge granite block and using even ridiculous tools: this can't have happened! Let's see why. Granite is rock of igneous origin which, technically speaking, is described as very hard; using as reference point the Mohs scale, some types of granite have a hardness of level 6 while others have 7. Just to be clear, the marble has a level between the 3 and the 4 while the diamond is at the top with level 10. The empirical utility of the Mohs scale is given by the following criterion: each item is able to scratch what precedes it (i.e. lower-level ones) but not vice versa.
Tender (it is possible to scratch them with a finger nail)
Semi-hard (it is possible to scratch them with a metallic point)
Hard (it is not possible to scratch them with a metallic point)
10 – diamond
But here I must cite a thing: almost up until today, in reference to this stele was always spoken of granite in the broadest sense of the word: instead, in 2009, Prof. George Rapp14, a very famous geologist at the University of Minnesota, asserts it is made of diorite. Without falling into disquisition if the diorite is a rock of granitic type or a different kind, this means that its hardness tends more toward the level 8 than the 7 properly said. The table following the Mohs one permits to compare the granitic rocks with other elements using the more recent Vickers scale. We can see that the granite is almost hard as the modern tempered industrial steel, even if the last one usually contains, besides carbon, also others components as chrome, molybdenum and vanadium, at least. The quartz is even harder than the hardened steel. The next one is very updated and has been elaborated by BTI, a Canadian leader industry in breaker technology, showing, among other elements, the high diorite hardness15:
The first sculptural works representing perfectly the human body, as I already said, belong to the classical Greece, where immeasurable artists had adequate tools made of iron, perhaps even of steel (chisels, hammers, wedges, files etc. ), to work the marble, a material not hard and not resistant; however, they have never dared to tackle similar endeavor against the granite. It is true that this stone was also used in remote antiquity, for example in Egypt and Mesopotamia, but never to produce refined objects in which the accuracy of the workmanship was essential to compose features and the 3D effect: the granite was usually used for flooring, building colonnades and partition walls; attempts to sculpt statues have given rough and summary results, though of very high artistic value. And if possible otherwise the great artists of the Greek canon would have used it certainly. Ops, excuse me, instead -in places as, above all, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Latin America and with a little smaller percentage everywhere- there are many other intriguing “eyesores” that are at same level of the Raimondi stone but, I beg your pardon, in this work I have time just to cite an handful of them in a further page.
The granitic rocks (and the similar ones, including the diorite) are highly resistant to any kind of friction, to the high temperatures and to the acids. To be able to cut pieces of granite that were truly slabs correctly formed, I mean with a perimeter having four angles of 90° - i.e. perfect parallelepipeds -, it had to wait for the invention of the helical steel cable twisted-wire, with splinters of diamond on pulley leaf, dating back to the end of 1800. To further refine the working process the Italian Luigi Madrigali16 invented thirty years ago, the steel wire with cylinders of steel alternating with globules of synthetic diamonds on rotating support. Especially, nowadays to obtain grooving, precise engravings equal to the figures’ lineaments in the Raimondi stele, it is necessary to use drills with diamond-tungsten bits having a thickness of few millimeters (or military type laser); no one would dream to use hammer and chisel because such precision is unattainable with similar means. An ironic example, the woodsman’s ax is not suitable for cutting a nice, thin, round slice of mortadella. For each purpose that involves precision and refinement must be put in place the appropriate mode, otherwise the intent fails. I will make other examples: the surgeon’s lancet and the butcher’s knive have blades very sharp, but no surgeon will ever use the second to operate on the pancreas. The power of the kinetic energy delivered by explosive ordnances is calculated using the kiloton, a kiloton is equal to the explosion of a compact mass of one thousand tons of TNT. The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima on the 6th August 1945 (8:15 local time) was approximately 16 kiloton; before that very infamous day, between the 13th and 14th February 1945, within less than 24 hours, the German city of Dresden was buried by 3,900 tons of conventional bombs dropped by the liberators. In short, you can blow up all the TNT that you want, but to get radioactive radiation the condicio sine qua non is the nuclear fission of uranium 235, or plutonium 239, highly concentrated. The human being to self-destruct himself with his own hands has used explosives since the middle Ages, but to get the quantum leap of the atomic mushroom cloud had to wait that, in the -Manhattan project-, the Oppenheimer’s genius had the appropriate technology. Proceeding with this discourse, the amount of pressure in kg per cm2, exercised for the purpose of obtaining the complex figure portrayed on the stele, with the unsuitable utensils of all pre-Columbian civilizations, could obtain either the destruction of the same tools or to irregular block split, probably even both effects. Nowadays it is impossible to have at your disposal a copper saw, similar to the ones used during the Chavín de Huantar period, of at least 150 cm in length (attention, anyway nobody has been able to find such a big saw in any archaeological site in the New World). Therefore, dear reader, I encourage you to buy a modern handsaw in any hardware store: try to cut a simple diorite stone (it’s possible to find it in geology and mineralogy stores), after having put it in a bench vise, you'll see the tool's teeth scraping in vain first and then overheating, bending and losing the edge. Try with the help of a friend, I mean: you on one side and the other person on the opposite, so you will develop the friction faster on the rock... and in this way you can damage earlier the saw and save time, instead of making useless experiments. The intent can only get a very gaping cut at its inception and coarsely wavy along its depth; given the hardness of this particular stone is absolutely impossible to get a clean and perfectly perpendicular cut with a normal manual modern tool, although the saws that we can find at our trusted shopping centre are made in highly tempered carbon steel. The friction increases exponentially and therefore the generated heat damages the same blade’s molecular compactness; even any water cooling intent, however, wouldn’t truly change the situation, while the structure of the diorite endures ineffable. Or, buy an already polished granite slab, in a normal building store, and try to draw on it some fine engravings, long, deep and precise as those of our stele, using just the normal hammer and chisel and you'll feel immediately frustrated to death. If you want to use a drill with a steel tip therefore you will get hungry even more; the next step is to spend an important sum to buy another fast and powerful drill, connected to a vertical column, with many diamond and tungsten carbide tips (of the most subtle types, please), and only then you will be able to achieve some success! Same problems for getting that high honed surface, almost a mirror: try to use on it a porbeagle shark skin, if you're so lucky to find it on sale somewhere, or try with a small pile of normal sand held in the palm of your hand, because these were the poor tools that people, still not able to forge files used daily (files however unsuited to smooth mirror-like a material harder than marble). If you want to play a game to the brink of insanity, challenge directly a huge and shapeless boulder of diorite with all the tools that you can buy at the Mall - but without absolutely contact a specialized industry - therefore see for how many minutes you can avoid to send all to the hell ... and do not forget that, for the Pharisaic official science, the metallurgy during the Chavín age did not go further the copper! Absolutely another matter is sculpting limestone blocks: these, because sedimentary in nature, are much more brittle; this has allowed their use even by populations without metallurgy, thanks to a particular stone readily available on the terrestrial surface, usually oval in shape and hard enough to sculpt and square also tuff blocks, the so-called choppers.
The "three-age scheme" and the partial fake of the meteoric iron
The material forming whatever artifact is closely related to the tools necessary for its processing: now, dear Reader, accompany me in the vivisection of a dogma which dominates us from the good and innocent times at the primary schools. It's a journey devoted to demolish a mummified assertion that continues to exist only because it is convenient, and then is also a pretext for a broader purpose. At the dawn of the Enlightenment, on September 12th 1734, in front of his fogies colleagues of the Académie des inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, the Jesuit and French archaeologist Nicolas Mahudel exposes, through a long and detailed oral dissertation, his theory on the evolution of the human civilization: is the famous -Scheme of three Ages-, i.e. the stone age, the bronze age and iron age17. This categorization was rejected for six years by the distinguished body, until it was accepted in 1740; it is simple, without explicitly attacking the biblical account in the –Genesis- book, it offered an interpretive grid alternative to the Catholicism’s teachings. It's a worth noting element: with a century ahead on Charles Darwin, this important but unappreciated scholar identifies an evolutionary flow almost constant in the history of the humanity, starting from a condition almost miserable and arriving, thanks to a gradual and increasingly sophisticated technological manipulation, to the sublime levels of the Greek-Roman antiquity, and so on. This periodization has been accepted by all scholars substantially, especially in the light of the next great consent obtained by the Darwinian evolutionary theory and the advent of Positivism. The problems start, at the end of 1800, with the beginning of the great archaeological expeditions conducted by the most famous German and British orientalists in the Near and Middle East. Oh well, already some jams were caused by Heinrich Schliemann, between 1873 and 1890, especially with the discovery of Troy, but also with the excavations at Tiryns and Mycenae; though not an official researcher, he was a brilliant amateur, but anyway just an outsider. Thanking to the advancement of technology and chemistry at the end of the 19th century, stratigraphic investigations allow the scholars to understand that Schliemann's findings show a society highly developed prior to the period of the epic Trojan saga (12th-11th centuries BC). The studies conducted by Prof. Carl W. Blegen of Yale University, between 1932 and 1938, are the ultimate evidence: the remnants of the primeval core (so-called-Troy 1-18) belong to a period between 3000-2600 BC. These new achievements show an ancient civilization that can almost rival the first Egyptian dynastic period; yet in the coastal region of Anatolia, where is the hill of Hissarlik-Troy18, according to the previous studies it was considered highly unlikely that such a level could exist at that time. The tree-age system starts to look like a shirt that tightens more and more on a child that, in full development, continues to grow, until that the person, become an adult, continues to bring that skimpy, miserable and swinging garment, in spite of the obvious ridiculousness. But there is no scandal: as long as, in the community of scholars, the proverbial Baby does not scream: “But the King is naked!", the big forgery continues to be taught. Things get more and more complicated for real when the credited intelligentsia arrives in Egypt and in Mesopotamia; so, in short, what happens? It happens that many exhibits of fine workmanship appear to be more ancient than the period within which they should be inserted, following the simple subdivision canonized by academic researchers. In other words, the antiquity of many artifacts push to backdate the use of iron, as obvious product of developed stages, in antecedent eras. At the end of 1800, it was possible to date an artifact not only about its apparent characteristics but also in the frame of the geological context in which it was found: the chemical analysis allowed to identify with good approximation the epoch of the outer layers of the Earth's crust. Consequently, when an iron object - or a product whose manufacture indicated the use of iron tools - was found in a layer more ancient than expected it was necessary to backdate the discovery of iron. The three-age system, although useful conceptually, goes almost into lethal crisis when, at the beginning of the Fifties, it is invented the carbon 14 technique for dating, this isotope is also known as radiocarbon19. In short, thanks to the decay of this radioactive isotope present in organic material, it is possible to calculate the age of the specimen up to about 60,000 years before the current time (taking as terminus ante quem the 1950); nearer is the period of the artifact in question -the Sumerian period, according to these parameters, is to be considered almost very near- and greater is the dating accuracy. Thus, for example, if the inner layers of an iron blade have organic elements which date back to 2500 BC, consequently, it must be said that that knife was built long before the period considered usual. To avoid that the tripartite system could enter in collapse, the metallurgical period has been consistently adapted and extended almost until prehistoric times, even adjusting it about the geographic realities. In short, the metallurgic composition, updated, reloaded and fixed, still is taught at school; though a keen and independent eye cannot fail to identify temporal contradictions that can defined real enclave, where the same observer can find (actually many) artifacts that are strongly in contradiction with the overall context. The official scientific community uses the discovery of meteoric iron in the intent to finally solve the problem. The finding of objects made of this unique mineral, literally fallen from the sky, is a very good excuse to explain the existence of a cumbersome and “uncomfortable” amount of iron produced during very ancient times, anyway times lacking the most basic tools for mining (attention, this is the version according to the official historiography). This is a real mess-up allowing to explaining how the debut of the iron age20, in form of ornamental objects, was backdated up the 3rd millennium BC in Africa, particularly pre-dynastic Egypt. Therefore, while unable to exploit the deposits they had under their own feet because they didn’t have the means, the Africans were so lucky to rely on the meteoric iron just because it was there, before their eyes and ready to be exploited. However, I know that no tool has been found made of meteoric iron, really capable of any hard utilization, that can be attributed to that remote epoch. In fact, there is another problem: this mineral is composed of a very complex and very resistant alloy, impossible to work profitably without suitable metallurgical tools (particularly blast furnaces and refractory crucibles to very high temperatures required for fusion). In short, people without the apt technology cannot achieve results that require certain interconnected factors. To this end, it is interesting to note how the meteoric iron is always appreciated for forging high-quality blades21 (called -combat ready-) very difficult to craft, since in fact it is a real steel waiting to be worked22. The problems are not finished, until the beginning of the 90's of the last century, it was supposed that the steel was an innovation related, chronologically speaking, to the 3rd century crisis of Imperial Rome and the Mongols’ invasions from East; yet recent discoveries backdater its use up 2000 BC, I am referring to the artifacts from Kaman-Kalhoyuk in the heart of modern Turkey, found and studied by the Japanese researcher Hideo Akanuma23, between 2006 and 2008; they were manufactured in steel with high carbon content in a context that plays havoc with the previous hypothetical scenario. Anyway the tripartite scheme -then become quadripartite due to the copper entry- is still there to be taught ex cathedra, instead of being thrown in the trash can coram pupulo. But you and I can see that these abnormal contradictions of time and place, these alluring Out Of Place Artifacts, rather than marginal enclave appear as real eczema spreading on the sick tissue elaborated, written and sponsored by the “Mafia of the Knowledge. Very valuable contemporary scholars such as, Kristian Kristiansen24, Graham Connah25, Peter Bogucki26, David Browman27, highlight the oversimplification, gaps and inconsistencies of the entire system, but they avoid to bring to the fore the hints present incidentally in their strict deductions. At this point it is necessary to focus on the article -A Short History or f Metal- written by prof. Alan W. Cramb28, one of the leading experts of metals engineering; in reference to the history of iron he writes:
“Iron was available to the ancients in small amounts from meteors. This native iron is easily distinguishable because it contains 6-8% nickel. There is some indication that man-made iron was available as early as 2500 B.C., however, ironmaking did not become an everyday process until 1200 BC. Hematite, an oxide of iron, was widely used by the ancients for beads and ornaments. It is also readily reduced by carbon. However, if reduced at temperatures below 700-800 C it is not suitable for forging and must be produced at temperatures above 1100 C. Wrought iron was the first form of iron known to man. The product of reaction was a spongy mass of iron intermixed with slag. This was then reheated and hammered to expel the slag and then forged into the desired shape. In the early days iron was 5 times more expensive then gold and its first uses were as ornaments. Iron weapons revolutionized warfare and iron implements did the same for farming. Iron and steel was the building block for civilization. Interestingly, an iron pillar dating to 400 A.D., remains standing today in Delhi, India. Corrosion to the pillar has been minimal a skill lost to current ironworkers. Iron is rarely found in its native state the only known sources being Greenland where the iron occurs as nodules in basalt that erupted through beds of coal and two very rare nickel-iron alloys. Iron's symbol is Fe from the latin
These seven metals:
gold, silver, copper, lead, tin, mercury and iron, and the alloys
bronze and electrum were the starting point of metallurgy and even in
this simple, historic account we find some of the basic problems of
process metallurgy. The problems are:
The ores must be found, separated and sized before use.
The ores must be reacted under a controlled temperature and gas atmosphere.
The liquid metal must be collected and cast into a desired shape.
The metal must be worked to achieve desired final properties and shape.”
And I add also the difficulty to find and to recognize the heat-refractory material suitable to build functioning furnaces: then we come to understand how the native Peruvians29 of that era were literally unable to have adequate tools to work this amazing monolith. I will say more: what I affirm must to be extend to many other artifacts, including (just to name someone, the list is very long) the so-called sarcophagus of Cheops, the Aztecan Piedra del Sol and the Hammurabi stele. In the face of these same inconsistency and illogicality blatant official academic dogma, Joseph Davidovits30 says that the Egyptians had a technology so advanced to pulverize first the huge limestone blocks, weighing from 2 up to 15 tons, and after to reorganize them on the pyramids’ ramparts, but what in reference to the gigantic granite blocks? On this topic it seems that Davidovits does not take position. Now, I find useful to report some excerpts from the fundamental book The Piramydes and Temples of Gyzeh, written by Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie31, one of the greatest Egyptologist of all time:
-We now know, however, that jewelled saws and drills were the tools used by Pyramid builders; and the rough stone hammers are of exactly the types belonging to the rude remains of Ptolemaic times.-
-The amount of pressure, shown by the rapidity with which the drills and saws pierced through the hard stones, is very surprising; probably a load of at least a ton or two was placed on the 4-inch drills cutting in granite.-
-Yet these grooves cannot be due to the mere scratching produced in withdrawing the drill, as has been suggested, since there would be about 1/10 inch thick of dust between the drill and the core at that part; thus there could be scarcely any pressure applied sideways, and the point of contact of the drill and granite could not travel around the granite however the drill might be turned about. Hence these rapid spiral grooves cannot be ascribed to anything but the descent of the drill into the granite under enormous pressure; unless, indeed, we suppose a separate rymering tool to have been employed alternately with the drill for enlarging the groove, for which there is no adequate evidence.-
Surely those very ancient builders used - jewelled saws and drills- but also many others tools and machineries. Whatever point of arrival is the end of a chain: I mean that the result represented by a drilled granite rock –as described by Sir Petrie- assumes an advanced technology and the co-existence of many and precise factors. To apply properly a pressure of some –probably many- tons on a drill having a diameter of 4” it’s necessary a very complex, powerful and sophisticated equipment, not just the simple brutal force created by a brigade of men. Just the simple addition of diamond splinters on the top of a hardened steel point it’s a very costly and difficult operation even today. Again I want to propose some examples. Even if the sand is very hard and exists from the dawn of the times, it was used -as a tool for smoothing down whatever surfaces - just in the palm of the hand until the 13th century AD, when, in China, somebody began to use the natural gum to glue sand, crushed shells and seeds on parchment. We can imagine a copious crew of castaways on a desert island with a chainsaw without gasoline, they will never be able to cut a tree trying to rub the simple chain against whatever trunk; instead they will be obliged to assemble stone axes and to act as Neanderthals. From the time of the Phoenician supremacy on the Mediterranean Sea, the man has been able to build the powerful trireme, so lethal to destroy with its rostrum the enemy vessels, but for breaking the polar ice it is necessary a modern and apt steamboat. Beside, it is very interesting how Sir Petrie shows implicitly that the more recent Ptolemaics were a lot less advanced than the ancient pyramids builders; and what is a pity is that no one of the ancient drills ha been ever found. Above all, what is truly a pity is that Petrie did not try to explain better his surprise. This coherent context is reached just in the contemporary technology. Anyway, no one, in the academic establishment, has ever dared to hypothesize of drills with diamond splinters during all the pre-Columbian era in Latin America. Therefore, more for the failings of the others than for my personal excellence, I find myself to be the only one who recognize the Antonio Raimondi stone as an Oopart.
Logical and temporal contradictions
It's interesting (and I find also fun) to underline an element almost dystonic: the traditional archaeology, especially here in Italy, is a humanistic discipline, i.e. based on ancient philology, Romance and Germanic linguistics, history of classical art. Also the numismatics plays a very important role. Recently, are coming, here more slowly than elsewhere, even other disciplines such as geology (in particular the stratigraphy), physical anthropology and cultural anthropology. The gradual coming of chemistry and physics make the contemporary archaeology a highly, interdisciplinary and developed structural complex; but this causes a big problem: historians, philologists and archaeologists are part of a clique tending to perpetuate the status quo; i.e. it is permitted to discover new things but the all-encompassing dogmatic system must be maintained, cannot be revolutionized (at least without Annuit Coeptis). The problems are created by the scientists, those dealing with the so-called natural, physics and mathematics sciences; this category, if not previously silenced or a made more gentle by any center of power, for example, the pharmaceutical companies and/or the military, does not give a shit about the securities waved by academic humanists. So, when they publish articles that contradict the stories compiled by the contemporary Pharisees, they do it without any problems whatsoever. It is very useful to see, for example, the works written by the Italian geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza32 that anticipate more than 40,000 years the presence of humanity in America, compared with the tale of migration across the Bering Strait during the end of last glaciation. It seems to see the devil making the pots but not the lids (ancient Italian proverb). Scholars of Humanities disciplines baste charming and seemingly solid stories that stand until scientists hurl torpedoes able to sink also battleships ... but don't worry! The dogmatic system of the official truth encompasses and digests everything, just as the stomach of an ostrich; it is simple, those apparently viral elements are not explained and disclosed to the public. Above all, let the regime’s hucksters continue to repeat the falsehoods comforting the hearts and obfuscating the brains. At the end of this chapter it is legitimate to ask the following question: is it possible to compare the incongruity between the poor technology of its historical context and the exceptional, technical and artistic result of the Raimondi stele to the situation of other artifacts? The answer is obviously yes: if you want to immerse yourself in a monumental and rigorous work I recommend definitely to read Forbidden Archeology by Richard Cremo33, co-written with Richard l. Thompson.
Heretical Cultural Anthropology
Dulcis in fundo, what does the grotesque protagonist in the Raimondi stele represent? He is identified by scholars as El Dios de los dos Báculos, i.e. -God with two sticks- and offers the possibility of an analytical approach both orthodox and unorthodox; let's go with order. The word Totem belongs to the Algonquian-Athabaskan linguistic group (North America) and has a plethora of meanings, but all lead to the transcendence. The Totem are precisely those famous objects that we saw many times during our infancy; we have met them in western movies and in comics books; well, they were, for the most part, faithful reproductions of the originals. They are big wooden poles, on which are carved figures of different animals intermingled to each other -more rarely also anthropomorphic figures- having often, on the top, a hawk or an eagle with wide wings opened. Unfortunately, often they are depicted as instruments of torture, which is not true. In fact they were the intent to unite our world with the supernatural world. In these elements of mediation, were merged into symbiosis the representations of various deities and the structural parts of the social group, beginning with the basic band and ending with the whole nation. Certainly the ambition was skyward but the artifact’s base was placed in the ground firmly, not just for purely utilitarian reasons; many pre-Columbian steles (or stelae, if you prefer to use the Latin plural nominative -from the singular noun stela, first declension- as Wikipedia does) are real stone Totem. We find, therefore, that the same cultural anthropological approach leads us to read the subject at three different levels:
- the Totem as a catalyst between transcendence and immanence;
- the Totem as explicit depiction of divine beings and their association with the humans;
- the Totem as the depiction of native people historical identity.
The aim is the achievement and maintenance of the harmony; the shaman is the medium already predestined at birth and after recognized by the social group. The Raimondi stele is a stone Totem: in it, the unknown artist has - or more properly: unknown artists have - wanted to immortalize the superhuman beings with which the so-called Chavín civilization was in contact, beings who have been transfigured into more suited mystical and tribal perspective. Not only Picasso, Salvador Dalí and Giorgio De Chirico, just to name some great artists, have distorted and re-modelled the contemporary and technological realities that they had under their eyes, for adding other meanings, hidden or even strangers. This strategy was already used during the construction of our –Stone Banqueter-34. Yes, I am saying that there are Aliens depicted on the Raimondi stele. The following fundamental authors in the field of -Alterity-35, Erich von Däniken, Peter Kolosimo, John Mack, Zecharia Sitchin and Corrado Malanga36 - I consider the last one the most eminent - have, albeit through different approaches, repeatedly detected in the long list of the alien Bestiarium some outstanding figures: the Reptilians, the Nordics with lozengelike pupil and the Greys. It is absolutely useless that I describe here these categories; the above-mentioned scholars have already done extensively this work. I can just point out that, through the comparative analysis of ancient religions, I propose my interpretative grid on narrative and artistic allegories, both in the form of oral and written myths, as well pictograph or sculptural representations, which are based on these alien species. Because I have discussed at length on this topic in various articles that can be found at www.Sentistoria.Org37, here I just want to synthesize the following interpretation, the Reptilians are transfigured in the form of Dragons, the Nordics with glowing thatch and lozengelike pupils are assimilated to the Jaguar God; while the so-called Grey, silent and obeying dwarf, appears in the Raimondi stele like a jester, bearing a heavy headdress depicting his masters. On the last one we can focus our attention and identify him as the minion who does most of the dirty work during the abductions. The Grey, chubby and caricatured little guy, in the extensive case studies of kidnappings appears as the classic cheese on macaroni, ineffable and zealous Arlecchino servant of many masters38; in this epiphanic demonstration it is possible to see him associated with two of the most flagrant persecutors of abductees. We have to return again to the stele; the visual transposition is careful, painstaking; the redundancy of details is at Baroque levels and nothing is left at random. The artist, single or collective, has wanted to make a representative project: the evidence is that not the -Jaguar God- is the main subject but the Grey, with three fingers on each hand (with opposable thumb) and two toes on each foot, is the protagonist. This figure is widely quoted39 in the -Branton files- and in various sightings in Latin America, especially during the events of Varginha, Brazil, in January 1992; it is also the identikit of the famous nocturnal wanderer universally known as Chupacabras. If the unknown artist had wanted to portray a deified Jaguar, there would have been plenty of space to carve five toes/claws on each front paw and four toes/claws on each rear paw. For different reasons, both psychological as well as artistic, are relevant the two scepters (Los dos Baculos, in Spanish). These are the almost ubiquitous symbols of duality, of opposition: immanence and transcendence, Yin and Yang, mortal and immortal, terrestrial and extraterrestrial, but the list is infinitely long. If some people truly competent see the depictions, with an appropriate explanation, of some type of circuits, oh well, I have no objections whatsoever. While the hominid named Moon-Watcher40 enjoyed to observe an anonymous block (silent only in appearance), a black granite monolith, mirror polished and almost of the same size, we have the possibility to admire a magnificent artwork, jarring and clashing: the representation of a portal -this is the explanation of the frame that runs around the perimeter- on which this syncretistic character appears, in the act of crossing the threshold between two worlds. But if this slab is so uncomfortable why has never been declared a modern fake? Simple: it is under the eyes of everyone, especially the researchers, uninterruptedly since 1860, a year during which the contemporary instrumentation to create it did not yet exist. The same argument is true for many other artifacts; the important thing is just to conceal that, technically speaking, is patently impossible to achieve them, even according to the contradictory theories that the official culture puts around, without being very attentive to the congruity of its own affirmations, counting on the fact that the so-called mass is not aware at all about the deception. When, about thirty-five years ago, I was speaking with my professor of history about similar misgivings related to the sarcophagus of Cheops, I received this response: "... If it exists… one heck of way they have found for carving it! ...and don't bore me anymore! " and that's what I say, along with many other heretical scholars-, but I disagree totally with the illuminist and positivist scheme represented by the sequence of the age, which the official establishment wants to inculcate in our minds, from birth to now; in reality, this linearity is stained by chintzy, logical, temporal and also spatial contradictions. Even if the Darwinian and positivist approach about the evolution of the homo sapiens may appear more valuable than the story of Adam and Eve (which, however, allegorically means much more, but that's another story), I reject the dogmatic context of the historical course that goes from the stone age to the “Ipad age” or, if you prefer, from the squat hominid Moon-Watcher to the sublime Naomi Campbell.