[Aztlan] Plaster & Echoes

[Paul Troemner]

All,

Sid Hollander posed some valid questions and comments about my recent posting in response to Sam Edgerton's comments.  Here are Sid's comments and questions, and my responses.

Paul wrote, "Many of the ancient American structures appear to have used consistent units of measurement." Sid asked:  Would you care to share this unit with the list?

Paul's response:  In some structures when dimensions are measured in modern units, there appears to be a fairly consistent repetition of a given set length or unit for that structure.  I cannot remember the book mentioning this statistical method of arriving at ancient units of measurements, but perhaps it was in Peter Tompkins' "Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids."  This book has a lot of archaeological history and dimensions for the the Pyramid of the Sun, including maps of the seven-pronged cave or tunnel (entrance, two side "petals," and four end "petals"), showing units in "hunabs" and meters.  But the book also includes discussion about "cosmic and telluric forces."  There are probably other more scholarly books on statistical measurement of builder units, and perhaps Falken Forshaw can help with the name of some other sources.


Paul:  "and appeared to have specific shape requirements (square, rectangle, circle, etc.)." Sid:  and if you add trapezoids triangles you pretty much have it all with exception of higher level n-gons, dodecahedrons, igloos and that pretty much covers the spectrum of ALL ancient structures on earth.

Paul's response:  Exact square, rectangle, and circle shapes (and other shapes) in buildings generally require forethought and layout, regardless if ancient or modern.  Compass, square, and measuring stick are the type of tools that are needed to lay out circular and square-corner buildings.  Granted the compass may be nothing more than a center point stake tied to a string with a stick on the end, and the square a 3-4-5 triangle, but these are tools which indicate forethought was involved.  Even with the tools, the corners may not be exactly square, the walls not exactly parallel, and the circles not perfect, but will be closer to perfect than if no tools were used.  Structures built without the layout tools are more obvious with walls not parallel, corners not square, and circular structures are oval, egg-shaped, or otherwise irregular.  There are structures with astrologic alignments that do not have parallel walls, but such may indicate the structure
 was constructed with forethought as to alignment.  Statistically, the closer a structure comes to exact square corners and exact circular layout, the more likely that layout tools were involved.  My point is that if layout tools were involved, there had been some detailed layout forethought for the structure even if we have no surviving drawings or inscriptions "to scale."


Paul: "I do believe there is a strong possibility the Quetzal-chirping design was intended."  Sid:  What leads you to believing that? And in the cases where there are other sounds (i.e. non Quetzal sounding) do you believe the non-case was intended?

Paul:  The inefficiency of use of materials in building a stepped pyramid such as the Castillo or Pyramid of Kulkulcan in Chichen Itza is one indicator.  If a snake shadow is all that was desired, the corners of the pyramid could be stepped (I am not referring to the staircases), and not have to step the entire perimeter.  The angle of the near-vertical faces on the stepped portion is another indicator (although I am not sure how much creative liberty the reconstructors took, what the angle is, and if the angle varies slightly as one proceeds up the structure).  The close similarity in sounds is a third indicator: 
http://www.ocasa.org/MayanPyramid.htm
I'm not saying other structures had accoustic design, but this one may.  Note I used the words, "do believe," and not "am sure."

Paul