Above, in 1856 American archaeologist George Squier measured the Akapana
which he called "the fortress" and found it to be 620 x 450ft. (188.97m x 137.16m)
This page looks at some published dimensions of buildings and courtyards
at Tiwanaku and analyses them in terms of "Egyptian" and "Sumerian" cubits.
Earlier studies of sites in Mexico, Peru and Bolivia suggest that use of the "Sumerian" measurement units
was common throughout ancient pre-Columbian South America as was "Egyptian" units since these are
both linked to each other with the Sumerian cubit being 24/25th of the Egyptian cubit. This had practical applications in land measurements since 100 Sumerian cubits was equal to 96 Egyptian cubits and
this facilitated subdivision in whole numbers.. See links to earlier essays at foot of page.
Therefore a block of
100 x 100 Sumerian cubits could be divided in 1/10ths or 1/2's and remain in Sumerian cubits, or by 1/3rds
for Sumerian yards of 50 shusi or
by halves, quarters or eights for 'Egyptian' cubits.
For that reason, it is not unusual to find both 'Sumerian' cubits and 'Egyptian' cubits present at the same locations.
The Spanish Conquistadors also brought with them a yard or 'vara' of 33" which obviously had its origin in the Sumerian yard of 33.0" which was 50 Sumerian "shusi" of 0.66" as well as other Sumerian units which similarly passed into Anglo Saxon measurement systems, the "Saxon" foot of 13.2" being the same as the Sumerian foot of 13.2" (20 Sumerian shusi"), the Saxon pole of 16.5ft was in origin a "Sumerian" pole of 15 Sumerian feet, and the acre of 66 x 660ft resulting in 43,560 square English feet was originally 60 x 600 Sumerian feet making 36,000 square Sumerian feet.
The Sumerian cubit of 19.8" was 30 Sumerian shusi and in metric terms would be 502.92mm, two x Sumerian cubits would be 1005.84mm which is fairly close to 1 metre, so if a pre-Columbian site has measurements in round numbers of metres, we can virtually double them to find the equivalent in Sumerian cubits. Something that has surprised some archaeologists in the past was the frequency with which some pre-Columbian sites came out in round numbers of metres - but then maybe they should have changed from a metric tape measure to a Sumerian one!
The object of this page is to look at the stone momuments of Tiwanaku to see if they were constructed in known units such as the "Sumerian" or "Egyptian" cubits.
When I had visited the Akapana pyramid in Tiwanaku with Freddy Arce of the Tiwanaku Institute, Freddy had told me the dimensions of the pyramid which is in fact a sort of ‘T’ shape. One side, he said was 210 metres (688.9 ft). I pulled out my pocket calculator as that number sounded familiar. A quick analysis showed that 210 metres was 400 Egyptian Royal Cubits of 525 mm (20.67 inches) or one Egyptian Royal Stadium. The other side was 194.4 metres (637.8 ft). A quick calculation again revealed that 194.4 metres was 432 Egyptian Geographic Cubits of 450 mm (17.7 inches).
Above, in 1856 American archaeologist George Squier measured the Akapana
which he called
"the fortress" and found it to be 620 x 450ft. (188.97m x 137.16m)
Above, plan of the Akapana pyramid (E and D) by George Squier, 1856.
George Squier measured the Akapana which he called "the fortress" and found it to be 620ft along the north-south axis. Converting into Egyptian royal cubits of 525mm would give dimensions of 360 royal cubits for this side of the pyramid. The Tiwanaku calendar found in the Kalasasaya used a mathematical year of 360 days, every pillar on the calendar wall divided the year into 20 "half-months" of 18 days and every second pillar on the calendar represented a division of the year into 10 months of 36 days. The number 360 was a cornerstone of ancient mathematics and here at the Akapana pyramid we had a side of length of 360 Egyptian Royal Cubits representing a year of 360 days, while if we subtract this side of the pyramid from the dimension of 410 metres quoted by Freddy Arce, we have a surplus of 21 metres suggesting this part of the pyramid was built upon a pavement or platform of 20 Egyptian royal cubits per side.
George Squier gave a measurement of 450ft along the east-west axis and also gives a separate measurement of what he calls "the apron" (D in the above drawing) as 180ft along the east-west axis which when added to the 450ft gives an overall width east-west of 630ft. Dividing 630ft (192 metres) by the 525mm Egyptian royal cubits suggests a length of 365.7 cubits for the east-west axis of the pyramid making an overall footprint of 360 x 365.7 cubits which may have been intended as relating to the 360 day mathematical year and 365.25 actual solar year.
The Akapana is not alone in being constructed using ‘Egyptian’ royal cubits. The writings of Arthur Posnansky tell of a building similar to the Kalasasaya (the semi-sunken temple in Tiwanaku) which he records as existing on the island of Similake in the entrance to the Desaguadero River (Posnansky 1937). According to Posnansky, this structure has sides measuring 30 ‘loka’ of 175 cm (68.9 inches). This would make the overall length 52.5 metres (172.24 ft) which is 100 Egyptian royal cubits of 525mm (20.67 inches).
(73) The "loka" of the First Period of Tihuanacu was 174 cm . as can be seen clearly in the preglacial building on the island of Simillake in the Desaguadero River (Cf. Posnansky: Antropología y sociología andina, 1937). For example the semisubterranean building of the First Period of Tihuanacu is 2890 cm. wide (16 lokas) and 2600 cm. long (15 "lokas"). Each "loka" of the First Period measures 175 cm. The building of Simillake has thirty "lokas" of the First Period. With regard to the "loka" of the Third Period of Tihuanacu it is only 161.51 cm. refer to the balcony wall of Kalasasaya. But in the Second Period, which has more connection with the First than with the Third, it seems that the "loka" had the same size of 175 cm. as in the First Period. For example, the width of the perron of Kalasasaya is 4 "lokas" and that of the sides of the CONSTITUENT ANGLE of the Kalasasaya of the Second Period has 80 "lokas" of 175 cm. The change in the size of the "loka" of the First Period of Tihuanacu is due, in our opinion, to anthropological reasons. The difference in the arm span (basis of the "loka") of the primitive men of the First Period, or a length of 13.49 cm., corresponds to the greater physical development of the man of this period as compared to the man of the Third Period, more developed intellectually but with a correspondingly reduced physical development.
If the Andean measurement unit was a ‘loka’ of 175 cm as suggested by Posnansky then its correct interpretation and significance may have escaped previous investigators. Put simply, three ‘loka’ of 175 cm are equal to 10 Egyptian Royal Cubits of 525 mm. Arthur Posnansky began studying Tiwanaku in 1904 and in 1945 published his monumental work "Tihuanacu, the Cradle of American Man." He thought Tiwanaku had been constructed in three distinct stages or periods and in note 73 of Vol II, Chapter II section E gives the value of a ‘loka’. But his figures seem to be inconsistent since he begins ‘The loka of the first period of Tihuanacu was 174 cm as can be seen clearly in the preglacial building on the island of Similake in the Desaguadero River (Cf. Posnansky Antropologia y sociologia andina, 1937)’. Then he states ‘each loka of the First Period measures 175 cm. The building of Similake has thirty ‘loka’ of the First Period. In the Second Period … it seems that the ‘loka’ had the same size of 175 cm as in the First Period. With regard to the ‘loka’ of the Third Period of Tihuanaku, it is only 161.51 cm.’
Posnansky is further inconsistent when he says "As has been pointed out in previous chapters, one of the most interesting details of the balcony wall, is the distance between the center of each of the pilasters. In this, as has been said before, there has been revealed the normal measuring unit of Tihuanacu, or the unit of longitude, serving the purpose of the meter among us: the "LOKA" of the Second Period, equivalent to 1 m. 63 cm. "It is a question then of an ANTHROPOMETROLOGICAL measure." - Posnansky assumed the differences in the length of the "loka" were due to differences in size of the human body at different periods.
Posnansky continues
...it turns out that the builders were not concerned at all with the space from pillar to pillar, since these were not of the same width, but the distance between the center of one pillar and the next was surprisingly the same in all cases, allowance being made, of course, for the slight dislocations of the wall attributable to geotectonic factors, which made them change position, though in a very insignificant manner, as can be seen in the following table. Thus the original space from the center of one pillar to another, allowing for some error of ours, would be, taking an average of the figures from the table, 4 m. 84 cm. 5.75 mm.
Now if we stop and have a look at Posnansky's average figure for the distance from
centre to centre of the pillars, 4845.75 mm. if we calculate in Sumerian links of 7.92" (201.1mm) that would be 24 x Sumerian
links of 7.92" from centre to centre of the pillars and 240 links from centre to centre of the end pillars.
Another value of Egyptian Royal cubit was 20.625" where this cubit was the diagonal of a square whose sides were a
unit called a "remen" of 14.58"
which was a 1/5000th part of a minute of latitude. This is the cubit built into the sides of the Great Pyramid
in Egypt whose sides measure 440 such cubits. 24/25ths of this cubit would be 19.8"
which is the Sumerian cubit of 30 shusi. And 10 "loka" of 600mm are virtually 12 Sumerian cubits of 19.8"
making it in some instances difficult to determine which units really were used at Tiwanaku, whilst other
evidence suggests that in fact both "Egyptian" and
"Sumerian" units were used since they both belonged originally to the same universal, measuring system.
The Sumerian units were [16]
For those who are curious as to why there should be two different lengths of Egyptian Royal Cubit,
I will give the explanation here. When at the time of the French revolution they attempted
to survey the circumference of the Earth to give a standard unit of measurement, they
defined the average circumference as 40,000,000 metres, this was the origin of the unit called the metre.
Today's figure for the average circumference is 40,008,258 metres. Alternative methods of measuring the
circumference of the Earth would be to measure it at the equator, where it is largest, or
to measure it through a meridian, which is a line passing North to South through both north and south poles.
When the Egyptians or whoever it was calculated the length of the Royal Cubit, they obtained one
value by measuring from the meridians and the other value by measuring from the equator.
Instead of dividing the circumference into 40,000,000 to obtain a metre, they divided
the equatorial circumference by 360 then by 60 to obtain a geographic mile. They then
divided this by 5,000 to obtain a unit called a "remen" which became the sides of
a square whose diagonal was one cubit - in this case the "royal cubit" of 525mm.
Puma Punku
The Akapana pyramid in Tiwanaku is fairly well known but another less known pyramid or
platform to the south-west is called the Puma Punku.
It is generally speaking difficult to find any accurate or dimensioned drawings for
any of the monuments in Tiwanaku, but a recent entry on
Puma Punku Wikipedia gave
some dimensions for the Puma Punku platform. It says the platform is 167.36 m wide along its north-south axis.
Knowing the Sumerian double yard was 66.0" we can easily work out that this platform was 100 double
yards of 100 shusi in length (a difference of 11" in a length of 549 feet) - a proof carved in stone that
either there was an ancient contact with the Sumerians or since these units are found throughout the
ancient Americas, that they probably originated here.
I should mention, that we don't know if these ancient peoples set out their buildings
to a particularly high degree of measurement, or whether today we are able to measure them
to the same degree of measurement since many sites have been vandalised and original stones
carried away and many now exist in "restored" formations. But if a major platform like Puma Punka
should be so pretty close to 100 Sumerian double yards which in their turn consisted of
100 sumerian shusi it pretty much suggests that was the measurement originally intended.
The Wikipedia article mentions a "Plataforma Lítica" consisting of a stone terrace that
is 6.75 by 38.72 meters in dimension.
A stone slab (largest stone) is
7.81 meters long, 5.17 meters wide and averages 1.07 meters thick (25.6ft long x 16.96ft x 3.51ft)
The second largest stone block found within the Pumapunka is 7.90 meters long, 2.50 meters wide, and averages 1.86 meters thick
So the largest block is 10 cubits wide and the next largest is 5 cubits wide……
The source of some of the above measurments seems to be an article by
Alexei Vranich Journal of Field Archaeology
which also includes a drawing of the site.
Above, On this drawing I have superimposed the dimensions given of 167.36 metres wide
along its north-south axis together with the 116.7 metres on the north and south sides shown in solid
outline. The 167.36 metres comes to 100 Sumerian double yards or 500 Sumerian feet for the
length of the platform, whereas the quoted 116.7 metres for north and south sides does not seem to
represent anything special. On the other hand if the north and south side had been measured
to include the dotted section, then they would measure 450 Sumerian feet, suggesting
a platform of 100 Sumerian double yards by 90 Sumerian double yards or 500 x 450 Sumerian feet was originally intended.
Looking back to Drewitt and Druckers figure of 805 mm (31.692") we can readily see that in place of a
yard of 50 shusi,
they have been calculating in yards of 48 shusi
(4 x links) and their study in itself
provides evidence of the use of "Sumerian" measurement units at Teotihuacan just
as we have also found evidence of the use of Sumerian units at Puma Punku, Tiwanaku.
One of the problems facing engineers who attempted to measure the Great Pyramid in Egypt,
was determining where the actual corner sockets of the pyramid were, also whether to include
in measurements such features as pavements which surrounded the pyramid. Looking at the drawing of
the above Akapana pyramid, it seems to me unconceivable that anyone could design and build such a
pyramid without first having prepared a plan and design in advance, and for that they would have used
a unit of measurement. The numbers on the above plan are hardly readable due to the low
resolution of the original but appear to read 194.4 metres east to west and 182.6 metres north to south.
Although these figures are more modern than those of George Squier of 1856, we must remember the pyramid
has suffered considerably from a process of ongoing destruction over the centuries making actual measurement and reconstruction to original dimensions more difficult.
The following interpretations are based on measurements scaled from the drawing
although the drawing itself in places does not seem to always appear to conform to its stated dimensions.
Above, if the pyramid had been designed in "Sumerian" units, then using blocks of 100 links,
the base of the pyramid comes out at 900 links wide
from east to west
while the top of the platform is 700 links from east to west.
In a north-south direction, the base is also 900 links and the upper platform, 300 links, 500 links
and 700 links respectively. Had it been built in blocks of 40 Egyptian royal cubits, then
it would be 120, 200 and 280 Egyptian royal cubits for the upper platform and 280 north to south for the upper platform.
That would be 210, 350 and 490 in Egyptian feet or 105, 175 and 245 if in "loka" of 600mm or 60, 100 and 140 if in Mayan "hunabs"
since each Mayan "hunab" was about 2 x Egyptian royal cubits in length making the terraces width about 20 "hunabs"...
We would expect the pyramid to have been designed in round numbers,
so it suggests a more consistent measurement if it were originally in Sumerian links rather
than "loka", or even in Egyptian royal cubits rather than loka, especially if the base had been designed originally to be
360 cubits square - a favourite number of the Sumerians.
360 Sumerian cubits would give a base of 181.05 metres. By comparison a base of 360 Egyptian royal
cubits of 525mm would be 189 metres (compare this figure to George Squier's measurement of 188.97 metres in 1877)
which subtracted from the 210 quoted by Freddy Arce
would allow 20 cubits per side for a pavement.... while a base of 360 Egyptian royal cubits of
20.625" would be 188.6 metres . Using Egyptian royal cubits, each of the 9 divisions of the base would be
of 40 royal cubits or of 70 Egyptian feet or of 35 "loka" of 600mm or of 20 "hunabs" of 2 royal cubits.
We might also notice that the base is close to a stadium which based on a mean figure of latitude
would be 185.22 metres or if based on the latitude of the pyramid itself might be around 184.4 metres.
The height of the pyramid is quoted as being about 17 metres. A quick conversion to
Sumerian units suggests it would be 10 Sumerian double yards of 66.0" (16.76 metres).
A quick geometrical calculation tells us that if the width at the corner is 100 links,
and the height is 10 double yards then by Pythagoras we can work out that the apparant
length of the angled slope on the elevation drawing would be 50 "Egyptian" cubits of 20.625".
As can be seen on the earlier drawing, if we continue working in Sumerian units, the maximum width of the pyramid on the upper level at the eastern end
is 700 links.
This may at first glance seem an odd number to choose, but there may be an explanation for it.
One of the Spanish historians of the Conquest tells us that in order to measure a year of
12 months, the Inca set up 8 pillars to the east of Cusco and 8 pillars to the west of Cusco.
Now when we examine the calendar of the Kalasasaya, which is the Calendar of the Gate of the Sun,
it represents a year of 10 months of 36 days and 20 half-months months of 18 days,
and uses 11 upright stone pillars as markers
so that the sun progressivly set over each pillar throughout the year. (11 pillars represents
20 divisons counting from when the sun is over one pillar, working out to the left and then
to the right then back to the starting position). This is represented by 11 small chasquis on the
Gate of the Sun and also time was divided into 40 months represented by 40 condor heads which was 3 solar years.
At some later time, the calendar was changed from a calendar of 20 months to a calendar of 12 months.
With 8 pillars, the sun is seen setting not over the pillars, but through the spaces between
the pillars (or statues if statues are used in place of pillars.) And 8 pillars means 7 spaces.
The central space represents the Equinox, the sun works its way to the space between the
end pillars which is the Solstice, back to the centre for another Equinox, out to the other side
for another Solstice then back to another Equinox in the centre. The year in Egypt was counted as
360 days with five days left over. Now if here we also had 360 days and a platform
700 links wide, each month would be 100 links wide on the top of the platform and with
30 days to the month, each day would be 40 shusi wide.
The distance from centre to centre of each pillar was 4845.75mm according to Posnansky From centre to centre was therefore 24 Sumerian links of 7.92" and each link was 12 shusi.
We know the Inca, who were the civilisation existing at the time of the
Conquest used a calendar of 12 months because it is recorded by the Chroniclers. It is also recorded
that in the time of Inca Pachacuti, the Inca calendar
was revised because it had become out of step with the seasons.
We know the Tiwanaku at the time of the construction of Kalasasaya used
a calendar of 10 months and 20 half-months because it is recorded on the Gate of the Sun with
11 small chasqui icons and originally, 11 massive stone pillars in the western wall.
We also know that time periods for work were arranged in groups of nine days,
compatible with the 36 day month, the eighteen day half-month, and a 9 day week division.
It is not known whether the Akapana actually had any calendric function,
it is merely a suggestion based on the width of the platform, but if
it did, it seems out of place with the other calendar especially when
the elaborate Sun Gate freize belongs to the earlier calendar. The Inca were a decimal people and counted their years in decades, centuries and milleniums of 1,000 years.
What is not known, is why the 10 month original decimal calendar/ 20 half-month calendar was abandoned
and completely forgotten about so that even today, the majority of people in the Andes are completely unaware that it ever existed.
Above, the Tiwanakotas were fond of making models,
like this example measured by George Squier in 1877. The stone he
says measures 13ft 4ins square - virtually 8 x Sumerian cubits of 19.8".
But 8 x 19.8" would be 13ft 2.4" while 13ft 4ins is exactly 8 x cubits of 20". (And very near to the width of the Sun Gate).
It might seem strange at first sight to find measurements coming out in round numbers of inches,
but the "English" inch is itself derived from a measurement of the polar diameter of the planet, with ancient cubits being the "sacred" cubit of 25" and the "great" cubit of 30", both described in the Bible.
So could the English inch and these cubits have originated here in Tiwanaku? since they had to orginate somewhere.
George Squier describes some niches on the reverse of the Gate of the Sun, above the level of the door, two on either side each 12" x 9", and two lower niches 28.2" x 18.2" wide, one on each side.
He described also two niches on the front of the monolith, one of 10" x 9" x 6" deep and the other, 12" x 6" x 3½". It would be interestng to remeasure these and other features to see how exactly or otherwise they
are in English inches.....
It is not so odd as one may think to find differing measuring systems within the same civilisation, particularly if it existed over an extended period of time. In England today we use metres but also "English" feet and inches.
Older buildings may be in "Saxon feet" or distances in "furlongs", but the "Saxon foot" of 13.2" is none other than
the Sumerian foot of 20 shusi, and the furlong was originally a distance of 660 English feet or 600 Sumerian feet
while the English acre, a mysterious 43,560 English square feet was, quite simply, 36,000 Sumerian square feet.
Posnansky, describing the courtyard of the Kalasasaya tells us "To the Second Period there belongs, without any doubt, the great quadrilateral, for the erection
and architecture of which they seem to have taken their inspiration from the small temple of the
First Period . . . AFTER HAVING EXCAVATED IT. Kalasasaya of the Second Period
is 128 meters 74 centimeters long by 118 meters 26 centimeters wide.
Based on Posnansky's measurement, 128 metres 74 centimetres could be considered 250 cubits
of 515mm (250 cubits of 20.27") - the width of the conduit in the above photo.
Posnansk's measurements for the row of pillars.
A more modern interpretation of the loka by Javier Escalante says
it measures 600mm. But that is, quite simply, 2 x Egyptian feet of 300mm. Rulers of 300mm exist in the
British Museum in London where the Egyptian foot was divided into 16 fingers; 24 fingers
made a geographic cubit and 28 fingers made the royal cubit of 525mm. In other words, the royal cubit
contained an extra palm compared to the geographic cubit and a "loka" of 600mm would 32 "fingers".
Above, Egyptian royal cubit rule of 525mm (20.67 inches) divided into 28 fingers.
Shusi of 0.66"
Link of 12 shusi (7.92")
Foot of 20 shusi (13.2")
Cubit of 30 shusi (19.8")
Yard of 50 shusi (33.0")
Double yard of 100 shusi (66.0")
Pole of 16.5ft (15 Sumerian feet)
Furlong of 660ft (600 Sumerian feet) etc.
Above, the shusi of 0.66" according to Berriman. [16]
Above, entrance to the Kalasasaya before modern reconstruction.
Above, Posnansky's plan drawing of the Kalasasaya entrance.
Based upon the drawing, the lower 3 steps would appear to be 35 Sumerian links of 12 shusi (7.92") wide
making them 14 Sumerian cubits
and the upper 4 steps appear to be 36 Sumerian links wide.
Accurate data would be useful for confirmation of interpretation.
Above, the latest measurements of the equator and polar meridians from Wikipedia.
Above, Google earth image of Puma Punku.
OK, 6.75 metres = 265.74" = 4 x Sumerian double yards of 66.0" (difference 1.74")
7.81 metres = 15 Egyptian cubits of 20.625" difference = 48mm or 1.9"
7.81 metres = 15 Egyptian cubits of 525mm difference = 65mm or 2.5"
5.17 metres = 3 x double yards of 66." = 10 cubits of 19.8" = Difference = 5.54"
1.07 metres = 2 cubits of 19.8" difference = 2.52"
7.90 metres = 15 Egyptian royal cubits of 20.625" (difference 1.64")
7.90 metres = 15 Egyptian royal cubits of 525mm (difference = 25mm or 0.99")
2.5 metres = 5 Sumerian cubits of 19.8" (difference = 0.57")
Above, Puma Punku by Alexei Vranich in Journal of Field Archaeology
Above, measurement of Puma Punku by Alexei Vranich in Journal of Field Archaeology
Above, measurement of slabs by Alexei Vranich in Journal of Field Archaeology.
Slabs of 6.10 metres would be 12 Sumerian cubits of 19.8" or 18 Sumerian feet. (difference in overall length of 65mm or 2.5").
There again, George Squier often quoted measurements which were multiples of 20.0" so dividing the above
measurement of 6.10 metres by 12 would give the above slab a measurement in cubits of 12 x cubits of 20.03"
Above, measurement of corridor by Alexei Vranich in Journal of Field Archaeology.
Corridor of 3.5 metres would be 7 Sumerian cubits of 19.8", or 2 Sumerian double yards or 10 Sumerian feet.
(difference 147mm or 5.8"), 3.5 metres divided by 7 cubits gives cubits of 19.68".
Above, measurement of area by Alexei Vranich in Journal of Field Archaeology
Area of 6.75 metres would be 4 Sumerian double yards or 20 Sumerian feet. (difference 44.4mm or 1.7")
Above, measurement of slabs by Alexei Vranich in Journal of Field Archaeology
Slabs of 350mm x 800mm would be 1 Sumerian foot x 48 shusi. (difference 14.7mm [0.57"] and 4.6mm [0.18"])
Above, a study by Almaraz in 1865 [31]
for Teotihuacan in Mexico proposed a universal unit of 800mm.
This would be similar to the above 800mm unit noted at Tiwanaku but we should note that the figure was
revised by Drewitt and Drucker to 805mm.
The difference now between the 805 mm unit of Drewitt and Drucker and a unit of 48 shusi (804.67mm) is only 0.3mm.
We also see mention of a 600mm unit at Teotihuacan which would be similar to the 600mm unit some have
proposed for the "loka" at Tiwanaku but which is actually 2 x Egyptian feet of 300mm.
Above, description of Inca adobe blocks which were therefore 12 shusi square, by 48 shusi long.
Above, scheme of Tiwanaku by Javier Escalante
Above, plan of Akapana pyramid by Javier Escalante
Above, by scaling the width of the steps and staircase, it appears
to come out in the following units:
(both Sumerian and Egyptian units are given for comparison in round numbers.)
Above, a grid of Egyptian royal cubits superimposed upon the
pyramid plan and showing
a base of 360 Egyptian royal cubits which equates to the 620 feet (189 metres) measured
by George Squier
and an overall platform of 210 metres as quoted by Freddy Arce
which
would be 400 Egyptian royal cubits.
Above, At this point the width including the pavement is about 210 metres.
Above, These measurements show about 189 metres in both directions
suggesting 360 Egyptian royal cubits.
Above, These measurements suggest 360 Sumerian cubits of 19.8" measuring to what may be the edge of the first terrace.
Above, The pyramid has recently been under reconstruction.
Above, an elevation based upon the plan and reported height with width of bases in Sumerian
double yards and links and also for comparison cubits which could be either Sumerian or Egyptian depending on the actual dimensions of the pyramid.
Above, the Akapana originally had statues on its top level.
Possibly they were used as markers to calculate the year dividing it into 12 months as shown. On the other hand,
since they already had such a perfect decimal and base 20 calendar in the Kalasasaya, why change
from a year of 10 months to a year of 12 months? -
Cieza reports that the Aymara used a year of 10 months.
Above, the original calendar of the Kalasasaya had 11 pillars and divided the year into 10 months and
20 half-months
Above, when the sun reached the end of the pillars forming
the west wall of the Kalasasaya, it appeared to "stand still"
before beginning
its journey back in the opposite direction.
It took 18 days for the sun to cross from centre to centre of the pillars, therefore each day the sun travelled 16.0 shusi across the line of pillars and from centre to centre of the end pillars was 96 Sumerian cubits.
Above, satellite image of the Kalasasaya compound and the outline of the Akapana pyramid.
The fine white line shows true north and true east. It is noticeable that the Kalasasaya compound,
which is the oldest part of Tiwanaku and used a calendar of 10/20 months is aligned slightly west of North while the Akapana pyramid
is aligned slightly east of North. Arthur Posnansky based upon surveying of sight lines within the Kalasasaya before its
reconstruction, i.e. based upon the angles created by the standing stones,
thought that the Kalasasaya dated to around 15,000BC. Modern radio carbon dating
suggests that the Kalasasaya might date to around 800 to 400BC while the Akapana and
Puma Punku may date to around 500 to 600AD.
Above, dating according to scheme of five stages.
Above, radio carbon dating of Kalasasaya, said to be 800 to 400BC but one figure is 1990 to 1730BC.
Above, old photograph of the Gate of the Sun
Above, Gate of the Sun in old time photo,
Chasqui icons in three rows can be clearly seen forming a block of
three rows of five on either side of the central figure
and eleven smaller icons in the freize underneath. The design
then repeats itself as if to be continued on additional walls
to the side which no longer exists. So each row has five Chasquis,
plus an additonal three giving the initial impression of eight Chasquis.
Above, George Squier measured the little figures called Chasquis
and found them to be about 8 inches square. So each chasqui would be about 12 shusi square,
that is if in Sumerian links of 7.92 inches - the same links as we found in the Akapana pyramid... and eight per side would make 8 x 7.92" which is 2 x 31.68" -
virtually identical to the 48 shusi unit found by Drucker and Drewitt at Teotihuacan.
Above, A chasqui on a block of stone outside the museum measures 8 inches high by 7.5inches wide.
Above, George Squier measured the Gate of the Sun.
The monument was part buried in the ground,
but he tells us
the width of the door is 2ft 9ins which would be 33.0" - a standard Sumerian unit of 50 shusi.
It would be useful to verify this, in order to confirm if it is indeed, 33.0".
He gives the width of the gate as 13ft 5ins which would be 8 cubits of 20.12".
The thickness he tells us is 20" - virtually one Sumerian cubit of 19.8"
which is often described in literature as being 20", after all, who can
really measure that small difference with accuracy? A 19.8" cubit would be 503mm while a 20" cubit
would be 508mm - a difference of 5mm while the 20.625" Egyptian cubit would be 523.8mm or alternatively 525mm.
The "sunken portico"
is also described as being 20" ... and there are six mortises 8"
square which would make them 12 shusi or 1 x "link" of 7.92" square which
form two sides of a square of 3ft 7ins.
The square mortises are quoted as being 6" deep as is the sunken part in the
centre while the radius of the corners is quoted as being 12".
The block measured by George Squier as it exists today.
Above, this duct measures 20 inches wide... a confirmation of the 20" cubits of George Squier, one of the "H" shaped blocks at Puma Pumka measured 40" wide i.e. 2 x cubits wide and the doorway below measured 30" wide - the lost "great" cubit of antiquity.
Above, this door measures 30 inches wide... the lost "great"
cubit of antiquity.
The standard width of a door in England today, is often either 30.0" as above,
or 33.0", the same as the door of the Sun Gate.
Above, on the other hand, this particular conduit appears to be a little over 20"
wide, so were ducts a standard measurement in cubits and what was the cubit, 19.8" "Sumerian" cubit,
20.0" geographic cubit, 20.625" Egyptian Royal cubit or was there a "Tiwanaku" cubit? The Greeks used
a 1/4000th part of a degree of latitude for their geographic cubit while the Egyptians used
a 1/5000th part of a degree for their "remen" and the Sumerians used a 24/25th part of the Egyptian
Royal cubit for their cubit of 30 "shusi".
What if the Tiwanaku cubit was based on its own degree of latitude? The latitude of Akapana
is 16º 33.698' or 16.5616333º which according to the
length of degree calculator gives a length of 110664.55metres for the latitude of Akapana.
If we divide this not by 5,000 or 6,000 but by 3600 or 60 x 60, this gives a cubit of 512.3358mm or 20.17"
which comes pretty close to the actual width of the duct shown above and a more accurate survey of the dimensions
of the various remaining stones at Tiwanaku would be certainly worthwhile.
Above, George Squier describes a "Hall of Justice" which was probably in the Puma Punku area before it
got blown
up with gunpowder. The length he says was 420 feet, which would be 250 cubits of 20.16" suggesting there was
indeed a "Tiwanaku" cubit. The breadth of 370 feet would be 220 cubits of 20.18".
Above, Posnansky also describes a block of stone as measuring 2050mm wide.
In "Tiwanaku cubits", this
would be 4 cubits of 20.177"
Above, chart showing the origins and divisions of the respective measurement systems.
Click here for new page, Tiwanaku - a city lost in time
Click here for Lost calendar of the Andes,
combined Tiwanaku calendar and Muisca calendar page
Click here for Atlantis Stade
J.M. Allen, Feb 2011, updated Feb 2012
email webatlantis@hotmail.com
