**
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 monuments of Tiwanaku to see if they were constructed in known units such as the "Sumerian" or "Egyptian" cubits.

Plan of the Kalasasaya and Akapana pyramid from "The Temple of the Andes" by R. Inwards, 1884.

Above, plan of Kalasasaya compound according to H.S.Bellamy.

The length of the eastern side, 118.66m (389.3ft) could be considered as 320 Egyptian remen of 14.58 inches.

The length from the eastern wall to the western calendar wall of 135.26m (443.7664ft)could be considered as
365.24 Egyptian remen and as relating to the days in a year.

11 pillars are correctly shown on the above drawing, the length from centre to centre

of
the end pillars according to Posnansky was 48.4575 metres,

and this can be interpreted as being a length of 96 Sumerian cubits of 19.8" was originally intended.

Plan with astronomical angles within the Kalasasaya.

Posnansky gives the following dimensions for the inner "Sanctissium" -
"The 'sanctissimum' --- a small subterranean temple ---is composed in its circumference of three terraces
which in turn form three steps by means of which this construction is reduced and deepened toward the
interior part. - "its size is: length 71.80 meters; width 63.60 meters." (72.1 x 64.2 m on the above drawing).

We can also scale the drawing and we find the dimensions of the innermost quadrangle as 100 x 90 Sumerian cubits of 19.8".

Posnansky gives a dimension of 129 metres for the length of the Kalasasaya from the eastern wall to the western edge of the original quadranngle which he calls "of the second period" - Posnansky - "The total length of Kalasasaya from east to west without the balcony wall is: 128 m. 74 cm." - (128.75 metres in the above drawing) and a length of 135 metres (135.54 metres in above drawing) for the distance from the eastern wall to the row of calendar stones shown in the drawing which he calls the calendar wall "of the third period". The position of the calendar wall shown also represents an earlier wall, now demolished. Posnansky - "AFTER HAVING EXCAVATED IT. Kalasasaya of the Second Period is 128 meters 74 centimeters long by 118 meters 26 centimeters wide." (128.75 x 118.31 metres in the above drawing) - this refers to the original quadrangle of the second period, and does not include the row of stones shown on the above drawing outside the original quadrilateral and which represents the present calendar wall which he calls "of the third period". (Posnansky - "The west balcony wall which belonged to the SECOND PERIOD, is not in existence at the present time and we have found only remains of the short corner wall of the south side. On June 18, 1939, we discovered remains of the north side..")

Above, satellite image of the Kalasasaya compound and the outline of the Akapana pyramid.

The fine white line shows true north and true east.

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.

Above, plan of the Akapana pyramid suggests one side was 360 cubits representing a mathematical year

and the other 365.24 cubits representing the actual 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's measurements for the row of pillars show that he divided the total distance by 30 to obtain a loka.*

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.

*Posnansky's measurements for the row of pillars from centre to centre of the end pillars.
*

Posnansky mistakenly assumed that the difference in the size of the "loka" was due to a difference in the size of arms of peoples from different periods: in fact whereas his first estimation of a loka of 175cm has a correct basis and relationship of 3 loka = 10 Egyptian royal cubits of 525 mm, his second version of the loka is based on a completely wrong assumption that the length of the calendar wall should for some reason be divided by 30 to obtain the "loka".

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 making 96 Sumerian cubits.

*Posnansky's measurements and an intrepretation in Sumerian cubits and shusi.*

With a distance of 24 links of 12 shusi between the pillars, that meant that each day would correspond to 16 shusi or 32 barleycorns. The sun travelled from K to A then back to K which was counted as 360 days and equal to 96 Sumerian cubits. This had the advantage that a theoretical circle whose circumference is equal to 2 x 96 cubits x pi, could also be measured in Sumerian units, namely the circumference would then become 360 Sumerian yards of 50 shusi or 100 barleycorns.

Posnansky suggests the "loka" of 175 cm belongs to the oldest and "first period" of Tiwanaku, but as already shown, in reality there was no "loka", just a misinterpretation of what were actually "Egyptian Royal Cubits" of 525mm, and the building on Similake which he says was 30 loka was actually 100 cubits... Similarly, when measuring the semi-subterranean temple which he says is also of the first period, Posnansky tries to interpret it as 16 x 15 lokas, quote "For example the semisubterranean building of the First Period of Tihuanacu is 2890 cm. wide (16 lokas) and 2600 cm. long (15 lokas)" but if we measure in cubits of 525 mm, it was more likely 55 x 50 cubits.

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.

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]}

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.

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.

Above, the latest measurements of the equator and polar meridians from Wikipedia.

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.

For an alternative cubit for land surveying, they could take the average nautical mile of 6076.884ft, or the meridian mile as defined above of 6076.82ft, dividing this by 5000 gives a remen of 14.584" which becomes the sides of a square and gives a corresponding diagonal for the square as 20.625" royal cubit with 24/25ths of this Egyptian Royal Cubit being the Sumerian cubit of 19.80". This cubit when made the diameter of a wheel measured out a distance of 66" - the Sumerian double yard of 100 Sumerian shusi and land plots of 100 Sumerian cubits of 19.8" were equivalent to 96 Egyptian cubits of 20.625" - all very practical for land surveying and subdivision.

In the time of the Inca, the Empire was divided into four quarters and the country known as "The Land of the Four Quarters". When we think of the modern metre, the circumference of the globe was theoretically divided into 40,000,000 parts to obtain the value of the metre, and this meant that correspondingly, each quadrant was divided into 10,000,000 metres. What if the ancient Tiwanakotas divided the quadrant not into 360 in the manner of the Egyptians and Babylonians, but counting in 20's, divided by 20,000,000? Then they would obtain a cubit of 500 mm (19.685") and could even further subdivide by 20 giving an "inch" of 25 mm and this in turn could be divided by 20 giving "lines" of 1.25mm so a "loka" of 600 mm would be 24 "inches" of 24 mm or 480 "lines", an Egyptian cubit of 525 mm would be 420 "lines" an Egyptian geographic cubit of 450 mm would be 360 "lines" and an Egyptian foot of 300 mm would be 240 "lines". The Egyptian cubit of 525 mm was ordinarily divided by 28 to give a digit of 18.75 mm, but if we calculate in "lines", then it would be 15 "lines"... The English inch, as we call it, was obtained not from the circumference of the globe, but from the diameter which was divided firstly by 1,000,000,000 to obtain a "half-inch", then this unit was doubled to give the English inch, or alternatively we could think of it as the polar radius divided by 500,000,000 - this in turn could also be divided by 20,000,000 to give a "sacred cubit" of 25".

Edmund Kiss published (1937) in a book on Tiwanaku some dimensioned plans of additional temples in Tiwanku and these suggest the cubit of 19.68" was also used there, but once again, lack of available, accurate data means that at this stage we can only offer these cubit variations as possibilities to be borne in mind.

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.

Above, Google earth image of 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.

OK, 6.75 metres = 265.74" = 4 x Sumerian double yards of 66.0" (difference 1.74")

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)

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"

The second largest stone block found within the Pumapunka is 7.90 meters long, 2.50 meters wide, and averages 1.86 meters thick

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")

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, Puma Punku by Alexei Vranich in Journal of Field Archaeology

Above, measurement of Puma Punku by Alexei Vranich in Journal of Field Archaeology

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.

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.

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.

Above, scheme of Tiwanaku by Javier Escalante

Above, plan of Akapana pyramid by Javier Escalante

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 182.4 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, 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, 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.

Above, a grid of Egyptian royal cubits superimposed upon the
pyramid plan and showing

a base of 360 Egyptian royal cubits north-south which equates to the 620 feet (189 metres) measured by George Squier,

an east-west of 365.24 royal cubits which equates to the 630ft or 192 metres measured by Squier
and an overall platform of 210 metres as quoted by Freddy Arce
which would be 400 Egyptian 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.

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.

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 Akapana originally had statues on its top level. Possibly they were used as markers to calculate the year dividing it into 12 months. 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.
**

**
**

**
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.
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.
**

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, 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.
The main panel of 5 chasquis would be 5 x links of 7.92" wide making 2 x Sumerian cubits of 19.8" per side.

On the other hand if 8.0" wide then 8 chasquis would be 64" (twice the height of the central figure)

and the main panel of five chasquis would be 40" wide - 2 x 20" cubits - with a height of 24".

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" since the door was broken at the time of measurement.
Angrande appears to give a width of 2ft 8ins for the width of the door which is 48 "Tiwanaku shusi" but
the figures on low res scans of his sketch are hard to read.
Squier gives the overall width of the gate as 13ft 5ins which would be 8 cubits of 20.12".

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).

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.

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.

H.S. Bellamy records the length of the freize and the calendar panels on the Gate of the Sun as being
8 ft 4 ins that is, the width of the calendar iconography including the central figure
with the five chasquis either side have an overall width of 100 inches according to H.S. Bellamy....

The length of the freize and the calendar panels on the Gate of the Sun according to H.S. Bellamy is
8 ft 4 ins that is, the width of the calendar iconography including the central figure with the five chasquis
either side therefore have a width of 100 inches which could be considered as 5 x 20" cubits such as found
elsewhere in Tiwanaku....

The winged chasquis on the panel of three rows are individually 8" high according to Squier or according to Bellamy the collective height of the 3 rows of chasquis is 24½" high (probably the figures are 8.0" high individually, with a small space between them) which if we add on 7½" for the height of the freize would make 32" for the height of the panel of 3 x rows of chasquis plus the freize = 48 x "Tiwanaku shusi". The central Viracocha icon is reported to be 32" high and the overall height of this upper part of the block of stone scales at 40" - again 2 x 20" cubits or 60 x "Tiwanaku shusi". But if we look closely at the photo of the Sun Gate, particularly on a direct frontal view, we can see there is a small gap where the two broken halves have been joined together. Did Bellamy's measurement of 100 inches take this gap into account? With paintshop we can align the two broken halves more perfectly, because if the chasquis should turn out to be 7.92" wide and not 8.0", then the width of the panels of 5 chasquis would be 2 x Sumerian cubits of 19.8 inches instead of 2 x 20.0", and the width of the freize would be 5 x Sumerian cubits of 19.8" = 99.0" instead of Bellamy's 100 inches, but it seems unlikely that Bellamy would make a mistake of one inch in his measurement, so for the time being, it is most remarkable that this monument should be exactly 100 inches wide or 5 cubits of 20.0" A new and highly accurate survey would be useful, particularly to try and determine whether the chasquis were intended as 8.0" or 12 shusi (7.92")... or did the craftsman just take a length of 2 cubits width and divide into five for their chasquis ...but which cubit did they use? It is clear there was a cubit, and the cubit was in the typical range of cubits used in the "Old World", if it is in the range of 19.8", 20.0", 20.17" or 20.625", then it's a cubit!

At first, due to lack of accurate data, it seems difficult to identify the exact and consistent unit because the Sumerian shusi was 0.66" and 50 shusi made the yard of 33.0" But the shusi was also considered as two x barleycorns which were each 1/3rd of an inch. Now if the shusi is 2/3rds of an inch, it would be 0.66666", and 12 of these "Tiwanaku shusi" would be 8.0", so suddenly the measurements of the gate make more sense, because 32.0" is 48 of these "Tiwanaku shusi", and the height of the central block at 2 x cubits of 20.0" would be 40 inches or 60 x "Tiwanaku shusi", it would also be 5 links of 8 inches or 10 hands of 4 inches, and many dimensions come out in round numbers when converted into "links" or "hands".

In fact it may be even simpler than that, except that we do not have appropriate words in our modern language to describe these ancient units. If you divide the polar length of the planet by 1,000,000,000 you get a unit which is half of one inch. But really it is that unit which is the prime unit and the inch is a double unit of 2 x the prime unit. So we have small units of one inch, one third of an inch (barleycorn), two thirds of an inch (shusi) and a half inch (prime unit). All of a sudden, the height of the freize at 7½" becomes 15 x prime untis of ½", the height of the Viracocha figure at 32" becomes 48 shusi or 64 prime units of ½", the chasquis at 8.0" become 12 shusi or 16 prime untis of ½" and best of all, the width of the freize which was reported as being 100" wide becomes 200 prime units of ½" wide - consistent numbering for a calendar that divided the year into 20's. They may simply have used a ruler divided into inches with halves, thirds and two thirds inch units. And although we are accustomed to an "English" foot of 12", in theory there should also be a decimal foot of 10" which would be 15 Tiwanaku shusi or 20 x prime untis of ½" and the freize also becomes 10 x decimal feet of 10.0" wide.....

The length of the freize is quoted by Bellamy as 100 inches, it is set out in a very regular
design with the small icons at intervals of 14 shusi (28 barleycorns) while
the meander seems plannned at alternate intervals of 12 and 16 shusi (or 24 and 32 barleycorns)
and the small icons appear to be contained in rectangles 6 inches high by 5 inches wide (or 12 x 10 prime units
of ½").

George Squier measured the block of stone the Gate of the Sun was carved from and found it to be 13ft 5ins wide, again, this measurement may not take into account the gap between the two broken pieces of stone but at face value gives a width to the monument originally of 8 x cubits of 20.125", which could be adjusted if more accurate data were available, however from a scaled measurement of a photo of the gate, it appears to be 12 feet at its widest point so perhaps there was an error in Squier's data here, in any case the overall width of the stone block itself was merely a convenient size for working and transportation, since the sculptured figures were intended to be continued on additional stone piece butted up to the sides....

Suggested measurements for the Gate of the Sun based upon scaled photo....

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.....

Above, detail of the calendar icons showing the central weeping figure, the chasquis in rows
of three and the lower freize with 11 icons representing the 11 pillars of the calendar wall..

This panel measures 100" wide according to H.S. Bellamy.

This could be interpretated as 4 x sacred cubits of 25", or as five cubits of 20" wide.

Above, reconstruction from Edmund Kiss (1937) of how
the Gate of the Sun may have been
incorporated into a wall and was part of an entrance within the
Kalasasaya compound.

Above, reconstruction from Edmund Kiss (1937) of how the Gate of the Sun may have been
incorporated into a wall and was part of an entrance within the Kalasasaya compound.
Note the number of chasquis with 20 in each horizontal row (ten per side) and a total
of 60 chasquis - so if each chasqui represents one year, the total number of sixty chasquis represents
the "Great Century" of the Muisca calendar, and an extra lunar month was added to the calendar
at the end of each 30 year period.

The width of the upper carved panels has increased from 100" to 180" or 9 x cubits of 20".

Above, in the preceeding reconstruction by Edmund Kiss (1937) the upper rows of chasquis
did not balance with the 11 chasqui heads on the lower freize since there was a portion of the lower freize
left over at each end, however we can extend them in Paintshop so that now there are 30 chasquis in
each horizontal row, each row on the upper portion representing a period of 30 years after which an extra
sidereal month had to be added to balance the calendar giving 401 sidereal months as equal to 30 solar years..
On the lower freize, there are now 3 x complete sections of 11 chasqui heads, each section representing one year
and each three year period being equal to 40 sidereal lunar months represented by 40 condor heads on the freize.

The width of the carved panels now occupies a space of 300" or 10 great cubits of 30" or 12 sacred cubits
of 25" or 15 x cubits of 20" (25 English feet).

It is thought that the calendar freize may have extended right around the wall of the temple. If that were so, then from the space available we can calculate what the length of the wall might have been and the symbolic total of chasquis and years represented might have been.

Posnansky states that the width of the terrace upon which the Gate of the Sun was probably located, had a "width of 63.60 meters." In feet and inches, that would be 208ft 7.92ins or 2503.9 inches, which if we divide by the original width of a panel section which was 100 inches, suggests that a terrace side might have included 25 of these sections in total with 750 chasquis representing 750 years and being 100 x sacred cubits wide. Edmund Kiss shows the inner terraces as being square in his reconstructed plan. Had the wall been square, then it would have contained a total of 100 sculptured panel sections and measured 400 sacred cubits in perimeter and contained 3,000 chasquis representing a period of 3,000 years.

Above, reconstruction of 25 sculptured panels set into west wall of inner compound,
based upon a modified drawing of Edmund Kiss (1937) and using width of terrace measurement recorded by Posnansky.
The position of a viewing stone for observing the setting sun over the calendar wall is also marked and this is
the position of the viewing stone today which Posnansky said was originally the base of the Gate of the Sun.

Above, reconstruction of the inner compound wall based upon a drawing by Posnansky.
Posnansky represents the terraces as being oblong in shape and this seems more practical for the calendar
since although one month was added every 30 years
there would still be an accumulative discrepancy, so every 420 years a further lunar month would be added,
this would be recorded at the end of 14 chasqui panels, and the north and south walls of the inner compound
would accommodate 28 x chasquis panels making 840 years on each of the north and south sides.
The original sighting lines for the solstices at the time of the first stage of the Kalasasaya from the
western side to the eastern north and south stones on the corners of the compound are marked: the
Gate of the Sun was probably set into the wall
dividing the inner
"Sanctissimum" from the western calendar wall terrace (according to Posnansky) and the viewing lines from here to the rising solstice
sun at the corners of the Sanctissimum are marked.
To the west, the sun set over the calendar stones built into the wall in phase III
and the viewing position was probably within the terrace just west of the Gate of the Sun itself.
There are slight differences in measurements according to three different surveys by Edmund Kiss, H.S. Bellamy and Posnansky.

Above, dimensions of the Kalasasaya according to Kiss, Bellamy and Posnansky.

Posnansky's stated measurement..."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." We can note that different measurements were obtained by Kiss,
Bellamy and Posnansky respectively as follows:

Quadrangle from north to south (Bellamy) 118.66 metres (389ft 3.6") stated on plan, probably measured to ends of pillars.

Quadrangle from north to south (Posnansky?) 118.31 metres (388ft 1.8") adding italic figures on above plan.

Quadrangle from north to south (Posnansky) 118.30 metres (388ft 1.4") stated on solstices diagram, measured to inside of corner pillars.

Quadrangle from north to south (Posnansky) 118.26 metres (388ft 0") stated in text, but as above, probably measured to inside of corner pillars.

Quadrangle from east to west (Bellamy) 128.36 metres (421ft 1.5") stated on plan

Quadrangle from east to west (Posnansky?) 128.75 metres (422ft 4.9" adding italic figures on above plan

Quadrangle from east to west (Posnansky) 128.74 metres (422ft 4.5") stated in text

East wall to balcony wall (Kiss) 135.30 metres (443ft 10.8") stated on plan

East wall to balcony wall (Bellamy) 135.26 metres (443ft 9.2") stated on plan

East wall to balcony wall (Posnansky?) 135.45 metres (444ft 4.7") stated on above plan, measured to north end of pillar wall

East wall to balcony wall (Posnansky?) 135.63 metres (444ft 11.8") stated on above plan measured to south end of pillar wall

East wall to balcony wall (Posnansky?) 135.54 metres (444ft 8.25") average of previous two measurements, to centre of wall

East wall to balcony wall (Posnansky) 135 metres (442ft 11") stated in text

If the north-south side of the quadrangle were originally set out as intended to be 320
Egyptian Remen from north-east to south-east pillar, then if using a remen of 14.58" it would would have a length of
388ft 9.6" while if the remen were 14.584" it would have a length of 388ft 10.8" - probably from centre to centre of
the pillars and
comparable to the measurements recorded above.

The length of the quadrangle from east to west was determined by the angle required to view the
solstices from the centre of the western edge of the quadrangle, but when the rectangle was extended
to include a western calendar wall for viewing the setting sun, the length was given a distance relative to the length of the solar year - in Egyptian remen, so 365.24219 Remen of 14.58"
would be 443ft 9.2" - the *EXACT* distance measured by Bellamy on his plan or with
a remen of 14.584", it would be 443ft 10.7" - the distance measured by Edmund Kiss...

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.

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.

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.

If the cubit were 20.17", a link of 12x30ths would be 8.0"; while 25/24ths of this Tiwanaku cubit would be 21.010415", the 25/24ths cubit x pi would be 66.00" which is a Sumerian double yard of 100 shusi of 0.66"....

The chasquis if 7.92" high would be 12 shusi of 0.66" but if 8.0" high would be 12 x shusi of 0.66666" while the Viracocha panel reported as 32" high would be 48 shusi of 0.66666"... a modern survey to the nearest millimetre may help shed more light on the origins of the Tiwanaku measurements.

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".

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.

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
**