Nazca Lines

GekiDan · Apr 9, 2009

After seeing a commercial about a documentary about Peru and Nazca Lines, but I haven't got a chance to watch it. This made me research more about the topic.

The Nazca Lines are a series of geoglyphs located in the Nazca Desert, a high arid plateau that stretches more than 80 km (50 miles) between the towns of Nazca and Palpa on the Pampas de Jumana in Peru. Although some local geoglyphs resemble Paracas motifs, these are largely believed to have been created by the Nazca culture between 200 BCE and 700 CE. There are hundreds of individual figures, ranging in complexity from simple lines to stylized hummingbirds, spiders, monkeys, fish, sharks or orcas, llamas, and lizards.

Some are saying that these lines are made by aliens who the acient civilizations met. Because many do think that it was impossible to make one without much technology even now can't understand, like some do think abou the pyramids and sphinx.

The Parakeet · Apr 9, 2009

For whatever reason, we always grossly underestimate what our ancestors could do.

I don't think it would be crazy for them understand grids and properly plot it out. Plus...look at it. It's far from perfect. The tail is too big and connects to the back in a strange way. The legs are odd. The arm is coming out of its head. If the aliens made it, then they were drunk.

They also had the best motivation. It was a pretty picture for their gods. Divine motivation can inspire men to do great work.

GekiDan · Apr 9, 2009

What you said is definitely right. This things maybe is a gift for their gods. Plus, maybe, our ancestors do have a great mind creating these kind of things even we can't do without the help of the latest technology.

Imagine drawing various lines to create an image without looking at the top view. We can always make a decent image by leeting one person draw on the ground while one is several feet above the ground, maybe riding a helicopter, as his guide using a phone.

Sparks · Apr 13, 2009

One of the common mistakes people make is to think their ancestors were "dumber" than themselves. While knowledge is cumulative, intelligence is not. Initially it amazed me that they could envision such a point of view when they couldn't fly or levitate (as far as we know).

But I remember visiting the Southwest as a young guy and encountering many very tall elevations that look down on distant flat areas, giving the similar effect or point of view. I imagine the initial artist looked down on a village or even a game path and made the leap from illustrating on rock walls or pottery to drawing on the ground itself for the gods to see.

DodgeFB · Apr 13, 2009

Sparks said:
One of the common mistakes people make is to think their ancestors were "dumber" than themselves. While knowledge is cumulative, intelligence is not.

This is very true. In my opinion we come up with new "dumb" stuff everyday. Some of which people my age and older would have never thought of.

Delta · Apr 13, 2009

Sparks said:
One of the common mistakes people make is to think their ancestors were "dumber" than themselves. While knowledge is cumulative, intelligence is not. Initially it amazed me that they could envision such a point of view when they couldn't fly or levitate (as far as we know).

Well, according to the Flynn effect, intelligence IS rising from generation to generation.

I think what has changed is that we have become so dependent on technology, that stuff like these Nazca lines seem unfathomable without it. We've lost our creativity and our dependence on technology is blinding.

The Parakeet · Apr 13, 2009

Yeah. It really wouldn't be that hard. I remember these kinds of things in my niece's activity books. You draw a big picture on a grid by looking at a miniature version of it over in the corner.

The leader would have drawn it out well somewhere, then made a grid.

Someone would have walked out the distances and properly scaled the grid. Then they would have eyeballed it and craved it out with basic tools. As mentioned, they could use mountains to get a better.

That would also explain some of the minor mistakes (the offset leg and arm). They didn't have a proper vantage point for just where they were on the body.

GekiDan · Apr 13, 2009

The Parakeet said:
That would also explain some of the minor mistakes (the offset leg and arm). They didn't have a proper vantage point for just where they were on the body.

In my opinion, they have made it as artistic as possible. Well... I can say that the Nazca Lines are a work of art which cannot be replaced by anything in the future.

curious · Apr 13, 2009

The Nazca lines were one of my great travel disapointments. I had trouble seeing them from the plane, partly because I expected them to be bigger than they are. Also, the photos you see are taken with film and settings that enhance the contrast between the lines and the surrounding desert, so they aren't as sharply defined as they look in photos.

You are right about elevation. The whole area is surrounded by hills.

Sparks · Apr 14, 2009

The Flynn Effect is an interesting proposition, but one that is controversial and may simply be as much an adaptation of the test to the population as it is a rise in the intelligence level of the subjects.

Somehow I doubt that Homer or Shakespeare would find themselves overawed at our intellectual prowess.

Delta · Apr 17, 2009

Sparks said:
The Flynn Effect is an interesting proposition, but one that is controversial and may simply be as much an adaptation of the test to the population as it is a rise in the intelligence level of the subjects.

Somehow I doubt that Homer or Shakespeare would find themselves overawed at our intellectual prowess.

Yes, I agree, of course there is controversy - there is even debate as to whether our current tests even measure intelligence or not. Having said that, I don't think Homer or Shakespeare would be awed at the intelligence of any one person, but I do think looking at the population as a whole they would be a bit shocked - there were probably far more unintelligent people back then. That most likely is attributed to better educations systems and the widespread availability of information though.

GekiDan · Apr 17, 2009

Do you really think intelligence can really be measured by the size of the brain?
If is that so, many do believe that, Einstein is the most intelligent person who lived on Earth.

deanhills · Apr 19, 2009

GekiDan said:
Do you really think intelligence can really be measured by the size of the brain?
If is that so, many do believe that, Einstein is the most intelligent person who lived on Earth.

I found some interesting information on this in "Science Netlinks ":

The main question at hand is whether smarter people have bigger brains. As is the case with many science questions, the answer to this one isn't "yes" or "no" but "kinda," "sometimes," or "not necessarily." As you heard, you can't always tell how big someone's brain is from the size of their head?but the two sizes are somewhat related. The same is true with brain size and intelligence.

The most we can say about brain size and intelligence is that by and large, all other things being equal, people who have larger brains tend to have slightly higher I.Q.'s than people with smaller brains. (I.Q. stands for intelligence quotient; it's a standard measure of intellectual ability.) But a lot of things have to be taken into account. For example, when you compare brain size, you really have to compare brain size relative to body mass. It's not reasonable to expect a 5'1", 100-pound woman to have the same size brain as a 6'6", 280-pound man. You have to ask the question: Is this person's brain larger or smaller than you might expect, given his or her body mass?

Even then, the relationship between brain size and intelligence is pretty weak, and there are lots of exceptions. Anatole France, a French author, had one of the tiniest "normal" brains on record, but he was certainly no dummy. On the other extreme, Jonathan Swift (the author of Gulliver's Travels) had a big honkin' brain, at the top end of all the brains ever measured (though still only twice the size of Anatole France's). Does that mean Swift was the smartest man who ever lived? He was certainly a bright guy, but it's hard to get behind any statement so extreme.

Still, it's hard to dismiss brain size entirely. The weak relationship between brain size and intelligence that shows up within the human population is somewhat more striking across the animal kingdom. Compared to other animals, humans have enormous brains compared to our body size (triple what you would expect in an average animal). Dolphins, other primates, and small whales also have big brains, and they're all pretty smart too. Within birds, parrots have big relative brain sizes, and chickens have tiny ones. And based on lab studies of learning and thinking, parrots are geniuses compared to chickens.