New study sheds light on drug culture in Tiwanaku, Bolivia

New study sheds light on drug culture in Tiwanaku, Bolivia

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Unlike modern Man, ancient inhabitants of the Andes did not use mind-altering substances simply for their hedonistic pleasure. The use of alcohol and plant drugs was highly regulated and went hand-in-hand with their belief system and sacred rituals. A new study published in the journal Antiquity and reported in Discovery News has sought to shed light on these traditions once held by the people of Tiwanaku, an ancient city-state located near Lake Titicaca, Bolivia.

A team of archaeologists from the Fundación Bartolomé de Las Casas in La Paz, Bolivia, analyzed artifacts associated with ingestion of hallucinogens, which were unearthed during excavations at Cueva del Chileno. The objects, which date back around 1,500 years, were found in a ritual bundle and include snuffing tablets, a wooden snuffing tube, spatulas, fox-snout leather container, and polychrome textile headband

“Snuffing tablets in the Andes were primarily used by ritual specialists, such as shamans,” lead author Juan Albarracin-Jordan told Discovery News. “Psychotropic substances, once extracted from plants, were spread and mixed on the tablets. Inhalation tubes were then used to introduce the substances through the nose into the system.”

Artifacts recovered from the ritual bundle: a) wooden snuffing tube; b) fox-snout leather container; and c) polychrome textile headband. Credit: Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Ritual bundle recovered from Cueva del Chileno: a) leather bag or atado; b) large snuffing tablet; c) small snuffing tablet; d) camelid-bone spatulas; and e) vegetable and camelid fiber fragments.

The researchers believe that elite members of the Tiwanaku society held tight control over the access and circulation of mind-altering substances, although other members of their society may have been given permission to use the psychedelic substances at special occasions such as public events and celebrations or at private healing ceremonies.

Albarracin-Jordan explained that the people of Tiwanaku believed that consumption of the plant-based hallucinogens enabled them to cross “between the natural and the supernatural” and “between the living and the dead”.

In addition to evidence of drug-taking, the research team also found items, including drinking cups known as ‘kerus’, which are related to the consumption of chicha, an alcoholic brew made from fermented corn. Chicha has been prepared and consumed in communities throughout in the Andes for millennia. It is known that the Inca used chicha for ritual purposes and consumed it in vast quantities during religious festivals.

Cueva del Chileno, where the artifacts were found. Credit: Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Tiwanaku is recognized by Andean scholars as one of the most important civilizations prior to the Inca Empire; it was the ritual and administrative capital of a major state power for approximately five hundred years, up until its decline in 1,000 AD. At this time a dramatic shift in climate occurred and many of the cities furthest away from Lake Titicaca began to produce fewer crops to give to the elites. As the surplus of food dropped, the elites' power began to fall. With continued drought, people died or moved elsewhere.

One of the study authors, Jose ́Capriles, said that the drug culture declined after the disintegration of the Tiwanaku state. However, consumption of chicha continued and is now considered Bolivia’s national drink.

Featured image: Ancient relief carving depicting drug use. Photo source .

    Amazonian Tribe Sheds Light On Causes Of Heart Disease In Developed Countries

    Heart attacks and strokes &mdash the leading causes of death in the United States and other developed countries &mdash may have been rare for the vast majority of human history, suggests a study to be published in PLoS ONE on Tuesday, August 11.

    "Understanding how physiological systems respond in [indigenous] populations helps us better understand conditions in countries like the United States at the beginning of the 20th century," said senior author Eileen Crimmins of the USC Davis School of Gerontology. "This also offers some insight into the worlds we evolved in."

    Crimmins, lead author Michael Gurven (University of California, Santa Barbara) and an international team of scientists looked at a remote Amazonian tribe in Bolivia known as the Tsimane. They measured various predictors of heart disease such as hypertension, obesity, diet and smoking habits. (The Tsimane grow and harvest their own tobacco.)

    "The Tsimane were chosen because they still live a relatively traditional lifestyle: fishing, hunting, engaged in horticulture, gathering, living in extended family clusters and without much access to modern amenities," Gurven explained. "There are other groups with similar lifestyles, but often those groups have very small population numbers. . . . The Tsimane population is large enough &mdash about 9,000 &mdash that we can study almost all of the adults over age 40."

    With only limited access to medical services, half of documented deaths among the Tsimane are due to infectious or parasitic disease. About two-thirds of the population has intestinal worms, the researchers found.

    "We looked at a lot of populations in both developed and developing countries, in urban and rural settings, but none live in the relatively isolated and infected conditions of the Tsimane," the researchers write.

    Chronic inflammation, which may lead to damage of the arteries, is prevalent among the Tsimane. According to the study, the Tsimane also have unusually high levels of C-reactive protein, increasingly used in clinical settings to evaluate risk for cardiovascular disease.

    Yet, despite these risk factors for heart attacks, the researchers found that the high levels of C-reactive protein were unrelated to risk of peripheral arterial disease (the hardening of plaque in the arteries).

    In fact, peripheral arterial disease "increases with age in every investigated population except the Tsimane," according to the study. Among the Tsimane, not a single adult showed evidence for peripheral arterial disease (measured using the ankle-brachial blood pressure index).

    "Neither demographic interviews nor the past 7 years of working with the Tsimane has turned up many overt cases of people dying from heart attacks," Gurven said. "The Tsimane data tell us that inflammation alone may not be destructive in terms of its effects on long-term health. However, that might only be true in the context of an active lifestyle, lean diet, and possibly (and this part is more controversial) with a history of parasitism."

    The researchers note that the Tsimane may have a distinct genetic expression compared to people in developed countries. Specifically, there is overexpression of the human leukocyte antigen, which has been linked in cell studies to plaque erosion.

    "We observed low levels of atherosclerosis and associated cardiovascular disease among Tsimane, suggesting that these conditions may have been rare throughout pre-industrial human history," Crimmins said. "We may not be built for the world we live in. The Tsimane are perhaps a better model for the world we are built for."

    "We don't know for sure that as younger people today get older that [arterial disease] won't increase," Gurven said. "More heart disease may be on the horizon if lifestyles change rapidly."

    Jung Ki Kim and Caleb Finch of the USC Davis School of Gerontology and the Andrus Gerontology Center at USC and Hillard Kaplan of the University of New Mexico also contributed to the study.

    Story Source:

    Materials provided by University of Southern California. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

    Traces of hallucinogens found in mummy hair

    Andean mummy hair has provided the first direct archaeological evidence of the consumption of hallucinogens in pre-Hispanic Andean populations, according to recent gas chromatography and mass spectrometry analysis.

    Indirect evidence for psychoactive drug use in South America's ancient populations abound, ranging from the discovery of drug equipment to the identification of hallucinogenic herb residuals in snuffing kits.

    However, there wasn't direct evidence that the ancient Andean people actually consumed mind-altering drugs.

    To find a direct link, chemical archaeologist Juan Pablo Ogalde and colleagues at the University of Tarapacá in Arica, Chile, analyzed 32 mummies from the Azapa Valley in northern Chile.

    Drug paraphernalia in graves
    Naturally mummified in the Acatama desert, the bodies belonged to the Tiwanaku, the ancestors of the Incas.

    The little known Tiwanaku established a civilization around 1200 B.C. that prevailed for almost three millennia, becoming one of history's longest-running empires.

    At the peak of their power, between 700 and 1100 A.D., they dominated the Andes, controlling large areas of Bolivia and Peru and parts of Argentina and Chile.

    Their burials often contain elaborately decorated snuffing trays and panpipes.

    "At least in view of the grave goods, the Tiwanaku people were using hallucinogenic drugs," Ogalde and colleagues wrote in the October issue of the Journal of Archaeological Science.

    Indeed, a previous chemical analysis of some snuffing tablets' powder found in the Acatama desert showed the presence of Vilca tree (Anadenanthera colubrina), a plant with seeds rich in hallucinogens.

    "Surprisingly, none of the 32 mummies tested positive for hallucinogens consumption related to this plant," Ogalde told Discovery News.

    But analysis of the chemical composition of hairs from an adult male and a one-year-old baby, both dating between 800 and 1200 A.D., revealed the presence of the hallucinogenic alkaloid harmine.

    While it is unlikely that the infant, buried with a snuffing tablet and a four points Tiwanaku hat, was a drug addict (the hallucinogen might have been passed through breastfeeding), the Tiwanaku man was most probably a regular sniffer.

    In search of exotic hallucinogens
    The adult male appeared to have suffered sniffing lesions near the nose and was buried with an elaborate snuffing kit.

    "Our identification of harmine in the hair of these two Azapa Valley mummies is a very important finding. The only plant in South America that contain harmine is the jungle vine Banisteriopsis caapi, also known as ayahuasca. But this plant does not grow in the Azapa valley," Ogalde said.

    The presence of harmine suggests the Tiwanaku traveled in search of exotic hallucinogens, and brought the Banisteriopsis vine from as far as the Amazon rainforest, some 300 miles away.

    "We think that Banisteriopsiswas not necessarily used as a hallucinogenic mixture, and perhaps was used in therapeutic practices. It is also possible that its consumption with snuffing kits was used as element of social differentiation," Ogalde said.

    Another study, also published this month in the Journal of Archaeological Science, confirmed South America's leading role in the history of mind-altering drugs.

    Analysis on ceramic snuffing tubes and inhaling bowls found on the Caribbean island of Carriacou in the West Indies, showed that the drug kits were not made using local materials.

    Scott Fitzpatrick, an archeologist from North Carolina State University, and colleagues dated them to prehistoric South American tribes, between 100 and 400 B.C.

    According to Fitzpatrick, the bowls not only shed new light on how long humans have been taking drugs, but are "the first physical evidence" to show that the people who colonized the Caribbean from South America brought their heirloom drug paraphernalia with them.

    Update on ivermectin for covid-19

    Back in January I wrote an article about four randomized controlled trials of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 that had at that time released their results to the public. Each of those four trials had promising results, but each was also too small individually to show any meaningful impact on the hard outcomes we really care about, like death. When I meta-analyzed them together however, the results suddenly appeared very impressive. Here’s what that meta-analysis looked like:

    It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated with covid-19. Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means it’s the hardest for researchers to manipulate and therefore the least open to bias. Either someone’s dead, or they’re alive. End of story.

    You would have thought that this strong overall signal of benefit in the midst of a pandemic would have mobilized the powers that be to arrange multiple large randomized trials to confirm these results as quickly as possible, and that the major medical journals would be falling over each other to be the first to publish these studies.

    Rather the opposite, in fact. South Africa has even gone so far as to ban doctors from using ivermectin on covid-19 patients. And as far as I can tell, most of the discussion about ivermectin in mainstream media (and in the medical press) has centred not around its relative merits, but more around how its proponents are clearly deluded tin foil hat wearing crazies who are using social media to manipulate the masses.

    In spite of this, trial results have continued to appear. That means we should now be able to conclude with even greater certainty whether or not ivermectin is effective against covid-19. Since there are so many of these trials popping up now, I’ve decided to limit the discussion here only to the ones I’ve been able to find that had at least 150 participants, and that compared ivermectin to placebo (although I’ll add even the smaller trials I’ve found in to the updated meta-analysis at the end).

    As before, it appears that rich western countries have very little interest in studying ivermectin as a treatment for covid. The three new trials that had at least 150 participants and compared ivermectin with placebo were conducted in Colombia, Iran, and Argentina. We’ll go through each in turn.

    The Colombian trial (Lopez-Medina et al.) was published in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) in March. There is one thing that is rather odd with this study, and that is that the study authors were receiving payments from Sanofi-Pasteur, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, and Gilead while conducting the study. Gilead makes remdesivir. Merck is developing two expensive new drugs to treat covid-19. Janssen, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, and Sanofi-Pasteur are all developers of covid vaccines. In other words, the authors of the study were receiving funding from companies that own drugs that are direct competitors to ivermectin. One might call this a conflict of interest, and wonder whether the goal of the study was to show a lack of benefit. It’s definitely a little bit suspicious.

    Anyway, let’s get to what the researchers actually did. This was a double-blind randomized controlled trial that recruited patients with mildly symptomatic covid-19 who had experienced symptom onset less than 7 days earlier. Potential participants were identified through a statewide database of people with positive PCR-tests. By “mildly symptomatic” the researchers meant people who had at least one symptom but who did not require high-flow oxygen at the time of recruitment in to the trial.

    Participants in the treatment group received 300 ug/kg body weight of ivermectin every day for five days, while participants in the placebo group received an identical placebo. 300 ug/kg works out to 21 mg for an average 70 kg adult, which is quite high, especially when you consider that the dose was given daily for five days. For an average person, this would work out to a total dose of 105 mg. The other ivermectin trials have mostly given around 12 mg per day for one or two days, for a total dose of 12 to 24 mg (which has been considered enough because ivermectin has a long half-life in the body). Why this study gave such a high dose is unclear. However, it shouldn’t be a problem. Ivermectin is a very safe drug, and studies have been done where people have been given ten times the recommended dose without any noticeable increase in adverse events.

    The stated goal of the study was to see if ivermectin resulted in more rapid symptom resolution than placebo. So participants were contacted by telephone every three days after inclusion in the study, up to day 21, and asked about what symptoms they were experiencing.

    398 patients were included in the study. The median age of the participants was 37 years, and they were overall very healthy. 79% had no known co-morbidities. This is a shame. It means that this study is yet another one of those many studies that will not be able to show a meaningful effect on hard end points like hospitalization and death. It is a bit strange that studies keep being done on young healthy people who are at virtually zero risk from covid-19, rather than on the multi-morbid elderly, who are the ones we actually need an effective treatment for.

    Anyway, let’s get to the results.

    In the group treated with ivermectin, the average time from inclusion in the study to becoming completely symptom free was 10 days. In the placebo group that number was 12 days. So, the ivermectin treated patients recovered on average two days faster. However, the difference was not statistically significant, so the result could easily be due to chance. At 21 days after inclusion in the study, 82% had recovered fully in the ivermectin group, as compared to 79% in the placebo group. Again, the small difference was not statistically significant.

    In terms of the hard end points that matter more, there were zero deaths in the ivermectin group and there was one death in the placebo group. 2% of participants in the ivermectin group required “escalation of care” (hospitalization if they were outside the hospital at the start of the study, or oxygen therapy if they were in hospital at the start of the study) as compared with 5% in the placebo group. None of these differences was statistically significant. But that doesn’t mean they weren’t real. Like I wrote earlier, the fact that this was a study of healthy young people meant that, even if a meaningful difference does exist in risk of dying of covid, or of ending up in hospital, this study was never going to find it.

    So, what can we conclude?

    Ivermectin does not meaningfully shorten duration of symptoms in healthy young people. That’s about all we can say from this study. Considering the conflicts of interest of the authors, my guess is that this was the goal of the study all along: Gather together a number of young healthy people that is too small for there to be any chance of a statistically significant benefit, and then get the result you want. The media will sell the result as “study shows ivermectin doesn’t work” (which they dutifully did).

    It is interesting that there were signals of benefit for all the parameters the researchers looked at (resolution of symptoms, escalation of care, death), but that the relatively small number and good health status of the participants meant that there was little chance of any of the results reaching statistical significance.

    Let’s move on to the next study, which is currently available as a pre-print on Research Square (Niaee et al.). It was randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled, and carried out at five different hospitals in Iran. It was funded by an Iranian university.

    In order to be included in the trial, participants had to be over the age of 18 and admitted to hospital because of a covid-19 infection (which was defined as symptoms suggestive of covid plus either a CT scan typical of covid infection or a positive PCR test).

    150 participants were randomized to either placebo (30 people) or varying doses of ivermectin (120 people). The fact that they chose to make the placebo group so small is a problem, because it makes it very hard to detect any differences even if they do exist, by making the statistical certainty of the results in the placebo group very low.

    The participants were on average 56 years old and the average oxygen saturation before initiation of treatment was 89% (normal is more than 95%), so this was a pretty sick group. Unfortunately no information is provided on how far along people were in the disease course when they started receiving ivermectin. It stands to reason that the drug is more likely to work if given ten days after symptom onset than when given twenty days after symptom onset, since death usually happens around day 21. If you, for example, wanted to design a trial to fail, you could start treating people at a time point when there is no time for the drug you’re testing to have a chance work, so it would have been nice to know at what time point treatment started in this trial.

    So, what were the results?

    20% of the participants in the placebo group died (6 out of 30 people). 3% of the participants in the various ivermectin groups died (4 out of 120 people). That is an 85% reduction in the relative risk of death, which is huge.

    So, in spite of the fact that the placebo group was so small, it was still possible to see a big difference in mortality. Admittedly, this is a pre-print (i.e. it hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet), and the absolute numbers of deaths are small, so there is some scope for random chance to have created these results (maybe people in the placebo group were just very unlucky!). However, the study appears to have followed all the steps expected for a high quality trial. It was carried out at multiple different hospitals, it used randomization and a control group that received a placebo, and it was double-blinded. And death is a very hard end point that is not particularly open to bias. So unless the researchers have falsified their data, then this study constitutes reasonably good evidence that ivermectin is highly effective when given to patients hospitalized with covid-19. That’s great, because it would mean that the drug can be given quite late in the disease course and still show benefit.

    Let’s move on to the third trial (Chahla et al.), which is currently available as a pre-print on MedRxiv. It was carried out in Argentina, and funded by the Argentinean government. Like the first trial we discussed, this was a study of people with mild disease. It literally boggles my mind that so many researchers choose to study people with mild disease instead of studying those with more severe disease. Especially when you consider that these studies are all so small. A study of people with mild disease needs to be very large to find a statistically significant effect, since most people with covid do well regardless. The risk of false negative results is thus enormous. If you’re going to do a small-ish study, and you want to have a reasonable chance of producing results that reach statistical significance, it would make much more sense to do it on sick hospitalized patients.

    The study was randomized, but it wasn’t blinded, and there was no placebo. In other words, the intervention group received ivermectin (24 mg per day), while the control group didn’t receive anything. This is a bad bad thing. It means that any non-hard outcomes produced by the study are really quite worthless, since there is so much scope for the placebo effect and other confounding factors to mess up the results. For hard outcomes, in particular death, it should be less of a problem (although we wouldn’t expect any deaths in such a small study of mostly healthy people with mild disease anyway).

    The study included people over the age of 18 with symptoms suggestive of covid-19 and a positive PCR test. The average age of the participants was 40 years, and most had no underlying health issues. A total of 172 people were recruited in to the study.

    The researchers chose to look at how quickly people became free of symptoms as their primary endpoint. This is enormously problematic, since the study, as already mentioned, wasn’t blinded and there was no placebo. Any difference between the groups could easily be explained by the placebo effect and by biases towards treatment benefit among the researchers.

    Anyway, the study found that 49% in the treatment group were free of symptoms at five to nine days after the beginning of treatment, compared with 81% in the control group. However, the lack of blinding means that this result is worthless. The methodology is just too flawed.

    No data is provided on the number of people who died in each group. Since it isn’t reported, I think it’s safe to assume that there were no deaths in either group. Nor is any data provided on the number of hospitalizations in each group.

    So, what does this study tell us?

    Absolutely nothing at all. What a waste of time and money.

    Let’s move on and update our meta-analysis. The reason we need to do a meta-analysis here is that none of the trials of ivermectin is large enough on its own to provide a definitive answer as to whether it is a useful treatment for covid-19 or not. For those who haven’t heard of meta-analyses before, basically what you do is just take the results from all different studies in existence that fulfill your pre-selected criteria, and then put them together, so as a to create a single large “meta”-study. This allows you to produce results that have a much higher level of statistical significance. It is particularly useful in a situation where all the individual trials you have to work with are statistically underpowered (have too few participants), as is the case here.

    In this new meta-analysis, I’ve included every double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial I could find of ivermectin as a treatment for covid. Using only double-blind placebo-controlled trials means that only the highest quality studies are included in this meta-analysis, which minimizes the risk of biases messing up the results as far as possible. In order to be included, a study also had to provide mortality data, since the goal of the meta-analysis is to see if there is any difference in mortality.

    I was able to identify seven trials that fulfilled these criteria, with a total of 1,327 participants. Here’s what the meta-analysis shows:

    What we see is a 62% reduction in the relative risk of dying among covid patients treated with ivermectin. That would mean that ivermectin prevents roughly three out of five covid deaths. The reduction is statistically significant (p-value 0,004). In other words, the weight of evidence supporting ivermectin continues to pile up. It is now far stronger than the evidence that led to widespred use of remdesivir earlier in the pandemic, and the effect is much larger and more important (remdesivir was only ever shown to marginally decrease length of hospital stay, it was never shown to have any effect on risk of dying).

    I understand why pharmaceutical companies don’t like ivermectin. It’s a cheap generic drug. Even Merck, the company that invented ivermectin, is doing it’s best to destroy the drug’s reputation at the moment. This can only be explained by the fact that Merck is currently developing two expensive new covid drugs, and doesn’t want an off-patent drug, which it can no longer make any profit from, competing with them.

    The only reason I can think to understand why the broader medical establishment, however, is still so anti-ivermectin is that these studies have all been done outside the rich west. Apparently doctors and scientists outside North America and Western Europe can’t be trusted, unless they’re saying things that are in line with our pre-conceived notions.

    Researchers at McMaster university are currently organizing a large trial of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. That trial is expected to enroll over 3,000 people, so it should be definitive. It’s going to be very interesting to see what it shows when the results finally get published.

    Costly offerings, multiple meanings

    This wasn’t the first such discovery made in the lake. Tantalizing rumors of submerged treasure drew Spanish conquistadors to Titicaca, and one report from 1541 mentions 10 men who drowned in search of it. In modern times, divers including famed underwater explorer Jacques Cousteau have probed the waters since the 1950s.

    Various expeditions through the decades have found more than two dozen stone boxes of differing shapes on another reef, but the contents were preserved, in whole or in part, in only four. Those offerings were figurines of humans, male and female, as well as llamas, and they were made of rare and valuable materials—silver, gold, and Spondylus shells. Miniature golden tupus—pins to secure Inca shawls—were found with one of those boxes, suggesting that the human figurines were originally covered in traditional, brightly colored clothing that decayed as water infiltrated the offering cavity.

    “There were multiple, complimentary meanings” of the offerings, ranging from large political statements to simple agricultural requests, said the paper’s coauthor, Christophe Delaere, in an email. Delaere is the scientific director of the Université libre de Bruxelles' underwater archaeology projects at Lake Titicaca.

    For starters, in their reverence for the lake, the Inca were probably influenced by traditions of the people who lived there before them—the Tiwanaku, a pre-Hispanic civilization believed to have lived in present-day Bolivia, Peru, and Chile between about 200 B.C. and A.D. 1,000.

    “I suspect that there were a limited number of places that the Inca made offerings, and these were made for reasons that existed prior to their occupation,” National Geographic explorer Johan Reinhard, an archaeologist specializing in pre-Hispanic sacred landscapes, said in an email. “The Incas made offerings at places that already figured in the beliefs of the people before they came to Lake Titicaca.”

    The offerings were possibly linked to a cult of Inca ancestors, and to pilgrimage ceremonies that took place on the Island of the Sun. By centering their origin myth there, and making it a place for conducting rituals, the Inca were making a statement about their empire. (Archaeologists find a remarkably preserved Incan mummy: a girl, sacrificed in the Andes Mountains.)

    “The ceremonial offerings made to the lake were both symbolic and political acts intended to legitimize by way of ritual the power of the Inca occupation on this sacred space,” Delaere and his co-author, Penn State archaeologist José M. Capriles, explain in their paper.

    Genetics of the modern heirs of the Incas shed new lights about their origins and lineages

    A multinational South American team from Peru, Brasil and Bolivia led by the Universidad de San Martin de Porres at Lima, Peru, published the first genetic study on the modern descendants of the imperial Inka lineages in the journal Molecular Genetics and Genomics. This work supported by funds from the Genographic Project (Geno 2.0), shows new insights about the Inkas origins and lineages.

    The Inka people arrived to Cusco valley and in a few centuries they built the Tawantinsuyu, the largest empire in the Americas. The Tawantinsuyu was the cultural climax of 6,000 years of Central Andes civilizations overlapping modern countries of Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, the South of Colombia and the North of Argentina and Chile. In contrast with the richness of archeological and cultural evidence, pre Columbian history vanishes in time as it intermingles with myths due to the lack of writing systems before the arrival of the European chroniclers. Very little is known about the Inka origins and some genetic information could help reconstruct part of their history. Unfortunately the mummies and bodily remains of the Inka emperors, worshiped as gods, were burnt and buried in unknown locations due to religious and political persecution by the Christian Conquistadors and Inquisitors, so no direct material remain to study their DNA. "Thus for now, only the genetic analysis of modern families of Inka descent could provide some clues about their ancestors" remarks geneticist Jose Sandoval, first author, working at Universidad de San Martin de Porres at Lima, Peru.

    There were two foundational myths for the origin of the Inkas before they established in Cusco valley to build their capital city. One is that Manco Capac and Mama Ocllo, considered children of the Sun God and founder parents of the civilization, came from Lake Titicaca about 500 km southwards from the border of North Bolivia and South Peru, more or less the same region where Tiwanaku empire existed a few centuries before. The second myth narrates that four Ayar brothers, with divine powers, came out from the caves inside of a hill in the area of Paccarictambo, 50 km south of Cusco and only one of them, Manco, arrived to the Cusco valley. Concerning the succession of the rulers (between 12 to 14), most chroniclers mention only one patrilineal heritage, however other authors think that it was a complex selection of military and administrative skills not necessarily electing the son of a previous Inka. "A unique patrilineal cluster would be expected in the first case. In the second case, two or more patrilineal pattern will be evident" says geneticist Ricardo Fujita, senior author, also at Universidad de San Martin de Porres". The research team included historian Ronald Elward, who studied documentation of twelve Inka noble families and followed up from the conquista times to their contemporary descendants. "Most of them still living in the towns of San Sebastian and San Jeronimo, Cusco, Peru, at present, are probably the most homogeneous group of Inka lineage" says Elward.

    Markers for Y chromosome and mtDNA were used for the genetic analysis of these families and compared with a database for 2400 native individuals from Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil. "The results show distinctive patrilineal origins to two founder individuals who lived between 1000 to 1500 AD, a period between the decline of former Tiwanaku (south) and Wari (north) contemporary empires, and the rise of the Inca empire a few centuries later" says geneticist Fabricio Santos from the Universidad Federal de Minas Gerais at Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The first patrilineal haplotype named AWKI-1 (awki means crown prince in quechua language) is found in the putative families descending of 2 earlier Incas Yahuar Huacac and Viracocha. The same pattern of the Inca descendants was also found in individuals living south to Cusco, mainly in Aymaras of Peru and Bolivia. The second patrilineal haplotype named AWKI-2 was found in one descendant of a more recent Inca, Huayna Capac, father of the two brothers (Huascar and Atahualpa) who were fighting a fraternal war over the empire at the arrival of the Conquistadors. "AWKI-2 is also found in dozens of individuals from different locations in the Andes and occasionally in the Amazon, suggesting a populational expansion" says Dr. Santos.

    "In addition to San Sebastian and San Jeronimo, most locations of AWKI-1, AWKI-2 were southwards to Cusco including the basin of lake Titicaca and neighboring Paccarictambo, in agreement with the two foundational myths of the Incas" says Ricardo Fujita, "probably two pictures at different times of the same journey with final destination Cusco" adds Fujita. "It is also remarkable that in these contemporary Inka noblility families there is a continuity since pre Columbian times" says Ronald Elward. The analysis of their mtDNA suggested a highly varied matrilineal marker whose counterparts are found all over the Andes reflecting a high genetic flow. "This probably reflects the political alliances by arranged marriages between Cusco nobility and daughters of lords of kingdoms and chiefdoms all over the empire" states Jose Sandoval.

    This work is the continuation of several studies performed by the team to reconstruct South American history by Genetics and also funded by a previous grant of the Genographic Project (Geno 1.0) led in South America by Fabricio Santos. Two published works included the unique ancient roots of the Uros, people from the Floating Islands of the Lake Titicaca and the Quechwa-Lamistas in Peruvian Amazon. Modern Uros are Aymara speaking people that some have thought to be people from the Aymara ethnia who profited tourism by living on the floating islands. However the team showed that they were genetically isolated people who had lost their original Uro language, shifting to more the widely used Aymara language. On the other hand the Kechwa-Lamista are Amazonian people who speak the Andean Quechua language and they were presumed descendants of Andeans Chancas, former enemies of the Incas, and were chased by them towards the Amazon. DNA showed that they are actually descendants of linguistically different Amazonian people who were gathered by Catholic missions and were taught the Quechua language (learn by the missionaries at the Andes) for a better evangelization.

    "In some cases Genetics shows us something different than the official history. What is no written or badly written in historical records, can be revealed by what is written in our DNA. " concludes Ricardo Fujita. "This study is just the tip of the iceberg in trying to solve part of several enigmas of one of the most remarkable civilizations. The DNA of one Inka monarch bodily remain or of one direct descendant who lived at the beginning of the Spanish colonization could give more certainty about the Inca lineage, and our team is looking forward to it" declares Jose Sandoval.

    Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

    Aymara new year – La Paz

    The Aymara new year celebration (ANA) in Tiwanaku was promoted by intellectual Aymara city dwellers and non-governmental organizations (NGO) linked to different churches, not so for the community members of the Ingavi province, According to a research. From the formation of the Council of Amawtas in 1991 revalued more ancestral rituals which coincide with the winter Equinox, the 21 June, It reveals the study of sociologist Elizabeth Andia.

    The book "sum chuymampi sarnaqana (walk with good heart in Spanish). History of the Council of Amawtas of Tiwanaku"is the result of a research project of 18 years surrounding the celebration, reflection and debate about the cultural identity of the Aymara new year in Tiwanaku. His approach is anthropological, ethnographic and even philosophical.

    "The interesting thing is that those who come to tell the residents of the Tiwanaku which should make the Aymara new year are foreign people, Aymara city slickers, but also mestizos. In this they have had to also see NGOs such as the Centre of Popular theology (CPT) and the Ecumenical Centre for promotion and research of Andean theology (CEPITA), where working indigenous and mestizo, intellectual Aymara from Tiwanaku", designates the researcher.

    With the recovery of the Pachakuti speech (lap in Spanish), says sociologist, "outsiders" to convince community members that "they are heirs to ancient cultures as the existed and made a speech in that sense". Recommended invoking the Pachamama (Mother Earth) rather than the Virgin Mary and stop using the crucifix, but the Council sages argue that who convene importantly regardless is to call positive energies.

    At this stage the researcher calls "neo-colonialism", because it is in the decolonization discourse of "foreign" colonizers aspects. ANDIA differs to the older children's amawtas, in the first it is located the mallkus, Master yatiris, wise elders and community authorities and between the seconds, apprentices the yatiris and even those who, having been born in Tiwanaku live in the city and return to their place of origin in a sporadic manner.

    ANDIA points out that at the end of the year 80 the ritual of the Aymara new year was preceded by city of Aymara and mestizo urban intellectuals, and an original name Rufino Phaxsi, against who rise the 23 communities of the Tiwanaku accusing him of personalistic. The movement was promoted by another character, the aymara Valentin Mejillones.

    The year 1991 the first Council of Amawtas of Tiwanaku complies with representation of the 23 communities. Although mussels appeared not as President or Vice President, the sociologist said that you can empower themselves subtly of this space.

    Time for the possession of amawtas are both true yatiris or "touched by lightning", as apprentices, where the 23 communities make a manifesto that the celebration of the ANA belonged to Tiwanaku, with social control, in order to ensure collective participation and benefit for all.

    According to the inquiry., Mussels manages to have domination of the Council of Amawtas until the year 2010 It was found at his home in possession of drug. Previous years, en 2006, He was commissioned to deliver the baton to President Evo Morales, in an Andean ritual. This fact, According to Andia, It did not affect the Council because members said "we have warned you if you went by evil walking it would end badly".

    "The speciality of research are 14 recordings made between 1991 and 1992 the amautas religious meetings, "their trials for the celebration and reflections about your identity and the had to do the celebration", says researcher. The book offers textual phrases from those encounters with translations of the aymara Castilian.

    The sociologist said that the philosophy of the community members of Tiwanaku is based on the important thing is to walk with good heart - hence the title of the book-, In addition to maintaining harmony and unity in the community and do not damage each other. The Council of Amawtas, Despite the differences to its interior remains United and today achieved its consolidation and recognition at national and international level, which allowed, at the same time, promote Andean rituals and the tiwanakota culture.

    AV. Maple 2799, Esq. Lamb Street, Ed. Fortress · Floor 6 · Office 601. Phones: 2432582 – 2431866 · Fax 2435235

    Anthropologist studies the evolutionary benefit of human personality traits

    Bold and outgoing or shy and retiring -- while many people can shift from one to the other as circumstances warrant, in general they lean toward one disposition or the other. And that inclination changes little over the course of their lives.

    Why this is the case and why it matters in a more traditional context are questions being addressed by anthropologists at UC Santa Barbara. Using fertility and child survivorship as their main measures of reproductive fitness, the researchers studied over 600 adult members of the Tsimane, an isolated indigenous population in central Bolivia, and discovered that more open, outgoing -- and less anxious -- personalities were associated with having more children -- but only among men.

    Their findings appear online in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior.

    "The idea that we're funneled into a relatively fixed way of interacting with the world is something we take for granted," said Michael Gurven, UCSB professor of anthropology and the paper's lead author. Gurven is also co-director of the University of New Mexico-based Tsimane Health and Life History Project. "Some people are outgoing and open, others are more quiet and introverted. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't really make sense that our dispositions differ so much, and are not more flexible.

    "Wouldn't it be great to be more extroverted at an important party, more conscientious when you're on the clock at work, less anxious when talking to a potential date?" Gurven continued. "Differences in personality and their relative stability are not unique to humans, and have now been studied in many species, from ants to primates. How could dispositional consistency be favored by selection?"

    Given the variability in personality, a question then is how that variability is maintained over time. "If personality traits, like extroversion, help you interact easily with bosses, find potential mates and make lots of friends, then why, over time, aren't we extroverted?" Gurven asked. Successful behavioral strategies with genetic underpinnings -- and behavioral genetics has demonstrated relatively high heritability for personality variation -- often increase in frequency over time, and therefore reduce variation over many generations.

    One reason might be that selection pressures vary -- whatever is adaptive today might not be so tomorrow, and what is adaptive in one place might not be so in another. Selection pressures can vary between sexes as well. The most advantageous personality traits for men may not always be so for women. A second reason could be the idea that too much of a good thing is bad. "Being more extroverted might also make you more prone to taking unnecessary risks, which can be dangerous," Gurven said.

    Gurven and his team wanted to examine the personality measures they had on the Tsimane adults and determine what consequences might result from one personality over another. "Considering the evolutionary adaptiveness of a trait like personality can be problematic in modern developed societies because of the widespread use of contraception," Gurven explained. "In all animals -- including humans -- the better condition you're in, the more kids you have. And for humans in more traditional environments, like the Tsimane, the higher your status, the better physical condition you're in, the earlier you might marry, and the higher reproductive success you're likely to have."

    The Tsimane present a favorable test group because their subsistence ecology is similar to the way people in developed countries lived for millennia. "It's a high fertility population -- the average woman has nine births over her lifetime -- and a ripe kind of population for trying to look at personality," said Gurven.

    Based on their measurement of different aspects of personality, the researchers looked at how personality impacted the number of children men and women had. "And what we found was that almost every personality dimension mattered for men, and it mattered a lot," Gurven said. "Being more extroverted, open, agreeable and conscientious -- and less neurotic -- was associated with having more kids."

    Interestingly, though, Gurven added, the same was not true for women. "But that wasn't the whole story. Because we had a large number of test subjects, we could look at whether the relationship between personality and reproduction varied across different regions of the Tsimane territory," he said. Some Tsimane choose to live close to town, near roads, schools and the various opportunities that accompany the more urban life, while others live in the remote headwaters, and still others live in remote forest villages where they're often isolated during much of the rainy season.

    Only among women living in villages near town did personality associate with higher fertility, Gurven noted. In more remote regions, the same personality profile had the opposite effect or, in some cases, no effect on fertility. For men, however, location made no difference. Wherever they lived, manifesting traits related to extroversion, openness and industriousness was associated with higher fertility.

    So, if higher fertility was the upside of extroversion and other traits, the researchers wondered what the downside might be. Looking for potential costs related to these personality traits that associate with higher fertility, they focused on health and conflicts. Neither, they discovered, really seemed to be an issue.

    "You might think that folks putting themselves out there all the time would be getting sick more often because of greater pathogen exposure or from taking risks," Gurven said. "But we didn't find much evidence that they were sicker. If anything, they were consistently healthier. Which actually makes sense when you consider that of people who are in good condition in general are both healthier and more likely to be outgoing."

    Health was assessed two years after the personality measurements so there was no possibility that feeling under the weather meant subjects were more likely to be shy, anxious or dispirited.

    Regarding conflicts, the researchers did find that the more extroverted and open men got in trouble more often. "They did have more conflicts," Gurven noted. "But most were verbal." And while conflicts can sometimes escalate into physical confrontation, he added, for the most part, they don't result in death.

    The researchers found no evidence that intermediary levels of extroversion or other personality traits lead to highest fertility. Instead, greater levels of these traits associate with higher reproductive fitness, consistent with the evolutionary model referred to as directional selection. But personality varied widely between the sexes -- men scored higher on extroversion, agreableness, conscientiousness, openness, prosociality and industriousness.

    "That the relationship between personality and fitness varies by sex and geographical region supports the view that fluctuating selection pressures may help maintain variation in personality," said Gurven. "Selection pressures may vary over time as well. Indeed, the environment Tsimane face today may be somewhat novel. The annual growth rate of the Tsimane population over the last several decades is almost four percent -- meaning the population doubles every 17 years -- which suggests pioneer-like conditions. Greater market access, schooling and other opportunities are producing further changes in Tsimane society."

    The paper's other co-authors include Christopher von Rueden of the Univeristy of Richmond Hillard Kaplan of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque and co-director of the Tsimane Health and Life History Project Jonathan Stieglitz of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque and Daniel Eid Rodriguez of the Universidad Mayor de San Simón, Cochabamba.

    Don&rsquot Be Stupid – Inform Your Decisions

    Nothing is more important that educating yourself and doing your own research.

    Are you tired of having to watch everything you say, in case you’re accused of “hate speech”? Do you frequently have to bite back innocently-spoken words, when someone claims to be “offended” by them? Have you become used to avoiding lively debate or expressing frank opinions on social media, for fear of finding police officers on your doorstep?

    If so, you’ll be glad to know that at last there is a whole class of people you may attack with impunity people who may be derided, slandered and ostracised to your heart’s content people so selfish and stupid that you are fully entitled to incite hatred against them with the full blessing of your government.

    These are the Great Unclean: the “anti-vaxxers” who are not just nasty spoilsports, standing between you and the ever-deferred reopening of society, but who continue to waft death and disease through a world which can only be made safe by universal, and repeated, “jabbing”.

    The opportunity to indulge in virtuous hate speech has been seized with zest by household names and obscure Twitterati alike.

    “Love the idea of covid vaccine passports for everywhere,” enthuses Piers Morgan, “restaurants, clubs, football, gyms, shops etc. It’s time covid-denying, anti-vaxxer loonies had their bullshit bluff called and bar themselves from going anywhere that responsible citizens go.”

    I hear what you say about someone exercising their freedom not to have a vaccination and they’re perfectly healthy. I don’t want them sitting next to me in the theatre. I don’t want them standing next to me at the theatre bar. I don’t want them next to me or anywhere near me or even in the same carriage on the train. So they can exercise their freedom by staying at home.”

    As for the chorus of the immunologically saved on social media, here’s a sample meme:

    If you’re antivax and you see me making fun of antivax people, I just want to say I’m talking about you personally and I hope you’re offended because you’re fucking stupid.”

    Just try substituting one of a whole range of tenderly protected diversities for “antivax people” or “anti-vaxxers”, and watch the frisson of outrage creeping down any bien-pensant spine. But as the State extends its tolerance, even its encouragement, to our abusers, we covid sceptics, it seems, are fair game.

    For there is no quarter from the government for those who are standing aloof from the stampede to get “shots into arms”, as believers in the WHO’s revised definition of herd immunity so crudely like to put it.

    This is, after all, a government which, spurred on by behavioural psychologists and with malice aforethought, has industriously stirred up and exploited social disapproval as a potent means of shaming dissent and achieving maximum compliance.

    Be kind, they urge you, and deprive yourself and your children of oxygen for your neighbour’s sake. Be responsible, and roll up your sleeve to receive the magic injection that will not only make you immortal but demonstrate your selfless concern for others. Don’t be stupid! Remember, having no symptoms doesn’t mean you’re not a silent super-spreader.

    But do sceptics really deserve the contempt being dished out to them so freely?

    Are they really so stupid?

    Would any self-respecting “anti-vaxxer”, for instance, have been silly enough to come out with the nonsense spouted by the UK’s secretary of state for health, when he told us that:

    If you think about it, the vaccine is a tiny bit of the virus in order to get your body to be able to respond.”

    Really, Mr Hancock? Are you sure that’s what’s actually on offer here?

    Perhaps Mike Yeadon, former head of respiratory research at Pfizer, can set you straight. As he pointed out to James Delingpole recently, “a tiny bit of the virus” is not what goes into these novel treatments – perhaps because, when it comes down to brass tacks, “no-one’s got any”.

    What is actually being pumped into millions of arms throughout the world with such careless abandon is not, he says, “just a vaccine”. Although these gene-based medications do “ultimately raise an immune response … the way they do it is completely different from any vaccine we’ve used before … they induce the body, the cells of your body, to actually manufacture a piece of this pathogen, this infective agent. And you respond to that.”

    “Anti-vaxxers” could have told you that, Mr Hancock, because they’ve done their own research, and they understand the difference between the traditional idea of a vaccine and what is currently being held up as the golden ticket to freedom. So please stop feeding us blatant untruths about what is actually being injected into all those trusting arms and making its insidious way around millions of bloodstream.

    Let’s have the facts that would enable everyone to make a truly informed decision. It really doesn’t help when you fuel sectarian hatred by standing up in parliament and declaring that:

    those who promulgate lies about the dangers of vaccines that are safe and have been approved … are threatening lives …”

    The obvious response to that is, “those who promulgate lies about the safety of novel and incompletely tested gene therapies doled out on emergency approval only are threatening lives.”

    The life of Peter Meadows, for instance: a superlatively healthy seventy-six-year-old, who, trusting government and NHS assurances that the “vaccines” were “safe and effective”, suffered an unprecedented heart attack within hours of receiving the Pfizer jab, and died a few days later: just one of over a thousand post-vaccine fatalities officially logged in the UK’s Yellow Card system to date – or perhaps, as the evidence is increasingly suggesting, of thousands of vaccine-related deaths which, unlike those ascribed to Covid, are not in line with natural mortality profiles.

    It seems that those castigated for being “anti-vaxxers” are, in fact, far from stupid. On the contrary, they are the ones sensible enough to take the time and trouble to research and weigh up risks versus benefits before exposing their bodies to any of the novel gene therapies currently being hawked around as “vaccines”.

    It is those who don’t search out the facts for themselves who are not using their intelligence, and who are thereby laying themselves open to the smooth sales talk of drug pushers in high places. Peter Meadows and his wife were apparently not handed even the minimal information supplied by the NHS regarding possible side effects they might suffer until after they had received their shots.

    They had no idea that the “vaccines” so confidently touted by Matt Hancock were not fully tested for immediate, let alone medium- or long-term, safety, and were issued under the “black triangle” system – ie, were still “subject to intensive safety monitoring”, with the proviso that a record should be kept of all adverse reactions experienced by those acting effectively as human guinea pigs on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies.

    What is more, a “high volume” of such adverse reactions were anticipated by the apparently unconcerned UK government before the roll-out began.

    Although the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is quick to state that the black triangle label “does not indicate that the product is unsafe for use in patients”, the common-sense response to such a claim, after careful examination of the Yellow Card data, must surely be, “Oh yeah? And now pull the other one!”

    In fact, a Pubmed paper advising the US as to whether or not the black triangle system does indeed promote “more judicious prescribing” of new medications, concludes that, “Accelerated drug approvals could cause more uncertainty about drug effectiveness and safety, but specific labeling of newly approved medicines is unlikely to promote more judicious prescribing.”

    How much more accelerated could approval be, than the emergency approval accorded to the new coronavirus “vaccines”? And how much less judicious their prescribing, encompassing, as it does, the wholesale jabbing of populations throughout the world, including young people and children, who are at little to no risk of succumbing to the disease, let alone dying of it? It is depressing to learn that Peter Meadows’ daughters had understood enough about the uncertain nature of the hastily concocted “vaccines” to urge their parents not to have the jabs.

    Unfortunately, like so many others, the couple were swayed by a longing to return to their old normal, and by peer pressure whipped up by the likes of Matt Hancock and SAGE, rather than by the reasonable concerns raised by their daughters after careful scrutiny of the facts.

    So, once more: just how stupid are anti-vaxxers? Interestingly, a recent paper by a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online found that, contrary to their popular denigration as “covidiots”, and to the embarrassment of the researchers themselves, covid sceptics “practice a form of data literacy in spades”.

    Many of them “express mistrust for academic and journalistic accounts of the pandemic, proposing to rectify alleged bias by ‘following the data’ and creating their own data visualisations.” What they value is “unmediated access to information” and they “privilege personal research and direct reading over ‘expert’ interpretations.” And “Most fundamentally,” say the MIT team, “the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution.”

    In which case, their dismissal of the WHO’s presumption, in claiming to be custodians of “The Science”, is hardly surprising. Nonsense, say the sceptics. Science can never be above questioning. It is not a bundle of rubber-stamped, government-approved dogmas, handy for facilitating some political or commercial agenda.

    Like all forms of human knowledge, science remains eternally incomplete, the evolving construction of many minds researching truth in a continuing process of discovery: forming hypotheses, and attempting by all means possible to disprove those hypotheses seeking to explain or resolve anomalies, but never holding any theory sacrosanct which further investigation might yet prove false adapting to the gradual unfolding of new perspectives, as fresh evidence shakes the foundations of old paradigms.

    It is the alleged “covidiots” and “anti-vaxxers” who, while they may not be scientists themselves, understand the principles on which the scientific method is based. As the MIT study admits, to complain that these irritating people “need more scientific literacy is to characterize their approach as uninformed and inexplicably extreme. This study shows the opposite: they are deeply invested in forms of critique and knowledge production they recognise as scientific expertise.”

    All the same, the authors of the study seem to find the concessions they are compelled to make disturbing. “(H)ow do these groups diverge from scientific orthodoxy,” they wonder, “if they are using the same data?” Since all right-minded facts should show decent respect for the statutory consensus, surely anyone inducing them to defect in support of alternative, unsanctioned conclusions must be employing underhand methods?

    “We have identified a few sleights of hand that contribute to the broader epistemological crisis we identify between these groups and the majority of scientific researchers,” the defenders of the true faith plead: and they shake their heads at the way “these groups skillfully manipulate data to undermine mainstream science,” quoting as examples the sceptics’ “outsize emphasis on deaths versus cases” and their suspicion of the officially promoted confusion of deaths “with” and “of” covid: both very good reasons, less partial analysts might say, for questioning the figures being spewed out ceaselessly by the government-funded mainstream media, and taken by a terrorised public to be gospel truth.

    Yet it’s not just annoying amateurs, with their absurd claims that actual facts should trump any institutionally-coerced consensus, who question the official “narrative” – and, indeed the very existence of a pandemic, as traditionally understood before the WHO decided to “re-imagine” the term, on 4th May 2009, in anticipation of the projected swine-flu apocalypse (in the event, a damp squib, but a useful practice-run for the present resounding success).

    After accumulating hard evidence in interviews with over a hundred eminent scientists and other experts, the Corona Investigation Committee, a team headed by Dr Reiner Fuellmich, are likewise challenging the means – essentially, a fraudulent PCR test capable of manufacturing cases on demand and fuelling the myth of the “asymptomatic superspreader” – by which the global coup and its predestined outcome, the push to “get jabs into arms”, have been so artfully engineered.

    Dr Fuellmich – a lawyer qualified to practise in both the States and Europe – has already taken on such giants as Deutschebank and Volkswagen. We can only hope that the evidence which he and the rest of the Committee have gathered so painstakingly over the past year and shared with lawyers all over the world will continue to result in court cases where facts will triumph over consensus, vindicating the unvaccinated of “stupidity” before they are forced by the uninformed to wear yellow stars and find themselves rounded up in camps for the unclean.

    And that those behind the coup, along with all who enabled and enforced their unlawful actions by “just following orders”, are brought to justice before an international tribunal, to be charged with what the Corona Committee describes as “the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.”

    Arheologija [ uredi | uredi kodo ]

    Najdišče trpi zaradi ropanja in amaterskega izkopavanja kmalu po padcu Tivanaku, zato arheologi skušajo interpretirati vedoč, da so bili materiali premešani in uničeni. To uničenje se je nadaljevalo v času španskega osvajanja in kolonialnega obdobja ter v 19. stoletju in v začetku 20. stoletja. Druga škoda je bila storjena od ljudi, ki so kamen uporabljali za gradnjo hiš in železniške proge in kot tarča za vadbo vojaškega osebja.

    V sodobnem mestu ni ohranjena nobena stoječa stavba. Ostajajo samo javni, ne stanovanjski temelji, s slabo rekonstruiranimi zidovi. Klesane bloke, ki so bili uporabljeni v mnogih od teh struktur, so masovno uporabili za različne namene. V celotnem obdobju mesta, so nekaterim stavbam spremenili namen, kar povzroča mešanico artefaktov, ki jih najdemo danes.

    Podrobna raziskava Tivanakuja se je začela v majhnem obsegu v sredini devetnajstega stoletja. Leta 1860 je Ephraim George Squier obiskal ruševine in kasneje objavil zemljevide in skice, dopolnjene v času njegovega obiska. Nemški geolog Alphons Stübel je preživel devet dni v Tivanaku leta 1876 in ustvaril karto območja, ki temelji na skrbnih meritvah. Naredil je tudi skice in ustvaril papirnate odtise rezbarij in drugih arhitekturnih značilnosti. Knjiga, ki vsebuje več fotografske dokumentacije je bila objavljena leta 1892 (inženir B. von Grumbkow). S komentarji arheologa Maxa Uhleja je bila prvi poglobljen znanstveni prikaz ruševin.

    Watch the video: Study Sheds New Light on Statin Associated Symptoms 2 of 2 (June 2022).