Nicaragua is a little known country in terms of traces and remnants of ancient history. Although it is believed that the city of Granada is one of the most ancient in the American continents. Recently, pyramidal structures were discovered in the village of Garrobo Grande:
How ancient they are - there is no information. Due to the fact that the country is not a tourist country, there are practically no photos either.
For this reason, the information that archaeological excavations were carried out in Nicaragua and that something was discovered did not come across. Or no one has yet got to the bottom of those layers where there are any traces. Except for one place.
In Managua, in the capital of Nicaragua, there is the Guellas de Acahualinka archaeological museum. The following pit is interesting in it:
At the end of the 19th century. traces of a person were found here under the layers of soil. But only in the 30s of the 20th century. this place was put on display.
Promotional video:
According to official information, the age of these tracks was estimated at 2,000 years. Their formation was explained as follows: at that time there was a powerful volcanic eruption (of which there are a lot in Nicaragua). Volcanic ash fell out and a group of 15 people passed through it. Moreover, judging by the distance between the tracks, they walked calmly. Their tracks cross the tracks of animals.
And, in principle, one could calm down on this if the following questions were not asked:
1. Why are traces preserved?
This could persist only in one case: the ash turned to stone almost instantly, turned into a solid rock like modern concrete. Cement and volcanic ash are obtained by firing rocks. The first is artificial. The second is in volcanoes.
The ashes were saturated with moisture from the soil and hardened.
2. Where are the layers of soil above these tracks when they are only 2 thousand years old?
Did the ash fall out later? Were there more eruptions and much more powerful? Maybe the clay on top of the layers with traces is volcanic ash, but of a different kind?
Why do archaeologists date these footprints only 2 thousand years? The layers above them are one meter high. This is the level of dinosaurs at least! Can this dating example be applied to other places? Or did archaeologists date the tracks differently? Was organics found? There is no information and answers to all these questions. But it seems to me that often all this is dated according to the type: "we decided so."
There is more than one site with excavation of traces. This photo shows that the color of the rock where the tracks were left is different. It is clayey, not gray as ash. This video also confirms this:
Frame from the video. It seems that the ancient people walked on some kind of clayey rock, like spilled mud. The trace on the right is not like that of a modern person - it is wider. Was it a Neanderthal? And why is one deep and the other just a slight depression? Different weight? I think no.
I believe that deep marks are left in the fresh, liquid clay. And when it has already gained strength (or simply dried up), others have passed in this place.
What is still exhibited in the museum - I did not find photographs, although it is dedicated to the finds of the culture of pre-Columbian America.
Author: sibved