83 replies to this topic

[Oniomancer]

Banksy Boy, on 11 October 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

Now tell the viewers what type of stone that is in your link.

Andesite. Volcanic analog of diorite. Generally finer grained like basalt but not all that much softer than granite.

[Banksy Boy]

And the hammer stone ?

[Banksy Boy]

And the hammer stone ?

[Banksy Boy]

And the hammer stone ?

[Banksy Boy]

Sorry don't know what happened there  

[Oniomancer]

Banksy Boy, on 11 October 2011 - 11:00 PM, said:

And the hammer stone ?

Nothing in that link. Other sources cite "granite, quartzite, or olivine basalt" for the originals. This one states quartzite, rhyolite and  hematite, as well as other materials for the blocks themselves:

http://ipna.unibas.c...Inkas/Inkas.htm

What does it matter though? Any way you slice it, the point is they're using stone to work stone.

Here's another one where one of the authors also conducted experiments and made estimates from them. Note both the quote from a contemporary source and the observation about the shapes of the pre-worked blocks:

The Inca world: the development of pre-Columbian Peru

That last point I believe I've made before elsewhere. The assumption with so-called "cyclopean" interlocking block construction is they pre-conceived some grand complex pattern in shaping and arranging the blocks, when ideally, if they selected blocks that were already close matches, all they had to do was remove the minimum amount of material to make them fit, rather like dry masonry with a slight touch-up.

[jules99]

Hi Oniomancer;
Just looking at the shaped stones at puma punku gives an initial impression of mechanisation. The blocks look uniform enough to be production line manufacture. Some appear to have holes drilled. The stone works at the site simply look high tech and removed from what could seemingly be achieved using stone pounders to shape. I cant grasp why or how these designs would have been planned without the technology to make them realisable.

[Oniomancer]

jules99, on 12 October 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

Hi Oniomancer;
Just looking at the shaped stones at puma punku gives an initial impression of mechanisation. The blocks look uniform enough to be production line manufacture. Some appear to have holes drilled. The stone works at the site simply look high tech and removed from what could seemingly be achieved using stone pounders to shape. I cant grasp why or how these designs would have been planned without the technology to make them realisable.

I have yet to see any proof that precision and uniformity isn't possible by hand means. If anything, I've been helpfully provided with evidence to the contrary. Primitive drilling technology likewise works much the same as advanced and I see no reason to assume other cutting technologies wouldn't or couldn't as well. You're actually more liable to be precise because you're going slower and removing less material at a slower rate.

[Banksy Boy]

Oniomancer, on 10 October 2011 - 06:39 PM, said:

The test here is in the failure, not the success. It's all well and and use modern tools and show the trials and tribulations thereof.
Now let's see him use primitive tools and methods and not succeed. You know, unlike Jean-Pierre Protzen in the course of his experimental research.

http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-1-of-6

http://www.pbs.org/w...s/2404inca.html

Sure, he used modern tools afterwords but only to expedite the work for TV.

Have finally been able to show the Ol' man a small part of the video in your link i.e. Part 3 at about 1 minute in.

Ok, for a start the stone being used looks and appears to be an 'open' stone rather than a 'closed' stone like granite....i.e. it ain't nothing like granite.

Secondly, the stone shown sounds quite hard but doesn't 'ring' anything like granite.....i.e. it ain't granite. Could be our speakers but I doubt it.

Thirdly, the block being used is on a miniscule scale which hardly compares with anything the Incas apparently achieved.

Now lets see the guy go a do it with granite, constantly having to move mega ton blocks to shape everything up and see how long it takes before he chucks the towel in. Or isn't the stone as hard as he is making out ? or even on par with the granite blocks at Puma Punku which the thread was originally about

Once he's impressed me with that, I'm sure he'll be more than capable of showing me a perfect cut out shape such as the those shown at Puma Punku from a piece of granite.

Anyway, I'm happy I've shown what it takes to work a relatively small piece of granite by showing a guy who has nothing to prove using modern hand tools only produce his piece of art. Now lets see the guy in your video make it with a small hand cupped stone and see how far he gets. We can all then see the test in his failure or success. The material removal rate will certainly be slow for his precision work

As said before, the problem with stone work, is that there are too many people who can talk a good job rather than being actually having the knowledge, skills, understanding and capability of being able to do one.  

[DieChecker]

Oniomancer, on 12 October 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

I have yet to see any proof that precision and uniformity isn't possible by hand means. If anything, I've been helpfully provided with evidence to the contrary. Primitive drilling technology likewise works much the same as advanced and I see no reason to assume other cutting technologies wouldn't or couldn't as well. You're actually more liable to be precise because you're going slower and removing less material at a slower rate.

I agree. It would seem to me that uniformity would be as easy as using a blanket of an established size as a template. Uniformity of size is not so hard to acheive.

[Oniomancer]

Banksy Boy, on 30 October 2011 - 05:19 PM, said:

Have finally been able to show the Ol' man a small part of the video in your link i.e. Part 3 at about 1 minute in.

Ok, for a start the stone being used looks and appears to be an 'open' stone rather than a 'closed' stone like granite....i.e. it ain't nothing like granite.

Secondly, the stone shown sounds quite hard but doesn't 'ring' anything like granite.....i.e. it ain't granite. Could be our speakers but I doubt it.

You can't go by the surface appearance of the rough parts. Notice the smoothness of the polished edges. It's likely a finer grained stone than he's used to working with. The finer the grain, the easier it works, to a point, depending on the minerals involved and the structure of the rock. Granite has those big interlocking grains, a third of which are quartz, so it's a lot tougher. By contrast, you can knapp some basalt. In fact I see andesite listed as a potentially knappable lithic. Ask him if he's ever worked andesite or basalt or something similar.

As for the sound, do you mean where he's using a hammerstone or when they use chisels or both, because stone on stone sounds way different than steel on stone like he's familiar with. Even a cold chisel versus hardened carbide tipped. He's also using more of a flat strike with a blunt implement to crush the surface rather than cleave it away, which is liable to produce a deader sound than the pinging when you're popping off chips. Again too, the finer texture of the rock may affect the sound as well.

Quote

Thirdly, the block being used is on a miniscule scale which hardly compares with anything the Incas apparently achieved.

One man working one block. Multiply the work by the number of workers. (deja vu)

Quote

Now lets see the guy go a do it with granite, constantly having to move mega ton blocks to shape everything up and see how long it takes before he chucks the towel in. Or isn't the stone as hard as he is making out ? or even on par with the granite blocks at Puma Punku which the thread was originally about

Once he's impressed me with that, I'm sure he'll be more than capable of showing me a perfect cut out shape such as the those shown at Puma Punku from a piece of granite.

I don't see where granite matters at all as we've established that virtually none of the stones at Puma Punku are granite, mostly sandstone and andesite. The closest you get I can think of offhand is a reference I found saying the largest stone there, the platform, is made of tonalite, which is basically the same as diorite only with greater than 20% quartz.

A smart worker also plans out the work he's doing ahead of time so he doesn't have to move it every which way.

Quote

Anyway, I'm happy I've shown what it takes to work a relatively small piece of granite by showing a guy who has nothing to prove using modern hand tools only produce his piece of art. Now lets see the guy in your video make it with a small hand cupped stone and see how far he gets. We can all then see the test in his failure or success. The material removal rate will certainly be slow for his precision work

As said before, the problem with stone work, is that there are too many people who can talk a good job rather than being actually having the knowledge, skills, understanding and capability of being able to do one.  

That seems to be the problem all around.

[Oniomancer]

To add, I got a bit off track but it doesn't really make much difference if it's granite or not since You're not carving the rock, but pulverizing it, or grinding it depending on the operation, which works regardless of how hard the rock is and There's not much variation in that regard between that and andesite. The main distinction as others have said would be toughness, which effects how the rock can be fractured.

[Banksy Boy]

I showed him your reply and after having good laugh together, his exact words to me were......

"Forget it mate, your flogging a dead horse there and I'm not interested in tennis match......I'd rather watch Moto GP   "

So there you have it, he's turned his back and walked away to quietly tap away on his new piece of stone.

[Oniomancer]

Banksy Boy, on 31 October 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

I showed him your reply and after having good laugh together, his exact words to me were......

"Forget it mate, your flogging a dead horse there and I'm not interested in tennis match......I'd rather watch Moto GP   "

So there you have it, he's turned his back and walked away to quietly tap away on his new piece of stone.

I notice that can be taken either way.

I welcome corrections on any outright mistakes...provided they're backed up. Unless you've got a piece of andesite right there though,
one set of speculations is as good as another. If you want to convince yourselves it's entirely a soft, open stone, maybe you'd like to see how it polishes up.

http://www.bodartpro....php?category=2

(under hardstone, in case you didn't know)

I suppose you'll claim it's double-dipped in carnauba though.

Here's another of almost nothing but andesite carvings but be advised, I got a virus threat warning when I opened it:

http://www.tekupenga.com/

This page of the above provides some info on the stone:

http://www.tekupenga...ex.php?menuid=4

It does mention the stone as being softer and more porous when weathered. It may not be _quite_ as hard as granite normally either but still this isn't Bath or Purbeck we're talking about here.

Soft or hard, this is the predominant stone at Puma Punku and other Andean sites, so as far as I can tell, you've already lost. If it's hard, then Protzan had already demonstrated the feasibility of the proposed method. If it's soft, the whole thing is a moot point. You want to continue to dodge my points about your granite straw man argument though, go right ahead. It hurts my position not at all.

[johnny blue eyes]

Did these people have diamonds? as any builder will tell you the only way to cut stone or granite with any sort of efficiency and accuracy it with a diamond wheel. Could it be possible that ancient civilisations used this technique?