701 replies to this topic

[kmt_sesh]

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Wait...musta been aliens...no Atlanteans..no  come on now, you are a little older than that.

I'm not sure why people are so astonished by Puma Punku. I mean, the stonework is masterful, no doubting that, but I think the site has been wholly misrepresented by half-baked TV crap like Ancient Aliens and any other number of dubious sources. The vast majority of the construction and especially the largest stones are red sandstone, one of the easiest types of stones to work and shape.

Smaller, ornamental stones are andesite, a volcanic stone. I often hear that the stones at Puma Punku are diorite. The large stones are not, but are andesite and diorite the same thing? I'm not well versed in geology so I don't know. I imagine they were formed in similar ways, but that doesn't make them the same, nor does it imply the same degree of hardness.

All I know from what little reading I've done on Puma Punku from legitimate sources, it can be tricky to separate the facts from the spouting geysers of bullcrap.

Geysers! Ha!

[lilthor]

Good videos here...but I bet those guys beating on chisels would have a very different opinion about whether they could replicate the blocks at Puma Punku using those tools, if anyone bothered to ask them.  Opinions on this appear somewhat divided depending upon where one wears their calluses; on their hands or on their rear-ends.

kmt_sesh, on 03 May 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

I don't think most of us display chronic astonishment at ancient man's ability to work with all types of stone.

Derision in lieu of substance?

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Wait...musta been aliens...no Atlanteans..no  come on now, you are a little older than that.

So are you...why run from the challenge?

[kmt_sesh]

lilthor, on 04 May 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Good videos here...but I bet those guys beating on chisels would have a very different opinion about whether they could replicate the blocks at Puma Punku using those tools, if anyone bothered to ask them.  Opinions on this appear somewhat divided depending upon where one wears their calluses; on their hands or on their rear-ends.



Derision in lieu of substance?



So are you...why run from the challenge?

I admit I myself get overly testy with these matters. Many, many times I've attempted sincerely to offer substance, only to have it turned on it's head and summarily dismissed. As I'm sure you'll admit, lilthor, you've been guilty of this, yourself. You're one of those who does not like the evidence we cite or charge that we "run from a challenge"...but at the same time, what have you to contribute? Where are your answers? Instead of just hammering us skeptics, what can you offer in the manner of realistic explanation?

In all fairness, and speaking for myself, I will never cave into the pie-eyed scenarios of the likes of Chris Dunn or other fringe theorists, who present the same sort of chronic astonishment and a refusal to consider extant evidence, while at the same time seeming to hint at some sort of super-advanced, lost technology. This is simply not realistic. And it's also why Chris Dunn and his sort are considered somewhat nutty and are not taken seriously.

The problem is, lilthor, we have in the archaeological record the tools actually used by the people of Puma Punku and Egypt and other ancient monument builders, but this does not mean we have all the answers. Are we able to explain in exacting detail how these peoples worked in stone, in all cases? Of course not. We are left to evaluate the material culture left to us, and how we've come to understand ancient building techniques through experiential archaeology and other procedures. We will never have all the answers, but at the same time this does not give one license to abandon proper inquiry in favor of unrealistic sci-fi scenarios like super-advanced, lost technologies.

[questionmark]

kmt_sesh, on 04 May 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

I'm not sure why people are so astonished by Puma Punku. I mean, the stonework is masterful, no doubting that, but I think the site has been wholly misrepresented by half-baked TV crap like Ancient Aliens and any other number of dubious sources. The vast majority of the construction and especially the largest stones are red sandstone, one of the easiest types of stones to work and shape.

Smaller, ornamental stones are andesite, a volcanic stone. I often hear that the stones at Puma Punku are diorite. The large stones are not, but are andesite and diorite the same thing? I'm not well versed in geology so I don't know. I imagine they were formed in similar ways, but that doesn't make them the same, nor does it imply the same degree of hardness.

All I know from what little reading I've done on Puma Punku from legitimate sources, it can be tricky to separate the facts from the spouting geysers of bullcrap.

Geysers! Ha!

They are the same in as far as they are of volcanic origin and look more or less the same. Andesite generally has more metallic content such as magnetite than diorite and diorite contains more sulfur compounds, in as far as the silicate oxide content they are equal, or within the same category. They contain less quartz than similar rock formations, i.e. granite, making them easier to work (so far for the diamond saw) by abrasion, a little more difficult by impact.

The problem we are facing here is that diorite is not equal diorite. As with all rocks there are softer and harder varieties. And by no means it is only worked in Puma Punku. Hammurabi code was hammered into a diorite block (probably because it was the longest lasting material known at the time). There is a predynastic Egyptian example of a diorite vase (about 3600 BC), but as it is the Idahet variety (very soft) it could be easily turned to form.



What we are faced with is the usual fringe problem: they have smelled a stinking river and now they want to make us believe all rivers stink...which is far from reality.

Edited by questionmark, 04 May 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[lilthor]

Answers are precisely what some argue to be in short supply.  Others contend we have all the answers we need.  Obviously I tend toward the former and find it most intriguing that the people who are doing the most recent fieldwork do as well.

We simply do NOT have tools in the archaeological record that match the surface features found on many of these creations.  It is as true today as it would have been back then that tool shape dictates work features and vice versa.

Also being completely ignored, if not outright rejected, are the obvious hallmarks of high degree process efficiency found at many of these sites.  This means precision AND speed.  As an earlier post suggested, it appears some of these works were done rather quickly and without error.

Someone pointed out in the other thread that stone can even be shaped over time by contact with human hands.  It seems people would rather believe blocks like those found at Puma Punku were lovingly massaged and rubbed into shape than accept they used efficient means.

I know little about the "fringe theorists" mentioned, but I do know they are in the field collecting data.  And hand calluses.

[Purifier]

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

The question is: did the ancient Egyptians do it or was it part of a well intended but badly performed "improvement" scheme?

There are many archeological sites that have been "rebuilt" using modern tools/means, there are sites that have been vandalized with modern tools/means.

Now that is something to consider, as a possible logical explanation. Wonder if Chris Dunn consider that before he jumped the gun, probably not.

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

If it is Egyptian it would be a combination of a rock saw and an abrasive (i.e. quartz sand)

I know exactly what your talking about and I've been looking for some reference (mainly pictures) to that method on the internet, but haven't had any luck yet. But I do remember seeing someone demonstrate that method on Nova or some other TV programme. I was also looking for any archeological evidence or finds for those types of tools, but apparently from what I gather so far, they never found any of those types of stone cutting tools in Egypt; just copper chisels etc. Wish they had found at least one cutting tool like that though, I would rather give credit to the ancient Egyptians for their simple ingenuity.

And we've still got that problem with the thinly carved stoneware piece, that one bothers me. Will do some more research on it.

Edited by Purifier, 04 May 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[questionmark]

Purifier, on 04 May 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

Now that is something to consider, as a possible logical explanation. Wonder if Chris Dunn consider that before he jumped the gun, probably not.




I know exactly what your talking about and I've been looking for some reference (mainly pictures) to that method on the internet, but haven't had any luck yet. But I do remember seeing someone demonstrate that method on Nova or some other TV programme. I was also looking for any archeological evidence or finds for those types of tools, but apparently from what I gather so far, they never found any of those types of stone cutting tools in Egypt; just copper chisels etc. Wish they had found at least one cutting tool like that though, I would rather give credit to the ancient Egyptians for their simple igenuity.

And we've still got that problem with the thinly carved stoneware piece, that one bothers me. Will do some more research on it.

It does not necessarily have to be a identifiable tool, it could be as simple as a piece of rope fitted with two handles that was pulled over the wet sand on the spot to cut. The cutting was not done by the tool but by the abrasive sand, the tool was just there to give the work a form along which to cut.

The typical ancient Egyptian stone saw was a toothless copper blade that was weighted and operated by two people (can't find an image now). The saw just pressed quartz sand against the rock that then did the cutting.

[kmt_sesh]

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

They are the same in as far as they are of volcanic origin and look more or less the same. Andesite generally has more metallic content such as magnetite than diorite and diorite contains more sulfur compounds, in as far as the silicate oxide content they are equal, or within the same category. They contain less quartz than similar rock formations, i.e. granite, making them easier to work (so far for the diamond saw) by abrasion, a little more difficult by impact.

The problem we are facing here is that diorite is not equal diorite. As with all rocks there are softer and harder varieties. And by no means it is only worked in Puma Punku. Hammurabi code was hammered into a diorite block (probably because it was the longest lasting material known at the time). There is a predynastic Egyptian example of a diorite vase (about 3600 BC), but as it is the Idahet variety (very soft) it could be easily turned to form.



What we are faced with is the usual fringe problem: they have smelled a stinking river and now they want to make us believe all rivers stink...which is far from reality.

Thanks for clarifying that for me. LOL I've often seen that very jug used as an example at UM. I see it all the time—it's in one of the prehistoric-artifact cases at the Field Museum. We have a nice collection of a variety of hard-stone vessels that were expertly produced by prehistoric hands.

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

It does not necessarily have to be a identifiable tool, it could be as simple as a piece of rope fitted with two handles that was pulled over the wet sand on the spot to cut. The cutting was not done by the tool but by the abrasive sand, the tool was just there to give the work a form along which to cut.

The typical ancient Egyptian stone saw was a toothless copper blade that was weighted and operated by two people (can't find an image now). The saw just pressed quartz sand against the rock that then did the cutting.

By the Late Bronze Age most of these saws were made of very hard bronze. Your description of it is perfect. I once watched a video of two men using one at Giza to cut a large block of granite. The going was slow, of course, but with their bronze saw and sand abrasive the two men had no real difficulty cutting the granite.

[questionmark]

kmt_sesh, on 04 May 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Thanks for clarifying that for me. LOL I've often seen that very jug used as an example at UM. I see it all the time—it's in one of the prehistoric-artifact cases at the Field Museum. We have a nice collection of a variety of hard-stone vessels that were expertly produced by prehistoric hands.

Next time I am in Chitown I'll have a look at it, never seen it in natura...

[Purifier]

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

It does not necessarily have to be a identifiable tool, it could be as simple as a piece of rope fitted with two handles that was pulled over the wet sand on the spot to cut. The cutting was not done by the tool but by the abrasive sand, the tool was just there to give the work a form along which to cut.

Yeah that sounds plausible, but still, you'd think they would've of found some kind of tool pertaining to that by now. Not necessarily the whole thing, and obviously minus the abrasive material, but for instance: Like maybe a pair of handles with worn rope notches, or even a small shredded piece of rope attached to one broken handle, something along that physical nature.

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

The typical ancient Egyptian stone saw was a toothless copper blade that was weighted and operated by two people (can't find an image now). The saw just pressed quartz sand against the rock that then did the cutting.

Right, that's the hypothesis that I heard of or seen on some TV programme. Been trying to find a technical image myself.

[Harte]

lilthor, on 04 May 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

I know little about the "fringe theorists" mentioned, but I do know they are in the field collecting data.  And hand calluses.

This statement is completely false.  Far and away the great majority of these authors haven't spent a single minute in actual field research.

No, they spend their time finding papers that were published a hundred (or more) years ago and pretend no further evidence has been found since then.

Harte

[the L]

Banksy Boy, on 03 May 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

Now.........show me a perfect hand worked under cut in granite being crafted, show me a perfect inside square cut being crafted, show me perfect hand worked jar being crafted, show me your perfect balancing pot being crafted......then stick that on Youtube. Stuff like the videos on the first page may impress somebody who has no idea, sorry but it doesn't impress me.

Thing is they cant show us that.
They know same as I and you which is nada.

Edited by Melo, 04 May 2012 - 05:45 PM.

[Abramelin]

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Wait...musta been aliens...no Atlanteans..no  come on now, you are a little older than that.

Do not **** with me.

You posted you know how it could be done, so show us.

You are evading.

I never suggested anything crazy like "Atlanteans" or "aliens", or "Nibblers",  or some "ancient super-civilization",  Cayce-style.

Prove your point by showing us all here (video)  how you did it.

Yeah, I am a  TRUE skeptic, and I am not willing to swallow cheap answers or snidy remarks from someone unable to prove his/her point.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 04 May 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[questionmark]

Abramelin, on 04 May 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Do not **** with me.

You posted you know how it could be done, so show us.

You are evading.

I never suggested anything crazy like "Atlanteans" or "aliens", or "Nibblers",  or some "ancient super-civilization" Cayse-style.

Prove your point by showing us all here (video)  how you did it.

Yeah, I am a  TRUE skeptic, and I am not willing to swallow cheap answers or snidy remarks from someone unable to prove his/her point.

You are not a skeptic, you have a desperate need to be right. Somebody should have said that a long time ago.

[Abramelin]

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

You are not a skeptic, you have a desperate need to be right. Somebody should have said that a long time ago.

Show us your proof, or admit you don't have any.

You thought you had THE answer, but up to now you didn't prove anything; the videos you posted didn't do much good either.

And you must likely have no idea what a 'skeptic' is supposed to be.

You said you had the answer, so why didn't you show us.


.