701 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

I like the videos above because they show what most armchair archeologist either don't know or willfully ignore: You don't cut stone, you take advantage of its brittleness to form it.

[Abramelin]

questionmark, on 03 May 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

I like the videos above because they show what most armchair archeologist either don't know or willfully ignore: You don't cut stone, you take advantage of its brittleness to form it.

Yes, and you use steel chissels and electrical equipment.

And even then it doesn't look as precise as the Puma Punku stones.

Btw, does anyone know what tools have been found on the Puma Punku site?

[questionmark]

Abramelin, on 03 May 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Yes, and you use steel chissels and electrical equipment.

And even then it doesn't look as precise as the Puma Punku stones.

Btw, does anyone know what tools have been found on the Puma Punku site?

Or you hit one rock on top of the other as shown in the stone axe making tutorial above. And no, no tools have been found that could be equated to having been used to build anything in Tihuanacu.

[Abramelin]

Abramelin, on 03 May 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Yes, and you use steel chissels and electrical equipment.

And even then it doesn't look as precise as the Puma Punku stones.

Btw, does anyone know what tools have been found on the Puma Punku site?

As editing these days gives me a headache, I will post this in a new post:

Notable features at Pumapunku are I-shaped architectural cramps, which are composed of a unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy. These I-shaped cramps were also used on a section of canal found at the base of the Akapana pyramid at Tiwanaku. These cramps were used to hold the blocks comprising the walls and bottom of stone-lined canals that drain sunken courts. I-cramps of unknown composition were used to hold together the massive slabs that formed Pumapunku's four large platforms. In the south canal of the Pumapunku, the I-shaped cramps were cast in place. In sharp contrast, the cramps used at the Akapana canal were fashioned by the cold hammering of copper-arsenic-nickel bronze ingots.^[8][10] The unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy is also found in metal artifacts within the region between Tiwanaku and San Pedro de Atacama during the late Middle Horizon around 600–900.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

Would tools - chissels - made from this alloy do the trick?

[Abramelin]

questionmark, on 03 May 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Or you hit one rock on top of the other as shown in the stone axe making tutorial above. And no, no tools have been found that could be equated to having been used to build anything in Tihuanacu.

You will know that when they are able to recreate a number of exact matches of the Puma Punku stones using anything but modern tools, the discussion about whether ancient people could create such blocks "en masse" will settle for once and for all.

[questionmark]

Abramelin, on 03 May 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

As editing these days gives me a headache, I will post this in a new post:

Notable features at Pumapunku are I-shaped architectural cramps, which are composed of a unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy. These I-shaped cramps were also used on a section of canal found at the base of the Akapana pyramid at Tiwanaku. These cramps were used to hold the blocks comprising the walls and bottom of stone-lined canals that drain sunken courts. I-cramps of unknown composition were used to hold together the massive slabs that formed Pumapunku's four large platforms. In the south canal of the Pumapunku, the I-shaped cramps were cast in place. In sharp contrast, the cramps used at the Akapana canal were fashioned by the cold hammering of copper-arsenic-nickel bronze ingots.^[8][10] The unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy is also found in metal artifacts within the region between Tiwanaku and San Pedro de Atacama during the late Middle Horizon around 600–900.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

Would tools - chissels - made from this alloy do the trick?

From the hardness yes, it would be somewhere around 5 (give or take 1 depending on the exact composition), that would be almost as hard as a modern pocket knife made out of knife steel, but at the same time much more maleable, that is the tool would have been more flexible and therefore less likely to break.

What gets ignored mostly, when we talk about bronze, is that it was used until after the Middle Ages for stone working. Iron was way to brittle at the time to make a satisfactory tool. It was not until steel became available cheaply that it was used by masons.

Edited by questionmark, 03 May 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[DKO]

He makes it look easy.

[~C.S.M~]

Abramelin, on 03 May 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

You will know that when they are able to recreate a number of exact matches of the Puma Punku stones using anything but modern tools, the discussion about whether ancient people could create such blocks "en masse" will settle for once and for all.

If you can make one, you can make billions (if the material is avaiable).

[Abramelin]

~C.S.M~, on 03 May 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

If you can make one, you can make billions (if the material is avaiable).

If it takes a month to make one using non-modern tools, I don't think so.

But the Wiki page about Puma Punka mentions 'mass production' of these Lego-like stones, so apparently they were able to make these stones rather fast.

[questionmark]

Abramelin, on 03 May 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

If it takes a month to make one using non-modern tools, I don't think so.

But the Wiki page about Puma Punka mentions 'mass production' of these Lego-like stones, so apparently they were able to make these stones rather fast.

Which is a speculation without verification by Jean-Pierre Protzen. From the evidence we have we can speculate on construction times from anywhere of 2 days to 300 years. And depending on how much Nibbler involvement you suppose the shorter the time.

[~C.S.M~]

Abramelin, on 03 May 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

But the Wiki page about Puma Punka mentions 'mass production' of these Lego-like stones, so apparently they were able to make these stones rather fast.

number of workers, hard work, lot of material and good motivation.

Trust me hard work and motivation, makes wonders.

[Abramelin]

questionmark, on 03 May 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Which is a speculation without verification by Jean-Pierre Protzen. From the evidence we have we can speculate on construction times from anywhere of 2 days to 300 years. And depending on how much Nibbler involvement you suppose the shorter the time.

I am not supposing anything weird like 'aliens' or Nibblers, but I guess this Protzen based his ideas on the Lego like stones that were found.

But the main suggestion in this thread is: we know how it could be done.

My suggestion is: show us.

Diorite should not be hard to find.

[questionmark]

Abramelin, on 03 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

I am not supposing anything weird like 'aliens' or Nibblers, but I guess this Protzen based his ideas on the Lego like stones that were found.

But the main suggestion in this thread is: we know how it could be done.

My suggestion is: show us.

Diorite should not be hard to find.

Maybe not where you are, but here all we got is sandstone, lime stone and slate accessible (there probably is some diorite a few hundred feet under ground...

[jules99]

~C.S.M~, on 03 May 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

number of workers, hard work, lot of material and good motivation.

Trust me hard work and motivation, makes wonders.

If the precision of these andesite blocks and their interlocking nature is true then hard work and motivation are the least of the skills required. We are looking at a degree of standardisation that would be easier to grasp if the blocks were cast rather than shaped with primative tools.

[questionmark]

jules99, on 03 May 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

If the precision of these andesite blocks and their interlocking nature is true then hard work and motivation are the least of the skills required. We are looking at a degree of standardisation that would be easier to grasp if the blocks were cast rather than shaped with primative tools.

If it were the only case of standard blocks and tight fit we have in the world one might wonder. Problem is that it is not. It is the case where the hardest rock was used, but not the place with the biggest precision. That would be the artificial lakes of Angkor Wat where mortar and cement-less blocks were used to such precision that the result was a watertight containment: