Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redfox11

3D-models of Puma Punku stone blocks

86 posts in this topic

With all due respect to his experience, that only speaks to one way of doing it, the way he was trained. It says nothing about other possible ways, especially those that happen to go completely against all that training.

Having read this out to him, the look I got was was not unlike this which was on par to showing the parents my last school report.

post-111487-0-64392800-1320275694_thumb.

Stone tradesmen have a bad habit of calling a lot of things granite that aren't.

On that note.....

post-111487-0-73617800-1320276180_thumb.

Any more discussion has become pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read this out to him, the look I got was was not unlike this which was on par to showing the parents my last school report.

post-111487-0-64392800-1320275694_thumb.

--

That explains much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read this out to him, the look I got was was not unlike this which was on par to showing the parents my last school report.

post-111487-0-64392800-1320275694_thumb.

I'll put it to you this way, again, On the one hand I've got this guy on video actually doing something and on the other hand I've got you two sitting there telling me how what he's doing can't be done. I think under the circumstances I'm being rather generous. Some might say overly so.

I didn't get an answer before but I'm still curious how much of that experience extends to working trap and the like.

On that note.....

post-111487-0-73617800-1320276180_thumb.

Any more discussion has become pointless.

That was based on having actually seen things listed as granite by dealers that would invoke much the same reaction from any self-respecting geologist. I'm sure He's heard of trade or b****** granite for instance.

If the only rebuttal you can offer is a few pat net-meme witticisms and condescending eyebrow waggling, then I would have to agree.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Awesome work!!!! Very interesting! I will be studying them closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Agreed; I havent read up on what type of drill was used at puma punku, it certainly would be curious if it was a tube drill....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed; I havent read up on what type of drill was used at puma punku, it certainly would be curious if it was a tube drill....

Longitudinal elements were likely sawn.

The precise-seeming holes that the fringe is chronically astonished by could have been made with tube drills, albeit smaller ones than we see in Egypt.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Longitudinal elements were likely sawn.

The precise-seeming holes that the fringe is chronically astonished by could have been made with tube drills, albeit smaller ones than we see in Egypt.

Harte

Hi Harte;

When a drill is used to bore a hole both accuracy and uniformity is increased as measurements become standardised, the same as when a saw is used to make a cut...the cut becomes straighter and a higher rate of accuracy is achieved. As opposed to say an artisan pounding at a rock relying on luck or the muse for inspiration to complete the finished product. From what I see from photos of Puma Punku some carvings are crude and childlike in search of the muse, other stoneworks display skill, knowledge and accuracy in their execution. A seeming adherance to mathematical principals...Personally I Dunno but I would suspect different levels of skill evident in the stoneworks..maybe the sites been occupied by different peoples over time.

If tube drills were used at puma punku you would have to wonder where they got the idea from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harte;

When a drill is used to bore a hole both accuracy and uniformity is increased as measurements become standardised, the same as when a saw is used to make a cut...the cut becomes straighter and a higher rate of accuracy is achieved. As opposed to say an artisan pounding at a rock relying on luck or the muse for inspiration to complete the finished product. From what I see from photos of Puma Punku some carvings are crude and childlike in search of the muse, other stoneworks display skill, knowledge and accuracy in their execution.

Like I said, longitudinal cuts were likely sawn.

A seeming adherance to mathematical principals...Personally I Dunno but I would suspect different levels of skill evident in the stoneworks..maybe the sites been occupied by different peoples over time.

If tube drills were used at puma punku you would have to wonder where they got the idea from.

I wonder why you wonder this.

That is, since humans have been drilling holes in hard objects for at least 110,000 years:

The oldest known objects that are believed to have served a decorative purpose for the human body are 110.000 years old. Drilled shell beads from this time (the middle paleolithic period) have been found in a cave in present day Morocco. Whether these shells have fulfilled a purely decorative purpose or were used as an amulet or status symbol is not known.

one would think these people were aware of how to drill a hole in a hard object.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it happens, tube drills grow right out of the ground throughout the Americas.

http://www.guaduabamboo.com/bamboo-species-of-peru.html

Yes but was the bamboo recognised and put to use like;

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

I dunno I just thought the tube drill made from hand beaten latten with quartz as a cutting edge was the ancient egyptian modus operandi, there are plenty of other ways of boring a hole in rock, why would they use the same methods in puma punku?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but was the bamboo recognised and put to use like;

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

I dunno I just thought the tube drill made from hand beaten latten with quartz as a cutting edge was the ancient egyptian modus operandi, there are plenty of other ways of boring a hole in rock, why would they use the same methods in puma punku?

Maybe Kmt_sesh knows better, but I don't recall any Egyptian drills being found to be tipped with quartz, or any other crystal.

I do recall that such a theory was put forward, though. But IIRC, it was found to be unnecessary. A copper tube drill along with dry sand was shown to accomplish as much as one with crystals mounted.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Kmt_sesh knows better, but I don't recall any Egyptian drills being found to be tipped with quartz, or any other crystal.

I do recall that such a theory was put forward, though. But IIRC, it was found to be unnecessary. A copper tube drill along with dry sand was shown to accomplish as much as one with crystals mounted.

Harte

Hi Harte;

Egyptian sand = quartz? I might be wrong, but I thought it was the quartz in the sand that provided the abrasive cut.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Kmt_sesh knows better, but I don't recall any Egyptian drills being found to be tipped with quartz, or any other crystal.

I do recall that such a theory was put forward, though. But IIRC, it was found to be unnecessary. A copper tube drill along with dry sand was shown to accomplish as much as one with crystals mounted.

Harte

Hi Harte,

You voice an opinion that is not shared by most who have actually studied these particular aspects of core drilling.

<http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c19.html#133>

133. The great pressure needed to force the drills and saws so rapidly through the hard stones is very surprising; probably a load of at least a ton or two was placed on the 4 inch drills cutting in granite. On the granite core, No.7, the spiral of the cut sinks .1 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and felspar which is astonishing. Yet these grooves cannot be due to the mere scratching produced in withdrawing the drill as has been suggested, since there would be about 1/10 inch thick of dust between the drill and the core at that part; thus there could be scarcely any pressure applied sideways, and the point of contact of the drill and granite could not travel around the granite however the drill might be turned about. Hence these rapid spiral grooves cannot be ascribed to anything but the descent of the drill into the granite under enormous pressure; unless, indeed, we suppose a separate rymering tool to have been employed alternately with the drill for enlarging the groove, for which there is no adequate evidence.

<http://www.ianlawton.com/am7.htm>

Then came the great question. Was the groove a helix or a horizontal ring around the core? I had deferred to Reid and Brownlee's assertions that they were horizontal and I was, at this juncture, painfully assured that it was the correct thing to do. It was Petrie's description of the helical groove that made Core #7 stand apart from modern cores. It was one of the principle characteristics upon which I based my theory of ultrasonic machining. But what I held in my hand seemed to support Reid and Brownlee's objections to this theory, for they said that the core had a similar appearance to any other core one may produce in a quarry.

I had rejected my initial plan to fixture the core and rotate it around its central axis to check for a helix. The fixture would have taken time and material to make and, though I had a willing toolmaker, Gary Bryant, to manufacture the fixture, I had opted for a cheaper, more primitive, though equally effective, method. The white cotton thread was the perfect choice to inspect for a helical groove. Why not use a thread to check a thread!

I carefully placed one end of the thread in a groove while Nick secured it with a piece of Scotch tape. While I peered through my 10 X Optivisor, I rotated the core in my left hand, making sure the thread stayed in the groove with my right.

The groove varied in depth as it circled the core, and at some points there was just a faint scratch that I would probably not have detected with my naked eye. As the other end of the thread came into view, I could see that what Petrie had described about this core was not quite correct.

Petrie had described a single helical groove that had a pitch of .100 inch. What I was looking at was not a single helical groove, but two helical grooves. The thread wound around the core following the groove until it lay approximately .110 inch above the start of the thread. Amazingly, though, there was another groove that nestled neatly in between!

I repeated the test at about 7 different locations on the core with the same results. The grooves were cut clockwise looking down the small end to the large - which would be the top to bottom.

In uniformity, the grooves were as deep at the top of the core as they were at the bottom. They were also as uniform in pitch at the top and bottom, with sections of the groove clearly seen right to the point where the core granite was broken out of the hole.

These are NOT horizontal striations or rings as trumpeted in Giza: The Truth, but helical grooves that spiralled down the core like a double-start thread.

Petrie is vindicated. To say I am happy about that would be an understatement.

Just curious, can the IIRC explain how loose sand and copper make the double helical grooves as found on the core? Not to mention the Ancient Egyptians demonstrating a faster drill rate in granite than it is possible for us to obtain using modern methods?

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harte,

You voice an opinion that is not shared by most who have actually studied these particular aspects of core drilling.

<http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c19.html#133>

133. The great pressure needed to force the drills and saws so rapidly through the hard stones is very surprising; probably a load of at least a ton or two was placed on the 4 inch drills cutting in granite. On the granite core, No.7, the spiral of the cut sinks .1 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and felspar which is astonishing. Yet these grooves cannot be due to the mere scratching produced in withdrawing the drill as has been suggested, since there would be about 1/10 inch thick of dust between the drill and the core at that part; thus there could be scarcely any pressure applied sideways, and the point of contact of the drill and granite could not travel around the granite however the drill might be turned about. Hence these rapid spiral grooves cannot be ascribed to anything but the descent of the drill into the granite under enormous pressure; unless, indeed, we suppose a separate rymering tool to have been employed alternately with the drill for enlarging the groove, for which there is no adequate evidence.

<http://www.ianlawton.com/am7.htm>

Then came the great question. Was the groove a helix or a horizontal ring around the core? I had deferred to Reid and Brownlee's assertions that they were horizontal and I was, at this juncture, painfully assured that it was the correct thing to do. It was Petrie's description of the helical groove that made Core #7 stand apart from modern cores. It was one of the principle characteristics upon which I based my theory of ultrasonic machining. But what I held in my hand seemed to support Reid and Brownlee's objections to this theory, for they said that the core had a similar appearance to any other core one may produce in a quarry.

I had rejected my initial plan to fixture the core and rotate it around its central axis to check for a helix. The fixture would have taken time and material to make and, though I had a willing toolmaker, Gary Bryant, to manufacture the fixture, I had opted for a cheaper, more primitive, though equally effective, method. The white cotton thread was the perfect choice to inspect for a helical groove. Why not use a thread to check a thread!

I carefully placed one end of the thread in a groove while Nick secured it with a piece of Scotch tape. While I peered through my 10 X Optivisor, I rotated the core in my left hand, making sure the thread stayed in the groove with my right.

The groove varied in depth as it circled the core, and at some points there was just a faint scratch that I would probably not have detected with my naked eye. As the other end of the thread came into view, I could see that what Petrie had described about this core was not quite correct.

Petrie had described a single helical groove that had a pitch of .100 inch. What I was looking at was not a single helical groove, but two helical grooves. The thread wound around the core following the groove until it lay approximately .110 inch above the start of the thread. Amazingly, though, there was another groove that nestled neatly in between!

I repeated the test at about 7 different locations on the core with the same results. The grooves were cut clockwise looking down the small end to the large - which would be the top to bottom.

In uniformity, the grooves were as deep at the top of the core as they were at the bottom. They were also as uniform in pitch at the top and bottom, with sections of the groove clearly seen right to the point where the core granite was broken out of the hole.

These are NOT horizontal striations or rings as trumpeted in Giza: The Truth, but helical grooves that spiralled down the core like a double-start thread.

Petrie is vindicated. To say I am happy about that would be an understatement.

Just curious, can the IIRC explain how loose sand and copper make the double helical grooves as found on the core? Not to mention the Ancient Egyptians demonstrating a faster drill rate in granite than it is possible for us to obtain using modern methods?

Regards

The "fast drill rate" is a fantasy.

If you look at the overall cores, you'll find no such evidence.

When you only look at an area of about a millimeter or two along the length, you can find places that appear to have been drilled at higher speeds.

These areas where this appears can easily be explained. After all, as you stated, sand crystals were used as an abrasive.

Sand crystals do not stay in the same place as the drill is turned. There will undoubtedly be some spots where one crystal is doing the cutting, followed by another (several, in fact.) Such spots will give the appearance of anything you wish to claim. The same holds true for drill changes and sand changes. A hole may be partially drilled, the "bit" changed out, and fresh sand added. Such a situation can easily result in odd-looking marks on the drilled surface.

Regarding quartz vs. sand, you're right. But the post I responded to indicated quartz crystals affixed to the bit. What it was was, as you said, loose sand being turned and pressured by the copper drill.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Kmt_sesh knows better, but I don't recall any Egyptian drills being found to be tipped with quartz, or any other crystal.

I do recall that such a theory was put forward, though. But IIRC, it was found to be unnecessary. A copper tube drill along with dry sand was shown to accomplish as much as one with crystals mounted.

Harte

Not the drills themselves, but the borers used to hollow out vases afterward used mounted grinding stones.

http://www.gizabuildingproject.com/art_solenhofen4.php

Quartz drill points similar to arrowheads were used frequently in ancient times. They're generally somewhat tapered, producing a conical hole. On hardstone, They'd likely wear smooth after a while, requiring either resharpening for greatest efficiency, which would reduce the profile of the bit, or outright replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quartz drill points similar to arrowheads were used frequently in ancient times. They're generally somewhat tapered, producing a conical hole. On hardstone, They'd likely wear smooth after a while, requiring either resharpening for greatest efficiency, which would reduce the profile of the bit, or outright replacement.

While I believe this, I don't see it on the page (which, of course, I've read several times before) you linked.

Could be I've missed it.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I believe this, I don't see it on the page (which, of course, I've read several times before) you linked.

Could be I've missed it.

Harte

Yeah, sorry, that wasn't from there. More of a general observation. More on the actual technique:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oLDuHvQODoIC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=egyptian+conical+drilled+hole&source=bl&ots=AgmvSyn_fU&sig=jPXv_2GhZH8Fbwd65KmLwvgIOhw&hl=en&ei=dza9TvCpLsHk0QG6i7HUBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Egyptian Examples: http://www.anythinganywhere.com/commerce/relic/egypt.htm

They were a pretty widely used tool actually: More examples worldwide

In fact while I say "ancient", I believe they were still used in the Americas up to the point of contact and beyond. Swede can probably tell you more about that.

And while maybe not directly relevant, this article on the transition between drill types in Mesopotamia may of interest and use:

http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/29-3/Gwinnett.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the pic of a quartz point, which may or may not have been used for drilling, all the examples given involved flint.

Same principle, I agree, but it's not quartz or any other crystal.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the overall cores, you'll find no such evidence.

Harte

The spiral marks on several of the cores extend their full length.

But you're correct...if one steps way, way, way back from the cores, the evidence disappears altogether. Very handy for things which have no simple explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the pic of a quartz point, which may or may not have been used for drilling, all the examples given involved flint.

Same principle, I agree, but it's not quartz or any other crystal.

Harte

Flint is cryptocrystaline quartz.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flint is cryptocrystaline quartz.

Touche.

But not the same as was claimed.

Look, I was hoping you would find it for me. It's probably out there somewhere. I mean, it makes sense to me.

It's just that, as I said in a previous post, as far as I know, they didn't affix quartz crystals to a tube drill.

Obviously, maybe I'm wrong.

So, do my work for me, willya? :w00t:

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Touche.

But not the same as was claimed.

Look, I was hoping you would find it for me. It's probably out there somewhere. I mean, it makes sense to me.

It's just that, as I said in a previous post, as far as I know, they didn't affix quartz crystals to a tube drill.

Obviously, maybe I'm wrong.

So, do my work for me, willya? :w00t:

Harte

the Only one who suggested they did was Petrie.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/petrie.php

Otherwise, you're correct. Like I more or less said, the closest they used that we know of were the borers in the article and the flint drills, which were really more for small holes in softer material.

If you're looking for the actual experiments using sand, Denys Stocks is your man:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oLDuHvQODoIC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=denys+stocks+sand&source=bl&ots=AgmvSAn1cR&sig=U4lJ7IYhfhOr1-s8ZQ8nCjaEHnc&hl=en&ei=ooW9Tpr0Hunk0QG569XqBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=denys%20stocks%20sand&f=false

Incidentally, IIRC either he or Archae Solenhoven from from Giza Building Project found that crushed flint works the best.

There's an interesting thread over on the hall of Ma'at where he (Archae) gets into it with Dunn and pretty much gives him a drubbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not been at Ma'at for so long. I should check it out.

I can't stand Dunn, though I've not caught him red-handed in a lie (yet.)

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not been at Ma'at for so long. I should check it out.

I can't stand Dunn, though I've not caught him red-handed in a lie (yet.)

Harte

Scratch that, it was on graham hancock's forums, though AS's made most of the same arguements on HoM too.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.