Ancient sites in South America

[Harte]

I've never figured out why there has apparently never been a study of evidence of a flood at Puma Punku.

From 1997

From 2001

Harte

[WDG]

From 1997

From 2001

Harte

Thank you!

[WVK]

Puma Punka Theories:

http://pumapunkutheories.webs.com/

[Jarocal]

Puma Punka Theories:

http://pumapunkutheories.webs.com/

Interesting method to make replicas of the blocks out of cement but the originals are of solid stone.

[WVK]

Interesting method to make replicas of the blocks out of cement but the originals are of solid stone.

How can you be sure?

[Jarocal]

How can you be sure?

because the location of the quarry for the stones is known.

because there are still tool marks on the rock in the quarry.

because I have close to three decades of experience in masonry working with natural stone (structural and veneer), manufactured veneers, and exterior plastering.

What your proposing is not only did they know how to dissolve and reharden the stones without leaving any sort of chemical difference. They also were able to realign the grain of the softened stone to match with the grain of the stone still in the quarry.

[jaylemurph]

because the location of the quarry for the stones is known.

because there are still tool marks on the rock in the quarry.

because I have close to three decades of experience in masonry working with natural stone (structural and veneer), manufactured veneers, and exterior plastering.

What your proposing is not only did they know how to dissolve and reharden the stones without leaving any sort of chemical difference. They also were able to realign the grain of the softened stone to match with the grain of the stone still in the quarry.

...it's almost like you're suggesting that years of practical knowledge of masonry and stonework trump unwarranted, ignorant speculation of people with no stone working experience who parrot others' ideas without even bothering to give them credit.

That can't possibly be right. All theories are equally valid, right? Right?!

--Jaylemurph

Edited November 20, 2015 by jaylemurph

[Hanslune]

because the location of the quarry for the stones is known.

because there are still tool marks on the rock in the quarry.

because I have close to three decades of experience in masonry working with natural stone (structural and veneer), manufactured veneers, and exterior plastering.

What your proposing is not only did they know how to dissolve and reharden the stones without leaving any sort of chemical difference. They also were able to realign the grain of the softened stone to match with the grain of the stone still in the quarry.

Thanks Jarocal

Saves me the time from answering

I will add a few links

http://www.academia....ion_of_Tiwanaku

Building Taypikala: Telluric Transformations in the Lithic Production of Tiwanaku

We identified Tiwanaku’s primary sandstone and andesite sources. Tiwanaku’sprimary sandstone source was the Kaliri quarry located in the upper Kausani Valley,some 15 km southeast of Tiwanaku, and its primary andesite source consisted of (as yet undocumented) quarries located on Mount Ccapia, across the small lake tothe west. The shift from the Late Formative to the Tiwanaku Period was, in part, ashift from primarily sandstone to the strategic addition of volcanic stone in Tiwanakustone construction and monolithic production. In the Tiwanaku Period, stonema-sons employed andesite for relatively public facades and communal spaces inotherwise largely soil and sandstone buildings. Use of andesite and other volcanicstone, notably basalt for small stone sculptures, corresponded with tectonic socio-political shifts. Volcanic stone quarrying and construction corresponded with theincorporation of more distant landscapes on Lake Titicaca, including those that pro-duced volcanic stone. Volcanic stone production enacted and propelled Tiwanaku’semergent imperialism and its ascent to power.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Hanslune

[WVK]

because the location of the quarry for the stones is known.

because there are still tool marks on the rock in the quarry.

How does that rule out molding?

because I have close to three decades of experience in masonry working with natural stone (structural and veneer), manufactured veneers, and exterior plastering.

What your proposing is not only did they know how to dissolve and reharden the stones without leaving any sort of chemical difference. They also were able to realign the grain of the softened stone to match with the grain of the stone still in the quarry.

I did not write this piece nor do I know the author.

So this is not true?

"I had a conversation with two people that do these analysis and and both of them said that even if the stones were man made they could not prove it for sure."

http://pumapunkutheories.webs.com/moldedvschiseledrock.htm

[WVK]

...it's almost like you're suggesting that years of practical knowledge of masonry and stonework trump unwarranted, ignorant speculation of people with no stone working experience who parrot others' ideas without even bothering to give them credit.That can't possibly be right. All theories are equally valid, right? Right?!

--Jaylemurph

Yet we have this:

"But to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and

exterior angles on the finely dressed stones, they resorted to techniques unknown to the Incas

and to us at this time."

Page 153

[www.michaelsheiser.com]

[Harte]

Thanks Jarocal

Saves me the time from answering

I will add a few links

http://www.academia....ion_of_Tiwanaku

Building Taypikala: Telluric Transformations in the Lithic Production of Tiwanaku

So what?

They could easily have melted the sandstone and andesite down, poured it into their molds and Voila!

Of course, it would take a few days to cool, but when it does, it's obvious that molten sandstone has no choice but to turn back into regular sandstone. The same is absolutely true for Andesite, or anything else you "liquify."

Everyone knows this. Hard to believe it has to be said.

Harte

[ShadowSot]

Immediately before that he mentions toolmarks indicating roughing tools used in the same fashion as Inca stoneworking.

So according to that paper they had a unique process to smooth and polish them, but it points to a mundane methid.

And its page 156, not 153.

[jaylemurph]

I did not write this piece nor do I know the author.

Then by any sort of pretense at intellectual honesty, you shouldn't have passed it along. Bit like a turd in a box: if you know what's in it, you're an ******* to pass it along. If you don't know what's in it, it's even worse to pass it on.

--Jaylemurph

[ShadowSot]

The paper is almost 20 years old, not sure what new has come out since then.

Paleobabble is a good site, but pulling a quote out of context to support your claim is called quote mining, it's clear he isnt supporting a possibility the stobes were poured out.

[Harte]

The paper is almost 20 years old, not sure what new has come out since then.

Paleobabble is a good site, but pulling a quote out of context to support your claim is called quote mining, it's clear he isnt supporting a possibility the stobes were poured out.

Yeah!

Nor the stones, either!

Harte

[Hanslune]

Immediately before that he mentions toolmarks indicating roughing tools used in the same fashion as Inca stoneworking.

So according to that paper they had a unique process to smooth and polish them, but it points to a mundane methid.

And its page 156, not 153.

If MVK wants to understand Inca and Tiwanaku stone masonry may I suggest these books/articles:

• Isbell, William H. (2004), "Palaces and Politics in the Andean Middle Horizon", in Evans, Susan Toby; Pillsbury, Joanne, Palaces of the Ancient New World, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, pp. 191–246, ISBN 0-88402-300-1
  
• Protzen, Jean-Pierre; Stella Nair, 1997, Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 146-167
  
• Vranich, A., 1999, Interpreting the Meaning of Ritual Spaces: The Temple Complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania.
  
• Vranich, A., 2006, The Construction and Reconstruction of Ritual Space at Tiwanaku, Bolivia: A.D. 500-1000. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(2): 121–136.
  
• Ponce Sanginés, C. and G. M. Terrazas, 1970, Acerca De La Procedencia Del Material Lítico De Los Monumentos De Tiwanaku. Publication no. 21. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
  
• Protzen, J.-P., and S.E.. Nair, 2000, On Reconstructing Tiwanaku Architecture: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 358-371.
  
• Ernenweini, E. G., and M. L. Konns, 2007, Subsurface Imaging in Tiwanaku’s Monumental Core. Technology and Archaeology Workshop. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, D.C.
  
• Williams, P. R., N. C. Couture and D. Blom, 2007 Urban Structure at Tiwanaku: Geophysical Investigations in the Andean Altiplano. In J. Wiseman and F. El-Baz, eds., pp. 423-441. Remote Sensing in Archaeology. Springer , New York.
  

This fellow might be well worth following around: http://ced.berkeley.edu/ced/faculty-staff/jean-pierre-protzen

Edited November 21, 2015 by Hanslune

[Harte]

Protzen:Peru::Stocks:Egypt

Harte

[Jarocal]

...it's almost like you're suggesting that years of practical knowledge of masonry and stonework trump unwarranted, ignorant speculation of people with no stone working experience who parrot others' ideas without even bothering to give them credit.

That can't possibly be right. All theories are equally valid, right? Right?!

--Jaylemurph

All theories are equally valid in my ever so humble opinion. Until things like evidence, common sense, and reality bear down to tip the scales toward a more likely theory.

Or perhaps "elevate one theory above the others like a limestone block lifted on a geyser" may be a more apt way to phrase it.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Jarocal

[Hanslune]

Protzen:Peru::Stocks:Egypt

Harte

The unholy twosome of masonry (from a fringe point of view)

[WVK]

Immediately before that he mentions toolmarks indicating roughing tools used in the same fashion as Inca stoneworking.

So according to that paper they had a unique process to smooth and polish them, but it points to a mundane methid.

And its page 156, not 153.

Then by any sort of pretense at intellectual honesty, you shouldn't have passed it along. Bit like a turd in a box: if you know what's in it, you're an ******* to pass it along. If you don't know what's in it, it's even worse to pass it on.

--Jaylemurph

??Seemed to me an interesting article, I wouldn't have posted it had I known it would cause such offense. That said, how do you explain the color distortion found around both the original Arrow rock and the molded facsimile?

[Hanslune]

??Seemed to me an interesting article, I wouldn't have posted it had I known it would cause such offense. That said, how do you explain the color distortion found around both the original Arrow rock and the molded facsimile?

Posting it was not a problem I believe the incorrect cite and not providing a full quote thus giving the appearance of quote mining might have been the source of annoyance.

how do you explain the color distortion found around both the original Arrow rock and the molded facsimile

? I'd comment but I don't see where you posted said images are they in a previous noted link?

Question for you: if they were using 'molded" stones why did they have quarries which show the removal of pieces of stone with some found abandoned on the way, and damaged ones left incomplte in the quarry?

If they were just smashing up solid rock to make particles to make a 'concrete' why are there blocks?

What is your explanation for this stone

Puma Punka quarry showing removal of rock was 'organized' and not a search for concrete rubble. The usual response to this is to suggest that the Tiwanaku used both methods, solid rock and molded with the quarry for rubble being elsewhere/not found/hidden/used failed/damaged solid rocks for rubble. However the number of exact duplicate stones is .....how many exact duplicate stones are there WYK?

Edited November 21, 2015 by Hanslune

[WVK]

Arrow rock:

http://pumapunkutheories.webs.com/arrowrock.htm

Then there's the observation:

http://pumapunkutheories.webs.com/hstone.htm

It was Protzen who wrote this:

"But to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces, and exact right interior and

exterior angles on the finely dressed stones, they resorted to techniques unknown to the Incas

and to us at this time."

More that this I do not know.

WVK

[WVK]

And this:

In the near-isodomic masonry at Tiahuanaco, one stone could be exchanged with even more ease than in coursed ashlar masonry discussed above.This raises not only the possibility of prefabrication, but even of mass production. The latter, if it could be shown to have been the case at Tiahuanaco, would represent a major innovation in Andean cut-stone construction technology"

Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry JEAN-PIERRE PROTZEN, WITH STELLA NAIR,

Page 152,153:

[jaylemurph]

??Seemed to me an interesting article, I wouldn't have posted it had I known it would cause such offense. That said, how do you explain the color distortion found around both the original Arrow rock and the molded facsimile?

I'll say what you should have: "I don't know anything about stonework, so I'm going to keep silent rather than spew uninformed theories and defer to the people who do know about stonework."

--Jaylemurph

[ShadowSot]

Yes, we don't know exactly how they did it. But we do know that they were quarried and shaped using stone tools, as was stated immediate before the section you quoted. That you keep quoting that section makes me think you didn't actually read the entire thing, you or someone who you are pulling from just pulled that quote out to justify your or their claim about pouring stone, ignoring that as Hatsune pointed out we have stones in different stages of being worked.

In order for an idea to be credible it has to explain all pieces of evidence, not just one small piece which you are focusing on.

Keep in mind we are not a stone or bronze age society, by that nature we do not have the skills needed to work stone with the same skills they developed over generations with the tools they had.

I work in a metal factory, there are some things we do that are very similar to how things were done a century ago, there are other things that are completely different and I have not the foggiest how they were accomplished a century or more ago.