Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
poppet

Ancient sites in South America

329 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piney
7 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

If something could be invented once, why not twice, or several times? It's not like there was an ancient international patent office in operation. Smelting is fairly sophisticated but less so if you have a prior history of working with more or less easily obtained native metals like copper. It's been pointed out in previous threads that certain copper deposits used by ancient cultures had a high enough admixture of contaminants such as arsenic to qualify as arsinate bronze without further alloying.

1 hour ago, Piney said:

Little cultural note.

 We (Algonquians) didn't smelt copper because we didn't know how. We didn't smelt it because of the poisonous fumes. The "story" behind it was it "released the venom of the Horned Serpent as punishment for destroying his property". We did anneal it though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Oniomancer
26 minutes ago, Piney said:

The "Harrisburg greenstone"  andesite can. It's tougher that black P.A. argillite though. Some hammerstone breaking stuff. 

If it's greenstone, you can add a "meta-" to that. It's been altered so it's likely re-crystalized, hence tougher. Fresh andesite's probably a bit closer to basalt and good basalt works like this:

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
16 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

If it's greenstone, you can add a "meta-" to that. It's been altered so it's likely re-crystalized, hence tougher.

I think it has a high Cu content. It wasn't used for any food processing tools from the Late Archaic to the Late Woodland periods. Only celts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
7 hours ago, WVK said:

It seemed like a reasonable answer.

It brings up a question about this statement from Ivan Watkins:

"Hammering: If one tries to shape a stone with a hammer (Bingham, 1913; Protzen, 1986), the smallest inside corner that can be produced must have a radius larger than the smallest radius of the hammer. The mason must be able to strike the material that is to be removed. Therefore, an observer must not see inside comers with radii smaller than than the size of the hammers used to produce those corners. Figure 2 shows one of many inside comers that have very small radii. To fashion these, the stone hammers would have to have been extremely small chisels. Furthermore, when a rock is hammered it tends to break selectively along planes of weakness, such as mineralized fractures. Even if it does not break completely, the rock will chip out at the intersection of the cut surface and the fracture, producing a groove at the intersection. Thus, fractures as shown in figure 3 would not exist. It is concluded that the blocks could not have been cut and shaped by hammering."

http://www.ianlawton.com/am10.html

What Is he talking about?

Who has claimed that these inside corners were formed by pounding?

My post was in answer to a question about the flatness of surfaces supposedly measured by Chris Dunn and had nothing to do with any carving, which describes the corners you're talking about.

It's obvious that chisels were used for that.

Harte

  • Like 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.