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 -
WVK

Did Ancient People Use Acid to Shape Stone?

188 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Thanos5150
5 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

I mean, don't get me wrong, using caustic materials on the exterior of rocks to style them properly is reasonable, it might give it a shiny surface once you get away the grit and the rocky protrusion, but I don't think it would do what he thinks it will

 

I'm not saying this accounts for all that is seen, but in reality much of the shiny surfaces on ancient stones are the result of tourism i.e. touching, breathing, and walking all over these things. Quoting myself from elsewhere:

Quote

 

de%20Quenko,%20vitrificaci%C3%B3n.jpg

 

If you go to any tourist or active historical site you will see this same exact magic "vitrification" on any hard stone that is able to be touched, stepped on, or breathed on by tourists. The more accessible the more the "vitrification". I have been to Quenko (pictured above) and walked right there and touched this same rock just like hundreds of thousands of other oily palmed mouth breathing tourists. If I recall there is some kind of myth about this very stone and touching it is good luck or helps you conceive, something like that. 

Yes, there is unexplained ancient vitrification but at least exercise some form of common sense and not believe everything you see on the internet. The oils from your hands and breath, the rubbing of your skin and shoes on these surfaces-this is what this is and are literally at every tourist spot no matter where it is or how old....

Wherever there are areas commonly touched or stepped on it most certainly has been smoothed over. This shouldn't be some some big mystery. A better example would be the rim of the sarcophagus [G1]. Thousands of years and literally millions of people touching and rubbing on it with their grimy hands and you think this has no effect? And all of the exhaust from people breathing "coats" and erodes these surfaces as well which also smoothes them out and creates a sheen. You see these same kinds of things on the stone inside medieval churches. The entry way of my house is brick and the surfaces of those towards the drop to the walkway where all the traffic is are clearly smoother than those on the side.

Another good example, I've also been there, is the Blarney Stone which I doubt anyone here is going to say is the product of LC lost technology:

Blarney_Stone_owner_Charles_Colthurst_PR

Blarney-Stone-By-Srleffler-English-wikip

Like magic it just so happens that right where people put their faces the stone is "vitrified" yet directly around it and above it it is not.

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Are there walls like posted before present in Egypt?

I have no idea, but I guess not.

Not exactly polygonal, but there are several examples of similar interlocking blocks:

Valley Temple, Giza: 

5829d760f9a6b974de3a64aaafec2ea5.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzo1798959Qj6DA9YEFcs

Osirion, Abydos:

ats59338_osireion_protruberances_use_wit

Qasr el- Sagha, Faiuym:

LXRa9kxGdIejYwl4kbjPLtOjZLB564RUwppUku2w

Note as well the remaining lifting bosses on the top left. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
28 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

I'm not saying this accounts for all that is seen, but in reality much of the shiny surfaces on ancient stones are the result of tourism i.e. touching, breathing, and walking all over these things. Quoting myself from elsewhere:

 

So this. I pointed out in one of zoser's threads I think years ago that all the "vitrification" in the streets of Cuzco is just about as high as a man can reach, or the height of a heavily laden pack animal. Also pointed out polished material has what's called a Beilby layer, a microlayer of material altered by the action of polishing, that could easily look like vit to to someone who didn't know what they were looking at.

Beilby-layer-formation-Source-http-wwwew

Edited by Oniomancer
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
1 minute ago, Oniomancer said:

 

 

Deleted. Double post.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

A lot of good contributions here. Good thread!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
41 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

I'm not saying this accounts for all that is seen, but in reality much of the shiny surfaces on ancient stones are the result of tourism i.e. touching, breathing, and walking all over these things. 

Roman roads are also good examples how human activity, both ancient and modern, "vitrify" the surface of stone:  

3019.jpg?v=1630045802

640px-Timgad_rue.jpg

Not to mention modern cobblestone streets:

shiny-worn-cobble-stones-in-narrow-stree

No lost technology here. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
On 9/13/2021 at 3:57 AM, Tom1200 said:

You're just jealous because you don't have "a prestigious certificate of Five-year membership from Gavin Publishers."

I do. That's how I got this:

5480b01755726676736754491fd4d19b.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 9/13/2021 at 11:45 AM, Abramelin said:

Because building a wall using these kind of irregular, polygonal boulders prevents it from collapsing during an earthquake?

 

Except that I'm not sure that idea holds much water.  I know what's claimed, but if I'm not mistaken, the walls were repaired in recent times.  Also, it seems as if the little stones would be easy to dislodge which would make the whole thing very unstable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Except that I'm not sure that idea holds much water.  I know what's claimed, but if I'm not mistaken, the walls were repaired in recent times.  Also, it seems as if the little stones would be easy to dislodge which would make the whole thing very unstable.

In 1991 I visited Machu Pichu. There was only one wall with a wide crack from top to bottom: it was built with rectangular blocks, like we would do nowadays.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
On 9/13/2021 at 3:49 PM, Thanos5150 said:

blah blah blah I like old rocks

Impressive stuff, but when it comes to super-mega-gigantic megalithic megastructures you can't beat regular rectangular bricks.  This example from Denmarkland has stood for probably thousands of years without cement or superglue.  (Pictured with a crowd of genuine Denmark people for scale, and they're Vikings so they're really tall).

504495696_megalithsofEuropeland.thumb.jpg.1c795e72c6511cd99cc79473f09bacee.jpg

 

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
20 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:
On 9/13/2021 at 7:49 AM, Thanos5150 said:

blah blah blah I like old rocks

Those were the original lyrics with the song being about ancient stone working, but the studio changed it because they thought it didn't have enough commercial appeal. Sell outs. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
6 hours ago, Abramelin said:

In 1991 I visited Machu Pichu. There was only one wall with a wide crack from top to bottom: it was built with rectangular blocks, like we would do nowadays.

Remember that you saw the repaired Machu Piccu... and that there's a lot of damage you might not have noticed: https://www.science.org/news/2019/10/machu-picchu-was-hit-strong-earthquakes-during-construction

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
10 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Except that I'm not sure that idea holds much water.  I know what's claimed, but if I'm not mistaken, the walls were repaired in recent times.  Also, it seems as if the little stones would be easy to dislodge which would make the whole thing very unstable.

Polygonal construction is more stable than other methods but the problem with it being chosen to resist seismic activity is the frequency of earthquakes necessitating such a need. Polygonal wall architecture is ubiquitous throughout history even today which is essentially getting various size stones and putting them together in a tight as fit as possible. I think as much if not more so than its inherent stability it was more so a matter of economics in that stones can be taken at the size that they are and only the faces worked to make them fit. 

stonechat-15-11.jpg

stonechat-15-1.jpg

photo-1.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
9 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Remember that you saw the repaired Machu Piccu... and that there's a lot of damage you might not have noticed: https://www.science.org/news/2019/10/machu-picchu-was-hit-strong-earthquakes-during-construction

Quote from your link:

"But the movement of many damaged blocks, including substantial gaps between some formerly interlocking blocks of stone, "

'Substantial gaps'...

But those walls weren't split or crumbling.

They were still holding. I have seen it with my own goddamn eyes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Now, back to the paper/article posted before:

https://www.siftdesk.org/article-details/On-the-reddish-glittery-mud-the-Inca-used-for-perfecting-their-stone-masonry/264

Has anybody comments about the chemistry involved?

I am kind of done reading 'this isn't a 'real paper', but just an article.

This article is about chemistry.

@Swede

@Thanos5150

@Kenemet

@Oniomancer

anyone: show us all where the guy went wrong, chemically speaking.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
31 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Quote from your link:

"But the movement of many damaged blocks, including substantial gaps between some formerly interlocking blocks of stone, "

'Substantial gaps'...

But those walls weren't split or crumbling.

They were still holding. I have seen it with my own goddamn eyes!

I don't doubt that you saw it at all.  But they changed their construction method partway through because of earthquakes (and no longer used fitted multiangle blocks -- and the site you saw was repaired.  You'd have to compare the structures as originally found.

...like this:

The ruins of Machu Picchu covered in jungle growth in this 1911 photograph taken when Yale archaeologist Hiram Bingham first came to the site.

 

Two of Bingham's photos are at this blog... very cool stuff: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/first-photograph-upon-discovery-machu-piccu-1911/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
6 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I don't doubt that you saw it at all.  But they changed their construction method partway through because of earthquakes (and no longer used fitted multiangle blocks -- and the site you saw was repaired.  You'd have to compare the structures as originally found.

...like this:

The ruins of Machu Picchu covered in jungle growth in this 1911 photograph taken when Yale archaeologist Hiram Bingham first came to the site.

 

Two of Bingham's photos are at this blog... very cool stuff: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/first-photograph-upon-discovery-machu-piccu-1911/

You'll have to look for better pictures.

I didn't see anything supporting your idea.

Edited to add:

What I was able to see was crumbled houses, not crumbled walls built with polygonal stones.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
10 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

You'll have to look for better pictures.

I didn't see anything supporting your idea.

Edited to add:

What I was able to see was crumbled houses, not crumbled walls built with polygonal stones.

Try this, then:

SITE AS ORIGINALLY SEEN IN 1911:

The%2Bfirst%2Bphotograph%2Bupon%2Bdiscovery%2Bof%2BMachu%2BPicchu%252C%2B1912.jpg

 

THE SITE THAT YOU SAW:

Machu-Picchu.jpg

 

I think my statement that "what you saw was heavily rebuilt and reconstructed" (and therefore conclusions about how solid any construction is should be taken with a huge grain of salt) is pretty well shown by these two photos.  Some of the standing walls in the first photo are made of non-interlocking stones (flat bricks, basically) 

And as the article said, they abandoned the interlocking stone idea halfway through the build, after a series of big quakes.  That suggests that the walls weren't that stable and that putting them back up was far more trouble than they felt it was worth.

 

...unless you have a different explanation for why they wouldn't continue that construction technique?

 

I'll comment on the chemistry later.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

I am not just being stubborn, I am only saying I see the ruins of houses. And houses were built in a rather primitive way; they would crumble during the next earthquake.

 

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

And as the article said, they abandoned the interlocking stone idea halfway through the build, after a series of big quakes.  That suggests that the walls weren't that stable and that putting them back up was far more trouble than they felt it was worth.

What article? The one you linked to doesn't mention what you posted about the interlocking stones.

Edit:

Ok, sorry, you referred to this link:

https://www.science.org/news/2019/10/machu-picchu-was-hit-strong-earthquakes-during-construction

The construction using polygonal blocks still caused gaps showing up during an earthquake, and the Incas considered it too expensive to continue that way:

"Regardless of when those quakes occurred, construction thereafter shifted to a cheaper and easier scheme of merely stacking smaller blocks of rock (upper layer of stones, above right), not carving them so that they interlocked."

Those walls built with interlocking stones would have shown gaps after an earthquake, but did not collapse.

But that was not good enough for the Incan architects, so they just continued the cheap and easy way.

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
4 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Now, back to the paper/article posted before:

https://www.siftdesk.org/article-details/On-the-reddish-glittery-mud-the-Inca-used-for-perfecting-their-stone-masonry/264

Has anybody comments about the chemistry involved?

I am kind of done reading 'this isn't a 'real paper', but just an article.

This article is about chemistry.

@Swede

@Thanos5150

@Kenemet

@Oniomancer

anyone: show us all where the guy went wrong, chemically speaking.

In formulating his hypothesis, he makes the following statements:

Quote

It is well known that silica minerals, and specifically Feldspars ((KAlSi3O8NaAlSi3O8CaAl2Si2O8), which originated from acid magmites such as Rhyolite or granite or crystallized from magma, are slowly weathered by humic acids to kaolin (Chinese clay) (Huang and Keller, 1970).

Quote

With a pH value as low as 0.5 the acid, and thus proton concentration in pyrite oxidation mud is 104 higher than the acid concentration in humic acid, which is known to slowly degrade silica containing rocks such as Rhyolites or Feldspars via silica gel into Kaolin and clay.

However, nowhere do I see any direct quotation for the rate or extent of dissolution. Nor do I see any test data of his own.

As previously stated, granite and other silicate rocks are known for being highly acid-resistant, even up to full-strength hydrochloric acid. Hydroflouric acid is about the only one that effects them strongly, though they are affected by alkalis, to what extent and rate I don't know either.

Without actual test data to support this working in real time faster than mechanical working then, it's relegated to one of those "looks good on paper" ideas.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
17 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

In formulating his hypothesis, he makes the following statements:

However, nowhere do I see any direct quotation for the rate or extent of dissolution. Nor do I see any test data of his own.

As previously stated, granite and other silicate rocks are known for being highly acid-resistant, even up to full-strength hydrochloric acid. Hydroflouric acid is about the only one that effects them strongly, though they are affected by alkalis, to what extent and rate I don't know either.

Without actual test data to support this working in real time faster than mechanical working then, it's relegated to one of those "looks good on paper" ideas.

Things to consider as well is the amount of this product needed would have been many tons-an entire industry of its own. Then there are the safety hazards of extracting, processing, transporting, and using such a caustic material.  And how is it we find the Inca mines and quarries for the stone but not the magic clay?    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

But they changed their construction method partway through because of earthquakes (and no longer used fitted multiangle blocks -- and the site you saw was repaired.  You'd have to compare the structures as originally found.

This is a bit misleading as the problem with this is that you see the same thing all over the Inca world wherever a megalithic component is found. Its not just a change in "construction method" but rather an apparent regression of ability and/or initiative with the "superior" megalithic component on the bottom and the "inferior" stone work at the top or around it. I have seen several of these sites myself and looked at many pictures and I hate to say it, even if wrong, but it certainly does invoke the idea they were built by two different peoples in different eras. Something I would note is never seen in ancient Egypt and also unlike Egypt at least there is a prior history of neighboring megalithic cultures, namely the Tiwanaku and Chavin.

The Chavin civilization occupied the Peruvian Andes from c. 1500-300BC and are named after spectacular megalithic flat topped pyramid Chavin de Huantar. Construction began as early 1200BC with the bulk occurring c. 800BC.  

34-1.jpg

     

01-chavin-de-huantar-huaraz.jpg

chavin-1-thumb.jpg

 

es-facil-apreciar-la.jpg

MORE

INTERIOR

Raimondi Stele:

SYS9WR0Bcsv7ibE35a76Vw.png

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
10 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This is a bit misleading as the problem with this is that you see the same thing all over the Inca world wherever a megalithic component is found. Its not just a change in "construction method" but rather an apparent regression of ability and/or initiative with the "superior" megalithic component on the bottom and the "inferior" stone work at the top or around it. I have seen several of these sites myself and looked at many pictures and I hate to say it, even if wrong, but it certainly does invoke the idea they were built by two different peoples in different eras. Something I would note is never seen in

that issue is discussed here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvUCuJ0qcc0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
17 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Things to consider as well is the amount of this product needed would have been many tons-an entire industry of its own. Then there are the safety hazards of extracting, processing, transporting, and using such a caustic material.  And how is it we find the Inca mines and quarries for the stone but not the magic clay?    

The mixture or agent was made on the spot.

And 'many tons' must be a huge exaggaration.

The stuff was applied only to the surfaces of the worked stone to make that surface more malleable.

 

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 1

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.