Puma Punku

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

So you cut the groove and drill the holes a cm or two off your finished line, would still save a lot of chisel work here

http://www.world-mysteries.com/PumaPunka_cut.jpg

Investing too much time in precision at this stage does not bring later gains.

If you are trying to cut a slab, you cut over to dress to where you want the stone to be. This pricipal is as certain as the pricipals of aircraft design and flight.

Using this method saves time also because you can prepare oversize units and pitch them down to size more quickly.

If you are going to make fire from sticks, the means are universal. There is a reason for this, the same for stone production. If these holes represent stone splitting techniques, there is a very hidden advanced technique somewhere missing. There should be plenty of complimentary evidence at the quarries also.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Investing too much time in precision at this stage does not bring later gains.
.

it does if the job is expected to last your lifetime

[carlitos]

Ooh, a very hidden advanced technique. Now we're getting somewhere.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

...In his publications on ancient south american archtitecture, Jean-Pierre Protzen can only suggest that this method or another were the PROBABLE ways in which this was done, or that was done etc, etc.

At the back of most peoples minds and at the front of others is the suspicion that we really cannot explain what has taken place. It's easy to split stones using plugs and feathers, particulary when a nice regular block has been cut for you with a massive hydraulicl drill and hydraulic splitters. A quantum leap in technology from pp, but accepted without question here....

Nope, not accepted without question - but with archaeological evidence.

The ancient Egyptians used this technique to quarry stone for obelisks.
No hydraulic drills or splitters were used or needed.

Your assertions are not supported by the evidence available - as has been evident throughout this thread.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Nope, not accepted without question - but with archaeological evidence.

The ancient Egyptians used this technique to quarry stone for obelisks.
No hydraulic drills or splitters were used or needed.

Your assertions are not supported by the evidence available - as has been evident throughout this thread.

What evidence

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Emery?, It's only use in the modern world is in cloth abrasive, paper and resin bonded wheels etc. Don't see it being used much in the stone industry, never have done, or sand, or quartz, or silica.

we're not talking about the modern world, the Hammurabi stele is around 3800 years old and the evidence for Emery use in Mesopotamia is overwhelming
please follow this link
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e5838.html
the boxes there are dates, 2000 is 2000bce which tells you that the word for Emery was in common usage from that point on.

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Actually, I have to say
I dont have a query with the production of this stone, still It's nice to discuss something we can agree on. There is nothing unusual about this masterpeice

a minute ago you insisted that it was carved using gemstones
is that still your qualified opinion ?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Is it true that there isn't really anybody here with the practical experience to have a challenging discussion about what you would need to be doing to achieve the masonry at pp

no, its not true, the only one here with a retarded argument is you, fact is that Protzen has more than demonstrated the techniques used, and he teaches those techniques at UC Berkeley
whereas all your personal anecdotes about your work have been years old
are you currently employed as a mason ?

[steve mccarron]

[quote=Marduk;8380668]we're not talking about the modern world, the Hammurabi stele is around 3800 years old and the evidence for Emery use in Mesopotamia is overwhelming
please follow this link
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e5838.html
the boxes there are dates, 2000 is 2000bce which tells you that the word for Emery was in common usage from that point on.


a minute ago you insisted that it was carved using gemstones
is that still your qualified opinion ?

Yes it is, diamonds litter the ground in abundance in some parts of Africa, if you were inclined to use emery, it would follow that you would persue an advantage wherever it came from. Uncut diamonds would be a very desirable ancient high tech cutting tool and an improvement over anything else. You could not cut diamond, but smashed, it's peices would incise very well.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Marduk

no, its not true, the only one here with a retarded argument is you

If it is SO retarded, why bother to reply?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Yes it is, diamonds litter the ground in abundance in some parts of Africa, if you were inclined to use emery, it would follow that you would persue an advantage wherever it came from. Uncut diamonds would be a very desirable ancient high tech cutting tool and an improvement over anything else. You could not cut diamond, but smashed, it's peices would incise very well.

Diamonds weren't used for lapidary until the Roman period, you don't know much about history do you ?
this is why there is no mesopotamian word for "Diamond", their civilisation was dead by that point

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

If it is SO retarded, why bother to reply?

because the "E" in JREF is for education, and pretty much everyone here but you is learning something.

[alexi_drago]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Investing too much time in precision at this stage does not bring later gains.

If doing that could save time on taking the same amount of rough off compared to using hammerstones and chisels then there is an immediate gain.

Quote:

If you are trying to cut a slab, you cut over to dress to where you want the stone to be. This pricipal is as certain as the pricipals of aircraft design and flight.

Using this method saves time also because you can prepare oversize units and pitch them down to size more quickly.

I doubt they would dress the faces on oversize blocks to be cut down as required, as you have pointed out that process is time consuming at the least.

Quote:

If you are going to make fire from sticks, the means are universal. There is a reason for this, the same for stone production. If these holes represent stone splitting techniques, there is a very hidden advanced technique somewhere missing. There should be plenty of complimentary evidence at the quarries also.

As I suggested before, possibly using the expansion of freezing water inside the holes. I don't know if it would work in practice but it is a method they used in other ways so the idea wouldn't be unknown to them and the holes are too small for plugs and feathers or wedges. I'm fairly convinced these holes are part of the process for dressing, they don't appear to be decorative and I can't imagine they're for any fixings or anything like that.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Marduk

no, its not true, the only one here with a retarded argument is you, fact is that Protzen has more than demonstrated the techniques used, and he teaches those techniques at UC Berkeley
whereas all your personal anecdotes about your work have been years old
are you currently employed as a mason ?

I don't see Protzen teaching the techniques we are discussing here. A gulf exists between his particular ancient masonry interests and the actual production of anything comparable to the things we are discussing.

I worked on a consultative basis until fairly recentley up and down the country. I also did the odd bit of stonemasonry, stonecarving and sculpture.

Now, I'm fed up with travelling and fed up with being covered in dust and grime. I'm still asked to help here and there, but I am having a career change.

[steve mccarron]

If doing that could save time on taking the same amount of rough off compared to using hammerstones and chisels then there is an immediate gain.

No, for the reasons I have said, one little deviation and boom, all that wasted time..

I doubt they would dress the faces on oversize blocks to be cut down as required, as you have pointed out that process is time consuming at the least.

Pitching is the most ancient and controlable methods and quick


As I suggested before, possibly using the expansion of freezing water inside the holes. I don't know if it would work in practice but it is a method they used in other ways so the idea wouldn't be unknown to them and the holes are too small for plugs and feathers or wedges. I'm fairly convinced these holes are part of the process for dressing, they don't appear to be decorative and I can't imagine they're for any fixings or anything like that.


Freezing would only work if you could plug the ends. Then the holes would have to be much bigger anyway to have an effect. Then, you might as well split the stone conventionally.

Are you a mason?

[steve mccarron]

The reason this topic is being discussed still is because there are not conclusive explainations for what has been achieved in this ancient south american masonry.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I don't see Protzen teaching the techniques we are discussing here. .

because you don't follow links, like the time you claimed you did, but it turned out that the video could not be viewed from the UK, after you'd rubbished its contents, which you hadn't seen !

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Now, I'm fed up with travelling and fed up with being covered in dust and grime. I'm still asked to help here and there, but I am having a career change.

McDonalds or Burger King ?

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

The reason this topic is being discussed still is because there are not conclusive explainations for what has been achieved in this ancient south american masonry.

firstly, please look up "ancient" it does not mean what you think it does, 1000 years ago isn't ancient
alternatively the reason this topic is being discussed still is because this is a discussion forum


but let me ask you again as you seemed to have missed it
are you still insisting that the Hammurabi stele was carved using gemstones ?
yes/no?

[DC]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

The reason this topic is being discussed still is because there are not conclusive explainations for what has been achieved in this ancient south american masonry.

you dont have explainations supported by evidence it seems.

[Vortigern99]

Steve McCarron, please respond to the evidence presented in the following posts:

* #144 (complete with unarguable photographic proof that the bronze tool + sand + human effort + time = cut granite theory works)

* #81 (in which Bingham et al are quoted on the above-referenced theory; information about arsenical bronze is advanced by Andrew Wiggin; and links to the NOVA article on Stock's experiment with cutting granite are provided)

* #165 (in which the Protzen method is discussed and links to an in-depth analysis of ancient stonecutting techniques are provided, including a diagram of the Protzen method)

These present theories and evidence on the processes the "Inca" people might have used to build Puma Punku and other structures. Steve Mccarron has yet to provide any substantial rebuttal to these.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by DC

you dont have explainations supported by evidence it seems.

I could say the same of you!

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Steve McCarron, please respond to the evidence presented in the following posts:

* #144 (complete with unarguable photographic proof that the bronze tool + sand + human effort + time = cut granite theory works)

* #81 (in which Bingham et al are quoted on the above-referenced theory; information about arsenical bronze is advanced by Andrew Wiggin; and links to the NOVA article on Stock's experiment with cutting granite are provided)

* #165 (in which the Protzen method is discussed and links to an in-depth analysis of ancient stonecutting techniques are provided, including a diagram of the Protzen method)

These present theories and evidence on the processes the "Inca" people might have used to build Puma Punku and other structures. Steve Mccarron has yet to provide any substantial rebuttal to these.

Thanks for this post. I will reply tommorrow, I'm off to bed, bye.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

In his publications on ancient south american archtitecture, Jean-Pierre Protzen can only suggest that this method or another were the PROBABLE ways in which this was done, or that was done etc, etc.

That is the nature of science actually and that is the way it is, especially when you deal with archaeology, you should see phrases 'seems likely', 'does not contradict the evidence', 'probable', as in any historical reconstruction, that is the way it is.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I could say the same of you!

yes, but you would be lying, even when overwhelming evidence that you are wrong has been submitted, you refuse to acknowledge it

like this question I am asking you for the third time now

Quote:

but let me ask you again as you seemed to have missed it
are you still insisting that the Hammurabi stele was carved using gemstones ?
yes/no?

not too embaressed to answer are you ?

[DC]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I could say the same of you!

nope, i didn't persent any explanation.
but others have presented explanations and evidence.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Thanks for this post. I will reply tommorrow, I'm off to bed, bye.

No, you won't.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=238150

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Sure, how come were still having this discussion if I am so far off reality?

It is not that you are far off from reality, it is that you have a modern perspective which is informed by modern methods.

At PP it may have been likely that the methods were quite labor intensive, that tools were rebuilt (or whatever the phrase would be) and that they were very very slow.

So what seems reasonable to you may not be informed by their use of technology, but by your use of technology.

Even a method such as wear through abrasion could have been done, over much longer time than we (as moderns) would consider reasonable. I can even imagine they might have used less durable yet replaceable means of abrasion.

It is like carpentry, there was a time when saws were not used, and axes and adzes were. Those who used the axes and adzes felt differently about saws then we do.

It is like the difference between old time sailing and modern ships, quite different attitudes and perspectives, like the phrase 'clear the decks' actually meant removing all the walls from the gun decks and even stowing the captain's and officer's cabins. Walls and all.

[Olowkow]

Couple of questions. Concerning that diorite vase from Egypt, does anyone know for sure if the interior is actually carved out, or simply penetrated vertically by a cylindrical hole?



Also, I have never read any explanation of the "knobs" one often sees on the larger stones in some Inca walls, as below. Any ideas of their purpose?



Finally, I found this Nova sequence interesting.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/inca1/qanda.html

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by AdMan

No, you won't.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=238150

well thats ok, heres his response to the last time Vort asked him those exact same questions
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=413

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Still waiting for that video...

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I cannott believe you are given the credibilty you have. What an answer. So that is how it was carved is it.

Sorry, I had to pick myself up of the floor I laughed so much.

You bloody snob, It's been worth the wait though, what a gem

And so why was the response and explanation albeit brief that Marduk gave incorrect?

Explain in ancient terms why you laughed so hard? Not from your modern perspective.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Marduk

Again they used these tools with an abrasive, haven't you been paying any attention ?
the word they used was immanakku
want to go look it up ?

What immanakku parse as? Do people have good guesses?

Besides 'a stone/ sand'

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

does anyone know for sure if the interior is actually carved out, or simply penetrated vertically by a cylindrical hole?

not for sure, but
That vase was designed for use in a tomb, ergo, it doesn't have very thin walls as it was supposed to be symbolic, they didn't use it for flowers or anything.
But they did have the capability to make vases like that with very thin walls
http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/manch...ite%20vase.htm

Quote:

Stone vases were usually made by grinding. The form was roughly chipped and the surface worked down with sand-blocks. The interior was hollowed out with a drill using different methods for different forms. Generally a large core was drilled out from the centre, and the interior was then ground out with a block, using sand or emery. in some cases, difficulties in producing certain forms were made easier by making a vase in two halves. The drill was weighted with stones to provide extra motive power and the cutting head of these drills was a flint blade shaped like a blunt arrowhead.

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Also, I have never read any explanation of the "knobs" one often sees on the larger stones in some Inca walls, as below. Any ideas of their purpose?

the only idea I have heard is that they were there to assist in final placement of the blocks, just imagine you are using a pounder on the dressed block face to inch it into its final position and you damaged the block, got to take half the wall down to get it out or risk the wall collapsing on someone in the future. So those knobs in that case would be there to pound on without damaging the block itself, I've never seen them on smaller blocks, just the large load bearing ones.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

And so why was the response and explanation albeit brief that Marduk gave incorrect?

it wasn't

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Sands a rubbish abrasive, even though it's plentyful and cheap it has never been a serious contender against diamond. Mind you, we use sand assist in granite cutting with high pressure water jets. VERY HIGH PRESSURE. Only used on slab and sheet though.

And why with patience, lots of time and people, would it have to be ruled out?

How much practice do you have with the techniques from 0 CE? Like the Romans used?

Do you have any?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Originally Posted by Marduk

we're not talking about the modern world, the Hammurabi stele is around 3800 years old and the evidence for Emery use in Mesopotamia is overwhelming
please follow this link
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e5838.html
the boxes there are dates, 2000 is 2000bce which tells you that the word for Emery was in common usage from that point on.


a minute ago you insisted that it was carved using gemstones
is that still your qualified opinion ?

Yes it is, diamonds litter the ground in abundance in some parts of Africa, if you were inclined to use emery, it would follow that you would persue an advantage wherever it came from. Uncut diamonds would be a very desirable ancient high tech cutting tool and an improvement over anything else. You could not cut diamond, but smashed, it's peices would incise very well.

And where exactly is the evidence that they used diamonds?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

The reason this topic is being discussed still is because there are not conclusive explainations for what has been achieved in this ancient south american masonry.

You want conclusive?

Sheesh, that is a philosophical concept. Without hard evidence in archaeology all you have is tentative and circumstantial.

[alexi_drago]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

If doing that could save time on taking the same amount of rough off compared to using hammerstones and chisels then there is an immediate gain.

No, for the reasons I have said, one little deviation and boom, all that wasted time..

The groove would act as a safety margin for the other dressed faces and as I said before if it was a cm or two off the finished surface that wouldn't be as much of a problem. The drill holes look like they have 3 or 4 cm spacing so I can't imagine the split between them going particularly deep.

Quote:

I doubt they would dress the faces on oversize blocks to be cut down as required, as you have pointed out that process is time consuming at the least.

Pitching is the most ancient and controlable methods and quick

I thought part of your initial argument was that they wouldn't have had the tools for pitching.

Quote:

As I suggested before, possibly using the expansion of freezing water inside the holes. I don't know if it would work in practice but it is a method they used in other ways so the idea wouldn't be unknown to them and the holes are too small for plugs and feathers or wedges. I'm fairly convinced these holes are part of the process for dressing, they don't appear to be decorative and I can't imagine they're for any fixings or anything like that.


Freezing would only work if you could plug the ends. Then the holes would have to be much bigger anyway to have an effect. Then, you might as well split the stone conventionally.

By conventionally, do you mean with the tools you're saying they didn't have? or with the freezing wooden wedges/blocks that would result in a rough and possible concave or otherwise uncontrolled split face?
What size would the holes have to be to have the desired effect on that type of stone?

Quote:

Are you a mason?

Yes

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

And where exactly is the evidence that they used diamonds?

Zero, there is no archaeological evidence, nor any literary evidence that the black haired people had or even knew about diamonds.

I see that I missed the guy who failed, twice, to get thru Dale Carnegie's book....good evidence there Marduk!

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Marduk

....

the only idea I have heard is that they were there to assist in final placement of the blocks, just imagine you are using a pounder on the dressed block face to inch it into its final position and you damaged the block, got to take half the wall down to get it out or risk the wall collapsing on someone in the future. So those knobs in that case would be there to pound on without damaging the block itself, I've never seen them on smaller blocks, just the large load bearing ones.

I was thinking ropes for lifting, but they seem to be rather insubstantial for the purpose. Aside from any practical use for the protuberances, the whole nature of the walls and their knobs strikes me as rather "whimsical", the pillow-like nature of the surfaces, and the fact that they are left sort of imperfect, so to speak, leaving construction devices in place when they could have easily just whacked them off. It makes one ponder what these folks were like. Certainly different from the "perfect lawn" culture of the U.S.

I'd love to go there. Thanks for sharing your "credibility", sparse though it may be.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Couple of questions. Concerning that from Egypt, does anyone know for sure if the interior is actually carved out, or simply penetrated vertically by a cylindrical hole?


Also, I have never read any explanation of the "knobs" one often sees on the larger stones in some Inca walls, as below. Any ideas of their purpose?

This link goes to explanation of how those types of vases were probably made by the AE


http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.ph...article&sid=59



The knobs may have been used to help transport them, usually they were then removed. Similar knobs can be seen in construction in other civs too

Menkaure's unfinished granite casing stones



Sloppy work!

[alexi_drago]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Also, I have never read any explanation of the "knobs" one often sees on the larger stones in some Inca walls, as below. Any ideas of their purpose?

For standing on while they're dressing in the joints after construction?

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

Well... obviously you are better with masonry than with posting... since you have not enclosed any picture. (No big, it comes with a new account).

To be more serious...


I'm not a stone mason, I'm a historian. However, you would be mistaken if you think that the theories historians advance as to how it was made, or the construction of any historical building, are brought forward without testing them to see if they could have been done with the tools and techniques available then.

I personally know a number of people who are actively working on a number of such projects. Since my specialty is medieval, not ancient Andean, those projects tend to be of that nature... for example the various Drekar or Knarr ships. I do some of that sort of thing myself, in a more limited fashion.

Quote:

Puma Punku is indeed interesting as far as it's construction. However, many ancient civilizations managed to do remarkable things even with primitive tools. I really like this guy for example... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7q20VzwVs It's interesting to see what you can do with a bit of cleverness and effort.

How one last point that I would like to phrase as a question...

How much better would your masonry work be if I told you that you would be killed if you didn't do better?

I love this Wally guy. I have this site bookmarked so I can show it to friends who believe in the alien theory of how old things got built.

http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html
On a similar note, this guy came up with a strong theory of how the pyramids got built. The ingenuity of man coupled with desire and determination can accomplish miracles.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

I love this Wally guy. I have this site bookmarked so I can show it to friends who believe in the alien theory of how old things got built.
.

Originally Posted by Marduk

Its people like Wally Wallington you should be wasting your time on, at least if you spend some time with him you're actually getting a learning experience, he's worth a hundred Giorgio Tsoukalos in anyones currency

Originally Posted by Wally Wallington

For many years people have tried to solve the mystery of the Egyptian pyramids, some even claiming extra terrestrial intervention. I have always enjoyed the challenge of a mystery and I know that ET did not have anything to do with ancient construction. Similar works were done in different places on earth and at different times in history and there has to be a more accurate explanation. I believe skilled individuals performed the work. I have found that this work could easily be done using only primitive tools and physics.

check him out as he actually proves it
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Wallington
Most of his work is displayed in video format,

btw, Houdin never got beyond hypothesis

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

The reason this topic is being discussed still is because there are not conclusive explainations for what has been achieved in this ancient south american masonry.

The reason this topic is being discussed still is because you have not produced any evidence for your assertion that "there are not conclusive explainations for what has been achieved in this ancient south american masonry"
If you mean that no one can say what actual methods were used then that is correct and you are just stating the obvious.
But your assertion was

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve mccarron
All sorts of claims are made for the production of masonry at Puma Punku, but non of them actually make sense.

i.e. that none of them methods attributed to Puma Punku are valid.

You still have to describe even one of these methods and state why it is impossible.

Any actual evidence for your beliefs, steve mccarron?
First asked 8th June 2012 (11 days and counting, steve !).