Puma Punku - Page 13

Marduk · 15th June 2012, 07:01 AM

I'm just laughing at the term "crass ignorance", some of my favourite schadenfreude moments are associated with that phrase
it also reminds me of the fun times we all had when KotA still had enough self respect to post here
word!!!

Hans · 15th June 2012, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

No Hagia Sophia?

The person who made the list probably didn't realize that the HS is actually in Europe - which the list is of - I've seen that error before in people thinking Istanbul is in Asia (part of the city is but not the part with HS)

Wiki is editable, make the change

Olowkow · 16th June 2012, 03:01 PM

I started reading a lot of the links provided here, thanks again, and wound up at Unexplained Mysteries forum. This thread about ancient techniques has its ups and downs, just as the one here does. But I found some good references by skimming their comments. I wonder if Marduk might know who 'questionmark' is.

Video pedia World - Secrets of Lost Empires The Inca Empire (Part 3 of 6)
Video pedia World - Secrets of Lost Empires The Inca Empire (Part 4 of 6)
Lost civilizations of the Andes (2)

Hopefully, no Ancient Aliens references in any of this. I don't vouch for the authenticity of anything, but I thought that this might resurrect the JREF discussion. I'm about 3/4 of the way through the thread on UM.com, and didn't want to lose track of what I found to be of interest.

Marduk · 16th June 2012, 06:31 PM

Hey Alexei

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

well, you were half right, so the fastest way to remove a plane of rock would be this method and the incised line would make the crack run true
no diamond tipped saw required

Originally Posted by Olowkow

I wonder if Marduk might know who 'questionmark' is.
.

I know most of the people in that thread

alexi_drago · 17th June 2012, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Hey Alexei

well, you were half right, so the fastest way to remove a plane of rock would be this method and the incised line would make the crack run true
no diamond tipped saw required

Why half right?

DC · 17th June 2012, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Hey Alexei
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...24095193_n.jpg

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

well, you were half right, so the fastest way to remove a plane of rock would be this method and the incised line would make the crack run true
no diamond tipped saw required

I know most of the people in that thread

how did they drill the holes back then?

Marduk · 17th June 2012, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

Why half right?

Because if they'd used wooden pegs there would be no way to control the pressure as they expanded and so no way to control the split

Originally Posted by DC

how did they drill the holes back then?

with drills, of which there are several examples in the Tiwanaku museum, none of them have diamond tips and in fact have no capability to attach anything to the tip at all
so they used a stone drill and quartz sand or some other abrasive as a cutting agent or they manufactured the drill itself from a rock harder than the intended target
This doesn't discuss specifically Inca drills, but tools based on the same principle
http://twipa.blogspot.co.uk/2011_03_01_archive.html

Quote:

DRILL: Talk to any flintknapper or experimental archaeologist and they will tell you to successfully fashion a fragile six inch long stone drill takes much time, know-how and above all, a good deal of luck.

ah see we were wasting our time with a mason

alexi_drago · 17th June 2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Because if they'd used wooden pegs there would be no way to control the pressure as they expanded and so no way to control the split

I didn't think wooden pegs, I was thinking more like either only water filled or something else soaked that could go through the entire hole.

Plugs and feathers only provide the splitting force along the surface of the stone where they're hammered in and usually cause some damage around the hole edges, that's not a problem in that video since he's only after rough blocks but the Puma Punku are working off a dressed face and if they damage that then they have to redress the face, maybe use the stone for something else or abandon it, the groove isn't able to protect from that either. If freezing expansion was used the force would be from inside the hole and I think that would be less likely to cause any damage and I also very much doubt they used 6mm plugs and feathers.

You have a point about not having control over the expansion, the inside of the stone would take longer to freeze than the outside, I don't know if that would be an issue but if it was then perhaps pouring warm water into the holes of an already frozen stone would solve that.

I think to find out if it is at all possible it really would need some experimentation.

DC · 17th June 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

with drills, of which there are several examples in the Tiwanaku museum, none of them have diamond tips and in fact have no capability to attach anything to the tip at all
so they used a stone drill and quartz sand or some other abrasive as a cutting agent or they manufactured the drill itself from a rock harder than the intended target
This doesn't discuss specifically Inca drills, but tools based on the same principle

thanks

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 11:26 AM

Glad to see that this thread is still loping along.

If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs?

Even WITHOUT my input, it has ran and ran without any sight of running out of steam. The reason is that NOBODY can claim to understand with any conviction the methods of manufacture here. Which is why you are still quoting the daftest theories that have never been proven and equally mad ones of your own.

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.

I understand the notion of life time service for a mason, but the masoning of some of this masonry is stretching this concept to the rediculous. Aspiration has always been governed by ability. We are talking about anonamolous masonry here and no practical experienced mason has expressed an alternative opinion on this forum as to how the work got done so far, me included. So, It's up to you, you can deride my experience all you want but you cannot deny that I have made some reasonable points and have struck a few decent chords.

Once again, "sigh", I am not saying, I don't know because I am stupid, I am saying it on the back of very skilled background. I have tried to engage with every cited method which you all know. My backgorund tells me the theories are wrong, I have said why previously, over and over again.

Now then, Marduk, bring on the smilies, the ones with the cheesy grins, how about six this time cos I know your gonna be so excited.

carlitos · 18th June 2012, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Glad to see that this thread is still loping along.

If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs?

Even WITHOUT my input, it has ran and ran without any sight of running out of steam. The reason is that ~~NOBODY can claim to understand with any conviction the methods of manufacture here~~.

No.

Take a look around this forum. If "argumentum ad thread lengthium" held any water, we'd have proof of bigfoot, UFOs, the bible, and cold fusion.

dafydd · 18th June 2012, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Glad to see that this thread is still loping along.

If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs?

Even WITHOUT my input, it has ran and ran without any sight of running out of steam. The reason is that NOBODY can claim to understand with any conviction the methods of manufacture here. Which is why you are still quoting the daftest theories that have never been proven and equally mad ones of your own.

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.

I understand the notion of life time service for a mason, but the masoning of some of this masonry is stretching this concept to the rediculous. Aspiration has always been governed by ability. We are talking about anonamolous masonry here and no practical experienced mason has expressed an alternative opinion on this forum as to how the work got done so far, me included. So, It's up to you, you can deride my experience all you want but you cannot deny that I have made some reasonable points and have struck a few decent chords.

Once again, "sigh", I am not saying, I don't know because I am stupid, I am saying it on the back of very skilled background. I have tried to engage with every cited method which you all know. My backgorund tells me the theories are wrong, I have said why previously, over and over again.

Now then, Marduk, bring on the smilies, the ones with the cheesy grins, how about six this time cos I know your gonna be so excited.

You don't know what a quantum leap is. And you seem to have ignored most of the posts here. If the accepted theory is wrong then what is your theory? Aliens?

DC · 18th June 2012, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Glad to see that this thread is still loping along.

If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs?

Even WITHOUT my input, it has ran and ran without any sight of running out of steam. The reason is that NOBODY can claim to understand with any conviction the methods of manufacture here. Which is why you are still quoting the daftest theories that have never been proven and equally mad ones of your own.

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.

I understand the notion of life time service for a mason, but the masoning of some of this masonry is stretching this concept to the rediculous. Aspiration has always been governed by ability. We are talking about anonamolous masonry here and no practical experienced mason has expressed an alternative opinion on this forum as to how the work got done so far, me included. So, It's up to you, you can deride my experience all you want but you cannot deny that I have made some reasonable points and have struck a few decent chords.

Once again, "sigh", I am not saying, I don't know because I am stupid, I am saying it on the back of very skilled background. I have tried to engage with every cited method which you all know. My backgorund tells me the theories are wrong, I have said why previously, over and over again.

Now then, Marduk, bring on the smilies, the ones with the cheesy grins, how about six this time cos I know your gonna be so excited.

why don't you look for archeologists that would work with you to publish a proper scientific study in to this?

sofar other peoples experiments have been more convincing than your doubts.

and so far the most propable explenation seems to be the academic one.

GeeMack · 18th June 2012, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Once again, "sigh", I am not saying, I don't know because I am stupid, I am saying it on the back of very skilled background. I have tried to engage with every cited method which you all know. My backgorund tells me the theories are wrong, I have said why previously, over and over again.

So? The ancient Incas who built the Puma Punku site obviously were more skilled and knowledgeable than you are. After all, they knew how to build the site and you don't. They did it with only the tools available at the time, unless you want to show evidence for time travel or some kind of alternative tools or technology. And yes, you continue to claim to be ignorant of their methods. We all believe you. And you admit to being less knowledgeable and skilled than they were. We believe that, too. So nobody is disagreeing with you.

Other than admitting your lack of knowledge and skills, and declaring your incredulity, and persisting in your condescending attitude toward those who do seem to understand things you admit to not understanding, got anything else?

Sideroxylon · 18th June 2012, 12:29 PM

delete

alexi_drago · 18th June 2012, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Which is why you are still quoting the daftest theories that have never been proven and equally mad ones of your own.

I think I'm about the only one that's put anything of their own forward, whether I'm mad or not I don't know, why do you think I'm mad?

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

So? The ancient Incas who built the Puma Punku site obviously were more skilled and knowledgeable than you are. After all, they knew how to build the site and you don't. They did it with only the tools available at the time, unless you want to show evidence for time travel or some kind of alternative tools or technology. And yes, you continue to claim to be ignorant of their methods. We all believe you. And you admit to being less knowledgeable and skilled than they were. We believe that, too. So nobody is disagreeing with you.

Other than admitting your lack of knowledge and skills, and declaring your incredulity, and persisting in your condescending attitude toward those who do seem to understand things you admit to not understanding, got anything else?

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

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

I think I'm about the only one that's put anything of their own forward, whether I'm mad or not I don't know, why do you think I'm mad?

Was it you who suggested water erosion to cut stone or casting molten stone?

Marduk · 18th June 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

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

you didn't notice that we were having this discussion quite happily without you for the last two pages then ?
Ego much ?

go on then, count them

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

No.

Take a look around this forum. If "argumentum ad thread lengthium" held any water, we'd have proof of bigfoot, UFOs, the bible, and cold fusion.

What proof am I trying to establish then?

Marduk · 18th June 2012, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

What proof am I trying to establish then?

incredulity isn't a proof, so you got nothing

Moss · 18th June 2012, 01:15 PM

Bit of an odd question, mostly for Marduk:
What tools were used to carve the Code of Hammurabi into that diorite stele?

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

you didn't notice that we were having this discussion quite happily without you for the last two pages then ?
Ego much ?

go on then, count them

I thought you would include seven just to be smarter

I thought there is nothing to discuss here.

xtifr · 18th June 2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

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

As far as I can tell, the only assertion you've made in this thread is that you don't understand. I don't think anyone has disputed that claim, so how can you say that we say that you're "so far off reality"? If you'd like, I'll happily agree with you: you don't understand. Feel better now?

DC · 18th June 2012, 01:21 PM

in science there is always something to discuss.

Marduk · 18th June 2012, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Moss

Bit of an odd question, mostly for Marduk:
What tools were used to carve the Code of Hammurabi into that diorite stele?

Bronze chisels and Diorite pounders, everything was bronze in Mesopotamia, they invented it
I saw on Ancient Aliens the claim that they must have used diamond tipped tools, but that would be pretty ridiculous as diamonds weren't available until 1000bce and they never had a word for it that has been discovered. Yet they still managed the same quality of carving from 3500bce onwards using sand as an abrasive

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Moss

Bit of an odd question, mostly for Marduk:
What tools were used to carve the Code of Hammurabi into that diorite stele?

The polished stone would have been given a pale size to draw the design on. Then the text would have been incised using gemstones. The wash would have been removed on completion. This principle is used by monumental masons today to incise, or letter similary hard stones, but using tungsten tipped or diamond tipped tools.

In contrast, the carving at the top is typically crude and consistant with the age of the peice.

Marduk · 18th June 2012, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I thought you would include seven just to be smarter

I thought there is nothing to discuss here.

just for you
http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=23294

alexi_drago · 18th June 2012, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Was it you who suggested water erosion to cut stone or casting molten stone?

Ah, maybe I wasn't the only one.

I said that to me it looks very much like the 6mm grooves with drilled holes are part of the dressing process and that perhaps the expansion of water as it freezes within the holes would split the stone leaving a rough but square face with fairly minimal (compared to the face from the quarry) dressing remaining to be done.

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Bronze chisels and Diorite pounders,

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

Marduk · 18th June 2012, 01:40 PM

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.

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 ?

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

Ah, maybe I wasn't the only one.

I said that to me it looks very much like the 6mm grooves with drilled holes are part of the dressing process and that perhaps the expansion of water as it freezes within the holes would split the stone leaving a rough but square face with fairly minimal (compared to the face from the quarry) dressing remaining to be done.

I have cut a draught groove before drilling and splitting. Usually to act as a guide for the drilling though and to aid splitting to where I want to go.

Splitting by it's very nature is imprecise. You could spend forever drilling holes and cutting centers, but then a split plucks out into a afce you want. So, you have to dress both faces anyway. One to remove a depression, the other to remove a proud peice.

Thats why, forever the consensus has been to split rough and dress smooth. You save your precision for where it counts, not for where you can't control.

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Again they used these tools with an abrasive, haven't you been paying any attention ?

You were asked how the stone was carved.

You replied with a gem of your own. Can't escape that can you. Typically, you are trying to say that I am missing something here

Marduk · 18th June 2012, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

You were asked how the stone was carved.

You replied with a gem of your own. Can't escape that can you. Typically, you are trying to say that I am missing something here

you replied with a quote from Ancient Aliens
I don't think anyones in any doubt that you are missing something, you're in a majority of one
and its the wrong one

here is an excerpt from "The introduction of the lapidary engraving wheel in Mesopotamia"
which is a pamphlet produced by the british museum when they investigated lapidary methods from Mesopotamia, they used scanning electron microscopes to investigate minute tool marks and then reproduced the ancient artifacts using the tools and methods of the time

Quote:

Engraving methods in the 2nd millennium BC

Tools and abrasives

The engraving experiments indicated that the tools used during the 2nd millennium BC were metal. Indeed, Frankfort (1939: 5) described what appeared to be the stock-in-trade of a lapidary: it contained `copper' gravers, chisels and a drill packed in a small pot together with cylinder seals and beads. The hoard was excavated at Tell Asmar to the east of Baghdad and dated to the Akkadian period, c. 2334-2193 BC. Although the composition of the excavated chisels etc. was not confirmed by analysis, both copper and its alloys provide reasonably rigid tools.

Copper-based tools are rarely useful for engraving hard stones unless they are suitably charged with abrasive. Emery has the advantage of being considerably harder (H=9) than quartz (H=7) and our experiments showed that relatively continuous and parallel grooving, similar to that on the skirt of the goddess in FIGURE 2b, is produced by emery abrasive mixes but that grooving of this type is not produced by softer abrasives such as quartz (Sax et al. 1998: figure 4). The results of the present investigation suggest that emery was employed for working the intaglios of quartz seals throughout the 2nd millennium

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+in...ia.-a065537120

oh look, metal tools and an abrasive

carlitos · 18th June 2012, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

What proof am I trying to establish then?

None. Just incredulity so far.

My point was (obviously) that the length of any discussion does not mean that there is "something" to a crackpot theory. Or, in your case, a lack of one. So when you wrote, If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs?

The answer is because it's an interesting topic. So interesting, it existed here for years before you joined and even (gasp) while you weren't posting in this particular thread. I didn't know anything about ancient archeology or Puma Punku or steles until I participated in discussions here about Puma Punku, UFOs and the truthiness of the bible, among other things.

GeeMack · 18th June 2012, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

What proof am I trying to establish then?

You haven't taken any sort of position other than to admit your stone working skills are insufficient to do something ancient Incas did over 1000 years ago. And of course you admit you don't understand any of the explanations offered by contemporary experts in the field. You don't need any proof for that. We're taking your word for it.

alexi_drago · 18th June 2012, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I have cut a draught groove before drilling and splitting. Usually to act as a guide for the drilling though and to aid splitting to where I want to go.

Splitting by it's very nature is imprecise. You could spend forever drilling holes and cutting centers, but then a split plucks out into a afce you want. So, you have to dress both faces anyway. One to remove a depression, the other to remove a proud peice.

Thats why, forever the consensus has been to split rough and dress smooth. You save your precision for where it counts, not for where you can't control.

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

Edited by LashL:

Removed hotlink and replaced with regular link. Please see Rule 5.

steve mccarron · 18th June 2012, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Bronze chisels and Diorite pounders, everything was bronze in Mesopotamia, they invented it
I saw on Ancient Aliens the claim that they must have used diamond tipped tools, but that would be pretty ridiculous as diamonds weren't available until 1000bce and they never had a word for it that has been discovered. Yet they still managed the same quality of carving from 3500bce onwards using sand as an abrasive

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.

Moss · 18th June 2012, 02:27 PM

From what I just read they used emery. Which seems reasonable.

Marduk · 18th June 2012, 02:27 PM

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.

Emery sand is not a rubbish abrasive, its harder than quartz sand

Quote:

Crushed or naturally eroded emery (known as black sand) is used as an abrasive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emery_(mineral)
what happened to your laughing at this method ?
changed your mind in face of the evidence did you ?
careful Steve you're in danger of learning something

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I cannott believe you are given the credibilty you have.

ayuh,

16th June 2012, 03:01 PM	#483
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,821	I started reading a lot of the links provided here, thanks again, and wound up at Unexplained Mysteries forum. This thread about ancient techniques has its ups and downs, just as the one here does. But I found some good references by skimming their comments. I wonder if Marduk might know who 'questionmark' is. Video pedia World - Secrets of Lost Empires The Inca Empire (Part 3 of 6) Video pedia World - Secrets of Lost Empires The Inca Empire (Part 4 of 6) Lost civilizations of the Andes (2) Hopefully, no Ancient Aliens references in any of this. I don't vouch for the authenticity of anything, but I thought that this might resurrect the JREF discussion. I'm about 3/4 of the way through the thread on UM.com, and didn't want to lose track of what I found to be of interest.
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,821	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare

17th June 2012, 06:31 AM	#485
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 676	Originally Posted by Marduk Hey Alexei well, you were half right, so the fastest way to remove a plane of rock would be this method and the incised line would make the crack run true no diamond tipped saw required Why half right?
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 676	__________________ Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride. Remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Delta.

17th June 2012, 12:36 PM	#487
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by alexi_drago Why half right? Because if they'd used wooden pegs there would be no way to control the pressure as they expanded and so no way to control the split Originally Posted by DC how did they drill the holes back then? with drills, of which there are several examples in the Tiwanaku museum, none of them have diamond tips and in fact have no capability to attach anything to the tip at all so they used a stone drill and quartz sand or some other abrasive as a cutting agent or they manufactured the drill itself from a rock harder than the intended target This doesn't discuss specifically Inca drills, but tools based on the same principle http://twipa.blogspot.co.uk/2011_03_01_archive.html Quote: DRILL: Talk to any flintknapper or experimental archaeologist and they will tell you to successfully fashion a fragile six inch long stone drill takes much time, know-how and above all, a good deal of luck. ah see we were wasting our time with a mason
	Last edited by Marduk; 17th June 2012 at 12:47 PM.

17th June 2012, 01:58 PM	#488
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 676	Originally Posted by Marduk Because if they'd used wooden pegs there would be no way to control the pressure as they expanded and so no way to control the split I didn't think wooden pegs, I was thinking more like either only water filled or something else soaked that could go through the entire hole. Plugs and feathers only provide the splitting force along the surface of the stone where they're hammered in and usually cause some damage around the hole edges, that's not a problem in that video since he's only after rough blocks but the Puma Punku are working off a dressed face and if they damage that then they have to redress the face, maybe use the stone for something else or abandon it, the groove isn't able to protect from that either. If freezing expansion was used the force would be from inside the hole and I think that would be less likely to cause any damage and I also very much doubt they used 6mm plugs and feathers. You have a point about not having control over the expansion, the inside of the stone would take longer to freeze than the outside, I don't know if that would be an issue but if it was then perhaps pouring warm water into the holes of an already frozen stone would solve that. I think to find out if it is at all possible it really would need some experimentation.
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 676	__________________ Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride. Remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Delta.

17th June 2012, 02:04 PM	#489
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,674	Originally Posted by Marduk with drills, of which there are several examples in the Tiwanaku museum, none of them have diamond tips and in fact have no capability to attach anything to the tip at all so they used a stone drill and quartz sand or some other abrasive as a cutting agent or they manufactured the drill itself from a rock harder than the intended target This doesn't discuss specifically Inca drills, but tools based on the same principle thanks
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

15th June 2012, 07:01 AM	#481
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	I'm just laughing at the term "crass ignorance", some of my favourite schadenfreude moments are associated with that phrase it also reminds me of the fun times we all had when KotA still had enough self respect to post here word!!!

15th June 2012, 07:52 AM	#482
Hans Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: NW United States Posts: 2,786	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon No Hagia Sophia? The person who made the list probably didn't realize that the HS is actually in Europe - which the list is of - I've seen that error before in people thinking Istanbul is in Asia (part of the city is but not the part with HS) Wiki is editable, make the change

18th June 2012, 11:26 AM	#490
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Glad to see that this thread is still loping along. If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs? Even WITHOUT my input, it has ran and ran without any sight of running out of steam. The reason is that NOBODY can claim to understand with any conviction the methods of manufacture here. Which is why you are still quoting the daftest theories that have never been proven and equally mad ones of your own. 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. I understand the notion of life time service for a mason, but the masoning of some of this masonry is stretching this concept to the rediculous. Aspiration has always been governed by ability. We are talking about anonamolous masonry here and no practical experienced mason has expressed an alternative opinion on this forum as to how the work got done so far, me included. So, It's up to you, you can deride my experience all you want but you cannot deny that I have made some reasonable points and have struck a few decent chords. Once again, "sigh", I am not saying, I don't know because I am stupid, I am saying it on the back of very skilled background. I have tried to engage with every cited method which you all know. My backgorund tells me the theories are wrong, I have said why previously, over and over again. Now then, Marduk, bring on the smilies, the ones with the cheesy grins, how about six this time cos I know your gonna be so excited.
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

18th June 2012, 11:38 AM	#491
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,545	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Glad to see that this thread is still loping along. If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs? Even WITHOUT my input, it has ran and ran without any sight of running out of steam. The reason is that ~~NOBODY can claim to understand with any conviction the methods of manufacture here~~. No. Take a look around this forum. If "argumentum ad thread lengthium" held any water, we'd have proof of bigfoot, UFOs, the bible, and cold fusion.

18th June 2012, 12:17 PM	#492
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,476	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Glad to see that this thread is still loping along. If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs? Even WITHOUT my input, it has ran and ran without any sight of running out of steam. The reason is that NOBODY can claim to understand with any conviction the methods of manufacture here. Which is why you are still quoting the daftest theories that have never been proven and equally mad ones of your own. 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. I understand the notion of life time service for a mason, but the masoning of some of this masonry is stretching this concept to the rediculous. Aspiration has always been governed by ability. We are talking about anonamolous masonry here and no practical experienced mason has expressed an alternative opinion on this forum as to how the work got done so far, me included. So, It's up to you, you can deride my experience all you want but you cannot deny that I have made some reasonable points and have struck a few decent chords. Once again, "sigh", I am not saying, I don't know because I am stupid, I am saying it on the back of very skilled background. I have tried to engage with every cited method which you all know. My backgorund tells me the theories are wrong, I have said why previously, over and over again. Now then, Marduk, bring on the smilies, the ones with the cheesy grins, how about six this time cos I know your gonna be so excited. You don't know what a quantum leap is. And you seem to have ignored most of the posts here. If the accepted theory is wrong then what is your theory? Aliens?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 18th June 2012 at 12:19 PM.

18th June 2012, 12:25 PM	#493
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,674	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Glad to see that this thread is still loping along. If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs? Even WITHOUT my input, it has ran and ran without any sight of running out of steam. The reason is that NOBODY can claim to understand with any conviction the methods of manufacture here. Which is why you are still quoting the daftest theories that have never been proven and equally mad ones of your own. 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. I understand the notion of life time service for a mason, but the masoning of some of this masonry is stretching this concept to the rediculous. Aspiration has always been governed by ability. We are talking about anonamolous masonry here and no practical experienced mason has expressed an alternative opinion on this forum as to how the work got done so far, me included. So, It's up to you, you can deride my experience all you want but you cannot deny that I have made some reasonable points and have struck a few decent chords. Once again, "sigh", I am not saying, I don't know because I am stupid, I am saying it on the back of very skilled background. I have tried to engage with every cited method which you all know. My backgorund tells me the theories are wrong, I have said why previously, over and over again. Now then, Marduk, bring on the smilies, the ones with the cheesy grins, how about six this time cos I know your gonna be so excited. why don't you look for archeologists that would work with you to publish a proper scientific study in to this? sofar other peoples experiments have been more convincing than your doubts. and so far the most propable explenation seems to be the academic one.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

18th June 2012, 12:25 PM	#494
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,186	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Once again, "sigh", I am not saying, I don't know because I am stupid, I am saying it on the back of very skilled background. I have tried to engage with every cited method which you all know. My backgorund tells me the theories are wrong, I have said why previously, over and over again. So? The ancient Incas who built the Puma Punku site obviously were more skilled and knowledgeable than you are. After all, they knew how to build the site and you don't. They did it with only the tools available at the time, unless you want to show evidence for time travel or some kind of alternative tools or technology. And yes, you continue to claim to be ignorant of their methods. We all believe you. And you admit to being less knowledgeable and skilled than they were. We believe that, too. So nobody is disagreeing with you. Other than admitting your lack of knowledge and skills, and declaring your incredulity, and persisting in your condescending attitude toward those who do seem to understand things you admit to not understanding, got anything else?

18th June 2012, 12:29 PM	#495
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,628	delete
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman Last edited by Sideroxylon; 18th June 2012 at 12:31 PM.

18th June 2012, 01:08 PM	#496
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 676	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Which is why you are still quoting the daftest theories that have never been proven and equally mad ones of your own. I think I'm about the only one that's put anything of their own forward, whether I'm mad or not I don't know, why do you think I'm mad?
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 676	__________________ Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride. Remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Delta.

18th June 2012, 01:10 PM	#497
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Originally Posted by GeeMack So? The ancient Incas who built the Puma Punku site obviously were more skilled and knowledgeable than you are. After all, they knew how to build the site and you don't. They did it with only the tools available at the time, unless you want to show evidence for time travel or some kind of alternative tools or technology. And yes, you continue to claim to be ignorant of their methods. We all believe you. And you admit to being less knowledgeable and skilled than they were. We believe that, too. So nobody is disagreeing with you. Other than admitting your lack of knowledge and skills, and declaring your incredulity, and persisting in your condescending attitude toward those who do seem to understand things you admit to not understanding, got anything else? Sure, how come were still having this discussion if I am so far off reality?
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

18th June 2012, 01:11 PM	#498
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Originally Posted by alexi_drago I think I'm about the only one that's put anything of their own forward, whether I'm mad or not I don't know, why do you think I'm mad? Was it you who suggested water erosion to cut stone or casting molten stone?
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

18th June 2012, 01:13 PM	#499
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Sure, how come were still having this discussion if I am so far off reality? you didn't notice that we were having this discussion quite happily without you for the last two pages then ? Ego much ? go on then, count them

18th June 2012, 01:14 PM	#500
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Originally Posted by carlitos No. Take a look around this forum. If "argumentum ad thread lengthium" held any water, we'd have proof of bigfoot, UFOs, the bible, and cold fusion. What proof am I trying to establish then?
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

18th June 2012, 01:15 PM	#501
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by steve mccarron What proof am I trying to establish then? incredulity isn't a proof, so you got nothing

18th June 2012, 01:15 PM	#502
Moss Dramatocrat Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Heiligsblechle country Posts: 3,229	Bit of an odd question, mostly for Marduk: What tools were used to carve the Code of Hammurabi into that diorite stele?

18th June 2012, 01:18 PM	#503
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Originally Posted by Marduk you didn't notice that we were having this discussion quite happily without you for the last two pages then ? Ego much ? go on then, count them I thought you would include seven just to be smarter I thought there is nothing to discuss here.
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

18th June 2012, 01:21 PM	#504
xtifr Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Sol III Posts: 563	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Sure, how come were still having this discussion if I am so far off reality? As far as I can tell, the only assertion you've made in this thread is that you don't understand. I don't think anyone has disputed that claim, so how can you say that we say that you're "so far off reality"? If you'd like, I'll happily agree with you: you don't understand. Feel better now?
	__________________ "Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it." -- Anonymous Slashdot poster "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore." -- James Nicoll

18th June 2012, 01:21 PM	#505
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,674	in science there is always something to discuss.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

18th June 2012, 01:26 PM	#506
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by Moss Bit of an odd question, mostly for Marduk: What tools were used to carve the Code of Hammurabi into that diorite stele? Bronze chisels and Diorite pounders, everything was bronze in Mesopotamia, they invented it I saw on Ancient Aliens the claim that they must have used diamond tipped tools, but that would be pretty ridiculous as diamonds weren't available until 1000bce and they never had a word for it that has been discovered. Yet they still managed the same quality of carving from 3500bce onwards using sand as an abrasive
	Last edited by Marduk; 18th June 2012 at 01:41 PM.

18th June 2012, 01:27 PM	#507
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Originally Posted by Moss Bit of an odd question, mostly for Marduk: What tools were used to carve the Code of Hammurabi into that diorite stele? The polished stone would have been given a pale size to draw the design on. Then the text would have been incised using gemstones. The wash would have been removed on completion. This principle is used by monumental masons today to incise, or letter similary hard stones, but using tungsten tipped or diamond tipped tools. In contrast, the carving at the top is typically crude and consistant with the age of the peice.
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

18th June 2012, 01:28 PM	#508
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by steve mccarron I thought you would include seven just to be smarter I thought there is nothing to discuss here. just for you http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=23294

18th June 2012, 01:29 PM	#509
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 676	Originally Posted by steve mccarron Was it you who suggested water erosion to cut stone or casting molten stone? Ah, maybe I wasn't the only one. I said that to me it looks very much like the 6mm grooves with drilled holes are part of the dressing process and that perhaps the expansion of water as it freezes within the holes would split the stone leaving a rough but square face with fairly minimal (compared to the face from the quarry) dressing remaining to be done.
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 676	__________________ Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride. Remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Delta.

18th June 2012, 01:33 PM	#510
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Originally Posted by Marduk Bronze chisels and Diorite pounders, 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
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

18th June 2012, 01:40 PM	#511
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	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. 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 ?
	Last edited by Marduk; 18th June 2012 at 01:43 PM.

18th June 2012, 01:41 PM	#512
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Originally Posted by alexi_drago Ah, maybe I wasn't the only one. I said that to me it looks very much like the 6mm grooves with drilled holes are part of the dressing process and that perhaps the expansion of water as it freezes within the holes would split the stone leaving a rough but square face with fairly minimal (compared to the face from the quarry) dressing remaining to be done. I have cut a draught groove before drilling and splitting. Usually to act as a guide for the drilling though and to aid splitting to where I want to go. Splitting by it's very nature is imprecise. You could spend forever drilling holes and cutting centers, but then a split plucks out into a afce you want. So, you have to dress both faces anyway. One to remove a depression, the other to remove a proud peice. Thats why, forever the consensus has been to split rough and dress smooth. You save your precision for where it counts, not for where you can't control.
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

18th June 2012, 01:44 PM	#513
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Originally Posted by Marduk Again they used these tools with an abrasive, haven't you been paying any attention ? You were asked how the stone was carved. You replied with a gem of your own. Can't escape that can you. Typically, you are trying to say that I am missing something here
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140

18th June 2012, 01:45 PM	#514
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by steve mccarron You were asked how the stone was carved. You replied with a gem of your own. Can't escape that can you. Typically, you are trying to say that I am missing something here you replied with a quote from Ancient Aliens I don't think anyones in any doubt that you are missing something, you're in a majority of one and its the wrong one here is an excerpt from "The introduction of the lapidary engraving wheel in Mesopotamia" which is a pamphlet produced by the british museum when they investigated lapidary methods from Mesopotamia, they used scanning electron microscopes to investigate minute tool marks and then reproduced the ancient artifacts using the tools and methods of the time Quote: Engraving methods in the 2nd millennium BC Tools and abrasives The engraving experiments indicated that the tools used during the 2nd millennium BC were metal. Indeed, Frankfort (1939: 5) described what appeared to be the stock-in-trade of a lapidary: it contained `copper' gravers, chisels and a drill packed in a small pot together with cylinder seals and beads. The hoard was excavated at Tell Asmar to the east of Baghdad and dated to the Akkadian period, c. 2334-2193 BC. Although the composition of the excavated chisels etc. was not confirmed by analysis, both copper and its alloys provide reasonably rigid tools. Copper-based tools are rarely useful for engraving hard stones unless they are suitably charged with abrasive. Emery has the advantage of being considerably harder (H=9) than quartz (H=7) and our experiments showed that relatively continuous and parallel grooving, similar to that on the skirt of the goddess in FIGURE 2b, is produced by emery abrasive mixes but that grooving of this type is not produced by softer abrasives such as quartz (Sax et al. 1998: figure 4). The results of the present investigation suggest that emery was employed for working the intaglios of quartz seals throughout the 2nd millennium http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+in...ia.-a065537120 oh look, metal tools and an abrasive
	Last edited by Marduk; 18th June 2012 at 02:07 PM.

18th June 2012, 01:52 PM	#515
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,545	Originally Posted by steve mccarron What proof am I trying to establish then? None. Just incredulity so far. My point was (obviously) that the length of any discussion does not mean that there is "something" to a crackpot theory. Or, in your case, a lack of one. So when you wrote, If the accepted archaeological theories carry such weight on the manufacture of the masonry at pp how come the topic has such legs? The answer is because it's an interesting topic. So interesting, it existed here for years before you joined and even (gasp) while you weren't posting in this particular thread. I didn't know anything about ancient archeology or Puma Punku or steles until I participated in discussions here about Puma Punku, UFOs and the truthiness of the bible, among other things.

18th June 2012, 02:03 PM	#516
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,186	Originally Posted by steve mccarron What proof am I trying to establish then? You haven't taken any sort of position other than to admit your stone working skills are insufficient to do something ancient Incas did over 1000 years ago. And of course you admit you don't understand any of the explanations offered by contemporary experts in the field. You don't need any proof for that. We're taking your word for it.

18th June 2012, 02:22 PM	#518
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140	Originally Posted by Marduk Bronze chisels and Diorite pounders, everything was bronze in Mesopotamia, they invented it I saw on Ancient Aliens the claim that they must have used diamond tipped tools, but that would be pretty ridiculous as diamonds weren't available until 1000bce and they never had a word for it that has been discovered. Yet they still managed the same quality of carving from 3500bce onwards using sand as an abrasive 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.
steve mccarron Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 140