Puma Punku

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I disagree that copper tools produced the finished hard stones of either Egypt or Puma Punka.

It's not my area of expertise, but here are a few from another discussion here. I'm not going to edit them much as they address another poster's argument from incredulity, which seems apt here.

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

.... the tiwanuku smelters used arsenical bronze.

In fact, you're indirectly pointing out a fault in your reasoning. If there was an advanced civilization teaching them how to do their construction they would have used the best material for the job. Tin bronze is much less toxic, much more malleable, has a better grain structure, a lower melting point, and less porosity than arsenic bronze. If they were tutored by experts, they could have used the right materials, which they did have. Casseritite and Malachite were available to them and even with their primitive co-smelting techniques they could have made modern alloys, which would have been ideal for the clamps they inset into the stone. In fact if they had advanced tutors, they could have made better furnaces, smelted the casseritite and malachite separately, and been able to combine pure tin and copper to make alloys specifically tailored to each specific use.

In fact, they used the materials they had, and they used them for every application, even though that meant that for some applications they were profoundly unsuitable. The alloy of the clamps and the alloy of the chisels is the same, within certain broad limits caused by the crude co-smelting of impure arsenic and copper ores. The alloy works for the chisels because arsenic promotes work hardening, and the grain structure and porosity can be reduced by forging. A forged chisel would be hard and strong.

The same alloy used to make the cast clamps resulted in clamps that were weak, porous, and coarse grained. Very few of them were found intact. Some of the sources I found believed them to have been ineffective enough that they must have been traditional and/or decorative only. This is not good engineering, and certainly not a sign of advanced knowledge. It's what would be expected from primitive smelting and casting techniques in an early stage of evolution.

As for the stone carving, we're left with your argument from ignorance. You don't know how to do it and can't do it even with modern tools, so you believe that no one knows how to do it, even in the face of plenty of people, including myself, stating that we do know how. Dunning Kruger much?

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

This is a synonym for looking for quotes to cherry pick, with little or no interest in actually learning about the subject. It took me a few minutes to read this chapter, and there is lots of interesting stuff in it, especially if you've read lots of other books on metallurgy and ancient history to understand the context. This isn't a paper aimed at the willfully ignorant.

By the way, your interpretation of the inset quote on page 24 is completely reversed, and I don't think you have a clue about the difference between oxidative and reductive smelting, the specific development that they're talking about there, and you completely missed the end of page 23 which talked about how the process evolved with the inca, who then imposed it on the rest of the region who had clung to their outdated technology, mimicking a leap, where in asia the evolution of the process was more straightforward. This happened AFTER the construction of tiwanuku and the puma punku, by the way. That tribe was still using arsenic based bronze until quite late. The rest of the paper goes on to talk about how cultural context and history have to be taken into consideration when looking at the evolution of technology.

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Here is an excerpt from ‘Lost City of the Incas, The Story of Machu Picchu and its Builders’ by Hiram Bingham, on Inca metallurgy.

There is no mention of saws, but it is an excellent overview with some good details about how the people of c. 1400 Peru manufactured and employed metal tools. Machu Picchu was built about 900 years after Puma Puncu, but many of the technologies used overlap.

Here is a passage of interest to the current discussion:

Some [bronze] axe blades bear evidence that they were used upon stone. Their structure shows severe damage of a character which could only result from very hard usage. They were probably used in cutting square holes in ashlars and in making sharp inside corners. It is difficult to conceive of any stone tools that could have been used successfully for this purpose. Some writers have assumed that the Incas use bronze implements to a large extent in finishing their best stone work. It seems to me, however, that even their best bronze was too soft to last long in such activities. It is not likely that it was often so employed. Experiments made in our National Museum have demonstrated that patience, perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand will enable stone tools of various shapes to work miracles in dressing and polishing both granite and andesite.

So here we have Bingham, the expert archeologist on this region and its people, discussing how bronze axes were used to cut square holes in stone blocks and "making sharp inside corners"; and that "Experiments made in our National Museum have demonstrated that patience, perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand will enable stone tools of various shapes to work miracles in dressing and polishing both granite and andesite."

Please place this in your proverbial pipe, and smoke of it.

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

KotA, the default position, held by mainstream archeologists and historians and based on good, empirical data collected over decades, is that bronze and other metal tools, and stone tools in conjunction with "perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand" are sufficient to the task of carving granite and andesite stone into the shapes as we have them at Puma Puncu and other ancient American and Incan sites.

Your claim, that such tools would not be sufficient to the task, is the opposing claim. Therefore it falls on you to demonstrate it.

Originally Posted by EHocking

It was sandstone - just as at Puma Punku.

Further.
Cutting granite with copper/bronze tools.

It is quite obvious that this stone can be cut with ancient technology.

Originally Posted by EHocking

very little <> none.
It is obvious that granite can be dressed with ancient tools, abeit less efficiently than with modern toolsThe descending squares were NOT in granite, but in sandstone.

The previous video link demonstrates that cold-hammered hardened copper chisels are able to dress sandstone very accurately.
ETA: Egyptians also used bronze, which is harder than copper.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/trades/tools.htm

ETA ETA: And iron. Just as the S.Ams had at Puma Punku. Copper, bronze and iron tools.

You have persistently (deliberately?) confused dressing andesite statues with dressing sandstone construction blocks in your posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Archaeologists say it's a copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy.

And lastly, a reading suggestion for steve mccarron

Originally Posted by Pacal

... I suggest you read a few basic texts about Tiwanaku. I suggest you start with Ancient Tiwanaku, by John Wayne Janusek, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

What expert knowledge exactly?

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, that his abilities are what he says they are.

In fields where I know a bit (not stonemasonry), it's pretty easy to tell who's doing argument ad googleum compared to who's speaking from a broad background of knowledge while citing sources, but a person needs to enter the fray and be given enough rope to hang themselves first. I'm still stuck where adman is:

Originally Posted by adman

I still can't figure out what the hell he is trying to say, beyond the fact that he doesn't know how it was made.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Let's see, whats my point... this site disseminates incorrect and misleading statements regarding the physical processes of masonry manufacture. Something that the contributors are not qualified to do in any way. After this experience of discussion, there is little evidence so far to change my point of view.

'this site' is rather vague, care to explain which site?

[phunk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

1/ I disagree with most if not all of the proposed methods of stone production available publicly and disagree that iron chisels produced the resultant masonry. I disagree that copper tools produced the finished hard stones of either Egypt or Puma Punka.

What you're missing is any specific examples of claims made by experts. Show us one expert, their claim, and explain why you disagree. It's that simple.

If you just say "I disagree with all of the experts" you're making too wide a claim to have any meaningful discussion about it.

[carlitos]

Here is where an archeologist re-created one of the stones at Puma Punku using period tools, including transporting a nine-ton stone across Lake Titicaca on a boat made of reeds.

http://www.archaeology.org/interacti...xperiment.html

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Here is where an archeologist re-created one of the stones at Puma Punku using period tools, including transporting a nine-ton stone across Lake Titicaca on a boat made of reeds.

http://www.archaeology.org/interacti...xperiment.html

Oh puleeaassee! It has already been established that those ivory tower academics don't have enough practical hands-on experience to be given any credence.

Didn't you read the OP?

[Xulld]

. . and then to take it a step further and demonstrate!

Id love to see some youtube videos of the OP at work with ancient tools, and these methods outlined.

Repeatability is one facet of science that I enjoy. Many of my hobbies are born on skepticism and application of claimed techniques.

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

It's the timing that I find so disappointing. That someone of Steve's masonry magnificence should arrive on the eve of the launch of our cunning plan to convince the world that the Taj Mahal is made out of plastic is most unfortunate.

I thought it was made out of mashed potatoes, which would explain why it's so unstable and in danger of collapse.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Lucian

I thought it was made out of mashed potatoes, which would explain why it's so unstable and in danger of collapse.

You're not getting mixed up with Puma Pumpkin, are you?

[Audible Click]

I heard it was made of Marzipan but it melted so they used plastic.

[jiggeryqua]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Here is where an archeologist re-created one of the stones at Puma Punku using period tools, including transporting a nine-ton stone across Lake Titicaca on a boat made of reeds.

http://www.archaeology.org/interacti...xperiment.html

Actually, your link goes to a page detailing the reconstruction of a reed boat used for transporting stones. It does say they plan to have a local craftsman carve the stone, but there is no evidence that occured and no suggestion that 'period tools' were used. There are links to diary entries, with dates that suggest they cover the period after the stone was due to arrive and be carved, but they don't work for me - do they work for you? There is nothing at your link pertaining to the OP.

[quarky]

Well, this has been embarrassing. I was pretty excited to have a fellow craftsman on-board, but the bragging and touchiness and lack of hypothesis has been off-putting.

Now I wonder.

Anyway, there's a difference between stonemasonry and sculpture.
I know lots about the former.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Actually, your link goes to a page detailing the reconstruction of a reed boat used for transporting stones. It does say they plan to have a local craftsman carve the stone, but there is no evidence that occured and no suggestion that 'period tools' were used. There are links to diary entries, with dates that suggest they cover the period after the stone was due to arrive and be carved, but they don't work for me - do they work for you? There is nothing at your link pertaining to the OP.

Crap, you're right. (and I might have completely imagined the 'period tools' thing)

The original reedboat.org / reedboat.freeshell.org/site is dead too. I know that I read those "captain's log" entries as part of the various discussions that I linked above, but can't prove it. The wayback machine only has a tale of their departure at this point.

[Xulld]

well I know next to nothing about stone cutting, I am curious what is wrong with this explanation?

Quote:

As a young man, Denys Stocks was obsessed with the Egyptians. For the past 20 years, this ancient-tools specialist has been recreating tools the Egyptians might have used. He believes Egyptians were able to cut and carve granite by adding a dash of one of Egypt's most common materials: sand.

"We're going to put sand inside the groove and we're going to put the saw on top of the sand," Stocks says. "Then we're going to let the sand do the cutting."

It does. The weight of the copper saw rubs the sand crystals, which are as hard as granite, against the stone. A groove soon appears in the granite. It's clear that this technique works well and could have been used by the ancient Egyptians.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostemp...cutting05.html

[steve mccarron]

Sorry I have let you down. Bit of a barrage really, what's your experience as a stone cutter then. Tell me...

[carlitos]

Who and what are you responding to here?

[quarky]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Sorry I have let you down. Bit of a barrage really, what's your experience as a stone cutter then. Tell me...

Nothing like yours. I'm more of a builder of stone structures, though I've cut some stone. Not art; just making ashlar.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Sorry I have let you down. Bit of a barrage really, what's your experience as a stone cutter then. Tell me...

He is probably talking to Quarky, but it doesn't really matter.

Quote:

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-Albert Einstein

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Sorry I have let you down. Bit of a barrage really, what's your experience as a stone cutter then. Tell me...

Still not making any kind of point, I see.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Sorry I have let you down. Bit of a barrage really, what's your experience as a stone cutter then. Tell me...

The real reason everyone here on this site is so quick to point out a failure to make a well reasoned argument is becuase we see it every day. Every kind of magical thinking, failed logical analysis, hand waving extravaganza, and complete fabrication has been presented at one point or another here at this site.

Either setup a well reasoned argument that includes what method is in question, why that method is either capable of explaining what we find or not capable of explaining what we find, or stop posting.

Really nothing else is going to receive any kind of response past what you have seen now.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by AdMan

Still not making any kind of point, I see.

It seems the OP is utilizing the 9/11 Truther strategy of admitting a lack of qualification, expressing incredulity, and just-asking-questions. The biggest difference I notice is the 9/11 Truthers at least seem willing to make a point.

[jiggeryqua]

His 'point' (how rigid some of your minds are) is that, as a prodigy in stonework, as an experienced stonemason, he can't comprehend how it was done.

He weathered the 'it wasnt aliens' storm, and all those posters who had to say something even though they had nothing to say. There's alwasy something to criticise in a post, even if you know nothing of the subject. It does appear there are no stoneworkers here.

But there are mighty intellects here, with expertise in all manner of disciplines that might pertain to the primitive working of relatively hard stone. After a while, some of the indubitably fine minds here did toss in an important piece of the puzzle: time. There are surely more.

What 'point' do you want? It's a puzzle, have a crack at solving it. We know there's an answer, as has been repeatedly pointed out and never denied.

I don't have any brainwaves - along with 'time' I'd venture to suggest 'water', which I seem to recall from school will wear anything away eventually. As to how you'd ensure precision, who knows, it's somebody else's turn.

[steve mccarron]

It's funny seeing you lot scurry to find substantive ammo for your ephemeral claims which are still unsubstantiated and weak.

Get yourselves a peice of granite, say balmoral red if you live in the uk, similar to the rose granite of Egypt. Get a peice the size of a table top, say 6ft long.

Next, get yourself a peice of copper plate, 9ft long to allow for reciprection.

Next, carve a channel in the granite to take the copper, make the bottom of this channel nice and regular so it dosent act like sharks teeth and turn the bottom of the copper into a gnarly mess.

Use manpower, slower but weaker load to wreck the blade.
Use a machine, faster and more regular, but quicker wear with a tendancy to warp the blade.

Sand in granular form quicly to turns to a meaningless, non abrasive flour, so introduce water to clear the cut and add yet more sand.

By now, your blade will be noticeably bowed, riding irregulary over your block. Also, copper is a nasty, sticky metal, it deteriorates quickly making a muddy mess. Clean out, and start again.

When you have cut through a 200mm slab of granite like this, you will find the following.

The cuts will show a consistent belly up striation, changing to flatter curves as new copper blades are used, and then back to curved.

The top of the cut will be wider than the botttom and taper.

Think of logs sawn by a modern band saw in a mill.
Think of logs sawn by a bow saw by hand.

Ancient stone production resembles the former, and it should not.

[steve mccarron]

Hi quarky, how do you produce your ashlar, what stone is it, does it come s6s, or do you work from slab?

[steve mccarron]

My point is that when people question the construction methods of ancient archtecture, they are told methods that are not plausible. Such as the ones quoted to me here. My point is that we should question the validity of these claims. OK

[carlitos]

The "quote" and "reply" buttons are there for your convenience. Please give them a try.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by carlitos

The "quote" and "reply" buttons are there for your convenience. Please give them a try.

Thanks

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

His 'point' (how rigid some of your minds are) is that, as a prodigy in stonework, as an experienced stonemason, he can't comprehend how it was done.

He weathered the 'it wasnt aliens' storm, and all those posters who had to say something even though they had nothing to say. There's alwasy something to criticise in a post, even if you know nothing of the subject. It does appear there are no stoneworkers here.

But there are mighty intellects here, with expertise in all manner of disciplines that might pertain to the primitive working of relatively hard stone. After a while, some of the indubitably fine minds here did toss in an important piece of the puzzle: time. There are surely more.

What 'point' do you want? It's a puzzle, have a crack at solving it. We know there's an answer, as has been repeatedly pointed out and never denied.

I don't have any brainwaves - along with 'time' I'd venture to suggest 'water', which I seem to recall from school will wear anything away eventually. As to how you'd ensure precision, who knows, it's somebody else's turn.

Sorry, not water, or lava into moulds, or sound frequency.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

My point is that when people question the construction methods of ancient archtecture, they are told methods that are not plausible. Such as the ones quoted to me here. My point is that we should question the validity of these claims. OK

Couldn't agree more, but do you see how without specifics there is really not much to comment on?

Thank you for the previous post at least with the details offered this topic can move past vague claims, and vague criticisms.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

It's funny seeing you lot scurry to find substantive ammo for your ephemeral claims which are still unsubstantiated and weak.

Which claims would they be, specifically?

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

<snipped because when someone asks you the time, telling them how to build a watch is not even close to being the right answer>


Think of logs sawn by a modern band saw in a mill.
Think of logs sawn by a bow saw by hand.

Ancient stone production resembles the former, and it should not.

Well your proposed ancient method must be wrong then, mustn't it?

[Perpetual Student]

So. what are the options?

•The stonework is not nearly as excellent as reported.

•The monuments are modern frauds.

•There were methods available to the Pumapunkuites not known to us.

•The methods suggested by archaeologists are quite viable. (mccarron is wrong)

•Aliens.

•Time travel.

•People from Atlantis.

•Magic.

Anything else? Take your pick.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Hi quarky, how do you produce your ashlar, what stone is it, does it come s6s, or do you work from slab?

Generally, the stone I've had to cut has been of the same type that the stone building is made from; usually sedimentary; limestone or sandstone.

On most jobs, the ashlar is only required at the corners, or over an opening.
The rest of the rock is rough dressed. Usually, it doesn't matter how the backside looks in a wall of 2' thickness or more...which after all, is most stonemasonry.

I've never done facades. Or worked with fake rock; or 'glued' thin stone, against their bedding plane, against concrete or concrete block.

I hope you aren't testing my credentials. If so, I'll pm. I enjoy anonymity on-line.

Like I said, I share your embafflement as per the time and the tools.
I also mentioned that I'm not technically a sculptor, as you apparently are.

Let's not alienate me.
I'm the other guy here who has cut some stone, and built some stuff.
Written books, even.

Busting my ass would be foolish, at this juncture.

[steve mccarron]

"In fact, you're indirectly pointing out a fault in your reasoning. If there was an advanced civilization teaching them how to do their construction they would have used the best material for the job. Tin bronze is much less toxic, much more malleable, has a better grain structure, a lower melting point, and less porosity than arsenic bronze. If they were tutored by experts, they could have used the right materials, which they did have. Casseritite and Malachite were available to them and even with their primitive co-smelting techniques they could have made modern alloys, which would have been ideal for the clamps they inset into the stone. In fact if they had advanced tutors, they could have made better furnaces, smelted the casseritite and malachite separately, and been able to combine pure tin and copper to make alloys specifically tailored to each specific use. "

The only time you use the word FACT is when you choose to substantiate your intelect over mine. But, when it comes to describing the methods you support, you use "If" and "Maybe" like somebody would put salt and pepper on their dinner!

Your keen metalurgists "should" have known, "if" the cramps they used, "maybe" bacame subject to wind chill and "If" the stones moved, then "maybe" the cramps would fracture, or at least been vulnarable due to lack of ductility. "If" the masters had not "told" them of this.... Cast lead makes excellent cramps. Wrought iron makes excellent cramps too, much stronger, but. Tin the iron first, before leading into the joint, it will last forever. Shame these ancients didn't know this! Where have all the stonemasons gone?

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by quarky

Generally, the stone I've had to cut has been of the same type that the stone building is made from; usually sedimentary; limestone or sandstone.

On most jobs, the ashlar is only required at the corners, or over an opening.
The rest of the rock is rough dressed. Usually, it doesn't matter how the backside looks in a wall of 2' thickness or more...which after all, is most stonemasonry.

I've never done facades. Or worked with fake rock; or 'glued' thin stone, against their bedding plane, against concrete or concrete block.

I hope you aren't testing my credentials. If so, I'll pm. I enjoy anonymity on-line.

Like I said, I share your embafflement as per the time and the tools.
I also mentioned that I'm not technically a sculptor, as you apparently are.

Let's not alienate me.
I'm the other guy here who has cut some stone, and built some stuff.
Written books, even.

Busting my ass would be foolish, at this juncture.

Thats cool, so you put in quoins and toothing to fenestration, I see. Is some of your work extensions to existing buildings, or do you face new build haciendas in Cal, or LA, or such like. I kinda like that rubble work between formal masonry, or do you mean your facing is split, or pitched between it?

What do you use to bond, or point your masonry out of interest?, is it soft limestone, or harder, more like an indiana limestone?

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

So. what are the options?

•The stonework is not nearly as excellent as reported.

•The monuments are modern frauds.

•There were methods available to the Pumapunkuites not known to us.

•The methods suggested by archaeologists are quite viable. (mccarron is wrong)

•Aliens.

•Time travel.

•People from Atlantis.

•Magic.

Anything else? Take your pick.

Choose some stonework now which is not nearly as excellent as we are discussing.

Which monuments?

Yes?

Which methods were viable, tell me and I will explain why they are not.

you are letting this site down now

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

It's funny seeing you lot scurry to find substantive ammo for your ephemeral claims which are still unsubstantiated and weak.

Who's scurrying? Carlitos' post #81 answers your questions with posts made about a year ago in a previous thread on this subject. To summarize:

The Tiwanuku smelters used arsenical bronze, which is harder than tin bronze, has a higher melting point, and is more porous. That alloy works for the Tiwanuku workers' chisels because arsenic promotes work hardening, and the grain structure and porosity can be reduced by forging. A chisel so forged would be hard and strong enough for the work under review.

Hiram Bingham, expert archeologist on Puma Punku and the Tiwanuku, explained decades ago how bronze axes were used to cut square holes in stone blocks and "mak[e] sharp inside corners". He cited: "Experiments made in our National Museum have demonstrated that patience, perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand will enable stone tools of various shapes to work miracles in dressing and polishing both granite and andesite."

Additionally, Xulld's poist #94 providexs photographic evidence of the sand process working, documented at NOVA's website. This link shows how granite can indeed be cut using ancient technology. There are slides of the activity in progress in Egypt, using bronze and copper tools and sand (and trying water) to cut granite and drill holes.

Fascinatingly, the 4th or 5th slide in agrees with you: "The Egyptians needed better tools than soft bronze and copper chisels to carve granite." But the article then goes on to describe the sand-assisted cutting process:

"We're going to put sand inside the groove and we're going to put the saw on top of the sand," Stocks says. "Then we're going to let the sand do the cutting."

It does. The weight of the copper saw rubs the sand crystals, which are as hard as granite, against the stone. A groove soon appears in the granite. It's clear that this technique works well and could have been used by the ancient Egyptians.

Steve McCarron, if you want to dispute NOVA's findings as "unsubstantiated", or Bingham's, or dispute Andrew Wiggins' claims about arsenical bronze, please be our guest and do so.

The default position, held by mainstream archeologists and historians and based on good, empirical data collected over decades, is that bronze and other metal tools, and stone tools in conjunction with "perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand" are sufficient to the task of carving granite and andesite stone into the shapes as we have them at Puma Punku and other sites.

Your claim, that such tools would not be sufficient to the task, is the opposing claim. Therefore it falls on you to demonstrate it.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

"In fact, you're indirectly pointing out a fault in your reasoning.

<words>

Who are you talking to?

[quarky]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Thats cool, so you put in quoins and toothing to fenestration, I see. Is some of your work extensions to existing buildings, or do you face new build haciendas in Cal, or LA, or such like. I kinda like that rubble work between formal masonry, or do you mean your facing is split, or pitched between it?

What do you use to bond, or point your masonry out of interest?, is it soft limestone, or harder, more like an indiana limestone?

Well, you are feisty, but your mention of quoins has my ear.

If you had read what I wrote, you'd know that i don't do facades.
My experience has been in restoring old, pre-portland cement stone structures.
Being limited to the U.S. has meant that the oldest restoration work I've been hired to do, has been a mere 300 years old. Its mostly rubble stone work.
Kind of like what you see all over Europe. And the rest of the world. As mentioned, the ashlar (cut) stone is generally only required at various points of exception; i,e, corners and openings.

Funny you ask me about the pointing. At the risk of putting everyone else here to sleep, the pointing mortars are something of a specialty to me.

As you know, mortar must be softer than the masonry units.
You may also know, that pre-portland mortars, done right, have lasted far longer than modern mortars, even in Scotland.

In an historical restoration, I analyze the old mortar, in an attempt to use the original bar sand, which more often than not, comes from nearby, and the original masons left some in the basement, as if they knew that the pointing mortar would need to be replaced.

Hell, the same people planted white oak trees near the structure, knowing that the beams would eventually need to be replaced.

Anyway, a typical pointing mortar for old stone work would be a three to one mix of hydrated lime and course bar sand. In special circumstances, I will add a bit of white portland cement. Mostly to make the client happy.

As you know, fine sand has more vacancy than course sand, and in order to fill those vacancies without an expanding mortar, requires some fine tuning.
I know how to do that.
Its chemistry, mostly.

I also know how to calcine limestone, and at what temperature the Co2 is driven off, and what to do with Calcium Oxide.

You can still buy my book on the subject matter, on ebay; 30 years later.

But as mentioned, I'm not a stone sculptor. I have indeed cut a lot of stone.
I'm not interested in promoting my credentials here.

I assure you, I have stacked more rocks than anyone you'll ever run into.

[jhunter1163]

Folks, let's keep to the topic of the Puma Punku stones. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.

Posted By:jhunter1163

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Who's scurrying? Carlitos' post #81 answers your questions with posts made about a year ago in a previous thread on this subject. To summarize:

The Tiwanuku smelters used arsenical bronze, which is harder than tin bronze, has a higher melting point, and is more porous. That alloy works for the Tiwanuku workers' chisels because arsenic promotes work hardening, and the grain structure and porosity can be reduced by forging. A chisel so forged would be hard and strong enough for the work under review.

Hiram Bingham, expert archeologist on Puma Punku and the Tiwanuku, explained decades ago how bronze axes were used to cut square holes in stone blocks and "mak[e] sharp inside corners". He cited: "Experiments made in our National Museum have demonstrated that patience, perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand will enable stone tools of various shapes to work miracles in dressing and polishing both granite and andesite."

Additionally, Xulld's poist #94 providexs photographic evidence of the sand process working, documented at NOVA's website. This link shows how granite can indeed be cut using ancient technology. There are slides of the activity in progress in Egypt, using bronze and copper tools and sand (and trying water) to cut granite and drill holes.

Fascinatingly, the 4th or 5th slide in agrees with you: "The Egyptians needed better tools than soft bronze and copper chisels to carve granite." But the article then goes on to describe the sand-assisted cutting process:

"We're going to put sand inside the groove and we're going to put the saw on top of the sand," Stocks says. "Then we're going to let the sand do the cutting."

It does. The weight of the copper saw rubs the sand crystals, which are as hard as granite, against the stone. A groove soon appears in the granite. It's clear that this technique works well and could have been used by the ancient Egyptians.

Steve McCarron, if you want to dispute NOVA's findings as "unsubstantiated", or Bingham's, or dispute Andrew Wiggins' claims about arsenical bronze, please be our guest and do so.

The default position, held by mainstream archeologists and historians and based on good, empirical data collected over decades, is that bronze and other metal tools, and stone tools in conjunction with "perseverance, elbow grease and fine sand" are sufficient to the task of carving granite and andesite stone into the shapes as we have them at Puma Punku and other sites.

Your claim, that such tools would not be sufficient to the task, is the opposing claim. Therefore it falls on you to demonstrate it.

That alloy of bronze, or any bronze would work on this stone, which is why people the world over loved steel.

Jad picks, racers and axes and other implements leave characteristic "dings" and are associated with primitive masonry. No such marks here though. It makes me laugh, the amount of times I have heard somebody who could not turn a boulder into six sides use the phrase "A little bit of elbow grease!"

On the NOVA site regarding the cutting of granite it is such a success it can only assert that... "This may be how the ancient egyptians cut the stone" and then, floundering in the face of defeat, they add water, which makes things worse. Hardly conclusive, If I had found the answer, as you claim it is, I would be shouting from the rooftops. The fact is that nobody has conclusively demonstrated this technique and never will.

Why don't you go to advanced machining in ancient egypt website. There, if you follow the link to the pyramids of gizeh online you can learn how ancient core drills were tipped with diamonds and other similar stones.

How were they tipped, with glue, with resin, with araldite???

Or were the stones suspended in a metal matrix like modern core drills, who knows, do you?