Puma Punku

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I have dug about trying to find the best academic texts.

The assertive opinion for the lathe turning of diorite vases is that a diamond tipped cutting tool was used, see if you can do better.

If so, how?

And that is related to Pumapunku, how?

[steve mccarron]

It;s the same conundrum

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Explain how it was done

Explain why the arsenic copper/bronze tools couldn't have worked on the sandstone at Pumapunku? And why you dismiss that?

Then you can provide what evidence there is at Pumapunku for your alternate method.

And mentioning Cornwall and diorite is not relevant, unless you make a clear argument for why it is.

[jhunter1163]

Quote:

As an expert on stone production I say that a lot of the theories surrounding the manufacture of a lot of our ancient monuments are flawed and negligent.

All right, then. On what do you base this statement? On your experience in working with stone? I am not questioning your credentials at all; I am just pointing out that it has been demonstrated, with video, that it is indeed possible to produce the Puma Punku artifacts with period tools. The methods used might not be what you, working today, would choose, and they might take 30 years to produce something that you could create in 30 days, but it's just not arguable that the techniques to make these things didn't exist.

There's no need to postulate some lost technology in stoneworking to account for these artifacts. The ancients might not have had high tech, but they weren't dumb and they weren't working on a deadline. If it took 30 years to make something... well, the gods live forever, don't they?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

It;s the same conundrum

Is the sandstone at Pumapunku as hard as the diorite? I suggest you avoid making statements without the links, we may not follow your logic.

Diorite vase are smaller and finer are they not, and how does the hardness compare?

You can, may, could and likely are very correct, so far however your presentation lacks any structure for me to follow how Pumapunku is like a diorite vase.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

all right, then. On what do you base this statement? On your experience in working with stone? I am not questioning your credentials at all; i am just pointing out that it has been demonstrated, with video, that it is indeed possible to produce the puma punku artifacts with period tools. The methods used might not be what you, working today, would choose, and they might take 30 years to produce something that you could create in 30 days, but it's just not arguable that the techniques to make these things didn't exist.

There's no need to postulate some lost technology in stoneworking to account for these artifacts. The ancients might not have had high tech, but they weren't dumb and they weren't working on a deadline. If it took 30 years to make something... Well, the gods live forever, don't they?

which video??

[carlitos]

Professor Yaffle observed:

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

I really don't understand your argument here. You seem to be saying that technique X could not have been used in civilization A because it was not used in civilisation B. Therefore some other technique (which was also not used in civilisation B) must have been used in civilisation A.



Help me out here...

I agreed, and asked what I am missing:

Originally Posted by carlitos

I noticed this too.

Nothing like Puma Punka in Cornwall. Therefore, no technology to make Puma Punka in Cornwall.

Puma Punka in Tiwanaku. Therefore, technology to make Puma Punka in Tiwanaku.

Is it all just racism? Can't believe a bunch of savages figured this out?

steve mccarron answered:

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Are you being too sceptical here and missing an obvious point!

I asked for clarification:

Originally Posted by carlitos

Perhaps you could make it more clearly then? I see that, where such a thing hasn't been built, there is no evidence for technology to build a thing. Whereas, where a thing has been built, there must have been technology sufficient to build it.

I hesitate to make a bunch of analogies until I see what you're saying more clearly. What is your point that I am missing by being too skeptical here?

Could you please clarify what point you are making with the stuff about Cornwall? I realize that there is quite a bit of back and forth, but I'm trying to understand your point so would appreciate you clarifying. If it makes it easier, use the X and Y examples above.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Professor Yaffle observed:


I agreed, and asked what I am missing:





steve mccarron answered:




I asked for clarification:



Could you please clarify what point you are making with the stuff about Cornwall? I realize that there is quite a bit of back and forth, but I'm trying to understand your point so would appreciate you clarifying. If it makes it easier, use the X and Y examples above.

Would you buy SNAKE OIL ???

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Is the sandstone at Pumapunku as hard as the diorite? I suggest you avoid making statements without the links, we may not follow your logic.

Diorite vase are smaller and finer are they not, and how does the hardness compare?

You can, may, could and likely are very correct, so far however your presentation lacks any structure for me to follow how Pumapunku is like a diorite vase.

Is sandstone SOFT on the MOHN scale???

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

which video??

This program:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/23357

ETA: While not specific to Puma Punku, it does demonstrate granite cutting with Egyptian period tools.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

All right, then. On what do you base this statement? On your experience in working with stone? I am not questioning your credentials at all; I am just pointing out that it has been demonstrated, with video, that it is indeed possible to produce the Puma Punku artifacts with period tools. The methods used might not be what you, working today, would choose, and they might take 30 years to produce something that you could create in 30 days, but it's just not arguable that the techniques to make these things didn't exist.

There's no need to postulate some lost technology in stoneworking to account for these artifacts. The ancients might not have had high tech, but they weren't dumb and they weren't working on a deadline. If it took 30 years to make something... well, the gods live forever, don't they?

What was the average life expectancy??

20 years

30 years

40 years

50 years

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Is sandstone SOFT on the MOHN scale???

Well it is going to come down to how its grains are cemented together and how it is compacted rather than the hardness of its constituent rocks and minerals, isn't it? Some sandstones can be scratched by hand.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

This program:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/23357

ETA: While not specific to Puma Punku, it does demonstrate granite cutting with Egyptian period tools.

Seen it before, nothing new, what are you trying to say here??

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

What was the average life expectancy??

20 years

30 years

40 years

50 years

People were doing well to live to 40 in those days. But again, the gods live forever; if a sculptor died, the rulers would find another to take over the work. Eventually, the project would be finished, if it took four sculptors and 50 years.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Well it is going to come down to how its grains are cemented together and how it is compacted rather than the hardness of its constituent rocks and minerals, isn't it? Some sandstones can be scratched by hand.

Your quite right..

Some limestones are metamorphic and are like glass to carve, some sandstones (brown grinshill) will be carved by a thumbnail, some granites can be crushed like soft shells, and some can only be touched by diamond. All stones can be everything and can be nothing in particular also. I like Portland Whitbed, break it open and it is like Wensleydale, cheesey and soft with the promise of the sea... Oh Neptune

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

What was the average life expectancy??

20 years

30 years

40 years

50 years

Yes.

And?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Where??

You've been linked to both demonstrations in this thread
what does it say of you that you didn't bother to read them and are now bringing up points that have been explained already

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Seen it before, nothing new, what are you trying to say here??

All I'm saying here is that making a blanket statement like "there's no way granite could have been cut with period tools" is unjustified in the face of video showing exactly that.

I'm not casting aspersions on your knowledge or your ability; I've done a little Googling and you obviously have both knowledge and ability. And I'm also not ruling out the possibility that there is some lost art in stoneworking that was used at Puma Punku. The lost art is just not necessary, is all.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

People were doing well to live to 40 in those days. But again, the gods live forever; if a sculptor died, the rulers would find another to take over the work. Eventually, the project would be finished, if it took four sculptors and 50 years.

A way of life. Fair point, but the stones are not a cathederal and there seems to be mission point beyond rational, beyond need, beyond the pyramid of needs even.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Seen it before, nothing new, what are you trying to say here??

that link can only be viewed from the United States
so perhaps as youve seen it before you can tell me whats on it
I'm all ears

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

All I'm saying here is that making a blanket statement like "there's no way granite could have been cut with period tools" is unjustified in the face of video showing exactly that.

I'm not casting aspersions on your knowledge or your ability; I've done a little Googling and you obviously have both knowledge and ability. And I'm also not ruling out the possibility that there is some lost art in stoneworking that was used at Puma Punku. The lost art is just not necessary, is all.

I'm sorry. I have not seen this video, i have seen a video, who's proponent, at best could claim. " This is HOW it could have been done"

I am very good at what I do, and I say NO. I'm sorry if that is not comfortable, but that is my opinion. Now, nobody so far has been able to counter my assertions. I welcome them to do so without just quoting by rote people who cannott demostrate in a practical way their assertions.

Would you like it if I was david blane. Of course not, but these card throwing
theories exist without question.

[jhunter1163]

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

How about this one, Marduk?

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Marduk

that link can only be viewed from the United States
so perhaps as youve seen it before you can tell me whats on it
I'm all ears

The same rubbish I'm afraid
Try hard, it can be viewed here, or are you fishing?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

The same rubbish I'm afraid
Try hard, it can be viewed here, or are you fishing?

uhuh, so perhaps you can explain to me how you get around that websites security ?
no thought not

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I'm sorry. I have not seen this video, i have seen a video, who's proponent, at best could claim. " This is HOW it could have been done".

right, so your dismissal of that video as irrelevant was a lie ?

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I am very good at what I do, and I say NO. I'm sorry if that is not comfortable, but that is my opinion. Now, nobody so far has been able to counter my assertions. I welcome them to do so without just quoting by rote people who cannott demostrate in a practical way their assertions.

I have posted links which show people demonstrating the techniques, clearly you didn't bother to read them either


I have asked you several questions youve been unable or unwilling to answer, e,g, I asked you specifically who was claiming that diamond tipped tools were used to carve diorite in Egypt, which you have stated as fact throughout this thread,
and you ignored the question, when in fact that claim is from pseudoarchaeology sites which claim, "only diamonds could do it and the egyptians didn't have diamonds ergo it was aliens or advanced technology", so your claim to know what the experts are claiming is another lie

so you've lied about what you've been shown, have misrepresented basic facts and have been wilfully ignorant over pretty much everything else
you're done here,

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Do you have something you'd consider a better theory? Because so far you seem to have admitted that you don't know how those structures were built.

I have always had a greater respect for those who "don't know" and admit it, rather than those who clamour to "Know", but don't really.

There is a lot we do not understand really, about who we are and where we have come from. We attempt to frame the past without understanding it, in an attempt to plot a course for the future.

I said...

Do you have something you'd consider a better theory? Because so far you seem to have admitted that you don't know how those structures were built.

And rather than reply to the substance of my question, you offer an irrelevant rant about people knowing/not-knowing things.

You have admitted that your knowledge and stone working skills are not sufficient to explain the construction at Puma Punku. You have expressed incredulity at the methods which have been suggested, even though your own knowledge in this area is, by your own admission, insufficient to explain it. You willfully ignore direct, pertinent questions about whether you have a better explanation than those provided by archaeological experts in the relevant field.

So in simple terms, you don't know how it was done, you don't believe any explanations you've heard, and you have no explanation of your own. Does that about sum up the extent of your available contribution to this topic?

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I'm sorry. I have not seen this video, i have seen a video, who's proponent, at best could claim. " This is HOW it could have been done"

I am very good at what I do, and I say NO. I'm sorry if that is not comfortable, but that is my opinion. Now, nobody so far has been able to counter my assertions. I welcome them to do so without just quoting by rote people who cannott demostrate in a practical way their assertions.

Would you like it if I was david blane. Of course not, but these card throwing
theories exist without question.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. So, the video proponents say "This is how we think it was done." You then say, "Based on my experience, no, it couldn't be done that way because of (technical reasons you've cited upthread)."

All right, that's fair enough. But now, it's back to you. Based on your experience working with stone, how do you think they might have done it, without invoking high tech? If you were transported back in time to Puma Punku and given this assignment with no modern tools, how would you proceed?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I am very good at what I do, [...]

So you keep saying. But you aren't good enough at what you do to explain the method of constructing the monuments at Puma Punku. And that is, after all, the topic of this thread, is it not?

Quote:

[...] and I say NO. I'm sorry if that is not comfortable, but that is my opinion. Now, nobody so far has been able to counter my assertions.

Your assertions are: (1) You do not have the knowledge or skills necessary to explain the methods used to construct the monuments at Puma Punku. And (2), you do not believe it could have been done by the methods which have been provided by experts in the relevant fields.

I don't think anyone needs to counter those assertions. I think everyone here, for the most part, agrees with you.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

I said...

Do you have something you'd consider a better theory? Because so far you seem to have admitted that you don't know how those structures were built.

And rather than reply to the substance of my question, you offer an irrelevant rant about people knowing/not-knowing things.

You have admitted that your knowledge and stone working skills are not sufficient to explain the construction at Puma Punku. You have expressed incredulity at the methods which have been suggested, even though your own knowledge in this area is, by your own admission, insufficient to explain it. You willfully ignore direct, pertinent questions about whether you have a better explanation than those provided by archaeological experts in the relevant field.

So in simple terms, you don't know how it was done, you don't believe any explanations you've heard, and you have no explanation of your own. Does that about sum up the extent of your available contribution to this topic?

NO

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Marduk

yet both have been replicated with period tools, how do you explain that ?

Which tools. Show me, show us all. Why were the Cornish so STUPID.

All that Copper, all that Granite, all that iron, and they did NOTHING, absolutely, NOTHING, for all those years.....

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Originally Posted by GeeMack

I said...

Do you have something you'd consider a better theory? Because so far you seem to have admitted that you don't know how those structures were built.

And rather than reply to the substance of my question, you offer an irrelevant rant about people knowing/not-knowing things.

You have admitted that your knowledge and stone working skills are not sufficient to explain the construction at Puma Punku. You have expressed incredulity at the methods which have been suggested, even though your own knowledge in this area is, by your own admission, insufficient to explain it. You willfully ignore direct, pertinent questions about whether you have a better explanation than those provided by archaeological experts in the relevant field.

So in simple terms, you don't know how it was done, you don't believe any explanations you've heard, and you have no explanation of your own. Does that about sum up the extent of your available contribution to this topic?

NO

You don't know how the monuments at Puma Punku were created, correct?

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

You don't know how the monuments at Puma Punku were created, correct?

I cannott accept that the proposed theories of their construction is plausible.
In fact I would say impossible, now ask me why..

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I cannott accept that the proposed theories of their construction is plausible.

Please elaborate on what these theories are and why you don't accept them.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Please elaborate on what these theories are and why you don't accept them.

Hammering stones produces bruises deep within masonry that is difficult to control which leads to later friability. Decomposition.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I cannott accept that the proposed theories of their construction is plausible.
In fact I would say impossible, now ask me why..

So in simple terms, you don't know how it was done, you don't believe any explanations you've heard, and you have no explanation of your own.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Would you buy SNAKE OIL ???

That's your reply to my sincere question. Brilliant.

As Marduk observed:

Originally Posted by Marduk

so you've lied about what you've been shown, have misrepresented basic facts and have been wilfully ignorant over pretty much everything else
you're done here,

Adios.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Is sandstone SOFT on the MOHN scale???

I asked you a question, I asked how the sandstone used at Pumapunku compares to the granite, I was assuming that you would inform me of something I did not know.

Your point was about cutting granite in Cornwall and so i wanted to know how the two were related.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

What was the average life expectancy??

20 years

30 years

40 years

50 years

that depends, average life expectancy was lower, but after the age of ten expectancy got higher.

But people who were workers could have worked about twenty to forty years.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Your quite right..

Some limestones are metamorphic and are like glass to carve, some sandstones (brown grinshill) will be carved by a thumbnail, some granites can be crushed like soft shells, and some can only be touched by diamond. All stones can be everything and can be nothing in particular also. I like Portland Whitbed, break it open and it is like Wensleydale, cheesey and soft with the promise of the sea... Oh Neptune

And so, what is the difficulty level with the sandstone that they quarried for Pumapunku?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

A way of life. Fair point, but the stones are not a cathederal and there seems to be mission point beyond rational, beyond need, beyond the pyramid of needs even.

You mean the display of political power by established oligarchies?

the same people who practiced ritual sacrifice?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I cannott accept that the proposed theories of their construction is plausible.
In fact I would say impossible, now ask me why..

Except, I have yet to see you present the theories of construction of Pumapunku, so I don't know how you can evaluate them.