Puma Punku

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

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

Could you elaborate how that applies to Pumapunku, are you saying stone on stone or bronze chisel on stone?

I want to learn.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Whilst there have never been any lathe turned vases found at puma punku, the relationship to egyptian masonry is linked by the fantastic craft production methods demonstrated that defy practical, or academic explanation, as found at other sites around the world also.

That is correct - there have never been any lathe turned vases found at Pumapunku and so your constant mentioning of them was off topic.

The best I can extract from the remaining gibberish is that you are amazed that various people around the world could produce stone blocks in large quantities and erect structures using them. That is trivial. Many people during the ages have expended enormous amounts of resources creating stone structures for various reasons, e.g. religious (Egyptian pyramids) and defense (castles).

[Reality Check]

Still looking for an argument from you, steve mccarron, that is actually backed up by evidence in a coherent way.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You need to state the specific claims that do not make sense to you and the reasons that you reject them.

You have not written any assessment of material technology relevant to Puma Punku here. You have just been repeating your own opinion about unspecified claims without backing it up with evidence.

Try writing a post with the format of:

Here is claim X about Puma Punku from this source Y.


Here are the resaons that it is wrong:

• Reason 1
• Reason 2
• ...
• Reason N

Since then there just has been stuff like:

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

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

Any actual evidence for your beliefs, steve mccarron?

For example can you show that it is physically impossible to cut red sandstone with "copper" tools (but you have it wrong - they had bronze tools)?

ETA: I should point out that this is not the "my personal opinion backed up by my sense of incredulity" section of the forum .
This is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology section of a skeptics forum. A personal belief does not mean anything. An assertion without evidence does not mean anything. What matters is the evidence that you produce to back up your belief.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by carlitos

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

As Marduk observed:



Adios.

Your question was insincere because of the context in which it was applied.
I asked you if you would buy snake oil because most, if not all the explainations for the manufacturing of ancient granite and basalt have a similar implausability.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Your question was insincere because of the context in which it was applied.
I asked you if you would buy snake oil because most, if not all the explainations for the manufacturing of ancient granite and basalt have a similar implausability.

Show us how it is so. Do not tell us. No one here is going to take it on your say so. If you are the expert you say you are and if you have investigated this subject adequately, providing support for your bald assertions should be easy.

The pattern you have set to date tells me that you won't and cannot do this.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Could you elaborate how that applies to Pumapunku, are you saying stone on stone or bronze chisel on stone?

I want to learn.

Well, since a non ferrous method of creating cramps was used, we can safely assume that metalurgy was at large.

There is no evidence for ferrous metal tools however.

It has been suggested here that stone hammering may have been used, but that is unrealistic for dimensional masonry. An axe is ok to make a canoe, or a totem pole but not a morticed and tenoned peice of furniture.

Red sandstone, a generic term, is actually quartzite in this case. Very hard, very ductile and difficult to work. This is why the arrises of the 'H' blocks retain their sharpness. As I have said before, some granites can be crushed by hand and some sandstones are as hard as granite.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Your question was insincere because of the context in which it was applied.
I asked you if you would buy snake oil because most, if not all the explainations for the manufacturing of ancient granite and basalt have a similar implausability.

I asked you to clarify your point. Your point on context makes no sense; I can't understand why the absence of Tiwanaku technology in Cornwall means anything. My understanding is that Puma Punku is mostly sandstone.

If you can't make your own point clear, I can't discuss it with you.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Show us how it is so. Do not tell us. No one here is going to take it on your say so. If you are the expert you say you are and if you have investigated this subject adequately, providing support for your bald assertions should be easy.

The pattern you have set to date tells me that you won't and cannot do this.

This is how it is. There is not a demonstrable method to support the existing theories regarding the manufacture of egyptian and south american ancient basalt, quartsite and granite. Anywhere. There are loads of sites that skirt around any real detail and simply quote other sites doing the same.

I understand the frustration caused by my not supplying links to them, but that would just be time consuming. It's much clearer for me to assert my clear belief and for people to then supply a peice of conclusive evidence to the contrary. So far, this has not happened.

Because I say that I do not know how these ancient crafstman did what they did, I mean that I do not believe the work was carried out as is claimed, not that I am unskilled, or stupid.

In my opinion, these stones could only be core drilled with a tool similar to a modern one, the same for the sawn slabs and monoliths.

I understand that generations lived to work on cathederals and can accept the same here, but the level of stonemasonry is above what would have been technically possible regardless of dedication.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Well, since a non ferrous method of creating cramps was used, we can safely assume that metalurgy was at large.

There is no evidence for ferrous metal tools however.

It has been suggested here that stone hammering may have been used, but that is unrealistic for dimensional masonry. An axe is ok to make a canoe, or a totem pole but not a morticed and tenoned peice of furniture.

Red sandstone, a generic term, is actually quartzite in this case. Very hard, very ductile and difficult to work. This is why the arrises of the 'H' blocks retain their sharpness. As I have said before, some granites can be crushed by hand and some sandstones are as hard as granite.

Thanks, so what about the arsenic copper/bronze chisels, if you had the time and people (and I mean a lot of time), why would it not have been a possible part of the tool set.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I asked you to clarify your point. Your point on context makes no sense; I can't understand why the absence of Tiwanaku technology in Cornwall means anything. My understanding is that Puma Punku is mostly sandstone.

If you can't make your own point clear, I can't discuss it with you.

If there was anywhere where the methods of stone cutting with copper would have surfaced it would have been in corwall. It did not.

The H blocks are made of quartsite, as hard as granite. I have already said.

SANDSTONE is a GENERIC term. It does not imply it's durability or hardness. Some sandstones have such a tight structure and hardness, they are like glass.

[DC]

what are the propsed theories by archeologists or historians ?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

If there was anywhere where the methods of stone cutting with copper would have surfaced it would have been in corwall. It did not.

The H blocks are made of quartsite, as hard as granite. I have already said.

SANDSTONE is a GENERIC term. It does not imply it's durability or hardness. Some sandstones have such a tight structure and hardness, they are like glass.

This is getting ridiculous now, the H blocks are made of Andesite not granite, the Inca used andesite all over the place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

Quote:

The eastern edge of the Pumapunku is occupied by what is called the "Plataforma Lítica." The Plataforma Lítica consists of a stone terrace that is 6.75 by 38.72 meters in dimension. This terrace is paved with multiple enormous stone blocks. The Plataforma Lítica contains the largest stone slab found in both the Pumapunku and Tiwanaku Site. This stone slab is 7.81 meters long, 5.17 meters wide and averages 1.07 meters thick. Based upon the specific gravity of the red sandstone from which it was carved, this stone slab has been estimated to weigh 131 metric tons.[4] The other stonework and facing of the Pumapunku consists of a mixture of andesite and red sandstone. The core of the Pumapunku consists of clay. The fill underlying selected parts of the edge of the Pumapunku consists of river sand and cobbles instead of clay.

now link to your fringe source which states the H blocks are granite please, I know for a fact that its a fringe site, or if you like you can admit that you've been taken in by the Ancient Aliens mocumentary

[The Don]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Well, since a non ferrous method of creating cramps was used, we can safely assume that metalurgy was at large.

There is no evidence for ferrous metal tools however.

As far as I know, no claim has been made for the use of ferrous metal tools at PumaPunku.

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

It has been suggested here that stone hammering may have been used, but that is unrealistic for dimensional masonry. An axe is ok to make a canoe, or a totem pole but not a morticed and tenoned peice of furniture.

Jean-Pierre Protzen has published on the subject.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21100845912301

The abstract.....

Originally Posted by Jean Pierre Protzen

Experiments show that with this process stones can be mined, cut, dressed, and fit with little effort and in a short time.

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Red sandstone, a generic term, is actually quartzite in this case. Very hard, very ductile and difficult to work. This is why the arrises of the 'H' blocks retain their sharpness. As I have said before, some granites can be crushed by hand and some sandstones are as hard as granite.

Rock isn't ductile (able to be drawn), at least not at room temperature.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Thanks, so what about the arsenic copper/bronze chisels, if you had the time and people (and I mean a lot of time), why would it not have been a possible part of the tool set.

When you direct a blow with a hammer through a chisel, you want the force to travel through to the tip and transmit that force like a small explosion to break the stones structure. The more resistant the material, the harder the blow required.

The trouble is, a bronze alloy chisel on a very hard stone is defeated easily and as you use it it becomes hot through friction. I have burnt myself on chisel tips in the past and this is why steel tools need constant fire hardening as they are used.

So, your bronze tool is getting it in the neck on two fronts, it is being belted with a hammer of some sorts causing it to mushroom over and the tip is turning to putty as you work harder. On softer limestones and abrasive sandstones you can get some better reward, but on quartsite, granite, basalt, forget it. The tip you needed to gain entry to the stone wears away imediatley and the chisel will skate across the surface removing you skin from your knuckles very quickly. I have recently used a chrome vanadium chisel on basalt for a laugh. The amount of welly you have to give it with a 4 pound hammer is extraordainary. The firings wizz past your ear like wasps and if you hold the chisel to tightley and it deflects, you damage your hand badly, spraining it.

And what did you achieve looking at the stone, a scratch, nothing more.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Marduk

This is getting ridiculous now, the H blocks are made of Andesite not granite, the Inca used andesite all over the place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

now link to your fringe source which states the H blocks are granite please, I know for a fact that its a fringe site, or if you like you can admit that you've been taken in by the Ancient Aliens mocumentary

Andesite, granite, quartsite, sandstone, basalt, dosent matter, the H block stones are very hard, I was being illustrative. Sorry you can't follow an argument

Wrong, wrong, oh so wrong, dear oh dear

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by The Don

As far as I know, no claim has been made for the use of ferrous metal tools at PumaPunku.



Jean-Pierre Protzen has published on the subject.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21100845912301

The abstract.....

Ductile. In terms of a stones ability to absorb blows without yeilding. Like a ductile drain cover for instance.. Granite may be ductile because of it's structure. OK

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Originally Posted by The Don

As far as I know, no claim has been made for the use of ferrous metal tools at PumaPunku.



Jean-Pierre Protzen has published on the subject.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21100845912301

The abstract.....

Ductile. In terms of a stones ability to absorb blows without yeilding. Like a ductile drain cover for instance.. Granite may be ductile because of it's structure. OK

If you READ the text you point to, you will notice it does make any specific claims or statements on the method of masonry production. Only by who and when!!! It is very general and non educational from a production point of view. If's, but's and maybee's

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by DC

what are the propsed theories by archeologists or historians ?

Put it this way, if the theories were to prepare a people for stone construction in the stated stone types, they would have no chance of building anything at all.

I have taught and lectured on my subject, I know what people need to know to do.

The academics info is a bit threadbare..

[The Don]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Ductile. In terms of a stones ability to absorb blows without yeilding. Like a ductile drain cover for instance.. Granite may be ductile because of it's structure. OK

Not OK.

Quote:

ductility is a solid material's ability to deform under tensile stress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductility

The drain cover is described as such because it is made from ductile iron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductile_iron

[DC]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Put it this way, if the theories were to prepare a people for stone construction in the stated stone types, they would have no chance of building anything at all.

I have taught and lectured on my subject, I know what people need to know to do.

The academics info is a bit threadbare..

what are the proposed theories of the academics?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

If you READ the text you point to, you will notice it does make any specific claims or statements on the method of masonry production. Only by who and when!!! It is very general and non educational from a production point of view. If's, but's and maybee's

That's because it's the first couple of pages and the abstract.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

Andesite, granite, quartsite, sandstone, basalt, dosent matter, the H block stones are very hard, I was being illustrative. Sorry you can't follow an argument

Wrong, wrong, oh so wrong, dear oh dear

it does matter, the fact that you don't know the difference between the above rocks speaks volumes about your unsupported claim to be an expert

When you make a claim here you have to support it, for every claim you are unable to support you lose credibility, not that you have managed to build any to start with and currently you're in the minus scores
perhaps at this point you could prove that you're a stonemason by producing some personal pictures of your work

so its not that I can't follow an argument, but that you apparently have no expertise in the profession you claim to work in.

thats your loss, not mine, pretty much every other poster here is hostile towards you now, your attitude did that, you're reaping your own rewards

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I have taught and lectured on my subject, I know what people need to know to do

Where have you taught and lectured ?
support your statements or don't make them, you are failing to realise that people here will not believe a word of it without evidence

[kmortis]

Keep it civil and on topic. As always, the topic is not the other posters, no matter how much you think their heads are filled with stone.

Posted By:kmortis

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

If there was anywhere where the methods of stone cutting with copper would have surfaced it would have been in corwall. It did not.

That is your bald assertion. The giant stone monuments at Puma Punku are mocking your assertion.

I think that your incredulity is quite condescending. You simply can't fathom how some brown people made a beautiful thing, while the folks in Cornwall were still busy being raped and pillaged by Vikings.

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

The H blocks are made of quartsite, as hard as granite. I have already said.

SANDSTONE is a GENERIC term. It does not imply it's durability or hardness. Some sandstones have such a tight structure and hardness, they are like glass.

You misspelled andesite above. (and its)

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I understand the frustration caused by my not supplying links to them, but that would just be time consuming. It's much clearer for me to assert my clear belief and for people to then supply a peice of conclusive evidence to the contrary. So far, this has not happened.

I'm mildly surprised by that mode of discourse, where you state beliefs and wait for others to provide evidence! Surely you are under as strong an obligation to provide evidence as are the people who disagree with you.

What in any case is a "clear" belief? A strongly-held one? But intensity of belief is not evidence of the truth of the thing believed, as I'm sure you will agree.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I understand the frustration caused by my not supplying links to them, but that would just be time consuming. It's much clearer for me to assert my clear belief and for people to then supply a peice of conclusive evidence to the contrary. So far, this has not happened.
.

I don't think you understand at all, every one of your unsupported claims I am familiar with, so what I'm going to do from now on, is provide links for you wherever I can
OK ?

Just to start with, here is the source for two of your claims

Quote:

•The blocks are a mix of granite and diorite, and diorite is so hard that diamond-tipped tools would be required.

source
Ancient Aliens, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

If there was anywhere where the methods of stone cutting with copper would have surfaced it would have been in corwall. It did not.

The H blocks are made of quartsite, as hard as granite. I have already said.

SANDSTONE is a GENERIC term. It does not imply it's durability or hardness. Some sandstones have such a tight structure and hardness, they are like glass.

So the sources that say they might have use copper/bronze at Pumapunku. what do they have to do with Cornwall. I do not follow you here.

I do not think that two have to be linked, they also did not use wheels in South America, that does not mean wheels were not used elsewhere.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

what do they have to do with Cornwall. I do not follow you here.
.

It was another unsupported claim from Steve, the Cornish used copper and bronze tools the same as everyone else, what they didn't do was use copper and bronze in the Neolithic, just like everyone else in the world, Steve has no concept of historic ages. I expect that he has just exaggerated that claim from the fact that the Cornish were resistant to change and used their stone tools alongside the new metal ones, this is also true everywhere else though as the most efficient tool was always the one for the job
The Cornwall Heritage trust states
http://www.cornwallheritagetrust.org...bronze_age.php

Quote:

Bronze Age cultures began to appear in Cornwall around 2200 BC with new ideas spreading from the Continent to the existing population, but the changes were gradual not sudden and stone tools continued to be used for centuries after the first copper then bronze tools appeared.

it took some time for the new technology to become efficient, sorry Steve got it wrong again

Originally Posted by Dancing David

they also did not use wheels in South America.

They used wheels pretty much in every application which was suitable for their use, which considering that they were mostly a mountain people with an inefficient road system wasn't many, they certainly didn't use them to move huge heavy blocks, but then, neither did anyone else, the claim they had no wheels at all iirc originated with Zechariah Sitchen to add support to his claim that they were using spaceships instead
this page for instance shows the wheeled toys of their children
http://www.precolumbianwheels.com/

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Marduk

They used wheels pretty much in every application which was suitable for their use, they didn't use them to move huge heavy blocks, but then, neither did anyone else, the claim they had no wheels at all iirc originated with Zechariah Sitchen to add support to his claim that they were using spaceships instead
this page for instance shows the wheeled toys of their children
http://www.precolumbianwheels.com/

I know, I made an unbounded statement, and I expect to get called.

[Dancing David]

Now eher is a question for Steve Maccarron:

andesite porphry was not uncommonly used to make all sorts of statue and vessels:

http://www.objects-for-eternity.com/site/object.php?
catid=1&catnome=PREDYNASTIC%20PERIOD,%20OLD%20KING DOM%20and%20MIDDLE%20KINGDOM



object #10.2a


So how were these carved?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

SANDSTONE is a GENERIC term. It does not imply it's durability or hardness. Some sandstones have such a tight structure and hardness, they are like glass.

Sorry, couldn't let this one stand either. Geologically, sandstone is NOT a generic term, it is a specific term for a sedimentary rock made from small grains.

You are correct that different types of sandstone have different characteristics. I'd be surprised if sandstone is like glass in any meaningful way.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Now eher is a question for Steve Maccarron:

andesite porphry was not uncommonly used to make all sorts of statue and vessels:

http://www.objects-for-eternity.com/...DDLE%20KINGDOM



object #10.2a


So how were these carved?

Fixed link - and the andesite porphry is object 1.02a.

Predynastic Period, c. 3500 – 3100 BC.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by The Don

As far as I know, no claim has been made for the use of ferrous metal tools at PumaPunku.



Jean-Pierre Protzen has published on the subject.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21100845912301

The abstract.....

can cast iron be drawn at room temp

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by The Don

Sorry, couldn't let this one stand either. Geologically, sandstone is NOT a generic term, it is a specific term for a sedimentary rock made from small grains.

You are correct that different types of sandstone have different characteristics. I'd be surprised if sandstone is like glass in any meaningful way.

On this site the term SANDSTONE is being used in a generic way to justifify a skewed argument.

[steve mccarron]

Originally Posted by Marduk

It was another unsupported claim from Steve, the Cornish used copper and bronze tools the same as everyone else, what they didn't do was use copper and bronze in the Neolithic, just like everyone else in the world, Steve has no concept of historic ages. I expect that he has just exaggerated that claim from the fact that the Cornish were resistant to change and used their stone tools alongside the new metal ones, this is also true everywhere else though as the most efficient tool was always the one for the job
The Cornwall Heritage trust states
http://www.cornwallheritagetrust.org...bronze_age.php

it took some time for the new technology to become efficient, sorry Steve got it wrong again



They used wheels pretty much in every application which was suitable for their use, which considering that they were mostly a mountain people with an inefficient road system wasn't many, they certainly didn't use them to move huge heavy blocks, but then, neither did anyone else, the claim they had no wheels at all iirc originated with Zechariah Sitchen to add support to his claim that they were using spaceships instead
this page for instance shows the wheeled toys of their children
http://www.precolumbianwheels.com/

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar:

SNIPed, breach of Rule 0, Rule 12.

I was not saying that metals did not exist in Cornwall, I was asking why copper was never used to drill and cut granite there.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

On this site the term SANDSTONE is being used in a generic way to justifify a skewed argument.

Steve, you are the only person using sandstone gernerically
stop that, the rest of us here know what sandstone is.

You should concentrate on the specific rocks at Pumapunku, which is red sandstone, which is normal everyday sandstone coloured red by Hematite, Red Sandstone rates between a - 4.0-4.5 on the universally used Mohs hardness scale.
http://www.tapiwavisions.com/rawstones.html

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

I was not saying that metals did not exist in Cornwall, I was asking why copper was never used to drill and cut granite there.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??

more than you do, Stone was always the traditional method of working granite in the Ancient world, surely as a self professed brilliant master mason you should know that

[The Don]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

As far as I know, no claim has been made for the use of ferrous metal tools at PumaPunku.



Jean-Pierre Protzen has published on the subject.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21100845912301

The abstract.....

can cast iron be drawn at room temp

Presuming the bolded part is the part to which you want a response.....

Ductile Iron is a subtype of cast iron.

Ductile Iron is more ductile than other forms of cast iron and yes, it is ductile at room temperature.

http://www.ductile.org/didata/Sectio...s/pfig3_20.htm

Cast iron is also ductile at room temperature, but significantly less so.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by steve mccarron

It's much clearer for me to assert my clear belief and for people to then supply a peice of conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Archeaologists who know what they're talking about have a clear, evidence based belief that the work could have been and in fact was done using period tools and techniques. Those archeologists' opinions do matter and do carry weight. They would welcome you to supply evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

So far, this has not happened.

[steve mccarron]

This is very dissapointing. No body has commented on my stone working narrative.

Also, some of you are being a bit silly and saying I am not very knowlegeable or skilled. That's not very nice is it?

I worked at Witley court, Worcestershire for 7 years apart from everywhere else. I was described by English Heritage as the resident stonemason. I wrote the specification for the restoration of the perseus and flora fountains there. The report was commissioned by Nicol, Jones and Lomax and was described as setting a bench mark for it's clarity and method. During this time, I had students seconded to me as part of thier degree, or other educational courses. I lectured visiting groups of architects, schoolchildren, historical groups etc.

I designed a stone dome and constructed it without centering. I carved the most difficult curved tympanum above a doorway on the south terrace.

There was nothing ordainary I acomplished during this time, I worked with and assisted archaeologists routineley. I also wrote the specification for the restoration of the finest baroque church in england. Saint Michael and All Angels, great witley church.

Trying to say I'm somehow not qualified is a bit silly, isn't it? Leave it out, you just sound stupid and confrontational. No wonder I'm upset.