MYSTERIOUS ANCIENT CONSTRUCTIONS

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Harte
What exactly is mysterious here?
If you want to merely recommend a video, why don't you just do that on YouTube?
Here, we prefer discussion, not television.

originally posted by
Dolour
really nice!
did you see the wavelike toolmarks on some of this stuff? :p
similar to what we see here
looks pretty much like a milling cutter was at work.

The marks in your pic are the result of pounding stones gouging out material. That's how stone was quarried if it wouldn't cleave along straight planes. For example, granite vs. limestone, which actually breaks off in blocks and can be split because of that fact.

Harte

Well firstly this looks pretty mysterious to me -

s27.postimg.org...

I can't imagine who would do something like this and for what purpose? Maybe you can enlighten me ....

A purpose is almost always speculation, but your pic comes from the underground city in Tatlarin Village Turkey.

The openings you see were carved out of tuff, an exceedingly soft stone comprised of volcanic ash.

Could've dug that out with a stick.

Harte

So you don't know what purpose it was used for and you don't know who constructed it ...... so it's a mysterious site just as I thought.

Think what you want.
I haven't personally looked into the underground "cities" found all over Turkey and what they were for and when they were excavated, etc.

Maybe people that do so do know the purpose. I don't.

But what I said about the "purpose" or the motivation for any particular ancient culture remains true.

What we can find are facts. We can know that a culture did a thing, but we often cannot know precisely why they did that thing.

In that sense, far more than ancient constructions could be considered "mysterious."

Harte

originally posted by: JamesTB
How were these cut marks made? Taken from the video below (@1.20) -

s1.postimg.org...

No idea you'd have to examine it at a microscopic level to determine what was used to cut it and you always have to be mindful of the many destructive 'reconstructions' that took place in that area.

I see that Skalla made a good comment that gorge could have come from being rammed into a another rock in transport that very possible also.

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Biigs
Puma punku has always been my fave, just impossible stone work for the time/tool period it was suggested to have been made.

Then theres the transport issues, moving a several tonne rock from one mountain to another? without a solid road system we cant even do that now!!!!!

Those ancients were FAR smarter than anyone gives them credit for.

Sure they were smart, smart enough to place their quarries as close to where they intended to built as they could and using water transport where possible.

The above is a map of where the two main quarries were (for two different types of stone used). No transport issues at all, they just dragged them to the fabulous craftsmen they had.

Interesting explanation, could you now flesh it out and demonstrate how its possible to drag a 130 ton block from the quarry on Lake Titicaca to Puma Punku please?

Please learn to google.
The stone in question is sandstone, not andesite and thus was quarried practically next door, not from the andesite quarry.

You'll please note that this stone was placed on the ground by the builders and is still on the ground. It's part of a terrace - all constructed with cut sandstone.
It's even located on the side of the complex that is nearest the quarry.

The large majority of all the stones at Pumapunku exhibit drag marks where they were scuffed while being dragged across the countryside.

Well, either that or "levitation marks." You tell me.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte


Interesting explanation, could you now flesh it out and demonstrate how its possible to drag a 130 ton block from the quarry on Lake Titicaca to Puma Punku please?
Please learn to google.
The stone in question is sandstone, not andesite and thus was quarried practically next door, not from the andesite quarry.

Yeah I suspected that but I was short of time when I posted earlier - which is why I asked about which stone it was, as I suspected its one of the closer ones.

Well, either that or "levitation marks." You tell me.

Nah it was a sub species of rock nibbling llamas

Just as an aside, but one that is related to this thread: Sand is a measure of grainsize, not mineralogy, thus the qualifier such as 'quartz' sand, or 'garnet' sand etc.
Beach sand can be multimineralogic, and even contain biogenic grains such as foraminifera etc.

For the record, I am on the side of those who say it CAN be done with stone tools.

As another aside, the Maori of New Zealand performed exceptionally detailed carving in jade with 'only' stone tools.

a reply to: aorAki

Howdy Mr. Sediments

long time no read what is new in your field of study?

Granite rock can go from soft to very hard.

The softest being decomposed granite to one of the hardest Tonalite.

Some types can be very soft until exposed and weathered. Some can be very hard and get softer as they weather.

Some types will break on a smooth plane and some will not.

en.wikipedia.org...

Over the years i have tunneled through granite a number of time and i never know what to expect.

a reply to: ANNED

Howdy,

You're absolutely correct that weathered granites are softer than fresh granites. In a weathered granite, the feldspar actually turns to a gross yellowish clay. (For something like diorite, you end up with plagioclase feldspar weathering to a gross white...). To weather internally, you'd need heavily fractured granite, or else weathering is kept at the surfaces.

As for granite breaking on smooth planes, it really does come down to cleavage and twinning places. If you have a pegmatite (a very coarsed grained granite indicative of slow cooling), you can end up with large crystals of feldspar, which will have simple twinning (which is essentially another crystal growing at a different angle to the crystal it's attached to, both crystals being the same mineral. Very common in feldspars, especially plagioclase). These twinning surfaces are often the flat, very shiny, surface you see.

On the other hand, you can have a scenario where you have graphic granite/granophyre, where you essentially have two minerals (quartz and feldspar) that crystallize at the same time, essentially meaning the rock has only two "grains" of crystal. This can lead to it's own neat breaking but you won't find it as flat as a twinning plane.

Let's not forget trace minerals either, as some are softer than others... Fluorite is a common trace mineral in granites with a hardness of four, which makes the rock overall "softer" while beryl is a rather... "common" mineral in granites with a hardness of about 7.5-8, which would make the rock over all "harder."

Sorry if that's more than you wanted to know... I really like rocks and I can't help myself. >.

originally posted by: immoralist
a reply to: Dolour material scientist who cant spell machine lulz

first: im not a material scientist, material science was PART of what ive learned. its alot broader.
second: englishs still a foreign language to me. the day you manage to bring up any german thats half as good as my english, your free to complain.
third: typos are the best thing you found to moan about?
figures. morale free troll.

originally posted by: Harte
Each time a crystal shatters in granite, that's your failure you're talking about.

that pretty much validates my point of "it can only be done by chipremoval".
you cannot shape it as you desire without proper tools, but instead get breaking corners according to the granites structure.

What you say about brittleness is true, but it only matters when the entire piece is made of that brittle material.

wich is absoltuely the case when were talking about a single block of gtrantite.
thnx.

originally posted by: Hanslune
It would appear that you have been misled by Dunn or one of his accolades.

nope, you should listen to dunn, he brings up some arguments that withstand any falsification attempts.
take for example feedrates on drilling holes, exceeding those of modern maschinery by a vast portion.

Humans had high tech machinery and only used it, for thousands of years, in various places on the planet, separated in time by thousands of years

for starters: we got no clue when those structures were cerated. mankind has no means of determinating when a stone was shaped.
we can only tell how old the stone itself is, with NO info on when someone shaped those things.

with other places to shape stone, and left absolutely no trace of the development or building of such high technology while at the same time using far cruder methods to make weapons, utensils and everything else in their culture...
to the point of their not using the high technology they had even to save their cultures from enemy attack.

see above, this is an assumption without any proove.
the structures might very well be 100times older than the civilizations we account them for.

...and at the same time leaving extensive traces of working stone by the methods identified by archaeologists.

archeologists never came up with any working theory on how this stuff was built.
theres been numerous attempts to replicate the methods assumed by the archeologists, none of them with success.

Puzzling eh...lol

absolutely not if your open minded to this stuff beeing far older than 4k years.
watermarks on the sphinx and the pyramids show that they are AT LEAST thrice as old as commonly accepted egyptology claims.
and that is a FACT that will withstand any falsification attempt.

a reply to: Dolour

If we are discussing manners and trolling, then considering you want to attack people for not using the "edit" button, along with calling people "mr" this and "mr" that; as well as bizarre comments on the number of stars that posters receive then you leave yourself wide open for being ridiculed for not using a spell-checker. Seems fair - alternatively you could just drop the name calling and discuss the issues.

Have you revised your views on the workability of Granite with stone tools?
I'd be interested to know if you could provided some pictures of the tool marks left by modern machines that you suggest on page 1 would be required to produce the "wave like pattern". As you say, the AE's did not use steel tools, so what materials were such machines made from and why are they not represented in AE art when other elements of their tech were?
Why were such machines not more widely used and why do no traces of them survive beyond your own speculation on the origin of hammer stone marks that are found worldwide?

**ATTENTION**

That will be enough of the back and forth. Get on topic and keep it there. It's not about other members, or typos, or anything else, but the topic at hand.

originally posted by: Dolour

nope, you should listen to dunn, he brings up some arguments that withstand any falsification attempts.
take for example feedrates on drilling holes, exceeding those of modern maschinery by a vast portion.

So you're evidence that Dunn was right is because you say so. You should, instead of stating what fringe websites and Youtubes say, look at the counter- evidence which shows clearly he is wrong. Have you done so and can you explain why that counter evidence is wrong? Are you even aware of the counter-evidence?

for starters: we got no clue when those structures were cerated. mankind has no means of determinating when a stone was shaped. we can only tell how old the stone itself is, with NO info on when someone shaped those things.

Actually unless you believe the stones were shaped by non-humans one can date the cultures associated with said stones, some structures like the AE ones are often associated with gypsum mortar than contains carbon and can be dated.

see above, this is an assumption without any proove.
the structures might very well be 100times older than the civilizations we account them for.

Not unless they (the stones) built themselves, as noted you seemed to be unable to clearly understand the implications of your statements, consider this, you state that ancient people had high technology while eating food laden with stone chips, dying of simple diseases, didn't use steel weapons, and exhibiting a life style without high technology and at the same time they made this high tech without any development period or utilizing materials needed for such technology, leaving no trace whatsoever of the infrastructure necessary for such development - how do you explain that?

archeologists never came up with any working theory on how this stuff was built.
theres been numerous attempts to replicate the methods assumed by the archeologists, none of them with success.

This is simple denial of evidence by yourself and has no effect on the evidence you reject. You remind me of a child thinking that by closing your eyes the rest of the world disappears. While it might be fun to act the as a einzelgänger ultimately this fails as you're seen as rejecting reality without a basis.

absolutely not if your open minded to this stuff beeing far older than 4k years.
watermarks on the sphinx and the pyramids show that they are AT LEAST thrice as old as commonly accepted egyptology claims. and that is a FACT that will withstand any falsification attempt.

Lots of things are older that 4k, the oldest worked stone is now thought to be 10-12,000 years. If you have studied the situation you would find that despite Schoch's attempt - counter-evidence to his theory was produced and at best his theory remains unproven, if not rejected, and is not accepted by the consensus of to other geologists.

So you need to find evidence to support your ideas, stating them as true will not work and also stating that all the existing evidence is wrong will also not work, lol.

i see some ppl commenting on here saying how easy this is. Let's see you do with their tools

originally posted by: 5letters
i see some ppl commenting on here saying how easy this is. Let's see you do with their tools

False premise

The ancient craftsmen had generations of experience and were probably trained by their fathers. Modern people have no such experience, however it took only a generation or two for flint knappers to regain the skill to make stone tools, the time and effort needed to re-create many of the ancient stone working techniques would take longer perhaps.

I have always suggested that the fringe should offer up a large cash prize to inspire an artist to take up the challenge, but sadly they don't feel this necessary.

Can you without training run a marathon? Can you without training throw an American football 90 yards?

There are artists who work stone who have replicated some of their craftsmanship but not all.

I have used copper and bronze tools to work limestone - fairly easy, I have use a diorite hammer stone to pulverize granite and done the same with the stones on Rapa Nui - but I unfortunately lack any pretensions to artistic ability.

a reply to: 5letters

No one is saying that it was easy. Only that was how it was done. Hammer stones and pound stones. It was how they excavated the trenches in their quarries between blocks, it was how they excavated the obelisks. Backbreaking work, but that's how they did it.



Channeling is inherently more labor intensive as a means of extracting the rock from a quarry, versus splitting or levering.

originally posted by: 5letters
i see some ppl commenting on here saying how easy this is. Let's see you do with their tools

Perhaps you misread what i stated on page 1:

It's not easy, but it is simple.

i should not really need to explain this, but i will:

The technique does not require a lot of complex instructions or stages.

But lots of skill and effort is needed.

I've outlined simple stages for working stones with other stones and if you wish to debate that please feel free.

originally posted by: Dolour

originally posted by: Harte
Each time a crystal shatters in granite, that's your failure you're talking about.

that pretty much validates my point of "it can only be done by chipremoval".
you cannot shape it as you desire without proper tools, but instead get breaking corners according to the granites structure.

No, you get crushed grain removal.

originally posted by: Dolour

What you say about brittleness is true, but it only matters when the entire piece is made of that brittle material.

wich is absoltuely the case when were talking about a single block of gtrantite.
thnx.

Granite is not homogeneous. The crystals vary in size and by mineral, as was pointed out a couple of times (remember - feldspar?)
Shattering one crystal at a time would take a long time, but you could shape granite even that way.

The grains removed are created by the crushing force of the pounding stone against the surface crystals of the stone. It doesn't affect the crystals in the middle or on the other side of the stone.
You're pretending that granite is one, solid crystal.

originally posted by: Dolour

originally posted by: Hanslune
It would appear that you have been misled by Dunn or one of his accolades.

nope, you should listen to dunn, he brings up some arguments that withstand any falsification attempts.
take for example feedrates on drilling holes, exceeding those of modern maschinery by a vast portion.

Tube saws had to be pulled and twisted out to add more sand.
Then they had to be push-twisted back in the hole to continue drilling.
Funny how Dunn never mentions that.
The idea Dunn uses comes from Petrie, who himself believed it - until he talked to some machinists.

originally posted by: Dolour

Puzzling eh...lol

absolutely not if your open minded to this stuff beeing far older than 4k years.
watermarks on the sphinx and the pyramids show that they are AT LEAST thrice as old as commonly accepted egyptology claims.
and that is a FACT that will withstand any falsification attempt.

The claim you make comes from Robert Schoch. Schoch doesn't use any "watermarks" to date the Sphinx, and his claims (which you appear not to understand) have been refuted by his peers, as well as by several people right here at ATS.

There aren't any "watermarks" on the Pyramids.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Hey Harte I suspect his use of 'watermark' means erosion as he is not a native speaker, however, I also suspect we'll get a barrage of verrückt diskussion in response!