Does anyone know if the copper tools found were normal or hardened in some way?

Or you could just accept the fact that there was a true stone age in our very distant past and they were so extremely advanced in working with stone that they were able to do these things.

Maybe they mastered geology/stone working in ways we have forgot and may never know again.

The history of our planet and the history of the species that have lived on it, will only be known to the earth itself in its entirety.

In time, we too will be erased because time erases everything.
Maybe 4 or 5k years from now, a species will find an artifact tucked away somewhere and wonder about us.
All he will be able to do is guess what we might have been like because the great process of the planet will have washed away all of who we really were.

What I'm trying to say is, we don't know jack about the history of earth. Anything and everything could have happened to make those stones the way they are.

So, none of this addresses how these people were able to build these structures without writing. To my knowledge, this all predates the earliest records of phonetic writing.

Why would writing be a prerequisite for shaping stone or building in stone? By the time we were building sophisticated structures like Pyramids we had developed writing, perhaps not the alphabetic writing you're used to, but more than met the needs of the ancient Egyptians.

No one is claiming that diorite was ever "melted". The theory with the geopolymer site is that limestone, a much softer rock, was turned into a slurry with water, then allowed to "re-agglomerate". It would be easier to carry the constituent materials up ladders or ramps opposed to 2.5 ton blocks, at least for the upper reaches of the pyramid. It's a theory, but it has some basis in science, and wouldn't hurt the pyramids to conduct further testing.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
No one is claiming that diorite was ever "melted". The theory with the geopolymer site is that limestone, a much softer rock, was turned into a slurry with water, then allowed to "re-agglomerate". It would be easier to carry the constituent materials up ladders or ramps opposed to 2.5 ton blocks, at least for the upper reaches of the pyramid. It's a theory, but it has some basis in science, and wouldn't hurt the pyramids to conduct further testing.

I know the agglomeration process was in regards to the limestone, I was just adding some info to the diorite discussion. Figured I would cover the possibility, should someone have had a question about that process in regards to the South American site.
Rocks are strange beasts, and often people just don't know much about the chemistry and characteristics!

Originally posted by Sargoth
Sorry guys but I'll take Chris Dunn's opinions over your's every time. He's an engineer and knows his shi_. You can't cut diorite or granite with copper tools with space-age precision.

There is no diorite cut to "space age precision" and I saw Dunn cut a hole in a block of granite (similar to diorite) on the "Ancient Aliens" program using a copper tube and wet sand.

Hmmm. I guess it is possible, since even Dunn says it is.

For everyone else - there is a difference between hardness and toughness. Both are actual technical terms used in materials science.

Also, stone displays a property called "cleavage." No, it's not as sexy as it sounds.

Even the hardest stone can be chipped.

BTW, a diamond is both hard and tough, and is not a "stone" in the sense of the word I was using.

Harte

The coral castle is the best example of modern use of an unknown method to move large objects and build with them in modern times . I don't know who built Puma Punku ,but it wasn't illiterate farmers with copper tools

who ever built it was a damned good engineer /architect ,and had training probably some kind of higher education, and plans that would need to be carried out without deviation by seasoned workmen

I'm a fan of the aggregate rock but it is apparently known that at least most Puma Punku rocks are Diorite
clearly to whoever built it the kind of rock to be used is not an issue.

Now that I have said all that ,I'm going to say we are thinking about these things all wrong so I'm going to say this out loud, However they were built by whomever they were built ,It was easy . That's right
what's his name built the Coral Castle easily and alone, so however places like this were built think it was easy it was cheap and it didn't take to many people

find out how it was built and I predict you can find out who built it I would also love to know why it was built,The Acropolis was a combination temple /bank/ shopping mall, The pyramids were I dunno not tombs, Stonehenge was a festival place for leading the dead to the after life , and a calendar(so new research would suggest) so what was PumaPunku?

I get sick of arguments that suggest such precision could be gotten by ordinary conscripts wielding copper tools, we use diamond chip saws made with special aloys to cut large stones we have massive reinforced trucks to haul the stones on carefully graded roads

were is all this at PumaPunku ? What else in the world is like it architecturally ? but feel free to argue endlessly about the ingenuity of the ancients and how they made everything with copper tools and llama fat

I conclude ,it was done the easy way by someone smart ,who liked an insane amount of precision in his or her architecture. I can't find anything worthwhile about the site but it does raise a lot of questions just seeing pictures of what is left

I think i read somewhere that the copper tools were hardened in some way we can't figure out. Also read in C. Dunn's book I think that there was a worked piece of iron found in the Great Pyramid. Gordon Micheal Scailion says in his book "Notes From the Cosmos" that dirigibles were used to transport large blocks.

Originally posted by Sargoth
I think i read somewhere that the copper tools were hardened in some way we can't figure out. Also read in C. Dunn's book I think that there was a worked piece of iron found in the Great Pyramid. Gordon Micheal Scailion says in his book "Notes From the Cosmos" that dirigibles were used to transport large blocks.

The Egyptians had copper that was tempered and had impurities which made it stronger, the 4th dynasty also had bronze tools, both of which will cut limestone.

An iron plate was found that was thought to have come from the time when the outer shell was stipped away. it was found between the core stones

On Friday, 26 May 1837, after a few days of blasting and clearing, Hill discovered a flat iron plate about 26 cm (10.2") long, 8.6 cm (3.4") wide, with a thickness ranging from .4 cm (.2") to nearly zero. The plate weighs about 750g. Vyse proclaimed it to be "the oldest piece of wrought iron known." Hill affirmed that his find was legitimate:

Also iron from meteorites has also been found in association with Egyptian tombs

Dirigibles? I think not, or more correctly there is no evidence to support that at all.