Could Ancient Peruvians Soften Stone? A few worthy questions ! Still a mystery in many ways

reply to post by Hanslune


Hans

How does carving cause fossils to come back into the stone?

It doesn't I am saying some stones are natural (with fossils in them) and they are just carved.

So you are saying they carefully chipped out individual fossils and added them to 'mix'? Why only fossils and not gravel?

I am just saying they added big chunks of stone of the same stone (much like one adds gravel). These chunks retained the fossils.

Can you cite that last claim I have not seen it before

See the analysis in this paper
Analysis of Cuzco stone

There are convoluted ways of explaining the evidence here, but the simplest is they formed those stones from slag. the researcher describes virtually all the properties of slag stone without connecting to the refining process. You might be interested in the removal of the tiny fossils.

Will

will2learn

I am just saying they added big chunks of stone of the same stone (much like one adds gravel). These chunks retained the fossils.

No I've never seen pyramid core stones that had inclusions like that and certainly not chunks

Thanks for the link - one comment on the website it doesn't display properly in either IE7 or Firefox which makes it hard to read. You may wish to look at changing it so the text will display without having to scroll

I will reply later in detail. I am sending you a PM with a suggestion

There are convoluted ways of explaining the evidence here, but the simplest is they formed those stones from slag. the researcher describes virtually all the properties of slag stone without connecting to the refining process. You might be interested in the removal of the tiny fossils.

Are there any later analysis' of the stone in question you seem to be using one from 1956 - is that correct? I'm also unsure of how they connected the quarry with the stone in the construction as I believe the stone was taken from mountain side rubble and not the quarry - but let me read further.

Edited to add: Have you read this book? A Culture of Stone: Inka Perspectives on Rock?

reply to post by Hanslune


Hans

No I've never seen pyramid core stones that had inclusions like that and certainly not chunks

I am not speaking specifically about the pyramids. The soft slag stone premise applies globally. Clearly anywhere with metal refining on the scale of Egypt or Peru will have the facility to make stones from this process. The conglomerates or aggregates are a form that can explain a combo of cements and natural stone nothing m ore. In most cases I suspect fossils are there from the natural source. Can you point to an apparently soft stone that has fossils in it?

Thanks for the link - one comment on the website it doesn't display properly in either IE7 or Firefox which makes it hard to read. You may wish to look at changing it so the text will display without having to scroll I will reply later in detail. I am sending you a PM with a suggestion

I am using Firefox to view that paper. No probs, it might be an add on I have I guess. Its not my web site or paper. That paper just confirms the use of heat in making those great stones of Cuzco. It also suggest many things about the core process too. Its tough trying to find any actual analysis on the ancient stones which is why so much speculation can surround them. I mean we can't ask archaeologists to identify them correctly, we need a geologist with a cross disciplinary degree in materials science.

Edited to add: Have you read this book? A Culture of Stone: Inka Perspectives on Rock?

No.

Will

reply to post by will2learn


You really should read that book and when you do you will know what the Inca meant by Sayk'usha and Kanninqakuchini - also guess what they called slag concrete?

Hanslune
reply to post by will2learn

 

You really should read that book and when you do you will know what the Inca meant by Sayk'usha and Kanninqakuchini - also guess what they called slag concrete?

I am curious??

will

will2learn

Hanslune
reply to post by will2learn

 

You really should read that book and when you do you will know what the Inca meant by Sayk'usha and Kanninqakuchini - also guess what they called slag concrete?

I am curious??

will

They had many many names for all kinds of different stone types, usage, method of moving, methods to quarry them, a whole technical 'jargon' built up over centuries, oddly no name for slag concrete or any mention of it in their oral and later written histories.

will2learn
Can you point to an apparently soft stone that has fossils in it?

The Eocene Kaiata Mudstone (New Zealand) is one that comes to mind. It has many gastropods and bivalves, the occasional shark such as was found at Gentle Annie Point and myriad microfossils. It is able to be broken by hand which indicates it is very soft.

Regarding the possibility of a plant that could soften stone, there is a thread regarding this here:

The plant that softens stone

Digging through the multitude of links regarding this once you know what to look for, it seems that most iterations of the account of Col Fawcett state that the bird is a kingfisher, rather than the more iffy small bird like a king fisher.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


The only way to verify this is to duplicate it......

reply to post by Hanslune


Howdy Hans

I do enjoy a trick question and smart answer

They had many many names for all kinds of different stone types, usage, method of moving, methods to quarry them, a whole technical 'jargon' built up over centuries, oddly no name for slag concrete or any mention of it in their oral and later written histories.

Now thats cute, set it up and slay it down

I guess you have a name for the slag stone from the Celts or aborigines of Australia too, I guess not! Despite this they made slag stones, heres a cute slag stone. (Wish I could find that Celtic one in a churchyard again.). Despite the lack of a name amongst the masons the analytical paper above describes the composition and structure of slag, go figure.

Big slag stone blocks

Maybe we should be asking the metal refiners/workers, I guess they had a name for the great piles of crap that dotted the landscape and formed hills no less. Are you saying the miners didn't have a name for slag stone or just the mason's. From what I gather, the Incas built on top of the stones that were already there, much like the spanish did. They all claim the credit of course

..And thats a great question

The only way to verify this is to duplicate it......

Well slag stone forming was duplicated and used commercially up until the beginning of the 20th C. Here's a nice example from the west of england. If you look at the picture, you can see how much better lasting the slag stone is than the plaster and bricks for that matter. Or was that a trick q.

Recreation of slag Stones

Will