'Lost Civilisations'

EHocking said:
That doesn't change the fact that it has been done.

Fantasising about "lost advanced technologies" merely because you can't accept logical explanations how it may have been done, doesn't change the fact either.
Click to expand...

I don't think you fully appreciate the difference in the definitions of "known" vs. "lost"...
 
King of the Americas said:
Indeed, we just DON'T KNOW 'how' they did it.

Or, have you not been paying attention?
Click to expand...

Possibly. But as other posters in this thread have shown, there are many plausible ways that they did this using simpler technology compared to what we have today.

Just saying "we don't know therefore lost advanced technology" doesn't cut it.

Perhaps you should try harder to support your claim?
 
Until 'someone' lands on the moon with 1960's technology, I am going to assert that this technology is "lost" and that it simply couldn't have been done.
 
King of the Americas said:
I don't think you fully appreciate the difference in the definitions of "known" vs. "lost"...
Click to expand...
Certainly not from the convolutions involved with reading any of your posts.

I'm fully cogniscent of the manner in which you butcher the terms in your posts, e.g.,
King of the Americas said:
...If we can NOT attribute a certain build date, and how something was actually built, I hold the site itself represents a "lost civilization".

I have further argued that this lost civilization had or possessed some sort of advanced technology.

As evidence I have pointed to the PP 'lego stones'.

My question now, is "How were the PP lego stones formed?" Until we 'know' that I don't think we can say that PP isn't a lost civilization.
..
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Until 'someone' lands on the moon with 1960's technology, I am going to assert that this technology is "lost" and that it simply couldn't have been done.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, this is indeed the case. We can not 'now' go to the Moon. We could develop a 'new' way to get there, that may well be better than the last way, but the actual components to get us there 'right now' no longer exist in a functional form.

Couldn't have & Can't now...are 2 different things.
 
King of the Americas said:
Or perhaps, someone should demand that the claim that you CAN make these stones with ONLY period tools be proven...?

When someone does it, I'll shut my yap.

There's a thread requesting the test over on the Mythbusters Forum: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/50319156501

Help me help you prove me wrong. Ask the Mythubusters to prove it could be done...
Click to expand...

I wonder how the Egyptians machined the stones in the pyramids at Giza, I spent hours looking at the remarkable precision of the workmanship.

I cannot understand how they could have done it. Even with the most cutting edge technology available now, it would be a monumental challenge.

I can appreciate this as I am a professional craftsman and have to join and fit pieces of wood together to a perfect fit everyday.
 
Last edited:
KotA said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like I saw a Discovery channel special,
Click to expand...
Stop. While the Discovery Channel may have some interesting programing it is intended for lay consumption, meaning that someone like me can pop a beer and watch a show on astronomy and probably learn something. However, when you get into the details Discovery glosses over so much that using them as a source of anything but comedy is wrong.

You are not making claims about things generally accessable to lay people who are mildly interested in the topic--you are saying that all of archeology is wrong. Which means you don't get to gloss over ANYTHING. You need to read the peer-reviewed research, not merely watch network television.

Or perhaps, someone should demand that the claim that you CAN make these stones with ONLY period tools be proven...?

When someone does it, I'll shut my yap.
Click to expand...
HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Sorry for the font/size change; however, KotA appears to have missed this point the last....score of times I've posted it. :rolleyes:

How do you know it hasn't been done? You've done no research. And no, don't say "Do it and I'll accept that I'm wrong"--you DO NOT KNOW if someone has done this or not. You are too ignorant to claime that they haven't. Thus you are too ignorant (and this is not an insult, by the way--so am I) to claim what is known and what is unknown.

Perhaps--just PERHAPS--you should learn a thing or two about the field you are attempting to prove wrong.
 
KotA said:
Andesite has a hardness of "6", which COULD be carved with jadiete.
Click to expand...
The Mohs Scale is used for minerals, not rocks. The problem being that rocks are composed of many mineral grains, and the hardness of the rock is a function of the hardness of the grains AND the way they're connected. Sand, sandstone, and quartzite are all composed of quartz grains, yet children play in sand, sandstone is often fragile enough to crumble when picked up, and collecting quartzite requires a sledgehammer, ruining a pair of coveralls, and some serious first aid.
 
Please explain why you believe that the same metal alloy, for which we have ample hard evidence -- in the form of architectural cramps and other artifacts -- at Puma Puncu and in other sites in the same region, could not or would not have been used to make cutting tools as well.

Notable features at Pumapunku are I-shaped architectural cramps, which are composed of a unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy. These I-shaped cramps were also used on a section of canal found at the base of the Akapana pyramid at Tiwanaku. These cramps were used to hold the blocks comprising the walls and bottom of stone-lined canals that drain sunken courts. I-cramps of unknown composition were used to hold together the massive slabs that formed Pumapunku's four large platforms. In the south canal of the Pumapunku, the I-shaped cramps were cast in place. In sharp contrast, the cramps used at the Akapana canal were fashioned by the cold hammering of copper-arsenic-nickel bronze ingots. The unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy is also found in metal artifacts within the region between Tiwanaku and San Pedro de Atacama during the late Middle Horizon around 600-900.​

--summarized from: Protzen, Jean-Pierre; Stella Nair, 1997, Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 146-167
Robinson, Eugene (1990). In Bolivia, Great Excavations; Tiwanaku Digs Unearthing New History of the New World, The Washington Post. Dec 11, 1990: d.01.
Lechtman, H.N., 1998, Architectural cramps at Tiwanaku: copper-arsenic-nickel bronze. In Metallurgica Andina: In Honour of Hans-Gert Bachmann and Robert Maddin, Deutsches, edited by T. Rehren, A. Hauptmann, and J. D. Muhly, pp. 77-92. Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, Germany.
Lechtman, H.N., 1997, El bronce arsenical y el Horizonte Medio. En Arqueología, antropología e historia en los Andes. in Homenaje a María Rostworowski, edited by R. Varón and J. Flores, pp. 153-186. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom