'Lost Civilisations'

[King of the Americas]

This would seem to AGREE with you. I was under the impression Diorite was extensively used by Andean cultures

http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/42c-7db-3-1e

"The rocks underlying Machu Picchu and the surrounding Urubamba River Valley are mainly diorite, the intrusive variety of andesite, formed underground in vast plutons of volcanic rock. The Inca used this hard gray rock, which is relatively rare worldwide but plentiful in Peru, to construct their stone cities and pave the Inca Trail."

 

[King of the Americas]

No one knows for certain,so it must have been aliens. Got it. Thanks.

How does lost = aliens?

 

[Sean84]

How does lost = aliens?

Well, how?

Get to the point already.

 

[Aepervius]

I could kill a mammoth...and I am not diminishing the works of our ancestors. So you can put your strawman back in the box.

In fact, I am saying exactly the opposite. I am saying that our past ancestors were 'better' at carving stone, than we are today. Something has been lost.

On the bold : no you could not. Firstly because there are none left (Mammoth), secondly because big game was not something somebody did alone, big game was a group hunt, thirdly because by the time you have built all the tool necessary WITHOUT modern help, and started your hunt on a big game , WITHOUT modern communication or help (means using nothing containing metal, only sharp stone, blunt stone, bones tool, carved stone for recipient and glue cooking), and learned to use those old tool and weapon, we all be died of old age. As an ex-hunter with a bow, a modern one, and having built a few bow as hobby, I can tell you , you completely underestimate the method, time, and material needed. I would bet my last shirt that you would be giving up before long.

What has been lost is the patience to do it over long period of time with a lot of people.
We have better tools in the mean time and need much less people or time.
We *could* reproduce a method by trial and error, we *could*, but the time (+trial and error) and material and number of person needed DOES NOT WARRANT THE EFFORT !

YOU are the one pretending more advanced tool were used ? *provide evidence for this* and NO "i doubt it was done that way" is not an evidence. Until then the explanation we have right now is sufficient. You just sound like those CT guy which think the pyramide were built by aliens, or atlantis guy, and will not accept the current explanation on how they were built, unless somebody build a pyramide using the same tool before your eye.

 

[Marduk]

"The rocks underlying Machu Picchu and the surrounding Urubamba River Valley are mainly diorite, the intrusive variety of andesite, formed underground in vast plutons of volcanic rock. The Inca used this hard gray rock, which is relatively rare worldwide but plentiful in Peru, to construct their stone cities and pave the Inca Trail."

learn to read please, the second line refers to Andesite, not Diorite, the inca trail is paved with it. Their cities are built with it

The road system was well integrated into an extensive drainage system, which included constructed agricultural terraces, subterranean cave reservoirs, retaining walls, and a centralized main drainage separating urban from rural drainage systems. Machu Picchu alone had 129 constructed drain outlets. Not all of the travel on the road was necessary. Recent studies of cut andesite stone blocks at Paquishapa originated near Cuzco, a distance of 1600 kilometers.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/incaarchaeology/ss/inca_trail_2.htm


This was covered in some detail earlier, I expect you ignored it like you do everything else.

 

[Akhenaten]

Diorite is a grey to dark grey intermediate intrusive igneous rock composed principally of plagioclase feldspar (typically andesine)

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

The article you've quoted above also has this to say:

Although one can find diorite art from later periods, it became more popular as a structural stone and was frequently used as pavement due to its durability. Diorite was used by both the Inca and Mayan civilizations, but mostly for fortress walls, weaponry, etc.

How does that affect this statement?

THERE WAS NO DIORITE, MR STRAW

 

[Correa Neto]

I could kill a mammoth...

Oh, really? I will not be convinced untill you prove it by tracking and killing one (OK, I'll settle for an elephant, rhino or hippo to make thing easier for you) using only tools built from wood, stone, bone, animal tendons and leather. Of course, this must be done in the animal's natural habitat. Hey, let's make it even simpler. No need to travel to Africa. Just hunt a grizzly bear or a bison or a muskox. By Ice Age rules.

Otherwise its proof our ancestors must have used some lost advanced technology to hunt megafauna animals.

and I am not diminishing the works of our ancestors. So you can put your strawman back in the box.

In fact, I am saying exactly the opposite. I am saying that our past ancestors were 'better' at carving stone, than we are today. Something has been lost.

Nope. You are linking their works to some lost advanced technology. You can not accept they could, with simple tools, perform better than you do. Instead admitting your skills suck and that you can't reproduce our ancestors' works works even with tools they could not dream of, in your foolish pride, you invoke some lost advanced technology. You are indeed diminshing their skills and intelligence.

Wooful Ignorance Fallacy coupled with pride, prejudice. Smells like megalomania. Not unlike a number of other proponents of fringe subjects, you are overblowing your credentials.

So, you could kill a mammoth, right? And you, with your poor performance carving stones with modern tools is evidence that our ancestors could not have faired better with simpler tools. You, who once claimed to able to recognize all man-made objects that fly over your hometown. What are you? Some sort of Jack-of-all-Trades? McGyver? Bear Grylls? You sure you can be used as a refference to good performance when it comes down to all these issues?

I could go on, but this should be enough to show how biased, full of prejudices and megalomanic your claims are becoming.

 

[Marduk]

How does that affect this statement?

that reference of mine you've quoted was a reply to a statement made by KotA specifically discussing the Diorite construction of Puma Punku, which is located in the ruins of Tiwanaku. There is no Diorite at that site, hence my remark. You may not also be aware that Tiwanaku was not built by the Inca or Mayan civilizations, so whatever they did with anything in a later period is hardly relevant is it,

you need any more help understanding anything irrelevant,
just yell !

 

[Cuddles]

Well, I see KotA has derailed yet another thread with his usual nonsense and denial, but I thought I'd just go back an address this point since I haven't seen him mention it before.

The people 'believe' advanced man has only been around for 5-6,000 year is utterly laughable.

Once again, we see that KotA's problem isn't just that he doesn't accept any science or anything based on evidence, he doesn't even know what it is that he doesn't accept. No-one believes that advanced man has only been around for 5-6000 years. Humans have been behaviourally modern for something like 50,000 years, at least. The oldest continuously inhabited settlements are over 10,000 years old. We have examples of writing, or the symbols that were precursors to true writing, dating back at least 9000 years.

It's clear that KotA isn't just denying reality, he doesn't even have a clue what it is that he's denying. He's just made up some stupid belief that nobody actually holds, claims that everyone holds it and then claims that it's wrong. The only reason it's not a textbook example of a straw man fallacy is that the argument he uses to try to prove it wrong actually does no such thing. Sad really. Not only do his arguments fail against reality, he can't even manage to knock over his own straw man with them.

Yes, the belief that advanced man is only 5000 years old would be utterly laughable. But it's actual science that demonstrates it to be such, not KotA's incompetence at masonry.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Yes, the belief that advanced man is only 5000 years old would be utterly laughable. ...

My argument here has been that most of man's history and civilizations have been LOST...that our KNOWN history gets fuzzy into a few thousand years if that, AND that unless you can demonstrate how these great works WERE build, then the technology and methodology is indeed "LOST" as well...

So, are you prepared to 'prove me wrong', and demonstrate how these techniques are NOT lost...?

Something is either lost or it is found/known. If you CAN'T demonstrate the methodology using KNOWN period tools, then the techniques remain LOST.

 

[Elizabeth I]

My argument here has been that most of man's history and civilizations have been LOST...that our KNOWN history gets fuzzy into a few thousand years if that, AND that unless you can demonstrate how these great works WERE build, then the technology and methodology is indeed "LOST" as well...

So, are you prepared to 'prove me wrong', and demonstrate how these techniques are NOT lost...?

Something is either lost or it is found/known. If you CAN'T demonstrate the methodology using KNOWN period tools, then the techniques remain LOST.

So are you willing to admit that the structures to which you refer were created by one or more of the more time- and labor-intensive methods which have been described to you, and that it is merely a method which is no longer used?

 

[King of the Americas]

So are you willing to admit that the structures to which you refer were created by one or more of the more time- and labor-intensive methods which have been described to you, and that it is merely a method which is no longer used?

I believe that the construction is such that I believe 'another method' was used OTHER THAN carving with hammer and chisels.

Like what if you could pour or cast molten andesite/diorite into sand molds? Were there any active volcanos at the time, nearby?

The line cut in the stone with the through holes... THAT LINE, was 'sawed', not chiseled.

'I' don't know what was used... I DO 'know' that if that stone is indeed diorite, then it was NOT chiseled with bronze or stone chisels, period.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I believe that the construction is such that I believe 'another method' was used OTHER THAN carving with hammer and chisels.

Like what if you could pour or cast molten andesite/diorite into sand molds? Were there any active volcanos at the time, nearby?

The line cut in the stone with the through holes... THAT LINE, was 'sawed', not chiseled.

'I' don't know what was used... I DO 'know' that if that stone is indeed diorite, then it was NOT chiseled with bronze or stone chisels, period.

And a number of other methods (sand saws, etc.) have been described to you.

AND the fact that bronze or stone chisels may not have been used (which I don't admit) does NOT automatically mean that some advanced now-lost technology brought to us by mysterious visitors was used.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

So, you could kill a mammoth, right? And you, with your poor performance carving stones with modern tools is evidence that our ancestors could not have faired better with simpler tools. ...

...

I'd feed them rotten fruit, wait until they passed out, then go in for the kill.

I understand well the 'fermenting arts'.

Our ancestors were better than any here give them credit for.

 

[King of the Americas]

And a number of other methods (sand saws, etc.) have been described to you.

AND the fact that bronze or stone chisels may not have been used (which I don't admit) does NOT automatically mean that some advanced now-lost technology brought to us by mysterious visitors was used.

When did I say anything about visitors?

I said, "We don't know.", which...WE DON'T.

And if you can use a sand saw to cut a descending square holes then you are special indeed.

Bronze and stone chisels are the ONLY tools that have been found 'in the Americas'. The tools and methods of construction at Puma Punku remain 'unfound'...lost, NOT at our disposal, unknown, or are other a 'mystery' to us.

 

[Akhenaten]

that reference of mine you've quoted was a reply to a statement made by KotA specifically discussing the Diorite construction of Puma Punku, which is located in the ruins of Tiwanaku.

No, it was not.

It was part of a reply to a valid observation made by MG1962.

(I've highlighted the relevant bits)

This would seem to disagree with you. I was under the impression Diorite was extensively used by Andean cultures.

http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/42c-7db-3-1e

Nope, they are possibly confusing andesite with andesine.
Andesite is an extrusive igneous, volcanic rock,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andesite
Andesine is a silicate mineral,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andesine
Diorite contains Andesine.
Diorite is a grey to dark grey intermediate intrusive igneous rock composed principally of plagioclase feldspar (typically andesine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diorite
so easy to get those mixed up
Andesite is basically diorite which has been heated and then extruded from a volcano, because it cools quickly the crystalline form common to diorite doesn't have a chance to set and as a result it is much weaker, you usually have to mine for Diorite, you can quarry for Andesite. Also I think you might be reading it wrong, from your link

There is no Diorite at that site, hence my remark.

Your remark didn't mention any particular site and MG1962 didn't refer to any particular site but referred, as is quite clearly visible above, to "Andean cultures" and this equally clearly refers both to the people who built Tiwanaku, despite their antecedence to the Inca, and to the builders of Machu Picchu and other sites, the actual subject of MG1962's reference.

viz.

The rocks underlying Machu Picchu and the surrounding Urubamba River Valley are mainly diorite, the intrusive variety of andesite, formed underground in vast plutons of volcanic rock. The Inca used this hard gray rock, which is relatively rare worldwide but plentiful in Peru, to construct their stone cities and pave the Inca Trail.

Please don't tortuously attempt to claim that the text in blue is referring to andesite, as you did in Post #153. It is clearly referring to diorite.​

It seems therefore, that this big, bold statement, made in response to an observation of KotA's (again, not location-specific) that diorite is difficult to work, was either too vague to have any meaning or was just plain factually wrong.

THERE WAS NO DIORITE, MR STRAW

Peru is, in fact, famous as a source of diorite.

You may not also be aware that Tiwanaku was not built by the Inca or Mayan civilizations, so whatever they did with anything in a later period is hardly relevant is it,

Yes, I'm aware that Tiwanaku predates the Inca. I can access Wikipedia at least as well as yourself.

I'm also aware, thanks at least in part to MG1962's reference, that diorite was absolutely relevant to the Inca. That's why I asked the question that I did.

you need any more help understanding anything irrelevant,
just yell !

I prefer more reliable sources for my information, regardless of its relevance, thanks all the same.

 

[Akhenaten]

...

So, you could kill a mammoth, right? And you, with your poor performance carving stones with modern tools is evidence that our ancestors could not have faired better with simpler tools. ...

...

I'd feed them rotten fruit, wait until they passed out, then go in for the kill.

I understand well the 'fermenting arts'.

Our ancestors were better than any here give them credit for.

You could also stampede the stupid buggers over a cliff and collect your lunch at the bottom if you wanted. I believe a few Bison met their end this way, didn't they?

 

[Dinwar]

King of the Americas, you have yet to answer what I consider the most damning counter-argument against you:

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

You've demonstrated time and time again that you are completely ignorant of the basics of this field, down to not knowing that two rocks with different names are different--something your own link states in the second paragraph. You obviously haven't even TRIED to read the academic literature. As I said before, this could be something first-year archeology students do as an intro lab, and you'd never have any clude that it was done.

What this means is that you're arguing from personal incredulity. YOU don't know how it was done, therefore it can't be done. YOU can't figure it out, therefore no one can. YOU can't imagine them building something, so it can't be done. Worse, you're blanking out the fact that three different methods have been presented for how it's done: using grit and a flat rock, using wooden pegs and water, and using sand and rope and water. YOU can't wrap your head around it, therefore aliens.

I'd feed them rotten fruit, wait until they passed out, then go in for the kill.

You don't appear to realize how big Mammut americanus was. Or cost/benefit ratios--to take out M. americanus would require enough fruit to feed a village for quite a while. Oh, and they're herd animals. So yeah, not going to work. At all.

Bronze and stone chisels are the ONLY tools that have been found 'in the Americas'.

You're either a lier or too ignorant to talk about this. STONE tools are ubiquitous.

 

[Marduk]

I DO 'know' that if that stone is indeed diorite, .

and if it wasn't ?

 

[Dinwar]

And if it was, so what? Diorite is not some magical unknown material which no one ever works with. Igneous rock geologists are very familiar with it (and, by the way, "diorite" refers, as all igneous rock names do, to a whole suite of rocks--something KotA has not taken into account), and not really substantially different than, say, granite or gabro. It's made, according to several links provided, primarily of feldspar--not exactly a rare material, nor one that's particularly hard/strong. It's got orthorombic clevage along two plains, and a weird fracture pattern on the third axis (never could remember the technical name for it), which means that if you whack it hard enough (and "hard enough" is not very hard) it'll split along the clevage plane. This is why diamonds can chip, despite being the hardest macroscopic mineral at the surface of the Earth. What this means is that, as I've been repeatedly saing, once you get a rough hole carved into the rock (easily acomplished with stone tools--after all, there will be a LOT of diorite lying around), you can clean it up with a wooden mallet.

Which, by the way, brings us to 4 methods by which this can be acomplished.