• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'Lost Civilisations'

King of the Americas said:
Thank you for the link, AND telling me which page to address.

Did you read page 24?
Click to expand...

Yes, actually I did. If you're planning on pointing out something from it, I'll know you're quoting out of context. Given that that page is mostly a compare/contrast between how tin-bronze smelting evolved in Asia, with one set of ores, versus how it evolved in the Andes, with a different set of ores, it neither supports nor contradicts your claim, as the tiwanuku smelters used arsenical bronze.

In fact, you're indirectly pointing out a fault in your reasoning. If there was an advanced civilization teaching them how to do their construction they would have used the best material for the job. Tin bronze is much less toxic, much more malleable, has a better grain structure, a lower melting point, and less porosity than arsenic bronze. If they were tutored by experts, they could have used the right materials, which they did have. Casseritite and Malachite were available to them and even with their primitive co-smelting techniques they could have made modern alloys, which would have been ideal for the clamps they inset into the stone. In fact if they had advanced tutors, they could have made better furnaces, smelted the casseritite and malachite separately, and been able to combine pure tin and copper to make alloys specifically tailored to each specific use.

In fact, they used the materials they had, and they used them for every application, even though that meant that for some applications they were profoundly unsuitable. The alloy of the clamps and the alloy of the chisels is the same, within certain broad limits caused by the crude co-smelting of impure arsenic and copper ores. The alloy works for the chisels because arsenic promotes work hardening, and the grain structure and porosity can be reduced by forging. A forged chisel would be hard and strong.

The same alloy used to make the cast clamps resulted in clamps that were weak, porous, and coarse grained. Very few of them were found intact. Some of the sources I found believed them to have been ineffective enough that they must have been traditional and/or decorative only. This is not good engineering, and certainly not a sign of advanced knowledge. It's what would be expected from primitive smelting and casting techniques in an early stage of evolution.

As for the stone carving, we're left with your argument from ignorance. You don't know how to do it and can't do it even with modern tools, so you believe that no one knows how to do it, even in the face of plenty of people, including myself, stating that we do know how. Dunning Kruger much?
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
Yes, actually I did. If you're planning on pointing out something from it, I'll know you're quoting out of context. Given that that page is mostly a compare/contrast between how tin-bronze smelting evolved in Asia, with one set of ores, versus how it evolved in the Andes, with a different set of ores, it neither supports nor contradicts your claim, as the tiwanuku smelters used arsenical bronze.

...

As for the stone carving, we're left with your argument from ignorance. You don't know how to do it and can't do it even with modern tools, so you believe that no one knows how to do it, even in the face of plenty of people, including myself, stating that we do know how. Dunning Kruger much?
Click to expand...

I just found one statement therein interesting, in that the Americas' smelters did what Asians in a leap in technology, accomplishing what Asians did through 3,000 years of development. Please feel free to correct my observation, I only skimmed a few pages.

My argument is NOT as you represent it.

I have said I don't know what was used to do the work, and with modern tools it would take 'me' years to duplicate. I postulate that the period tools were not up to the task...UNTIL SOMEONE CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.

When I see someone carve the same stones used at PP with period tools, I'll accept that this was the method employed.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
I have said I don't know what was used to do the work, and with modern tools it would take 'me' years to duplicate. I postulate that the period tools were not up to the take...UNTIL SOMEONE CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.
Click to expand...

Except that this is your claim. Why should be burden on proof be on someone else?
 
King of the Americas said:
Why should the originators of the claim that this work was done with ONLY known period tools and techniques not be required to prove this assertion?
Click to expand...

There is already enough evidence to support that claim. Examples of such evidence has already been posted in this thread.

What you are doing in a discussion like this is demanding that people prove the null hypothesis instead of you proving to us that your competing hypothesis is in fact correct.
 
KotA said:
I only skimmed a few pages.
Click to expand...
I'm going to ignore your opinions on it, then. For someone who pretends to be interested in the subject, you've shown a remarkable lack of willingness to actually LEARN anything. Besides, scientific papers are written very precisely, and are VERY information-dense; skimming a few pages is worse than not reading the paper.

Why should the originators of the claim that this work was done with ONLY known period tools and techniques not be required to prove this assertion?
Click to expand...
They ARE required to provide evidence. And they do--entire fields of study worth. You're simply too lazy to actually figure out what they've found, what evidence they do have (see above). And you're arrogant enough to believe that your willful refusal to learn what people have spent (and, at times, GIVEN) their lives to learn grants you the right to demand that we take your inane babbling seriously.

You don't know what archeology knows and what it doesn't. You don't know what experiments have been done. You don't know what evidence they have. Every single statement you make about the level of knowledge in archeology is either wrong, out of context, or a lie.

Rather than say here's a book, the information you seek is in there somewhere, why not say here's the information found on page 256.

That's usually the way citations work...
Click to expand...
Because science is not a series of facts floating in isolation; it's a series of facts floating in a framework of other facts, theories, and hypotheses. You want an isolated datum, but in order to UNDERSTAND that datum you need to read the entire book.

Also, the way citations usually work in science is a brief (Quade et al., 1995) in the text, and the authors, year, title of the article, title of the journal, volume, issue, page number (may have volume and issue backwards) in the References section. ALL you get is the name of a paper. If you're lucky you get a figure number (Zachos et al., 2001, Figure 2; something like that). You obviously have no experience with scientific literature.

Q: Will this metal cut or carve the hardest stone at PP?
Click to expand...
For Pete's sake! CUTTING and CARVING are two different things, as are HARDNESS and BRITTLENESS. As I've stated before, sand, sandstone, and quartzite are all a hardness of 7. Obviously there's more involved. Furthermore, you collect quartzite by hitting it with a steel hammer. Steel, incidently, has a hardness of between 5 and 5.5, depending on the alloy. Which is much, much softer than quartz. (For those who actually care about science, I learned a neat trick: My wedding ring is stainless steel, and a quick way to tell if I'm dealing with quartz or calcite [not always the easiest thing in the world] is to pick it up with my left hand. If my ring damages it, it's limestone; otherwise, it's a silicate rock). How, exactly, does one carve sandstone, with a hardness of 7, if the chissels all have a hardness of 5.5 at best? :rolleyes:
 
Wildy said:
There is already enough evidence to support that claim. Examples of such evidence has already been posted in this thread.

...
Click to expand...

Postulations are not evidence.

Using period tools to replicate the work WOULD BE.

No such replication has occurred, something I am working to get the Mythubsters to fix.

I'd like to urge ALL of you to support a test by the Mythbusters and post your support here:

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/50319156501/p/1

Help me HELP YOU 'prove me wrong'...
 
King of the Americas said:
Postulations are not evidence.
Click to expand...

Because that's all there is, postulations.

Using period tools to replicate the work WOULD BE.
Click to expand...

Yes, but even if we haven't done that it does not automatically mean that it isn't possible and some "lost technology" did it.

No such replication has occurred, something I am working to get the Mythubsters to fix.
Click to expand...

Because the Mythbusters are the pinnacle of scientific research. :rolleyes:

Help me HELP YOU 'prove me wrong'...
Click to expand...

Why? You haven't provided any actual evidence to suggest that you are right. All we've had is you arguing from incredulity. You're doing a pretty good job at proving yourself wrong.
 
King of the Americas said:
Help me HELP YOU 'prove me wrong'...
Click to expand...


Nobody has to prove you wrong. You're making an outrageous claim. It's your responsibility to support your claim and "prove you right". That's called the burden of proof. You can choose to take responsibility for your claim, or you can choose to abandon that responsibility and admit that you're not willing and/or able to support it. But it's wholly dishonest for you to try to deflect the burden of proof here. Wholly dishonest.

An honest person would (a) provide objective evidence to support the whacky notion that 8th century Bolivians were too stupid or ill-equipped to do the same kind of simple stone carving that people had been doing elsewhere for thousands of years, or (b) admit that he is unable to provide that objective evidence. And that's how you would handle it if you were honest. :rolleyes:
 
Wildy said:
Because that's all there is, postulations.



Yes, but even if we haven't done that it does not automatically mean that it isn't possible and some "lost technology" did it.



Because the Mythbusters are the pinnacle of scientific research. :rolleyes:



Why? You haven't provided any actual evidence to suggest that you are right. All we've had is you arguing from incredulity. You're doing a pretty good job at proving yourself wrong.
Click to expand...

When someone replicates the work with period tools THIS will prove, this is how it could have been done. Until then, we DON'T know how it was done, period.

The technology that did the work at PP is "lost", right now.

I don't know where else to turn to, in order to test this myth.

There is nothing for me to be 'right' about... I am arguing that there is NO EVIDENCE that these stones were carved with traditional/known techniques using known period tools. I am not the one claiming I KNOW how these works were created, so the burden isn't or shouldn't be on me to prove anything.
 
King of the Americas said:
Please feel free to correct my observation, I only skimmed a few pages.
Click to expand...

This is a synonym for looking for quotes to cherry pick, with little or no interest in actually learning about the subject. It took me a few minutes to read this chapter, and there is lots of interesting stuff in it, especially if you've read lots of other books on metallurgy and ancient history to understand the context. This isn't a paper aimed at the willfully ignorant.

By the way, your interpretation of the inset quote on page 24 is completely reversed, and I don't think you have a clue about the difference between oxidative and reductive smelting, the specific development that they're talking about there, and you completely missed the end of page 23 which talked about how the process evolved with the inca, who then imposed it on the rest of the region who had clung to their outdated technology, mimicking a leap, where in asia the evolution of the process was more straightforward. This happened AFTER the construction of tiwanuku and the puma punku, by the way. That tribe was still using arsenic based bronze until quite late. The rest of the paper goes on to talk about how cultural context and history have to be taken into consideration when looking at the evolution of technology.
 
Dinwar said:
I'm going to ignore your opinions on it, then. For someone who pretends to be interested in the subject, you've shown a remarkable lack of willingness to actually LEARN anything. Besides, scientific papers are written very precisely, and are VERY information-dense; skimming a few pages is worse than not reading the paper.

...

For Pete's sake! CUTTING and CARVING are two different things, as are HARDNESS and BRITTLENESS. As I've stated before, sand, sandstone, and quartzite are all a hardness of 7. Obviously there's more involved. Furthermore, you collect quartzite by hitting it with a steel hammer. Steel, incidently, has a hardness of between 5 and 5.5, depending on the alloy. Which is much, much softer than quartz. (For those who actually care about science, I learned a neat trick: My wedding ring is stainless steel, and a quick way to tell if I'm dealing with quartz or calcite [not always the easiest thing in the world] is to pick it up with my left hand. If my ring damages it, it's limestone; otherwise, it's a silicate rock). How, exactly, does one carve sandstone, with a hardness of 7, if the chissels all have a hardness of 5.5 at best? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So did you read the link?

So WILL this metal alloy will cut OR carve the PP stones, or not?

'I' don't know how to carve descending inlayed squares into hard stone with 'soft' metal...if YOU do please feel free to share your technique(s). I'd be interested in seeing the work done.
 
King of the Americas said:
Until then, we DON'T know how it was done, period.
Click to expand...

Please keep your we to yourself. It's not polite to wave your we at other people.

The technology that did the work at PP is "lost", right now.
Click to expand...

Only to you, and only because of your demonstratively sub-par research skills and preconceptions.

I don't know where else to turn to, in order to test this myth.
Click to expand...

Only because you have looked no farther than the boob-tube, and skipped the uni library.

There is nothing for me to be 'right' about... I am arguing that there is NO EVIDENCE that these stones were carved with traditional/known techniques using known period tools. I am not the one claiming I KNOW how these works were created, so the burden isn't or shouldn't be on me to prove anything.
Click to expand...

You're the one making a claim that no evidence exists, in the face of evidence that does in fact exist but which you will not see. The research has been done. I've linked to examples. Other folks have linked to examples. This is not a mystery except on the 'history' channel and the woo-ish corners of the internet where people go to discuss crystal skulls and the latest OOPART.
 
King of the Americas said:
So did you read the link?

So WILL this metal alloy will cut OR carve the PP stones, or not?

'I' don't know how to carve descending inlayed squares into hard stone with 'soft' metal...if YOU do please feel free to share your technique(s). I'd be interested in seeing the work done.
Click to expand...

Your preconceptions are showing. I suggest you study this issue until you can do the calculations for ternary alloys, apply them to the assay data from the extant chisels, and then come back and tell us how hard the metal is, and how hard it can be when forged. I know from experience that I can make a ternary bronze hard enough to show conchoidal fractures right from the mold. That's probably another thing you'll have to look up.

Short answer; the chisels are hard enough to do what they did. It's your technique that's lacking when you fail with better tools.
 
Last edited:
KotA said:
So did you read the link?

So WILL this metal alloy will cut OR carve the PP stones, or not?

'I' don't know how to carve descending inlayed squares into hard stone with 'soft' metal...if YOU do please feel free to share your technique(s). I'd be interested in seeing the work done.
Click to expand...
I don't need to. Here is your argument:

The tools at the site are softer than diorite.
Tools softer than the stone cannot carve the stone
Therefore, the tools at the site could not carve the site.

I've proven the second line wrong. Steel, with a hardness of 5.5, can carve stone with a hardness of 7. Thus, your argument is wrong, and your conclusion is therefore unsupported.

If you'd like to make a DIFFERENT argument (preferably one based on at least minimal research into the peer-reviewed literature, but I know that won't happen), we can discuss that argument. But your argument, as it stands now, has been proven to be completely wrong.

I must have missed it.

Where are these evidentiary examples?
Click to expand...
In the peer-reviewed literature, which has been cited numerous times in this thread and which you steadfastly refuse to read. (And no, skimming a few pages does not equal reading the reports.)

The technology that did the work at PP is "lost", right now.
Click to expand...
As I have stated, many times in this thread: You have not read the peer-reviewed literature and therefore you are too ignorant to make this statement.

I don't know where else to turn to, in order to test this myth.
Click to expand...
As I have stated, many times before: The peer-reviewed archeological literature. Any library should be able to help you. Should take a good afternoon's worth of work.

There is nothing for me to be 'right' about... I am arguing that there is NO EVIDENCE that these stones were carved with traditional/known techniques using known period tools.
Click to expand...
And I'm arguing that by your own admissions you are too ignorant of the current state of knowledge to make such a claim.

I am not the one claiming I KNOW how these works were created, so the burden isn't or shouldn't be on me to prove anything.
Click to expand...
You ARE demanding, however, that we perform your experiments for you, despite your complete lack of knowledge about the archeological record. You don't even know if this has been done before. You don't know what's been found at the site, beyond a few isolated "facts" from fringe websites and TV.

Until then, we DON'T know how it was done, period.
Click to expand...
No. YOU don't know. You also don't have any clue what scientists know, because you haven't bothered to look.

Andrew Wiggin said:
Short answer; the chisels are hard enough to do what they did. It's your technique that's lacking when you fail with better tools.
Click to expand...
As anyone who's ever collected a hand sample can tell you, shaping stone doesn't require materials harder than the stone--otherwise we'd never be able to use rock hammers to collect quartzite or basalt hand samples. King of the Americas has latched on to one concept, ignoring all the rest of the concepts involved in stone carving, and demands that we do the same. In reality, KotA should learn about stone--concepts such as cleavage, fracture, cementation, grain size, etc., and their affects on the stress/strain relationships in the stone. It shows an amateur's perspective, and a bad amateur at that (the good ones learn everything they can).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom