Where did the metal clasps go?

a reply to: Harte

I was meanng smelting earlier than when we know, old enough for the metal to corrode away as the OP suggests.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Harte

I was meanng smelting earlier than when we know, old enough for the metal to corrode away as the OP suggests.

The earliest known copper smelting is from circa 1500 BCE - as of 2010

Spanish language paper on this subject

Note in Spanish scientific papers BC becomes "aC" or "A de J.C." or "A de C." AD becomes "dC"

It could have been possible for the metal, in a molten state, to have been poured in the grooves after placement of the blocks. Since there is no evidence of metal clips and no evidence that any clips having been removed, i.e. chipping the stone to get them out, the grooves may have served some other purpose.

Maybe the grooves were used for alignment of the blocks. Perhaps the grooves were used to lever the blocks into place.

originally posted by: eManym
It could have been possible for the metal, in a molten state, to have been poured in the grooves after placement of the blocks. Since there is no evidence of metal clips and no evidence that any clips having been removed, i.e. chipping the stone to get them out, the grooves may have served some other purpose.

Maybe the grooves were used for alignment of the blocks. Perhaps the grooves were used to lever the blocks into place.

Did you mean to say 'Could not' instead of could?

If so the standard process was to line the receiving points with a thin layer of clay then pour in the metal, this allowed it to solidify without running off; as noted earlier they also used wood and softer materials for the linking ties. Such connectors are well known at other places and times as it is a solution to a common masonry problem especially when you don't have knowledge of concrete or don't want to use it for traditional buildings.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Harte

I was meanng smelting earlier than when we know, old enough for the metal to corrode away as the OP suggests.

Not necessary, since we know that Tiahuanaco dates to around the middle of the first millennium AD.

Harte

Sorry to have to post this on your thread, very interesting btw.
I am new to the ATS forums and am having an issue posting a new thread on the ancient civilisation forum would any seasoned members be able to help me? Do I have to reply to a certain number of threads first and get some street cred or something?
It keeps going to a blank page anyway.

If possible as well (the point of the thread I was going to start, more of a question than anything)
Which sites do we know of have evidence of keystone cuts or metal bracing between megalithic blocks used presumably for earthquake strengthening?

I am aware of them existing in
Egypt, Angkor wat (Cambodia) and some sites throughout Peru.

But is anyone else aware of these markings or any evidence of them in other sites around the world? and if possible supply links?

I am curious that they show up in three (or possibly more) very distinctive areas which all have considerable controversy in the dating methods involved in dating the sites.
- For example, the site Angkor wat, is dated by scientists to roughly 1200AD, based off of carvings found superfiscially inside and some organic matter found inside it, which sounds reasonable until you start to consider the fact thousands of years after it was built, another tribal leader found it stubling through the jungle, overgrown and in partial ruin and instead of living in crappy wooden huts decided to take residence in the giant palace building, his tribe carved grafiti and leave waste. Which we later dated and said was built by him. Disregarding ancient mythology of the locals.

Of course this is just a speculated possibility, but there is still very high levels of engineering involved in the construction of Angkor wat which cannot be explained.

The link between the metal braces (keystone cuts) is of considerable interest, as are most of the architectural and engineering feats of ancient civilisations especially to me as a student of civil engineering. The similarities and precision of construction shared by these sites shouldn't be ignore and are probably the most damning evidence of a former advanced civilisation having globilised the Earth. IN MY OPINION

Any help would be appeciated.

Many of the early arsinecal bronzes were made from copper ores tainted with arsenic.
I'm sure that 1500bc date is for the new world, as copper smelting goes back to 5500bc on the old world.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: engvbany
The fasteners were not necessarily copper , or even metal ...

A fastener was then inserted across the two stones, linking them. In many cases in the Mediterranean world, the fastener (clamp) was made of metal. One of the reasons you see ruins now with ‘bites’ out of the ancient blocks is that the metal was valuable, and people would destroy the corners of the stones to dig the metal out. But here in Armenia, it had been speculated that wood was used as the fastener. And now—there is evidence! We found wood in situ in the swallow-tail holes.

egafagan.com...

I can imagine that wood was used as clamps between smaller stones, but not between megalithic stones weighing tens or even hundreds of tonnes - wood would just not be strong enough for such a task.

-MM

Copper is a very soft, weak metal, and there are plenty of extremely strong wood varieties. Old growth lumber that they would have been using would be more dense and of higher quality than what's available today regardless of type anyway.

I haven't actually done any calculation to compare generic numbers for wood or copper, but it's very possible that wood could be stronger, or at least as strong as copper in this application depending on what wood is compared to what quality of metal. There are a ton of factors and it's not as easy as "copper is just stronger than wood" depending on how the brackets were made they could become brittle so it's hard to rule wood out as a possibility especially if they've found wood in some of them.

There are different types of "strength" to consider. these fasteners would have had forces that wood could deal with very well. When in place the brackets would experience a force similar to someone trying to pull it apart or stretch it apart. Wood doesn't stretch like copper does, and takes a lot or force to straight up pull apart of a piece of wood.

Copper can also degrade waaay faster than thousand year time scales it all depends on the environment it's in.

Another thing to consider, if they did use copper and it just sat there rotting away, the surrounding stone should be heavily stained with copper oxides and what not.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Biigs

As noted in my post above clamps have been recovered at a number of sites, the one Iinked are from Tiwanaku.

Interesting. I only knew of clamps found at the Pantheon, in Greece and in India.

What does the bronze with no tin in it tell us? That it was made by another civilization? Pure metals tells me that they were highly knowledgable in metallurgy.

-MM

You're misinterpreting that a bit.

Bronze is simply an alloy of copper and other metals. You smelt copper, then you can add in tin, or zinc, or lead, etc.

Making bronze and simply not adding any tin to the alloy doesn't suggest anything other than the person making the bronze didn't have tin available to him, or for whatever reason used a different metal to alloy with the copper.

It's not as if you mine for bronze and then refine the tin out, you start with copper and you make bronze.

originally posted by: Judgie
For example, the site Angkor wat, is dated by scientists to roughly 1200AD, based off of carvings found superfiscially inside and some organic matter found inside it, which sounds reasonable until you start to consider the fact thousands of years after it was built, another tribal leader found it stubling through the jungle, overgrown and in partial ruin and instead of living in crappy wooden huts decided to take residence in the giant palace building, his tribe carved grafiti and leave waste. Which we later dated and said was built by him. Disregarding ancient mythology of the locals.

You're talking here about King Suryavarman II, hardly some brute "tribal leader." And he didn't live at Angkor Wat. That site was a temple, not a palace.
Suryavarman II lived in a palace at the capital city of the Khmer empire in his time, which was at Yasodharapura, overlapping the future site of what would become a new capital - Angkor Thom.


Given the absence of remaining texts from the period (the area developed their own written text around 600 BC,) Archaeology has to go with what they have. The site is an example of Khmer architecture, which is evinced at other Cambodian sites. It is not unreasonable to date a structure to a time frame in which similar, perhaps more easily and more reliably dated, architecture was erected.

originally posted by: Judgie
Of course this is just a speculated possibility, but there is still very high levels of engineering involved in the construction of Angkor wat which cannot be explained.

While I'm not an expert on Khmer architecture (or Khmer anything, for that matter,) I'm certain such subject-matter experts exist. I believe you are simply voicing your own (and my) ignorance pertaining to Khmer construction methods. Obviously, without eyewitnesses (or eyewitness accounts,) the construction methods used at ANY ancient site will, by their nature, always contain a certain amount of speculative reasoning.

originally posted by: JudgieThe link between the metal braces (keystone cuts) is of considerable interest, as are most of the architectural and engineering feats of ancient civilisations especially to me as a student of civil engineering. The similarities and precision of construction shared by these sites shouldn't be ignore and are probably the most damning evidence of a former advanced civilisation having globilised the Earth. IN MY OPINION

Regarding the use of metal clips and other construction techniques, the vast amounts of time that exist between these cultures is the "most damning evidence" for the idea that they were related.

Harte

originally posted by: Judgie



The link between the metal braces (keystone cuts) is of considerable interest, as are most of the architectural and engineering feats of ancient civilisations especially to me as a student of civil engineering. The similarities and precision of construction shared by these sites shouldn't be ignore and are probably the most damning evidence of a former advanced civilisation having globilised the Earth. IN MY OPINION

This is a not uncommon belief which is not supported by evidence; our experience with known civilizations/cultures (Egypt, Sumer, etc) is that they leave massive archaeological footprints not just masonry. These people left millions of relics and hundreds of sites.

If one believes in a 'global advanced civ' one has to address why there is no evidence for said GAC other than masonry, while other civilizations are easy to identify even if all the masonry were to vanish.

originally posted by: Hanslune

If one believes in a 'global advanced civ' one has to address why there is no evidence for said GAC other than masonry, while other civilizations are easy to identify even if all the masonry were to vanish.

They were for more cognizant of thetheir ecological responsibility anf only made things easily composted or taken back to the mother ship...

Maybe you only need the metal bits during construction, and once the thing's up, you remove them.

originally posted by: Jarocal

originally posted by: Hanslune

If one believes in a 'global advanced civ' one has to address why there is no evidence for said GAC other than masonry, while other civilizations are easy to identify even if all the masonry were to vanish.

They were for more cognizant of thetheir ecological responsibility anf only made things easily composted or taken back to the mother ship...

Yes the dreaded 'drop cloth' people who always put down a huge tarp to keep from leaving anything to be found by later generations.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Is there a reason to know that the clasps were metal instead of wood? If wood, I would expect that they just disintegrated away over time.

a reply to: Hanslune

Dreaded is the wrong term, I would think considerate, thoughtful, or respectful soul fit so much nicer for a civilization who left a world ss unmarred for subsequent generations.

The most obvious reason for their disappearance is scavenged for metal by later generations. Where the ancient course of masonry had been exposed the metal is long gone (usually), but it's not a big mystery as to why, it is a precious commodity after all. Where course of masonry had been exposed in recent times as a result of archeological digs, metal clamps have been found intact. In one of the images below a museum collected metal clamps, I suppose that was necessary to prevent them from being pilfered by modern tourists.

A collection of retrieved clamps, various locations;





In situ:



Source: Ancient-wisdom.co.uk

I do not agree with several of the fringe claims that the clamps vanished due to disintegration as a result of extreme age, in keeping with overall fringe themes of these sites being vastly older than they are. The reason they are missing, by and large, is that people removed them. Where people haven't interfered, they have been found intact, still doing their job of keeping the blocks tied together.