Did the ANCIENT BUILDERS Know How to SOFTEN SOLID STONE?

a reply to: zatara

It's a cool vid, but they are rank amateurs in primitive technology (their stone hammers were very poorly made, and the hafting was way below par). It would be interesting to know where their copper came from, and wasn't AE copper often hardened by natural presence of zinc and arsenic?

If these guys had a lifetime to work on it (rather than a day making a vid in the woods) then i think they may do rather better.

a reply to: Hanslune

There's just no realistic incentive for anyone to build a pyramid anymore. Aside from appeasing the doubts of disbelievers, it'd be a futile, expensive exercise. Of course, Las Vegas casinos are exempt!

Even today, I'm in awe of modern projects that have run highways through mountains and built cities. When people are organised and incentivised there's very little we can't do.

Why is it unreasonable to suggest copper (or more importantly, copper alloys, possibly naturally high in arsenic) chisels and stone pounders cant do this?

These tools categorically can work these materials and have been found in situ and represented in art.


==========================================

The other day I watched a mainstream proffesional Mark Lehner and a rock carver.. try to use the common ancient egyptian tools on carving a rock. They got nowhere.... not even with the much softer limestone.





Question: How can you built a Giza pyramid when you are not able to make a decent hammer?

a reply to: zatara

Luckily the pyramids were not made by a geriatric professor and his chum.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: zatara

It's a cool vid, but they are rank amateurs in primitive technology (their stone hammers were very poorly made, and the hafting was way below par). It would be interesting to know where their copper came from, and wasn't AE copper often hardened by natural presence of zinc and arsenic?

If these guys had a lifetime to work on it (rather than a day making a vid in the woods) then i think they may do rather better.

I belief workers in ancient Egypt are not much different than today. It must be do-able. I do not think men were put to work on something which takes ridiculous amount of time.... and money for that matter.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Absolutely, one will never be built using the old techniques, for a whole lot of money you could build a modern one though!

a reply to: zatara

And they are no different than the people today that build computers, fly aeroplanes and muck around with plutonium.

originally posted by: zatara


Why is it unreasonable to suggest copper (or more importantly, copper alloys, possibly naturally high in arsenic) chisels and stone pounders cant do this?

These tools categorically can work these materials and have been found in situ and represented in art.

Because they could.

You start from the bias that they can't and finish there.

When you go to quarries you see the pounders. There are unfinished stone showing the characteristics of being cut out by pounding. They have images of the tools they used.

So if you deny that they could do it with the evidence we have how did they do it?

Even the Greeks and Romans with iron tools took years to complete statues. Michaelangelo's David took nearly two and half years and he had assistance and started from a block already roughly shaped out.

originally posted by: zatara
Come now... I do not insult those scientists the way you think I do. I just want to express with those symbols that they do not deserve much credit in my opnion and that I strongly disagree with their conclusions.

You strongly disagree based on a few pictures on the internet. If you haven't studied the structures and cultures yourself, how can you possibly disagree that strongly? Why don't they deserve credit for their work? Because they won't throw a crazy hypothesis in the mix and promote it without evidence?

Because these mainstream proffesionals are no fools it can be that it is very dangerous for these scientists their careers if he.. or she .. come up with an explanation other than the consensus among their established peers. Their stuborn conclusion in this matter amaze me, more so because they are high educated proffesionals. These scientists can not produce a satisfying explanation other than pounding these rocks into shape with boulders and soft metals.

They don't just follow consensus. New things are discovered constantly that update our knowledge of these ancient cultures. While it's possible that they had advanced technology, there is no evidence of it. That's the simple fact of the matter. Scientists follow evidence, not emotional whims or appeals to ignorance. If the only tools they have found are tools for pounding and chiseling rock, then logic would say that that is what they most likely used. If not, all the advanced technology mysteriously disappeared without a trace, and that requires an explanation. So instead of making stuff up to fit that hypothesis, the scientists go with the evidence. It's similar to people claiming evidence for god. It's simply not there, or we haven't found it yet but it doesn't make the concept of god false.

I do not need to go on-site in Peru or Bolivia when use of simple common sense is sufficient for making a reasonable assessment in this case. I do not say these blocks are made soft with plantextraxts, bird doo-doo or with alien technology. But I am open for the possibillity if it is so. I am open for anything reasonable, anything except pounding with boulders or chisel them into shape with copper ... that is just unreasonable and not realistic.

I am also open to such possibilities, but it's not an excuse to attack the scientists who study it. No evidence of advanced technology speaks volumes, and I generally favor the theory of ancient advanced cultures as well. The problem is lack of evidence however. We have found lots of primitive tools and tech, but no advanced technology. It's not the scientists' faults that they won't entertain a hypothesis without evidence.

a reply to: Barcs

It's not the scientists' faults that they won't entertain a hypothesis without evidence.

A good adviser and dissertation panel will beat that outta ya pretty quick (the idea you can present an hypothesis without evidence)

a reply to: Hanslune

Hans, this stemmed from my typo, it was supposed to say "can", not "can't"

a reply to: Hanslune

If you look at this logically.... There were natives on every continent. There have been billions of humanoids and humans in our earths history. If rock working was easy with ancient tools or some sort of rock softening technique logic would tell us that the earth would be littered with stone work structures. Not just with religious, protective, and legacy structures,but with all sorts of structures and art.

It wasn't easy. That is why you see stone structures built for religion or necessity. They had no lasers. They had no plant juice that softened up rock. They had no adamantite tools or something from a meteor. They had backs that they broke and a lot a whoooole lot of will to get the job done.

I mean to me that is what seems logical otherwise in the modern age we would be inundated with stone structures that our ancestors left behind.

originally posted by: ArmyOfNobunaga
a reply to: Hanslune

If you look at this logically.... There were natives on every continent. There have been billions of humanoids and humans in our earths history. If rock working was easy with ancient tools or some sort of rock softening technique logic would tell us that the earth would be littered with stone work structures. Not just with religious, protective, and legacy structures,but with all sorts of structures and art.

It wasn't easy. That is why you see stone structures built for religion or necessity. They had no lasers. They had no plant juice that softened up rock. They had no adamantite tools or something from a meteor. They had backs that they broke and a lot a whoooole lot of will to get the job done.

I mean to me that is what seems logical otherwise in the modern age we would be inundated with stone structures that our ancestors left behind.

Yep and the also specialized - if you watched that video I could see blacksmiths reforging chisels while boys ran back and forth exchanging chisels with the artists/masons.

One has to wonder how good a seventh generation copper chisel man who had been doing so since he was 9 would be at chiseling limestone.

It also, to use another example, people get excited about how big rocks were moved. Considering the thousands of years this was done very very few were actually ever moved. Less than 40 by my count, probably because it was friggin hard to do and they did so only under special circumstances.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Kandinsky

I took stone tool making in college using Crabtree's book and obsidian. Took two years of often interrupted practice to get where I could make a passable looking spear point in a reasonable amount of time, preferred making burins and later flints for flintlocks.

Skalla's point is a good one - that a skill which was relearned and took a generation or two. The skills for building a pyramid in the 'ole style' would involve thousands of men working together and you're looking 2-3 generations of full time work on how to figure it out. Of course with knapping we also had living experts - pyramid building nada & zilch.

I have a good source of flint not even a mike from my house. I have been making my own flints fir my muzzleloaders since I was twelve. One thing people forget is stone can be worked by more ttechnology than just beating on it with a harder substance. With flint there is pressure flaking and also looking at the grain in a stone one can see it will want to split a certain way and employ wedges or abrasion to achieve the desired result.

a reply to: Jarocal

You are absolutely right

Unfortunately until people actually start to learn an ancient/traditional craft, many are typically unaware of what can be achieved in what time and the reaction is often "but that cannot be done" due to their being unaware of the tricks and techniques.

a reply to: JamesTB
with a certain chemical compond and correct tempature one can soften stones.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Which chemical compound and what temperatures?

What minerals does this work on?

You got give us more than that or you really have nothing to offer.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: JamesTB

I'm not as of yet ready to believe they knew how to 'Soften' stones but rather more intrigued by their ability to shape known hard stone types and move giant blocks with ease. It's as if the ancients purposely chose to work with some of the hardest and heaviest stone pieces they could find at times as if it was simply easy for them to do so....

I'm sure if you had a method of modifying and moving any stone of size and hardness, you would choose to build with the largest, strongest rather than a bunch of tiny, fragile bricks. I bet the method is so easy and obvious that we overthink it. It looks as if they were able to mend stone together like clay or playdoh

a reply to: skalla
I can't offer any to you. I'm out. It is a low temp. between 100 and 120 but it takes 5 min at a specific temp in that range to get the attention of something greater. It will remain a mystery because of the other alchemical implications that the mixture has. If no one was hell bent of world destruction we could truely be something only imagined. So to recap the post I am just full of it. When the builders were using this tech the control over the population was much different and they had a tighter grip on the ones that would destroy us. if we treat anyone wrong today then we are deemed evil so we will just all wonder how they done it. also some of the ancients could produce the tempature with their minds and others could cut stone with their minds.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: deadeyedick

Which chemical compound and what temperatures?

With hydrochloric acid @ room temperature I can 'soften' limestone to the point that none remains. This is a problem if I then want to build something from it; so I use hydrofluoric acid instead, to dissolve the silica and I retain the carbonate. The tricky thing with this method is that I don't have a portable fume hood.



a reply to: deadeyedick Wow! I'm very inclined to say " seek help".