Ancient Civilizations and Current Concieved Notions of those Civilizations

originally posted by: Byrd
...and it's the same way with Puma Punku (Harte, btw, has done archaeological digs all over the world and in MesoAmerica specifically, as I recall.)

Sorry, Byrd. You have me confused for someone else - maybe my buddy Hans.

I mean, yeah, I know everything alright. I guess this makes me an authority on everything, as you know and have perceived me to (obviously) be.

But I don't move no dirt. Not saying I never have, but I didn't find a damn thing in the ditches I have dug.

Well, except for a few trinkets I instantly turned over to the Illuminatibilderbergernwocfrtemplarmasons.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

Imagine what people that were sawing stone by hand for centuries were able to come up with.

Harte

OMG. Imagine, isn't Evidence my friend

Never thought that would become part of the Neigh Sayer Vocabulary lol

Nice Granite Information, none the less

originally posted by: Byrd

Nobody had ocean navigating or ocean worthy boats back then. There's all sorts of archaeological records about these boats - they lack the sails you need (moveable) among other things. I'll have to research more, because boats are NOT my forte!

More can be viewed on these Vessels on this link www.phoenicia.org.uk... July 17 2008 gives a nice perspective of the size of these vessels.

About the ability to navigate.

In 600 BC Egyptian King Necho II commissioned the Phoenicians to carry out the first circumnavigation of Africa. Previously considered impossible, Phoenician mariners embraced this challenge as documented in 440BC by Greek historian Herodotus in The Histories (4.42

and

Herodotus's account of the circumnavigation

Despite inventing the alphabet, what the Phoenicians did write down was on perishable papyrus and we are reliant on later historians for information on their civilisation. Greek historian Herodotus recorded the story of the Phoenicians voyage 150 years after its completion in The Histories 4.42. Herodotus clearly believed in the overall account but he doubted the Phoenicians claim that when they sailed west around the southern end of Africa they had the sun on their right. In fact, to later observers, the Phoenicians accurate observation of the sun's position in the southern hemisphere is now considered by many as evidence that the voyage did take place:

"Libya is washed on all sides by the sea except where it joins Asia, as was first demonstrated, so far as our knowledge goes, by the Egyptian king Necho, who, after calling off the construction of the canal between the Nile and the Arabian gulf, sent out a fleet manned by a Phoenician crew with orders to sail west about and return to Egypt and the Mediterranean by the way of the Straits of Gibraltar. The Phoenicians sailed from the Arabian gulf into the southern ocean, and every autumn put in at some convenient spot on the Libyan coast, sowed a patch of ground, and waited for next year's harvest. Then, having got in their grain, they put to sea again, and after two full years rounded the Pillars of Heracles in the course of the third, and returned to Egypt. These men made a statement which I do not myself believe, though others may, to the effect that as they sailed on a westerly course round the southern end of Libya, they had the sun on their right - to northward of them. This is how Libya was first discovered by sea."

Herodotus, The Histories 4.42 [tr. Aubrey de Selincourt]
www.livius.org...

Thought some of this could assist in your research.

Ciao

Shane

originally posted by: Shane

In 600 BC Egyptian King Necho II commissioned the Phoenicians to carry out the first circumnavigation of Africa. Previously considered impossible, Phoenician mariners embraced this challenge as documented in 440BC by Greek historian Herodotus in The Histories (4.42

As I recall, the statement was that they were traveling to the Americas about the time of Khufu or earlier.

400 BC is way off 2400 BC. By about 2000 years.

The Mayas started building them about 600 years before 400 BC: en.wikipedia.org...

...so... I don't see how the Egyptians (who didn't have sail technology for long distances until 400 BC (as you just pointed out)) or Phoenicians could have gotten to the New World in 1000 BC. Nor do I see any suggestion of how they could have possibly delivered it to the Maya in 300 BC (just after they navigated Africa.) Or why the Mayans would adopt and then redesign Egyptian pyramids when they'd already been designing and making pyramids for 700 years by the time you say Egyptians showed up to teach them.

...Egyptians who had quit making pyramids some time before that.

The timelines don't work.

originally posted by: Shane

originally posted by: Harte

Imagine what people that were sawing stone by hand for centuries were able to come up with.

Harte

OMG. Imagine, isn't Evidence my friend

Never thought that would become part of the Neigh Sayer Vocabulary lol

Nice Granite Information, none the less

Whatever you might want to believe, the fact is Stocks accomplished the sawing of granite (both holes and slabs) with copper and sand, simultaneously proving that granite removal outpaced tool wear by enough to make his method feasible.

If you think that Ancient Egyptian stone workers couldn't accomplish the same feat with a better removal to wear ratio than an old academic with no stone working background, simply because it takes some imagination, then you're just kidding yourself and no one else.

See, we know you yourself use imagination as evidence all the time. The alien in the temple, the helicopter in the temple, et al. ad nauseum.

originally posted by: Shane

originally posted by: Byrd

Nobody had ocean navigating or ocean worthy boats back then. There's all sorts of archaeological records about these boats - they lack the sails you need (moveable) among other things. I'll have to research more, because boats are NOT my forte!

More can be viewed on these Vessels on this link www.phoenicia.org.uk... July 17 2008 gives a nice perspective of the size of these vessels.

About the ability to navigate.

In 600 BC Egyptian King Necho II commissioned the Phoenicians to carry out the first circumnavigation of Africa. Previously considered impossible, Phoenician mariners embraced this challenge as documented in 440BC by Greek historian Herodotus in The Histories (4.42

and

Herodotus's account of the circumnavigation

Despite inventing the alphabet, what the Phoenicians did write down was on perishable papyrus and we are reliant on later historians for information on their civilisation. Greek historian Herodotus recorded the story of the Phoenicians voyage 150 years after its completion in The Histories 4.42. Herodotus clearly believed in the overall account but he doubted the Phoenicians claim that when they sailed west around the southern end of Africa they had the sun on their right. In fact, to later observers, the Phoenicians accurate observation of the sun's position in the southern hemisphere is now considered by many as evidence that the voyage did take place:

"Libya is washed on all sides by the sea except where it joins Asia, as was first demonstrated, so far as our knowledge goes, by the Egyptian king Necho, who, after calling off the construction of the canal between the Nile and the Arabian gulf, sent out a fleet manned by a Phoenician crew with orders to sail west about and return to Egypt and the Mediterranean by the way of the Straits of Gibraltar. The Phoenicians sailed from the Arabian gulf into the southern ocean, and every autumn put in at some convenient spot on the Libyan coast, sowed a patch of ground, and waited for next year's harvest. Then, having got in their grain, they put to sea again, and after two full years rounded the Pillars of Heracles in the course of the third, and returned to Egypt. These men made a statement which I do not myself believe, though others may, to the effect that as they sailed on a westerly course round the southern end of Libya, they had the sun on their right - to northward of them. This is how Libya was first discovered by sea."

Herodotus, The Histories 4.42 [tr. Aubrey de Selincourt]
www.livius.org...

Thought some of this could assist in your research.

Ciao

Shane

Note that this voyage needn't take the ship beyond the site of land and therefore only required the most rudimentary of navigational skills. Namely - "follow the coast."

You can do that in a kayak.

Harte

The quartz in granite ranks fairly high on Moh's scale. But the other components, the stuff between the crystals and contaminating the crystals, does not. Granite is given an overall 7 on Moh's scale because of the quartz crystals (quarts is also a 7.) Moh's scale is for minerals. Granite is a mixture of different minerals, as the most casual glance at any piece of granite shows. You might also note that you have already been told that the copper itself does not cut the granite. It's the abrasive the copper is moving that does the cutting.

a reply to: Harte

I am aware of how hard granite is, and that it is a mixture of different minerals, most of which rank as a 7 on the Moh's scale, that is why Granite is given a 7 and not any other number. I am also aware that Copper won't be cutting the Granite as it ranks between 3-3.5 on Moh's scale depending on its purity. My point is that the Quartz particles in the sand will also be cutting the Copper and not just the Granite, and as Copper is a much softer material it will wear away much quicker than the granite. Its obvious really.

Also, this idea of copper being removed faster than stone has been studied. By the guy (Stocks) that we're talking about.

So in his study he will have found that the copper is being removed faster than the Granite, otherwise something else is going on that he hasn't explained or he's breaking the laws of Physics. I would very much like to see evidence(which wasn't shown in the video btw) of the method he uses actually cutting the Granite as opposed to rubbing it a bit. If his method works as claimed, he could also measure the time it takes to make a cut and the depth of the cut to work out how long it would take to bore any hole in Granite using his method.
Which brings me to my second point. The shear amount of time it would take to cut any reasonably deep whole with his method. You see even with today's equipment sanding/grinding is primarily used as a 'finishing' method on a given material, rather than for cutting the material as its a very slow and labourious way of removing material. Even when grinding discs are used to cut through material it is done with revolutions of between 5000 and 12000 rpm's, what can a bow lathe achieve? about 120 rpm's tops?
So you can see why,from an Engineers POV, that is someone who has studied and knows about materials and cutting them, that the method Stock uses simply isn't feasible now hopefully?

His basic method removes granite at about twice the rate of tool wear, and he just made the method up.

I have no doubt he just made the method up, but I do have serious doubts it does as he claims! If anything it would be the other way round, Copper is removed at about twice the rate of Granite, as its half as hard.

If however the Quartz particles were glued to the Copper, and the glue was strong enough, there should be no friction and no abrasive action on the Copper, in this case it will work, but it would still need new 'abrasive bits'
gluing on periodically as they wear, and still be extremely time consuming.
Considering the shear amount of carving and cutting of extremely hard stones the AE undertook, it does make ones mind boggle! That's why I think they were much more sophisticated than they are given credit for. In terms of their Engineering know how and technical ability anyway.

Lots of historical records are in the form of pottery, constructions, weaponry and suchlike. The rest comes from writings more or less. Also, at those times in history we can surmise that not everybody was literate, in most cases probably only those very high up in societies could pass down the historical record.

I wonder what our history would look like if only the super rich or important of a certain political bent wrote our history for future generations to discover, would it be an accurate representation of the times do you think? Would they write what they wanted to, what they were told to or would they write the whole truth?

This has always vexed me.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Actually the sand would get imbedded in the copper meaning the more you use it the better it will work. We do something similar today by putting diamond imbedded into a drill or saw.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: surfer_soul

Actually the sand would get imbedded in the copper meaning the more you use it the better it will work. We do something similar today by putting diamond imbedded into a drill or saw.

Good point, thanks, but it wasn't explained before, and even so its still a grinding technique and it would take a horrendous amount of time to do with a bow lathe or some such. Also there appears to be evidence of drill and tooling marks on at least some of the stones found in AE.
If it was done by hand tools alone and primitive ones at that, then it would take a HUGE amount of time to do. One that doesn't fit in the time scale we currently have.
You and others might find this video interesting, personally I believe the ancients were more advanced than we give them credit for, I don't see why aliens should have to come into it, or that they needed electricty and machines etc... But perhaps, and surely they must have had techniques or technology that are as good, if not able to surpass are own today in some ways?

edit on 12-2-2016 by surfer_soul because: Typo's as usual

edit on 12-2-2016 by surfer_soul because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: surfer_soul

The quartz in granite ranks fairly high on Moh's scale. But the other components, the stuff between the crystals and contaminating the crystals, does not. Granite is given an overall 7 on Moh's scale because of the quartz crystals (quarts is also a 7.) Moh's scale is for minerals. Granite is a mixture of different minerals, as the most casual glance at any piece of granite shows. You might also note that you have already been told that the copper itself does not cut the granite. It's the abrasive the copper is moving that does the cutting.

a reply to: Harte

I am aware of how hard granite is, and that it is a mixture of different minerals, most of which rank as a 7 on the Moh's scale, that is why Granite is given a 7 and not any other number.

Apparently, you're not.

Quartz is the only component gets the seven. And that's for pure quartz, which can be found in and among the impure crystals.

When a hardness is assigned to a stone like granite, the hardness corresponds to the hardest component (of course.) Among the other minerals, Feldspar is almost 6. The Hornblende ranges from 5 to 6. The Mica is 3.

originally posted by: surfer_soulI am also aware that Copper won't be cutting the Granite as it ranks between 3-3.5 on Moh's scale depending on its purity. My point is that the Quartz particles in the sand will also be cutting the Copper and not just the Granite, and as Copper is a much softer material it will wear away much quicker than the granite. Its obvious really.

So, you just dismiss Stocks findings, and haven't even read them yet?
Here's a bar chart showing the ratio of granite removal to copper removal for Stocks' two different experiments - one dry and one wet. Perhaps you are surprised that the dry experiment far exceeded the wet, but both removed granite at a higher rate than tool wear.:

The rate of rock removal is similar for both the wet and dry sand tests at about 12 cm3/hour. Stocks (2001), after comparing the ratios of volume, weight, and depth of removal between the copper saw blade and the granite block (Fig. 8), concludes that the dry test with its flat-edged blade is distinctly better than that of the wet sand test with its notched blade. This is the result of the rate of degradation of the copper saw blade being greater in the wet tests, resulting in a more costly enterprise. As well, the tailing from dry cutting can be collected and used for other purposes. Because of the inexperience of the work teams in these modern experiments, it was suggested by Stocks (2001) that the rate of cutting could be increased by a factor of 2 with increased experience.

The source is here.
It's obvious, really.

That's an archived site, but it gives you Stock's results without hitting a paywall.

No more nonsense about "violating the laws of Physics," if you don't mind. I teach the subject.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

And we know from Egyptian records that they had copper smiths who did nothing but repair the tools. People read things on some ancient aliens website and take it for fact. Without ever bothet ing to look into what we learned from archeology about the workers and the records they kept. We even have pay schedules and supply lists.

a reply to: Harte

Like I noted my friend, Nice info on the Granite

I wasn't believing what I want. I was complimenting your input and information, but I guess that isn't a normal thing. lol

So, it is your understanding, this is all an easy thing to do, and explains these accomplishments of the Ancient Constructors we are seeing today.

Would it be fair then to suggest, the same was done here with these samples?



Just a few of the various cuts and holes, and impressions, that frankly seems to confer an extreme tolerance that from our current level of technological advancement would be difficult at best to duplicate. Just asking.

Looking forward to your continued insights and information.

Ciao

Shane

PBS did a program with Mark Lenher a while back showing some of the ancient methods for cutting granite.

Cutting Granite with Sand

The program showed a couple old men (the hosts) cutting through a granite block in a decent amount of time. Put that same technique in the hands of young well-conditioned workers and it will be much quicker, especially surrounded by all the trappings of a full-scale quarrying operation.

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: Harte

Like I noted my friend, Nice info on the Granite

I wasn't believing what I want. I was complimenting your input and information, but I guess that isn't a normal thing. lol

Not around here. Not for my posts, certainly.
No, I was commenting on your statement that imagination isn't evidence.

originally posted by: ShaneSo, it is your understanding, this is all an easy thing to do, and explains these accomplishments of the Ancient Constructors we are seeing today.

Dude, nothing's easy. Please don't characterize my information or opinion that way. I never said it was "easy," and it's obvious looking at it that it wasn't easy.

originally posted by: ShaneWould it be fair then to suggest, the same was done here with these samples?

Just a few of the various cuts and holes, and impressions, that frankly seems to confer an extreme tolerance that from our current level of technological advancement would be difficult at best to duplicate. Just asking.

Looking forward to your continued insights and information.

Ciao

Shane

It would be fair to suggest that sawing, pounding and smoothing was accomplished by the same or similar means. It's certain, for example, that the stones were pounded out of the quarries. The marks left behind are identifiers of that process.

Also, pounding marks - pockmarks left by concussion - have been found on most of the stone at Tiahuanaco.

I think saws may have been used, like they certainly were in Egypt. But the stones may have been smoothed so well that no saw marks remain. In any case, such fine surfaces can and have been achieved through pounding and smoothing with rubbing stones, so saws may not have been employed for the surfaces.

The small, straight channels in some stones found there, with evenly spaced holes along the bottoms, were accomplished with saws if you ask me. But AFAIK, no saws have been found, nor saw marks, but I could be wrong about that. After I satisfy myself that such stonework can be accomplished by mundane means, I generally stop looking much further into that aspect.

Regarding the fine carving, that was done with other tools - bronze chisels and, apparently, bronze axes, believe it or not (judging by the conditions of the axes that have been found.)

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Thanks again Harte.

So, could they have used other materials than Sand for cutting? Diamond Grains, apposed to Sand, and if so, would you think the process would be sped up.

Your honest opinion will suffice.

Ciao

Shane

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: Harte

Thanks again Harte.

So, could they have used other materials than Sand for cutting? Diamond Grains, apposed to Sand, and if so, would you think the process would be sped up.

Your honest opinion will suffice.

Ciao

Shane

If your question is in regards to the pictures of Pumapunku you posted, no harder materials than copper and bronze would have been necessary, as Pumapunku is composed primarily of red sandstone, which is significantly softer than granite, with the odd andesite block thrown in the mix.

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: Harte

Thanks again Harte.

So, could they have used other materials than Sand for cutting? Diamond Grains, apposed to Sand, and if so, would you think the process would be sped up.

Your honest opinion will suffice.

Ciao

Shane

Technically speaking, 'sand' is a size-related term, not a composition-related term. Essentially, anything between (from memory) 63 microns and 2 millimetres falls into the 'sand' category, so yes, diamond could be counted as sand.

Ah, here you go. Thank you Mr Wentworth:

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: Harte

Thanks again Harte.

So, could they have used other materials than Sand for cutting? Diamond Grains, apposed to Sand, and if so, would you think the process would be sped up.

Your honest opinion will suffice.

Ciao

Shane

One would have to obtain diamond grains to use diamond grains.
I doubt it would go any quicker.

It would mean that the abrasive would last longer though.

Harte

So now since we are all getting along and discussing things in such a civil manner, I ask this.

Here we are discussing Tiahuanaco.

So, how do these curiosities fit in the generally accepted view of Tiahuanaco?

Posnansky suggested an answer, based upon his studies of the astronomical alignments of Tiahuanaco, but that answer is considered so controversial, even impossible, that it has been ignored and censured by the scientific community for more than fifty years. As such it hasn’t made in into the mainstream history books and therefore hardly anyone knows of the astonishing implications of Posnansky’s findings.

Nearby the Puma Punka and the Akapana pyramid are the Kalasasaya compound and the so-called Subterranean Temple. It was in these structures that Posnansky made the discoveries that led him to suggest both a great antiquity for Tiahuanaco and an extraordinary use. As part of his studies, Posnansky had conducted precise surveys of all the principal structures of Tiahuanaco. The Kalasasaya structure, a rectangular enclosure measuring about 450 feet by 400 feet, was delineated by a series of vertical stone pillars (the name Kalasasaya means “the standing pillars”) and had an east-west orientation. Utilizing his measurements of the lines of sight along these stone pillars, the orientation of the Kalasasaya, and the purposely-intended deviations from the cardinal points, Posnansky was able to show that the alignment of the structure was based upon an astronomical principle called the obliquity of the ecliptic.

This term, the obliquity of the ecliptic, refers to the angle between the plane of the earth’s orbit and that of the celestial equator, equal to approximately 23 degrees and 27 minutes at the present. The tilt of the obliquity, however, changes very slowly over great periods of time. Its cyclic variation ranges between 22 degrees, 1 minute and 24 degrees, 5 minutes over a period of 41,000 years or 1 degree in 7000 years (this cycle is not to be confused with the better known precessional cycle of 25,920 years or 1 degree of movement every 72 years). The figure that Posnansky determined for the obliquity of the ecliptic at the time of the building of the Kalasasaya was 23 degrees, 8 minutes, and 48 seconds. Based on these calculations, Posnansky was thereby able to date the initial construction of the Kalasasaya and Tiahuanaco to 15,000 BC. This date was later confirmed by a team of four leading astronomers from various prestigious universities in Germany.

This comes from the following, sacredsites.com... and seemed less opinionated or contentious and in your face about these facts, which has been agreed with by others, such as noted above.

This isn't the current cookie cutter acceptable date that is generally associated with this site. In fact, that suggests this site is at least 4 x's older, than the current accepted view.

The article did cover quite a bit of various details and considerations, which can be found in most sites, some radical, some not, but if the timeline isn't established correctly, then the storyline of this site becomes lost, as has occurred with other cultures.

Ciao

Shane

Posnansky assumed that the alignment was indicative of this obliquity, then worked backward from his assumption to date the site.

Almost a hundred different C14 samples dated from Tiahuanaco and environs.

Besides, the site was nothing but rubble when Posnansky got there. He had to assume the positions of various missing structures there to get his "alignment."
Harte

a reply to: Harte

I understand that what is seen today, is much different from what was found on site, and that restructuring has occurred over the years.

But I think the 100'sof different C14 dates are from the many varied peoples inhabiting this area at different periods.

As we both know, unlike Gobekli Tepe, this site has been in the open from the date of it's destruction, to today, and as such, many have had unfettered access, through this time span.

Ciao

Shane