Accepted theory or timeline of human development

Granite (and other stones) dust was collected for faience.
Small controlled fires directly over the length of stone to be pounded the next day wouldn't leave much ash anyway.
Any ash that didn't blow off (or wasn't swept off) wouldn't hurt the faience.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
Granite (and other stones) dust was collected for faience.
Small controlled fires directly over the length of stone to be pounded the next day wouldn't leave much ash anyway.
Any ash that didn't blow off (or wasn't swept off) wouldn't hurt the faience.

Harte

And also they would probably have used grass or something as the fuel for the fire. Since wood was scarce in the area.

Easier for the ash to spread around or blow away.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Only a small fraction of the structure of Macchu Picchu is megalithic construction.

Here you wander off into lala land with a baseless claim that is required to support your other baseless claim. Apparently you decided to post this without thoroughly researching how it is we we know how old Machu Picchu actually is.

Was it radio carbon dating, by chance? I never disputed that people were there in 1450 AD.


Machu Picchu also doesn't fit my theory of the larger stones being fortifications against Mammoths. Due to it's location, a Mammoth probably couldn't get up to it in the first place.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousOn the Old World continents, the Greeks called that kind of construction "Cyclopean". The trunk socket on an elephant skull can easily be mistaken for a big eye socket.

They also said the Cyclops forged Zeus' thunderbolts. You seeing mammoths doing that?
Dependency on mythology to support your baseless claim. So there's a third baseless claim manufactured solely to support your first baseless claim.

Harte

So........... you're thinking maybe they found evidence of electricity use, or heavily melted/burnt glass (which would make it look like lightning had hit it) near some of these "Cyclopean" architecture?

Yeah. I've considered that might be entirely possible.

If you found Cyclops skulls, and then you found things that look like they were created by lightning striking, you would probably conclude that the Cyclops knew something about lightning.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Machu Picchu also doesn't fit my theory of the larger stones being fortifications against Mammoths. Due to it's location, a Mammoth probably couldn't get up to it in the first place.

You never heard of Mountain Mammoths?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousSo........... you're thinking maybe they found evidence of electricity use, or heavily melted/burnt glass (which would make it look like lightning had hit it) near some of these "Cyclopean" architecture?

No, it just means that the Cyclops mythos fit in well with construction with large, mostly unfinished stones. My point was that all kinds of crazy stuff is said about all the fantastic creatures from Greek mythology. There no reason to read anything into it.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousSo........... you're thinking maybe they found evidence of electricity use, or heavily melted/burnt glass (which would make it look like lightning had hit it) near some of these "Cyclopean" architecture?

No, it just means that the Cyclops mythos fit in well with construction with large, mostly unfinished stones. My point was that all kinds of crazy stuff is said about all the fantastic creatures from Greek mythology. There no reason to read anything into it.

Harte

Cyclopes are part of the root of the mythology. The core cannon.

The reason oral tradition even worked in the first place is because people didn't have television. Having someone recite a good story was the closest you could get.

But the most compelling stories are those that have a root in something true. They might start with something true and then go off in fanciful directions from there (such as the siege of Troy involving gods, Amazons, or indestructible warriors), but that core foundation, of some part of it being true, gives it mystery and engages the audience's minds.

Good liars use reality as an inspiration for their lies. It allows you to give detail, rather than just vaguely hinting at something.

Most likely: Cyclops were already something being discussed in Greek society before they entered into the myths.

It's more likely the myth weaver would use an existing concept, and if they changed the existing concept the changes would be minor.

I'm just saying. I think there is both more to myth than just myth. And less to myth, than even a good story.


But when a writer like Tolkien wants to tell you a fantastic story about an age that never was, he draws on existing lore. Elves. Dwarves. Goblins. Dragons!!! (But he probably invented Hobbits himself.)

Cyclops being a story element first, and THEN getting included in the Titanomachy, is more probable than Titanmachy first, and THEN cyclops.

And a reasonable starting point for the Cyclops idea, would be a huge "one eyed" skull that baffles a village, and then everyone is so excited they tell their friends, who tell their friends, and pretty soon everyone has heard of it.