> Corpuscles Wrote:
> > Hi Lee
> > Yet another 'sacred' huacas complete with a
> > Limestone.
> > No shitting Godzilla required.
> > Mine tailing dumps:
> You say no shitting required then show me a big
> 'ol dump. Make up your mind bro.
Sorry mate but Godzilla is a FICTION. Likewise so is it's shit.
> > You see if all the stonework was carved with
> > copper /bronze chisels???
> > Then there would have to be enormous number of
> > mines with huge associated tailing dumps all
> > the place. Not to mention the gold and silver
> > mines.
> Where are these mine tailing dumps for the
> Babylonians, Phoneticians, Greeks, Romans, etc,
Used up. But I am sure if I could be bothered I could find some pics for your outstanding collection.
Sorry , I am not going to bother.
> > As noted before the Inca legends indicate they
> > "were told" by the Huacas where to find gold
> > silver.
> The overwhelming majority (all?) of the gold was
> panned. I do not think they Inca (or whoever) did
> little more than basic mining with nearly all of
> it being done after the Spanish arrived.
Most likely most gold was panned. But why did they say the huacas told them were the gold was?
NO! Even the Mayans had heaps of gold. The Spanish took/stole it, not mined it!
> > The limestone extracted likely damp originally
> > (needs oxygen/air to harden with a crust)
> > Not necessarily "mortar" but the raw material
> > cut out blocks before it all hardens.
> > Yes some of the in situ carvings you have
> > presented might have been carved out of natural
> > andesite or granite outcrops.
> Where is the "might"?
Agreed . Definitely some are Andesite.
> > What with bronze
> > chisels?
> How did the Greeks and Romans do it? Or how about
> the Hittites:
They were at least in the iron age. Some wriggle room there?
I think ancient tech was a closely guarded secret.
Geopolymer is a difficult term. Strictly not applicable in such case.
BUT EXACTLY.... how did they do it?
Some can be explained by pounders. Other things cannot.
> > Or acid or such that could disassociate
> > the hard rock?
> The evidence is curious suggesting that some sort
> of stone softening may have been used, I am
> certainly open minded to rational alternative
> possibilities, but it makes little sense to use
> this process was used to create a geopolymer
> instead of just using it to help cut the
> block-also what is clearly seen by the evidence.
The original OP dealing with geopolymer (artificial fabricated stone) was specific to two sites which has undergone detailed extensive scientific analysis.
I ought make it clear I am not suggesting everything is non natural stone. Most is natural stone (or combination). However rock softening and reconstitution tech, existed and known widely (across the world) in antiquity.
Anyway. You have not researched the technology. You and others are forgiven.
I simply used the vid title as thread title, not meant everything ancient is encapsulated in that term. There is serious debate in that area of science atm that the alkaline branch (one of many types) ought be called something different due to different chemical structure.
The Pantheon. There is NO WAY that would be standing if modern Portland cement was used. It was a brew of volcanic ash mixed with pumice which has lasted 2000 yrs (under immense strain). Some modern high tech concrete has failed in modern Australia (concrete cancer) in circa 50 years.
They observed nature . They had the recipes.
How did "they" do it "pounders and bronze chisels?
You have to be joking! LOL!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07-Jan-20 07:13 by Corpuscles.