> Origyptian wrote:
> > Protzen is very clear about this. Andesite is a high silica tetrahedron, hard igneous rock
> > (between diorite and basalt). There was no metal technology available for the ancients to shape
> > those stones. Iron didn't arrive there until the Spanish invasion, and he agrees that andesite is
> > too hard for bronze or copper tools.
> Protzen DID NOT say this, " There was no metal technology available for the ancients to shape
> those stones..." YOU did. See link below for exactly how 'ancient' the builders are.
> And I'm DAM sure he didn't sat this either, "he agrees that andesite is too hard for bronze or
> copper tools...." (You're welcome to try and prove me wrong here.)
There's no need to "try" to prove you wrong; you're just wrong. Why would you attempt such an empty allegation unless you had the book and read the relevant section?
> The Pre Incas used a copper/arsenic/nickel alloy to make their tools. Regardless of any/all of YOURQuote
Protzen & Nair, "The Stones of Tiahuanaco", 2013, p.154
"To our knowledge, no tools have ever been excavated or identified that are positively associated with construction at Tiahuanaco. Iron tools were unknown in the Andes before the arrival of the Spanish. The few Tiahuanaco copper or bronze chisels in the American Museum of Natural History in New York and in the Museum Tiahuanaco in La Paz seem too small for construction work. Furthermore, preliminary tests we made with modern bronze showed the material to be rather ineffectual on hard stone."
> misleading and outright false statements, the Pre Incas DID build Puma Punku using the tools I mentioned.
Unfortunately for you, my "outright false statements" are actually from Protzen.
> Here's some valid proof, (in first link) that you may want to read to possibly avoid making more
> misleading and outright false statements in the future.
> Radio Carbon Data on Tia:
"Valid proof" of what? What conclusions are you suggesting can be drawn from radiocarbon data that indicates "Tiwanaku activity" other than the presence of the most recent population that occupied or passed through the site at any point after it was constructed?
I suggest you seriously reconsider what that 2004 master's thesis is "valid proof" of. It is from a graduate student at Warsaw University, Poland, (it took him 5 years to get the Master's) who is now an Editor at CEO, CIO, and CFO Magazine. In fact, he immediately dropped out of archeology when he left school in 2000 and became a journalist for an IT magazine before the paper was even published. His credentials include:
Journalist / IT Partner Magazine
Journalist / Internet Standard Magazine
Journalist at CXO Magazine
Editor at CEO, CIO, CFO Magazines
He's also credited for being a good "coordinator and speaker" at CIO events. The one paper you cited by him is the ONLY thing on record that he's ever written in the field of C14 dating or archeology. Not a very credible source for "valid proof" by my standards. Sorry.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?