> To repeat: Protzen DID NOT say this, " There was no metal technology available for the ancients to
> shape those stones..." YOU did....I suggest you reread Protzen's statements, and stop trying to
> re-interpret them.
> He didn't sat this either, "he agrees that andesite is too hard for bronze or copper
> tools...." YOU did. I suggest you reread Protzen's statements, and stop trying to re-interpret them.
I read and reread Protzen. And I quoted Protzen directly in my previous post so that the readers can see for themselves what he said. What quotes can you provide that say otherwise?
> There have been more than a few tools found in the REGION.
Once again, Protzen specifically states
That seems pretty clear to me.Quote
"To our knowledge, no tools have ever been excavated or identified that are positively associated with construction at Tiahuanaco."
"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."
> ORI, "What conclusions are you suggesting can be drawn from radiocarbon data": THE TIME PP's
> CONSTRUCTION BEGAN. I also suggest you actually READ the Radio Carbon test results.
How can C14 data possibly indicate when "PP's CONSTRUCTION BEGAN"?
I've read that C14 paper; it's full of uncertainties and caveats, hardly "valid proof" of anything except your misunderstanding of that site. Even Loveritas commented on the uncertainties in that paper. Why don't you have it out with her?
Please stop your incessant yammering and let's see your quotes from Protzen.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?