> Origyptian Wrote:
> > And what you fail to realize is that Protzen,
> > himself, was not able to come up with a rational
> > explanation of how that construction was
Close examination of some interior
> angles of the precisely wrought stones reveals,
> even to the naked eye,a fine groove in the very
> apex of the angles. We suggest that these grooves
> result from the blade of a chisel-like tool,and
> that the point in which the four planes meet was
> made with a punch-like tool. No such tools have
> been recovered or recorded, but other details at
> Tiahuanaco suggest the use of chisels or
> punch-like tools.
> Who Taught the IncaStonemasons Their Skills? Protzen and Nair
> Looks to me like he WAS able to come up with a rational explanation.
A rational explanation of what? That it wasn't a saw or drill? I don't consider that very useful information that gives us any idea how those stones were actually produced.
A vague reference to a "chisel-like tool" doesn't address anything about how those blocks were generated by Tiahuacan stonemasons. He only renders a vague guess without any substantiation.
- Does he show us a "naked eye" view of the "fine groove" or the "point in which the four planes meet"?
- What was the nature of the chisel he proposes that could cut such a stone with such precision, and how did they make such tools? For Protzen to merely suggest a "chisel-like tool" is extremely problematic since not a single such chisel has been found there in any of the excavations.
- How does he explain the several "roughly hewn and shaped stones" that have all those "trough-like depressions"? His implication that such stones are merely "roughed-out" makes no sense with respect to his proposal of "hammerstones" which, like chisels, have never been found by any investigation there.
- How does he explain how a "chisel-like tool" has the ability to produce four planes that he openly acknowledges are "perfectly planar" other than to acquiesce that the Tiahuanacan stonemasons "resorted to techniques unknown to the Incas and to us at this time."?
For that matter, a diamond- or carbide-tipped jack-hammer bit and a CO2- or YAG-laser all qualify as a "chisel-like tool".
Sorry, I don't accept such non-specific hand waving that totally skirts the important details as representing a rational explanation for how those blocks were made. Likewise, regarding Protzen's unacceptably simplistic treatment of the "boss" being used for lifting/positioning and "wedge stone" being a trial and error remedy for an allegedly unplanned gap that remained in the convergence of different work teams. The Wall of Six Monoliths does not at all support his treatment of wedge stones.
It seems clear to me that Protzen does not understand what he is looking at.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jan-16 08:19 by Origyptian.