> Eddie, I interpreted the point to be whether the
> ancient stonework we see around the world today is
> the result of truly independent "instinctive
> skills" expressed by separate civilizations
> regarding similar architectural methods including
> pyramids, along with scoop marks, bosses, and
> precision cuts into igneous blocks vs. whether it
> all originated by a more ancient civilization, the
> knowledge from which spread around the globe to
> different subsequent civilizations, each with its
> own regional variations that we see in the
> artifacts that survived until today.
Hi Philip good to hear from you. I agree with you, and perhaps Jon, if that is what he was saying, that masonry is not an innate or "instinctive skill" rather I think it to be a skill we humans developed by doing it, through a process of trial and error. The issue of how societies passed building techniques on from generation to generation and from place to place is a separate question, IMO, from how people actually developed it in the first place. Jon's statement that I quoted made an error of it's own when he identified ancient constructions as "masonry" which is a longstanding human activity but then said that:
>"There is absolutely nothing about that masonry
> that is innate, natural, logical, pragmatic or
> practical from any known human perspective. "
If Jon wants to describe ancient constructions as masonry, a regular and known human skill, then he can't say that the constructions in question cannot be interpreted from any known human perspective without contradicting himself. Masonry is a "known human perspective!"
IMO, of course.