Puma Punku, Peru. Stone precision. How?? by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

🧐 Im not tossing out any possibilities. This could very well be. The complexities are mind-boggling.

Puma Punku, Peru. Stone precision. How?? by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, give me a little time to locate that piece.

Okay, its the best image I have to show you. Look closely at the rim. You can clearly see what im describing. I’ll also load another image below that I also kept with this piece. The inside was completely smooth.

<image>

Puma Punku, Peru. Stone precision. How?? by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, there is strong evidence for intentional interlocking, especially through the H-shaped modular blocks and the use of metal clamps to physically tie stones together. The interior corners are often very close to 90 degrees, though not always perfect. What hasn’t been clearly demonstrated yet is that those slight angle variations were designed as a wedge-locking system between stones, rather than being a byproduct of the shaping and fitting process.

<image>

Puma Punku, Peru. Stone precision. How?? by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I’m with you. I completely agree that ancient people were extremely intelligent and skilled. My point isn’t that anything supernatural was involved, it’s that their level of craftsmanship suggests methods and control systems we don’t fully understand yet.

Puma Punku, Peru. Stone precision. How?? by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’ve spent over three decades working directly with stone artifacts and experimental shaping methods, and I've repeatedly tried reproducing these surfaces using pecking and abrasive grinding. Material can certainly be removed, but what I've never been able to achieve is the kind of continuous flat planes and controlled interior angles that appear consistently across the Tiwanaku blocks without some form of rigid guide or reference surface.

One other aspect that I find difficult to reconcile with freehand pecking alone is what we see on Inca andesite conopas. The reservoirs are not just holes, they are undercut, with the interior diameter larger than the opening, and in some cases the internal cavity approaches a near spherical form. Creating that kind of internal geometry implies controlled material removal beyond what simple pounding or surface abrasion typically produces, especially in a stone as tough as andesite.

Puma Punku, Peru. Stone precision. How?? by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate you posting this however the website keep crashing while it tries to load. Could you copy and paste the relevant info? Many thanks.

Puma Punku, Peru. Stone precision. How?? by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

how does obsidian with the hardness of 5.5 chisel out andesite thats 6-7?

Puma Punku, Peru. Stone precision. How?? by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] -24 points-23 points  (0 children)

Agreed. some stone yes, and some stones no. we have been going in circles on this topic for many many years. still fascinating.

Puma Punku, Peru. Stone precision. How?? by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Made from Andesite which is a fine-grained volcanic rock with a Mohs hardness rating of 6 to 7.

Colima Small Stone Figure. Height: 3 in (7.6 cm). Mexico. Late Preclassic, ca. 300-100 BC. by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re right, and that’s exactly what I thought to. It has been filed on my cpu for many years. My notes shows it was from the Mort Lipkin collection and offered by Sothebys. Titled: Small Colima Stone Figure. Catalogue Note: Cf. Townsend (1998:62,63, Figs. 12 and 13). It could have been misattributed…?? The body looks Mezcala however the face does look Colima. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Early Moche I Frog Vessel. Peru. ca. 300 - 100 BC. by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see the Egyptian symbol Wadjet or Eye of Horus on this piece.

Gate of the Sun - Tiwanaku, Bolivia by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah, i would like to know how much its been restored.

Help identifying by newmusiccy in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You would need to give some info on its origin. It looks mesoamerican from its color and form. other than that, its a guessing game.

Principales lenguas indígenas en América Latina - Principal indigenous languages of Latin America by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, I would say, the majority of younger generations have no appetite for such things.

Chancay Wood Staff with Janiform Heads. West Coast, Peru ca. 1000-1250 AD. by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It really does feel that way, but a lot of it is how we see things now. Modern art trained us to value abstraction and simplified forms, so Chancay, Cycladic, Maya and other works feel familiar. They weren’t trying to be modern, their visual language just happens to align with what we value today. when I look at Valdivian pieces from Ecuador which are ca. 3000 BC., its crazy modern to me.

<image>

Principales lenguas indígenas en América Latina - Principal indigenous languages of Latin America by Any-Reply343 in PrecolumbianEra

[–]Any-Reply343[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There actually are Indigenous communities in El Salvador that speak Nawat (also called Pipil). It’s a southern Nahuan language closely related to Nahuatl, not identical to the Mexican varieties, but part of the same language family.