Posted on 05/05/2018 8:26:52 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
A silica grit-encrusted cord would make a curved cut, too.
OK, suppose I buy into the swinging pendulum saw to cut hard stone. I have two questions.
1.We have examples worldwide of huge stones, some weighing up to 8000 tons (Yangshee Stele in China) and 800 tons in the Baalbek trio for simple building stones. How were they moved and installed?
2. Why would anyone think that cutting and moving building stones of this size was a good and efficient use?
Go to this site for some comparisons and links to pics
ya ever roll heavy objects on pipe? Or a log?
Forgot to add this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_monoliths
Some of the statues which were moved to a final location are absolutely beyond belief
Neat.
The Chinese stele was never moved, it remains in situ.
The largest of the three large Baalbek stones is more like 1200 tons, btw. :^) It is clear that they were moved, because one of them is still on the way to being put into posiition. Given that we can see an Egyptian relief portrait showing how a huge-assed upright statue of a Middle Kingdom pharaoh was moved — by a bunch of human muscle — it’s a good bet that the Baalbek stones were moved the same way.
Good and efficient, right... remember, they didn’t have TV and the WWW to keep them out of the streets and rioting, the masses had to be kept busy and focused. Also I wouldn’t be surprised that they were driven by somewhat different motivations and experiences to build big. At least when the Pharaohs were rearranging geology they were able to record things, like instructions. Remember, less than 500 years ago the Easter Islanders finally flipped out about the 90 foot statue they abandoned int he quarry; and the Stonehenge monumental parts were quarried and moved apparently by an illiterate work force under the supervision of illiterate managers.
Hmm, sounds an awful lot like where I work.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3152109/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3053462/posts
The papyri don’t tell how the 60+ ton stones were moved, merely the exterior casing blocks, and not surprisingly, they were moved by water. The 60+ ton stones were also moved by water, just not by Merer and the boys/buoys.
A couple thousand years later the Romans were filching 300+ ton obelisks from Egypt, and moving them all the way to Rome, by boat, in one piece. That’s more remarkable to me than what the Egyptians did. I’d be surprised if there isn’t one or more still lashed in a sunken ship, laying on the bottom of the Med.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3009029/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3342358/posts
Ooh, good idea!
Here and there the Egyptians did use harder stones, at least they’ve survived a little better. Most of the time they carved softer surfaces. It’s also a good bet that they knew how to form synthetic stones.
The article notes that it isn’t limestone.
Another obvious method that yields amazing results is to rub two equally hard stones together — the method used to make those cyclopean walls in Precolumbian America.
Interesting.
I think the Chinese stele was moved a distance away from the wall of the quarry, probably so it could be moved away later or for space for some decorators to work on it.
I still maintain that anyone smart enough to quarry these stones for use as walls or foundations would see that their huge size wasn’t necessary unless they anticipated some REALLY larger and heavier stuff to be on top.
Engineers are smart. Even if you can find rollers to move it, and a way to get the rollers under it, think of how many ‘volunteers’ it would take on the ropes. Figure four men to a ton, that’s 3200 men on a rope. Give each man three feet clearance on the rope and you have a rope 9600 yss or 28,000 feet lone. Sure you can have several ropes, but the demands of the job are still mind-bending for the overseer. A smaller weight stone would be so much easier.
The idea that these efforts were just “make work” to keep the multitudes busy is one I haven’t heard before.
Everybody knew everything
Distance is not a problem
Stephen Lekson
The blade is not the cutting agent. As with today’s glass slotted tube drills made from brass, there are slots that hold a cutting medium, sand. That medium along with water does the actual cutting.
Right there in you pic caption, it says they used limestone. Also, from the article, "Blackwell and his brother-in-law, Brandon Synan, pulled the sawing arm back and forth with a rope. A metal blade bolted to the bottom of the arm sliced into a limestone block. Unlike the type of conglomerate used in the Mediterranean region, limestone was readily available."
Just the good ol’ boys
Never meanin’ no harm
Beats all you never saw
Been in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born...
Oh, I thought you meant the Mycenaeans. The evidence that they used a pendulum saw is merely the results of their surviving work. Conglomerate stone is made up of so many things, it wuldn’t surprise me that they actually cast, rather than cut, the artifacts. If they did use a pendulum saw, the blade was probably obsidian.
We also don’t know how long they worked on the sculpting. :^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.