fitzcoraldo wrote:
We only need to look at stonehenge to know that sarsen can be worked with relative ease using stone tools. I would guess that it is the skill and experience of the mason which is the most important factor when looking at any worked stone.
Regarding Moh, as you know the scale is applied to minerals not rocks, I guess that there are too many variables, depending on the conditions of the deposition of the rock, to allow an absolute value.
Hi Fitz , I made much the same point to someone on the other forum who had failed to make an impression on granite and concluded that any markings must have been done with metal .He simply hadn't practiced and didn't have the required skills . I think it was Mike Pitts who showed an unbelieving local stone mason how to knock lumps off sarsen without modern tools ,answer belt it with another lump of sarsen swung from an A frame . Sadly the Moh's scale is all we have for any comparisons and geo types would quote the % of quartz content in a rock rather than try a different technique for working it . Andy Goldsworthy uses a blow torch in granite , not a prehistoric method but it works a treat . Regarding Moh, as you know the scale is applied to minerals not rocks, I guess that there are too many variables, depending on the conditions of the deposition of the rock, to allow an absolute value.
