A question: What did the Inca build?

In reading many of the fine threads here I find that many claim that the Inca buildings and constructions were made by some 'lost civilization' whose only trace left on earth is masonry.

A thought came to me, if this lost civilization built everything the Inca claimed and the Spanish said they built what then did the Inca build?

They considered themselves master builders and had many projects on going when the civil war then the Spanish showed up and and their ancestors wrote of their abilities and skills. The Spanish used their own workers to build a great number of cities in the Spanish style.

So again the question is if the 'lost civilization' built all the Inca stuff what were they doing?

I wanted to throw this question out before I go on vacation so that the many fine minds here and think on it for awhile.

So:

Which Inca building were built by the Inca?

or

Where the Inca delusion and the Spanish dupes?

I hope to see some comments from both sides of the larger debate, skeptics and believers.

Thanks and until later.

a reply to: Hanslune

We have been at odd's in our opinions on some matters on the past with you usually proving right, but on this matter I concur whole heartedly, not only the Inca's but the other people's who were assimilated into there empire where fantastic engineer's, Builders and planner's and while I personally do not think we have a full history of south america by a long way's most of the construction and infrastructure of the Incan period is just that Incan period, the road's, the town's, city's and fort's though they did incorporate structures built by the other tribe's, kingdom's and empires that they conquered as well as were fantastic administrator's.

So yes you are right, if there was a recent (within a few million years) previous super advanced civilization were are the ruins in australia for example, there are non but there may have been much further back with no proof either way though I do think they may also have utilised ancient structure left by previous cultures that had gone by the time of the Incan empire and remain convinced that the structures off cuba are indeed a sunken city though they are too deep for simple static sea level rise so techtonic activity had to play a major part there.

The Inca were not responsible for the megalithic work.

Here Brien Foerster explains how the Inca built 95% of Machu Pic'chu but the other 5% remains an enigma -

Machu Pic'chu: Proof The Inca Discovered A Megalithic City



YouTube Link (even with the correct ID some videos don't show/work so I'm posting the link) -

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: JamesTB
The Inca were not responsible for the megalithic work.

Here Brien Foerster explains how the Inca built 95% of Machu Pic'chu but the other 5% remains an enigma -

Not really and how do you know they were not responsible for the 'Megalithic work'?

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three styles of Inca architecture?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

We have been at odd's in our opinions on some matters on the past with you usually proving right, but on this matter I concur whole heartedly, not only the Inca's but the other people's who were assimilated into there empire where fantastic engineer's, Builders and planner's and while I personally do not think we have a full history of south america by a long way's most of the construction and infrastructure of the Incan period is just that Incan period, the road's, the town's, city's and fort's though they did incorporate structures built by the other tribe's, kingdom's and empires that they conquered as well as were fantastic administrator's.

So yes you are right, if there was a recent (within a few million years) previous super advanced civilization were are the ruins in australia for example, there are non but there may have been much further back with no proof either way though I do think they may also have utilised ancient structure left by previous cultures that had gone by the time of the Incan empire and remain convinced that the structures off cuba are indeed a sunken city though they are too deep for simple static sea level rise so techtonic activity had to play a major part there.

Hey Labtech

Yes the history we have of SA (and CA) are sketchy at best mainly because they rose so late (as compared to the old world) and mainly because they didn't invent writing soon enough - so much was lost.

You identified one of the main flaws in the LC theory, the lack of evidence for a world wide culture.

As I have noted before with Catalhuyuck and GT we'll probably see more small isolated outcroppings of 'civilization'; but who knows we might get a surprise.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB
The Inca were not responsible for the megalithic work.

Here Brien Foerster explains how the Inca built 95% of Machu Pic'chu but the other 5% remains an enigma -

Not really and how do you know they were not responsible for the 'Megalithic work'?

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three styles of Inca architecture?

Sure but firstly could you show me what the 3 Inca styles are in your opinion?

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB
The Inca were not responsible for the megalithic work.

Here Brien Foerster explains how the Inca built 95% of Machu Pic'chu but the other 5% remains an enigma -

Not really and how do you know they were not responsible for the 'Megalithic work'?

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three styles of Inca architecture?

Sure but firstly could you show me what the 3 Inca styles are in your opinion?

A. Polygonal, blocks of irregular shape which can be divided into two sub groups

1. Sedimentary coursed masonry: stones laid out in horizontal rows
2. Encased coursed masonry: in which stone blocks are not aligned

B. Coursed, rectangular shaped stones

3. Cellular polygonal masonry: small blocks and some scholars make a fourth
(4.) Cyclopean polygonal masonry: large stones

This based on the work of Hyslop, Kendall, Gasparini, Margolies, Rowe and others who base the development of Incan architecture on the influences of Tiahuanco and the Huari and is not my theory.

So I repeat my question

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three (four) styles of Inca architecture?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB
The Inca were not responsible for the megalithic work.

Here Brien Foerster explains how the Inca built 95% of Machu Pic'chu but the other 5% remains an enigma -

Not really and how do you know they were not responsible for the 'Megalithic work'?

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three styles of Inca architecture?

Sure but firstly could you show me what the 3 Inca styles are in your opinion?

A. Polygonal, blocks of irregular shape which can be divided into two sub groups

1. Sedimentary coursed masonry: stones laid out in horizontal rows
2. Encased coursed masonry: in which stone blocks are not aligned

B. Coursed, rectangular shaped stones

3. Cellular polygonal masonry: small blocks and some scholars make a fourth
(4.) Cyclopean polygonal masonry: large stones

This based on the work of Hyslop, Kendall, Gasparini, Margolies, Rowe and others who base the development of Incan architecture on the influences of Tiahuanco and the Huari and is not my theory.

So I repeat my question

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three (four) styles of Inca architecture?

Those descriptions are too broad could you show me some photographic evidence of the 3 styles and then I'll know what you mean.

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB
The Inca were not responsible for the megalithic work.

Here Brien Foerster explains how the Inca built 95% of Machu Pic'chu but the other 5% remains an enigma -

Not really and how do you know they were not responsible for the 'Megalithic work'?

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three styles of Inca architecture?

Sure but firstly could you show me what the 3 Inca styles are in your opinion?

A. Polygonal, blocks of irregular shape which can be divided into two sub groups

1. Sedimentary coursed masonry: stones laid out in horizontal rows
2. Encased coursed masonry: in which stone blocks are not aligned

B. Coursed, rectangular shaped stones

3. Cellular polygonal masonry: small blocks and some scholars make a fourth
(4.) Cyclopean polygonal masonry: large stones

This based on the work of Hyslop, Kendall, Gasparini, Margolies, Rowe and others who base the development of Incan architecture on the influences of Tiahuanco and the Huari and is not my theory.

So I repeat my question

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three (four) styles of Inca architecture?

Those descriptions are too broad could you show me some photographic evidence of the 3 styles and then I'll know what you mean.

Nope because all you are doing is desperately trying NOT to answer my question. I would suspect the reason for that is that you (Brien) has no method at all to tell the diference.

He/you just look at sites and say, " I don't understand how they could do that so it has to have been made by an LC", with a thick layer of personal incredulity.

So if you would please explain how you tell the difference between Inca architecture and LC work.

Explain if you could the criteria you use, the perimeters within those criteria and how they were arrived at and from which source did it come from (I presume Brien or you has not done a personal site survey of all Inca constructions).

a reply to: JamesTB

How exactly is a reply with such specificity too generalized? With a reply THAT specific you should be able to use google scholar to find a multitude of studies with when more precise descriptions of Inca building styles and techniques. Honestly, it really does come off as an extremely evasive response that completely avoids dealing with the question posed to you. Is the problem really as you describe it? Because that presents it's own host of issues and dilemmas. Or is it that nowhere in Brian Foerster's mockumentary version of faux archaeology is something resembling real archaeology addressed? Hans went so far as to give you the names of the researchers who did the bulk of the legwork into our current understanding of Inca architectural techniques so every piece of information is there for you to hop the train to the land of due diligence and actually do the leg work yourself and then address the issue with a proper rebuttal. Though I suppose that will be sorely lacking unless Mr. Foerster makes himself available minus a nom de plume and addresses the research properly. I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB
The Inca were not responsible for the megalithic work.

Here Brien Foerster explains how the Inca built 95% of Machu Pic'chu but the other 5% remains an enigma -

Not really and how do you know they were not responsible for the 'Megalithic work'?

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three styles of Inca architecture?

Sure but firstly could you show me what the 3 Inca styles are in your opinion?

A. Polygonal, blocks of irregular shape which can be divided into two sub groups

1. Sedimentary coursed masonry: stones laid out in horizontal rows
2. Encased coursed masonry: in which stone blocks are not aligned

B. Coursed, rectangular shaped stones

3. Cellular polygonal masonry: small blocks and some scholars make a fourth
(4.) Cyclopean polygonal masonry: large stones

This based on the work of Hyslop, Kendall, Gasparini, Margolies, Rowe and others who base the development of Incan architecture on the influences of Tiahuanco and the Huari and is not my theory.

So I repeat my question

How do you tell the difference between LC work and the three (four) styles of Inca architecture?

Those descriptions are too broad could you show me some photographic evidence of the 3 styles and then I'll know what you mean.

Nope because all you are doing is desperately trying NOT to answer my question. I would suspect the reason for that is that you (Brien) has no method at all to tell the diference.

He/you just look at sites and say, " I don't understand how they could do that so it has to have been made by an LC", with a thick layer of personal incredulity.

So if you would please explain how you tell the difference between Inca architecture and LC work.

Explain if you could the criteria you use, the perimeters within those criteria and how they were arrived at and from which source did it come from (I presume Brien or you has not done a personal site survey of all Inca constructions).

There are 5 different styles in the Cusco area up to and including the arrival of the Spanish. Show me the 3 styles you suppose were built by the Inca and I will provide photographic evidence of the 5 styles which I know of. The floor's yours .....

a reply to: JamesTB

Nope, avoiding the question again huh James?

Still unable to come up with any scientific or rational reason why Brien Foerster picks one building over another?

You certainly wouldn't dare challenge him on what he has told you to believe would you?

We'll take your continual refusal to explain how it is done as your concession that there is no method and it's just him and you making stuff up......lol

If I may be as bold as to wade in here and post some questions of my own.

Could the Inca have created all that we find? Sure, why not, The better questions for me would be how and why?


Let's start with some very large and heavy stones, not only are they exceptionally large and heavy but are also extremely well carved and finished. Yet we'll often see them placed with crappy much smaller filler stones packed in between, Now why would they do this? Some believe those larger stone were re-purposed by the Incas from earlier older sites.




How about extremely accurate precision cut grooves? If one were to chisel them it would look very rough this however is not what one finds, by what mechanism were they created and for what conceivable purpose?





What about the hundreds of extremely accurate carvings which show no sign of chiseling? Some of these carvings are in some of the most bizarre locations and angles.


















What's also interesting is the very real evidence of the destruction of a very sophisticated site that's still to this day not fully explored not explained. Which shows clear signs of some unknown massive upheaval.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2fec7b045e2.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6ca73c7ab02.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/384e3f4328f3.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ed0f58c30c4d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9b4fcec37dd.jpg[/atsimg]



Elsewhere, we find perfectly carved and placed stones which still stand with extreme accuracy to this day...



Compare the above to the absolutely horrible sloppy reconstruction job done by the fairly recent modern Bolivian Army

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9eb5020afb81.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68ef220c9188.jpg[/atsimg]


And finally many, myself included, question the progression of stone working development simply because often behind or underneath accepted "Inca Stone work" one finds much higher quality craftsmanship...



What did the Inca build?

They built Bridges, Aquifers, Temples, Roads, Fortresses, they were nicknamed the Roman Empire of the New World. Yet we still find a lot to question and theorize on imho, Could they have built all that's been attributed to them?

Yes, but again how and why did they?

Bonfires. They built bonfires.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Good post.

It just seems very obvious that the inca's as shown in your last picture very clearly just finished off walls with very poor quality compared with those much bigger stones which fits perfectly and can withstand time and earthquakes much better. Yet most of this quality (big hard stones fitting perfectly) mostly seem as you said to be destroyed by some big of massive upheaval of some sort. Also many of them show very old weathering even though the stones are very hard.
Those much smaller stones with some kind of Mortar between them are poorly crafted and just not old! like 500 years or so.

Anyhow it just doesn't make much sense they would mixe up walls with very poor crafting and with very good quality.
As with proving it, lets say those very well crafted big stone walls are 10.000 years old, it's just very hard to prove, even more so if that place was once destroyed with some massive earthquake + flooding or whatever.

And proving anything is just really really hard.. so you just get to the point; what do you believe and trying to find things to prove what you believe is true.

a reply to: SLAYER69

A poster of your experience and knowledge is always welcome Slayer

Ran out of time - I'll be back - I made some notes to Plugin.

originally posted by: Plugin
a reply to: SLAYER69

Good post.

It just seems very obvious that the inca's as shown in your last picture very clearly just finished off walls with very poor quality compared with those much bigger stones which fits perfectly and can withstand time and earthquakes much better. Yet most of this quality (big hard stones fitting perfectly) mostly seem as you said to be destroyed by some big of massive upheaval of some sort. Also many of them show very old weathering even though the stones are very hard.
Those much smaller stones with some kind of Mortar between them are poorly crafted and just not old! like 500 years or so.

Anyhow it just doesn't make much sense they would mixe up walls with very poor crafting and with very good quality.
As with proving it, lets say those very well crafted big stone walls are 10.000 years old, it's just very hard to prove, even more so if that place was once destroyed with some massive earthquake + flooding or whatever.

And proving anything is just really really hard.. so you just get to the point; what do you believe and trying to find things to prove what you believe is true.

Howdy Plugin

Yep, there some sloppy work there. Lets not forget that the Inca were very late to the party and their empire overran a number of existing ones that also came into being on top of previous ones. The ancient history of western South America is complex to say the least.

It is also a region of great earth quake activity and is the eastern terminus of the ring of fire.

So we have:

Different cultures that built on or over existing structures (let me note that these earlier cultures are well known from archaeology they are not unknown).

An area known for intense earthquakes - so lots of damage to repair

A general laissez-faire view of architecture - few directed or dominate styles or techniques - perhaps reflecting the constant rise and fall of different tribes, clans, religions and empires.

Lack of any evidence for the mysterious lost civilization, they appear to have left nothing but conversely the known cultures littered the area with graves, mines, pottery, habitations, irrigation projects, etc yet the unknown civilization left absolutely nothing.

Now I've run out of time today (I have just been informed by Ayesha that we must go cloth shopping - drat and dread) I will address some of other excellent points made by Slayer and Plugin later.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Fantastic image's, I am totally amazed at the level of construction ability shown, you know as the amazon is deforested there is some possible evidence of habitation and possibly even agriculture from a now totally unknown culture that may or indeed probably does long predate the olmec's and that is a possible spanner in the work's for how old meso american civilization really is.

www.nytimes.com...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

www.mnn.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Of course if these Markings actually predate the Amazon Forest as suggested her then this is even more telling of great antiquity in there nature.

www.reddit.com...

Though I tend to believe they were probably a contemporaneous culture to the Olmec or even maya who also Cleared forest for agricultural purposes.

Thank you for that post you have reopened my mind.

a reply to: Hanslune

The underlying and common theme for the reason Brien forester refuses to believe that ANY of these megaliths, Egyptian or South American were done by natives is because he doesn't believe they were CAPABLE of it.

It's eerie, in the undertone of Brien's comments he seems to be constantly discrediting civilizations as less than capable because they were brown people.

Watch all his shorts and see his urgency on why it can't possibly be the indigenous civilizations, it's subtle but omnipresent trait in most of his reasoning.

While he brings up a few good points on how earlier more advanced civilizations may have placed these relics, his primary concern is making sure that the indigenous people don't get credit. Rather than clarifying the issue on WHO and WHEN.

Judge for yourself though, I tried to brush off his reasoning for a while however it seems too constant as if he's out there to say that megaliths couldn't be build by African or South American people because they were Africans and South Americans.

a reply to: Plugin

The age of some sites are a point of contingent for many.

Re-purposing stones is nothing new when dealing with ancient sites all over the world. We see it in Ancient Egypt and elsewhere. The question of age and original use as in the case of Incan sites should be called into question. I guess the problem comes from when two or three acceptable scientific disciplines disagree with one another. Is archeoastronomy legitimate enough to challenge certain academic beliefs? If so, then, we have to seriously reconsider some long held beliefs, Which I think would be a fantastic revolution in our understanding of our past.

For some however, it seems a matter of prestige I guess in that there have been such long held beliefs that any form of deviation would and is considered some sort of threat.