It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evidence Suggests Incas Could Dissolve & Reconstitute Limestone

page: 1
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on May, 7 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Following J. Davidovits' discovery of ancient concrete (reconstituted limestone) used in Egyptian pyramids some years back, we may now be confronted with a similar discovery regarding the construction of megalithic Inca walls at Sacsayhuaman in Peru.

In 2012, a team of Russian geologists was asked by the Peruvian Ministry of Culture to inspect several megalithic blocks at the fortress of Sacsayhuaman near Cuzco. The request was made in order to determine why certain blocks started to shift away from their original position, a circumstance which the geologists interpreted as the result of hollow cavities underneath the wall. Astonishingly, their analysis also revealed that the blocks were made of limestone that, at some point, had been dissolved and reconstituted during the course of construction. Geologist N. Berdnikov (PhD, Deputy Director of Institute of Tectonics & Geophysics, Khabarovsk, Russia) summarized the findings in a presentation:

Exerpt from the description:


Plasticine Stones of Sacsayhuaman
The team took samples of the limestone from the megalithic wall itself and the quarry area from where the stones for Sacsayhuaman are said to have been extracted. Using optical microscopy as well as XRF analysis (X-ray fluorescence), they were able to determine the elemental makeup of the limestone blocks and samples from the quarry.

The blocks from the wall were composed of microcrystalline limestone with no organic skeletal fragments, whereas all of the samples from the quarry were not microcrystalline and had clear signs of organic skeletal remains.


In case you don't have the time to watch the video, here's a brief summary:

The stones of the quarry and the walls at Sacsayhuaman have an almost identical chemical makeup, yet they're different regarding their crystalline structure. The comparison below shows the quarry rock (left) with the fossil remains usually found in limestone, and the blocks of the wall (right) showing a micro-crystalline limestone lacking these features:



The analysis of the chemical makeup of the stones both at the quarry (from where the stones originated, according to archaeologists) and the megalithic wall shows that the composition is nearly identical (containing all components usually found in limestone):



The cyclopean walls of Sacsayhuaman, analyzed by the Russian team of geologists:



Precision-fitting: barely a piece of paper can fit inbetween the perfectly interlocking stones:




All this leaves us with the real possibility that the ancients not only used concrete for certain blocks of the pyramids in Egypt, but also for the cyclopean architecture in Peru. Personally, I believe this is yet another indication for a variety of similar features in ancient megalithic cultures that can be found across continents and around the globe.

This further begs the question: did an ancient and highly advanced civilization exist in the remote past, with technological skills unknown to us today? And did the ancient Egyptians, Incas and many other cultures establishh their empires based on the legacy left behind by these ancient builders? The case remains difficult without more evidence for a lost culture in these areas, but the evidence in the stonework seems to point in that direction.



SOURCES AND LINKS:
------------------------------------------
1. Plasticine Stones of Sacsayhuaman by N. Berdnikov
2. More information about Sacsayhuaman
3. Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt
4. Lost Civilizations in the Andes (Part 1)
5. Lost Civilizations in the Andes (Part 2
6. Inca Architecture
edit on 7-5-2016 by jeep3r because: corrected title & first paragraph




posted on May, 7 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Good thread OP.
Maybe these "ancient" sites aren't as old as people claim.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

What process is proposed for dissolution/reconstitution? If that is the case, then this is not concrete but reconstituted rock. This seems highly unlikely.

The certain use of concrete in the ancient world is the dome of the Pantheon.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dJbdJb

Or much older, I don't think they're referring to any limestone cement that you can buy at a home depot near you.

Seems like they assume the Incas (or their predecessors) were capable of dissolving the natural limestone - by whatever means - and then reconstituting it to create this interlocking pattern.
edit on 7-5-2016 by jeep3r because: text



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: jeep3r

What process is proposed for dissolution/reconstitution? If that is the case, then this is not concrete but reconstituted rock. This seems highly unlikely.

The certain use of concrete in the ancient world is the dome of the Pantheon.


Reconstituted limestone, correct ... similar to what Davidovits' results indicated when anaylzing blocks of the GP in Egypt. They (the ancients) must have used the material "like cement", pouring or pasting it in order to achieve the final result and shape.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: jeep3r

What process is proposed for dissolution/reconstitution? If that is the case, then this is not concrete but reconstituted rock. This seems highly unlikely.

The certain use of concrete in the ancient world is the dome of the Pantheon.


Reconstituted limestone, correct ... similar to what Davidovits' results indicated when anaylzing blocks of the GP in Egypt. They (the ancients) must have used the material "like cement", pouring or pasting it in order to achieve the final result and shape.

The blocks in the great pyramid are incredibly rough and irregular, and the quarries are known. They were not "poured" or "pasted".



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

The blocks in the great pyramid are incredibly rough and irregular, and the quarries are known. They were not "poured" or "pasted".


Davidovits made a case for some of the blocks having been made of reconstituted limestone. They look cast rather than poured or pasted (I was referring to the walls in Sacsayhuaman).

However, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the granite casing of Menkaure's pyramid (lower courses) would be reconstituted granite. Perhaps someone will someday check the chemical makeup of those stones as well.
edit on 7-5-2016 by jeep3r because: text



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Interesting theory, though likely a very old supposition. It is plausible but still a herculean task. But less so than toting monolithic stones from a quarry up mountains to build mountaintop fortresses or habitations.

A quick search provided your usual Wikipedia info.

en.wikipedia.org...

Prehistory and the classic era were of the most interest to the supposition they were cast in place with a concrete type substance.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
Interesting theory, though likely a very old supposition. It is plausible but still a herculean task. But less so than toting monolithic stones from a quarry up mountains to build mountaintop fortresses or habitations.

A quick search provided your usual Wikipedia info.

en.wikipedia.org...

Prehistory and the classic era were of the most interest to the supposition they were cast in place with a concrete type substance.


I just changed the thread title in order to make it more accurate and point to the fact that we're dealing here with reconstituted rock (in this case: limestone).

I was thinking the term "concrete" would make it easier to illustrate that stone had been softened or reconstituted. But now we're back on track with the correct wording, for the sake of accuracy.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Being a mason lifelong, and dealing with concrete and mortars, I am not aware of any reconstituted rock ? I believe you would have to have a binder to reconstitute any rock end-product ? I am in no way rebutting your premise, indeed I am in your corner on this one. The Stones often times look a bit too ..... for lack of a better word 'animated', as though manmade.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
That's really cool!

If something hard/solid, is softened and wet, one can take a razor and create a perfect incision to make up the desired geometry.

Place that softened material where needs be, and when it hardens again, the incisions will be perfectly aligned and tight with desired construction.

Horribly explained, but it's how I always thought of the ancients and their amazing masonry.

Manipulate the elements, with each other. ..desired outcome becomes plausible. No need for highly advanced technology, just knowledge of shaping stone/earth with other elements.
edit on 7-5-2016 by Elementalist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

It is a fascinating theory and is probably based on claim's of a bird which was supposed to use a plant to soften stone before making it's burrows.

Just did a quick search for bird that melts stone with plant and a quite a few related pages came up on google, but here is an ATS thread on it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now assuming there is validity to this the plant story would suggest a reason why if they could soften lime stone they did not then embed other harder stone gravel to make a concrete type material.

Very intriguing, thank's Jeep3r great stuff.

Then there are the theory's about the use of Sound,


No subtitles for this and I shall not embed as he is speaking a dialect of indian but a similar story about plant's used to soften stone from there?.
youtu.be...


Just for jeep, this is only tengentaly linked to the thread and is not really pertinent but you will probably like it.
youtu.be...



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I have read something similar to this sometime ago. It involved a plant and birds carving out rock.



Hiram Bingham roamed South America in the early 1900s and is credited with rediscovering Machu Picchu in 1911. He relates the following: The modern Peruvians are very fond of speculating as to the method which the Incas employed to make their stones fit so perfectly. One of the favorite stories is that the Incas knew of a plant whose juices rendered the surface of a block so soft that the marvellous fitting was accomplished by rubbing the stones together for a few moments with this magical plant juice!1


davidpratt.info...



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

There is no known process for reconstituting limestone. If that were possible, why would there be so many sizes and shapes of stones in the wall if one could cast what one wanted? What may have transpired is a simple dissolution of the faces to get the tight fit. Any weak acid can dissolve limestone and a combination of dissolution and/or grinding with sand to speed dissolution could have provided a tight fit. this is far more plausible than a theoretical process which would involve reconstitution.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Plotus

There is no known process for reconstituting limestone. If that were possible, why would there be so many sizes and shapes of stones in the wall if one could cast what one wanted? What may have transpired is a simple dissolution of the faces to get the tight fit. Any weak acid can dissolve limestone and a combination of dissolution and/or grinding with sand to speed dissolution could have provided a tight fit. this is far more plausible than a theoretical process which would involve reconstitution.


A good point, on the other hand: if it were just the faces that were dissolved then the stones wouldn't twist around corners one would think:



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: jeep3r

It is a fascinating theory and is probably based on claim's of a bird which was supposed to use a plant to soften stone before making it's burrows.

Just did a quick search for bird that melts stone with plant and a quite a few related pages came up on google, but here is an ATS thread on it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now assuming there is validity to this the plant story would suggest a reason why if they could soften lime stone they did not then embed other harder stone gravel to make a concrete type material.


If they knew of a certain acid, then it must have been applied on a rather large scale. Perhaps they cultivated said plants on the huge terraces associated with the Inca culture?

The case is certainly not closed yet, but it's rather interesting that geologists actually found evidence for reconstituted limestone in those walls.

ETA: thanks for the videos, I'll make sure to watch them later on (they definitely piqued my interest)!



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
melting stone with plants....plants do it all the time. Its called "chelation", and its how their roots can get a hold while growing on those precarious cliffsides that make great motivational posters.

Man is the greatest observer on Earth, and observing is the basis of science. Its a human trait.

So the question then becomes: was enough material able to be extracted and concentrated?



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Why am i the only person who has seen the 800lb elephant in the room?
That elephant, is the fact that the stone work at Sacsayhuaman,
is ANDESITE, its not limestone, so the whole premise is moot.
No amount of "PLANT JUICE" is going to soften that rock, and if the cant tell the difference he is a pretty terrrible geologist and or chemist.


edit on p0000005k31502016Sun, 08 May 2016 00:31:59 -0500k by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Why am i the only person who has seen the 800lb elephant in the room?
That elephant, is the fact that the stone work at Sacsayhuaman,
is ANDESITE, its not limestone, so the whole premise is moot.
No amount of "PLANT JUICE" is going to soften that rock, and if the cant tell the difference he is a pretty terrrible geologist and or chemist.


Good point, punkinworks10. Perhaps it's a tranlation error? Any Russian speaking folks on here who can shed some light on this?

The walls in the city of Cuzco and the Coricancha are likely made of horneblende andesite (see PDF). Perhaps limestone was used for some parts of the fortress walls?

Here goes some more information about the geological survey (incl. sampled sites and the assumed quarry location):
www.arcanafactor.org...
edit on 8-5-2016 by jeep3r because: spelling



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

There's a section about the different rock types of Sacsayhuaman in Lost Civilisations of the Andes by David Pratt:


Various types of rock were used, including massive diorite blocks from nearby for the outer walls, Yucay limestone from more than 15 km away for the foundations, and a dark andesite, some from over 30 km away, for the inner buildings.

edit on 8-5-2016 by jeep3r because: added link







 
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join