Dry Ashlar Walls in Peru (Inca Attributed) Eerily Unique in a World Filled with Ancient Megaliths

The technique used in Peruvian megalithic stonework most often attributed to the Inca Empire is known as dry ashlar. Below is an example of a less complex trapezoidal dry ashlar window constructed using trapezoidal blocks much like can be found many European cathedrals and castles.



This doesn't seem beyond the Inca. Certainly a skilled caste of stoneworkers could attain the skill required after a lifetime of working with stone day in and day out. However, what perplexes me is the stone walls attributed to the Inca Empire that are not pieced together with trapezoidal pieces, but instead by blocks of very odd shapes as can be seen below.



Some of these irregularly shaped blocks reach weights in excess of 10 tons, yet the typical trapezoidal dry ashlar blocks found are not nearly as heavy on average. No trapezoidal ashlar blocks have been found in Peru to my knowledge that even come close to rivaling the weight of irregular base wall stones.

So tell me, how do we know if the Inca really did this? I think it is highly possible that they stumbled upon some ancient ruins that had been there for perhaps tens of thousands of years and decided that the ancients did a pretty damn good job with their walls and monuments, why not build atop what they have started?

Don't misunderstand my post. I am in no way saying that making the walls and structures was beyond the capabilities of the Inca. What I am instead proposing is that instead of the structures being a mere 1,000 years old, what if they are actually 72,000 years old built by ancient Southeast Asian Islander sailors who managed to cross the ocean very early on in our perceived human history? A sort of reverse Kon-Tiki expedition. What if, what if, what if you might say. I agree. This is just my mind imagining the possibility of what could have been.

a reply to: Imhotepic

I don't have anything scientific to add, but S/F because I find this stuff fascinating. I find it especially interesting that the oral histories around these sites indicate just what you said - that these walls were already existing and built upon.

I've always maintained that 'this shows what you can get done if you don't have teevee to watch all day', or 'those weren't done by humans as we understand them today'.

It amazes me that historians just shrug and say the natives did this centuries ago, when we can't do it now.

a reply to: Imhotepic

Almost all of the oral history in the areas say they didn't build them, the gods did. They freely admit they just kinda moved in. Interesting speculation on the reverse Kon-Tiki idea.

S&F

a reply to: Imhotepic

Don't mind me just leaving my mark.

a reply to: Imhotepic

At first I wanted to bust a nut and jump right in and throw down some serious anomalies but
I honestly have some other major projects in the works.

Let me just say...


There are so many other very interesting finds these people [Or those they claimed came before them] had created they'll blow your mind, and, if not they", whom, then, on top of all that, there are layer upon layer of other yet to be discussed findings that'll just blow your minds.

Either way, here or elsewhere in the next couple of years, prepare yourselves to be astonished.


As, Always,

STAY TUNED!
Slay

a reply to: SLAYER69

" There are so many other very interesting finds these people [Or those they claimed came before them] had created they'll blow your mind, and, if not they", whom, then, on top of all that, there are layer upon layer of other yet to be discussed findings that'll just blow your minds. " -------------- Is this just you speaking as a person who has been researching the subject for decades and has amassed a personal knowledge of hundreds of interesting South American stone ruins, or is this more of a "oh @#$%. Recent archaeological studies have revealed these new sites and this is how you can read more about it if you'd like to know."?

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Imhotepic

Almost all of the oral history in the areas say they didn't build them, the gods did.

S&F

And there would be no difference historically between 'gods arrived from the heavens' and 'aliens arrived in magic ships'.

Arthur C. Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

a reply to: Imhotepic

To be brutally honest

Yes

Over my years here at ATS I've strived to present new discoveries with a plausible attributes to myths and legends.

Sometimes, fact is stranger than fiction

a reply to: Imhotepic

graham hancocks new book "Magicians of the Gods" goes into depth about how these ruins and many others across the world are evidence of an ancient advanced civilization that was destroyed by meteors around 12,800 years ago.

These ruins we see were rediscovered and built on top of by humans rebuilding civilization from the ancient catastrophe.

There is an amazing amount of evidence which points to this being true.

a reply to: Imhotepic
There are places in Greece that have the same walls but they call them cyclopean walls and the second pic is almost identical to a wall in Argos Greece.
Some of the walls in Peru have small pieces sticking out on the bottom like they were poured and it bulged at the bottom in two spots there's a few stones in Egypt that have the same bulges.
The stone works in Peru and other places look like they were made at different times, the stone work on bottom were made better than the work above, as if the earlier works were more advanced and the people that made them disappeared then others came in and tried to add to it but didn't have the same skill.
But if people think the Inca moved the large stones and made giant walls how would they move the stones if they didn't know about the wheel and the biggest animals were llamas? And what would they be afraid of to make such big walls?

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
It amazes me that historians just shrug and say the natives did this centuries ago, when we can't do it now.

What are you talking about? Of course we could. I don't know anyone who wishes to dedicate years of their life to perfectly carving one stone for a king.

Just because science is forgotten doesn't mean it is no longer possible.

a reply to: SargonThrall

What are you talking about? Of course we could. I don't know anyone who wishes to dedicate years of their life to perfectly carving one stone for a king.

There are numerous examples of ancient stone work that we would have trouble replicating today, even with our modern equipment. The weight of many monoliths alone would tax our current technology. And we couldn't move many ancient monoliths at all without building extensive roads.

There are many carvings (Puma Punku stands out in particular to me) that would leave modern master masons scratching their heads.

a reply to: Imhotepic

this manner of construction is to be seismic resistance. with mortar, mortar spreads the load equally. but its static quatities do not allow flexibility.
these joints, mortar free can move and return to their position, through downweight.
so it is safe to say this is a construction style designed in actve seismic periods. how long this remains a style after the activity is an open question, and also to be noted is the confluence between wood skill jointing and rock jointing, the course of development . one method transcribed onto another medium, like granite. what made that neccesary?

a reply to: bbarkow

Are you kidding, there is nothing that couldn't be replicated by modern machinery, here is a list of the largest monoliths ever moved by man
en.wikipedia.org...

As you'll see the largest, the Thunder stone was moved in 1770....

Your claim started off in a pseudo history book, and has always been nonsense
don't let that ignorance influence you, do a little research

Have a look at this
www.google.co.uk...

Then tell me which ancient culture even comes close

a reply to: username74

this is the paramount question. why hetrogeneous, why lithic.
they must have had a reason to develop down this labour intensive route.
ther are only two possible motivations.
1 it all keeps falling on us and we are sick of it
2 we want to pass on a meme to our descendants
and maybe 3 its our only sufficient defense against.......

a reply to: Marduk

in fact there are a number of examples of construction that are difficult to replicate in stone. for example 3 dimension planar interior corners, and symmertry can cause a problem, say on faces, but the c and c machines we use today could be replicated i n a mechanical analogue but not easily. beyond what is attributed, as yet.
if we both had the cash we could try and commision these things but its unlikely you would find an enterprise to take it on.

a reply to: Marduk

oh and i must point out the ruskkie rock was dragged across snow. there is no better material to drag things across.

a reply to: Marduk

If yall get a spare hour:


-Christosterone

a reply to: Marduk

and as for the cathedrals, st denis was state of the art at the time. only in the mid 12th century, did they figure in the wind load for tall buildings, but the ancient structures were wide and low. and built sans beton (or no cement) as i previously stated, mortar spreads load but is inflexible, but see the differences in what is trying to be attained.
height came in with the romans and suffered unto the gothic cathedral periods. butresses and the thinning of the arch to gain height and space. but small components and mortar, foundations being the key.
25 feet deep on a decent church.
no chance in a decent earthquake