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.

 

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

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Imhotepic

I was interested in learning more about chuno (not quite a potato, but a staple food of the highland people www.academia.edu...) -

and one thing led to another, so I ended up watching this video about Tiwanaku, which explains that the Incan people had thousands of years of study and improvement in shaping enormous stones.

See 7:00 mark on video -





My theory on the mis-shapen carved stones, could be that sometimes the stones don't break off exactly where anticipated, so waste not-want not. In other words, with all the effort expended to split the stone, then to have it break off in an irregular shape, why not just carve it and use it? Maybe the stones split irregularly more often than not?
edit on 13-8-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Imhotepic
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.
....

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?


While the front looks pretty, the back side is not so smoothly fitted. In addition, these pictures often show the very best examples and not the rest of the wall with the not-so-great examples.



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.


Think about what a civilization is:
* huge groups of people living together in cities (hence "civitas" as a root word)
* farming and animal husbandry to support all those people
* technology to store food (jars,etc)
* technology to build and maintain infrastructure (water wells, roads)
* coordinated system of rule
* ability to harvest resources (trees, stones) for more than a thousand families

All that leaves a huge footprint on the landscape. In every case where we see civilizations develop, there's always a pre-civilization of smaller towns and villages that have this technology or its forerunner technology. Those leave a mark. We don't see that kind of thing in Asia at the time (it does develop, however, much later.)



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

to clarify, all that esoteric freemason jargon is basically ancient knowledge of engineering codified into geometric patterns.
and when they tried to increase the height of thier structures with small components, the equations didnt work out the same because external factors were not initially factored in with the increased integral weight of the structure and they fell down.
then the new banking industry got into the masons (dealing with the hypotheticals and intangibles, such as interest and moral debt) through nefarious means, and destroyed guilds and the value of integrity in work, redesigned the hierarchy around esoteric feualism and retrospective repression and thats why we all have to read crap on the internet about the knights tempars and such pish



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

woah, gotta catch up, was rambling about freemasons whlie the last 2 posts came up



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

will watch it and report back



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: InTheLight

will watch it and report back



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

"While the front looks pretty, the back side is not so smoothly fitted"
i know that thats not intended as a critism, but its not so much a disclaimer as may be initially assumed.
if you do not taper the rear of a joint then nothing will ever fit.
i use a 1 degree angle on a circular saw, its not much but you can see it in cross section quite clearly over a 40 mm thickness.
and thats to leave space for the glue.
no joint in organic material will ever be perfect below the surface but if the faces match up the degree of precision has still been performed. regardless of this critism.
the neccesary opening at the back allows adjustment, during construction, to face of said structure i.e. angle of face, cross section.
it also allows erosion and deposition
it could be argued this method of placing requires more skill and precision than carving apparent perfect blocks



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

so i reckon those megalithic types in the wall are original and infilled, like gobekli tepe, and the european barrows.
but the old flat rock with channel and holes.
i cant buy the gold cladding for that one,
the rest of it seems to imply nothing to controversial.
massive hydraulic engineering, due to a more intimate knowledge of water.
and some inherited stuff
just like egypt
a real focus on efficient and optimum farming in water rich enviroments, ie steep terraces or flood basins, and utilisation of microclimates and possibly ulf or elf through hydraulic vibration to stimulate plant yield.
the question is how did they build the stickier bits of it and how did they pull it off.
that example is pretty tame.
but the logistics and subsequent modelling must have been way more advanced than our bureaucracies with what? resources.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: username74



My depiction of tame reflects reality, so get over it.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   

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.



That's a pretty significant claim from a culture that regularly deified their own ancestors, so they were saying, their ancestors built it, and presumably these are myths that were first recorded by Conquistadores, which means you have a 1400 year gap between the first construction and the time of the claim...

How many ancestors do you think they deified during that period

I guess that's why all the bodies that have been excavated from the site were Indian..

I guess that's why Indians are depicted in all the murals

I guess that's why all the carbon dates are within the academic consensus for dating the site

I think I first heard that claim from Graham Hancock in "Fingerpaints of the gods",
its as insignificant in face of the facts then as it is now





posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

bit touchy are we? i just dont think there was anything too controversial in the video, either way, so in light of that i dont really understand your comment.
"My depiction of tame reflects reality, so get over it."
perhaps you could explain



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

maybe you are refering to this
"My theory on the mis-shapen carved stones, could be that sometimes the stones don't break off exactly where anticipated, so waste not-want not. In other words, with all the effort expended to split the stone, then to have it break off in an irregular shape, why not just carve it and use it? Maybe the stones split irregularly more often than not? "

so this ashlar style. iits very interesting that it appears in egypt and south america.
the theory is its made with rock pounders and they leave the notches on for lifting, and in s america are also used as features for pictures on the wall.
although puma punka is limestone there are granite and andesite examples
i think its earthquake resistant design.
in my opinion the pounder theory in both cases is insufficiently researched, and i think there is large potential for dating error with some sites due to deposition and the nature of construction design and then the usual "how did they get that, there?"

so get over that



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=21129093]username74[/post

edit on 14-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

damn, how do i put in links exclusively to pictures on a site?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Imhotepic
just an observation, because its easy to just see this as peicemeal blockwork buts it goes way deeper than that.
you see those bevels in your second photo, around all the joints, this was done before the blocks were put in the wall.
but what with? the depth is consistent. looks like its to stop the edges shattering, and compromising the blocks, under shear or torsion waves
and the match up of corners in the top right on the bottom left of the squarish block, the little diagonal joint. amazingly precise.
at the very least to measure these blocks up you need a wire grid.
you cant cut precisely if you cant measure and mark precisely. what the # were they using?
it may well be that you have to predesign this with a cutting pattern, certainly along the courses of the blocks there is absolute sequence for the blocks to go in one at a time, each unique.
preposterous that this should even exist!
can we get a scale and a gif file of some of this ashlar?
the first photo
each window is two blocks high. on the first wall, at one block high is the top of the next, you can also see the jointing line on the right side of first window running into the jointing line on the top of second window.
one block high on second window is top of third window.
all three walls absolutley in proportion, equadistant, and all with obtuse or acute courses of blocks.
but compared to the other reltively simple, that is to say merely, perfectly executed!



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

so if you want to throw some of those anomalies in, slayer, its probably as good time a time as any!



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: irgust

ok so ive seen these . they are marble quarries. boulder dug, but also they are on the sea cliffs and under wave action which apparently produces similar features



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

man, i sit here rambling about dry ashlar, now i finally have an accepted term for this kind of apparent, initial megalithic style, and if you look closely it carries a set of defining features.
listed above.
i would like anyone to offer a theory aside from seismic resistance, as to why we are seeing a perfect hetrogeneous construction strategy.
usually in terraced format.
aside from the neccesary requirements to acheive said result we are confronted with the potential circumstances that led to such a design, despite massive labour cost (we are assuming labour as sole solution at this juncture, in absence of tech or mech savoir faire)
this would indicate massive response to massive risk assessment on the part of the builders?
or longstanding rare to moderate threat over time
it is not a defensive procedure agaist lifeforms although terracing and irregular walls are good defence against bombardment
geographical siting appears relatively random, water is somtimes included sometimes not
blocks vary is size mass and style
it appears the lifting notches are placed for other reasons than lifting and predetermined with no regard to lifting



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

also if we are to assume that wood was the first medium and the wood available was so large as to be almost megalithic, and that the jointlng was carried across materials e.g. mortise and tenon joint apparent on stonehenge
what made them shift medium so fast
were we burning?
why didnt they start with small bits and glue like we do
they had the concept of epoxy resin with tree sap and deer spoor, for arrows
why huge granite
it doest make any kind of sense
clearly their physical world came with a different set of features, beyond the experience of our time
and i suppose this must include novel oppurtunity and observation also



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

en.wikipedia.org...




While construction of the timber monument was probably earlier, the ditch has been dated to between 2470 and 2000 BC, which would be about the same time as, or slightly later than, construction of the stone circle at Stonehenge.[8] Radiocarbon dating of artefacts shows that the site was still in use around 1800 BC


One for the Ritual, one for the party



edit on 15-8-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join