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

originally posted by: bbarkow
There are numerous examples of ancient stone work that we would have trouble replicating today,

Such as what exactly?

The weight of many monoliths alone would tax our current technology.

It would? Please give a example we could not move easily today....

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

Please give examples....

a reply to: hellobruce

well, i dont know where he is, but the main issues are interior planar surfaces, and anything over a certain mass,
hardness is a factor, and theories about constuction, created by people who carry laptops as their heaviest encounters.
then theres the issue of tools, basic geomeotry, developmental and imported metallurgy, without pi, apparently, so no understanding the circle squared.
actually, rare examples, but one is enough to throw a hypothesis.
examples, balbek, gobekli tepe, great pyramid, whatever is proved in black sea, caucasian mountains, then even more speculative material in s. america and the east. now submerged remains. the chronologically of the undersea remnants would help but its not accessible, but the sea level records should point chronology.
most of it will sit within, nicely, but there is the carbon dating issue, just an unfortunate side effect from a tremendously important technique, but physically thats all weve got.
mostly it comes down to the philogy vis a vis sample data.
it shouldnt be a data set subjected to 'prove it', but also it cant be claimed it has the answers.
not concrete anyway, but as our tech improves and the bodys of data grow, then the mystery will clear. i hope.

a reply to: hellobruce

as an afterthought what you question is apparent in OP.
second picture, tell me how that was sized cut and fit?

a reply to: hellobruce

so, heres a list of sites, not infering there is anything unorthodox, about the list, its just a good general reference for prehistoric and forwards;
at the bottom of the page,or top left by country, i take no resposibility for the insane ramblings ( if there is any, its seemingly grounded, though i dont use it for text) on the site.www.ancient-wisdom.com...

a reply to: Marduk
hey, and check this out!
following the 27 year postulation, it appears like this.
approximate limestone mass is 2400kg per metre cubed
granite is similar.
10.6 m3 an hour, 24/7, 365 by 27
it appears the original postulation was based on mass against time.
like the one i just did
so why have they used the same timescale as me?
i was being hypothetical, they must have used 27 by 365 by 24 against finished mass to make the finish volume 2500000 meters cubed,
thats 2400kg per metre cubed. nearly.
eureka! mass by volume
did they have a late night on the ' 27 year theory party ' and forget to divide the shifts in to multiply the work rate?
or maybe i messed up and the accretion rate from this calculation was 42.4 m3 per hour or 17.6e tonnes per hour.

a reply to: PyramidGuy

hey, been busy building more contempary buildings, so busy, but if you are still out there, this is very interesting, that i am not a chemist, does not detract from the revelation that the umbrella title i was using "geopolymer", could be subdivided into hydrates, precipitates and geopolymers, then the prospect of alkalinty or acidity within this.
got any pointers before i troll through hours of assessment?

a reply to: PyramidGuy

and so, does it appear to you, i mean it occurs to me, that this might imply, that they were getting blocks for mass and building on like clay to make the finish?!?!
if this could be supported it would kill my engineering perspective and the archaeologists.
fascinating!