Incan walls... How did they do it?

Slayer, I didn't see any "undercuts" in those pictures.

Picture it as one stone in place, then another is push next to it an worked back and forth until they match surfaces. Then the next stone. And so on. Then the next layer. As for moving them, that's manpower in action. 3,000 men can move a bunch of stuff.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

---

Oh I hear you. I don't agree is all.

They are much too large to simply move back and forth, again that works great for the smaller ones but not the largest ones.

Remember, they moved Cleopatra's Needle with human muscle and wood. Sixty-eight feet and 180 tons. Not the biggest obelisk, I think.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

---

Moving it is one thing they carved that after they raised it.

I'm talking about "Rubbing" it back and forth like it's some easy task. I understand fully what you're trying to say trust me I've read and heard all the ways they have done it. I have been fascinated with the Incas for over the past few decades. I'm not new to this topic. I'm not an expert but I've done my fair bit of research.

Even if I had a doctorate I wouldn't be so arrogant as to call myself an "Expert" because everyday new discoveries are made that changes what the "Experts" have defended then they say. "Oh of course"

reply to post by Schmidt1989

---

the walls were already there when the Inca's came along

the walls would be really good at keeping dinosaurs out

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

Which is harder, moving the stones a few miles or moving them a few inches?

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

Hiya Slayer, I'll stick my neck out here...people look at the whole wall and then individual blocks. I used to work on building sites for some years before getting an education. I still do from time to time as stress relief from the job. I mention this to explain why I look at the construction in a different way to most.

The cuts of the blocks are probably for at least two reasons. They were resistant to earthquakes, aesthetic reasons and I think that levering the blocks into place was also aided by the cuts. Looking at the two bottom images on your post, it's clear that they were constructed from right to left. It's especially obvious on the lower smaller image.

They'd start from the right with up to three courses and make the cuts ready to butt up to the existing blocks. The blocks would 'slot' into place by using levers and possibly a dry gravel mix for them to bevel and move off. If we look at the sides where the angle cuts are...they are nearly all on the side to butt up against blocks on their right. They could have used a timber scaffold (unlikely) or built an earth rampart/ ramp to gain leverage from the front.

Once in place, the next block would be cut and placed in situ. Many of the blocks are only touching from a front perspective. Their vertical and horizontal planes only appear to be flush. Behind the front view are blocks that don't touch and have been filled with back fill and dry mix.

Why not square blocks? Maybe someone else knows for certain...I don't. I can guess that it was a technique developed through adversity like quakes. In the UK we have thousands of miles of dry stone walls. Some date back BC. In another thousand years (without maintenance), the dry stone walls will be largely intact where square brick walls will have fallen...

Anyway, the cuts and direction of the wall construction seem likely to me, but I could be proven wrong in the next post...so be it

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

"Why not square blocks? Maybe someone else knows for certain...I don't."

My guess would be "what takes the least working to fit into place". Plus, of course, the "jigsaw" effect to help resist earthquake shakes.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

---

Looking at Slayers second image...the large blocks to the left of the woman would appear to have been amongst the first laid in that section. Laying the largest first would be more efficient. The 3 or 4 largest (and lowest) have the simpler cuts, less angles. The surrounding blocks and courses are dictated by the shapes of these ones. I'm only basing my interpretation on what I know, but it illustrates the methodology of the original 'site foreman' and architect.

I think the hard work would be transporting them to the site. The business of levering and rocking would have been less hard work. The larger blocks could have been placed on a bed of large diameter hardcore and gravel. As they were rocked into place they would grind down the hardcore and create a solid bed. A wet mix of sand and slurry would have the same result and leave very little evidence of the technique...Throw in a few centuries of rain and erosion and the evidence would have washed away leaving a flush bed on each respective course. It makes practical sense, but who knows?

reply to post by Gawdzilla

---

This would be my theory a well, they would have a far sturdier design.
Just think of building a garden wall for your home, if you use staggering rectangle blocks without using any form of morter, then backfill with dirt, eventually over time the blocks will be pushed outward. Now if you repaet the same experiment in the way the Inca's built their walls, your wall would be much sturdier, you may still see pushing outward over time if not done correctly, but it would be nowhere as pronounced as the rectangle blocks.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by AlienCarnage]

With no "long lines" the shear force would not develop very well. (The "Domino effect" in non-geek speak.)

There is only one problem with that whole
"Theory"

In this picture you have a living area of the Incas. I might add it is also one of the "Oldest" at the risk of distorting it too much by blowing up the image size. I have3 increased it to show more detail. if you look closely they used square blocks and good old fashion typical mason block staggered stacking.




Now about the "Citadel"

Supposedly it comes from a much more recent building phase, you now see the jigsaw stacking and fitting of the blocks. Why would they worry more about making sure a "wall" wouldnt collapse do to earth quakes and not their homes? Also go back to the older structures they seem to have survived all the earthquakes just fine without the jigsaw pattern.

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

Dunno
Hanslune knows more about this stuff.

The two images show different block formation and, importantly, different functions. One is of multi-angled 'jigsaw' blocks and the other is square, polished blocks. The difference is likely an outcome of purpose. The domestic buildings are 'stand-alone' and constructed by the 'universal' method of alternating blocks/bricks for structural integrity. Their main considerations are gravity and stability.

The second image shows retaining walls where the use of the 'jigsaw' construction would lend greater strength. Gravity, soil mass and rainfall runoff might have dictated the design?

Overall, I think that the Incas accomplished so much because they had a lot of:

* motivation
* organization
* time on their hands
* Peruvian marching powder

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

"In this picture you have a living area of the Incas. I might add it is also one of the "Oldest" at the risk of distorting it too much by blowing up the image size."

I would say that being the oldest helped them to learn that such straight lines were not a good idea. The "perfect" rectangles were a lot more work. With pushme-pullyou system they didn't have to trim as much stone. And they were better at not shifting during a quake.

Why would they make the temples and royal palaces stronger than the peasants homes? Need I answer that one?

how did the Incas do it you ask?
They didn't. Incas always told explorers that they were already there and were built by the people before them which may or may not have been the Killke. But still nobody will ever know how this was done by these people. One of the problems is they left behind little to none of their tools, se we can say they did this or that but no tools. Another interesting thing you will find in those ruins is evidence of smelting. They carved out pieces of the blocks and poured molten metal to hold the blocks together, but again proof of smelting but no tools and no portable smelter.

Incans did it by careful consideration of the problem and expertise.

The easiest way to make sure two stones match closely is to cut them from a larger stone then reassemble them.

The other way, and way more time absorbing, is the put two stones together and cut down (the Ancient Egyptians were expert at this too).

You then repeated the process untill you got the required match.

The other way to ground down two edges then place together.

Another way used on occasion by the Inca was to cheat a bit as show by the image.








[edit on 20/5/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hiya Hans, it's good to see you back on the boards

I was looking for some good images of Inca quarries and abandoned blocks like at Aswan or Giza. I found this site that is very informative and well illustrated with images...The Inkas: Stone masonry and quarries

Also, the Nova interview is full of information..."Secrets of Lost Empires: Inca"



[edit on 21-5-2009 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

A most excellent site. I remembered after reading the webpage that I must have read some of Mr. P's materials many years ago.

Hey thanks for the welcome back K. I've been reading the board on and off but even now this is but a short break. I work now for the worst tyrant in world, ex military, doesn't allow visiting internet sites during work hours and demanding 10-12 hours of work seven days a week.

The bastard!

I'll try and slip in here when I can!

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

Sorry for not getting back to you I was busy writing another thread. Anyhoo I agree it could have been done that way. What I'm still fuzzy on is how exactly they did it. I mean the largest ones. I understand the concepts of what has been mentioned and yes I've seen the demonstrations. But it still doesn't answer the question of the largest ones is all.