Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sacsayhuamán: lost art of stone softening?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
...
When simply asked, the people there tell us beings came from the sky and taught them. Why we just tend to throw that out the window boggles my mind and pisses me off...


Exactly. It's not just one thing. It's all the clues put together. And globally, too.

As for the theories...
The chemical erosion theory is really tough to swallow. It's simply not possible to predict AND CONTROL real-world erosion to produce such precise fit. Then the "lapping" technique is still possible only if megaliths are rubbed back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, hundreds or thousands of times — for each and every megalith!

...if I'm understanding these theories correctly.




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
So there was another civilization in South America that's ancient but far far advanced of the stone age. And at one site they've chosen to use impossibly gargantuan rocks constructed with even more impossible zero-mortar perfect joints. The joints are absolutely impeccable. Not even a razor can fit between, yet each boulder is goddawful humongous.

Large stones, yes. Impossible joints? Replicated here by Protzen.

Harte



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FormerSkeptic
 


I agree that stone softening is a likely candidate here. With a lot of these walls you can see what looks like a slight buldge in the stones at the joint lines, giving the appearance of having been melted together. Its really quite amazing.
..and if true I imagine you could rough cut the stones and then splash buckets of whatever your softener is to get this result.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


That is pretty impressive. But could you imagine taking that approach with a stone that weighed even two tons? Let alone a stone that weighs upwards of 100 tons... it is insanity.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Large stones, yes. Impossible joints? Replicated here by Protzen.

Harte


Good video. But it contradicts itself.

Protzen is, by the way, one of many writers (yes he's a professor of architecture) with common theories of boulder-dragging to explain all of Egypt's pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island, Pumapunku, etc. He has his theories but hardly any proof.

Key problem again, as shown in that video, is the impossibility on the gargantuan scale. They've pinpointed the correct problem, but didn't put the two theories together. In fact, they offered two MISMATCHING theories.

They described a valid "hammering of imprints with repeated fittings." Works fine on small stones.

But then they get to the larger stones. Can't do it. Size makes all the difference.

So they had to then theorize about a scribe tool, which has to be absolutely perfect in three dimensions and for multi-ton boulders. And at inconvenient L corners. This is not possible.

And they show it DOES NOT WORK to get a perfect fit!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Harte
 


That is pretty impressive. But could you imagine taking that approach with a stone that weighed even two tons? Let alone a stone that weighs upwards of 100 tons... it is insanity.


So if not the absurdly shocking "stone softening" theory, it would have to be some convenient "levitation forklift" technology. The perfect stone-fitting method is found everywhere, even across continents. I would concede that those civilizations may love stone working so much to want to "repeatedly match two stones to fit" but the gargantuan size becomes the problem.
edit on 5-1-2013 by FormerSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Harte
 


That is pretty impressive. But could you imagine taking that approach with a stone that weighed even two tons? Let alone a stone that weighs upwards of 100 tons... it is insanity.


No question it would certainly be hellacious.

Harte



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Some fascinating information about stone softening techniques used by the pre-Inca builders of the walls at Cuzco and many other South American ancient sites are discussed here under the heading "Stone softening". The idea really does need to to be taken seriously.

Here is the abstract of a scientific paper delivered in 1981 demonstrating that witchdoctors in the Huanca tradition of pre-Incan civilisation used plant extracts to create cement from rock, which they COULD dissolve:

www.geopolymer.org...

Given that, perhaps the huge stones were fitted by treating them with such extracts, which temporarily softened their surfaces - like fitting together blocks of plastercine. The observed tight fits were not the result of hours and hours of grinding but simply the result of blocks pressing down on one another so that any gaps between their surfaces were filled up by the squashed, temporarily-softened rock. The heavier the blocks, the better the fit. Q.E.D.?
edit on 5-1-2013 by micpsi because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2013 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I don't buy it. Have you seen their quarry site? With the large cubes of stone removed from the face of a cliff many feet off the ground? Their EXTRACTION technique was flawless and the left rounded corners in the cliff face where they removed the stone. So unless they went back and hammered out their block cuts in the quarry, they MUST have had a more efficient way of doing this.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
...
www.geopolymer.org...

Given that, perhaps the huge stones were fitted by treating them with such extracts, which temporarily softened their surfaces - like fitting together blocks of plastercine. The observed tight fits were not the result of hours and hours of grinding but simply the result of blocks pressing down on one another so that any gaps between their surfaces were filled up by the squashed, temporarily-softened rock. The heavier the blocks, the better the fit. Q.E.D.?
edit on 5-1-2013 by micpsi because: (no reason given)

All prosaic theories have an abrupt truncated ending:


Protzen expresses amazement at the fact that the insides of the T-sockets in the blocks to be joined are as highly polished as the surfaces into which they were carved...


And the video in this new thread posted by JasonIreeve today tells more — especially the geometric "extraction" quarry evidence with machined edges (at about 6:10).
edit on 5-1-2013 by FormerSkeptic because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Harte
 


I don't buy it. Have you seen their quarry site? With the large cubes of stone removed from the face of a cliff many feet off the ground? Their EXTRACTION technique was flawless and the left rounded corners in the cliff face where they removed the stone. So unless they went back and hammered out their block cuts in the quarry, they MUST have had a more efficient way of doing this.


I've seen the rectangular recesses carved into stone, like these at Ollantaytambo:


but I've not seen evidence that this was where the stones used for construction came from. From what I've seen, evidence at Incan quarries supports the theory that stones were literally "bashed out" of the quarry using stone pounders (exactly like the Egyptians quarried granite.)
Incan quarry:



Source for these pics is davidpratt.info.... You'd probably enjoy reading there.

Here's two links to PDFs by Protzen - same guy in the vid I linked - who is a recognized expert on Incan stonemasonry:
Link 1

Link 2

Lots of info there, such as the pounding stone marks that have been observed on stones at Tiahuanaco and Pumapunku.

Harte



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Protzen says:
"The technique for fitting two stones is thus one of trial and error. I concede that this technique appears to be tedious and laborious, especially if one thinks of the cyclopean blocks at Saqsaywaman or Ollantaytambo. It should be remembered, however, that to the Incas time and labor were probably of little concern. My experiments show that with some practice one develops a very keen eye for matching surfaces, so that the number of trials can be reduced considerably. The suggested method works and has the advantage of not postulating the use of tools and other implements of which no traces have been found......."
www.michaelsheiser.com...

So all Protzen can offer as a defence of his absurd suggestion that the complex fitting of stone blocks was done simply by trial and error is that the builders had plenty of time on their hands.


This is ridiculous. He fails miserably to address the crucial issue presented by the amazing walls and buildings, namely, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to cut niches out of huge blocks weighing dozens of tons and then keep raising and dropping them in place more than a dozen feet high until the masons found that all their irregular corners fitted gaps like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Such a scenario is totally unbelievable, and it is the height of dishonesty for an academic to dismiss the problem so lightly! He feels forced to offer the silly explanation of pounding by trial and error until everything fits because it avoids having to invoke tools and technology that could do the job but which have never been found. His position is exposed as intellectually bankrupt.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
They use oxalic acid combined with citric acid to soften the rock. It only works on certain rocks though. But it allows for bio tooling, such as drilling the stone with a soft bit made out of wood. Or complete dissolving into a cement.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Protzen says:
"The technique for fitting two stones is thus one of trial and error. I concede that this technique appears to be tedious and laborious, especially if one thinks of the cyclopean blocks at Saqsaywaman or Ollantaytambo. It should be remembered, however, that to the Incas time and labor were probably of little concern. My experiments show that with some practice one develops a very keen eye for matching surfaces, so that the number of trials can be reduced considerably. The suggested method works and has the advantage of not postulating the use of tools and other implements of which no traces have been found......."
www.michaelsheiser.com...

So all Protzen can offer as a defence of his absurd suggestion that the complex fitting of stone blocks was done simply by trial and error is that the builders had plenty of time on their hands.

Sure, if you ignore the vid that shows him replicating the joints on the first time he tried it.

Other than his actual joint making and the perfect fit he accomplished, there's nothing behind his theory but logic.

BTW, if you watch the vid(s) you can see that in your quote he was talking about the smaller stones. He states that the larger ones couldn't have been done by the trial and error method, then proceeds to perfectly join two larger stones (though not exactly megaliths) using the method the hypothesizes for them, resulting, again, in a fit that looks almost exactly like it was done by the Inca.

So, what method do you suggest, and do you have a vid you can link that shows you accomplishing a stone joint in a way that proves that it works as well as Protzen's method?

After all, that's what that "absurd" Protzen did. Haven't you done this?

Harte



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
What I find really intriguing about these sites in Peru is how the newer builds onto the ruins are done with smaller stones and mortar. Somehow over the years these people just forgot how to build and had to start making everything smaller??

They(locals) even say the ruins were already old when they got there(legend).

This has always been a 700 pound gorilla to me. If we(humans) advance and get better at everything we do, why was the ability to create these magnificent builds lost??

To me this leans more towards a lost civilization more than alien intervention. Just look at the giant megaliths at this site and many more all over Peru and they just look so much older than the small stones with mortar do.

That is another thing that always gets me, the mortar. We could fashion gigantic stones to fit together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle piece but for some reason as time progressed, we got lazy and decided we didn't want to build that way any more. We decided to use crappy stones and use mortar. Why? Because it is easier? Maybe, but I tend to go with because nobody on Earth currently can recreate these megalythic builds found all over the world. Great thread. S&F



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcx1942
They(locals) even say the ruins were already old when they got there(legend).

This has always been a 700 pound gorilla to me. If we(humans) advance and get better at everything we do, why was the ability to create these magnificent builds lost??


Not only the ability to create the structures, also their writing was lost. And traces of what happened to the people seem to be impossible to scientifically identify.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by maddog99
 


The holes at the bottom are in order to transport the stones I am told. They are all over Cusco from huge rocks to smaller stones, and are also often visible at Machu Picchu. Here is a great newsletter on the Incas and a Machu Picchu FAQ, it may be of help to some of you wanting to visit.
www.dosmanosperu.com...
All the best



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcx1942
What I find really intriguing about these sites in Peru is how the newer builds onto the ruins are done with smaller stones and mortar. Somehow over the years these people just forgot how to build and had to start making everything smaller??

They(locals) even say the ruins were already old when they got there(legend).

This has always been a 700 pound gorilla to me. If we(humans) advance and get better at everything we do, why was the ability to create these magnificent builds lost??

To me this leans more towards a lost civilization more than alien intervention. Just look at the giant megaliths at this site and many more all over Peru and they just look so much older than the small stones with mortar do.

That is another thing that always gets me, the mortar. We could fashion gigantic stones to fit together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle piece but for some reason as time progressed, we got lazy and decided we didn't want to build that way any more. We decided to use crappy stones and use mortar. Why? Because it is easier? Maybe, but I tend to go with because nobody on Earth currently can recreate these megalythic builds found all over the world. Great thread. S&F


You bring up some very good points. Whenever I look at these megalithic structures, the first thing that comes to mind is "Why" instead of "How". Why build such huge structures using these massive stones that require very little maintenance, unless it's out of necessity. If we assume that most (if not all megalithic structures) were built during or just after the last ice age (approximately 8 to 25 thousands years ago), then the world these people lived in would've been a lot more treacherous than what we see today. Perhaps the large stones were required to counter against extremely high winds or massive earthquakes that were very common as the ice began to melt over many thousands of years. Perhaps these people lived near coastal areas during the ice age, but were annihilated by rising waters and accompanying tsunamis. The remaining survivors decided to move to the highest area possible and build unpenetrable defenses to counter against past mistakes. Water will have a hard time penetrating thru these massive stones especially if there's no mortar in between. The other thing that comes to mind is a 3 layered fortress type structure that can combat against an attacking army from down below. Even if this attacking army was launching fireballs at the fortress, anyone standing behind these large stone walls would generally be safe due to their relative height and strength.

Another thing that can't be rules out when looking at megalithic structures designed to last hundreds if not thousands of years, is the longevity of a person's lifespan at that time. If the Bible and ancient chinese writings are taken at face value, then people at that time lived for several hundred years. As a civil engineer, we are trained to design things to genrally last 75 to 100 years. Once the infrustructure nears its design life then it's left to a future generation to rebuild things according to their own design standards with probably better technology. By that time, I along with all other engineers working on the project would have been long dead. However, if someone like Noah lived to be 750 years old, then why not build something to last his entire lifetime instead of having to reconstruct the same structure 10 times over. If people did live longer lives many thousands of years ago, then it's very likely that they would use larger stones with no mortar to extend the longevity of the structure beyond their life spans. I highly doubt that they built these sites so that future generations could marvel at their ingenuity. The human race has always been very self centric so I doubt there was much thought put into how a great great grand son 10 times removed would view these sites.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
This makes me wonder what they haven't found...

I mean if there is a possiblly 12,000 year old retaining wall of this size and magnitude, I wonder how many other 'natural formations' aren't natural at all.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
People didn't live longer lives in ancient times. You basically were old when you reached your early 40's. People lived harder lives back then, as they do in many (non developed) countries today. That is a pure fact and not a theory. The Bible contains myths and legends, not scientific facts, that is very important to remember.

Many societies back then had little or no regard for workers (or slaves) health and because of it they used up a lot of lives building the many fantastic structures that still stand today.

They probably didn't have some long lost knowledge that helped them build monoliths, temples and Pyramids. It wasn't 1 or 2 worker grinding each stone with acid or with the help of aliens. Each of these marvelous stones as an example were probably carved by hundreds of workers or slaves, until their arms fell of. Then in with a new crew. Mass graves is not rarely to be found near these kind of structures. Or under and in them as in the case with the Great Wall of China.

Some structures is a bit mysterious and you sometimes wonder how they were made, sure Very interesting indeed, I agree. But maybe we don't have to play the ancient alien card every time we don't understand something from our own history.





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution