A question: What did the Inca build?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JamesTB

How is it "obvious" that it HAD to have come from an earlier more technologically advanced civ? The picture give absolutely zero context to the entirety if the structure. It's the photographic equivalent I quote mining. It gives no information beyond that which is necessary to show your own point if view in the light you wish it to be shown. It's not terribly scientific and there's certainly not enough information there to make any type of statement one way or the other based solely on the context you have provided. It reeks of confirmation bias.

It's OBVIOUS because the 2 stones which are OBVIOUSLY more technically advanced than the rest of the stones and were OBVIOUSLY used in a different older structure appear at the bottom of an Inca wall. Is that not OBVIOUS enough for you or are you a little slow upstairs?

originally posted by: JamesTB
This photo, taken near the Wiracocha Temple in the Sacred Valley Peru, begs the question -

if the wall is Inca then where did they get the 2 (obviously older) stones at the bottom from?

s9.postimg.org...

Well I think the answer obviously has to be from an older more technically advanced civilization.

Like who?

Also how do you know (since you have taken the picture out of context) that its not post Inca Spanish construction atop Inca?

Tell us please....

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JamesTB

How is it "obvious" that it HAD to have come from an earlier more technologically advanced civ? The picture give absolutely zero context to the entirety if the structure. It's the photographic equivalent I quote mining. It gives no information beyond that which is necessary to show your own point if view in the light you wish it to be shown. It's not terribly scientific and there's certainly not enough information there to make any type of statement one way or the other based solely on the context you have provided. It reeks of confirmation bias.

It's OBVIOUS because the 2 stones which are OBVIOUSLY more technically advanced than the rest of the stones and were OBVIOUSLY used in a different older structure appear at the bottom of an Inca wall. Is that not OBVIOUS enough for you or are you a little slow upstairs?

....and of course you know enough about the subject to know that like the Phoenicians (who used large stones for foundations and smaller one atop) none of the pre-Inca cultures did that. How in fact do you know that the smaller stones are Inca? How do you know the larger ones are NOT inca or Chimú, Chincha, Cajamarca, Piura, Chancay, Chachapoya, Chincha, Chiribaya, Chucuito, Huaman Huilca, Ilo, Qotu Qotu, Pacacocha, Palli Marca, Piura, Sican, Tajaraca, Huaylas, Conchucos, Huamachuco, Rucanas, Chanka, Aymara nations, Ayabaca, Bracamoros, Huancabambas, Tallan culture, Huarco, Ichma, Parinacota, #is, Chinchaycochas, Huarochiri, Kheswas, Tarmas, or Paltas? Somehow you also know that its not one of the above but instead a 'lost advanced civilization'......so how do you do that?

lol

Here is question for those reading the thread

A not uncommon technique of the early Inca was to build a stone foundation - especially on mountainous terrain - and built atop that in adobe, a few generations later the adobe would be shattered by an earthquake or eroded by rain and the Inca would then rebuild - in stone, often crudely and with less skill than the original - but much more substantial than the original adobe.....

Paraphrased from: HIGHLAND INCA ARCHITECTURE IN ADOBE
Elisabeth L. Moorehead
Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
No. 16 (1978), pp. 65-94
Published by: Maney Publishing

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JamesTB

How is it "obvious" that it HAD to have come from an earlier more technologically advanced civ? The picture give absolutely zero context to the entirety if the structure. It's the photographic equivalent I quote mining. It gives no information beyond that which is necessary to show your own point if view in the light you wish it to be shown. It's not terribly scientific and there's certainly not enough information there to make any type of statement one way or the other based solely on the context you have provided. It reeks of confirmation bias.

It's OBVIOUS because the 2 stones which are OBVIOUSLY more technically advanced than the rest of the stones and were OBVIOUSLY used in a different older structure appear at the bottom of an Inca wall. Is that not OBVIOUS enough for you or are you a little slow upstairs?

Oh how adorable, you stopped sucking your thumb and mommy let you out of the corner long engh to compose an ad hominem attack on me as opposed to addressing the matter with anything logical or scientific. It really is cut, but I digress...

The only thing OBVIOUS here is the level of cognitive dissonance displayed at the espense of a statement that can not be supported. You provide a cropped photograph with no context or provenence. Give context, an uncropped photo, the name of the site...anything. But that can't happen because the house of cards comes tumbling too quickly when someone can actually do the research for themselves.

I'm not an archaeologist and as fascinating as the Inca are to me, the vast majority of my research is in paleo-anthropological finds as opposed to New World archaeology so being all too aware of the limitations of my knowledge in the area, I know enough to engage in activities that are an entirely foreign concept to you like due dilligence. There is nothing rational, logical or scientific about basing your thesis on part of a photo without knowing, understanding or giving any context to it. To gain a complete notion and understand the site you are referring to, one must at least know site it actually is in order to research it. You can't simply look at a cropped picture and decide that it is created by an unknown advanced civ...well unless its you, Brian Foerster or maybe Giorgio Tsoukalakis, but those who utilize the scientific method are going to insist on understanding the provenence as well as being able to research the information on their own. Simply repeating something in bold letters doesn't make it true.

The onus is on you to support your own claims. You can't post a cropped photo insist it. Is what you claim and expect people to just accept that. It is true. Thats not remotely scientific and as Hans pointed out, it doesn't take into consideration any of the actual facts let alone other cultures or whether or not its even Incan because you refuse to give any actual information yet insist its completely obvious.

a reply to: peter vlar

OBVIOUSLY he doesn't feel a need to defend his drive by postings, lol

Another paper for those interested in the subject in English!



Its a study of northern Chilean site conquered by the Inca in 1432, the buildings show the original inhabitants building style and how it changed with the Inca in charge and how it changed again when the Spanish took over.



Volumen 46, Nº 2, 2014. Páginas 211-232
Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena

ARCHITECTURE AND EMPIRE AT LATE PREHISPANIC TARAPACÁ VIEJO, NORTHERN CHILE

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JamesTB

How is it "obvious" that it HAD to have come from an earlier more technologically advanced civ? The picture give absolutely zero context to the entirety if the structure. It's the photographic equivalent I quote mining. It gives no information beyond that which is necessary to show your own point if view in the light you wish it to be shown. It's not terribly scientific and there's certainly not enough information there to make any type of statement one way or the other based solely on the context you have provided. It reeks of confirmation bias.

It's OBVIOUS because the 2 stones which are OBVIOUSLY more technically advanced than the rest of the stones and were OBVIOUSLY used in a different older structure appear at the bottom of an Inca wall. Is that not OBVIOUS enough for you or are you a little slow upstairs?

....and of course you know enough about the subject to know that like the Phoenicians (who used large stones for foundations and smaller one atop) none of the pre-Inca cultures did that. How in fact do you know that the smaller stones are Inca? How do you know the larger ones are NOT inca or Chimú, Chincha, Cajamarca, Piura, Chancay, Chachapoya, Chincha, Chiribaya, Chucuito, Huaman Huilca, Ilo, Qotu Qotu, Pacacocha, Palli Marca, Piura, Sican, Tajaraca, Huaylas, Conchucos, Huamachuco, Rucanas, Chanka, Aymara nations, Ayabaca, Bracamoros, Huancabambas, Tallan culture, Huarco, Ichma, Parinacota, #is, Chinchaycochas, Huarochiri, Kheswas, Tarmas, or Paltas? Somehow you also know that its not one of the above but instead a 'lost advanced civilization'......so how do you do that?
lol

Simple because none of the above had the skills or tools in their repertoire to carry out that kind of work.

Now why don't you show us some distinctive stone work from each of the different cultures you've listed well that's if you actually can?

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JamesTB

How is it "obvious" that it HAD to have come from an earlier more technologically advanced civ? The picture give absolutely zero context to the entirety if the structure. It's the photographic equivalent I quote mining. It gives no information beyond that which is necessary to show your own point if view in the light you wish it to be shown. It's not terribly scientific and there's certainly not enough information there to make any type of statement one way or the other based solely on the context you have provided. It reeks of confirmation bias.

It's OBVIOUS because the 2 stones which are OBVIOUSLY more technically advanced than the rest of the stones and were OBVIOUSLY used in a different older structure appear at the bottom of an Inca wall. Is that not OBVIOUS enough for you or are you a little slow upstairs?

....and of course you know enough about the subject to know that like the Phoenicians (who used large stones for foundations and smaller one atop) none of the pre-Inca cultures did that. How in fact do you know that the smaller stones are Inca? How do you know the larger ones are NOT inca or Chimú, Chincha, Cajamarca, Piura, Chancay, Chachapoya, Chincha, Chiribaya, Chucuito, Huaman Huilca, Ilo, Qotu Qotu, Pacacocha, Palli Marca, Piura, Sican, Tajaraca, Huaylas, Conchucos, Huamachuco, Rucanas, Chanka, Aymara nations, Ayabaca, Bracamoros, Huancabambas, Tallan culture, Huarco, Ichma, Parinacota, #is, Chinchaycochas, Huarochiri, Kheswas, Tarmas, or Paltas? Somehow you also know that its not one of the above but instead a 'lost advanced civilization'......so how do you do that?
lol

Simple because none of the above had the skills or tools in their repertoire to carry out that kind of work.

Now why don't you show us some distinctive stone work from each of the different cultures you've listed well that's if you actually can?

Still trying to shift the burden of proof - James? lol

Isn't going to happen. You have a number of questions you've run away from. May I suggest you attempt to answer them?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JamesTB

How is it "obvious" that it HAD to have come from an earlier more technologically advanced civ? The picture give absolutely zero context to the entirety if the structure. It's the photographic equivalent I quote mining. It gives no information beyond that which is necessary to show your own point if view in the light you wish it to be shown. It's not terribly scientific and there's certainly not enough information there to make any type of statement one way or the other based solely on the context you have provided. It reeks of confirmation bias.

It's OBVIOUS because the 2 stones which are OBVIOUSLY more technically advanced than the rest of the stones and were OBVIOUSLY used in a different older structure appear at the bottom of an Inca wall. Is that not OBVIOUS enough for you or are you a little slow upstairs?

....and of course you know enough about the subject to know that like the Phoenicians (who used large stones for foundations and smaller one atop) none of the pre-Inca cultures did that. How in fact do you know that the smaller stones are Inca? How do you know the larger ones are NOT inca or Chimú, Chincha, Cajamarca, Piura, Chancay, Chachapoya, Chincha, Chiribaya, Chucuito, Huaman Huilca, Ilo, Qotu Qotu, Pacacocha, Palli Marca, Piura, Sican, Tajaraca, Huaylas, Conchucos, Huamachuco, Rucanas, Chanka, Aymara nations, Ayabaca, Bracamoros, Huancabambas, Tallan culture, Huarco, Ichma, Parinacota, #is, Chinchaycochas, Huarochiri, Kheswas, Tarmas, or Paltas? Somehow you also know that its not one of the above but instead a 'lost advanced civilization'......so how do you do that?
lol

Simple because none of the above had the skills or tools in their repertoire to carry out that kind of work.

Now why don't you show us some distinctive stone work from each of the different cultures you've listed well that's if you actually can?

Still trying to shift the burden of proof - James? lol

Isn't going to happen. You have a number of questions you've run away from. May I suggest you attempt to answer them?

I've just answered your question. You're always acting like yopu're the BIG expert but you can NEVER answer my questions.

originally posted by: JamesTB
I've just answered your question. You're always acting like yopu're the BIG expert but you can NEVER answer my questions.

Hans has made no unsupported claim here. Note that he backed up his statements regarding Inca construction with posted research and links.

You, on the other hand, have made multiple unsupported claims. When that happens, people ask questions.

It is your job to answer the questions.

It's quite obvious that you lack any knowledge which might enable you to do so.

Harte

originally posted by: JamesTB

I've just answered your question. You're always acting like yopu're the BIG expert but you can NEVER answer my questions.

To answer your questions? Sure - you're wrong. lol

I've asked you to state your expertise - you ran away. You have demonstrated an extremely limited knowledge of the subject, essentially you just seem to be repeating what you've been told to believe by BF websites and youtube films.

Since BF is your inspiration why don't you ask him to tell you what you're suppose to think on the subject?

You've been asked to show how you know x photo shows not Inca ruins but ruins from 'x', please show how you know that, pretty simple, you cannot simply state that and hope (by a long shot) be believed because as noted above you appear to have no applicable knowledge or experience in making such determinations, if you do please state them. I have stated mine so I'm not sure why you are holding back.

You have made a claim, you have refused to answer questions, repeatedly, in regards to that claim while demanding evidence against said claim.

We await your evidence.

An interesting aside on the capabilities of the Inca




To the question at hand

Who taught the Inca Stonemason their skill?

Here we have a stretch of wall on which the work to the left is obviously Inca but who made the wall to the right which the Inca seem to be covering up?

s30.postimg.org...

a reply to: Hanslune


Well ere did the Inca build for the Spanish in the old large stone fashion?

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Hanslune


Well ere did the Inca build for the Spanish in the old large stone fashion?

Good question as you'd have thought that the Spanish would of been very interested in learning how to built almost indestructible walls.

a reply to: JamesTB

Well Slayer pointed out his idea that the Inca learned to build and work with large stones from the Olmec. But that begs the question of why the Maya didn't carry on the tradition?

At last we have the emergence of a mud brick culture in Peru. These apparently had the same problem as the Egyptians....no antecedent connection to the large stone builders that came before them.

a reply to: Hanslune

God damn I would loved to have seen that model.

What we saying here? There are obvious sites where there seem to have 2 totally different styles to construction, to the picture James posted last with the smaller rocks to one side and the lovely larger blocks to the other. Is it not possible that the Incan built both, one just collapsed due to earthquakes or whatever, and they didn't have the same stone masons they used to, so built it the quickest, most effective way they could?

I remember reading once that when the Spanish asked the Inca people how they built some of their monuments and their reply was something along the lines of "we didn't, the people before us did" I would love to know if anyone knows if that statement is authentic.

originally posted by: Sparta
a reply to: Hanslune

God damn I would loved to have seen that model.

What we saying here? There are obvious sites where there seem to have 2 totally different styles to construction, to the picture James posted last with the smaller rocks to one side and the lovely larger blocks to the other. Is it not possible that the Incan built both, one just collapsed due to earthquakes or whatever, and they didn't have the same stone masons they used to, so built it the quickest, most effective way they could?

I remember reading once that when the Spanish asked the Inca people how they built some of their monuments and their reply was something along the lines of "we didn't, the people before us did" I would love to know if anyone knows if that statement is authentic.

Yeah it would have been an interesting thing to see kinda of a 3D version of the Madaba map

Since James posted an image taken out of context and absolutely refuses to identify where it comes from (if he even knows) we cannot determine who did what when. The two larger blocks are probably Inca but the looser stones around them could be later Inca or post Spanish construction. As note earlier one of the styles the Inca used was to use larger stones for foundations then use smaller atop them especially if built on a slope.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: JamesTB

Well Slayer pointed out his idea that the Inca learned to build and work with large stones from the Olmec. But that begs the question of why the Maya didn't carry on the tradition?

Hey logarock did you mix up your cultures there? Did you mean Tiwanaku instead of Olmec or what.

The Inca appear to have conquered then used the skilled masons of tiwanaku. While the Maya may have picked up masonry skills from the earlier Olmec, is that what you meant?

At last we have the emergence of a mud brick culture in Peru. These apparently had the same problem as the Egyptians....no antecedent connection to the large stone builders that came before them.

Adobe use AFAWK goes back in Peru about 5,000 years to the Caral/Norte chico people.

They wouldn't have known about the earthquake resistance of Inca walls when they first arrived their first concern would have been speed. The higher quality Inca building techniques would have probably been very slow compared to what the Spanish directed methods were.