Exceptionaly well documented and written article detailing the well known techniques used to build the iconic stone work in south america.
I read an earlier account of a researcher who started investigating pre spanish south american quaries, and how there sudden realisation, while sitting down for lunch, that the round stone to there right, was the hammer used to shape the larger stone to there left and the rows of peck marks ending in raw stone, all of those centuries before.
Having worked a bit of stone myself, learning to shape, temper stone drills, and test them for utility, it is very easy to understand how basic pragmatism and persistance, in stone, yields large structures that retain that essential message of we are not messing around in this
effort, and your opinions can only embellish
this.
When considering stone articacts of any scale, it is always best to keep in mind that lithic technology pre dates our "species", and our evolutionary track is directly parallel with it, and there is quite litteraly, mountains of evidence for this.And should you so wish, any modest effort to go look, dig, search the ground, known hunting areas or settlement zones, will yield physical evidence that anyone can examine.
our development of technology
We know that the Inca didn't build Sacsayhuaman because they said that they didn't.
Anyone who has ever built anything can tell you that pounding stones don't explain this superb stonework. Not only is it an incredibly laborious process that you would stop after 20% of the effort for 80% of the result, but you can't achieve a fit like that after any amount of time if you don't have a comparably precise method of measuring the fit. Putting the stones next to each other and eyeballing it won't do.
> We know that the Inca didn't build Sacsayhuaman because they said that they didn't.
Where are you getting this from? The Spanish chroniclers report Inca tradition that the 15th century leader Pachacuti initiated the building. The wiki article has a few long excerpts from Pedro Cieza de Leon's Cronicas del Peru, including details of how many labourers were involved and some of the methods for quarrying, transporting stone, and construction:
Pounding stone seems reasonable to me. Obviously I don't have any proof or even strong evidence but I saw a video that changed my perception of what is possible. It showed two old men making a millstone with hand tools: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lscs5ZgNQrE. The amount of labour involved and quality of the finished item was astonishing to me. Maybe you'll think that the hideous amount of labour needed to make a simple geometric shape makes you even more convinced the Inca has some other way to achieve their even harder task. But it is a fun video anyway.
The video does not counter the parents argument about measuring fit.
What the masons in the video do is certainly impressive. Cutting organic shapes that fit perfectly together, as if they once were elastic, is another level.
Perhaps the did something similar to what dentists do when building on teeth so that the added material is not the only contract point when jaws are closed. That is, a contact sheet that leaves contact marks.
> The video does not counter the parents argument about measuring fit.
I know. I mainly just wanted to link that video because it is awesome.
The article does explain how the Inca did it - only the front edges are tight fitting. The gaps between the inside surfaces are filled with mortar. They sat the stone where it was to be placed, but with the front edge raised up by resting on some spacers, then just incrementally improved the fit of the edge and re-tried the fit. I'd have still thought that was impossible without seeing something like the video I linked - my intuition of what can be achieved with hammer and chisel was wrong.
Thanks for sharing the marvellous article, is all I can say.
Exceptionaly well documented and written article detailing the well known techniques used to build the iconic stone work in south america. I read an earlier account of a researcher who started investigating pre spanish south american quaries, and how there sudden realisation, while sitting down for lunch, that the round stone to there right, was the hammer used to shape the larger stone to there left and the rows of peck marks ending in raw stone, all of those centuries before. Having worked a bit of stone myself, learning to shape, temper stone drills, and test them for utility, it is very easy to understand how basic pragmatism and persistance, in stone, yields large structures that retain that essential message of we are not messing around in this effort, and your opinions can only embellish this. When considering stone articacts of any scale, it is always best to keep in mind that lithic technology pre dates our "species", and our evolutionary track is directly parallel with it, and there is quite litteraly, mountains of evidence for this.And should you so wish, any modest effort to go look, dig, search the ground, known hunting areas or settlement zones, will yield physical evidence that anyone can examine. our development of technology
> Having worked a bit of stone myself,
Just curious. Do you have some photos?
Another pounding stone theory unfortunately.
We know that the Inca didn't build Sacsayhuaman because they said that they didn't.
Anyone who has ever built anything can tell you that pounding stones don't explain this superb stonework. Not only is it an incredibly laborious process that you would stop after 20% of the effort for 80% of the result, but you can't achieve a fit like that after any amount of time if you don't have a comparably precise method of measuring the fit. Putting the stones next to each other and eyeballing it won't do.
> We know that the Inca didn't build Sacsayhuaman because they said that they didn't.
Where are you getting this from? The Spanish chroniclers report Inca tradition that the 15th century leader Pachacuti initiated the building. The wiki article has a few long excerpts from Pedro Cieza de Leon's Cronicas del Peru, including details of how many labourers were involved and some of the methods for quarrying, transporting stone, and construction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacsayhuam%C3%A1n
Pounding stone seems reasonable to me. Obviously I don't have any proof or even strong evidence but I saw a video that changed my perception of what is possible. It showed two old men making a millstone with hand tools: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lscs5ZgNQrE. The amount of labour involved and quality of the finished item was astonishing to me. Maybe you'll think that the hideous amount of labour needed to make a simple geometric shape makes you even more convinced the Inca has some other way to achieve their even harder task. But it is a fun video anyway.
Similarly astonishing to me is that Michelanglo's David was carved from a single piece of marble with a hammer and chisel. I mean, just look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
The video does not counter the parents argument about measuring fit.
What the masons in the video do is certainly impressive. Cutting organic shapes that fit perfectly together, as if they once were elastic, is another level.
Perhaps the did something similar to what dentists do when building on teeth so that the added material is not the only contract point when jaws are closed. That is, a contact sheet that leaves contact marks.
> The video does not counter the parents argument about measuring fit.
I know. I mainly just wanted to link that video because it is awesome.
The article does explain how the Inca did it - only the front edges are tight fitting. The gaps between the inside surfaces are filled with mortar. They sat the stone where it was to be placed, but with the front edge raised up by resting on some spacers, then just incrementally improved the fit of the edge and re-tried the fit. I'd have still thought that was impossible without seeing something like the video I linked - my intuition of what can be achieved with hammer and chisel was wrong.
How about you actually read the article, which directly addresses these claims?
Is there a counter-theory?
The theory is that there was an older and more advanced civilisation that built them using more advanced techniques which are now lost.
And the Inca inherited pre-existing structures.
The Inca did do stonework of their own, but not close to the standard exhibited in this article.