Many historians and ordinary readers claim that polygonal masonry in Peru was made by mechanical processing of stones and fitting blocks one under another. That the ancient builders had enough to have simple tools and dexterous hands with little experience to make the following:
Archaeological ancient complex Tipon. Located 30 kilometers from Cusco. There are several levels of terraces here.
The lower and upper parts are folded like polygonal masonry. But the blocks themselves are clearly different in quality from what we are used to seeing in photographs on this topic. The stones are roughly cut by hand. Traces of chips are visible. Especially on the masonry in the upper structure.
The rough work of the stones is especially evident in this photo. The gaps between the blocks are filled with small stones. The width of the seams between the blocks indicates that it was this polygonal masonry that was carried out by manual mechanical processing of stones. The accuracy of the block fitting will be exactly the same.
Although, there is a version that this object is not distant in time restoration, late 19th century, early 20th century.
Promotional video:
All this is very similar to reconstruction. Or to the work of the late Indians, when the technologies for creating polygonal masonry with curved surfaces and the absence of gaps between the blocks were already lost.
9th of March
<100 views
Full statistics will be available after the publication has more than 100 views.
Different technologies for the manufacture of polygonal masonry
Many historians and ordinary readers claim that polygonal masonry in Peru was made by mechanical processing of stones and fitting blocks one under another. That the ancient builders had enough to have simple tools and dexterous hands with little experience to make the following:
Archaeological ancient complex Tipon. Located 30 kilometers from Cusco. There are several levels of terraces here.
The lower and upper parts are folded like polygonal masonry. But the blocks themselves are clearly different in quality from what we are used to seeing in photographs on this topic. The stones are roughly cut by hand. Traces of chips are visible. Especially on the masonry in the upper structure.
The rough work of the stones is especially evident in this photo. The gaps between the blocks are filled with small stones. The width of the seams between the blocks indicates that it was this polygonal masonry that was carried out by manual mechanical processing of stones. The accuracy of the block fitting will be exactly the same.
Although, there is a version that this object is not distant in time restoration, late 19th century, early 20th century.
All this is very similar to reconstruction. Or to the work of the late Indians, when the technologies for creating polygonal masonry with curved surfaces and the absence of gaps between the blocks were already lost.
What was the intention of the builders of these terraces? Why are such expenses in material and work?
Although, in Tipon there are areas of real high-quality polygonal masonry, here is an example:
On the left, more primitive masonry is attached to the tightly fitted blocks. And the blocks in the center of the photo look like petrified plasticine.
Below I propose to study the information in other examples to feel the difference between polygonal masonry, which was made by molding and pseudo-polygonal, folded using the technology of manual processing and fitting of blocks:
Laying in Vyborg and laying in Peru. I don’t understand how it can be argued that this is all done using the same technology of mechanical stone processing? Obviously, the technologies are different. Reception of receiving non-standardized blocks is one. Perhaps it gives greater seismic resistance to the masonry. But the fact that the masonry looks an order of magnitude more unusual than just folding rectangular blocks is for sure.
Masonry from non-rectangular blocks in Kronstadt. And masonry in Peru. A similar comparison. It is impossible to mechanically achieve high accuracy of block fitting, no matter what. The chipped surfaces of blocks during machining will always speak of this. Skeptics will say that they were also polished in Peru! There was nowhere to do with the time and lives of the workers?
Delphi, Greece. This was obviously made by mechanical stone processing. The gaps between the blocks are huge, the blocks are chipped. Yes, pipes are titanic, but not fantastic technology. Greece is a seismic region. Perhaps it was precisely because of the increased resistance to damage of this type that polygonal masonry was built.
Remains of the Bomarsund fortress, Finland. All the same rough stone processing. Although it is granite, which has great hardness and which is not so easy to process, the builders used it to improve the fortification performance of the fortress.
A small detail: if you look closely, you can see in the photo on the left the lower masonry is made of a higher quality, almost like in Peru, with no gaps. And all because the blocks are rectangular. They are easier to fit together. Where the masonry is polygonal, the quality is lower, huge cracks are visible.
All the objections of skeptics that polygonal masonry is the work of stonecutters is broken down into a number of examples below. For example, about this example:
Corner polygonal masonry.
If these blocks were made by mechanical processing, then who can explain: how could such corner blocks be made? And, most importantly: why? This is how much waste of the rock will be in such a manufacture? And adjusting such a huge corner block is even more difficult. It is much easier to fold the corner as modern builders do - block by block.
Next example:
Curved contact surface of blocks with an existing edge on polygonal masonry. When machining, treat two different blocks with the same curvature of their contact surface - this is only on the equipment. Manually - on the verge of fantasy. And why did they leave the edge? But if we start from the technology of forming these blocks from a dough-like plastic mass, then everything is understandable.
I wrote about this version here.
Another example of curvilinear mates of different blocks. The accuracy is phenomenal.
Well, and, as they say, "the cherry on the cake" for those who still doubt the plasticine technology for the manufacture of polygonal masonry. A wooden stick holding the blocks in Machu Picchu is captured:
The edge is outlined, extruding the rock that envelops the wooden stick. For me, the question of what exactly is the molding of blocks from a plastic mass and not mechanical processing of the rock is closed!
An enlarged picture of this place in the clutch. This place in the masonry was apparently deliberately left in the form of a window.
But that is not all. I suggest looking at another analogy. An experiment was carried out:
They took gypsum, mixed this "gypsum plasticine". Blind blocks and put them in a polygonal brickwork in miniature. Raised masonry after plaster has hardened. Gaps formed - the blocks did not stick together. Blocks fall out freely
In the comments, questions are very often asked:
1. How could the blocks be shaped like this if they were cast? What kind of formwork?
Answer: I repeat once again - this is not casting! This is the molding of plastic masses, like plasticine, thick dough (lime). The fact that the blocks in Sacsayhuaman are made of lime dough is a proven fact based on the samples taken. It is very easy to give masses like plasticine any shape. Tools: saws, strings (even textile), spatulas, flat elements.
2. How could the formwork withstand a mass of under 100 tons? No wooden substructures can withstand such loads
Answer: with plastic masses, there will be no such colossal loads on the formwork. This is not a liquid, the masses themselves retain their shape. The formwork is needed to control the geometry and to prevent the masonry from tipping over in the event of a worker's mistake
In addition, the blocks themselves, when gaining strength, increased in size, swelled like barrels. These examples show this:
Blocks swollen like barrels and on the right photo: an error when forming or installing the formwork, when the masses of the blocks floated. I think they removed the excess, but they decided not to eliminate this marriage.
The question remains: what are the "nipples" on the blocks, why they were not cut down. But more on that in the next part …