The articles that I posted on the technology of manufacturing polygonal masonry in Peru found an ambiguous response from readers. There were those who categorically defend the mechanical method of grinding and processing stones and those who agreed with my arguments.
I remain a supporter of plasticine technology, but not by softening stones, but by forming blocks from cold fluidolites of natural origin, from geo-concrete.
I offer another selection of photographs from Peru with interesting details in the masonry, showing that previously the blocks were plastic.
Note the chamfer. It has a swollen geometry. Some say that erosion did it (it was in the seams that it worked harder). I believe that the chamfer was obtained by imprinting the formwork (frame). After removing it, the volume of the block was squeezed out (inside it was still plastic) under its own weight and under the weight of the higher blocks. The chamfer geometry has floated. Somewhere more, somewhere less.
Traces of fabric with coarse thread, mats, which separated the plastic rock from the formwork. Erosion did not wear off this surface. Either this masonry was in the ground, or it was formed quite recently.
Promotional video:
Or will there be other versions? Skeptics will say that these are the marks of a chisel and a hammer with which the stones were tapped. Tissue marks are concentric. If this was done by tapping the rock, the pattern would be chaotic.
The drawing on the stone is more detailed. The trace on the upper chamfer is interesting. Was the chamfer finalized when the mass of the upper block was laid?
Good angle showing how the blocks are swollen. Either under their own weight, or they contain bentonite clays, increasing in size.
Dents on the blocks that I showed in examples in previous articles.
Close-up of dents. Earlier I assumed that these were formwork fasteners.
What was the point of making them with the version of mechanical processing of the rock? Hooks? It is more logical to make them at the top, so that the center of gravity is below, so that the block is stable when lifting.
It seems that these indentations were left after the block was ready, the formwork was removed. But then what for? Did you want to raise the block?
My fresh assumption is that these are traces of supports - for fixing the entire masonry or a separate block. The mass was unstable because all the blocks inside were still plastic.
I think they could be compared to gelatin. A little effort and the masonry could tilt and fall. Whatever this happens, they put the props after removing the formwork. They left all these traces in different parts of the blocks. And their depth was different - depending on how solidified the mass.
Dents in different parts of the block.
Close-up of props dents. Because the masses expanded (or floated under their own weight), then such depressions were left in the plastic rock.
The supports were also in the form of a rectangular bar, not only a cylindrical log. This means that the ancients knew how to saw wood (there was something).
Some believe that this is all a remake, Disney Land for tourists. Built with some old lime-based artificial stone recipes. That is why we see such traces.
As you can see, this is new evidence of the plasticine (geo-concrete) version of the construction of polygonal masonry. Some find fault with the lack of recipes. This article does not set such a goal, only the external signs of this technology are shown here. We will talk about recipes in future articles. Although I have already published some of this information.
Author: sibved