The basic version of the "nipples" (or bosses as they are called) on polygonal blocks in Peru are the rock "bridges" that builders left when the block was cut from the bedrock in the quarry. But in the previous article we found out that polygonal masonry was made by molding plastic masses. And those polygonal masonry, which is of lower quality (objects in Greece, Vyborg, in Finland) - by hand machining. But there "nipples" are not observed.
Why, given such a level of masonry, did the "bosses" leave these bulges on the edges of the blocks, not cut them down?
How these "bosses" were formed and why they were not cut down afterwards from the point of view of even plasticine technology or casting of polygonal masonry - there is also no answer. But it turns out that a completely logical version of their location on the blocks has long been put forward. I came across a video with a detailed explanation and even a practical experiment on the manufacture of polygonal masonry by casting from ordinary concrete. I suggest watching this video:
The author concludes that all this is the manual labor of ancient concrete workers with a certain cult. There are no highly developed technologies there. Everything is simple and understandable from the point of view of concrete technology. In the version of my revision of this assumption, the ancients did not make concrete. They used the outcrops of plastic masses from the bowels, cold fluidolites, and mineral tuffs.
Let's return to the topic of the article. The bosses, most likely, appeared from some side reason, but without which it was impossible to lay down such masonry. What if these are the consequences of pouring out or squeezing out the solution after removing the bars of fastening (fixing) the formwork and the formwork itself.
Promotional video:
Contemporary examples. These concrete bars were not removed from the formwork only for the reason that the concrete quickly sets and the bars cannot be removed simply by the effort of a person's hands. They need to be sawed off at least.
Ancient technology is shown in these video screenshots. They took the formwork. For casting massive blocks, the formwork in the lower part required through fastening through the entire thickness of the masonry in the form of a bar screed. After the composition had hardened, the formwork was removed, but the composition was not quite concrete in our understanding. This geo-concrete turned to stone slowly and formed a crust on the surface. And since inside the masses were still plastic, they were squeezed out under their own weight into these holes in the form of "nipples", bosses.
Small blocks did not require fixing the lower part of the formwork through the through bar, because the pressure of the masses in them was small and the formwork was simply propped up with racks and long poles.
To give a chamfer to the masonry (the masonry looks more aesthetically pleasing) and to seal it so that the composition does not seep into the cracks, the builders smeared the formwork joints with clay. It did not stick to the stone mass, but left a mark.
There was a marriage with this technology. This is why we see so many dents on blocks in masonry in Peru. I wrote about this here.
Here in the photo, in Sacsayhuaman, the builders made a mistake. Apparently, the formwork shield was removed early and the crust was too thin, the shell could not withstand and the masses floated. They were picked up, but such a torn surface, as if melted, remained.
The author in the video above filled the wall for the terrace in the form of polygonal masonry, using only sheets of cellular polycarbonate and supports in the form of pipes:
In the place where the builder had the formwork fixed with through screeds, the concrete squeezed out, forming a kind of bosses like in masonry in Peru. In general, I recommend watching this video, as well as its second part there on the author's channel.
I came across another video where there is an interesting mention of one dolmen:
Dolmen in the village of Dzhubga. The bosses are visible as in the polygonal masonry in Peru. They were cast using the same technology. I wrote in more detail about this version here.
The "boss" is in another dolmen. And this example, apparently, is not the only one.
This version seems to me quite logical and convincing. Concrete method of casting or molding antiquities from geo-concrete, non-hardened mineral tuffs of the type of Pudost stone, etc. - this is the most optimal construction method.