Inca Stone Masonry

This is an incredible writeup. I've visited almost all of these sites to inspect the masonry, spent weeks researching, pestered tour guides and museum workers for oral history, and still I learned things in reading this article.

However there is one aspect which I think is incomplete. When you closely inspect the seams of some of the non-layered works like sacsayhuaman, we are talking about 2mm precision along curved, inconsistent lines of two stones. The when you look at the joints up close, they make the joint between flat cinder-blocks look chunky.

The author posits that this was all hand chiseling and eyeballing, or scribe tools. However I believe there would be occasional gaps or inconsistencies, which simply aren't present in any of the pre-colonial precise works.

One thing I discovered in my research of other central American indigenous cultures (inca was a melting pot of culture and technology) was the use of rope or string, sand, and water to finely cut stones and gems. It is pulled like a circular sand paper and I believe this process would have been used, run between both stones being joined at once, in order to achieve the final tolerances through uniformly wearing the proud aspects of the joint on both sides.

I recently came across some geopolymer / alkali activated material stuff on YouTube. Fascinating technology - you can in fact print a house or cast "liquid stone" into ceramic. Seems like companies are using it for expanding foam insulation now too.

The "natron hypothesis" seems to make more sense in Egypt where: Natron and granite powder are just laying around, the blocks are all regular rectangular shape, there are murals that seem to describe the process, and they have large high quality artifacts made from diorite which is the hardest thing around.

Of course that doesn't mean it was used everywhere in the ancient world, and this article does a great job discounting it for the Inca.

I'd love to know if there is some detailed microscopy and chemical analysis underway to see if geopolymer use can be proven in Egypt.

This is especially timely as I recently listened to the fall of civilizations podcast on the Incas.

A key answer to an ongoing question I didn't know I had is that only the faces of the stones in the walls are joined precisely. The backs have tapers that are filled in.

A great article that starts by not discounting the written accounts that are available.

I am reminded that the Maya language decipherment really moved forward once the written account by Diego De Landa was taken seriously.

Mike Haduck has a short series (and a bunch of others too)

MACHU PICCHU "A stone masons commentary" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=njCStq0Hn58

Thanks for sharing the marvellous article, is all I can say.

I love how every civilization in history has learned cement and how to use the earth with water to shape it into blocks or form.

Inca stonework was something special. You can tell it’s hand carved and yet smoothed and rounded in a way that softens the look and makes it more appealing. Truly amazing stuff. Mayans had some remarkable temples out of stone but I think because the Inca were up in the mountains, they got better at stone work as a result. I’m not qualified to even assume but that’s just my gut.

What’s the most impressive about the Inca were just how many men they were able to assemble in order for these civil projects to be built.

This was a fascinating read; thank you!

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

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.

[flagged]