ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Stone Gaps Myth of Sacsayhuaman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ม.ค. 2024
- Have you ever heard that you can't slip a piece of paper between the stone at Sacsayhuman above Cusco, Peru?
It's a myth that is 100% false. There are hundreds of gaps, some big enough to insert your hand. This quick video shows just a few. There are many more that are easily visible by anyone who tours the site.
I'm a bit surprised at the comments that are irrelevant to the purpose of this video. The ONLY reason I did this is because the myth goes around that "you can't slip a piece of paper between the stones" and that is completely false. People say that is the current situation which is not true. This video makes absolutely no claims about any time in the past --- only the present situation. Sacsayhuaman is still one of the world's most amazing sites and many of those making comments are showing that they clearly have never been there and have done no real research about the site.
I think people are looking at the title of the video and "assuming" that you meant you could "never" slip a piece of paper between them.. Perhaps you should rethink the title, interesting video though Thankyou,
That's very possible. I have defintely considered that, but perhaps they shouldn't make assumptions based on nothing, too. That's a real problem with TH-cam and social media in general as it doesn't contribute the the conversation at all.
I find it interesting that not a single person has talked about the actual evidence that the stones originally DID fit extremely close together. There is clear evidence of that, but I doubt most people have ever been there and/or done any research so they are not aware of real evidence that exists.
I might do a video on that soon, but there are issues about lighting that could require permission from the authorities there. (It might be easy to solve, but I'm clearly not a professional filmmaker!) @@MrSychnant
" and that is completely false." And people will backpedal until they are "right" because they want to believe in the hyperbolic myth but they will keep going on perpetuating it.
I enjoyed the video and I believe using “Myth” is fine . The structure is amazing and would love to learn more how it was built 👍
people want to believe these things more than they want reality.
You did a great video. I have heard that they were so tight you can't slip a piece of paper in-between them. The video makes them look very interesting WITH the gaps, because the form of the stone shows more. I like this video. Don't worry about what people say, they can make their own videos. Lots of people instantly become video critics, or language critics or history critics etc. You were there and filmed it, that is fantastic! Thank you for sharing.
They use distance and camera angels while only showing certain portions of the walls to hide the imperfections. Same with making angles look perfect and very rare to see the walls from the back.
I think that the use of the word 'Myth' in the title was maybe a poor choice. I think the word 'Myth' invokes the idea of something was from long into the past. Yes, people have said you can't fit a piece of paper into the gaps, and for some of the gaps this is true. Obviously from the images provided there are gaps of a much greater size. However, as I watched the video very closely it appeared that the faces of those larger gaps matched extremely well and from what I could see there were larger gaps below, above or next to that also looked like their faces match extremely well. From this "evidence" my "theory" would be that these larger gaps were created from some local geological activity (earthquakes) and that originally they were probably as tightly placed as the ones that are said to be so close as to not be able to insert a piece of paper. There should not be any arguments about semantics about the words used in the title.
It looks like too many gaps on formations that are still flush and tight in other spots.
There IS shifting of the ground but the cuts look off to me
Question, if I may: Is it certain that the “bottom” stones we can see, are, in fact, the lowest level of construction? Could there be more, below ground level?
On the bottom level where the largest stones are located there is clearly another set of stone below that appear to be unworked and perhaps serve as a "foundation" for the stones above which have a distinct purpose.
The statement you are trying to debunk was never made. In regard to the Ashlar building technique of the Inca which was very tight fitting interlocking blocks of polygonal type. Some of which were carved so well that you can't even fit a piece of paper between them. Nowhere have I ever read that this describes every joint in every Inca structure, only that some exist that are this well carved and fitted, not every single joint.
"Nowhere have I ever read that this describes every joint in every Inca structure..."
Neither have I. That's why this video has nothing to do with that.
It's just a suggestion, but it might be a good idea to read the title of the video to get an idea of what is actually about before posting an irrelevant comment.
The video is about Sacsayhuaman, a place where that myth is shared ALL the time. I did the video in response to several posts I saw on just one thread in just one Facebook group yesterday.
There is no myth of which you speak, Saqsaywaman walls are built in the Ashlar building technique of the Inca which was very tight fitting interlocking blocks of polygonal type. Some of which were carved so well that you can't even fit a piece of paper between them. Nowhere have I ever read that this describes every joint in every Inca structure, only that some exist that are this well carved and fitted, not every single joint.
Ashlar is not even a correct description but it has been adopted to describe the Inca building technique. Ashlar actually applies to uniform stones and little mortar not zero.Different courses may be of different height but all the units in a course are the same height. Inca buildings can be closer to the Ashlar definition as their are some Inca structures built with uniform courses.
But additional unique properties of the Inca were sometimes a leaning backwards building design, trapezoid shaped openings, double threshold doorways. They also built plenty of non-ashlar buildings and walls everywhere, including Saqsaywaman.
The highest fitting joints were reserved for the most revered buildings such as temples, the walls at Saqsaywaman certainly don't fall into that category and I've never read or heard anyone say they did other than you.
@@mikefinley6148 Give him a break, he is citing tourists.
@@mikefinley6148 "Nowhere have I ever read that this describes every joint in every Inca structure, only that some exist that are this well carved and fitted, not every single joint." -- For the second time, I agree. I said nothing like that.
"The highest fitting joints were reserved for the most revered buildings such as temples, the walls at Saqsaywaman certainly don't fall into that category and I've never read or heard anyone say they did other than you." -- You didn't hear me say that, either.
I'm not sure why you keep making up things that I said, but maybe you have another agenda that is not clear to me.
But they fit perfectly before the earthquakes, I think the problem people have is you make it sound like it's a debunking video. I studied to be an archeologist but I did not study this place, if they fit together so well before this video title just seems to target what would upset certain people.
What makes you say that they fit perfectly before earthquakes? That would go against the other popular myth that the Incas "earthquake proof" or "earthquake resistant" construction styles. (That also is another myth that I may make a video about, but it would take a lot more work to cover the topic properly.)
It is clearly and intentionally a debunking video of that one myth and nothing more. Many of the comments are about other things that have nothing to do with the intent of this video. It appears that people are making assumptions that are incorrect. There ARE gaps between the stones -- countless more than in this videos -- meaning that the claim that you can't find any is wrong. It IS a myth.
I DO appreciate your comments. I probably sound too defensive, but it's starting to bother me that so many seem to be assuming more than is there.
415s30 is correct. Just looking at the gaps you can see where the slack came from etc. They fit pretty damn good at one point obviously.@@theperuchannel
@@richardhawkins2248 You can tell all that just be looking at videos or photos? Most researchers spend massive amounts of time studying a place on-site in great detail to not only gather data and evidence, but they also use contextual clues from as many other sources as possible -- especially when it comes to knowing what happened in the past -- determine what is "obvious" to you apparently just by looking at your phone or computer screen.
Do you have some secrets that you can share to save researchers from actually spending time at sites like Sacsayuhuaman and doing huge amounts of research?
@@theperuchannel you argue like a communist.
I guess only you saw them before the supposed earthquakes.
1.04 ancient pipe...???
Good eye and good question! The drainage hole is original, but most have pipes inserted. I'm not certain of the purpose, but perhaps they reduce internal erosion as well as make it easier to clean should they become clogged with grass and debris.
They moved due to seismic axctivity
Undoubtedly that played a role in the gaps, but there are other factors.
From the reading I've done the builders of the megalithic structures in the Andes and elsewhere in Peru, made use of mortar for structural integrity. They were skilled enough to hide it, but it's there. They had a painstaking method of getting them to fit together on their face, then pounding the joint to where it looks like a perfect fit. Many civilizations preceded the Inca that perfected megalithic architecture. The Inca were just the latest and greatest.
The Incas built thousands of structures just during the relatively short period of their empire. (They were around before that, of course.) There is no such thing as Inca construction as, like every other civilization that ever existed, they used countless construction styles.
In Cusco there are dozens of different styles that can still be seen despite most of the original structures being long gone. Even Machu Picchu has at least 18 different styles that were used over the course of its construction. That doesn't even include the 30% (and almost certainly more) that has been reconstructed since the 1940s.
Construction depended on many, many factors. Not the least of these were available labor and the availability of materials. Almost all Inca buildings used lots of mortar, but most have long since since crumbled to piles of stone since the Spanish arrived. Only a small amount of structures actually surive and I don't know of a single one that has not udergone maintenance and reconstructions.
If I understand you correct, your description of "pounding the joint to where it looks like a perfect fit" was not the case at Sacsayhuaman. There is a great deal of clearly visible evidence all over the site that the fit was, indeed, intended to be far tighter than social media commentators realize.
@@theperuchannel Fair enough.
there are older sections where the blocks perfectly fit together throughout the depth of the joints, not just at the facade. this is revealed by earthquake damage, you can see this at the central areas of Machu Picchu.
@@AustinKoleCarlisle The builders were very skilled and they had esthetic standards they attempted honor. In some cases the use of six sided blocks was practical.
@@russellmillar7132 the builders of the original megalithic work had skills that later Incan inhabitants did not possess, although they did a good job at replicating what they inherited.
How many earthquakes had the place been through?
No one knows exactly. There have been two major ones (the utopia and 1950) since the Spanish arrived. Smaller ones occur with some regularity.
Whenever anyone make extraordinary claims about the supposed perfection of some ancient monument ask for proof. Most often it is people misquoting some previous source that was a lot more vague. What is hilarious is other people in the comments claiming that you could not possibly have ever heard anyone make a particular claim.
I almost always ask for proof not expecting any will be given. 90% of the time nothing is provided -- maybe the standard "do your own research" response which means they have none. Every once in awhile someone will post a TH-cam video or a website link that has nothing to do with the topic.
It's frustrating when I see stuff about the Incas because it's my area of expertise, but I'm getting used to it.
Alder's razor (also known as Newton's flaming laser sword): If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.
Thanks for your comment. Would you mind explaining the relevance to this video as it's really not clear -- especially since there are mountains of published research done on Sacsayhuaman. (I"m not talking about TH-cam videos whose only purpose is to make money made by people who have never been there, but by people who have done real research.)
Perhaps not “debate”, but it’s certainly worthy of discussion, due to the possibility that someone’s “possibility” might cause another to realize something no one else had.
,,👍👍
I got a notification for a reply, but my comment is gone. :(
Are you sure? I never delete anything unless there's profanity of spam.
@@theperuchannel I believe I commented on the one in which you mention Protzen, Astete and Lee. I confirmed that people can shape, move and lift large megalithic rocks and referred to the channel 'Sacred Geometry Decoded'. This channel is some random dude who also clearly shows how things are done. He created granite bowls with primitive methods and so on. There is also a Russian(?) channel called 'Scientists against Myths' who does the same.
Anyway, may have been my mistake. I get clumsy late at night. Ah, well.. not just late at night. :D Thanks for showing me footage of stonework that clearly is not as perfect as the (fake-)mystery-youtubers usually come up with. Hope you check out these channels. I'm going to google Protzen Astete and Lee now. :D
@@YATESA8 I've seen some of the "Sacred Geometry Decoded" including his video on Sacsayhuaman. It's been awhile, but it seemed to be pretty good there are some things he left out -- understandable and not a criticism.
I think I've heard of the "Scientists Against Myths" channel, but prettty sure I havenb't seen it yet. I made a note of it and will definitely check it out.
So many TH-cam videos that spread myths -- even lies -- are done with the sole purpose of making money and nothing else. Sadly, the lies are more interesting because they are really slick, really professional videos. Most researchers are to being working and doing research to do that kind of attention-getting stuff, but the numbers are growing.
Thanks for sharing this. (I really don't know what happened to your first comment. Did you forget to hit the "Reply"" button? Haha -- I do that ALL that time!)
@@theperuchannel Exactly what you mention above.. and yea.. i still got notification from youtube.. but aah nevermind... Let's blame it on the Lost Ancient Technology Cult. :D
Keep up the good work. Subscribed.
So just like you, the others saying "the fitment of the stones is so precise you can't slide a piece of paper between the stones" selected their supporting data to strengthen their claims, you indeed have done the same to oppose those same claims.
Can we agree that this incredible feat man would have a difficulty producing today? Even with the larger gaps, the faces still precisely match each other. Who in their right mind would build a structure in such a way to begin with. This technique is X times more difficult than just using 90 degree faces.
Looks like the stones moved for whatever reason - but matched up perfectly at one time.
Most researcher -- probably all -- agree that this is much easier than modern rectangular blocks.
The point of this was to refute the myth and show that there ARE gaps of considerable size despite the claims that there are none. The myth is 100% false and this proves it. Nothing more was intended.
I can't slip a piece of paper between the mattresses on my bed when I'm sleeping on it. There is no meaning to the myth except to make the site seem to be something it is not.
Who in the "right mind" would do this? The Incas, of course. Their mind and culture was different. To try to relate it to modern concepts is not only a waste of time, but is simply wrong. That's why people have studied the culture. Doing so provides explanations and understanding that the TH-cam and social media experts don't care about because it takes work. Lots of work. LOTS.
@@paulsawczyc5019 I'm not able to determine how they lined up 600 years ago looking at TH-cam videos. I'm not aware of any other researcher who knows the site who could do that. That's why we study at Sacsayhuaman and don't watch TH-cam videos to draw conclusions.
@@theperuchannel 600 years is not too long ago and ancient men were capable of moving and lifting large stones. If they were not, these objects were not there. These are not made by aliens. They are also not perfect, as you expect from hi technology.
It is an incredible achievement, but it is not a mystery.
@@theperuchannelWhat do you study? We're still lacking any real info from researchers like you. All we have are a bunch of guesses. Also to say polygonal masonry is easier than block masonry is just ridiculous.............
Very poignant, these which were once perfect....are almost perfect still....
Parallel faces once mated. Disturbance by ground and humans explains the gaps. This is just plain deception.
What "deception" are you talking about?
MYTH: You Can Fit a Piece of Paper Between the Stones at Sacsayhuaman.. What a inspiring thing to get hung up on. Seems you missed the original point.. The purpose of this video seems to be an argumentative one, with zero meat or potatoes to add to the subject.
@@AVoidDances "zero meat or potatoes"? -- clearly you didn't watch the video.
What is the "original point" that I missed?
Thank you for commenting, but you wrote lots of generalities and gave no specifics to discuss.
@@theperuchannel You're right! The video is Awesome! Love looking at these sites, and detailed videos like yours. Thank you!
Putting paper between the stones is analogous to the precision, mortarless joinery of multi tonne polygonal blocks. Which have obviously moved and shifted over the millenniums.
Modern myth at best, what's the theory? These are rhetorical things to debunk and debate.
The blocks in your video look like the sides were truly fitted together, and not just the face edge. Those spaces can tell us a lot.
....what point are you failing to make?
I'm not making an infinite number of points because the intention is only to make one, irrefutable point that this myth that is constantly spread is false.
Is there a particular point that your feel I am not making that is relevant?
@@theperuchannel Jesus...how the hell did you even manage to get both shoes on this morning? You know....being that stupid.
Ground settlement is obvious to see, the stones have drifted apart.
earthquakes?
and erosion
i bet when they poured them you couldnt fit anything between them, but a cataclysm or two might fuck it up a bit, still standing though and were still stuck on the ''me carve big rock'' theory so we cant produce and move the boulders of blocks they used in some of them, its all concrete, 70 tonne granite rocks are alot easier to lift when you do it 20lbs at a time and alot easier to shape when you stick it in a mould and let it set
Stone is not "poured" . . . and it is most certainly not concrete. I'm guessing you haven't seen it in person.
You would lose that bet. These rocks are limestone quarried from a few km up the mountain to the north. The idea that they were poured is simply a lie started by scammers who make money off of gullible people ad spread with zero evidence.
"we cant produce and move the boulders of blocks they used in some of them" -- This is one of the most stupid claims. Do you really think we can't move 70 tonnes? Have you ever looked around? I'm always baffled when people make this claim that we can't move or lift heavy things. We have been doing so since man started building with stone. We put entire homes onto trucks and move them. We used to FLY the space shuttle strapped to the top of a 747! Flew it. Hundreds of thousands of pounds, lifted and placed precisely on the exterior top of an airplane that already weighs over 400,000 pounds itself. And then flew into the air and across the country. Think about that.
@@AveragePicker oh youre moving the boulders with rocket fuel now?, well maybe that would work, where did these supposed slave people get the power to do it? water on sand? did they strap a big sail to it too
or did they have mega digotron the super gigantor digger machine
@@infertilepiggy5667 Oh for fvck sake, where did I suggest boulders being moved with rocket fuel? You think we in modern times can't produce and move boulders. So don't try getting assy. Go to a quarry sometime. th-cam.com/video/9us9HXHaLLk/w-d-xo.html Hey look a granite quarry with giant slabs not only being moved, but split incredibly smoothly.
I get it though, your whole post is shown to be wrong so you're on the defensive.
only because of earth movement
Do you have any evidence of that? Are saying that the events of 2010 had no effect at all despite all the documentation as things were happening?
Ernegerd stacked rocks, HOW can ANYONE figur out how to stak roks… must be aliens!
Lol…
Shhhh -- don't give away the secret. We don't want anyone to know that stacking stones is long-lost ancient technology. 😉
The reason some of the stones are not fitted perfectly together should be obvious... deeerp.
What should also be obvious is that there is nothing new under the Sun. Look at the beaches of D-Day, all those heavy metal tanks and ships slowly (very quickly) dissolving into nothing in only 80 years.
I want to see ANY MODERN MASON cut these stones without modern technology. Anyone? THAT is the mystery.
It's has been shown. Many, many different times by lots of people, in fact. Are you not familiar with the work of Protzen, Astete, or Lee (and lots of others)? This isn't a mystery, but it is ignored by the TH-camrs who known facts conflict with their lies that make them a LOT of money without having to provide and evidence.
@@theperuchannel Yes totally true. Very annoying these Lost Ancient High Technology Cult that is selling fake mysteries for views.
You can cut most of them with water and wood. You obviously know nothing of splitting rocks.
@@mikefranklin1253 That is just stupid. No way this is just spitting rock.
@@theperuchannel who are Protzen, Astete, or Lee (and lots of others)? Can you give a bit more info so i can find out about them?
BUH MUH AINCHEN AILYUNZ!!!1!
Ridiculous nonsense, and opposing 'myths' from vidoe to description, hilariously poor tho
I'm curious what you expected. The myth that is shared everywhere is that you can't fit a piece of paper between the stones at Sacsayhuaman. My sole intent was to show that's not true with just a handful of examples including some extreme examples. Nothing more.
The statement is made in regard to the Ashlar building technique of the Inca which was very tight fitting interlocking blocks of polygonal type. Some of which were carved so well that you can't even fit a piece of paper between them. Nowhere have I ever read that this is describing every joint in every Inca structure.
@@mikefinley6148 Those are of polygonal type.
Also...flat things fit together flatly. You should not be surprised by that.
Nowhere have you read? Ok, this is Sacsayhuaman, google "Sacsayhuaman can't fit paper" you'll find plenty of the claim showing up.
@miniminuteman773 you'd love this. Completely distroys the conspiracy narrative.