Geopolymer or Natural Rocks? The Geological Truth of Sacsayhuaman, Peru | Ancient Architects
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2024
- Situated next to Cusco in the Inca heartland of Peru, Sacsayhuaman is one of the most incredible ancient structures in the world. It’s truly mind-boggling how such enormous blocks of stones can be so randomly shaped yet so perfectly put together. The origins of the megalithic blocks of Sacsayhuaman, Peru, have long been a source of debate because it really feels like a genuine mystery.
These are large blocks of limestone, sometimes huge, most of which seem to pillow or bulge out instead of having straight, sharp cut faces. Some blocks seem to curve around corners, others have scoop marks on the surface and a number have the famous nubs. There are many other seemingly bizarre and unnatural features. Each block is irregular and each is unique yet the joints between these limestone blocks are perfect. So how is this even possible?
I’ve speculated in the past that maybe some kind of stone softening agent was applied, possibly some kind of acid. At the end of the day, we can stare at pictures and speculate forever; what we have to do is look at the science. I’ve always said that samples need to be taken and the geology needs to be analysed and that will tell us everything we need to know about Sacsayhuaman.
Well, little did I know that such investigative work was done back in 2012 and in this study and take a detailed look at the geology of the blocks of Sacsayhuaman and so, once and for all, we should be able to answer the question - are they artificial geopolymer or natural rocks? This video is the geological truth of Sacsayhuaman.
All images are taken from Google Images and the below sources for educational purposes only. Please subscribe to Ancient Architects, Like the video and please leave a comment below.
If you would like to support Ancient Architects:
Patreon: / ancientarchitects
Paypal: paypal.me/ancientarchitects
Sources:
• The Living Stones of S...
www.arcanafactor.org/en/our-pr...
www.academia.edu/42442245/The...
takethatvacation.com/
nephicode.blogspot.com/2017/03...
alexguerraterra.blogspot.com/2...
www.gpr-tech.com/single-post/...
• Plasticine Stones of S...
itig.as.khb.ru/dvo_rmo_en.html
peru.com/2012/07/25/actualida...
books.google.co.uk/books/abou...
www.traditionalbuilding.com/o...
#AncientArchitects #Sacsayhuaman #Inca
Thanks for being here and watching! I made this video whilst having a very bad cold, and hence the audio quality is lower than usual. I even lost my voice twice whilst recording and also had to give the video a couple of re-writes on finding new information over the past 7 days. I know this video is very detailed but I thought for this subject it would be best to be as thorough as possible! Thanks again and enjoy!
Hey hey.🤘😜🤘
Doesn't it show signs that it was painted at one time the paint could have protected it
I want to see modern people build something similar.
Hi Brien. I think Geopolymer for Sacsayhuaman is dead duck now. Geological samples should be tested from various natural outcrops, close and far away and then we could get a definitive answer. 👍
@@AncientArchitects The definitive evidence is at Aswan quarry (and y'all are overlooking it).
Hint: it's not geopolymer and it's not thermal or chemical softening
Ancient architects way of combining an open mind with peer-reviewed research is unbeatable. Many thanks for the time and effort you put into your videos :)
Thank you. This one took me ages!
Agree, it has rapidly become my favorite TH-cam channel due to his excellence in presenting information and arguments with logic and reason.
Don't fall into the trap of believing that "peer reviewed" in any way makes the work either more correct or credible.
Peer review has long since been discredited, and must be taken with huge amounts of salt and scepticism.
"Peer review" is more accurately considered to mean that the work conforms to the party line, and does not rock the boat, it does not mean that it has any particular merit.
@Lynn Geek No, I obviously do understand the purpose of peer review.
I also obviously understand the vast gap that exists between the original purpose of peer review, and the actual reality of its application.
@@MelbaOzzie and Lynn Geek. I think you're talking past each other. It is not a dichotomy where you have science vs non-science. Then it should also be added that academics publish articles that challenge each other's positions, so it is not always a so-called party line. I take 5g of mushrooms on a fairly regular basis and I am open to all sorts of ideas. But I still believe in the "scientific method" and if the data is convincing, I tend to believe that, rather than the guy with crazy hair on ancient aliens. I know that people like Graham Hancock have endured a lot of criticism that has not always been well deserved. I am in favor of a healthy balance of skepticism and openness. I do not think there is any point in throwing out science altogether. I read a lot of scientific journals, because it's part of my job, and it does not mean that I agree with the conclusions in all cases.
When I was studying for my architecture Masters, I found a book in the library which talked about dozens of small, angular-shaped stones that were discovered during the excavation of Sacsayhuaman. At first, they thought that they were children’s toys based on the architecture (e.g. like a doll’s house), but then they realised that the stones fitted together perfectly. After collecting up numerous stones, they found they could make exact, precise models of parts of the walls - all the angles and surfaces were correct, scale versions of the finished wall.
Not sure if this has been commented before, but I can’t find anything online, or remember the title of the book.
Fascinating...did it tell of the quarries the rock was cut removed from? It's the same as the bedrock it was taken from and not denatured in any way
Any chance you could dig up your old footnotes? That's a fascinating story that also makes perfect sense.
@@philipthomas3938 Sorry, it was nearly 30 years ago. Often wondered about that book myself though, all I have are some sketches I did from it ,but they don't provide any information about the book or who came up with the findings. I think it's interesting that the concept doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere, I can't find any topics for it online.
Check out MudfossIl Academy, who states an shocking theory that these are not inorganic stones at all, but organic material left from giants who our myths tell us were killed in a flood disaster, which somehow preserved these gigantic bodies in various megalithic sites, the cells so large compared to humans today, that it is only a trick of the mind to see the anatomy and physiology of these creatures. These stones seem to be leaking actual blood, which he had DNA tested.
If the stones were toys, perhaps they were small human beings the giants played with as children.
Why does this speaker when ending a sentence stretch out the last word like that? Its very annoying : ((
It's a great channel but his speaking sound off to me as well
It's almost unbearable. If you want to challeng yourself, go with 0.8x speed and try to get through 3 sentences.
That's because... he's a Valley Girl... fer sure.
Oh well. It's just the way he talks. He probably thinks you talk funny. At least he's doing good research and having the gonads to publish it.
@@AvgJoe0007 agreed
Another fellow geologist here (engineering geologist actually).
The reason why the blocks are shaped in such a way as to 'bulge out' is because this allows them to avoid sharp right angles on the edge of blocks. Sharp angles that come to a 90 degree 'sharp' point are very vulnerable to stress, and to weathering, and result in chipping that breaks the edges of the block. Especially with unmortared blocks this gives the profile of the corner a rounded angle, but still allows the blocks to come together with very sharp boundary.
If you made these blocks square, the edges would be much more prone to chip, showing gaps and spoiling the effect.
As a fellow engineer with a background in geology too, I concur 100%.
Ok, i just have to say... no matter which way you slice it, (no pun intended 😛) a process that is unknown to us that has happened here. Isnt that still "ancient lost technology" doesnt matter if its machinery, electric or chemical its still technology isnt it
exactly.
100%
Definitely, of unknown abilities
This would destroy the reputation of the Romans as being the inventors of concrete products.
I agree
I lived in Peru for 25 years. I have photos of rocks that were obviously poured into a mold. In Cusco, there is a large corner stone that was struck by a truck while it was backing up. The 3" rendering that covered the rock, cracked and fell off after being struck by the truck. What was left were all the stone behind the rendering that were used to initially make up the body of the wall. After seeing that, it all made sense to me now the walls were so perfectly made.
Thank you for sharing, I have never been there by I am a stone mason for 20 years. And that “ringing” like a bell is actually the sound of delaminating, the surface is falling off of the substrate. Clear as a bell.
Lets see the photo please
What a clown. No you don't.
I agree share the photos plzzz🙏
Yes i've seen that picture from the rock on a corner, but I was told that it was one of the alien spaceships that hit it when they were building. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
I would love to have seen this site in it's 100% finished form, i can only imagine how amazing this would be
"How have we not found tools in the work sites?" I dont leave my tools on the job site when im done, i take them home. I dont know anyone who does. Tools are expensive, especially if they are made out of rare and hard to come by, and hard to forge, metal. Any piece of it would be recycled back into another tool, and closely looked after.
Yes, you will only find tools there that have been lost or placed, i take my tools home with me too. As theorists do not work with tools, these people cannot understand regular construction site processes.
Everyone understands that most people now (and probably then) would take their tools with them. At least the good tools are taken with them. Most broken tools (even now) are left at construction sites and eventually end up getting buried as we backfill our construction sites.
But the thing that they are referring to is that in most cases no one can figure out what type of tools would have been used to begin with. Most tools that people believe would have been used to make many of these megalithic structures around the world, would not have been durable enough to last. As such, it would be logical to think that some broken down tools would be for around these structures. The problem is, nothing has been found yet which is weird.
@@chorneyk Metal strong enough to carve stone, was very rare, and very valuable, and any piece of it would have been used to create a new tool, not just thrown away. They didnt live in a throw away society thousands of years ago.They had to travel thousands of miles just to get to a quarry where the ore was located, not to mention how hard it was to quarry the ore, bring it back home, and then forge it. There was no home depot.
@@klubstompers who said anything about home depot? I never implied that. I'm not saying they tossed a broken tool away and drove down to the local hardware store to buy a replacement. All I was saying is that there are many videos around where archeologists and other experts have tried to figure out how these structures were made. They can't figure it out. Even when attempting to use materials that they assume were was would have been used at the time. The experts are the ones that always say the tools would brake easily and would take literally forever to achieve the results that we see today. They are the ones that say that they would be replacing those tools with newly crafted ones all the time.
I'm not saying that. I honestly don't know what tools would have been used at the time and believe that we are verynignorant with our concept that we are the smartest civilization to walk the earth. The proof is literally all over the world that clearly proves that we aren't.
Personally I find the mysteries of the past to be so interesting. I love learning new things about our magnificent world a the many theories that people have about it.
Having said that, you are assuming many things in your statement. We don't know anything about the past, yet you are acting like you know that they weren't a throw away society. Because we haven't found broken tools around the structures. On that point though, we haven't discovered any tools period that could achieve these structures period. No stashes of tools, nothing. So by that same logic, one could say they never used tools to make them... Obviously, we know they did, but just because we haven't found something yet doesn't mean that we won't eventually. Only then can we gain clarity on how they made these things or if they tossed away broke tools. Until then, it's all unknown.
@@chorneyk All i am saying is that tools to carve stone, were something extremely hard to acquire, and they are not something that is going to be laying around a job site. Just like the techniques used were trade secrets, and the knowledge was not something made public, and mostly never written down, because it was a secret. This was yesterdays advanced technology, and these skills helped win wars. Builders were taught these skills within a guild that kept this secret, like the masons. This is why we don't know these things or find these tools. These same techniques and tools were used to build defenses and weapons.
Last time I was this early, they were still mixing the geopolymer for Sacsayhuaman lol 😂
Haha
Petrification.
😂😂👌
Comment of the year
Made me chuckle
I have located a similar site in Southern California, on private property. This is a site exhibiting the clear signs of pre-Inca (Caral-Supe?) tight clearance rockwork. The site was buried, and was exposed after a fire caused the dirt to fall off the hillside. I have videos and pictures of the rockwork which was exposed beneath a massive 500+ year old paddle cactus. There is a formal catwalk beneath the landslide area and I assume that someone began excavating this area at some point, possibly in the 1970s. The site is in the back of a residential home on a large private avocado ranch outside Carpinteria in Santa Barbara County. I am looking for some official backing, so that we can approach the property owners with a proposal to investigate.
Fascinating. All the best with the project
Sounds like you already investigated without there even knowing. What happened to civility
Do it! If you get the right contacts, there will be plenty of interested archeologists, geologists and historians around the world. If no funding isgranted, some work and analysis can be done by volunteers or PhD candidates, if some choose to make the site their project for graduation. Hypothetically.
where can we see the photos/video?
Is it like the rock wall in Rockwall, Texas?
I visited Sacsayhuaman 30+ years ago. I haven't seen all your videos about this place, but you neglected to mention that the whole thing was in the shape of a Jaguar. I saw a lot of flat faced highly polished walls there which also had odd shapes and no mortar. Finally, you didn't mention the highly active earthquake area there that the structures survived. If we had built them with rectangular blocks and mortar, they all would have fallen down by now.
pumapuncu??
@@littleianthefirst4934 Puma Punku is a part of a temple complex in Bolivia, I haven't been there.
@@stanleyreynolds7800 I raised the subject by nature of PUMA Punku and have mused over the relation of puma to jaguar, sphinx to constellation of leo and all that, I have no idea if the name of Puma punku actually relates to pumas though, there is much debate as to the goepolymer solution to the intricately shaped and seemingly too challenging to carve stonework there too albeit of a different flavour, it must have been a very interesting time for you visiting such an enigmatic site buddy, Iv'e watched docs and studied photos but seeing it in the flesh is the real deal, interesting you spotting the shoddy backfill behind the facade, kinda makes sense too if they had wages to pay and deadlines.. :)
I feel that the thing about all of these ancient stoneworks is not just how they did it... But that they knew how to do it.
Ash-cement is pretty straightforward.
You see an eruption, and observe that the ash solidifies when it falls in mudpits.
If you've got an observation like that and happen to live through another eruption you'd want some of that ash asap.
@@fredriks5090 i'd love to see them scoop up that shit and form it, with the tools they had. lmfao.
@@WeallAreAdults You'd have no choice if all your crops got covered by an inch of fine dust tbh.
The entire middle-american isthmus is a volcanic field with a wide history of ashfall.
Ok. I don't mean just one process though. These structures all over the world took serious planning (engineering) at all stages. Not just to build them, which is a feat in and of itself, but the fact that so many of these structures remain standing (or mostly standing) hundreds or over thousands of years after the fact.
Things generally don't remain intact over time unless designed to... And I get that many of these ancient civilizations that prospered for hundreds and maybe thousands of years got quite good at working with stone... But still.
That is what I find most impressive about all of these sites (from Peru to Egypt, India, etc)... Not just that they figured out how to build things such as the great pyramid for example... But that it was built in such a way that it remains standing to this day.
@@justjoe9070 , the statue image explained by Daniel in chapter 2, tells of the ages of man's civilizations growing of less value, not more, as generally taught.
Daniel 2: 32 and 39.
Keep it up brother! You have no idea how important this information is to people's minds. Keep it going! We're here for you.
Your videos are so interesting. You have a "here's what I know and why I know it" approach and that is praiseworthy. I've also seen you correct yourself with followup videos upon further investigation and updating your previous hypothesis. Rarely does anybody else do that. Thank you for your hard work.
Exactly! This is why I trust him and I keep following his videos. You put it perfectly...
It's called "good science".
I just returned from Cusco. Several of the larger rocks at Sacsaywaman had large obvious quartzite veins/fissures (almost 2 feet long), which would indicate they are quarried natural rocks.
Yep!
@ibstudios I think what he means is another type of stone within the rock that makes "veins" or other type of formations/shapes.
Or a poorly blended mixture.
@tomfuller4205 lol always a nutty rationalization
"Working them together?" You don't know how hard this is. It's unbelievable.
I thought the same. To me, there's too many odd and overlapping angles for that to be correct. I'm no expert though....but I do have a background in machining.
Concrete has been used for millennia, it’s the “duh” answer to the question, poured concrete is how we build today, all construction techniques were inherited from years past and reverse engineering ancient structures. So obvious and simple. No one has EVER CUT, QUARRIED OR MOVED MEGALITHIC BLOCKS”
@D Hill that could very well be true.
If we knew how this was done, at least half the homes on Earth would be Flintstone houses!
So true
The agency wouldn't permit it
This is flinstone stuff to you? it is not just putting rocks together
@@etchalaco9971 buford was making a joke, but that was their point. I believe if you read the comment again you'll see that.
There are projects underway using this already. Someone in my area makes homes, including roofs, entirely out of concrete block.
This is by far the most in depth attempt I've yet come across to answer the question of geopolymer or natural origin of the Sacsayhuaman walls. Great work!!
Thank you for this!
That was my impression when I was there, I have pictures of the calcite veins in the stones. I never thought a cement would do that. I was impressed with how apparently easy it was for the stones to be shaped and placed, the builders even played with the shapes creating serpents and flower shapes in the walls like it was easy and quick. The surfaces have a shaved appearance like when you sculpt clay, very similar markings. Some kind of stone softening would make sense. The stones themselves are convoluted in many places, not straight flat set together but interlocking and random in shape. Like they were dropped into place and they conformed to the space. I wonder if we'll ever figure this out.
I agree I see what looks like trowel marks on several stones. I have and will stick with stone softening.
A German came up with what might have been the way they softened the stone surface. It is shortly mentioned in surviving texts from directly after the conquest. By an Inca aristocrat. So from that mention of some kind of paste they used, he tried to find what it contained. There is some kind of sand in the area with crystals that was one part, the other was from vines in the Amazon that was acid. Those two components he thinks was with a third, which I dont remember, made into a paste that put on the surface made the stone softer and easier to work. Right now I dont remember the name of the scientist but the theory seemed plausible to me.
No stone softening.
Just carving
People say technology and then place chisels on the altar of reason when electrical knowledge always trumps carving@@svenhanson398
Apart from my appreciation for Matt's hard work, I also want to pay my respects to Google Translate. It really opens up whole new worlds.
Magic is amazing until you learn how the trick was preformed 🙂
Food for thought
Very true
@@AncientArchitects
I think i know how:
Firstly, you start with a bigger block.
Then you hack down along the shapes you want.
Then you split them following hacked groves.
This leaves a depression between each piece.
Each piece will perfectly match, as they come from the same.
Put together and polished later, the bulge will just be the "not depression".
Here is an example of splitting granite in a wave-form.
imgur com/a/Dwxo0o4
The biggest problem with geopolymer theory is logic.
There is ZERO reason to make different shapes and sizes, or even rocks at all if they could made 1 big smooth wall, in 1 piece.
Also, we would seen that somewhere.. but no
@@voidremoved Thats true. No point in considering fantasy.
@olemann77 the problem with making a one-piece smooth wall is that such a massive stone would be impossible to transport. I can image them cutting rocks out of the quarry like more of a puzzle so that they will not be so easily shifted when in place, and they will be easy to transport.
Happy New Year! Thank you for this enthralling 2021 retrospective. You are an incredible video creator, and absolutely my favorite in this genre. I wish you health, happiness, and much well-deserved success in 2022.
Very valuable to investigate one of the gaps between rocks where one has subsided. We need to compare the surface texture of the two surfaces separated by a few centimeters. If they were slid past each other to grind them down to "perfect" fit, parallel marks would show. Or if the top one were plastic and squished down on to the lower, then the surfaces would have matching textures. This test could be done by inserting a "sandwich" of two soft plastic layers with an inflatable layer between. Expanding the inflatable layer, the plastic would be pressed against the rock and aquire it's texture. Then by releasing pressure the sandwich can be removed and the two surfaces compared.
Interesting. Thanks. I need to catch up on your videos. Looks like some good subjects.
Recommending the Tutankhamun Tomb video
Your channel also kick asses, thanks!
If you haven't or don't already, you should checkout Brien Foerster's work. He's dedicated most of his life to studying ancient construction and does a great job pointing out, highlighting and giving historical data/references as he is going along showing you the various work. Inca regions are extra interesting because we see megalithic work with huge stones that fit so tightly you can't even get a human hair between them in most places. Then you have Inca construction on top of and around the megalithic, as if they stumbled upon the ruins of another ancient culture's structures and being aesthetic as they were they repaired/rebuilt. Then you also get the added form of construction that the Spanish employed once they conquered the Inca. It's super interesting. He has also been granted special access (paid bribes to the govt lol) to get access to parts of the tunnel system that runs all throughout the giza plateau and connecting all the pyramids and structures it would seem.
@@sward0483 I think he knows.. They know each other.
Love you dude, thank you for sparking my interest in ancient history and the mysteries it holds this. You will be sorely missed 💙 hope you are getting all the answers you strived for here.
man I was a bit excited for that possibility to be true, but holy cow we still have no idea how these were made?! :O
Several methods of fabrication of the polygonal masonry using clay/gypsum replicas, a topography translator, reduced clay models of the stone blocks, and a 3D-pantograph are described in the article “Fabrication methods of the polygonal masonry of large tightly fitted stone blocks with curved surface interfaces in megalithic structures of Peru” (DOI: 10.20944/preprints202108.0087.v5). I do not provide a direct link, because TH-cam does not allow a comment with this link. Search by the article title.
The 10th article edition (DOI: 10.20944/preprints202108.0087.v10) is posted. Search the article by DOI or by title.
If you could build stones of any shape you wanted why would you ever make them so irregular? Even if they are level and plumb this design doesn't seem very efficient.
@@shealdedmon7027 Did you read the article? Below is the paragraph from the article (10th edition) section Introduction.
The main building materials of those years were boulders and blocks of rock of random (arbitrary) shape. As a rule, this building material did not need to be mined (broken out in quarries), since it was presented everywhere in the form of multi-meter deposits of mountain debris formed at the foot of the mountains as a result of fallings and landslides. In most cases, this material did not even need to be transported from anywhere, since construction took place usually at those locations where the material was already in great abundance. If a megalithic structure was located on top of a mountain, then the construction material was taken (broken out) here on the site. That is why, for example, the top of the mountain, where the Machu Picchu complex of buildings is located, is cut off, while the tops of the neighboring mountains, where no one lives, are sharp.
You’re out of your mind if your think hunter gathers accomplished this.
@@ErvinandMFantasyFootball Simply read the article.
PhD Geologist here with extensive experience in petrography. I have been to Sacsayhuman several times and, while marveling at the mysterious construction, agree that the blocks are not cast. Here is my reasoning.
1) Many of the largest and lowest blocks are composed of breccia and are fairly porous, unlike the upper blocks. If they were cast, why would they include such large fragments and (relatively) high porosity? They look like reef talus breccia to me.
2) The smooth mating surfaces are striated and limited to the outer few inches of the contact areas; the inner areas of the contact surfaces of both the upper and lower blocks are usually slightly concave, which is an excellent design for achieving a tight fit. If the blocks were cast in place, there would be no concavity on the mating surfaces, and the surfaces would not be straiated (an effect of grinding).
3) The uppermost and smaller blocks are indeed composed of micrite. Nevertheless, they contain intact crinoid, gastropod, finestrella, and brachiopod fossil fragments which would never have survived the crushing and grinding needed to make castable paste mix.
4) The chemical analysis correlates between a sample from the quarry and one of the blocks (need larger data set). This is not surprising were the block removed from the quarry. However, I suspect that the high heat needed to make castable lime would change the chemistry, especially that of the oxides. This could be tested by taking a quarry sample, analyzing its chemistry, preparing the burnt lime, then re-analyzing.
I certainly don't claim to understand how the blocks and walls were made, but science is mainly a process of eliminating the untenable hypotheses. In this case, I think the evidence that the blocks were not composed of man-made, cast-in-place cement is undeniable.
Underrated comment.
This was amazing to watch. It's so strange that the science on this topic is so undiscovered and undiscussed when it's really the greatest mystery we could solve.
That’s why it’s not discussed, it’s a mystery we will never solve. We can speculate w/ our puny minds and assume that a much more advanced civilization lived here before us but, our ego gets in the way thinking that we are so advanced. The truth of it is we are the babies of the universe. We know nothing and that is our greatest asset. All things being said it is better to know Nothing and leave ourselves open to possibilities we can’t even imagine..cheers 🥂
It has been discussed plenty and here we are still doing it.
Archaeologists have been working on these ruins since they were rediscovered and they still are working on it today.
Genuine knowledge is not easy to obtain but we learn more every day. To just fill in the gaps in our knowledge with guesswork is not helpful.
The enormity of crushing up that much limestone to remake it is astounding.
Not likely.
Ive been wondering about this for 15 years!
Long and Good health to you from Texas!
Acid rain. My first thought to be the culprit behind the erosion. Funny how the walls endured for millennia and are eroding only now. How they believe our civilization to be superior to the ones that came before is beyond me.
The way they puff out like that , reminds me of a sand bag, only without the bag.
Thanx, Matt
❤⛰❤
I've hit basalt , it also rings like a bell . 😉
Wise up Channel had this idea of "bags" years ago 👍
👇
Gemstones were just round and polished until someone invented bevelling. Why bevelling? The shapes of the rocks suggested bevelling to me.
I agree. It looks like they used bags, filled them with the material and then used some kind of heating to make it soft and formable
My education and work was in Geology also. I have been fascinated by these incredible blocks for years. You presented the first intelligent info on how these rocks may have been made. The mineralogy doesn’t lie. Thanks so much.
Even as a kid I knew those rocks were not carved.
When wisdom comes you’ll realize it’s not geology but petrified biology.
I have to agree but how were they transported or assembled.
@@friedpickles342 "Even as a kid I knew those rocks were not carved."
They are carved.
Grow up
It doesn’t matter whether these blocks are sculpted or molded. The end game is the people who did this had technology exceeding our current ability.
facts
aliens
Bollocks!
I’m starting to get addicted to these mysteries lol. One thing that jumps out at me is the randomness of the individual size of each unit. If they were formed individually you would think that they would be relatively the same shape and size. These look like rocks that were found, and then milled to coincide with the previous rock. The only reason for the randomness in my mind would be strictly artistic? To maybe have the appearance that it was built by giants or gods.
Playing with pH is interesting,
Bowen's reaction series, crystallization, mineral compositions, igneous petrology, mineralogy, etc.
I've been subscribed for a few years now, and the quality of your research and the critical thinking applied to it just gets better and better.
This was done over 20,000 years ago. They only thing that survived was the rocks.
Wow! Your presentation is just excellent! Armchair archaeologists like myself love the detail of your work and the drone footage from the actual sites.
Agree.. it is awesome to have an aerial view
I used to have a business casting concrete products, and when I first looked at the site I wondered if they were cast. The bulging being a big clue. After listening to Matt however, I am now wondering if the big stones were cut and the smaller ‘fill in’ blocks were cast. It does not necessarily have to be one thing of another. They may have used a variety of construction methods.
It def makes you wonder. When I first saw them I thought they were molds. Almost impossible to get that kind of precision by cutting blocks lol
Did you use a different shaped mould for every single block you made. And did you make sone blocks a convenient 130 tones???
NO ONE casting makes something that is unbelievably difficult to move when they could make 10 smaller ones that stack. And no one casting makes unique things every time - that kinda the entire point of casting.
@@piccalillipit9211 didn’t say they were all cast, maybe just some fill blocks. Probably cast in biodegradable sacks and stacked one on top of the other. Would explain the bulges. The reason for the wide variety of sizes could be structural integrity, protection against earthquakes
@@piccalillipit9211 exactly, many people just lost their common logic
You are right Anthony, but i would say the big ones where cast and small ones cut. Makes more sense to me.
The pyramids in agypt where also made of multiple techniques. Nearly every building we have build since today is puzzle out of multiple components.
First off I don’t like to lend my tools. This is why they can’t be found. The work was done by a guy named Steve “ he had his own tools”
Great explanation of one of most puzzleing wonders of the ancient civilizations. Good job
Subscribed because of how diligent you are in your research, and how adamant you are in correcting misinformation. Keep up the great work~!
"Rocks were rubbed, back and forth, back and forth, until a perfect joint was formed." Ah yea, OK. So they moved 10-50 ton stones back and forth against each other. They are the same stones, with the same hardness, this would take 100,000's of passes for each corner of each stone. I'd believe they talked them into shape, before I'd buy that bridge. How would you rub 2 stones together that are interlocked with 3-6 other stones on all other sides, and still have all the sides fit perfect when the one side is done? It would make the other sides no longer match up, because you cant control exactly how the 2 stones will surface. they would have to be held in the EXACT same position they sit in the wall. Absolutely Impossible.
I just love when Archeologists try to talk about engineering or geology.
No, you have it all wrong.
Hawass says that the Egyptians shaped their rocks and statues using sharpened chicken bones and stone mallets.
Obviously, they used the same tools and methods here.
Common sense seems to be lacking in all academically minded people.
Loooooviny these longer & more detailed videos! Keep up the ever amazing work! Thanks, Matt, you are awesome! 🥳
I worry this one will get a bit boring as I included ALL the detail 😂
@@AncientArchitects , Farrr from boring. Well, except for the cylinder holes in some.
@@AncientArchitects Don't worry about being boring. Most of us want information that answers the questions. Going into detail is the only way to move our collective understanding forward. Maybe not everyone will appreciate your hard work, but fuck them. The rest of us need someone who understands the intricacies of geology to make sense of the data.
Thanks for driving deep!!
Well done and most thoroughly presented than any other I’ve found. Thank You for your due diligence!! I really enjoyed this in my humble lay man curiosities.
I am 100% loving your approach, covering differing views openly.
Wow, you put an incredible amount of study into this very interesting subject. Well done!!
Thanks Coolio!
This was WONDERFUL! I looked for the other video the other day but couldn't find it. This one is certainly superior. Excellent, good job, how fascinating!
Having to do this by hand with a stone tool would be one of the circles of hell.
Oh yeah!! I always learn something new when I watch your videos, and as usual, great work! I totally agree with you, the stones never looked artificial to me but I kept looking for more information regarding their nature. What interests me is the fact that the walls lie deeper than what we see or thought. I bet this had a deeper purpose to it ... expecting your next video!😍👍
Thank you so much for this! Now that I've found your channel, I will definitely be checking out more.
This video is incredible! Ever since I was a child I've wondered about these ancient sites with features that "cannot be explained". Too many times I come across alien technology as the theory. I can't help but get angry that people don't give ancient humans enough credit for ingenuity and amazing feats of engineering. That research paper you dug up is exactly what I've been hoping would eventually happen. Thank you so much for sharing with us.
And thank you for all the time and effort that went into this video. I'm sorry you weren't feeling well, and I appreciate you working on it even when you're sick. I hope you're past it now and having a great day!
I really appreciated how you presented the plausible alternate explanation of cement, but then showed why it couldn't be the right answer either.
Exactly what I like about him, he has no problem learning new information and adapting or changing his hypothesis to fit it. Then goes on to explain how he was wrong earlier. I watch every single video from AA
3:15 now _that_ is a bad argument.
1) If a block were bulging out from it's own mass or the mass above, each outer and inner _face_ would also slump under its own mass, not protrude symmetrically top and bottom.
2) If a block were bulging out from it's own mass or the mass above, why would the bulge be symmetrical on the side edges?
these stones were molded like the Pyramids in Egypt... Egyptians, Sumerians, Scythians knew this technique also....
After having done an extraordinary amount of no research, I have come to the conclusion that these rocks were made of finely ground limestone mixed with finely ground aliens and water, then hardened in a stove.
😂😂Good stuff!
What are the chances of us both coming to the same conclusion? Yet, here we are.
Your research is truly astonishing.. and clearly admired by the lions share of your audience. (reading through the comments) Thank you so much, I will always be back for more!
I do love your inquisitive look at the evidence v expert opinion, I can’t watch without thinking about Graham Hancocks’ lost civilisation and the evidence apparent!!🙏🏼💜
Outstanding quality of work. One of the best channels on TH-cam.
You deserve to present this work at college.
Definitely one of your best videos so far. I appreciate your fairly considering all possibilities before presenting your conclusion.
This is a fantastic video, like always. I do still wonder if there is any scenario in which the rocks were softer, like hard mud when quaried, and hardened afterwards? I visited England when I was young, 20 years ago and we found a random tunnel quarry while road tripping and went inside. The walls of the query was reasonably soft and I broke of a piece and played with it in my hand. Soon after exiting into the sunshine the rock turned hard and I found that quite surprising...surely such an scenario might play a role in the shaping of these blocks.
While this is chemically possible, not a widely known phenomena. Sure it wasn't a conglomerate gray clay just drying out?
This has some probability, the slower the cure the stronger the cement. They added thousands of tons of ice to increase the strength of the concrete,
That's some super sophisticated building techniques thanks for breaking this down for us.
thanks for putting these vids up. You do solid work.
Thank you for this very detailed video and all the sources that you've pulled up.
It was absolutely fascinating to watch!
So... no ancient magic plastic rock... What a surprise.
You're turning into a proper skeptic. Keep up the good work. Excellent video.
Just staying independent and scientific
Its all guessingfrom this guy tbh
@@WeallAreAdults no one can say he doesnt do a ton of research and digging, and doesnt seem to have any bias whatsoever
@@WeallAreAdults , it isn't, alibi informed, from the mainstream?
I reckon that's gotta be one of your best videos so far Matt, really, really interesting and presented in an easy to understand way like all your videos! Only thing you didn't cover is the so called 'nubs'... How they placed all the different shaped blocks together so tightly is still completely mindblowing though! Look forward to the next parts!
Possibly the best ancient mystery video ever.
Thanks so much Matt - so good that you are taking this topic on, something puzzling to so many.
Now that we seemingly know the stone blocks are natural, I look forward to your video on how they were shaped and moved around. I hope you are able to explain how the organic 'scoop' marks were produced as well.
Did you watch the video?
@@SplicedSerpents Twice...why do you ask.
@@peterhorne7203 maybe we got a different video than him ? .. jk.
I don't think he understands what you were talking about.
The video pretty clearly says that the evidence all seems to point to the fact that the stones were not cut, but created by a geopolymer process. They were powder first, then turned to stone. I mean.... it is really, really difficult to miss that point....
@@growthisfreedomunitedearth7584 Watch all of Matt's videos on this and you will actually see what he has said. Geopolymer is just another one of those made up things like dark matter or dark energy or black holes or the big bang that people use to answer questions they are too damn lazy to research properly.
Love your videos always, but this one was so detailed, well considered and authentic in its references I was extremely impressed! Keep up the excellent work as you are doing the kind of research your loyal followers can only dream of achieving. Very much looking forward to its second installment. 😍👍👍👍
This is a great video for the overzealous geopolymer enthusiasts to watch and get some perspective.
Excellent video. I really like how you allow the guy who pushed back during Q&A to have his say. He certainly raised some valid and interesting ideas. Your engagement with these ideas is very helpful too. I think your detailed explanation s makes the case for non- hand made aspects of these structures even stronger however.
Great job. Thanks 🙏
Absolutely fascinating. So much we still have to learn about our past, and how sites like Sacsayhuaman are put together. Fantastic video.
Thank you
@BWGgy Whos past do you have in mind, if not ours?
@Mike I think they believe it’s aliens.
@BWGgy so because we can’t confirm exactly how the walls were built it’s somehow not our past?
Our past is enshrouded with mystery, but it’s still our past.
WOW great work, Matt. I'm really impressed!
Thank you!
I would love to see it recreated since we know how!
Great video! Thanks for the thoroughness that came from all your hard work. Very interesting subject. Thanks for posting this.
Wow. This video was extremely informative, almost a revelation. You just solved the mystery in a big way or pointed everyone to the real answer we have been looking for, I always seem to find the real answers on your channel... or Ben at Uncharted X. Both of you do great work but I thoroughly enjoy your videos and the way you accurately and precisely present the information and compile information from several sources to give us information we didn't have before. Thank you.
I just hope Matt doesn't go bandwagon with Ben, that would be sellout, for sure.
@@Akimos yeah, both of them are so busy "looking" that they can't see the wood for the trees. If the truth was a snake it would have bitten them on the tongue by now.
@@theplastolithicpast8257 , so what's the truth? Where were the stones quarried? Were they heated? How were they shaped to so closely fit the adjacent rocks? Moved? Lifted to place?
@@senatorjosephmccarthy2720 The stones were quarried where AA says they were quarried. The softening and shaping was done in-place in the wall with the stones already having been approximately shaped in order to fit them together. The softening process was something that selectively affected certain components of the stone - we know this because in Egypt we have granite and other plutonic rock types that were softened without turning into them volcanic rock types. Since this is evident in quarries that rules out geopolymer. We also know that limestone does not melt at any temperature (don't think AA mentioned that in this videos, but it's an important fact). Bottom line is it was NOT heat. It was NOT acid either because igneous rocks are relatively invulnerable to acids, and sedimentary rocks like limestone can be dissolved but do not reform into limestone. So what remains is that it was a process we don't understand yet, but we can observe the effects and conclude the the rock was indeed softened. As Ben has mentioned on his UnchartedX channel, the civilisations that built these things did not go down the electro-mechanical technology route as we have done. They had a different understanding of physics that we don't have yet.
@@senatorjosephmccarthy2720 It's also clearly evident that these constructions were made by minds radically different from our own. We build things in a way that is easiest for us. These ancient dudes would have built in a way that was easiest for them, and the carelessness of Sacsayhuaman's construction bears that out. The most similar constructions today come from the minds of wasps and bees.
Super interesting! My girls and I just read about Machu Picchu and the walls intrigued me so it’s funny I stumbled on this. They remind me of the concrete bag walls that people do by stacking the actual bags of concrete and wetting them down, then just letting the bags erode.
Fascinating. Thank you for the exploration of possible sources of the rocks, and your conclusions. The Sacsayhuaman constitution is a glorious work of art.
Bravo…. Excellent work. The best explanation of ancient stonework presented. I look forward to your other videos about this site.
This is why I subscribe to you, even though the answer might not be what we expected it to be, it's still magnificent and incredibly beautiful
Considering we've lost the ancient technology to produce flexible glass, Roman concrete, Damascus steel, the rustproof Iron pillar of Delhi, and almost everything regarding the Egyptian pyramids, it wouldn't surprise me that they used a type of technology that we will never be able to reproduce.
Very well put
I think the flexible glass was probably just a random discovery of some type of cellulose-based plastic. We probably use it today and have no idea.
Are you talking about modern Damascus steel?
"Modern Damascus" is made from several types of steel and iron slices welded together to form a billet (semi-finished product), and currently, the term "Damascus" (although technically incorrect) is widely accepted to describe modern pattern-welded steel blades in the trade. The patterns vary depending on how the smith works the billet. The billet is drawn out and folded until the desired number of layers are formed. To attain a Master Smith rating with the American Bladesmith Society that Moran founded, the smith must forge a Damascus blade with a minimum of 300 layers."
@@exucaviera9084 Mic drop!! nice
Your channel is the best! Your information is outstanding. Well done.
Great amount of information here, Great vid!
Thanks for your incredible research!
whatever the composition of the rock/stone there's STILL the question to be answered - how do they cut whatever it is into such angles and lift such astonishing weight many, many times
😂
If you have played with Playdough, then you know how the ancients made megalithic walls and blocks. First there are a few minor differences between Balbek and Playdough.
1. No need to make entire cut block soft like Playdough, just the outer edge to a certain depth.
2. after being cut from quarry, the block is set in a tray or bath of ??, and left to soak. After this treatment the block is pliably soft getting less so with depth and time. When you place one block next to and/or on top of an older block (which has partially returned to its natural hard state, after the treatment starts to wear off), they meld together as one. The border between them is Dissolved, like with Playdough! Sometimes you can even pull the two original Playdough pieces apart again after mushing them together.
NOTE; At this stage it is possible to use a spade and shape the edges (PERU) or scoop hieroglyphics (EGYPT).
3. The treatment does Not alter the chemical or molecular or physical make up of the rock in any way or has any residual or detectable qualities remaining.
Evidence;
1. Scoop marks almost everywhere, showing that certain types of hard rock, could be made soft enough for a Shovel with a certain lost ancient recipe. Maybe like Acetone or the like. Soak rocks in it and they get soft for awhile, go figure.
Features of lost technology;
~SOLVED-Very very large blocks were cut into smaller pieces before transport, but only if needed, and put back together, in their final location.
~SOLVED-Building the walls with soft rocks, makes for seamless borders.
Interesting thoughts. More folks need to think up variations like yours.
“Scoop hieroglyphs”
???
How do you propose moving and shifting a massively heavy block with a soft exterior?
You started at the quarry then yadda yaddad to the build site.
@@montewright111 smaller blocks that they could handle were brought to the site, then the softenning agent was applied
@@montewright111 "softening agent"
It was "born" that way... This is the best Autodidactic interpretation.
Thanks for the dispassionate delivery of information on this impressive site, have been there, and have read the usual range of hypotheses of its genesis. Your presentation of scientific research into the problem that I haven’t seen before is greatly appreciated.
The only proof will be being able to exactly replicate it. Glad you mentioned the volcano. That seems to be in common with the other sites with similar type of construction.
Great pyramid blocks aleeady replicated with geopolymer available to ancient egyptians
I’ve always thought it was made from not quiete set or malleable volcanic rock
@@Fuzzmo147 I wish someone will research that
@@Fuzzmo147 Ever tried to handle and mould molten rock? I think that you would need to wear gloves……
I've been there and crawled all over those stones.
Yes the front facing joins are nice and neat for most of the stones, but it is only the front facing joins that are so precise. Away from view, the stone is ragged and uneven, with cavities often just filled in with dirt.
This was done in much the same way as modern furniture is made. The bit you see in the front is shiny and made from expensive wood (or laminate) while the rest of it is cheaper wood.
As for them bulging out - you can see the work marks on the tone. This was the style at the time. And if you look at castles in Europe, you'll see a similar style used in block work.
And what's more - there are locals there who are working on the restoration who are using traditional techniques to carve the rock. I've watched them doing it.
What you are seeing at sites like this is the work of a different type of society - one that is capable of working together on a project and put in the effort to get things done.
When we say - "we don't have the technology to do this today", what we mean is - "Harry can't know this up over the long weekend with just his JCB and a hammer"
If we were to put in the collective effort and apply simple physics to the problem, we could certainly do this today. It would take longer than a long weekend. But then again, none of these sites were built over a long weekend either.
Interesting first paragraph. This is the sort of stuff we need to know when pondering these constructs. People do tend to leave out important details.
Fascinating. I ran across a few videos on the possibility of stone cutting using sunlight intensely focused with parabolic mirrors which exist in a Peruvian museum in some numbers.
I didn't know that.
You talk about the job being too large to be possible. But what you don't understand is the job that it would be to carve those stones to fit as tightly as they do in such a symmetrical positions. As a stone Carver I can assure you the difficulty of doing that would equal any difficulty of creating the stones from a clay-like material.
Great video giving a balanced interpretation of reports almost lost to the debate. Thanks!
You never fail to disappoint. 3 Your information collection is always on point...
I am so happy to see this one! What a great analysis! Thank you. I find it difficult to believe that they could mold the boulders in the shape they wanted. If so, why have them made in such a intricate format making each piece for one specific place? I feel that if molding of some kind were possible, it could be localized. For example you pile up the stores and melt the joints and it falls into place according to its weight. Which still does not explain why have the "filler stones". But I can see the knobs and scoop marks being a side effect of keeping the stones in place while they settle in place.
Thanks for the huge effort you put in making this excellent video ! Eddie. PS How were the blocks put together ?
A great video; many thanks.
I had a biology professor as an undergraduate who liked to say we are a people with collective amnesia.
From what I’ve read since then I’ll take that a step further. The ‘received’ notion of history we’ve been fed by vested interests in archaeology and other sciences has done a good job of erecting barriers against attempts to show history reaches much further back than we’ve been told.
Those that have attempted to penetrate this wall of resistance have had their careers ruined.
Ha! Gobekli Tepe is a big F##k You then?
Agree. Look at Rio tinto blowing up the 64 thousand year old aboriginal site in Australia. They are trying to hide our origins for control
@@annab13 WHAT!!? I thought Australia had this great sensitivity for the culture that predated the founding of the country as “… a convict settlement by England, after America had become unavailable, due to a short war.” Quotation is from Rolf Harris, Aussie folk singer, hit song was “Tie me kangaroo down”.
Struth!
th-cam.com/video/_D-LmRNdQiQ/w-d-xo.html
It makes sense and then again it doesn't make sense at all, which I think has been the case for a very long time indeed. Great video, great effort!
Exactly. In the end it comes down to the fact that, we really just don't have any idea whatsoever who built this place, how they built it and what they built it for. None of the conjecturing being done makes complete sense. There's just no way to really know for sure.
With a simple geological analysis, we can easily differentiate each type of stone. Mineralogy compounds differ greatly from granite, basalt, sandstone, marble (the most common stones), or geopolymer. In granite, we mainly have quartz grains, feldspar and mica, and to a lesser extent other types of minerals and we don't have CaO. Unexperienced eyes just by looking at the photos would say it looks like granite, but a simple mineralogy stratigraphy is enough to solve this issue. In Puma Punku, only looking at the photos of the straight corners of the stones we can say that they were made with geopolymers, as these need to be molded in a shape probably made of wood and have square corners and the faces of the stones are completely flat. Basalt is a brittle rock that has no cleavage plane and breaks up irregularly. Limestones used in Greece are easily worked with ancient metal alloys, and also sandstone is a great stone to build with well-defined stones at right angles and easily workable. There are many differences between each stone type that are easily identified by a civil engineer or geologist.
at Puma Punku grey blocks are andesite proven by Russian scientists
Another great presentation. Thank you for all your efforts.