Historical Structures

[LucidElement]

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

No blueprints; eye sight and expertise the same way is still done to day. The first blue prints came into existence in the mid 19th century.

Over a period of thousands of years, people had a tendency to create the same or similar solution as they faced the same problems of physics and had rocks that exhibited the same characteristics.

 

I wasn't using the term blueprint literally . I was saying that it doesn't explain how these structures mirror each other across the world as if they all had the same architect designing them. 

[LucidElement]

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

No blueprints; eye sight and expertise the same way is still done to day. The first blue prints came into existence in the mid 19th century.

Over a period of thousands of years, people had a tendency to create the same or similar solution as they faced the same problems of physics and had rocks that exhibited the same characteristics.

 

What you say there doesn't make sense because why would you use 100 tons of stone which are hard to construct with ? You say these civilizations came to the same solutions when faced with the problems but what problems would allow a person the need to have to use 100 ton stones when smaller stones are much more practice and easy to build with? 

[LucidElement]

2 hours ago, Essan said:

Was the Great Wall of China built by the Romans?  Or did the Chinese visit northern Britain 2,000 years ago?

The great wall of China didn't have megalithic stones that were cut and curved with the same precision as seen in Sachsayhuaman and Manchu picchu for example ?the great wall of China is much less impressive masonry skills plus it was well documented how that was built .  

[Essan]

8 minutes ago, LucidElement said:

The great wall of China didn't have megalithic stones that were cut and curved with the same precision as seen in Sachsayhuaman and Manchu picchu for example ?the great wall of China is much less impressive masonry skills plus it was well documented how that was built .  

That not the point    Both walls were built in similar manner but by different cultures that had no contact with each other, and at different times.

[BorizBadinov]

2 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Having smacked rocks with blunt objects for a career, I am wondering why you feel sacsayhuaman is more difficult than straight courses. A straight stick with a cord knotted around it would limit test fits as dimensions could be quickly assessed, transferred, and marked.

I am in no way diminishing their accomplishments of a very stable dry laid wall which I personally find more aesthetically pleasing than the straight course block style. 

Measuring a curve and precisely carving several planes, angles, and curves on one rock to fit that closely together with several mated surfaces using hand tools? Try emulating that style sometime. That's some badass skill so if you can do it I am impressed. It's not impossible but square is way easier, that's just four surfaces.

If your radius is off just a tiny bit you would get huge gaps, a completely different diameter, not to mention carving those mated curves to fit linearly as well. Then trying not to take off too much material as you smooth the surfaces which would change the radius.

But the kicker is you have to hoist that bad boy into place and hope it fits because big hunks of rock are simply not all that easy to move and control. Its really control that's hard, and if it falls people probably got hurt and possibly damage to your stone and wall. 

And all the faces of the stones that they obviously rounded giving it a more finished look. That's not something you do for defense, that is art to me. There are many more artsey carved surfaces all over the world of course. That is really just a little icing.

Weird shapes are much more challenging in my opinion, and the scale of the project I find it hard to imagine not becoming frustrated and changing styles. Like any art though they surely acquired a level of mastery because it happened.

I work with my hands as well, and I like all the amazing architecture from the past. Humans had more attention span back then obviously and greater appreciation for art. This particular type of construction seems to me a step above, that's why I mentioned it.   

[Orphalesion]

 

2 hours ago, LucidElement said:

I wasn't using the term blueprint literally . I was saying that it doesn't explain how these structures mirror each other across the world as if they all had the same architect designing them. 

But they really don't. For example South American Pyramids have literally nothing in common with Egyptian ones, for example, beyond the very basic pyramid shape. They didn't look "as if they all had the same architect designing them" nor was their function the same.
The "Antarctic" pyramids you keep fantasizing about, meanwhile, simply don't exist.
Are you now also gonna assume a connection between every culture that used square houses, grave mounds or huts?

Edited November 24, 2017 by Orphalesion

[Jarocal]

3 hours ago, BorizBadinov said:

Measuring a curve and precisely carving several planes, angles, and curves on one rock to fit that closely together with several mated surfaces using hand tools? Try emulating that style sometime. That's some badass skill so if you can do it I am impressed. It's not impossible but square is way easier, that's just four surfaces.

If your radius is off just a tiny bit you would get huge gaps, a completely different diameter, not to mention carving those mated curves to fit linearly as well. Then trying not to take off too much material as you smooth the surfaces which would change the radius.

But the kicker is you have to hoist that bad boy into place and hope it fits because big hunks of rock are simply not all that easy to move and control. Its really control that's hard, and if it falls people probably got hurt and possibly damage to your stone and wall. 

And all the faces of the stones that they obviously rounded giving it a more finished look. That's not something you do for defense, that is art to me. There are many more artsey carved surfaces all over the world of course. That is really just a little icing.

Weird shapes are much more challenging in my opinion, and the scale of the project I find it hard to imagine not becoming frustrated and changing styles. Like any art though they surely acquired a level of mastery because it happened.

I work with my hands as well, and I like all the amazing architecture from the past. Humans had more attention span back then obviously and greater appreciation for art. This particular type of construction seems to me a step above, that's why I mentioned it.   

Basic hand tools are still the predominant technology used by masons to lay out designs. I am more than willing to emulate this style wall if one is willing to provide proper remuneration. I am willing to do it with dolorite pounders, copper saws, sand, and river rock for an additional cost. You do know not all the face joints at Sacsayhuaman are not as tight as fringe theorists propose. Google and click to view images. As you scroll through the pics you will see not all are as precise such as is sometimes asserted. 

Square is a pnly shape. As with the assorted polygonal shapes in the wall being discussed only the exposed faces need finished. Bullnosing the edges such as is done at Sacsayhuaman actually hides minor imperfections in the finish. There is a lower tolerance for variation in a straight square  edge than in rounding that edge with a radius (of which there is a fair amount of variation in the radii at Sacsayhuaman).

I'm a huge gan of a dry laid wall. The masonry style at Sacsayhuaman provides a far more stable structure than straight horizontal courses (when done properly). Switching styles would have been the prerogative of the person commissioning the work. 

I agree that this style is a step above. Interest in sites such as this and Machu Picchu  (among others) played a part in my career choice. Not for just the visual appeal, but for the amount of engineering behind such structures. Even something that on the surface appears simpler such as the Mississippian culture mounds actually have a great deal of planning in them alternating layers of clay with sand to assure a consistent moisture level preventing both soil dessication and excessive expansion of the clay from rainfall.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Jarocal
Yea tho I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of furballs I will fear no feline.

[Harte]

5 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Jarocal is the image above the correct one for Sacsayhuaman or is it an image from a different wall? (a small one in Cuzco perhaps?_

Cuzco, according to this site.

But Incan nonetheless.

Harte

[Harte]

3 hours ago, LucidElement said:

What you say there doesn't make sense because why would you use 100 tons of stone which are hard to construct with ? You say these civilizations came to the same solutions when faced with the problems but what problems would allow a person the need to have to use 100 ton stones when smaller stones are much more practice and easy to build with? 

Because smaller stones take ten times longer to quarry and shape.

Harte

[SHaYap]

The possible purpose of all that effort may be the most impressive of all ...

~

 

 

 

[00.00:10]

 

~

 

[Jarocal]

3 minutes ago, Harte said:

Because smaller stones take ten times longer to quarry and shape.

Harte

Smaller stones also mean more joints which need silted in over time from the back which is infilled. Walls of smaller stones are also more elastic requiring more care to prevent damage in some areas from excessive freeze/thaw cycles with moisture present. This is not to imply that a satisfactorily constructed structure from smaller stones will not withstand the ravages of time, just that there are varied reasons for material and method choices in a structure.

People also tend to view ancient cultures as snapshot picture at apogee forgetting or not realizing that as with our own culture technologies, methods, and aesthetics evolve over time. One need only look at how much architectural styles and construction methods in the U.S. have changed since 1900. Such changes occurred in a little over a century and some of the cultures such as Egypt existed for millenia.

[BorizBadinov]

Just now, Jarocal said:

Basic hand tools are still the predominant technology used by masons to lay out designs. I am more than willing to emulate this style wall if one is willing to provide proper remuneration. I am willing to do it with dolorite pounders, copper saws, sand, and river rock for an additional cost. You do know not all the face joints at Sacsayhuaman are not as tight as fringe theorists propose. Google and click to view images. As you scroll through the pics you will see not all are as precise such as is sometimes asserted. 

 

Yes I am aware its not all paper fit. Still enough of it is to impress me. Maybe I'm too easy. Still looks like a pita. It's the size of the work coupled with the joints that intrigue me. I have moved a lot of very large rocks because I wanted something underneath them, usually on a good bit of incline. Rocks have a mind of their own.

 

\Square is a pnly shape. As with the assorted polygonal shapes in the wall being discussed only the exposed faces need finished. Bullnosing the edges such as is done at Sacsayhuaman actually hides minor imperfections in the finish. There is a lower tolerance for variation in a straight square  edge than in rounding that edge with a radius (of which there is a fair amount of variation in the radii at Sacsayhuaman).

 

Depending on the level of finish I will concede that point. I admit I was more envisioning the rough fill blocks of the Great Pyramid when I typed that. Some of the fine corners and detail of these monuments are astonishing. Not so much that they were created but the time and effort spent to create them.

 

I'm a dry laid wall. The masonry style at Sacsayhuaman provides a far more stable structure than straight horizontal courses (when done properly). Switching styles would have been the prerogative of the person commissioning the work. 

 

That is a fine skill. I love the look of real stone walls. They have a great presence and sense of longevity. 

 

I agree that this style is a step above. Interest in sites such as this and Machu Picchu  (among others) played a part in my career choice. Not for just the visual appeal, but for the amount of engineering behind such structures. Even something that on the surface appears simpler such as the Mississippian culture mounds actually have a great deal of planning in them alternating layers of clay with sand to assure a consistent moisture level preventing both soil dessication and excessive expansion of the clay from rainfall.

 

The stability of the walls is another point that piqued my interest in the style. Having worked in modern construction I have a deep respect for those who built something that can last millennia. Thank you for your perspective, its good data.

 

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, LucidElement said:

I wasn't using the term blueprint literally . I was saying that it doesn't explain how these structures mirror each other across the world as if they all had the same architect designing them. 

Yes but any type of plan wasn't known until much later additionally the structures are not particularly similar.

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Are you now also gonna assume a connection between every culture that used square houses, grave mounds or huts?

I've always been a fan of round granaries.

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, LucidElement said:

What you say there doesn't make sense because why would you use 100 tons of stone which are hard to construct with ? You say these civilizations came to the same solutions when faced with the problems but what problems would allow a person the need to have to use 100 ton stones when smaller stones are much more practice and easy to build with? 

Its easier actually. One theory I've seen is that early in masonry development the difficult part was cutting the stone, so they cut less and shaped more. Later with better tools and techniques it became easier to cut which allowed one more flexibility and the stones got smaller.

[Jarocal]

36 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yes but any type of plan wasn't known until much later additionally the structures are not particularly similar.

 What do you mean not similar? They are all made of stone (of varied types, shapes, sizes, construction methods, and time periods). 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Jarocal
I sold Vyse the red paint

[Hanslune]

39 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

 What do you mean not similar? They are all made of stone (of varied types, shapes, sizes, construction methods, and time periods). 

Yes, I stand corrected and they all have sweat on them and in certain places parts of toes and fingers wedged between and under them.

[jaylemurph]

7 hours ago, LucidElement said:

What you say there doesn't make sense because why would you use 100 tons of stone which are hard to construct with ? You say these civilizations came to the same solutions when faced with the problems but what problems would allow a person the need to have to use 100 ton stones when smaller stones are much more practice and easy to build with? 

How is that you can demonstrate reasonably proficient critical reading skills when reading other people's posts here, but demonstrate none at all when reading any website that uses "mindblowing new rewriting of history"?

--Jaylemurph

[SHaYap]

I believe the principle concerns remains at moving, relocating and placing the massive ones  ... if and when it applies ...

~

[Jarocal]

3 hours ago, third_eye said:

I believe the principle concerns remains at moving, relocating and placing the massive ones  ... if and when it applies ...

~

It did not appear to be a major concern to them. Why would they bother quarrying blocks they were unable to move. We know that they quarried them by the unfinished blocks found in said quarries with tools/tool marks on site.

[SHaYap]

2 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

It did not appear to be a major concern to them. Why would they bother quarrying blocks they were unable to move. We know that they quarried them by the unfinished blocks found in said quarries with tools/tool marks on site.

Quite evidently ...

~

Image Credit :

Olaf Tausch - Own work

Unvollendeter Obelisk in Assuan, Ägypten

• WIKI link

~

 

The thing is some people likes to know the details of the 'how'

Yeah, many men pulled and tugged it away and heave ho, away they go ... but I believe there is a little more to it, no magic no extra terrestrials, no advance ancient lost technology, just good old human ingenuity and efficiency .... something worth knowing even if just in principle, if applicable today.

 

 

[Jarocal]

1 hour ago, third_eye said:

The thing is some people likes to know the details of the 'how'

Yeah, many men pulled and tugged it away and heave ho, away they go ... but I believe there is a little more to it, no magic no extra terrestrials, no advance ancient lost technology, just good old human ingenuity and efficiency .... something worth knowing even if just in principle, if applicable today.

 

 

To a degree I am interested in the how. Not as much how they moved or lifted the blocks, or even how they worked them (for which there is far more archaeological evidence than the lifting and moving). I am more interested in the how of a site planning/engineering standpoint. Things such as erosion control and water management at Machu Picchu or site layout such as at Dos Pilas or other Mayan cities (Nixtun-Ch'ich' actually used a grid pattern unlike other Mayan sites).

I personally think some of the patterns observed may have less to do with religious or astrological connotation scholars often associate with them and may have more mundane but practical application. Orientation of windows, doors, walkways, and some walls may have as much to do with taking advantage of natural light and prevailing wind patterns as anything else. Site specific control of water runoff (imho) can have influenced terracing or road construction more so than reverence for a divine idealogy.

[SHaYap]

1 minute ago, Jarocal said:

To a degree I am interested in the how. Not as much how they moved or lifted the blocks, or even how they worked them (for which there is far more archaeological evidence than the lifting and moving). I am more interested in the how of a site planning/engineering standpoint. Things such as erosion control and water management at Machu Picchu or site layout such as at Dos Pilas or other Mayan cities (Nixtun-Ch'ich' actually used a grid pattern unlike other Mayan sites).

I personally think some of the patterns observed may have less to do with religious or astrological connotation scholars often associate with them and may have more mundane but practical application. Orientation of windows, doors, walkways, and some walls may have as much to do with taking advantage of natural light and prevailing wind patterns as anything else. Site specific control of water runoff (imho) can have influenced terracing or road construction more so than reverence for a divine idealogy.

Yup ... I've had many an interesting jaw over this with Engineers and Site Managers, and .... Feng Shui Masters ... (don't laugh) ... not those shamans promising eternal prosperity or instant wealth but the traditional and old school practitioners, there are fundamental methodologies to the pragmatic application, almost 'Scientific' in a manner of speaking, just a different mode of expression ...

Long and short of the lengthy premise, what I do know is there is no known modern means available of getting it done, its old school muscle power all the way. Relying on machines will just stop work dead on site ... at least that's what I know of the circumstances five, ten years ago ...

TOday there may be machines that can deal with it, I can;t say for sure ... the principle problem remains on how the set the machinations up on quarry site and how to transport and place the ruddy thing on any proposed site. The infrastructure required just extrapolates the problems exponentially to the degree that makes one wants to bang heads against the wall.

~

[BorizBadinov]

The Wally Wallington videos are interesting to watch. To me there are still plenty of unanswered questions, but it provides some interesting material.

1 hour ago, Jarocal said:

I personally think some of the patterns observed may have less to do with religious or astrological connotation scholars often associate with them 

I would have to agree with this. Comfort and safety first, thank God(s) later. 

[LucidElement]

15 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Its easier actually. One theory I've seen is that early in masonry development the difficult part was cutting the stone, so they cut less and shaped more. Later with better tools and techniques it became easier to cut which allowed one more flexibility and the stones got smaller.

I'm trying to upload these pics but the file size is to large . It shows the large rocks, designed in the same manner and South America as they look in Egypt or mesoamerica. It looks like it came from one master architect. The design are exactly alike. It's so baffling when you have cultures that are so far away from each other how are they all communicating with each other. There is no way.