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!
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
@@JCaesar11 Good engineering involves good economics. No point moving 100+ tonne rocks when you can achieve the same with smaller ones at a fraction of the cost. That's why we use smaller stones today and in nearly all of recent recorded history. Whoever was moving those megaliths could do so easily, or they've had built the walls differently. Even the Romans with their massive empire (1/3 of whom were slaves), steel, the wheel/pulleys, etc never worked with megalithic stones like we see on ancient sites, simply because it's prohibitively expensive.
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”
@@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
@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.
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.
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.
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
I am a geologist also (PhD) and comment on your good research. Having watched the whole video, I do agree with you, it can perfectly be micrite, a natural rock. Also I comment on the Russian geologist too, I find the natural rock conclusion more consistent, but the Russian geologist did good work in how he presented the data, thus we are able to look at it and make conclusions. You earned a new follower..
Sorry you had a cold....😢. I just wonder if you'd consider a !itt!e tuition in reading style...again, sorry ! But the pitch goes up and down, every few words.... Thanks anyway for your efforts to solve the mystery. Best Wishes from England.😊🇬🇧🌎💕🇬🇧
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. 😍👍👍👍
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.
Been all over these sites researching! This site along with Chichen Itza show similar construction of poured blocks and capping plaster geopolymers. Form boards and mold imprints can clearly be seen most blocks being poured in place over rock walls. Some blocks higher on the walls are squarish instead of polygonal and look to be mass produced precast poured. The Inca trail or highway is the most incredible thing! Hundreds of miles through highland forts and step farms. Please reply…
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.
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?
Despite all of the derogatory comments, everyone needs to read the work of Davidovits. Unlearn all the crap you’ve been fed re stone quarrying & transport & chiseling!!! It never happened like the academics claim!
I think you have advanced this field with your logical, evidence based research. The only arguments I find hard to accept is the Antarctica speculation. To believe that there have been lost periods of human civilization is I think well established. To believe there was a civilization from millions of years ago is very hard to accept. I find your work on the Pyramids to be award winning and I hope for the day you are acknowledged. This video is a perfect example of the quality of your deductions, evidence and research. I think it is far more logical that they are hand cut, shaped and placed.... Still there is still so much more to discover. Just clever work.... It impresses me just how much geology can help in solving these mysteries. What do you think about that Indonesian Pyramid? That looks really promising ! A natural acid would solve many issues..... Very insightful !!!
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.
What could have been added to create heat in an exothermic reaction to quickly solidify the mixture? Volcanic ash was added to Roman cement that makes it very hard. It dries quickly under water.
I’m looking for what I saw it in, but some guy had done a test where he made a thatched bags, filled them with a crude concrete, stacked them as they solidified and then stacked straw and wood against the stack and made a bonfire, which got rid of the bag and presented the concrete with a hard curing heat. Mind you, he wasn’t trying to replicate THIS (I believe he was building some kind of outdoor kiln or oven iirc), but the technique might be applicable to what you’re asking and the tech of the time period.
You had me in the beginning, for 20 years I've leaned toward the geopolymer explanation, and for ten minutes it seemed there was validation for that perspective! The "concrete truth" is that any hypothesis regarding this enigma is plagued with confounds. This site cries out for in depth extensive scientific study. The fact that this building technique existed in disparate regions of the planet in antiquity begs the question regarding contact between ancient civilizations. I'm at a loss in understanding the lack of inquiry.
At the halfway point im like well this explains everything but then you said the blocks are natural, so the question still remains how they cut and shaped them so precisely
And why did they add nubs, depressions and scoop marks? And why are the joins cleaned out in a V-shape? And why are there almost identical shaping techniques in other types of rocks in Peru and also around the world? etc. etc. etc.
I remember having read an article on concrete found on the shores of the Tiber river near Rome. A remarkable feature of this concrete was (as far as I remember) that it was remarkably hard. The concrete seemed to contain an ingredient of volcanic origin. Could this knowledge have spread all over the world?
I don't think the wall was constructed of playdough. The blocks puffiness would have a downward sag. I think they were poured into a horizontal pit with thin dividers in those random, artistic shapes. They hardened horizontally then we're levered up in place with long planks. The geopolymer explanation also explains the jigsaw shapes, the puffy shape, and the nubs that appear on some blocks.
The quilted appearance is pretty simple, especially when you backup and look at the working scars. They were placed and faced, not pre-dressed and placed. They didn't 'quarry' in the sense that most people think of, they dug out broken pieces and boulders, matched them up like puzzle pieces and finished the contact surfaces to fit together. Then, they dressed the face of the wall; evident from vertical striations that cross multiple courses. This leaves uneven joints, so they dressed the the joints down until they met the finished contact surfaces. The stone is soft enough to cut by scoring with wooden tools and hardens over time, exposed to open air.
A sprayed softening agent could have the same spray pattern as my pump sprayer: thinner at the edges and thicker/wetter in the center. Thicker agent on the seams would cause greater effect, tapering off towards the center of the stone. People capable of such things would undoubtedly be aware of this result and, since you're already going through this level of commitment, why not create this visual aesthetic to draw attention to this achievement? Okay, halfway through and my mind is blown. More than that, i realized how much I've needed to hear you say, "clinker".
Excellent video. It does, I think, i require taking down the machining high-technology idea back down from the shelf. The argument that it’s “more efficient” is only *relative* to the other hypothesis; it’s still a (literally) massive undertaking and those “plastic” shapes … Really well done. Thank you.
To the maker of this. Thanks for your great work! 👍 I have a comment about the ‘knobs’ that protrude out of the blocks: Imagine that these blocks were poured. Into a sack for instance. When put in place between other blocks, the sack would form the liquidy mass into a perfectly fitting shape and dissolve over time. Now suppose a sack was overfilled. They could have let some of the liquidy mass out by making a couple of cuts with a knife after which the mass solidified in the shape we see now. The knobs look like that to me. It would also account for the rounded edges.
It could be that they tried to imitate snakes in the walls, as the structure looks like the scales of snakes. The treatment of the surface also fits snakeskin. 👏😉👍
Naturally the higher stones occlude the lower ones, meaning the lower ones are shaped to accommodate the higher ones, not the other way around. ..or are they? Some joins look almost 50/50 in their shaping right? And the sides are perfectly flush as well... The trick is that the structure used to elevate the stones was also used to swing the stones in and out enough to grind them into position. This explains the nubs being front and back, as the stones needed to be slung this way in order to grind the sides until flush. You don't need something harder than granite to shape granite, you just need granite.
The people that built and shaped those stone blocks were smarter and more talented than "Ancient Architects" These were just men or women that had great skill working native stone. I have almost no skill by comparison to these masters. I have stood for days amd weeks on job sites with hammer and chisel, working stone into the shapes and sizes I wanted. I have moved blocks that weighed 5 times what I weigh and moved blocks that weighed much more than myself into position 30 feet up,, by myself. There is no mystery as to how it was done. Hard work, ingenuity, the occasional whacked finger,,, geopolymers ? BS. Why underestimate your ancestors,,,, just because they were harder working, more intelligent, and more skilled than you.
May I comment as a retired refractory mason, engineer. Let us not jump to conclusions about the age of these stones or how exactly they were heated. As a retired refractory mason that was highly trained in many aspects of heat procesing including a few lime kilns I agree it is a cement the stones are formed from but how the lime was processed and how it was heated given no archeological evidence, suggests it was done before a time of very heavy rain fall. Which is evident at Puma Punka, so we may be looking at time lines being not quite understood. The best way to improve the homegenious character of the blocks when setting would be under water or keep them very wet, This allows a more gradual contraction due to water being evaporated from the mix caused by heat given off as crystals get closer together, You can actually burn a wooden formwork when some mixes cool to rapidly. love your work keep safe
wow, after weeks of having pseudohistorical/pseudoarchaeological/pseudoscientific videos recommended to me talking about undiscovered technologically advanced ancient civilisations, nephilim/giants, tartaria/the "old world" and global cataclysms (some of which i ill-advisedly watched) i finally get a video that's reasonable. why can't people accept that the most likely explanation for ancient feats of engineering & architecture is that we underestimated the capabilities of the craftsmen & scientists of antiquity?
Very interesting. Maybe both techniques were used: some (maybe most) of the block were cut from natural, microcrystalline limestone, and some were moulded from a cement like mix. And some of the natural ones voyld havebeen given a coat of cement to.
Maybe they do cut the stones into a basic rough shape and then they use a much less amount of lime as a sort of chunky veneer on the front, sides, and underneath. I have seen photos of the backs of the stones being rough and the front being shaped the way they are. I say we cut one of them open down the middle. I am an archaeology and geology student in Texas, so I will be thinking about this for a long time. I might even go down there and see for myself what is going on with those weird stones and the people who formed them this way. I am utterly fascinated by them. Not to mention their seemingly endless cuts in the stones all over that valley and beyond! I need to see them for myself and study them with my own instruments.
Since you are a professional, would you be able to answer a question for me? I've been a big fan of Prof. Davidovits for many years and even contacted him back when I first started researching certain subjects. Prof. Barsoum as well. My question is this. Why is there no lichen on any of these huge megaliths? Is it because of so little moisture in these areas? I know lichen would find poor purchase on a polished stone, but these are not polished nor are the stones of the pyramids. Lichen doesn't need a lot of water, but at least a bit of fog or dew. Or am I mistaken? I've never been to any of these places and only have pictures such as yours to go by. Thanks for any info you can supply. Love your videos by the way. Very informative.
I've never been to Sacsayhuaman, so just speculation from another geologist...the nearby formations that were naturally altered by the ancient volcanic activity have a peculiar pattern. They tend to mimic the natural topography. It would be possible to quarry material through the center of these formations in place. This would provide a natural interior scaffold, and if properly planned, work would proceed in levels from top down. The exterior would also be naturally scaffold by the terrain. As the work proceeded, the exterior would be finished with the pseudocosmetic stack & joint facade, and soils excavated from the exterior or hills perimeter, would be deposited to the interior quarried area. The final product would only require the top row or two be traditionally fitted. Long story short, the lower wall sections were carved from the natural rock formations, and the top sections were stacked.
You can skip to approximately 13:00 to 17:00 for the info. I couldn't listen further because it drove me crazy waiting until he got to the point. He mentioned another video which will hopefully share the info directly.
If you have ever seen the corn grown by the Incas, you'd understand why those stones are shaped that way. That is what gives them the stability they have, allowing them to survive centuries of earthquakes.
If this was discussing the pyramids and was positing that the sandstone blocks were made from a sand based geopolymer that would make sense but once you start to talk about having to pulverise all that limestone and slake it into quick lime it then starts to feel like way more work then just cutting out the stones and shaping them to fit
One addition I will make is that these are natural rocks but they were not quarried, i.e., cut from the bedrock as was the method in some other ancient civilizations like Egypt. These were loose boulders simply gathered from the talus slopes, cut to rough shape on site, then hauled to site for finishing. That is why they are all such random shapes and sizes.
I have a PhD in Geology and have worked extensively with petrographic analyses of sedimentary carbonate and various metamorphic rocks in mining and petroleum pursuits. I have also toured this magnificent site several times and have looked closely at the rocks' texture, fossil (Mississippian-Permian crinoids, fusulinids, brachs, fenestrella) content, and the worked surfaces. I completely agree with your analyses and interpretations. There are so many fantastic theories that evoke everything from magical powers to UFO laser cutting. It is good to see a carefully done, observation-based study. Thank you and best of luck in your future endeavors.
A good test,I think would be to bore several cores vertical by 30% of the blocks depth. If there are horizontal layers in most of the core samples you could show,that if cement , there would be these horizontal layers.
Excellent presentation. fascinating new discoveries.One thing I might suggest how they created the quick lime. Perhaps they used some type of fresnel lens to "cook" the rock. No need for wood ,only a sunny day.
Great work, and I agree with your assumptions, the presence of the extrusion is too coincidental) but the nubs and indentations are still inexplicable. Especially, the nubs that remain on unquarried stones that remain in situ, especially at Ollantaytambo. . As if, and theres no other way to say it, but as if some machine able to penetrate the quarry with precision, and through some focused energy created cuts within the rock at depth. Oh, and the fact that the big outerstones have a "covering" of the finer grained limestone is actully a futher indication they were taken from the geologic barrier between the two heating/cooling zones of the extrusion. Great work, thanks!
Great episode, as usual. Admittedly I'm disappointed that it didn't turn out to be some sort of concrete, but I appreciate the detailed walk through of the geological analyses. I feel like we've been waiting a long time for these studies to finally be conducted.
