上面印加两个links是一个教授30多年前写的。 用石头来shape石头、来建造Saksaywaman这个说法，有人做过试验debunk过了。 下面那个 DOLERITE POUNDERS你有没有看啊？根本不是说用dolerite pounder造埃及大型石材工程的。说的是有人误解dolerite pounder的用法了：一是其实不是石球，而是有角度的；二是不能用手一直握着dolerite pounder去敲击石块，不然工匠的手受不了，要在敲击的瞬间放开dolerite pounder。 "these tools could not have been held by workmen when striking another rock, otherwise the impacts would have caused severe injuries to their hands and wrists." Dolerite的硬度最多跟granite差不多，granite是硬度最高的石材。石匠没法用硬度相同的石头作为工具来修整。 油管上有用dolerite pounder做试验的，看了就知道这种做法的精确度是什么样了。 金字塔也用了不少granite. 埃及的非常硬的粉色花岗岩巨型雕像也不少。 埃及以前是用过dolerite pounder作工具的，但决不是用石球造的金字塔。 Library source也要得到实践的检验才行，而且library source更要看了以后再来作为证据。 kiddooo 发表于 2021-02-15 18:08
三十年前就实验验证过的，也符合历史记载，哪里来的debunked之说？ https://www.siftdesk.org/article-details/On-the-reddish-glittery-mud-the-Inca-used-for-perfecting-their-stone-masonry/264 “1.3. What did the early chroniclers say about finishing stones?There are two early chroniclers of the Inca empire and its collapse, who gave comments on the way Inca builders worked and perfected their elaborate masonry: Garcilaso de la Vega (1609) and Cieza de Leon (1553). The first had a Spanish father, but his mother was an Inca princess, a niece of Inca ruler Huayna Capac. Though born illegitimate he enjoyed a very good education both in Quechua and Spanish language and had on-going contact with previously influential Inca personalities until emigrating to Spain at age 20. There he wrote his Inca history from memory, from Spanish documentation and correspondence with Peruvian contacts. Cieza de Leon was a Spanish “conquistador”, who got involved in the wars among Spaniards on the domination of Peru. Though of modest education he became very interested in history and turned out to be a quite reliable chronicler. Both chroniclers admire Inca buildings and masonry and the big effort developed to fabricate and transport the stones. They confirm that they used hard stone tools to chip and grind stones. The Jesuit priest Barnabè Cobo (1653) reports that the Inca used obsidian working tools for dressing stones and applied large construction teams for cutting and grinding. In addition to these now well understood techniques Garcilaso de la Vega wrote in his 6th book, chapter 1: “..they were of beautifully cut masonry, and each stone was so perfectly fitted to its neighbours that there was no space for mortar. It is true that mortar was used, and it was made of a reddish clay, which they call in their language “llàncac allpa”, sticky clay, which was made into a paste. No trace of mortar remained between the stones, and the Spaniards therefore state they worked without mortar..”. In book 7 he continues: “..Many of them (the stones) are so closely set that the seam is scarcely visible. To lodge them in this way it would have been necessary to lift each stone and lower it many times, for they had no set-square or even a ruler to help them to put it in place and see if it fitted. Neither did they know how to make cranes or pulleys or any other device to help them raise and lower masonry, though the pieces they handled are terrifyingly large..”. Later he continued: “They did not indeed use mortar made of sand and lime, for they were unacquainted with lime. They did however employ a mortar consisting of a paste of sticky reddish clay, which was used to fill up gashes and pits caused in working the stones…”. (Garsilaso de la Vega describes the colour of the mud with “colorado” and I translate it with “reddish”. Other translators (e.g. Livermore, 1966) translate it with “red”. The real Spanish word for red is however “rojo”. The expression “colorado”, in fact means “coloured”, but shows the tendency towards the colour red. In Spanish it is used in context of “turning red”, “going red” or “blushing”, where a real “red” is not obtained. There is a convincing example: Spaniards named the Colorado river in the US after the colour of the table mountains around. Their colour is definitively not red but “reddish”). Cieza de Leon writes: “ it is said to be certain that in these buildings of (Ollantay)Tambo or others which had that name, molten gold was found instead of mortar in a certain area of the royal palace or the son temple, with which, together with the bitumen, which they apply, the stones remain fitted to each other”, Garcilaso (6th book, chapter1) confirms this statement by Cieca de Leon and further specifies the technique: “ In many of the royal palaces and temples of the sun they poured in molten lead and silver and gold for mortar. Pedro de Cieza also reports this and I am glad to adduce the evidence of Spanish historians in support of what I know”. In two occasions Cieza de Leon, when explaining Inca masonry, explicitly talks of a “bitumen” (Spanish betùn), which is clearly defined as a combustible mineral (see an explanation further below).
回复 117楼平明寻白羽的帖子 埃及那部分的你也看到了吧 Dolerite pounders are hand-held stone tools that were widely used in Egypt from the third to late first millennium BCE for quarrying and dressing granite and other hard rocks. In addition to documenting the size distribution of 1,419 pounders from Aswan and describing red paint markings (owner labels, in part) found on about 4 percent of these, this study refutes two popular misconceptions about the dolerite pounders. First, the desired form of these tools was not the well rounded, nearly spherical balls now commonly seen in the ancient quarries and construction sites. Evidence from a dolerite quarry discovered by the authors in Aswan indicates that the pounders were initially angular, compact, and irregular to sub-rectangular in form. Progressive rounding during use eventually reduced them to a nearly spherical shape by which point they had lost much of their effectiveness and so were discarded. And second, these tools could not have been held by workmen when striking another rock, otherwise the impacts would have caused severe injuries to their hands and wrists. To avoid this, the workmen must have released the pounder just before impact on a downward throw and then caught it on the rebound.
First Online: 24 June 2014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_8868-2 Stonemasonry of the Incas JEAN-PIERREPROTZEN ”And what one admires most is that, although these[stones] in the wall I am talking about are not cut straight but are very uneven in size and shape among themselves, they fit together with incredible precision without mortar (Acosta, lib. 6, cap.14;1962:297). Like Father Acosta in the seventeenth century, the modern traveler stands in awe before the Inca walls of huge stones, some weighing over a hundred metric tons, tightly fitted together. They wonder about how people who did not know the wheel and had no iron tools transported and dressed stones of that size, and mated them one to another in such a way that, as the saying goes, not even the blade of a knife could be inserted into the joints. Answers to these question shave been replete with speculations ranging from the intervention of extraterrestrial beings, to the application of an herb, the juice of which softened the stone, to the more prosaic investment of an immense labor force.Recent studies of Inca construction, however, demon-strate that the awe-inspiring, tightly fit megalithicmasonry was well within the technological reach of theIncas (Protzen1985,1986,1993). It is to be hoped thatthe fantastic tales of extraterrestrial intervention will beput to rest once and for all.QuarryingThe Incas did not practice quarrying in the propersense. The stone is neither cut off a rock face nor is itdetached from bedrock by undercutting. The Incasgained their building stone either by picking suitableblocks out of a rockfall or by prying it loose fromfragmented rock faces. Large blocks of five or moretons were only minimally shaped in the quarries; all thefine work was done at the construction site. Smallerbuilding blocks were dressed on most sides in thequarries, and only the finishing and the fitting to otherstones was reserved for the site.The Incas chose the stones to be quarried with greatcare. Proper workability, texture and color of the stonemattered a great deal and they often went far out of theway, up to 30 km from a construction site, to quarry theappropriate stone. To access the quarries and transportthe stones, the Incas built well-engineered roads, 4 to5 m wide. For example, to get a specific rose rhyolitefor the so-called Sun Temple at Ollantaytambo andreach the quarries of Kachiqhata, the Incas builtenormous ramps, the total construction volume ofwhich exceeded the volume of quarried stones by afactor of 40. This is the price the Incas were willing topay for a select stone.Cutting and DressingTo cut and dress stones the Incas used simple rivercobbles of various sizes as hammers. These tools andtheir fragments are found in abundance in the ancientquarries scattered among roughed out building blocksand in the quarrying waste. The hammerstones areeasily distinguished from other stones by both theirshape and their petrological characteristics; they arewater-worn rounded stones of materials different fromthe quarried stone and the surrounding bedrock. Thehammers come in different sizes; some are as small asan egg, others are the size of a football, and others stillare two to three times the size of an American football.The largest of these hammerstones were used to breakup and roughly shape the raw stones, the medium sizedto dress the faces of the building blocks, and thesmallest to draft and cut their edges and corners. Thetechnique involved is exactly as Garcilaso de la Vega“El Inca”described it:“The quarryfolks,..., who had noother instruments to work the stones, but some blackcobbles they called hihuana (sic. for hihuaya), withwhich they dress the stones by bruising rather thancutting.”(lib II, cap. XXVIII; 1976:119, tomo I).Indeed, when hitting the workpiece straight on witha hammer stone one crushes the rock producing littlemore than dust. However, if one increases the angleof impact to about 15 to 20°, little chips can be tornoff. By further increasing the angle to some 45° byimparting a twist to the hammer just before impact,larger chips can be removed, thus accelerating theprocess considerably. The impact of the hammer leavesa small pitmark on the workpiece. Such pitmarks canbe observed on every face of every building block inevery Inca wall of cut stones, regardless of the buildingblocks’material. Smaller, finer pitmarks found alongthe edges of the building blocks indicate that smallerstones were used to cut the edges. The particulartechnique in cutting edges requires that the edge beshaped by hitting the workpiece with grazing blowsdirected away from the workpiece, which results incorners with dihedral angles larger than 90°. It is theseobtuse angles that account for the characteristic beveledjoints of Inca cut stonemasonry and that brings aboutthe chiaroscuro effect.Extensive experiments have demonstrated that theprocess is relatively easy, effective and precise, and notas time consuming as one might assume. Twenty quarrypeople working side by side could rough out a block4.5 m long, 3.2 m wide, and 1.7 m high–the dimensionsof one of the largest building blocks in an ancient Incaquarry near Ollantaytambo–in less than 15 days.Stonemasonry of the Incas 2027S FittingThe most intriguing question about Inca cut stonema-sonry concerns the precision fitting of the blocks. It hasbeen repeatedly argued that the Inca stonemasonsground the blocks into place using a mixture of sandand water. The evidence, however, does not supportthis hypothesis. Where walls have been dismantled orfallen apart one finds the exact imprint of the stoneswhich have been removed or fallen off. Very often theshape of the imprints determines a unique position forthe stone it once accommodated. To grind in a stone,however, requires that the stone can move freely alonga path in at least one direction. Thus, the ground stonewould fit in any, and not just one, position along thatpath. Furthermore, if the stones had been ground intoplace the joints should show signs of abrasion, but theydo not. Instead one finds the typical pitmarks whichresult from pounding.The imprints seen on dismantled walls indicate thatwhen laying a wall, the Inca stonemasons left the topface of every new course uncut until it was to receive anew course. The bottom face of the block of the newcourse was cut first, and a suitable bed was carved outof the course already in place. A similar approach wasused for the rising joints; it is the side of the blockalready in situ that was carved to match the precutshape of its new neighbor. The technique used appearsto have been one of trial and error. The masons startedby outlining the shape of the new stone atop the courseit was to be fitted to and proceeded to carve out a bed.By trying the fit time and again the masons obtained aperfect match. Granted, the trial and error technique is atedious one, and perhaps not very convincing if oneconsiders megalithic building blocks of several dozensof tons. However, it works and does not postulate theuse of tools and machinery of which no traces havebeen found. The Incas had plenty of time andmanpower at hand. Since they moved huge blocksover many kilometers, it is not inconceivable that theywere capable of setting up a stone several times toachieve the desired fit. It is of course also conceivablethat the Inca stonemasons knew of another technique totransfer the shape of one stone to another withoutactually trying it in successive steps. Vincent Lee has infact proposed such a technique. Inspired by log cabinbuilders, Lee suggests that the shape of one stone wasscribed onto the other with an ingenious but simpledevice consisting of a stick and a plumb bob. Althoughvery plausible, Lee's hypothesis does not bear out inthe field, as will be shown below.AssemblageWhen assembling a wall, the Incas often had severalconstruction crews working simultaneously and side-by-side. Where two crews met in a course the final gapin the wall was closed with a“wedge”stone introducedinto the masonry bond from the front of the wall.Because in the last gap there is not enough room tomaneuver the stones for the usual one-on-one fitting,the Inca stonemasons hit on the ingenious idea of thewedge stone that fits to its neighbors only along a verynarrow band near the face of the wall. Once one knowswhat to look for, it is relatively easy to spot wedgestones in an Inca cut-stone wall and to determine itsconstruction sequences. If scribing had been thepredominant fitting technique, there would have beenno need for wedge stones: even the last stone couldhave been scribed for a perfect match and lowered intoplace. But many wedge stones clearly were not loweredinto the gap they were intended to fill, since they arewider at the bottom than at the top.TransportingAnother vexing problem is how the Incas transportedand heaved enormous building stones. Rough abrasionmarks found on building blocks at Ollantaytambosuggest that the stones were simply dragged alongthe ground. From these marks it is even possible todetermine the direction in which the blocks traveled. Thedragging of big stones is consistent with chroniclers’reports:“These Indians used to move very large stoneswithmuscle power, pullingthemwith many longropes oflianas and leaf fibers,..., and they [the stones] are so bigthatfifteen yokes ofoxencouldnot pullthem.”(Gutierrezde Santa Clara lib. 3, cap. 63;1904–1929:550). Anddragging big blocks involves large transportation crews:“Four thousand of them were breaking stones andextracting stones; six thoudand were hauling them withbig ropes of hide and leaf fibers;...”(Cieza de León cap.LI;1967:170)Six thousand people dragging a stone is notunreasonable; many Old World transportation pro-blems were solved with very large work forces.Engelbach, for example, calculated that it would havetaken 6,000 men to haul the unfinished obelisk atAswan from the quarries to the Nile. The questionsraised by a transportation crew as numerous as this,which remain largely unanswered, are how the crewwas harnessed to the stones and how it negotiated turnson the narrow roads on the steep slopes of the Andes.An experiment carried out in 1994 in the town ofOllantaytambo involved the dragging of a 14 t heavyInca building block a distance of about 150 m. Onehundred and eighty four people from the town, men andwomen, volunteered for the task. They were given noinstruction of how the task had to be performed. Theybrought ropes, which they wrapped around the blocklike a net in such a way as to have six leading ropesextending from the stone in the direction it was to bepulled. The 184 people were distributed over the six2028 Stonemasonry of the Incas leading ropes, which they grabbed and leaned into todrag the block the requisite distance with relative easeover a surface roughly equivalent to the roads from thequarries.AntecedentsJohn Hemming argued emphatically that the high skillsof the Inca stonemasons “cannot have been developedin the century or less of Inca ascendance. Architectureanywhere in the world evolves from precursors ” . Here,the precedent is Tiahuanaco at the south end of LakeTiticaca. Tiahuanaco has some of the world's fineststonemasonry: carefully fitted rectangular ashlars, andexquisitely worked monolithic gates and statues. It issaid that Pachakuti, the 9th Inca, was so impressed bythis stone work when he first saw Tiahuanaco that headvised his architects to take careful note of how thismasonry was made because he wanted Cuzco to bebuilt in the same manner. It is also said that he importedQolla laborers from the Lake Titicaca area to work onconstruction projects (Sarmiento de Gamboa cap. 40;1943:111– 112). But because Tiahuanaco culture de-veloped at least a millennium before the Incas, and mayhave reached its peak some five to six centuries beforePachakuti's rise to power and nothing similar hasbeen built in the interim, one may question why theQolla laborer should remember any of the ancienttechniques PDF拷过来的，没精力编辑了，感兴趣的能自己断词看完。
回复 117楼平明寻白羽的帖子 埃及那部分的你也看到了吧 Dolerite pounders are hand-held stone tools that were widely used in Egypt from the third to late first millennium BCE for quarrying and dressing granite and other hard rocks. In addition to documenting the size distribution of 1,419 pounders from Aswan and describing red paint markings (owner labels, in part) found on about 4 percent of these, this study refutes two popular misconceptions about the dolerite pounders. First, the desired form of these tools was not the well rounded, nearly spherical balls now commonly seen in the ancient quarries and construction sites. Evidence from a dolerite quarry discovered by the authors in Aswan indicates that the pounders were initially angular, compact, and irregular to sub-rectangular in form. Progressive rounding during use eventually reduced them to a nearly spherical shape by which point they had lost much of their effectiveness and so were discarded. And second, these tools could not have been held by workmen when striking another rock, otherwise the impacts would have caused severe injuries to their hands and wrists. To avoid this, the workmen must have released the pounder just before impact on a downward throw and then caught it on the rebound. kiddooo 发表于 2021-02-15 22:18
回复 117楼平明寻白羽的帖子 从文中能看出来，精准建造的石墙已经存在了 debunk并不难，用所说的石头shape石头的方式，实际试试就可以，这么做的粗糙程度跟你上面引用的相差甚远 “they were of beautifully cut masonry, and each stone was so perfectly fitted to its neighbours that there was no space for mortar.“ 油管上有视频
这个海平面上升应该是逐步的。海平面上升，主要是因为冰山融化。而冰山融化，地表重量重新分布，地球的自转角度也有轻微的变化，在地壳运动活跃的地方（比如地中海）产生了较多的地震、海啸、火山喷发、submarine landslide等等，气候也随之变化，不仅是海平面上升这么单一。
比如五千年前，撒哈拉沙漠还是绿洲
欢迎看视频：
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/aYoWFMJ17Ds
柏拉图还说有亚特兰蒂斯呢。
铜是不够硬，但是青铜就蛮硬了。
亚特兰蒂斯未必不是真的
关于这种严丝合缝的石头墙，我一直在考虑上千年甚至几千年的风化作用到底会对墙体造成多大影响。换句话说，有没有可能现在严丝合缝的石头墙在刚完工的时候并不那么严丝合缝？
青铜硬一些，但是还是比较软的。不算硬的岩石，可能硬度就至少跟青铜差不多 花岗岩是比青铜硬的
或许地震风化的力量才是让这些巨石严丝合缝的真正力量？
你既然提到了考古人员改造文物，就应该质疑那个所谓4500年前的埃及长裙的真实性。
现在的墙大部分跟秘鲁的不太一样。现在的砖墙是靠mortar、metal bar之类的联在一起的 秘鲁等地的巨石墙没用砂浆，就是靠重力和石块之间的嵌合，而整体性还是非常高
在地震频发的地区，秘鲁这种墙的适应性灵活性更好，更不容易大规模的坍塌
秘鲁是地震频繁的地区
有些巨石墙石块被地震或是泥石流晃开了，可以看到这些石块之间的接触面不是平面，而是有弧度的，其吻合度非常惊人，是精准的３Ｄ嵌合
我说的这个改文物的考古人员，是埃及官方报道出来的 有名有姓
他当年拿了不少资金去挖／炸胡夫金字塔，事前跟投资人说里面有宝藏，能赚钱。结果里面没有任何木乃伊、壁画、宝藏。
金字塔的命名比裙子重要太多了，命名直接联系到金字塔的年代、以及周边金字塔的定名和年代
这么说吧，金字塔里面用涂料写个名，其造假的意义重大，而裙子造假的意义何在？
我看到的资料说最高的金字塔是The pyramid of Khufu at Giza, Egypt，目前是137.5米，大约4500年前也只是146.7米，远不到几百米高。 运送大型石材到高处，除了用坡道，还可以用滑轮组吧，当然，一定要坚持说那时候的人绝对不会想到滑轮组这种东西，那也没法反驳。
另外，你的论点不是说金字塔可能是史前文明造的么，有什么考古资料支持这个观点呢？和胡夫法老同时代的人表示过金字塔是他们的前辈造的么？
胡夫金字塔是史前文明，其实是很多人的论点 因为目前没有建筑师、工程师能解释其建造原理
几百米高说错了，是几百feet高 但是ramp就要几百米长了 现在建筑的坡道 坡度一般10度就算陡的了
埃及的某些考古学家，对于任何质疑金字塔以及其他现代工程难以解释的埃及遗址，都不愿接受。
几百米的坡道在奴隶社会还真不见得是个大工程。
这个金字塔建造工艺的问题，我记得你从前的关于乐山大佛的帖子里也有过讨论。现在的人解释不了，和直接得出结论是史前文明的产物，这是两回事。郑和下西洋的宝船，现在的工程师也难以复制出来，所以就是史前文明的产物？大马士革钢，现在也做不出来了，也是史前文明的产物？
坡道长度几百米，高度上百米。而且不光是坡道的问题，还要把重量上吨的石头运上去，摆到位置上。之后还要拆掉坡道。
大马士革钢造不出来，不等于现在没有更厉害的钢。 现在的船，肯定比郑和当年的厉害。
如果只是配方失传，但是技术精进了，这个不一样。
现在人类处理石材的工具按理说比古代先进很多，毕竟科技进步了。但是以如今科技还是不能解释、也无法建造金字塔。从这个角度来看，我们对石材的处理方式比造金字塔的人群落后。
三十年前就实验验证过的，也符合历史记载，哪里来的debunked之说？
https://www.siftdesk.org/article-details/On-the-reddish-glittery-mud-the-Inca-used-for-perfecting-their-stone-masonry/264
“1.3. What did the early chroniclers say about finishing stones? There are two early chroniclers of the Inca empire and its collapse, who gave comments on the way Inca builders worked and perfected their elaborate masonry: Garcilaso de la Vega (1609) and Cieza de Leon (1553). The first had a Spanish father, but his mother was an Inca princess, a niece of Inca ruler Huayna Capac. Though born illegitimate he enjoyed a very good education both in Quechua and Spanish language and had on-going contact with previously influential Inca personalities until emigrating to Spain at age 20. There he wrote his Inca history from memory, from Spanish documentation and correspondence with Peruvian contacts. Cieza de Leon was a Spanish “conquistador”, who got involved in the wars among Spaniards on the domination of Peru. Though of modest education he became very interested in history and turned out to be a quite reliable chronicler. Both chroniclers admire Inca buildings and masonry and the big effort developed to fabricate and transport the stones. They confirm that they used hard stone tools to chip and grind stones. The Jesuit priest Barnabè Cobo (1653) reports that the Inca used obsidian working tools for dressing stones and applied large construction teams for cutting and grinding. In addition to these now well understood techniques Garcilaso de la Vega wrote in his 6th book, chapter 1: “..they were of beautifully cut masonry, and each stone was so perfectly fitted to its neighbours that there was no space for mortar. It is true that mortar was used, and it was made of a reddish clay, which they call in their language “llàncac allpa”, sticky clay, which was made into a paste. No trace of mortar remained between the stones, and the Spaniards therefore state they worked without mortar..”. In book 7 he continues: “..Many of them (the stones) are so closely set that the seam is scarcely visible. To lodge them in this way it would have been necessary to lift each stone and lower it many times, for they had no set-square or even a ruler to help them to put it in place and see if it fitted. Neither did they know how to make cranes or pulleys or any other device to help them raise and lower masonry, though the pieces they handled are terrifyingly large..”. Later he continued: “They did not indeed use mortar made of sand and lime, for they were unacquainted with lime. They did however employ a mortar consisting of a paste of sticky reddish clay, which was used to fill up gashes and pits caused in working the stones…”. (Garsilaso de la Vega describes the colour of the mud with “colorado” and I translate it with “reddish”. Other translators (e.g. Livermore, 1966) translate it with “red”. The real Spanish word for red is however “rojo”. The expression “colorado”, in fact means “coloured”, but shows the tendency towards the colour red. In Spanish it is used in context of “turning red”, “going red” or “blushing”, where a real “red” is not obtained. There is a convincing example: Spaniards named the Colorado river in the US after the colour of the table mountains around. Their colour is definitively not red but “reddish”). Cieza de Leon writes: “ it is said to be certain that in these buildings of (Ollantay)Tambo or others which had that name, molten gold was found instead of mortar in a certain area of the royal palace or the son temple, with which, together with the bitumen, which they apply, the stones remain fitted to each other”, Garcilaso (6th book, chapter1) confirms this statement by Cieca de Leon and further specifies the technique: “ In many of the royal palaces and temples of the sun they poured in molten lead and silver and gold for mortar. Pedro de Cieza also reports this and I am glad to adduce the evidence of Spanish historians in support of what I know”. In two occasions Cieza de Leon, when explaining Inca masonry, explicitly talks of a “bitumen” (Spanish betùn), which is clearly defined as a combustible mineral (see an explanation further below).
埃及那部分的你也看到了吧 Dolerite pounders are hand-held stone tools that were widely used in Egypt from the third to late first millennium BCE for quarrying and dressing granite and other hard rocks. In addition to documenting the size distribution of 1,419 pounders from Aswan and describing red paint markings (owner labels, in part) found on about 4 percent of these, this study refutes two popular misconceptions about the dolerite pounders. First, the desired form of these tools was not the well rounded, nearly spherical balls now commonly seen in the ancient quarries and construction sites. Evidence from a dolerite quarry discovered by the authors in Aswan indicates that the pounders were initially angular, compact, and irregular to sub-rectangular in form. Progressive rounding during use eventually reduced them to a nearly spherical shape by which point they had lost much of their effectiveness and so were discarded. And second, these tools could not have been held by workmen when striking another rock, otherwise the impacts would have caused severe injuries to their hands and wrists. To avoid this, the workmen must have released the pounder just before impact on a downward throw and then caught it on the rebound.
First Online: 24 June 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_8868-2
Stonemasonry of the Incas
JEAN-PIERREPROTZEN
”And what one admires most is that, although these[stones] in the wall I am talking about are not cut straight but are very uneven in size and shape among themselves, they fit together with incredible precision without mortar (Acosta, lib. 6, cap.14;1962:297).
Like Father Acosta in the seventeenth century, the modern traveler stands in awe before the Inca walls of huge stones, some weighing over a hundred metric tons, tightly fitted together. They wonder about how people who did not know the wheel and had no iron tools transported and dressed stones of that size, and mated them one to another in such a way that, as the saying goes, not even the blade of a knife could be inserted into the joints. Answers to these question shave been replete with speculations ranging from the intervention of extraterrestrial beings, to the application of an herb, the juice of which softened the stone, to the more prosaic investment of an immense labor force.Recent studies of Inca construction, however, demon-strate that the awe-inspiring, tightly fit megalithicmasonry was well within the technological reach of theIncas (Protzen1985,1986,1993). It is to be hoped thatthe fantastic tales of extraterrestrial intervention will beput to rest once and for all.QuarryingThe Incas did not practice quarrying in the propersense. The stone is neither cut off a rock face nor is itdetached from bedrock by undercutting. The Incasgained their building stone either by picking suitableblocks out of a rockfall or by prying it loose fromfragmented rock faces. Large blocks of five or moretons were only minimally shaped in the quarries; all thefine work was done at the construction site. Smallerbuilding blocks were dressed on most sides in thequarries, and only the finishing and the fitting to otherstones was reserved for the site.The Incas chose the stones to be quarried with greatcare. Proper workability, texture and color of the stonemattered a great deal and they often went far out of theway, up to 30 km from a construction site, to quarry theappropriate stone. To access the quarries and transportthe stones, the Incas built well-engineered roads, 4 to5 m wide. For example, to get a specific rose rhyolitefor the so-called Sun Temple at Ollantaytambo andreach the quarries of Kachiqhata, the Incas builtenormous ramps, the total construction volume ofwhich exceeded the volume of quarried stones by afactor of 40. This is the price the Incas were willing topay for a select stone.Cutting and DressingTo cut and dress stones the Incas used simple rivercobbles of various sizes as hammers. These tools andtheir fragments are found in abundance in the ancientquarries scattered among roughed out building blocksand in the quarrying waste. The hammerstones areeasily distinguished from other stones by both theirshape and their petrological characteristics; they arewater-worn rounded stones of materials different fromthe quarried stone and the surrounding bedrock. Thehammers come in different sizes; some are as small asan egg, others are the size of a football, and others stillare two to three times the size of an American football.The largest of these hammerstones were used to breakup and roughly shape the raw stones, the medium sizedto dress the faces of the building blocks, and thesmallest to draft and cut their edges and corners. Thetechnique involved is exactly as Garcilaso de la Vega“El Inca”described it:“The quarryfolks,..., who had noother instruments to work the stones, but some blackcobbles they called hihuana (sic. for hihuaya), withwhich they dress the stones by bruising rather thancutting.”(lib II, cap. XXVIII; 1976:119, tomo I).Indeed, when hitting the workpiece straight on witha hammer stone one crushes the rock producing littlemore than dust. However, if one increases the angleof impact to about 15 to 20°, little chips can be tornoff. By further increasing the angle to some 45° byimparting a twist to the hammer just before impact,larger chips can be removed, thus accelerating theprocess considerably. The impact of the hammer leavesa small pitmark on the workpiece. Such pitmarks canbe observed on every face of every building block inevery Inca wall of cut stones, regardless of the buildingblocks’material. Smaller, finer pitmarks found alongthe edges of the building blocks indicate that smallerstones were used to cut the edges. The particulartechnique in cutting edges requires that the edge beshaped by hitting the workpiece with grazing blowsdirected away from the workpiece, which results incorners with dihedral angles larger than 90°. It is theseobtuse angles that account for the characteristic beveledjoints of Inca cut stonemasonry and that brings aboutthe chiaroscuro effect.Extensive experiments have demonstrated that theprocess is relatively easy, effective and precise, and notas time consuming as one might assume. Twenty quarrypeople working side by side could rough out a block4.5 m long, 3.2 m wide, and 1.7 m high–the dimensionsof one of the largest building blocks in an ancient Incaquarry near Ollantaytambo–in less than 15 days.Stonemasonry of the Incas 2027S
FittingThe most intriguing question about Inca cut stonema-sonry concerns the precision fitting of the blocks. It hasbeen repeatedly argued that the Inca stonemasonsground the blocks into place using a mixture of sandand water. The evidence, however, does not supportthis hypothesis. Where walls have been dismantled orfallen apart one finds the exact imprint of the stoneswhich have been removed or fallen off. Very often theshape of the imprints determines a unique position forthe stone it once accommodated. To grind in a stone,however, requires that the stone can move freely alonga path in at least one direction. Thus, the ground stonewould fit in any, and not just one, position along thatpath. Furthermore, if the stones had been ground intoplace the joints should show signs of abrasion, but theydo not. Instead one finds the typical pitmarks whichresult from pounding.The imprints seen on dismantled walls indicate thatwhen laying a wall, the Inca stonemasons left the topface of every new course uncut until it was to receive anew course. The bottom face of the block of the newcourse was cut first, and a suitable bed was carved outof the course already in place. A similar approach wasused for the rising joints; it is the side of the blockalready in situ that was carved to match the precutshape of its new neighbor. The technique used appearsto have been one of trial and error. The masons startedby outlining the shape of the new stone atop the courseit was to be fitted to and proceeded to carve out a bed.By trying the fit time and again the masons obtained aperfect match. Granted, the trial and error technique is atedious one, and perhaps not very convincing if oneconsiders megalithic building blocks of several dozensof tons. However, it works and does not postulate theuse of tools and machinery of which no traces havebeen found. The Incas had plenty of time andmanpower at hand. Since they moved huge blocksover many kilometers, it is not inconceivable that theywere capable of setting up a stone several times toachieve the desired fit. It is of course also conceivablethat the Inca stonemasons knew of another technique totransfer the shape of one stone to another withoutactually trying it in successive steps. Vincent Lee has infact proposed such a technique. Inspired by log cabinbuilders, Lee suggests that the shape of one stone wasscribed onto the other with an ingenious but simpledevice consisting of a stick and a plumb bob. Althoughvery plausible, Lee's hypothesis does not bear out inthe field, as will be shown below.AssemblageWhen assembling a wall, the Incas often had severalconstruction crews working simultaneously and side-by-side. Where two crews met in a course the final gapin the wall was closed with a“wedge”stone introducedinto the masonry bond from the front of the wall.Because in the last gap there is not enough room tomaneuver the stones for the usual one-on-one fitting,the Inca stonemasons hit on the ingenious idea of thewedge stone that fits to its neighbors only along a verynarrow band near the face of the wall. Once one knowswhat to look for, it is relatively easy to spot wedgestones in an Inca cut-stone wall and to determine itsconstruction sequences. If scribing had been thepredominant fitting technique, there would have beenno need for wedge stones: even the last stone couldhave been scribed for a perfect match and lowered intoplace. But many wedge stones clearly were not loweredinto the gap they were intended to fill, since they arewider at the bottom than at the top.TransportingAnother vexing problem is how the Incas transportedand heaved enormous building stones. Rough abrasionmarks found on building blocks at Ollantaytambosuggest that the stones were simply dragged alongthe ground. From these marks it is even possible todetermine the direction in which the blocks traveled. Thedragging of big stones is consistent with chroniclers’reports:“These Indians used to move very large stoneswithmuscle power, pullingthemwith many longropes oflianas and leaf fibers,..., and they [the stones] are so bigthatfifteen yokes ofoxencouldnot pullthem.”(Gutierrezde Santa Clara lib. 3, cap. 63;1904–1929:550). Anddragging big blocks involves large transportation crews:“Four thousand of them were breaking stones andextracting stones; six thoudand were hauling them withbig ropes of hide and leaf fibers;...”(Cieza de León cap.LI;1967:170)Six thousand people dragging a stone is notunreasonable; many Old World transportation pro-blems were solved with very large work forces.Engelbach, for example, calculated that it would havetaken 6,000 men to haul the unfinished obelisk atAswan from the quarries to the Nile. The questionsraised by a transportation crew as numerous as this,which remain largely unanswered, are how the crewwas harnessed to the stones and how it negotiated turnson the narrow roads on the steep slopes of the Andes.An experiment carried out in 1994 in the town ofOllantaytambo involved the dragging of a 14 t heavyInca building block a distance of about 150 m. Onehundred and eighty four people from the town, men andwomen, volunteered for the task. They were given noinstruction of how the task had to be performed. Theybrought ropes, which they wrapped around the blocklike a net in such a way as to have six leading ropesextending from the stone in the direction it was to bepulled. The 184 people were distributed over the six2028 Stonemasonry of the Incas
leading ropes, which they grabbed and leaned into todrag the block the requisite distance with relative easeover a surface roughly equivalent to the roads from thequarries.AntecedentsJohn Hemming argued emphatically that the high skillsof the Inca stonemasons “cannot have been developedin the century or less of Inca ascendance. Architectureanywhere in the world evolves from precursors ” . Here,the precedent is Tiahuanaco at the south end of LakeTiticaca. Tiahuanaco has some of the world's fineststonemasonry: carefully fitted rectangular ashlars, andexquisitely worked monolithic gates and statues. It issaid that Pachakuti, the 9th Inca, was so impressed bythis stone work when he first saw Tiahuanaco that headvised his architects to take careful note of how thismasonry was made because he wanted Cuzco to bebuilt in the same manner. It is also said that he importedQolla laborers from the Lake Titicaca area to work onconstruction projects (Sarmiento de Gamboa cap. 40;1943:111– 112). But because Tiahuanaco culture de-veloped at least a millennium before the Incas, and mayhave reached its peak some five to six centuries beforePachakuti's rise to power and nothing similar hasbeen built in the interim, one may question why theQolla laborer should remember any of the ancienttechniques
PDF拷过来的，没精力编辑了，感兴趣的能自己断词看完。
这段怎么啦？不是说石头hammers用久了磨圆了么？工匠为了不震到手，在撞击前把手松开。
不是和石头打磨完全符合么？
你印出来是要说明什么？
亚特兰蒂斯是一个比较有意思的话题。
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/QqmQuTAQ5YI
从文中能看出来，精准建造的石墙已经存在了
debunk并不难，用所说的石头shape石头的方式，实际试试就可以，这么做的粗糙程度跟你上面引用的相差甚远 “they were of beautifully cut masonry, and each stone was so perfectly fitted to its neighbours that there was no space for mortar.“ 油管上有视频
你自己读读吧
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/52V9jmrgSbI
没问题啊，这段和用石头打磨granite不矛盾啊，就是我说的石头hammer打磨石材，古埃及和印加都使用的技术。
你说有问题就指出来呗。
亚特兰蒂斯确实很有意思
谢谢分享视频