5 ms·

Resonance would be a key factor as well, various sized rocks all at irregular angles would help greatly to prevent any overall resonance shaking and amplifying

by Zenst 5y ago

Resonance would be a key factor as well, various sized rocks all at irregular angles would help greatly to prevent any overall resonance shaking and amplifying across the structure. Now in contrast to standard sized bricks and regimental formations - like a row of pitchforks just awaiting the right note in many ways. Then buildings of old had less engineering and material science to lean onto. That combined with a shift of building things to last forever towards a lifetime and even that lifetime gets shorter. We see things built with just enough materials to do the job and know more with a life of 100 years at best in so many cases (often half that with some housing). Sadly it gets down to the numbers and odds as well - if there is say 1 in 100 years chance of a quake that would be over 6 on the scale and 1 in 500 of a 7 and the cost to build is 1m for upto level 5 survivability and 5 million for level 6 and 50m for level 7. You see how the insurance can push it towards going for the cheaper option on the bases that if you went for a level 5 - you could rebuild it 5 times in that 100 years. So money does play a huge part as always. I do wonder, what would it cost today to build Machu Picchu as it is - a huge amount and can bet the modern approach would involve concrete and reinforced steel. Just can't beat natural stone still in many ways.

mark336 5y ago
I am Peruvian. I wonder if the Incas built there buildings with irregular rocks only to prevent resonance or because it was too difficult to carve rocks of the same size...
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > or because it was too difficult to carve rocks of the same size The by far most likely explanation. Especially if your only tools were other rocks.
  - robinsoh 5y ago
    > Especially if your only tools were other rocks. This is not a entirely valid assumption. It has not been proven that these civilizations only had stone tools. Attempting to portray them as primitive people with only stone tools is highly reductive given the level of sophistication of the structures they managed to create. They may have had sophisticated chemical processes to shape and form rock structures. A simple proof is just by looking at these structures and seeing that even today in 2021, we are unable to form equivalent structures ourselves using modern cranes and rock shaping tools. It is terrible that the knowledge was destroyed by burning their books-khippus and extinguishing their stone masons, technicians and scientists.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > It has not been proven that these civilizations only had stone tools It hasn't been proven that space aliens didn't create the masonry walls, either. (Yes, I've seen TV shows arguing that case.) But archaeologists have shown that rocks can be shaped accurately in the manner of those walls by just banging them together. There is also the evidence of partially shaped rocks left behind. There is no evidence of any other method. I've been to Chichén-Itzá and have looked at the structures from an engineer's point of view, as I am a mechanical engineer. They are solidly built, massive, and well built. The scale is impressive. Very impressive. But the sophistication does not extend past the corbelled vault. They did not use an arch or a dome. https://www.maya-archaeology.org/pre-Columbian_Mayan_temples_palaces_pyramids_prehispanic_archaeological_sites_Mayan_archaeology_ruins_El_Peten_Guatemala_Mexico_Belize_Honduras/corbel_arch_corbelled_vault_temple_palace_architecture_Chichen_Itza_Uxmal_Yucatan_Mexico.php https://www.maya-archaeology.org/pre-Columbian_Mayan_temples... The Mayan script has been shown to be phonetic, so they certainly had a solid writing system. But, sadly, we know very little about what they wrote about, since the Spanish burned their books. I never called them primitive.
      - robinsoh 5y ago
        > It hasn't been proven that space aliens didn't create the masonry walls There's no need to be disrespectful and attempt to portray my position as if it is something ridiculous and requires belief in space aliens. As I said, I think what was built was very sophisticated, and I don't find the claim that it was built just by "banging rocks together" to be satisfactory especially since no one has been able to reproduce an equivalent structure using this method. > I never called them primitive. How would you interpret and contextualize your remark "your only tools were other rocks"? To me, it seems like you're trying to insinuate and put in the mind of the reader exactly that you believe that they were primitive and lacked sophisticated tools. > archaeologists have shown that rocks can be shaped accurately in the manner of those walls by just banging them together. I have not seen such a conclusive proof. I'd like to see this proven by building an equivalent structure to Sacsayhuaman, at least perhaps even a corner. That alone would be impressive.
- im3w1l 5y ago
  Wouldn't it be easier to carve a rock to a standard shape than to fit one particular hole? As far as alternative explanations, maybe they did it because it's more material-efficient. I could see you having to remove a lot of material to turn a random lump into bricks. And small rocks may not give you even a single one.
  - account42 5y ago
    > Wouldn't it be easier to carve a rock to a standard shape than to fit one particular hole? Presumably you go find the closest matching rock you already have and then work from that.

by Zenst 5y ago

mark336 5y ago

I am Peruvian. I wonder if the Incas built there buildings with irregular rocks only to prevent resonance or because it was too difficult to carve rocks of the same size...

WalterBright 5y ago
> or because it was too difficult to carve rocks of the same size The by far most likely explanation. Especially if your only tools were other rocks.
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > Especially if your only tools were other rocks. This is not a entirely valid assumption. It has not been proven that these civilizations only had stone tools. Attempting to portray them as primitive people with only stone tools is highly reductive given the level of sophistication of the structures they managed to create. They may have had sophisticated chemical processes to shape and form rock structures. A simple proof is just by looking at these structures and seeing that even today in 2021, we are unable to form equivalent structures ourselves using modern cranes and rock shaping tools. It is terrible that the knowledge was destroyed by burning their books-khippus and extinguishing their stone masons, technicians and scientists.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > It has not been proven that these civilizations only had stone tools It hasn't been proven that space aliens didn't create the masonry walls, either. (Yes, I've seen TV shows arguing that case.) But archaeologists have shown that rocks can be shaped accurately in the manner of those walls by just banging them together. There is also the evidence of partially shaped rocks left behind. There is no evidence of any other method. I've been to Chichén-Itzá and have looked at the structures from an engineer's point of view, as I am a mechanical engineer. They are solidly built, massive, and well built. The scale is impressive. Very impressive. But the sophistication does not extend past the corbelled vault. They did not use an arch or a dome. https://www.maya-archaeology.org/pre-Columbian_Mayan_temples_palaces_pyramids_prehispanic_archaeological_sites_Mayan_archaeology_ruins_El_Peten_Guatemala_Mexico_Belize_Honduras/corbel_arch_corbelled_vault_temple_palace_architecture_Chichen_Itza_Uxmal_Yucatan_Mexico.php https://www.maya-archaeology.org/pre-Columbian_Mayan_temples... The Mayan script has been shown to be phonetic, so they certainly had a solid writing system. But, sadly, we know very little about what they wrote about, since the Spanish burned their books. I never called them primitive.
    - robinsoh 5y ago
      > It hasn't been proven that space aliens didn't create the masonry walls There's no need to be disrespectful and attempt to portray my position as if it is something ridiculous and requires belief in space aliens. As I said, I think what was built was very sophisticated, and I don't find the claim that it was built just by "banging rocks together" to be satisfactory especially since no one has been able to reproduce an equivalent structure using this method. > I never called them primitive. How would you interpret and contextualize your remark "your only tools were other rocks"? To me, it seems like you're trying to insinuate and put in the mind of the reader exactly that you believe that they were primitive and lacked sophisticated tools. > archaeologists have shown that rocks can be shaped accurately in the manner of those walls by just banging them together. I have not seen such a conclusive proof. I'd like to see this proven by building an equivalent structure to Sacsayhuaman, at least perhaps even a corner. That alone would be impressive.
im3w1l 5y ago
Wouldn't it be easier to carve a rock to a standard shape than to fit one particular hole? As far as alternative explanations, maybe they did it because it's more material-efficient. I could see you having to remove a lot of material to turn a random lump into bricks. And small rocks may not give you even a single one.
- account42 5y ago
  > Wouldn't it be easier to carve a rock to a standard shape than to fit one particular hole? Presumably you go find the closest matching rock you already have and then work from that.