9 ms·

It breaks my heart that till today we don't know how Inca (or possibly their predecessor civilization) constructed Sacsayhuaman and Machu Picchu. It is still un

It breaks my heart that till today we don't know how Inca (or possibly their predecessor civilization) constructed Sacsayhuaman and Machu Picchu. It is still unclear exactly how they achieved those structures. We're talking about 140 tonne rocks being put together to form those structures and assembled without mortar in such a way that one can't slip a piece of paper in between rocks. When the Conquistadors encountered the structures, they had no idea how they were being made or put together. They pulled them apart and used the pulled apart chunks with mortar to build cathedrals that mostly fell apart every time there was a tectonic movement. So much knowledge in those khipus burnt by religious fanatics. We use cement concrete which is a massive source of CO2 production. If we could have somehow preserved the knowledge of how those structures were built instead of burning their knowledge, and killing their stone masons and scientists, we could have had a very different modern world today.

ekorz 5y ago
Fret not! It’s not all forgotten. We know how to make structures with fine masonry techniques; it’s just not economical to build modern structures with these labor-intensive and high-skill methods. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_architecture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_architecture and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashlar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashlar
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > it’s just not economical to build modern structures with these labor-intensive and high-skill methods. Do you find that explanation convincing?
- openfuture 5y ago
  Fret not! we anyway need to find an economic system that makes these methods economical again (or die trying).
  - kozd 5y ago
    Seems that taxing negative externalities like carbon emissions would be good start
    - taeric 5y ago
      What makes you so sure that modern building doesn't have better numbers there?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - taeric 5y ago
    Uh... An underclass that isn't as valued as royalty can easily get you this. Otherwise, there maybe isn't value in stuff like this?
    - fit2rule 5y ago
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > Uh... An underclass that isn't as valued as royalty can easily get you this. Otherwise, there maybe isn't value in stuff like this? That's one way. Another is a (theoretical) advanced society that directs its surplus value into creating art rather than consumerism or oligarchical capital accumulation.
      - taeric 5y ago
        I mean.... I was (hopefully) obviously going for a cynical take. That said, I don't know how far I can agree with "we could have a society that acts like basically no other society we have ever seen." Do you have anything to base this "theoretical" on? Similarly, I'm fine with creating more homes for people, even if they are not artistic. When the value is on someone living there, as opposed to others looking at it, it sounds a whole lot differently.
      - 5y ago
astrieanna 5y ago
I think we do know a little of it. They used limestone and an acid -- so the touching surfaces of the rock were softened, which is how they conformed so closely and precisely to each other.
- Hani1337 5y ago
  They also used salvia when they were out of acid
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bsder 5y ago
> If we could have somehow preserved the knowledge Most of the stuff from the ancient would is quite easy to reproduce--throw hordes of people at it. The ancient world didn't have some fantastically superior knowledge. I forget the magician, but he stated something along the lines of "Magic is simply being willing to devote to accomplishing a task an amount of time and preparation that any rational person would regard as insanity." Sadly, when the ancient world couldn't support throwing hordes of people at the problems, it collapsed.
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > Most of the stuff from the ancient would is quite easy to reproduce--throw hordes of people at it. The ancient world didn't have some fantastically superior knowledge. I don't find this type of explanation convincing at all. If your claim was true, then just look at the fact that we still can't reproduce such structures today. I would allege the type of sentiment and thinking your paragraph is representing borders on arrogance. I'm reminded of the story of the illiterate Roman soldier w ho murdered Archimedes and said that man was just drawing circles in the sand. We are a violent illiterate people who murdered Incan Archimedes and their khippus and since we can't understand their science we try to put down their structures as 'throw hordes of people'.
- bluefirebrand 5y ago
  > throw hordes of people at it The other key is that the hordes of people should be expendable. Imagine what our GDP would be like if companies were still allowed to work us all to death! Oh wait.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    We have several recent examples of countries that worked their populations to death. Their GDP was in the dumpster. Those methods cannot compete with free labor. Pulling on this thread a bit more - slavery died out because it became uncompetitive. I suspect it being found to be immoral around the same time is not a coincidence.
  - bsder 5y ago
29athrowaway 5y ago
Sacsayhuaman is not the most mysterious place in terms of construction techniques. https://www.geopolymer.org/news/geopolymer-in-south-american-monuments-first-scientific-paper-published/ https://www.geopolymer.org/news/geopolymer-in-south-american...
userbinator 5y ago
We're talking about 140 tonne rocks being put together to form those structures and assembled without mortar in such a way that one can't slip a piece of paper in between rocks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapping#Two-piece_lapping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapping#Two-piece_lapping As the other comment here says, this isn't a mystery. It's just extremely labour-intensive.
- robinsoh 5y ago
  > As the other comment here says, this isn't a mystery. It's just extremely labour-intensive. And as I said there, I don't find that kind of blaise response as convincing or substantial. Labour intensive way of lifting and lapping 140 tonne rocks?

ekorz 5y ago

Fret not! It’s not all forgotten. We know how to make structures with fine masonry techniques; it’s just not economical to build modern structures with these labor-intensive and high-skill methods. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_architecture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_architecture and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashlar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashlar

robinsoh 5y ago
> it’s just not economical to build modern structures with these labor-intensive and high-skill methods. Do you find that explanation convincing?
openfuture 5y ago
Fret not! we anyway need to find an economic system that makes these methods economical again (or die trying).
- kozd 5y ago
  Seems that taxing negative externalities like carbon emissions would be good start
  - taeric 5y ago
    What makes you so sure that modern building doesn't have better numbers there?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- taeric 5y ago
  Uh... An underclass that isn't as valued as royalty can easily get you this. Otherwise, there maybe isn't value in stuff like this?
  - fit2rule 5y ago
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Uh... An underclass that isn't as valued as royalty can easily get you this. Otherwise, there maybe isn't value in stuff like this? That's one way. Another is a (theoretical) advanced society that directs its surplus value into creating art rather than consumerism or oligarchical capital accumulation.
    - taeric 5y ago
      I mean.... I was (hopefully) obviously going for a cynical take. That said, I don't know how far I can agree with "we could have a society that acts like basically no other society we have ever seen." Do you have anything to base this "theoretical" on? Similarly, I'm fine with creating more homes for people, even if they are not artistic. When the value is on someone living there, as opposed to others looking at it, it sounds a whole lot differently.
    - 5y ago

astrieanna 5y ago

I think we do know a little of it. They used limestone and an acid -- so the touching surfaces of the rock were softened, which is how they conformed so closely and precisely to each other.

Hani1337 5y ago
They also used salvia when they were out of acid

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bsder 5y ago

> If we could have somehow preserved the knowledge Most of the stuff from the ancient would is quite easy to reproduce--throw hordes of people at it. The ancient world didn't have some fantastically superior knowledge. I forget the magician, but he stated something along the lines of "Magic is simply being willing to devote to accomplishing a task an amount of time and preparation that any rational person would regard as insanity." Sadly, when the ancient world couldn't support throwing hordes of people at the problems, it collapsed.

robinsoh 5y ago
> Most of the stuff from the ancient would is quite easy to reproduce--throw hordes of people at it. The ancient world didn't have some fantastically superior knowledge. I don't find this type of explanation convincing at all. If your claim was true, then just look at the fact that we still can't reproduce such structures today. I would allege the type of sentiment and thinking your paragraph is representing borders on arrogance. I'm reminded of the story of the illiterate Roman soldier w ho murdered Archimedes and said that man was just drawing circles in the sand. We are a violent illiterate people who murdered Incan Archimedes and their khippus and since we can't understand their science we try to put down their structures as 'throw hordes of people'.
bluefirebrand 5y ago
> throw hordes of people at it The other key is that the hordes of people should be expendable. Imagine what our GDP would be like if companies were still allowed to work us all to death! Oh wait.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  We have several recent examples of countries that worked their populations to death. Their GDP was in the dumpster. Those methods cannot compete with free labor. Pulling on this thread a bit more - slavery died out because it became uncompetitive. I suspect it being found to be immoral around the same time is not a coincidence.
- bsder 5y ago

29athrowaway 5y ago

Sacsayhuaman is not the most mysterious place in terms of construction techniques. https://www.geopolymer.org/news/geopolymer-in-south-american-monuments-first-scientific-paper-published/ https://www.geopolymer.org/news/geopolymer-in-south-american...

userbinator 5y ago

We're talking about 140 tonne rocks being put together to form those structures and assembled without mortar in such a way that one can't slip a piece of paper in between rocks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapping#Two-piece_lapping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapping#Two-piece_lapping As the other comment here says, this isn't a mystery. It's just extremely labour-intensive.

robinsoh 5y ago
> As the other comment here says, this isn't a mystery. It's just extremely labour-intensive. And as I said there, I don't find that kind of blaise response as convincing or substantial. Labour intensive way of lifting and lapping 140 tonne rocks?