Proof that Machu Picchu was not built by the Incas

[brillbilly]

people should look very close at these carved stones and ask
how they were cut with so called stone tools?

Peru glaced stones

There are two lines of enquiry that converge to this page: the first is the problem of how the builders of the stone structures at Sacsayhuaman and Ollantaytambo could reach the combination of massivity and precision of their constructions. The other line comes from the images in the Peru sculptures and Marcahuasi galleries. It does not need require much imagination to come to the conclusion that in order to make the images, the builders used the existing structure of the terrain as their basis. Upon this basis they worked to get the desired result. Again, there is a problem in how this result was obtained. Many of the features are not consistent with the process usually associated with working on stone: hacking it away by some way or another. The first picture below shows this most clearly: if one accepts the elephant, surely there must have been some effort to get this result, and this effort looks much more like the shape of the stone has been fluidly changed then by hacking. Pictures 2 and 3 show the fluidished phenomenon even more dramatically. Pictures 4 to 14 show more signs of the material having been worked upon by moulding it. Picture 15 shows a direct contrast with the result expected when hacking the stone.

If one accepts the moulding theory, the next step is to determine how the state of fluidity or mouldability is reached. Clues for this can be found in pictures 16 to 19. Pictures 11, 13, 15, 18 & 19 are from the site Ancient walls by Richard Nesbit.


ameru=

Note the small protrusions, extra visible because of the shadows, that are not very sensible as result of a "hacking away of the stone" process.
Ollantaytambo


The picture above shows the image of a lion build into the flanks of the mountain at Ollantaytambo. The picture below shows how this effect is reached. Again it looks like the raw stone has been melted at specific places, also giving it a bluish colour, just like the stone at Quenko in the previous pictures.

www.altarcheologie.nl/south_america/gallery_peru_glaced_stone_files/ollan1_mpl_8otru.jpg[/img]The massive blocks from the structure at Ollantaytambo have features that are more easily explained by fluid modelling than by hacking away at the stone. The inward curving surfaces of the protrusions remind one of similar results when objects are formed by pouring fluid in a mould. The surface irregularities of the blocks also have this property.

A bit more detail of the irregularities: why should anyone hack this features into the stone?

Katchiqhata

This stone is one of the so-called "weary stones", the seems to be abandoned on its way from the quarry in Katchiqhata to the construction site. The indentions on its surface almost look like someone with strangely shaped shoes has stepped upon a concrete casting when it wasn't yet completely hardened; for a comparison. The next picture from Quenko shows very similar imprints.

Here also note the way the base material exposed by the "footsteps" has a colour differing from that of the surface. The previous picture also shows this feature, though in a less dramatic way.

More data on the possibility of the use of a mouldable stone technique is found in the Toolmarks gallery.
Sacsayhuaman


This picture originates, according to its source, from Cusco (probably meant generically; according to the looks of it, Sacsayhuaman is more probable). It is representative for the method of building all over the region. For a technical reason, one can think of the fact that this kind of irregular but highly fitting structures are probably the most resistant to earthquakes of any known ancient construction method.
However, in the top version, the arrows point to places where the neighbouring stones follow each other contours to an amount of detail that technically absolute has no sense other then when would try to make the structure watertight, especially in the corners. Even an esthetic background is unlikely, because this kind of detail would hardly be visible from all but the most closest ranges. For an example of how one would expect normal stone work of this nature to look, click here.

The bottom picture point to regions where one sees what seem to be small ridges sticking out, as if the material has been pushed away; this is most clear for the region on the right. The discolouring around many other parts of the bounderies could be consistent with this outflowed material having been removed when still mouldable

The two arrows on the left point to other examples of seemingly pointless construction detail. The right arrow to a place where the bevelling of the joints seems to have been forgotten, and the stones look so much joined to each other that it is a matter of discussion whether this is one ore two blocks.

This picture, in all probability from Ollantaytambo, shows the way a cut or hacked stone surface looks like (see the chipped edge of the top left block), in direct contrast with the quite smooth, regular, surfaces of the stones at most of the major constructions at Ollantaytambo and Sacsauhuaman, and many elsewhere.
puca pucara

It almost looks like that there was a enclosing wall, and that a part of it has been melted away.
Quenko

Note how the colour of the top layers, that have been worked upon, differ from the colour of the material at the base; the latter is the regular type of brown expected of stone, the former a remarkable bluish colour. This bluish colour returns at several places where one sees the glacing phenomenon,


Addendum: The conclusions above were reached purely on basis of the data available. Later searches turned up similar conclusions by others, using similar arguments, see e.g. sources 1, 2. This shows the strength of the available data, in that it satisfies one of the essential criteria of good science: using the same data, different people come independently to the same conclusions ;D