8 July 2009
Stone Masonry and Engineering at Machu Picchu: No Aliens Needed
Posted by MSH under: Ancient Astronauts; Ancient Sites; megaliths .
Stone Masonry and Machu Picchu
I recently received and email challenging me to produce a coherent explanation of the architecture and stonework of Machu Picchu and other megalithic sites. The questioner wanted to know how anyone else other than aliens could have produced these sites. My initial response was simply to tell him the basics-that these civilizations had left us truly discernible clues as to how the work was done. That was kind of lazy of me (hey, I was on the road). Now that I’m back, I’ve decided the topic would make a good re-entry into PaleoBabble for me and readers.
Sorry, it isn’t aliens. I’m also sorry that I don’t have anything sexier than studies by geologists, anthropologists, and engineers to offer. Data is boring, I know. Oh, well. At any rate, it’s worth noting that many people like my emailer have basically not read anything in the scientific literature about these sites. Instead, they come armed with books by Zecharia Sitchin, or Erich von Daniken, or the latest HBO special propping up the ancient alien hypothesis. There viewers and readers are told how impossible it is to get stones lined up adjacently to each other so closely that a playing card can’t go between them. Or that the stones came from quarries hundreds of miles away. Both of these ideas are inaccurate and, frankly, disparaging to the Inca.
Here are a few articles on the Inca that deal with Machu Picchu and other sites. I trust they will be interesting and informative.
Jean Pierre Protzen, “Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 146-167.
Jean Pierre Protzen, “Inca Quarrying and Stone Cutting,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May, 1985), pp. 161-182
Susan A. Niles, “Niched Walls in Inca Design,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1987), pp. 277-285
One note of warning on these articles. They are not light reading. This is real scholarship, not the fluff produced by Sitchin, von Daniken, etc.
31 Comments so far...
Stone Masonry and Engineering at Machu Picchu: No Aliens Needed | Free Student Scholarship Says:
8 July 2009 at 4:37 PM.
[...] Stone Masonry and Engineering at Machu Picchu: No Aliens Needed Share and Enjoy: [...]
ishcairn Says:
9 July 2009 at 9:46 AM.
Thanks, Mike. Do you know of any other civilizations using roughly the same joining methods in stone architecture around the same time? As far as I know, the methods used by the builders of Tiahuanaco and the later (slightly different) methods of the Incans are unique — but “as far as I know” isn’t exactly measured in nautical miles in my case.
ishcairn Says:
9 July 2009 at 9:57 AM.
NM the previous question…I’d somehow missed the first paragraph of “Inca Quarrying and Stone Cutting”.
Anyway, maybe you should send that article to the History Channel with a box of chocolates and flowers. I’m sure they’d appreciate the following paragraph after the assertion of one of their consulted ‘experts’ that, “Only diamond is hard enough to cut the type of stones [andesite] found at Tiahuanaco.”
“All types of hammerstones have a hardness of at least 5.5 on Mohs’ scale. This is comparable to the hardness of the andesite on which the hammers were used, but the hammers are tougher than andesite, which, due to differential cooling during its formation, is easily shattered on impact.”
MSH Says:
9 July 2009 at 9:14 PM.
@ishcairn: I don’t know specifically; not my expertise
MSH Says:
9 July 2009 at 9:14 PM.
@ishcairn: what a wonderful suggestion … wouldn’t that be a hoot!
paulus Says:
28 September 2009 at 2:29 AM.
The scientist Joseph DAVIDOVITS has a very interesting technical explanation on the use of geopolymers. He has specifically written about geopolymers as the technology used to construct stone objects in in the pre-incan Huanka civilization. See http://www.geopolymer.org/library/archaeological-papers/c-making-cements-with-plant-extracts
His theory about geopolymers used in the construction of the pyramids is at least as spectucular, though very believable from a technological point of view.
MSH Says:
28 September 2009 at 9:39 AM.
@paulus: Yes, it is interesting. I use one of his YouTube videos in an ancient Egypt class I teach.
Ringozingo Says:
14 February 2010 at 12:06 PM.
Have you ever been to South America to see or study firsthand any of these sites before you make your conclusions, it doesn’t appear so. I’ve been there myself, to Macchu Pichu, Tihuanaco and others. I direct your attention to Sacsayhuaman Archaeological park and defy you or ANY scholar to go there and see for yourself then try to explain the construction of this cyclopean site as having been built by a prehistoric human civilization before the invention of the wheel, The blocks exceed several hundred tons each, mirroring in scope the first levels of the likewise enigmatic Baalbek in Lebanon. Modern engineering would be hard pressed to duplicate anything in this category even with the useage of today’s big derreks and cranes. Multiple conjoining limestone blocks there have been fused together with a technology that closely resembles the effects of what modern scientists know as the electron beam…in ancient times!
Ringozingo Says:
14 February 2010 at 12:21 PM.
I meant to denote a question mark after the word “conclusions” and the correct spelling is Machu Picchu, however I consider the site to be the access-way of Tampu Tocco rather than Hiram Bingham’s crown jewel citaldel anyway.
Ringozingo Says:
14 February 2010 at 12:32 PM.
That was a typographical error, I mean to write “citadel” also your link from the ancient astronauts page contains a grammatical error itself, it says “Did aliens built Machu Picchu?”
I think you were going for ‘Did aliens BUILD Machu Picchu?” weren’t you? But you are the language scholar, Mr.Heiser.
MSH Says:
15 February 2010 at 7:03 PM.
@Ringozingo: no, but the people who do the archaeological work have. Why should I visit the site as a tourist when I can read the scholarship of the arcaheologists and engineers who publish their work? Doesn’t seem too logical. And you’re really behind on the engineering part. There’s nothing to lifting these blocks that moderns haven’t duplicated – go to http://www.theforgottentechnology.com and get the education. It’s $5 for this guy’s DVD — money well spent. He lifts and moves a 20,000 block by himself and makes it comically simple. The DVD has other engineering “tricks” on it as well.
MSH Says:
15 February 2010 at 7:04 PM.
@Ringozingo: Yes, once you get a PhD that immunizes you from typos. I can also fly now. Get real. But thanks for spotting it!
MSH Says:
15 February 2010 at 7:11 PM.
@Ringozingo: which page; can’t find it.
MSH Says:
15 February 2010 at 7:12 PM.
@Ringozingo: ah – found it now.
Moonladi Says:
22 April 2010 at 10:41 AM.
I just got done reading the article by Jean-Pierre Protzen and Stella Nair and I am convinced that someone of a superior race created the buidlings at Tiahuanaco. First who are the the Tiahuanacos? Their masonary techniques are different from the Incas per conclusion drawn by the authors. As the authors said ( for example) the techniques used to “drill” the holes, the planar finishing is unknown. The tools the Tiahuanaco used us “unknown and have yet to be discovered”.
The Tiahuanaco used a “hoisting grip” in some of their stones? How do they drill holes like that?
In conclusion, we don’t who the builders of the pumapunka are or what technologies they used.
Dave Says:
4 May 2010 at 4:38 PM.
What exactly is a superior race? Sounds scary to me. As a layman with just a passing fancy in megalith technology, I too find Dr. Davidovits work in geopolymers extremely facinating and exciting. Using plant extracts and locally available materials to create stone edifices makes a lot of sense and as Dr. Heiser pointed out, moving a huge block, oblisk etc CAN be done with a fraction of the effort we would conventionally think to use. (That guys site is great). The credence given to ancient astronauts et al, instead of the resourcefulness and ingenuity of pre-documented, historical man, seems like the lazy way to come up with answers instead of true research and discovery. Seems that ancient cultures can teach us a thing or two about problem solving.
anonymous Says:
22 May 2010 at 7:48 PM.
The only mystery about the Chinese wall is “What were they thinking?”. Not so with Peruvian walls! It is intimidating to the ego to be confronted with a seemingly unsolvable mystery. So it reacts with some explanation justified by someone else’s scholarly documentation based on exhaustive research that has covered all possible resources that can be imagined by parochial mentality imagining itself to be capable of fathoming anything that confronts it. What unbelievable arrogance!!!! These are the people that KNOW whether or not we are alone in the universe or whether or not “aliens” could be “superior” to us. The construction methods of the Peruvian walls, the pyramids, etc. are not understood by science and any amount of explaining is utterly ludicrous. Anyone who accepts their word is in their scientifically approved lala land. This Peruvian mystery is a rare sensory experience to enrich our awareness. To be in the presence of these monuments is to be confronted (by those beyond egoic disempowerment) with a realization that here is something beyond our comprehension and impossible to rationalize with “Oh, yeah. One of those old walls chiseled out by natives.”
The masses are comming of age to appreciate this statement by Morpheus: “We are trained in this world to accept only what is rational and logical. Have you ever wondered why?”
Dave Says:
25 May 2010 at 4:14 PM.
“The construction methods of the Peruvian walls, the pyramids, etc. are not understood by science and any amount of explaining is utterly ludicrous”
But what if they were? Are geopolymers out of the question because of the “feelings” derived from these monuments or because a scientific comparison and working models have excluded this hypothesis? I’d rather see that questions are asked and research done, even if it leads to some spiritual end than to blindly say “we’ll never know” and your research is ludicrous. Not ready to drink that kool-aide yet.
MSH Says:
25 May 2010 at 7:03 PM.
I think it’s just a perpetuation of Fantasy Channel level “documentation” to say science is completely at a loss to explain how these structures were built. I don’t think every facet can be explained entirely, but the basics are understood. It’s amazing how much good published material there is on ancient engineering that people like Hancock and other researchers seem completely unaware of.
Antonio Says:
26 May 2010 at 12:59 PM.
@ Mike Heiser
Please note we are not only dealing with the weight of these huge stones, but also with the uncredible fine surface treatment of these stones. How is this explicable?
According to the book of Enoch some “fallen angels” resp. sons of God or “watchers” left their heavenly abode and fell from heaven to earth and instructed mankind in many things. Why do you not believe that the watchers (or men with help of these watchers) could have built these huge buildings? This fine finish of the surface of these huge stones of -for instance- puma punku is not explicable. They look like cut by a laser beam. When asked by the Spaniards if the Incas had been the builders of puma punku, the Indians answered: “Oh no, these buildings are much older than all buildings of the Incas. This place had already been left when we arrived but it was built IN ONE NIGHT.”
Antonio Says:
26 May 2010 at 1:15 PM.
….I forgot to mention that this information had been passed through alle generations of the native Indians from one generation to the next generation. Therefore the generation of the Indians who experienced the conquest of the Inca empire were able to give disclosure to the Spaniards.
MSH Says:
26 May 2010 at 8:07 PM.
this is probably the easiest part. Answer: The same one would smooth stone by hand today — chiseling and polishing. There are columns in Egypt at Karnak, for example, of stone in every stage of cutting and polishing. You don’t need angels for what stonemasons have been doing for centuries, even millennia.
Craig Says:
16 June 2010 at 12:19 AM.
Sorry I’m a little late to the party here. Anyway, the insistence that aliens must have assisted humans in building ancient structures is rather akin to saying that aliens must have assisted humans in landing on the moon. Ancient technologies, “primitive” though they may be compared with modern technologies, were apparently capable of engineering “miracles.” No doubt that five thousand years hence the “primitive” 20th-century technology that took us to the moon will be regarded as the stuff of neanderthals (cf. catapulting into space in a tin can???). Or if you don’t care for that analogy, then how about this… Not long ago I read a news story recounting the discovery of an octopus using coconuts as tools. Purportedly this is the first time an invertebrate has been observed demonstrating the advanced act of tool use (something long believed only higher animals [primates] were capable of). Applying the same “alien helpmate” logic to the octupus scenario, one is forced to concede that a “superior race” must be communicating with octopi in order to pass along advanced knowledge. I mean, everyone knows that those invertebrates couldn’t think this stuff up on their own. Like Ringozingo (above), we can say, “Have you ever seen an octopus firsthand and seen how dumb it is?” Ergo, aliens. Or Moonladi (above): “We don’t know how the octopus learned how to do this.” Ergo, aliens. Or Antonio (above): “The Incas told us the octopus learned it in one night.” Ergo, aliens. Believing that aliens helped early humans build these structures is fine in and of itself, but proving such a theory still requires: a) evidence (not supposition); b) logic (not logical fallacies); c) technical knowledge/training (not soundbytes); and d) objectivity (not bias). So far I’m not seeing any of these crop up in the arguments against MSH.
cleverancients Says:
19 June 2010 at 7:36 PM.
Excellent material in your posts MSH. The quantity of pseudo/fringe speculation floating around the internet regarding these subjects is truly staggering. Thanks for writing this up (and for making it accessible among all the misinformation out there.)
Wood Says:
27 July 2010 at 9:41 AM.
As incredible and awe-inspiring as ancient architecture can be, there are many logical explanations as to their planning and creation. It is somewhat a disservice to these peoples of long ago to state or imply that these structures could not be achieved by means other than “alien” intervention. One must remember that the brains of these peoples were just as advanced as the ones in your heads now. The “hardware” of the human brain has been existant for tens of thousands of years. We continually upgrade the “software” of the brain through breakthroughs in newfound logic, technology, etc. Unfortunately for us, time has erased our knowledge of some of the ins and outs of their methodology. That is not to say these people could not have erected these monuments with anything but the use of their own homo sapien noggin.
MSH Says:
28 July 2010 at 10:05 AM.
well said
Anonymous Says:
17 August 2010 at 10:20 PM.
Aliens may have built puma punku! They are prefectly cut. The meterial used are diorite!
Watch this video! I doubt you can explain it!
Paranormal Says:
17 August 2010 at 10:25 PM.
Watch this video about puma punku. I doubrt you can explain it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKuE9bVqe8M
MSH Says:
18 August 2010 at 2:19 PM.
It’s easy to “perfectly cut” stone so the edges match. They weren’t doing this sort of thing with their eyes closed or without a means of measuring and symmetry.
Paranormal Says:
18 August 2010 at 10:50 PM.
But that. Puma punku blocks are complacated puzzle, no humans could do that at that time. They must have been build extra terrestrials or something. Its at least 70,000 years old, humans are still in the stone age at that time!
MSH Says:
22 August 2010 at 4:06 PM.
what is so beyond human capability here? Be specific for our readers so the response will make sense.
