carolb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
>
> >
> > By the way, just to be clear, my description
> was
> > not about the monoliths at Sacsayhuaman but was
> > about the smaller boulders in Cuzco and Machu
> > Picchu. On one block I counted 32 different
> faces
> > that supported adjacent stones. I do not recall
> > seeing the inside surfaces of joints between
> the
> > 200 ton monoliths at Sacsayhuaman. I'll try to
> dig
> > those up to rekindle my memory.
>
>
> This might help - I took this photo at
> Sacsayhuaman. Sorry about the poor quality, but
> this was 15 years ago, in the days of film, before
> I owned a digital camera!
>
> The joints seem to have separated a bit, but it's
> hard to see inside to see just how they're fitted
> together behind the facade.
>
>
>
> In this one, there seems to be a gap at the top
> left - though whether there's anything behind or
> not, I can't recall:
>
>
>
> Anyway, see if these help with your discussion
> point.
>
> Carol

Great photos, Carol. I could look at the Andean stonework all day long. Precise, non-linear, complex joints, bosses, narrow "spacer" stones, bulbous rock faces, broad scoop contours on surfaces, blocks weighing up to hundreds of tons, all done without iron or the wheel, performed on igneous andesite many centuries ago.. It's one of the most fascinating enigmas of civilization and engineering that I've ever seen.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Apr-16 00:21 by Origyptian.