The Saksaywaman construction material is
> evidently represented by the organogenic and
> fine-grained limestone with no organic residues
> and with a low amount of their fragments.
> ITAG experts suggest that the fine-grained
> limestone may be an artificial material produced
> with unknown technologies. This statement is
> presented in the official summary.
> On the other hand, the experts of Fersman
> Mineralogical Museum in Moscow, of the Geology
> Department of St-Petersburg State University and
> of the Department of Geology of Oil and Gas of the
> South Federal University have expressed their
> opinion during the private consultations that the
> mentioned fine-grained limestone is deemed to be a
> natural formation.
> Institute of Tectonics and Geophysics after
> Yu.A.Kosygin FEB RAS
> Performed by: Deputy Director, PhD Berdnikov N.V.
> Rostov University
> Performed by: department research expert Gorlova
> Have you watched Berdnikov and his associates discuss this issue?
I am surprised you ask. Unfortunately a couple of times.
I guess you mean something like 'did I understand it?'
Well, I am glad I remembered a little about Debye Temperature but didn't understand the relevance significance of Rigid Body Physics (which I had to look up) until I got part of their full report stating "cryptocrystalline structure" .
(The version youtube allows to shown to us down under didn't have the/any bit where they discussed anything like Tofa or Travertine?) What did I miss?
> So, Berdnikov cannot explain how the Sacsayhuaman
> stones can possibly be in their present
> composition without the interference of some lost
> technology. Yet, three experts in the field state
> that these stones are natural.
> YOU don't need to be an expert in these matters.
> Even renowned experts disagree with the process of
The experts were not prepared to supply written contribution to the official report, rather only private verbal comment.
It does not surprise me that Academic Geologists refuse to believe it could be anything but natural and would resist jeopardising their position and reputation by commenting anything like 'we don't know what it is or how it formed"
> Tufa isn't a widespread construction material.
> Because of its lightness, low density when wet and
> its ability to harden to stone upon drying makes
> it the low-hanging fruit of options. Much easier
> than quarrying, transporting, cutting and lifting
> sedimentary limestone. Even in England, at
> Canterbury Cathedral some may have been imported
> from France due to its scarcity.
This has been welcome valuable information and education (for me). It may explain many ancient structures. However the analysis of the samples does not point to or confirm any such in the case of Sacsayhuaman
> This tufa is different from most varieties found
> today as it borders on travertine and its
> dependent on the chemical quality of the water.
> But, that's not all.
I do not exclude the possibility that the stone is natural by some rare natural process.
However surely Academic Geologists and Geophysicists would immediately recognise and identify Travertine or Tufa?
From limestone, which became plastic, due
> to the application to it of an unknown technology
> by the ancient builders, which deliberately
> violated the crystal structure of the natural
> mineral with the goal of providing the building
> material with maximal density?
> Using that premise, they'll never figure it out.
They obviously need your help and suggestion. I reckon it would be worth shooting off an email and giving them some clues.
Тел./Факс: (4212) 22-77-32
At least you could get some more reliable knowledgeable feedback on the likelihood of it being Tufa?
> Think logically. If there was some unknown
> technology used, why did the ancients go to all
> the trouble of creating the irregular shapes? Why
> not just form up regular moulds and pour in the
> mix? What's the purpose of the walls?
The advantages of polygonal odd shaped walls has been discussed in vids posted in this thread.
Moulds is a burden and I do not believe necessary. "Pour the mix" implies a more viscous substance than what they are suggesting. (one doesn't "pour" plasticine)
> Look at the regular andesite blocks. Were they
> harder, or easier, to make? Pre or post the
> limestone wall blocks?
I do not understand the basis or support for this conjecture?
Mr I Alekseev of ITAG was contracted to investigate the collapsing walls by Ministry of Culture Peru.
It is only speculation, but possibly the Andesite blocks were put in there in previous restoration attempts?
> No one was "deliberately violating the crystal
> structure of the natural mineral with the goal of
> providing the building material with maximal
You seem to refuse to accept the scientific detailed analysis of the stone samples?
> Is that really possible for people of that time?
> Or even our time? Why bother? Why not just hack
> the sedimentary limestone out of the quarry, cut
> it into blocks and stack them up make a wall.
> Isn't that standard modus operandi at Giza?
It is a great idea if you can actually transport such. Even if your lightweight Tufa was involved ? Some of those big blocks would be difficult to move, even if like pumice and lighter than water. Which they are NOT, because the Electron microscopy of 10 separate samples shows densely packed fine crystal structure? (ie a very heavy stone)
> The ancients were simply using local, but not
> common, stone.
It is a wonderful, very creative and imaginative suggestion. You are to be congratulated!!!
However, unfortunately it's not backed up by any analysis or fact.
> "From limestone, which became plastic..."
> That's the false premise.
I agree, that speculation may be incorrect in regards Sacsayhuaman.
Yes we can all see the channels for water
> at Tombomachay, but it would take millennia, or a
> long time, to form and unlikely in that structural
> shape? ( Unless you think the original structures
> are extremely old)
> I'm not sure whether, or not, I have explained
> this clearly, but the walls at the Water Temple at
> Tombomchay are not something that were discovered
> as is. They were built using local stones which
> had formed into the irregular but close-fitting
> formations. Most of these stones were removed from
> their original position, trimmed and repositioned
> into walls.
> However, the central mass which runs down the hill
> was left in situ as a host for further creation of
> more living stones. Or, because it was deemed to
> be a sacred entity. Maybe the whole site is the
> reason for the Temple.
I at least understand what you are suggesting about this site.
I do not know as there is no scientific investigation facts.
BUT, Again very creative!
> Now, the wonderful research paper with images
> which you so kindly linked to, made the following
The surface is covered with certain
> impurities, dust and current organics (Fig. 3);
> particles of copper were also found (Fig. 1,
> Why copper?
Most ancient bronze age and iron age people had copper .
I do not understand completely what they are meaning by this focus or point?
> And, as far as the time it takes for formation
> doesn't really matter, it was used when it had
> formed sufficiently enough to be used for
Fair enough. There must have been lots of it around in the old days. But somehow, its crystalline structure has completely changed now?
> Do I think that Sacsayhuaman is extremely old?
> Maybe - if those andesite blocks precede the
> limestone ones. But, below is an image of
> limestone construction from Malta. Does the one on
> the left look as though it was once soft to you?
> How old do you think that they might be? Older
> than Sacsayhuaman?
It might be (or have been)very soft? However, erosion on limestone exposed or near the salty sea breezes in such places as Malta are quite different (and far more destructive) compared to places like Cuzco (several hundred mile away and at great elevation.)
> As I said, at the beginning, there is a lot more
> to this site than has been adequately explained.
> But, my concept of what happened not just here,
> but everywhere this type of stonework exists,
> won't gel with mainstreamers or alternatives.
I pleaded ,goaded, taunted, to dig out your thinking and I am glad I did, most interesting.
However, given lack or any scientific evidence or support , I am afraid at this point - 'No cigar'.
Barbelo, over the years you have earned my respect for being an intelligent knowledgeable individual who has made some great contributions here.
I respect your right to hold private speculations on which you see no reason to investigate further. If that is your wish then you still have my respect and no ridicule at all is meant in this reply!
However, I recommend you contact a Geology department, or professional , to discuss your theories for your own gratification.
Apparently (Kon Khanyants - translation and voice over- in the video ) advised Penn State Uni had agreed to do an independent re-analysis of all the stone samples, so they might be worth contact?
PS Call it paranoia, whatever, but if this is just a wind up, or 'takin' the piss' out of me, for starting a thread about scientific work by Davidovits then, as I know you can be a cheeky clever bugger! - IF so well done , if that IS the case!