A reader recently inquired about our
opinion of the ruins found in both South and Central America and if they were
the same quality and accomplishment. Since the answer has taken far more space
than a simple “Comment” response, we are posting this as a full article, as it
is quite revealing regarding these ancient ruins.
Ruins of the Mayan Temple grounds at Tulum upon a cliff along the east
coast of the Yucatan Peninsula and was one of the last cities built and
inhabited by the Maya
Briefly stated, as amazing as the
ruins are in Mesoamerica, and having personally visited numerous sites down there the
difference of Andean Peru is quite striking, the ruins found in South America
are far superior and much more amazing than those in Mesoamerica. In fact,
Ephraim George Squier, the American archaeologist, newspaper editor, and U.S.
Commissioner to Peru—famous for his work with Edwin H. Davis on the book Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley,
published in 1848, which was a landmark work in American scientific research of
the study of the prehistoric Mound Builders in North America, as well as an
early development of archaeology as a scientific discipline, and which became
the Smithsonian Institution’s Contributions to Knowledge series—has said of the
ruins in South America:
“And I may say, once and for all,
carefully weighing my words, that in no part of the world I have seen stones
cut with such mathematical precision and admirable skill as in Peru, and in no
part of Peru are there any to surpass those which are scattered over the plain
of Tiahuanaco” (Squier,
Peru: Incidents of Travel and
Exploration in the Land of the Incas, 1877, Harper & Brothers, New
York, p279].
Ever
since the time of the discovery (or rediscovery) by Hiram Bingham of Machu
Picchu in 1911, and Percy Harrison Fawcett’s disappearance while searching for
the lost city of Paititi in 1925, followed by several others later on, the remarkable
megalithic ruins of ancient Peru have fascinated archaeologists and tourists like no other in the Americas.
Of greatest interest has been the remarkable workmanship and precision of the megalithic
stone cutting and dressing techniques employed by the ancient Peruvians that
amaze scholars, travelers and construction experts even today.
Compare
the difference between standard stonework found in the various pyramids and
buildings of ancient Mesoamerica and Andean Peru:
Stonework of ancient Mesoamerica.
Note the typical stone cutting method and standard rectangular or rounded
stones
As
impressive as their work was for a period around the beginning of the Christian
era, consider the remarkable, unequaled stonework of Andean Peru that
stretches nearly six hundred years before that of Mesoamerica.
Stonework of ancient Andean Peru.
Note the intricate cuts and angles of stone fitted so tightly without mortar
that not even a thin knife blade can fit between the stones
The
megalithic architecture of the Andean altiplano of Peru and Bolivia is
indeed remarkable. It has the same clear and neat lines that only ancient Egypt
was able to express, and then only briefly over the course of the IV Dynasty of
the Old Kingdom. Yet, very often, what is labelled as “Inca architecture” has nothing
whatsoever to do with the Incas, a people conquered by the Spanish conquistadores
in 1533 and whose empire stretching over much of today’s Ecuador, Peru,
Bolivia, Chile and parts of Argentina that lasted for a little over a hundred
years since the late 13th Century A.D. to the beginning of the 15th
Century A.D. Indeed, most architectural historians and archaeologists have now
come to recognize in the megalithic architecture of the Peruvian and Bolivian
highlands the legacy of much older civilizations, including the Wari and the
Tiwanaku empires, whose history already stretched back several centuries (perhaps
even millennia) by the time the Incas became lords of the land.
It
is not that the stonework found in Mesoamerica is not impressive, because it
is—a remarkable fete for a people of that era; it just does not equal what was
accomplished before that in South America.
Just consider the difference in
expertise and technical ability between the (left) Mesoamerican block cutting,
and the (right) Andean Peru twelve-angled block cutting of about the same
period of time
Over
the last couple of decades, architectural historians such as Jean Pierre
Protzen, Architectural Design and construction principles of ancient
civilizations, graduate of Diplôme d'Architecture, University of Lausanne, Switzerland,
and current University of
California, Berkeley, professor who teaches courses on design theories and
methods, logics of design, and research methods, whose current research
interests include the logics of design, design planning, and construction
principles of ancient civilizations, particularly Pre-Columbian South America,
and Stella Nair, U.C.L.A. professor of Indigenous Arts of the Americas, have
addressed the mystery of how a civilization with evidently no knowledge of the
wheel and which only possessed rudimentary copper tools and chisels could have
quarried, transported, dressed and fitted enormous blocks of hard granite,
porphyry and andesite stone with the almost supernatural precision that one can
see in the ancient sites of Peru and Bolivia.
Even
though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques
that, even with very rudimentary tools, could have been used to craft perfectly
planar surfaces, accurate right angles and millimeter wide joints, many aspects
of ancient Andean stone cutting and architecture remain unexplained.
Examples of vitrified stone in temple
structures in Cuzco (City of Nephi) at Sacsayhuaman. Note the shiny surface due
to extreme heat in the vitrification process. It should be noted that the body
stone is limestone, but the surface is more complicated—it’s spectrum shows
similarity to Wollastonite, which forms when impure limestone is subjected to
high pressures and temperatures
So
far, very little analysis has been done to determine the composition of the
vitrified layer and whether it is chemically or physically different from the
stone itself. Some samples collected from a set of vitrified caves and tunnels
at a site called Tetecaca, above the city of Cusco were purportedly analyzed by
the University of Utrecht, Holland. Microscope photographs have revealed two
clearly distinct regions, the vitrified layer and the stone underneath. The
presence of a transition layer, which is also clearly visible in photographs,
suggests however that the vitrified surface and the stone body are not separate
but are indeed one and the same, although the surface of the stone has
certainly undergone a physical transformation.
If, however, the
chemical composition of the surface layer, which currently appears to be at
least partially different from that of the body stone since it contains
elements not present in the natural rock samples, it would suggest that a kind
of glaze composed of mostly silica was applied to the stone under conditions of
extreme heat and pressure (Jan Peter de Jong, Evidence of Vitrified
Stonework in the Inca Vestiges of Peru). And if these results were
confirmed with more evidence from other sites, it remains to be explained how a
similar glaze could be applied to the stone and how the required temperatures
(well above 1900ºF) and pressures could be reached and maintained in the open
air outside of a large furnace—on the other hand, there are those, including
Brian Dunning, a member of the National Association of Science Writers, who
claims that blacksmiths had furnaces of that period that reached some 2400ºF.
Evidently, there was no lack for expertise in the arts of building smelting
fires or keeping them hot.
(See
the next post, “The Amazing Ruins of
South America – Part II,” for more information regarding the vitrification of
stones in the area of Sacsayhuaman above Cuzco in Peru)
Del.. your post stated: ".... have addressed the mystery of how a civilization with evidently no knowledge of the wheel and which only possessed rudimentary copper tools and chisels could have quarried, transported, dressed and fitted enormous blocks of hard granite, porphyry and andesite stone with the almost supernatural precision that one can see in the ancient sites of Peru and Bolivia."
ReplyDeleteMy question is this: If the Nephites were the ones that built these fantastic structures in Peru.. how did they end up in Bolivia as well?
MrNirom. I am confused. Why would it be a problem to have Nephite structures in both territories that are currently the countries called Peru and Bolivia?
DeleteWestern Bolivia is where Lake Titicaca is located (half in Peru, half in Bolivia) and Tihuanaco (Tiwanaku) and Puma Punku--that is the part of Bolivia that is associated with the Nephites (nothing else, but it is a big part of the Bolivian ruins area)
ReplyDelete