SACSAYHUAMAN: The TRUTH About Cyclopean Walls Revealed

Among the most emblematic and enigmatic sites on our planet, we find Sacsayhuaman. Huge blocks giving the impression of being the result of an incredible play-doh game. But the reality is much more complex. In this video I offer you an in-depth study based on the analysis results conducted on the site by Peruvian and Russian teams. We will review all the elements highlighted by these studies and we will see what chemistry and geology tell us about the stones of Sacsayhuaman. Are these stones the result of a transformation carried out by man to facilitate his work, or are they 100% natural? You're in for a surprise with what's coming up in this video. Appearances and geological analyses can both be deceiving. Yet it is these geological analyses that will allow us to conclude at the end of the video without a shadow of a doubt about the nature of what some call the living stones of Sacsayhuaman. Get comfortable, it all starts now. Sacsayhuaman, situated near Cusco, Peru at an elevation of 3,543 yards is among the world's most remarkable archaeological sites. What is thought to have been an Inca fortress is an alignment of three levels of megalithic walls whose blocks are as impressive as they are perfectly assembled. This is true despite the stones seemingly disordered shapes. The disorder of stones is not only reflected in the incredible three-dimensional puzzle they form, but also in their appearance. The stones of Sacsayhuaman with their smooth, rounded, indented, or protruding features have fascinated people for centuries. And this since the time of the Spanish chroniclers who had in their time begun the writing of Inca history by astonishingly specifying that Sacsayhuaman was already erected at the birth of the Inca Empire. While theories abound to explain or re-explain how these walls could have been assembled, the official consensus states that blocks were carefully cut to match the shapes of the neighboring block in order to assemble them by hand. Indeed, the limestone of Sacsayhuaman presents no particular difficulties in terms of cutting or extraction. But it must be noted that the appearance of the rocks resembles nothing well known. Hence this magical question mark that appears when one is faced with these walls. For those who wish to be here with me gazing at these incredible blocks with wide open eyes, you will find in the description the link to the next trip to Peru. But ultimately, to try to find answers that agree with the official theory or that redirect us to other processes, we must rely on geology. Fortunately for us, a study exists based on rock samples taken from the walls of Sacsayhuaman. But what do the results of this study tell us? Well, the least we can say is that it's very surprising. The GPR team, a team of Peruvian, Ukrainian, and Russian scientists took samples from the Sacsayhuaman site as well as from the quarry where they believe the blocks were extracted. These samples were taken from visibly healthy rocks, but also from blocks showing some erosion. These samples were taken almost 10 years ago while the entire Sacsayhuaman site was undergoing a deep facelift due to its erosion and the natural deterioration of some parts of the walls. Despite their magnificence, these megalithic walls are still vulnerable to the ravages of time, which can jeopardize the stability of this remarkable fortress in certain areas. At the time, the initial mission of the Peruvian Minister of Culture was to determine the precise causes of the degradation of the walls. It turned out that it was actually the circulation of underground water that was jeopardizing the stability of the walls. While some had once considered an acid alloy that could alter the surface of the rock to give it this smooth and rounded texture, this idea is now to be ruled out. Indeed, the limestone of Sacsayhuaman immediately dissolved during the geological test conducted, so the acid mixture is out of the question. The samples taken from the quarry are all perfectly normal. The limestone examined under a microscope reveals all the microorganisms that make up the limestone, which is a sedimentary rock. However, and this is the huge surprise of the study, the samples taken from the zigzag wall blocks of the fortress all have the same chemical characteristics as the limestone from the quarry, but are devoid of microorganisms or fossils, which are usually indicative of the sedimentation of the rock. So we have blocks made of a limestone too fragile to have been mixed with chemical compounds. But which show, despite everything, that they are not natural blocks, simply extracted from the quarry not far from there. Something may have happened to them between extraction and placement. The initial conclusion of the study reports a crushed and reconstituted stone, what some call geopolymers. The radars that scanned the inside of the largest blocks revealed that they are not at all homogeneous as they should be. As for the others, what one might call the small blocks, they do indeed present a homogeneous and microcrystalline interior, identical to those of the quarry. The study, conducted jointly with the Peruvian authorities, concludes that this practice was implemented to strengthen the stability of the walls. Personally, I would not venture to question the compositions detected by rock surveys or to deny the fact that some blocks may be reconstituted. I simply wonder how less dense blocks would ensure better stability. Is the idea to have reconstituted blocks so that they are not as subject to the natural erosion of limestone, and that consequently they remain intact in place longer? Perhaps, but you will see later in the video that the reality is still quite different. If a single source is not enough, then let's see if a second study exists somewhere, whose conclusions would be the same as those of the team GPR study. This study, conducted a year after the first by the Russian Isida project team, confirms the phenomenon's existence. This study, which I discussed in a video in 2018 or 2019, corroborates evidence that some blocks of Sacsayhuaman may have been reconstructed or molded. I will delve deeper into it today. However, be careful. This argumentative step is only an intermediate step in all the thinking that will lead us to the end of the video. From a chemical point of view, Nikolai Burdnikov, a doctor in geology who conducted the analyses, explains that their tests show that the chemical compositions of the quarry blocks and those of the fortress are similar. However, he acknowledges that the blocks are not at all the same in appearance, texture, and density. He comes to the same conclusion as the GPR team. The soft rock limestone, we recall, was probably crushed before being reconstituted. Remarkably, Burdnikov delves deeper into the reflection, offering his perspective on how they might have accomplished this. First, the limestone would have been crushed until a powder was obtained, which would then be heated. Indeed, when limestone powder is heated to 900 degrees, the limestone releases carbon dioxide to retain only calcium oxide, also called quicklime. Then, when calcium oxide is combined with water, the quicklime turns into calcium hydroxide, ready for potential molding. But Burdnikov poses a question that pushes the thought a little further. How has this limestone mortar been able to resist erosion and weathering for so long? He supposes the use of an additive that would have made the mixture much more resistant. Let those among you who may be filled with doubt at this very moment be reassured. The scientific community does not universally agree on the proposed conclusions. In a video where Burdnikov presents his conclusions to a group of colleagues, one of them stands up during the conference, points out certain block edges, and refutes the idea of reconstituted stone by maintaining that what we have here is a stone that is indeed natural and handworked. However, he does not explain how and why the samples are so different in terms of visual composition. I specifically mean visual, as the chemical composition remains the same, as we have already mentioned. Other scientists present during this session, however, agree with the ISI-DA project and ask the same question, why does the reconstituted rock look so different from the natural rock? Should we conduct further chemical analyses? If so, which ones? Rather honest, Burdnikov does not see himself endorsing any definitive conclusion, and invites all the geologists on the planet to conduct their own study in order to cross-reference the results obtained. But perhaps, after all, we already have the answer. We'll now switch to a slightly technical aspect of the matter, which I'll aim to make understandable for everyone, including myself, without distorting it. Alexei Kruzer, co-author of the ISI-DA study, offers a speculative interpretation of the reconstructed rock on his side. Given its chemical composition, the limestone of Sacsayhuaman is what is called marl. Marl is a sedimentary rock composed of calcite and clay in roughly equal proportions, ranging from 35 to 65%. Beyond 65% limestone, it is said to be a clayey limestone, while below 35% limestone, it is rather referred to as a limestone clay. As shown by the chemical analyses of the rock, the blocks from the Sacsayhuaman quarry are composed of more than 13% silica, one of the components of clay. But on the analyzed sections, the silica does not visibly appear. The property that interests Alexei Kruzer the most is that calcium oxide is capable of solidifying both in the open air and submerged in a liquid, such as water. If its density is lower than natural limestone, its hardness and resistance are superior. Characteristics that were already known to the Romans, among whom we find some of the first official traces of concrete use. This could therefore easily explain not only the astonishing fit and 3D complexity of some blocks of Sacsayhuaman, but also their smooth, even reflective appearance. Because no, there was no solar storm on the site, as some claim, nor any vitrification of the rocks. On the other hand, the silica content of the limestone mixture could much more rationally give this glassy aspect to the surface of some blocks. That's the theory. Even if supported by the mentioned studies, the extent of the work required to manufacture the reconstituted stones would plunge us into an almost industrial-scale process. We should have traces of ashes, ovens, and all the logistics pragmatism obliges camp somewhere between the quarry and the location of the walls. However, this is not the case. So, we have to ask ourselves a new question. Could there be another process that would allow the rock to heat up and recrystallize? Well, yes, the lava, in case of lava output that would come into contact with the limestone. And at Sacsayhuaman, there is what is called the Rotadero Formation, today used as a slide for the amusement of both the young and the not so young. The Rotadero Formation is a huge, vitrified-looking rock formation created by a flow of lava several million years ago. Right next to Rotadero, a sample was taken and analyzed. While it remains uncertain whether the sample was taken from a carved block or from sea rock, the result is unequivocal. It has the same appearance as the blocks that we think are being reassembled. Is it possible that they were ultimately hand carved, but extracted from a part of the quarry one day touched by a lava flow that melted the limestone? Is it possible that the blocks showing the sediments that formed the limestone are simply blocks extracted from a part of the quarry that was not touched by a lava flow? There too, it's quite possible. Indeed, Berdnikov, although he spoke of these layers sometimes sedimentary, sometimes recrystallized, showed some anomalies in what is thought to be molded limestone. On some samples, there are micro-veins of calcite that would be undeniable witnesses, that even if the rock does not present its normal sedimentation, it nevertheless has calcite veins that would not have formed in case of reconstituted alloy. This complicates matters and swings us back into the perspective of natural rock blocks which, geologically, could not be the result of human intervention. Do you remember the Russian geologist I was talking about a little earlier, who refused to abandon the idea that the rock is natural despite the appearance of the samples? Well, know that there is indeed a type of limestone that can have this appearance. It is makrete. Makrete is a carbonated mud or very finely crystallized calcite, constituting all or part of certain carbonate rocks. Analyzed, its grain is hardly sedimented and would make one believe in an artificial rock or very quickly cooled by a process other than its sedimentation over millions of years. Just a moment ago, we were talking about a sample. Was sample number 9 taken from a block that could just as well have been carved as part of the mother rock of Sacsayhuaman? Well, it doesn't matter, because sample number 8 analyzed by the Russian team comes from a mound of mother rock left by the builders in the middle of the constructions. What result did it give? The result provides the definitive conclusion to the argumentative path we've explored together in this video. On the analysis of this sample number 9, we can clearly see the same rock structure as the blocks we thought were molded but while presenting a vein of crystallization. Crystallization being a necessarily natural process, we are therefore indeed facing natural makrete blocks and not facing reconstituted blocks. So whether the rock naturally sedimented or was heated by a lava effusion, the geological analyses of Sacsayhuaman confirmed that the largest blocks are indeed natural because their analysis indeed corresponds to the analysis made of a sample from the mother rock. This is also a good indicator of the origin of the blocks which therefore do not necessarily come from what we called the quarry at the beginning of the video, but rather from the hill itself at the base of which are the zigzag walls. Logistically, it's rather consistent that the builders would have sought to make as few movements as possible between the extraction and the placement of the blocks. This does not mean that all the mysteries surrounding Sacsayhuaman are dispelled, but in any case, with geology to support, we are now certain to know that the largest blocks of the site overlooking the Cusco Valley are indeed natural and have not undergone any transformation before their placement. If you enjoyed this video, don't hesitate to subscribe. It will be the perfect opportunity to see you for the next video. And until then, as always, take care and don't forget to keep the passion!