A discussion with my good friends Kyle and Russ Allen of the Brothers of the Serpent Podcast. One that I wanted to have for some time – we get into the ‘big picture’ around what all the individual threads and vectors of evidence mean. How do we tie all of this together?
We also get into the Sahara, updates on the vase scan project, and talk about our recent visit into the largest tomb in the valley of the Kings – and one that is not open to the public – KV5, the tomb of the sons of Ramses II, with hundreds of subterranean chambers and passages.
Exclusive supporters only segment also available for those on the subscription platforms – and it will be out on my supporters email list in the near future!
Many thanks to Kyle and Russ. Check out their latest awesome produced video: How did they build this?: https://youtu.be/zQ6ONjEQLYI?si=plt6WVWVMlAUqBF1
Join us in Egypt this December: https://unchartedx.com/primordial2026
Support UnchartedX: https://unchartedx.com/support
This has nothing to do with this post. It’s something I wanted to communicate to the channel.
I know it sounds naive and probably stupid, but I’ve been thinking about those granite cores with spiral grooves. They remind me of the old fashioned wax cylinders created at the beginning of sound recording, before they went to discs.
Has anyone ever tried to “play “ a granite core? Maybe rubbing it through AI could clean it up and get some kind of sounds off one. If only the possible sound of the cutting process might offer up possibilities of what was used , either hand tools or machine.
Just a thought.
Thank you for your time and reading this.
several people have suggested it, I don’t know if anyone has.
When seeing the Serapeum of Saqqara video about granite it brought back
memories .
Many years ago I co-owned a company that sold and repaired granite rolls for the papermill business. Our main product was the proprietary grinding wheels that was used to ground and polish these rolls. These rolls were up to 36 inches in diameter, tens of feet long and made of solid granite. This granite came from only 2 places in the world, one being Barre, VT. Granite was used to make paper from ground up wood pulp and water. Because the pulp when rolled and squeezed is released from the granite naturally. Like baker’s granite rolling pins, no added flour is needed. From seeing the video I see many similarities to the paper mill business. Including why the scoops are polished even though they are not useful in producing paper nor are they similar in shape. Since machines were not available to turn papermill rolls of this size, the alternative could be a flat polished surface with a secondary slab (or roll) on top. The drippings noted in video could be from the pulp slurry being squeezed in this “papermill”.
I can think of many other similarities and reasons for the way the boxes were made if they were paper (or paper like) mills. You can contact me if interested in my idea.
Polygonal Megalithic Wall Construction Using Clay/Wood Molds: A Practical Reconstruction of a Lost Ancient Engineering Method (By William E. Sampson & Microsoft Co-Pilot)
Abstract
The polygonal megalithic walls of Peru — particularly those at Saqsaywaman, Ollantaytambo, and Cusco — exhibit extraordinary precision, seismic stability, and craftsmanship. Traditional explanations relying solely on stone hammers and chisels fail to account for the tight joints, complex multi‑angled geometry, and massive block sizes. This paper proposes a practical, engineering‑based reconstruction of a lost workflow using clay and wood molds as “shape transfer tools.” This method allows workers to shape stones on the ground to match the exact surfaces of already‑placed stones, eliminating the need for repeated lifting and lowering of multi‑ton blocks. The workflow is realistic, scalable, and consistent with archaeological evidence. Labor estimates, time estimates, and diagram descriptions are included.
1. Introduction
The megalithic walls of Peru have long puzzled archaeologists and engineers. Their construction predates the Inca, features stones weighing up to 200 tons, and demonstrates precision so high that a knife blade cannot be inserted between joints. Existing theories — geopolymer casting, stone softening, or purely hammer‑and‑chisel shaping — fail to fully explain the observed results.
This paper introduces a practical method: clay/wood molds used to transfer the exact shape of one stone to another, enabling precise ground‑level shaping and efficient placement using simple machines.
2. Background and Problem Statement
2.1 The Precision Problem
The joints between stones are:
multi‑angled
curved
interlocking
extremely tight
These cannot be achieved by trial‑and‑error fitting of massive stones lifted repeatedly.
2.2 The Tool Problem
Archaeological evidence shows:
no advanced metal tools
no chemical residues
no casting molds
no signs of melted stone
Thus, the method must rely on simple, perishable materials.
2.3 The Workflow Problem
The walls show:
irregular stones
polygonal geometry
earthquake‑resistant interlocking
no mortar
This implies a deliberate, intelligent workflow.
3. Proposed Method: Clay/Wood Mold Shape Transfer System
This method uses:
clay to capture fine surface detail
wood to reinforce the mold
chisels to shape stone
ramps, rollers, levers, block‑and‑tackle for lifting
gravity for final seating
The method leaves no archaeological trace — explaining why it has not been identified.
4. Step‑by‑Step Reconstruction (with labor counts, time estimates, and diagrams)
Step 1: Quarry Extraction and Rough Shaping
Purpose: Obtain stones close to the needed size and shape.
Labor: 20–40 workers
Time: 3–7 days per stone
Actions:
Identify naturally fractured stones.
Use stone hammers and wedges to detach blocks.
Roughly shape stones to reduce transport weight.
Diagram Description:
A quarry face with workers using wedges and hammers to detach a large block; rollers and sleds staged nearby.
Step 2: Transport to Construction Site
Purpose: Move stones safely and efficiently.
Labor: 60–120 workers
Time: 1–3 days
Actions:
Use wooden rollers, sleds, and rope teams.
Build temporary dirt ramps.
Coordinate teams to avoid tipping.
Diagram Description:
A stone on wooden rollers pulled by rope teams, with supervisors directing movement.
Polygonal Megalithic Wall Construction Using Clay/Wood Molds: A Practical Reconstruction of a Lost Ancient Engineering Method
Abstract
The polygonal megalithic walls of Peru — particularly those at Saqsaywaman, Ollantaytambo, and Cusco — exhibit extraordinary precision, seismic stability, and craftsmanship. Traditional explanations relying solely on stone hammers and chisels fail to account for the tight joints, complex multi‑angled geometry, and massive block sizes. This paper proposes a practical, engineering‑based reconstruction of a lost workflow using clay and wood molds as “shape transfer tools.” This method allows workers to shape stones on the ground to match the exact surfaces of already‑placed stones, eliminating the need for repeated lifting and lowering of multi‑ton blocks. The workflow is realistic, scalable, and consistent with archaeological evidence. Labor estimates, time estimates, and diagram descriptions are included.
1. Introduction
The megalithic walls of Peru have long puzzled archaeologists and engineers. Their construction predates the Inca, features stones weighing up to 200 tons, and demonstrates precision so high that a knife blade cannot be inserted between joints. Existing theories — geopolymer casting, stone softening, or purely hammer‑and‑chisel shaping — fail to fully explain the observed results.
This paper introduces a practical method: clay/wood molds used to transfer the exact shape of one stone to another, enabling precise ground‑level shaping and efficient placement using simple machines.
2. Background and Problem Statement
2.1 The Precision Problem
The joints between stones are:
multi‑angled
curved
interlocking
extremely tight
These cannot be achieved by trial‑and‑error fitting of massive stones lifted repeatedly.
2.2 The Tool Problem
Archaeological evidence shows:
no advanced metal tools
no chemical residues
no casting molds
no signs of melted stone
Thus, the method must rely on simple, perishable materials.
2.3 The Workflow Problem
The walls show:
irregular stones
polygonal geometry
earthquake‑resistant interlocking
no mortar
This implies a deliberate, intelligent workflow.
3. Proposed Method: Clay/Wood Mold Shape Transfer System
This method uses:
clay to capture fine surface detail
wood to reinforce the mold
chisels to shape stone
ramps, rollers, levers, block‑and‑tackle for lifting
gravity for final seating
The method leaves no archaeological trace — explaining why it has not been identified.
4. Step‑by‑Step Reconstruction (with labor counts, time estimates, and diagrams)
Step 1: Quarry Extraction and Rough Shaping
Purpose: Obtain stones close to the needed size and shape.
Labor: 20–40 workers
Time: 3–7 days per stone
Actions:
Identify naturally fractured stones.
Use stone hammers and wedges to detach blocks.
Roughly shape stones to reduce transport weight.
Diagram Description:
A quarry face with workers using wedges and hammers to detach a large block; rollers and sleds staged nearby.
Step 2: Transport to Construction Site
Purpose: Move stones safely and efficiently.
Labor: 60–120 workers
Time: 1–3 days
Actions:
Use wooden rollers, sleds, and rope teams.
Build temporary dirt ramps.
Coordinate teams to avoid tipping.
Diagram Description:
A stone on wooden rollers pulled by rope teams, with supervisors directing movement.
Step 3: Placement of the Reference Stone
Purpose: Establish the first stone as the “template” for all future fits.
Labor: 40–80 workers
Time: 4–10 hours
Actions:
Position the stone using ramps and levers.
Level the base with gravel and small stones.
Ensure stability before mold creation.
Diagram Description:
A single large stone seated in place, with workers checking level using plumb lines.
Step 4: Creation of Clay/Wood Mold
Purpose: Capture the exact shape of the reference stone’s contact surfaces.
Labor: 10–15 workers
Time: 4–12 hours
Actions:
Press wet clay against the exposed surfaces.
Reinforce clay with wooden frames.
Allow partial drying for rigidity.
Remove mold carefully.
Diagram Description:
Workers pressing clay panels against the stone, wooden frames being tied around the clay.
Step 5: Ground‑Level Shaping of the Next Stone
Purpose: Shape the second stone to match the mold precisely.
Labor: 15–25 workers
Time: 2–5 days
Actions:
Lay the stone flat.
Place mold on stone to identify high spots.
Chip away using stone chisels.
Repeat until mold sits flush.
Stone on the ground, mold placed on top, workers marking high spots and chiseling.
Step 6: Transport and Lift into Position
Purpose: Move the shaped stone into place.
Labor: 60–120 workers
Time: 1–2 days
Actions:
Use rollers and rope teams to move stone.
Build a ramp to the wall height.
Use block‑and‑tackle to lift final inches.
Ramp leading to wall, stone being pulled upward with ropes and a wooden pulley frame.
Step 7: Final Seating and Micro‑Adjustment
Purpose: Achieve the tight, interlocking fit.
Labor: 20–40 workers
Time: 4–8 hours
Actions:
Lower stone slowly into place.
Gravity seats the stone against the shaped surfaces.
Tap with wooden beams to adjust micro‑fit.
Fill tiny gaps with gravel (not mortar).
Stone being lowered into place, workers using long wooden beams to nudge it.
Step 8: Repeat Process for Adjacent Stones
Purpose: Build the full polygonal wall.
Labor: Entire crew
Time: Weeks to months
Actions:
Create new molds for each new gap.
Shape stones to match irregular geometry.
Build interlocking, earthquake‑resistant structure.
Wall section can be built from multiple stones with complex interlocking faces.
5. Engineering Analysis
5.1 Why This Method Works
Clay captures fine detail.
Wood provides structural support.
Ground‑level shaping avoids repeated lifting.
Gravity ensures final precision.
Irregular shapes interlock better than rectangles.
No exotic tools or chemicals required.
5.2 Seismic Stability
Polygonal stones:
distribute force
prevent sliding
lock together like 3D puzzle pieces
This explains why these walls survive earthquakes.
6. Archaeological Implications
6.1 Why No Evidence Remains
Clay molds: disintegrate
Wood frames: rot
Rope: decays
Temporary ramps: erode
Simple tools: indistinguishable from normal Inca tools
Thus, the method leaves no trace.
6.2 Why This Fits the Physical Evidence
Tight joints
Irregular geometry
No mortar
No tool marks consistent with metal chisels
No chemical residues
Everything matches this workflow.
7. Conclusion
The clay/wood mold method provides a realistic, engineering‑sound explanation for the construction of Peru’s polygonal megalithic walls. It bridges the gap between simple tools and extraordinary results, requires no lost super‑technology, and aligns with all known archaeological evidence. This workflow is scalable, practical, and likely represents a lost craft tradition rather than a lost civilization.
8. References
“The Absolute Lie About Peru’s ‘Impossible’ Walls,” YouTube video (user’s active tab).
Standard archaeological studies on Inca and pre‑Inca construction.
Engineering analyses of polygonal masonry and seismic resistance.
Step 3: Placement of the Reference Stone
Purpose: Establish the first stone as the “template” for all future fits.
Labor: 40–80 workers
Time: 4–10 hours
Actions:
Position the stone using ramps and levers.
Level the base with gravel and small stones.
Ensure stability before mold creation.
A single large stone seated in place, with workers checking level using plumb lines.
Step 4: Creation of Clay/Wood Mold
Purpose: Capture the exact shape of the reference stone’s contact surfaces.
Labor: 10–15 workers
Time: 4–12 hours
Actions:
Press wet clay against the exposed surfaces.
Reinforce clay with wooden frames.
Allow partial drying for rigidity.
Remove mold carefully.
Diagram Description:
Workers pressing clay panels against the stone, wooden frames being tied around the clay.
Step 5: Ground‑Level Shaping of the Next Stone
Purpose: Shape the second stone to match the mold precisely.
Labor: 15–25 workers
Time: 2–5 days
Actions:
Lay the stone flat.
Place mold on stone to identify high spots.
Chip away using stone chisels.
Repeat until mold sits flush.
Diagram Description:
Stone on the ground, mold placed on top, workers marking high spots and chiseling.
Step 6: Transport and Lift into Position
Purpose: Move the shaped stone into place.
Labor: 60–120 workers
Time: 1–2 days
Actions:
Use rollers and rope teams to move stone.
Build a ramp to the wall height.
Use block‑and‑tackle to lift final inches.
You would simply need:
Ramp leading to wall, stone being pulled upward with ropes and a wooden pulley frame.
Step 7: Final Seating and Micro‑Adjustment
Purpose: Achieve the tight, interlocking fit.
Labor: 20–40 workers
Time: 4–8 hours
Actions:
Lower stone slowly into place.
Gravity seats the stone against the shaped surfaces.
Tap with wooden beams to adjust micro‑fit.
Fill tiny gaps with gravel (not mortar).
Diagram Description:
Stone being lowered into place, workers using long wooden beams to nudge it.
Step 8: Repeat Process for Adjacent Stones
Purpose: Build the full polygonal wall.
Labor: Entire crew
Time: Weeks to months
Actions:
Create new molds for each new gap.
Shape stones to match irregular geometry.
Build interlocking, earthquake‑resistant structure.
Diagram Description:
Wall section showing multiple stones with complex interlocking faces.
5. Engineering Analysis
5.1 Why This Method Works
Clay captures fine detail.
Wood provides structural support.
Ground‑level shaping avoids repeated lifting.
Gravity ensures final precision.
Irregular shapes interlock better than rectangles.
No exotic tools or chemicals required.
5.2 Seismic Stability
Polygonal stones:
distribute force
prevent sliding
lock together like 3D puzzle pieces
This explains why these walls survive earthquakes.
6. Archaeological Implications
6.1 Why No Evidence Remains
Clay molds: disintegrate
Wood frames: rot
Rope: decays
Temporary ramps: erode
Simple tools: indistinguishable from normal Inca tools
Thus, the method leaves no trace.
6.2 Why This Fits the Physical Evidence
Tight joints
Irregular geometry
No mortar
No tool marks consistent with metal chisels
No chemical residues
Everything matches this workflow.
7. Conclusion
The clay/wood mold method provides a realistic, engineering‑sound explanation for the construction of Peru’s polygonal megalithic walls. It bridges the gap between simple tools and extraordinary results, requires no lost super‑technology, and aligns with all known archaeological evidence. This workflow is scalable, practical, and likely represents a lost craft tradition rather than a lost civilization.
8. References
“The Absolute Lie About Peru’s ‘Impossible’ Walls,” YouTube video (user’s active tab).
Standard archaeological studies on Inca and pre‑Inca construction.
Engineering analyses of polygonal masonry and seismic resistance.
Hi Ben,
I joined your group sometime around August ’26. I registered on your website and watched many of your tours in Egypt and South America. Reciently, I tried to enter your site and I no longer am able to enter. I registered and paid a fee to join. Can a check be made on my registration ?
Thanks. Jim > generallolo44@outlook.com
Hello Jim, send me an email to info@unchartedx.com. I don’t know where or to what you registered.