Universal Principles of Stone Working

As a rule, when Turkey is mentioned, only a few sites come to mind. Allahahoyuk, the Lion Gate, and the Great Temple of Hattusa with its megalithic gate thresholds and the Jade Cube. In each of these cases, we are dealing either with small fragments of walls or with isolated blocks. On the basis of such a limited amount of data, it is impossible to conduct a systematic analysis. As a result, the discussion is usually limited to a purely visual comparison of similar masonry segments from different regions. In reality, Turkey represents a rich source of material for the study of precisely fitted masonry, or, using the terminology introduced in the first part, polycurved masonry. Its key characteristic lies not in the number of block sides, which may be four or even three, but in the curvilinear shape of the contact surfaces. The archaeological site of Hattusa is not the ruin of a single building, but an entire complex in which certain structures and walls demonstrate an astonishing precision of block fitting, fully comparable to that of Peruvian monuments. Moreover, in terms of geometric complexity, this masonry even surpasses them, since the lateral faces of the blocks are not merely curved, but form interlocking, keyed joints. Structures featuring this type of masonry include the buildings labeled on the plan as Temples II, III, and V. These structures are numbered because their association with specific deities has not been established. The same category includes the Great Temple, the remains of a large megalithic structure, as well as Yenigi Kale, a rock encircled by masonry laid in a circular manner, similar to what can be observed in Peru. As in many other regions, different construction traditions coexist here. Megalithic, polycurved masonry, ancient masonry made of large blocks without precise fitting, and the results of modern restoration. The availability of a large number of archaeological reports makes it possible to trace the course of restoration work, and thus distinguish ancient elements from later interventions. However, this is not always necessary. High-quality masonry is recognizable on its own, and can be considered authentic precisely because the original block fitting was not replicated during restoration. At most, already finished blocks were reinstalled in their original positions. This stands in contrast to Peru, where many structures have undergone substantial reconstruction. In addition to Hatusa, there is another ancient city, Chepinua, where examples of polycurved masonry have also been documented. Thus, the researcher has access to three archaeological sites at once. Importantly, each of them employs a different type of stone, limestone and gabbro in Hatusa, porphyrite in Alajajoyoc, and sandstone in Chepinua. As a result, the volume of available data becomes sufficient to identify basic principles of construction methods and to analyze tool marks produced during stone working, with subsequent comparison of these characteristics across different lithologies. The conclusions drawn from this analysis can also be applied to other regions where expressive stone workmanship is observed, such as Peru or Egypt. At first glance, this approach may appear flawed, since the comparison of methods and objectives across different cultures indeed presupposes differences. However, in this case, no contradiction arises, either with alternative hypotheses or with the official academic position. According to alternative views, all such structures were built by a single highly developed culture and therefore with identical or similar tools, making the conclusions independent of region. Official scholarship, in turn, maintains that prior to the mastery of iron, stone tools were widely used for stone working everywhere, and consequently the methods of stone processing and block fitting should be broadly similar regardless of geography. In this framework, differences should manifest primarily in architectural solutions and construction goals. The forms of structures and blocks may vary, as may works of art such as statues or vessels. What they all share, however, are the traces of material processing. Therefore, the identified patterns can be considered universal across cultures and regions, as they are determined not by aesthetic preferences, but by the limitations of available technological means. Moreover, if tool marks are identical while the structures themselves differ in style, block fitting methods, and structural elements, and if works of art also differ despite exhibiting the same tool traces, this indicates that the authors were different cultures, existing in different periods and possessing their own aesthetic preferences. In many cases, statues cannot be separated from the structures of which they form an integral part. On Easter Island, some moai remain in the quarry to this day and display characteristic extraction marks that are found worldwide. Similarly, the lions of Hattusa cannot be attributed to later reworking. If a single advanced civilization had existed, one must ask why it would have created a distinct style in each region, and moreover, why it would have needed statues at all. Often not particularly remarkable in artistic terms. Whom did they depict? Gods they worshipped? The result is the image of a great civilization venerating stone idols. Consequently, the question shifts from the search for a hypothetical civilization to the search for the reasons that prompted different cultures to create flawless masonry, as well as to an analysis of how they processed stone and how they independently arrived at similar methods. In this context, tool traces should include not only evidence of quarrying, shaping, and fitting of blocks, but also traces of stone sawing, which are abundantly documented in Turkey. In addition, traces of drilling, also present here in significant numbers, should be examined and compared. In many respects, the questions raised here resonate with well-known and extensively studied problems in linguistics. How languages could emerge independently of one another while arriving at similar structural solutions? Therefore, it is insufficient to explain only how certain artifacts were manufactured, just as it is impossible to explain speech solely by the ability to produce sound. A complete answer must also include the goals pursued by ancient builders, the reasons that motivated them to undertake such significant labor, and an explanation of why this drive gradually disappeared over time. Unfortunately, today only a few courses of masonry have survived from most structures in Turkey, and in some cases, such as the Great Temple, only a single course remains. Moreover, the upper surfaces of the blocks are often heavily damaged, which is clearly visible in the case of the same Great Temple. This can create the impression that the blocks weathered completely over many thousands of years, and that only the portion which was previously underground survived. After excavation, this part appears lighter in color, since the gray tone of limestone forms as a result of so-called sun tanning over several decades. A similar effect can be observed at Saqsayhuaman, where stones recently extracted from the ground have a light brown color and gradually turn gray over time. However, in reality, the destruction was caused by fire, as documented in excavation reports published in 1912. These reports state that the temperature of the fire was so high that the clay underwent vitrification, which inevitably led to the destruction of the limestone. That the damage was not caused by time is confirmed by the condition of other structures. For example, the blocks surrounding the rock at Yenici Kehl do not exhibit such severe deterioration, nor does the masonry of a number of other buildings, unlike Peru, where structures were often built entirely of high-quality stone masonry. Here only a few stone courses existed from the outset. This is clearly visible in cases where the upper blocks have survived. If the masonry had continued higher, the upper surfaces of the blocks would have contained traces of the installation of the next course in the form of bed joints. However, no such traces are present, indicating that originally only the suckle, one row of orthostats or several rows, was made of stone. In some cases, drill holes on the upper surfaces of the blocks are interpreted as having been intended for wooden rods used to reinforce clay masonry. The absence of the rods themselves is explained by the fire. However, if the masonry had been made of mud brick rather than monolithic clay, such rods would have been unnecessary. Moreover, in many cases, such holes are absent altogether. This provides grounds for an alternative interpretation, according to which the holes were used for positioning the blocks. It should be noted that similar holes are also found in Cambodia, where their purpose likewise lacks a convincing explanation. This is in contrast to holes on the side surfaces of blocks, which may have served various functions, from fastening decorative elements to practical purposes such as moving blocks or attaching scaffolding. This issue is quite extensive, and we will return to it later. At this stage, it is important to emphasize that, despite their outwardly modest appearance, the surviving sections of masonry are entirely sufficient to identify key patterns. In particular, the blocks show no traces of chisels or picks characteristic of later periods. Likewise, no evidence of wedge-splitting of stone has been found, either in the quarries or on the blocks themselves. This fully corresponds with data from other regions, where neither chisels nor wedge techniques were used. Thus, it is reasonable to speak of similar stone-working methods, which justifies combining different regions within a single analysis. The processing traces observed on the limestone coincide with those seen on the blocks of Sacsayhuaman, and previously discussed in a separate video. These traces appear as white dots, arising from damage and possibly subsequent metamorphism of the rock in zones of microcracking. The pattern of their distribution correlates with the quality of surface finishing, from rougher treatment with larger dots in the central part of the block to finer and rarer dots toward the edges. The coincidence of these processing traces indicates the use of the same methods in different regions, making the comparison of results justified. It is noteworthy that many researchers claim there are no traces of processing on the surfaces of the blocks, simply failing to notice them. Here it is important not to confuse the described white dots, which have a structured character and occur only on limestone, with efflorescence, lichens, or natural inclusions within the rock. For example, the porphyrite at Alaka Huyuk contains natural white inclusions. However, these inclusions have a different distribution and are foreign to the surface structure. By contrast, efflorescence and lichens are superficial and, in some cases, can be removed. After outlining the main points concerning turkeys, polycurved masonry. In the next video, we will examine its characteristics in detail, comparing them with data from other regions and identifying similarities and differences in order to determine universal features. Thank you for watching. See you next time.