the surface, a little space being left on each side so that the eye could easily be reached when it was desired to lash the purlins to the steep pitch of the gable. Investigation showed that there were usually eight or ten of these eye-bonders in every gable. These little stone slabs were about 2 feet long, 6 inches wide, and 2 inches thick. The chamfered hole apparently was bored by means of pieces of bamboo rapidly revolved between the palms of the hands, assisted by a liberal use of sand and water. Of course such a method required time and patience, but produced results just as satisfactory as the use of mallet and chisel and was less likely to split the stone.
The Incas did not use tiles or shingles to cover their roofs, but had to depend on thatch made of grass or bushes. The thatch was tied to the purlins and was kept from blowing away by being tied to the ends of the projecting roof pegs while the purlins themselves were fastened to the gables by being tied to the eye-bonders.
So far as I have been able to learn, this method of supporting a thatched roof on a sloping gable was invented and perfected by the Incas and has never been used in any other part of the world. Possibly its invention was due to the fact that the plateau where Inca architecture flourished is treeless and wind-swept. Incidentally, the absence of trees in the temperate valleys of the Peruvian highlands was not due to the altitude, because I found primeval forests growing at 15,000 feet in the more inaccessible parts of the Cordillera Vilcabamba. It undoubtedly resulted, as in China, from the very long period of human occupation and the necessity for fuel. Had there been more forests and plenty of wood the Incas would not have had to build stone houses.
The doors of Inca houses were usually high enough for the tallest Peruvian to enter comfortably without bumping hishead. As in ancient Egypt, the bottom of the door was wider than the top. Lintels were sometimes of wood if the buildings were constructed near a forested region, but otherwise were composed of two or three long blocks of stone. In more important structures the Incas went to the trouble of using monolithic lintels even when they weighed 1 or 2 tons. Since they had no derricks or pulleys it is believed that they raised a monolithic lintel to its place by building a mound of earth and stone in front of the door. Then by using levers made of hard wood, and possibly rollers of the same material, and the principle of the inclined plane, they brought the heavy lintel to the top of the door without serious trouble. When they had fitted the lintel securely in place, the mound was removed.
Their houses were frequently arranged round a courtyard to form a compound, as in the Far East. To this compound there was usually but one entrance. Sometimes the façade of the gateway had a re-entrant angle as though the doorway had been let into the back of a large niche. Entrances to compounds were furnished with the means of fastening a bar across the inside of the door. Stone cylinders or pegs, which I have called bar-holds, were keyed into the gateposts during their construction. Sometimes the bar-holds were anchored into the wall by being set into a cavity cut out of one of the larger blocks of the gatepost. It was feasible to lash a bar to the bar-holds, which were able to resist at least as much pressure as the cross-bar which was lashed to it.
It is possible, however, that these bar-locks supported nothing more formidable than a taboo stick which would prevent a superstitious person from entering a compound where he was not wanted. There is a reference to this subject in the will of one of the Spanish conquistadors. He declares that when an Indian went from home the doors were left open but that there was ‘a little stick across the door as the sign that the master was out and nobody went in’. In a memorial addressed to his sovereign, Philip II, he added, ‘When they saw that we placed locks
The Incas did not use tiles or shingles to cover their roofs, but had to depend on thatch made of grass or bushes. The thatch was tied to the purlins and was kept from blowing away by being tied to the ends of the projecting roof pegs while the purlins themselves were fastened to the gables by being tied to the eye-bonders.
So far as I have been able to learn, this method of supporting a thatched roof on a sloping gable was invented and perfected by the Incas and has never been used in any other part of the world. Possibly its invention was due to the fact that the plateau where Inca architecture flourished is treeless and wind-swept. Incidentally, the absence of trees in the temperate valleys of the Peruvian highlands was not due to the altitude, because I found primeval forests growing at 15,000 feet in the more inaccessible parts of the Cordillera Vilcabamba. It undoubtedly resulted, as in China, from the very long period of human occupation and the necessity for fuel. Had there been more forests and plenty of wood the Incas would not have had to build stone houses.
The doors of Inca houses were usually high enough for the tallest Peruvian to enter comfortably without bumping hishead. As in ancient Egypt, the bottom of the door was wider than the top. Lintels were sometimes of wood if the buildings were constructed near a forested region, but otherwise were composed of two or three long blocks of stone. In more important structures the Incas went to the trouble of using monolithic lintels even when they weighed 1 or 2 tons. Since they had no derricks or pulleys it is believed that they raised a monolithic lintel to its place by building a mound of earth and stone in front of the door. Then by using levers made of hard wood, and possibly rollers of the same material, and the principle of the inclined plane, they brought the heavy lintel to the top of the door without serious trouble. When they had fitted the lintel securely in place, the mound was removed.
Their houses were frequently arranged round a courtyard to form a compound, as in the Far East. To this compound there was usually but one entrance. Sometimes the façade of the gateway had a re-entrant angle as though the doorway had been let into the back of a large niche. Entrances to compounds were furnished with the means of fastening a bar across the inside of the door. Stone cylinders or pegs, which I have called bar-holds, were keyed into the gateposts during their construction. Sometimes the bar-holds were anchored into the wall by being set into a cavity cut out of one of the larger blocks of the gatepost. It was feasible to lash a bar to the bar-holds, which were able to resist at least as much pressure as the cross-bar which was lashed to it.
It is possible, however, that these bar-locks supported nothing more formidable than a taboo stick which would prevent a superstitious person from entering a compound where he was not wanted. There is a reference to this subject in the will of one of the Spanish conquistadors. He declares that when an Indian went from home the doors were left open but that there was ‘a little stick across the door as the sign that the master was out and nobody went in’. In a memorial addressed to his sovereign, Philip II, he added, ‘When they saw that we placed locks
Similar Books
