• ‘The Sumerian Tablet That Describes a Place Inside the Earth — And the Entrance Location It Gives’: The Sumerian Tablet That Describes a Place Inside the Earth — And the Entrance Location It Gives
• ‘The Sun Stone (The Calendar Stone)’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn03u3-U1fk

See – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vpCrT0uYMk

See – Could This Hidden Megalithic Site in Mexico Point to a Globally Connected Ancient Civilization? – YouTube

‘In this on-site investigation, I travel to the hidden megalithic site of Guirun near Mitla, Oaxaca, Mexico to explore whether its strange stone features could point to a globally connected ancient civilization. From unusual nubs and bar-like protrusions to heavy damage on massive stones, this little-known site raises questions that are hard to ignore—especially when compared to places like Ollantaytambo in Peru. Guirun is one of the most overlooked megalithic sites I’ve ever seen. Almost nobody visits it, very few people talk about it, and yet it may preserve some of the clearest similarities I’ve found between Mexico and other ancient megalithic sites around the world. In this video, we hike far off the beaten path to reach the cruciform tomb of Guirun, examine the stonework up close, compare it to Peru, look at why I personally question the standard Zapotec attribution, and explore the broader mystery surrounding Mitla, underground chambers, and evidence of massive stone quarrying in the region. We also look at:

• the crude lower tomb compared to the more advanced megalithic construction above
• the strange bar-like protrusions and nubs found on the stones
• the extreme damage on the largest blocks
• similarities to Ollantaytambo and other ancient sites
• the mystery of whether the site was re-used or repurposed by later cultures
• reports of a gigantic cut stone near Mitla that may have weighed close to 300 tons.’ (Matthew David – Presenter).

See also – Uncharted Ruins: The Megalithic Ruins of Ancient Mexico – Part V

AI – ‘The primary relation between a trapezoidal shape and a pyramid in sacred geometry is that a trapezoid represents an incomplete or “truncated” pyramid, symbolizing a stage of transition, grounding, or a journey in progress rather than final spiritual attainment. 

Symbolic Connection

In sacred geometric systems, shapes are often viewed as “evolutions” of one another. 

• The Pyramid (Ascension): Represents the ultimate focus and “upward intention”. Its apex signifies the highest point of spiritual attainment or connection to the divine.
• The Trapezoid (The Path): Often found in archways or doorframes (like the Egyptian “pylon” gates), it serves as a gateway or threshold. Because it is a pyramid with its “capstone” or “head” removed, it represents:
  • The Material Foundation: The grounding required before one can reach the “point” of the pyramid.
  • Fractured or Earthbound Energy: Some traditions suggest that without the capstone, energy stretches outward rather than radiating upward, focusing on the “will” within the physical world.
  • Humanity’s Journey: While the pyramid is the destination (Enlightenment), the trapezoid is the body of the structure—the “ascent” or the work being done on the earthly plane. 

Architectural Synergy

In archways, the trapezoidal stones (specifically the keystone) are what provide the structural stability. This mirrors the sacred geometric idea that the “square” of the material world and the “triangle” of the divine must be bridged. The archway acts as a “portal” where the trapezoidal shape guides the eye (and spirit) toward an unseen apex, effectively making every arch a promise of the pyramid’s completion.’

AI – ‘In antiquity, the “intaglio-inlay” technique was primarily used in 

Urartu (located in the Armenian Highlands), Ancient Egypt, and the 

Hittite Empire.

While various ancient cultures used intaglio (carving into a surface) and inlaying as separate methods, research highlights specific historical contexts where these techniques were integrated: 

• Urartu

 (9th–6th century BC): This civilisation is noted for developing intaglio-inlay in a systematic manner, particularly for stone carvings integrated into architectural design.

• Ancient Egypt and Hittites: These contemporary civilisations also employed the technique in their art, though it was often less central to their architectural styles compared to Urartu.
• Parthian Empire: Evidence of this technique appears in high-status jewellery, such as a 1st-century gold diadem featuring a carnelian intaglio inlay.
• Roman Empire: Intaglio-inlays were frequently used in signet rings and other personal ornaments, often featuring engraved gemstones (like carnelian or glass) set into bronze, iron, or gold bands.
• Ancient Scythian/Sarmatian Regions: Archaeological finds from the Ust-Alma necropolis (Crimea) include bronze and iron finger-rings specifically described as having intaglio-inlays. …

While the specific term “intaglio-inlay” is rarely used in South American archaeology, the technique of inlaying materials into recessed (intaglio) surfaces was practiced in antiquity, most notably for dental modifications and metallurgical ornaments. 

Inlay Techniques in Antiquity

Pre-Columbian cultures in South America utilized inlaying to enhance the prestige and visual impact of their artifacts: 

• Dental Inlays: The Moche culture of northern Peru (c. 690–735 AD) practiced decorative dental inlaying, where holes were drilled into teeth to accommodate metal inlays made of electrum. This served as a permanent marker of elite status.
• Gemstone and Metal Inlays: In Ecuador, evidence of gold and occasional emerald inlays in teeth has been documented in the coastal provinces of Esmeraldas and Guayas.
• Metallurgical Inlays: Advanced metallurgical skills in the Andean region included joining different metals or applying gold sheet to base metals (plating) to create contrasting visual effects.
• Comparison to Other Regions: While South American artisans used inlaying, the term “intaglio” is more commonly associated with Ancient Roman and Mesopotamian traditions of engraving gemstones for seal rings. In Mesoamerica (modern-day Guatemala and Mexico), dental inlays of pyrite and hematite were also a widespread tradition starting as early as 500 BC.’

Comments added:

• At Ayanis the choice of stone was Anthracite, which is a high-grade, shiny, and black mineral (a dense form of coal) used specifically to inlay into basalt blocks, creating a stark, high-contrast, and durable inscription. The extreme brittleness of Anthracite makes it difficult to carve without fracturing. Success depended on finding ‘unweathered’ lumps—dense, high-quality pieces of anthracite that lacked natural internal fissures or impurities. Instead of using high-force chisels that would shatter the stone, ancient carvers used harder stones (like quartz) or sand as abrasives to gradually wear away material. Artisans utilised pointed stones, bones, or flint as scrapers to incise fine details and lines onto the surface without the shock of a hammer blow. Once the basic form was achieved, surfaces were rubbed with increasingly fine grits of sand or emery to reveal the stone’s characteristic jet-black lustre and high sheen.
• Coincidentally, an ‘intaglio-inlay’ technique using ‘anthracite’, specifically ‘cannel coal’, was used in pre-Columbian South America to create black lithic carvings. While ‘anthracite’ is often used loosely to describe these dark, lustrous stones, scientific analysis has identified the material as cannel coal, which is found extensively in regions like Colombia and Venezuela. Historically, these black carvings were often misidentified as lignite, jet, or asphalt. Recent scientific interrogation using reflectance microscopy and FTIR has confirmed they are primarily made of cannel coal, a high-rank coal known for its uniform texture and ability to take a high polish. In the context of pre-Columbian black lithics, these carvings were sometimes used for ceremonial objects and were traded extensively across the Caribbean and mainland South America. Cannel coal artefacts have been found in the Lesser Antilles (e.g. on St. Vincent).

AI – ‘Ayanis is approximately 2,700 years old. 

The site, originally known as Rusahinili Eiduru-kai, was an ancient fortress of the Urartu Kingdom. 

Construction and History

• Founder: It was built by King Rusa II (reigned c. 685–645 BCE), the son of Argishti II.
• Exact Date: Dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) and inscriptions at the site indicate construction began circa 673–672 BCE.
• Destruction: The fortress had a short lifespan of only about 20 to 25 years. It was destroyed by a major earthquake and fire around 653–650 BCE, after which it was abandoned by the Urartians.
• Later Occupation: Excavations show a second occupational level dating to the Medieval period (10th–11th centuries CE), when the fortress was partially reconstructed. 

Archaeological Significance

The site is famous for the Temple of Haldi, dedicated to the chief Urartian god of war. Recent excavations (as of late 2024 and early 2025) have uncovered remarkably well-preserved artifacts, including: 

• Bronze Battle Gear: Three 2,700-year-old bronze shields and a ceremonial bronze helmet.
• Stonework: Intricate alabaster carvings and the longest known Urartian temple inscription (88 lines).
• Human Remains: A 2,700-year-old skeleton of a person likely killed during the earthquake that destroyed the citadel.

Anthracite was used as a distinctive inlay material for the cuneiform temple inscription at Ayanis.

While the inscription itself is primarily carved into basalt blocks, its unique aesthetic was enhanced through an “intaglio-inlay” technique: 

• Intaglio Inscription: The cuneiform characters were first deeply engraved into the stone surface.
• Anthracite Inlays: These carved-out signs were then filled with anthracite (a hard, lustrous coal) to create a striking visual contrast between the dark script and the surrounding stone. 

Key Locations of Inscriptions at Ayanis

The use of anthracite at Ayanis is a rare archaeological example of this material being used for monumental script decoration in the Urartian kingdom.’

AI – ‘No. The width at the top and base of these archways is not the same. They are defined by a wider base and a narrower top, a structural choice known as a trapezoidal shape. 

While this form is most famously associated with Inca architecture in South America, it also appears in various contexts in Egypt and Mesopotamia—though its use and frequency differed across these regions.

Region-by-Region Breakdown

South America (Inca Empire)

The Inca are the most prolific users of the trapezoidal archway. 

www.vaia.com +1

• Design: Every doorway, window, and wall niche at sites like Machu Picchu is built with inward-sloping sides.
• Purpose: The wider base provides exceptional seismic stability, allowing structures to withstand the frequent earthquakes of the Andes.
• Consistency: The angle of the sides is remarkably consistent, often measured at approximately 4.5 to 5 degrees. 

Facebook +4

Ancient Egypt

In Egypt, the trapezoidal shape was primarily used for monumental gateways (pylons) and specific functional openings. 

Facebook

• Design: Temple pylons are much wider at the base than the top, creating a stable, sloping facade.
• Ventilation: Roof openings were often trapezoidal or conical to create a pressure difference that accelerated airflow, cooling the interior.
• Comparison: Unlike the Inca, many Egyptian residential doors and windows remained strictly rectangular, though grander ceremonial entrances adopted the tapered look. 

Double Glazing Blogger +2

Mesopotamia

Mesopotamian architecture utilized the trapezoid mainly in the construction of Ziggurats and massive mud-brick walls. 

• Design: Walls were frequently built with a batter (a slope where the base is thicker/wider than the top) to support the immense weight of mud-brick tiers.
• Mathematics: Babylonian mathematicians were highly advanced in calculating the areas of trapezoids, often using them as models for land measurement and architectural planning.
• Entrance Style: While arches were later developed (like the Ishtar Gate), early doorways were often simple rectangles or tapered openings in heavy, inclined walls. 

Key Structural Benefit: In all three regions, the wider base and narrower top served to distribute weight more efficiently toward the ground, reducing the stress on the lintel (the top horizontal beam) and improving overall structural longevity.’

AI – ‘In antiquity, a trapezoidal shaped archway or doorway primarily symbolised liminality—the transition between the mundane and the sacred or the living and the dead. While its inward-sloping sides provided exceptional structural stability against earthquakes, the shape was deeply intertwined with spiritual and cosmic order across various cultures. 

Primary Symbolic Meanings

• Threshold Between Realms: In cultures like the Inca, these doorways marked the boundary between public spaces and private ceremonial centers, framing the passage into the spiritual heart of the world.
• Portal for the Divine: In Ancient Egypt, trapezoidal “false doors” served as thresholds for the soul (ka) to travel between the underworld and the world of the living.
• Cosmic Alignment: The shape often represented a connection to cosmic forces; in Egyptian pylons, the trapezoidal towers mirrored the horizon where the sun rose and set.
• Order and Stability: The tapering design symbolised resilience and the structural integrity of the universe, reflecting a civilization’s harmony with nature. 

Cultural Variations

Key Detail: Beyond its spiritual weight, the trapezoidal shape was an engineering marvel. By distributing weight more evenly, it allowed ancient structures to “flex” during seismic activity rather than collapse.’ 

Comments added:

The Inca trapezoidal archway was an architectural masterpiece that embodied structural resilience and served as a sacred portal to the ‘apus’ (mountain spirits). Its unique shape and precise stonework allowed the Inca to create lasting monuments that bridged the physical and spiritual worlds.

In Ancient Egyptian funerary architecture, a trapezoidal archway in the form of a false door functioned as a symbolic threshold between the worlds of the living and the dead. Located typically on the western wall of a tomb’s offering chapel, they were believed to allow the deceased’s spirit, or ‘ka’, to pass through to receive nourishment from the physical world.

In Ancient Egyptian tombs a trapezoidal archway was often a ‘False Door’ for the deceased to receive offerings.

Hittite trapezoidal archways were key architectural features in sacred chambers like Hattusa and the rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, where they served as cosmic gateways. These structures were often aligned with significant solar events, such as the winter solstice, to catch the light of the setting sun and symbolise the path of solar deities.

In Mesopotamia, they represented a physical meeting point between the human world and the sky-dwelling gods or the underworld (‘Irkalla’), and were used as ‘portals’ by shamans to summon ancestral spirits or for priests to invite the presence of a god.

There are no trapezoid stone arches in classical Moorish architecture; instead, this style is defined by its use of circular and curved forms. While some historical sites, such as the Al-Zaytuna Mosque in Tunis, may feature trapezoidal courtyards due to irregular urban footprints, the arches themselves always follow curved profiles. 

In classical Moorish design, you will primarily find the following types of arches:

• Horseshoe Arch: The most iconic element, also known as the “Moorish arch,” where the curve extends beyond a semicircle to create a narrower opening at the bottom.
• Multifoil (Polylobed) Arch: A decorative style featuring multiple small “leaves” or foils that create a scalloped appearance.
• Lambrequin Arch: A more complex variation of the multifoil arch with more intricate, sometimes pointed, lobes.
• Pointed Arch: Often seen in later periods, such as the Almohad era, these arches meet at a sharp apex and influenced later Gothic architecture. My Modern Met +5

Trapezoidal or “flat” lintel-like structures are more characteristic of Ancient Egyptian or pre-Columbian architecture and do not align with the rhythmic, flowing aesthetic of the Moorish tradition.

Note also that the architectural historian Oleg Grabar, in his seminal work, ‘The Formation of Islamic Art’, also notes that despite the Pyramid’s ‘engineering virtues’, such as its stability and monumental presence, and its undeniable ‘Egyptian origin,’ it was never adopted as a functional or aesthetic form in Islamic architecture. From the remote Minaret of Djam in Afghanistan to the sophisticated Alhambra in Spain, Islamic builders preferred domes, arches, and vertical towers over the sloping, triangular faces of the pyramid.

Grabar suggests that this exclusion was likely a conscious symbolic choice.

The pyramid was too closely associated with the Pharaonic past and pre-Islamic burial rites, whereas Islamic architecture sought to express a different spatial and spiritual identity through the use of internal volumes and intricate surfaces rather than solid, external mass.

While Classical Roman architecture is defined by the semi-circular, “true” arch, Classical Greek architecture frequently employed trapezoidal openings for doors and windows. These were not true structural arches but rather “post-and-lintel” openings where the sides (jambs) tilted inward toward the top.Trapezoidal Features in Ancient Greek ArchitectureIn Greece, the use of inward-tapering trapezoidal openings served both structural and aesthetic purposes. 

• Doorways and Windows: Many monumental Greek temples, such as the Erechtheion on the Acropolis, feature doorways where the jambs incline toward the centre. This design was often used to create a sense of greater height and grandeur.
• Structural Benefits: Tapering the walls and openings helped redistribute the load away from the void, which provided increased stability, particularly against seismic activity.
• Acoustic and Optical Effects: Some researchers suggest these shapes were used for their specific acoustic qualities or to correct optical illusions, ensuring the building looked perfectly straight and balanced from a distance. YouTube +4

The Roman ContrastThe Romans predominantly used the round arch (the “Roman Arch”) for their monumental gateways, bridges, and aqueducts. 

True Arches: These were built using wedge-shaped stones called voussoirs, which are technically trapezoidal in individual shape but arranged to form a semicircle.

Triumphal Arches: These iconic Roman structures combined a round-topped arch with a square, horizontal entablature above it.

Urban Layouts: While rare in their archways, the Romans did occasionally use trapezoidal shapes in city planning, such as the early layout of the city of Salona.

AI – ‘The visual similarities between megalithic archways and stone structures in South America, Egypt, and Mesopotamia often lead to questions about ancient connections. While some believe they point to a lost “mother culture,” most archaeologists attribute them to convergent evolution—different groups solving the same engineering problems with the same materials. 

Common Shapes and Engineering Reasons

• Corbelled Arches: Instead of a true rounded arch, ancient builders often used “stepped” stones that meet at the top. This was the most stable way to create a roof or doorway using heavy stone before the invention of the keystone.
• Polygonal Masonry: In places like Cusco (Peru) and Giza (Egypt), stones are cut into irregular, interlocking shapes. This design provides incredible seismic resistance, allowing structures to shift during earthquakes without collapsing.
• T-Groove and I-Groove Clamps: You may see similar “butterfly” or “I” shaped indentations in stones across continents. These held metal or wooden clamps (often poured as molten bronze) to lock massive blocks together without mortar. 

Facebook +5

Why They Look Similar

• Material Limitations: Large stones like granite and andesite are extremely heavy and hard. There are only a few practical ways to stack and lock them to ensure they endure for millennia.
• Functional Design: “Nubs” or protuberances often seen on blocks in both Egypt and Peru were likely functional “hitching points” used to maneuver the stones into place with ropes and levers.
• Symbolism of Permanence: These civilizations built with “megaliths” (large stones) specifically because they wanted their monuments to be eternal, leading to massive, thick-walled designs. 

Key Sites for Comparison

• South America: Sacsayhuamán and Puma Punku (famous for precise, interlocking cuts).
• Egypt: The Valley Temple at Giza (known for massive, perfectly fitted granite blocks).
• Mesopotamia: The Ziggurat of Ur and early Sumerian foundations.’

• ‘He Found Evidence That Rewrites the Timeline of Civilization | Matt LaCroix’: He Found Evidence That Rewrites the Timeline of Civilization | Matt LaCroix
• ‘Ancient Code of a LOST Civilization? | Egypt, Turkey, India, Bolivia – Matthew LaCroix, Danny Jones’: Ancient Code of a LOST Civilization? | Egypt, Turkey, India, Bolivia – Matthew LaCroix, Danny Jones – YouTube
• ‘The DISCOVERY That REWRITES Our Ancient Past – Matt LaCroix’: The DISCOVERY That REWRITES Our Ancient Past – Matt LaCroix (4k) – YouTube

AI – ‘The scattered megalithic blocks you see in the Sacred Valley—particularly at Ollantaytambo—are the result of a massive engineering project that was abruptly abandoned. These stones, often called “Tired Stones” (Piedras Cansadas), were in the middle of being transported from quarries to their final structural destination when history intervened. 

The “random” placement of these multi-ton blocks follows the path from the quarry to the temple site. 

• The Journey: Blocks were quarried at Kachiqhata, several kilometres away and across the Urubamba River.
• Transportation: They were dragged using massive ropes, ramps, and possibly pebble “rollers.”
• Abandonment: Construction likely stopped due to the Spanish Conquest (circa 1530s) or internal Inca civil wars.
• Failed Transport: Some stones were simply too heavy and “tired” their handlers; for instance, one historical account describes a stone falling and killing thousands of workers during transport. YouTube +5

How They Were Precisely “Scooped”The precision of the blocks, including the scooped-out sockets and sharp grooves, is a hallmark of Inca (and potentially pre-Inca) stone masonry. 

• Precision Carving: Maso used harder hammerstones (like hematite or basalt) to “nibble” at the softer andesite or granite until a perfect fit was achieved.
• Functional “Knobs”: Many scattered blocks have protrusions (knobs). These were likely handles for ropes during transport or lever points for final positioning, meant to be sanded off once the stone was set.
• Niches and Sockets: The “scooped” geometric shapes were often intended to be interlocking joints or ritual niches for religious offerings. 

Alternative Theories

While mainstream archaeology attributes the scattering to an abandoned project, some researchers point to other possibilities: 

• Ancient Cataclysm: Theories suggest a massive flood or earthquake destroyed a pre-Inca structure, scattering the blocks long before the Inca arrived.
• Remodelling: Evidence at Ollantaytambo shows the Inca were recycling and moving blocks from older, existing walls to build new ones when the site was abandoned. …
• There is substantial physical evidence that leads many researchers to theorise that a pre-Inca megalithic culture existed and was potentially devastated by a cataclysm, such as a massive flood or earthquake. 

While mainstream archaeology generally attributes these sites to the Inca (c. 1300–1532 CE), the “cataclysm theory” relies on specific visual and geological anomalies found across the Sacred Valley. 

Evidence of Two Distinct Eras – The strongest physical evidence for this theory is the stratification of stonework seen at sites like Ollantaytambo and Sacsayhuamán: 

• Precision Foundations: The bottom layers consist of massive (50–120 ton) pink granite or andesite blocks. These are fitted with “laser-like” precision, requiring no mortar.
• Crude Repairs: Built directly on top of these megaliths are walls made of much smaller, rougher stones held together with mud mortar.
• Interpretation: Proponents of the theory argue the Inca did not build the foundations but found them in ruins and “repaired” them with their own less-advanced techniques. YouTube +4

Signs of Cataclysmic DamageProponents of the cataclysm theory point to the following as proof of a sudden, violent event: 

• Scattered Megaliths: Dozens of multi-ton blocks at Ollantaytambo are found tossed about the valley floor in complete disarray, some half-buried in sediment.
• “Unfinished” appearance: Mainstream theory suggests these were part of an abandoned Inca construction project. The cataclysm theory suggests they were part of a finished structure that was “blown apart” by immense force.
• Vitrification: Some stones show signs of intense heat exposure, with surfaces that appear “glassy” or “melted,” which some link to ancient plasma events or high-energy cataclysms.
• Geological Evidence: Research in the Cusco Valley has found debris flow deposits up to 2.5 metres thick within ancient structures, dated to roughly 776–986 AD, suggesting major seismic or flood events predating the Inca. 

Challenges to the TheoryMainstream archaeologists and geologists provide alternative explanations for these findings: 

• Functional Hierarchy: The difference in stonework quality is often explained as a social choice—perfected “Imperial” style for temples and rougher “Cellular” style for storage or common areas.
• Quarrying Process: The scattered blocks at the bottom of Ollantaytambo are often identified as “tired stones” (piedras cansadas)—blocks that were simply abandoned during transport to the site.
• Seismic Design: The precision fit of the megaliths was a deliberate engineering choice to make structures earthquake-resistant, as the stones can “dance” and settle back into place during tremors. 

Key Takeaway: While physical anomalies like scattered 100-ton blocks and stratified masonry are undeniable, the debate remains whether they represent an abandoned Inca project or the ruins of a much older, lost civilization.’