Slashdot Mirror


MIT Students Show How the Inca Leapt Canyons

PCOL writes "When Conquistadors came to Peru from Spain in 1532, they were astonished to see Inca suspension bridges achieve clear spans of at least 150 feet at a time when the longest Roman bridge in Spain had a maximum span of 95 feet. The bridges swayed under the weight of traffic terrifying the Spanish and their horses, even though, as one Spaniard observed, they were almost as "sturdy as the street of Seville." To build the bridges, thick cables were pulled across a river with small ropes and attached to stone abutments on each side. Three of the big cables served as the floor of the bridge, two others served as handrails and pieces of wood were tied to the cable floor before the floor was strewn with branches to give firm footing for beasts of burden. Earlier this year students at MIT built a 70-foot fiber bridge in the style of the Incan Empire. The project used sisal twine from the Yucatan Peninsula and anchored it by wrapping it around massive concrete blocks. The weekend's burst of activity was preceded by 360 hours of rope-twisting as the 50 miles of sisal twine was turned into rope. Working together as a group was part of the exercise. "A third of the time was spent learning to work together," one of the students said. "But after a while, we were banging those cables out.""

185 comments

  1. Wise beyound years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the moral of the lesson is that ancient men weren't idiots.

    1. Re:Wise beyound years. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny
      ancient men weren't idiots

      According to Mayan glyphs found carved in stones near one of the bridges, Bolontiku, Ixzaluoh and Ac Yanto were in fact idiots. Ixzaluoh in particular, was believed to have had difficulty finding his ass, despite using both hands.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:Wise beyound years. by Dorceon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sadly for him, the the Mayans had not invented the flashlight or the map.

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
    3. Re:Wise beyound years. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      And yet his subsequent discovery of the Fountain of Youth has permitted him to continue in the role, publishing duplicate stories on Slashdot.

      More seriously, it's an interesting story. Teaching a bunch of extremely sharp, motivated people like MIT students to collaborate on a basic physical task that requires high quality control and doesn't have a lot of shortcuts must have been a fascinating task.

    4. Re:Wise beyound years. by kingkongjoe · · Score: 1

      May be its the modern men that are idiots. Why would you want to build an Inca bridge with Mexican fibers? May be they've should have gone to Peru to get their bridge fibers.

  2. Incas vs. Inca-pables? by morari · · Score: 0

    You decide...

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    1. Re:Incas vs. Inca-pables? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1, Funny

      This was an engineering project, not an attempt to hold a conversation with females of the opposite sex.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Incas vs. Inca-pables? by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      yea. it was all about those females of the same sex.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    3. Re:Incas vs. Inca-pables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Progressives"

    4. Re:Incas vs. Inca-pables? by davester666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...but, can you get wireless internet in the middle of it?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  3. The ones you don't see by Deltaspectre · · Score: 1

    This story came straight from the just-like-ninjas dept.

    --
    My UID is prime... is yours?
  4. w00t by Zackbass · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Haha, talk about a late story at a completely random time. I was one of the leaders on the project, lots of late nights twisting twine together. If anyone has any questions feel free to ask.

    --
    You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    1. Re:w00t by Nimey · · Score: 4, Funny

      If anyone has any questions feel free to ask. Why is a mouse when it spins?
      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:w00t by hjf · · Score: 1

      yes. I'd like to see your hands looked after twisting sisal for so many hours. Oh, the stupid things they made us do at school with that thing...

    3. Re:w00t by Zackbass · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh man, it wasn't pretty. My hands are pretty worn in from working on cars and in machine shops a lot of the time but they were always sore and red after a night of twisting. Sometimes I wore my mechanix gloves, but they don't give the feel really needed to work it fast.

      --
      You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    4. Re:w00t by skribe · · Score: 1, Funny

      What... is your name?
      What... is your quest?
      What... is the capital of Assyria?

      --
      Blog
    5. Re:w00t by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      after a night of twisting

            In a different time and place that phrase would have a completely different meaning. (whistling "Let's twist again!"...)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:w00t by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is a mouse when it spins?


      Because the higher, the fewer.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:w00t by Earered · · Score: 1

      Will the bridge stay permanently?

    8. Re:w00t by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 1

      after a night of twisting

      In a different time and place that phrase would have a completely different meaning. (whistling "Let's twist again!"...)
      Or different meaning to Hari Seldon perhaps?
      --
      "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
    9. Re:w00t by hejish · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How do you get the cable across the wide expanse? arrow + thin rope pulls thicker rope? Did someone have to start on the other side somehow - like from a long trek? These questions went unaddressed.

    10. Re:w00t by beadfulthings · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you "walk" the rope up and down, or how did you actually get the cables together? Does MIT now need a "Street of the Ropemakers" as is found in so many ancient cities? I'm asking because in a burst of insanity a number of years ago I learned how to spin woolen thread from raw wool--first with an ancient-style "drop" spindle, then with a distaff, and finally with a spinning wheel. It is...tedious. My understanding is that before the burst of technology that developed the drop spindle, thread or yarn (for weaving clothes) was made by twisting bits of fiber in the hands and then against the leg--and that rope is fabricated in much the same way only on a larger scale.

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    11. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What... is your name?

      None of your damned business.

      What... is your quest?

      None of your damned business.

      What... is the capital of Assyria?

      They don't have a bleedin capital the nations as dead as that bleedin parrot.

    12. Re:w00t by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly. When I read the title, I thought they'd be delving into how the first guy 'leaped' across the 150ft canyons.... I was thinking they flung a midget inca over the crevase by trebuchet or something... the article did not tell me, so I'm moving forward believing it was midget Inca's and trebuchets.

    13. Re:w00t by plover · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't be silly. Their technology wasn't that advanced. They fired Incan midgets from mangonels, not trebuchets.

      --
      John
    14. Re:w00t by Z80xxc! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was wondering the same thing. I would assume that if it's across water, they'd use a boat, and if it were across land, they'd take a looooong hike. Of course, once they had one bridge in across a particular obstacle, future bridges would be easier since you could just cross the existing one(s).

    15. Re:w00t by Ironpoint · · Score: 1



      I noticed the project was built in the middle of campus instead of a lab facility. Is this just campus showboating?

    16. Re:w00t by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Or different meaning to Hari Seldon perhaps

      Great! Another series to add to my overflowing reading list.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    17. Re:w00t by Sanat · · Score: 1

      Indeed the smaller threads were made by rubbing the fibers against the hands or for larger against the leg.

      For the really big threads I imagine that they probably used Rosie's legs.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    18. Re:w00t by Ruben3d · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should see this movie to catch the reference... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/

    19. Re:w00t by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I would assume that if it's across water, they'd use a boat, and if it were across land, they'd take a looooong hike.

      The problem with that plan is that you need to take a really looooong string along with you. By the time you reach the other side, your string is wound between trees, looped around rocks, etc. You'd have a lot of trouble pulling it taut.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a question: When are they going to stop being such fucking plutocrats at MIT? Ooooh, denial time.

      B-b-but, at MIT, we look at what you did with what you had, not what you had. Remember, merit! Meeerrrrriiiiittttt!!!

      Bullshit. You people make me sick you naive, elitist, absolutely pathetic pseudo-intellectuals. If you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to get a good look at the state of the educational system today, you'd know that too, but since ignorance is bliss, I don't expect any of you to go out of your collective comfort zones anytime soon.

    21. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so?

    22. Re:w00t by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Maybe you should see this movie to catch the reference..

      Seeing as how he mentioned a dead parrot and all, I'm guessing he actually did get the reference. Just a hunch though. I mean it could just be a wild coincidence.

    23. Re:w00t by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Now, where's the cure for AIDS, a system to destroy asteroids, a practical flying car, or something cheap & easy to produce that'll replace oil?

      We've actually got all those things, but it was determined that you were too dumb to appreciate them and so no one has told you yet.

    24. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay for you! You went to MIT and made rope bridges. Fan-fucking-tastic. That's what they do at places that you have to buy your way into.

      Now, where's the cure for AIDS... or something cheap & easy to produce that'll replace oil? Can't do that, it'd help too many of those poor people. The folks at MIT wouldn't want that.

      Thanks for proving to the world, yet again, that "college" in America is nothing more than a goddamn kindergarten class for spoiled children in adult bodies. Sarcasm aside, go to any of the top forty ranked colleges in America and you'll find practically nothing but ivory tower idiots who bought their way in, while everyone else works their ass off and has to settle for less than the best because, guess what, higher education here in the US is all about money and social class, and no one seems to care. It's total madness and utter bullshit.
    25. Re:w00t by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Was one of the purposes of the project to prepare crypto-archeologists for the threats that they will be facing for when they travel to remote places to prevent ancient powerful artifacts from falling into the hands of evil geniuses?

      If so: Well done!

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    26. Re:w00t by Z80xxc! · · Score: 1

      True. However, someone could go across, and then someone on the other side could shoot an arrow with a string attached and the person who had crossed could go over to where the arrow landed and untie the string, then drag across a heavier rope. It would probably make more sense of course to send a group of people, since starting a bridge is likely more than one person can handle alone.

    27. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, average tuition at most of the top US colleges is about 1/3 of full tuition. Which means, statistically, for every kid paying full, two kids are getting a free ride. So no, the majority of students do not "buy their way in" to these schools. The Universities get most of their money from alumni who "made good" and give back to the school. They try to recruit promising individuals who are likely to give back to the University later on, and try to not worry so much about the person's *current* finances. Of course, it's still a business calculation, it's just not the calculation you think it is, which should have a significant impact on the expected merits of the students. Which is not to say there aren't any people at these schools who "bought their way in" as you say. Rich alumni are more likely to give to the school if their kids get accepted. However, having attended one of the "top forty ranked colleges in America" I can tell you the full-ride dim bulbs were *severely* outnumbered by amazingly bright individuals who worked damned hard while receiving financial aid *from* the university (I was a full-ride dim bulb, so I'm not trying to aggrandize myself here). Have a chip on your shoulder if you like, but at least do some research into just how many students really "bought their way in."

    28. Re:w00t by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 1

      How do I get into MIT?

    29. Re:w00t by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And then someone else could go round, and pull the arrow out of the first guy. Or, just hire some guys who already live on the other side. Void in Alaska, YMMV.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:w00t by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

      or as George Carlin put it, "roll one, smoke one, eat one"

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    31. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whining because even DeVry turned you down? STFU buttmunch.

    32. Re:w00t by Sentri · · Score: 1

      Runaway, a Road Adventure: Nice call! I enjoyed that game alot, though the relationships seemes a little weird at times

      --
      Can't we all just get along
    33. Re:w00t by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      How do you get the first rope across?

      --
      stuff |
    34. Re:w00t by Riktov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forget shooting rope-laden arrows across wide windy gaps. Just have another person down in the canyon to tie the ends thrown down by both sides.

    35. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have money and brains. Well, mostly money.

    36. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Someone got rejected...

    37. Re:w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm extremely curious how you managed to spin with a distaff, as all it is used for is to hold fiber. Do you just mean that you learned to use a distaff along with a drop spindle? Was it a wrist distaff, or was it held in the hand? Perhaps it was a long pole that you propped against your leg?

      Also, ancient spindles have been found just about everywhere, including in Southern America. It's believed that a lot of archaeologists mislabeled spindles as large beads since this is what they'd look like if the center was made of wood and had long since rotted away.

      Spinning is tedious only to certain types of people. I'm not saying that's bad, just different. I personally find it extremely relaxing. There is something very zen about the whole process - from creating the thread, to the spinning wheel or whorl. It's extremely easy to simply lose yourself in the process, and not think for a while.

    38. Re:w00t by ibbey · · Score: 1

      D'Oh! What an incredibly simple solution. Isn't it amazing how these "difficult" questions often have such easy answers?

    39. Re:w00t by memojuez · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you meant this sketch?

      --
      Signature applied for, Patent Pending
    40. Re:w00t by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      Now that there's a bridge, it's not hard.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    41. Re:w00t by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The system to destroy asteroids (project Icarus) was done 40 years ago. It got good press at the time.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    42. Re:w00t by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Can't do that, it'd help too many of those poor people. The folks at MIT wouldn't want that.
      Where have you been? Negroponte's "one laptop per child" has been in the news for over a year now.
      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    43. Re:w00t by will_die · · Score: 1

      This is not exactly new the technique is still used today and various people have built Inca style bridges in the past few decades.
      Getting the initial thin ropes across you just have them drop them from the opposing sides tie them together and away you go. Now it gets fun it the bridge is over a river or a very,very deep valley, in thoses cases it looks like they would shoot from one side let gravity and the force carry the projective and rope across to the other side and then climb down.

    44. Re:w00t by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      the person who had crossed could go over to where the arrow landed
      Go to where it landed!? Real men catch arrows in mid air! Or with their body! Like this.
      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  5. Science! by proudfoot · · Score: 5, Informative

    People here seem to be missing the point - it isn't that this stuff isn't trivial compared to todays engineering, it is. But it's more revealing about the fact that non-western civilizations had an advanced grasp of the physics/science behind this stuff. They knew how to take advantage of rope tension. A bridge like this isn't so impressive today. It's easy to build. But to come up with the design is the hard part.

    1. Re:Science! by securityfolk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah, the Sumerian Gods told them how to do it... They'll be back around 2012 - you can get the real scoop from them at that time.. that is, as long as the humans aren't turned into a slave race - AGAIN.

    2. Re:Science! by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Precisely. History has always been extremely biased (the winner writes the books) and tended to show ancient people as stupid compared to us, especially the ancient non-European people (here in the US at least, I'd guess that other countries have similar slants). Yet again we're shown that ancient people had a grasp of the world that is surprisingly advanced, and that non-European cultures were just as advanced even if they didn't use gunpowder or some of the other things the Europeans had.

      Good article, I always enjoy learning about these sorts of things where someone tries to recreate an ancient feat, using authentic technology. They're almost always informative and teach us that we're not so far advanced beyond older cultures, and no one group has ever known the sum knowledge of the world, one group always seems to know more about one thing, and other groups about other things.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    3. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No joke, gozer is going to be pissed.

    4. Re:Science! by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      There is no Dana, only Zuul.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    5. Re:Science! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's one of those "how the heck did they do that" things.

      Take the Pyramides. Yes, it's trivial for us today to build something like that (ok, trivial... but take a few machines and you'll have one of those heaps of stones assembled quite quickly). But we're talking something around 3000 BC, so ... how?

      Here some group sat down and showed us just how they did it back then. It's where archeology meets engineering... archeoengineering, if you want.

      Ok, maybe it doesn't give us any new insight for our bridges of today. But it sure closes yet another gap and answers yet another question in our quest to find out about former civilisations and cultures.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Science! by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There are lots of things you could build today with old technology if you have the know-how. A valveless pulsejet engine is well within reach of early 19th century metalworking and fuel technology, for example, as is the airframe to fly it in -- but the techniques to make the engine, shape the wings, and control it weren't known.

      The first major use of differential equations as relates to contruction wasn't until the construction of the Eiffel Tower, where they were used to calculate beam loading.

      Artillery rockets have been around for hundreds of years, but the modern nozzle shape for a rocket wasn't used until the early 20th century.

      The advancement of technology is inextricably linked to the understanding of how to use it.

    7. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      People here seem to be missing the point - it isn't that this stuff isn't trivial compared to todays engineering, it is. But it's more revealing about the fact that non-western civilizations had an advanced grasp of the physics/science behind this stuff.


      I think that you missed the point. Enough of us are not so ethnocentric that we think that every other culture is backwards and stupid. When their injunuity is presented to us as "news" it only points out the stupidity of those who think that it's neat. People have been smart and solving problems since we came out of the trees and became people. Modern culture does not have a monopoly on intelligence or ingenuity. Their rope-bridge is as an impressive feat as our landing on the moon, and I don't need some snots to tell me so. If they want to recreate it, then great for them (and I hope they learn the science behind it and that people of the past were pretty smart), but it isn't news to the enlightened.
    8. Re:Science! by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They knew how to take advantage of rope tension... ...But to come up with the design is the hard part.

      Meh, trial and error becomes easy if you have countless slaves to practice with. What the Inca were REALLY famous for was their ability to direct and control the flow of water. Their canals were really impressive, apparently.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Science! by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, the engineering of the pyramids is still surprising us; not only was the construction of the pyramid incredible, but the actual quarrying and shaping of the stones is still unsurpassed. Sheets of paper won't fit through the gaps between blocks, and there's no mortar.

      Attempting to build a duplicate pyramid today would still be a massive undertaking that would take years; hardly a trivial task.

    10. Re:Science! by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      People here seem to be missing the point - it isn't that this stuff isn't trivial compared to todays engineering, it is. But it's more revealing about the fact that non-western civilizations had an advanced grasp of the physics/science behind this stuff.

      I'm not sure how building a bridge displays knowledge of the science which is relevant to bridge building. I've seen a 2-year-old build a bridge and I'm pretty sure he wasn't au fait with the physics of beam bridges before he put one block on top of two others. Yeah, suspension bridges are a bit more complex, but you still don't need to understand the physics to build one. Trial and error will suffice to find out how thick the ropes must be, how long they will last and so on.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    11. Re:Science! by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      But to come up with the design is the hard part.
      It's not that hard. Trial and error could have came up with it. What the Conquistadors saw was the last attempt that was successful for the Incans. What they didn't see was the dozens of past attempts and the unfortunate victims 150 feet below.
    12. Re:Science! by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      I sincerely doubt those savages understood why it worked, merely that if they "did it this way" it "worked".

      Best example I can think of off the top of my head is white willow bark. It has been known for thousands of years as a pain reliever, but they didn't know how or why it worked.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    13. Re:Science! by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "But it's more revealing about the fact that non-western civilizations had an advanced grasp of the physics/science behind this stuff."

      I fail to see how the Incas were a non-western civilisation. The lived in 'the west' (compared to europe), and they certainly had an advanced civilisation, even if they didn't have the wheel or horses.

    14. Re:Science! by porpnorber · · Score: 1

      Have you considered the cost of doing this by 'trial and error'? You need a lot of people, it takes a lot of time, a lot of materials, and you have to expend immense political capital even to motivate one attempt. Certainly designs evolve over time, but serious engineering thought clearly went into the original undertakings. I can't imagine how you can think otherwise.

      Then again, perhaps you consider any application of the empirical method to be 'trial and error'—in which case what we do today is no different, since the numbers we plug into the models do arise from measurement.

      Ah, wait a minute, I see. You feel that it is relevant that a two year old can build a six inch beam bridge. Suuuuuure. A six inch beam bridge holding up a plastic penguin in the living room is just exactly like a 150 foot suspension bridge carrying pack animals across a canyon. All the same intuitions will apply! Scaling issues? What scaling issues? But even in Wile E. Coyote's happy death-free world you are mistaken.

      Seriously, give some honest thought sometime to how you would build so much as a Stonehenge without modern technology. (And, yes, I know that a six your old can make something a similar shape with playing cards....)

    15. Re:Science! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I dunno. Maybe I'm cynical but it seems like this bridge, like the pyramids is a product of a pre science and mostly illiterate civilisation. Someone worked out how to do it by trial and error and got the equivalent of a no bid contract with the people that run society. Then he was put in charge of a vast workforce, probably press ganged by the military thanks to his political connections, and used it to build bridges until he retired with lots of nubile slaves. After that the technique was preserved probably by word of mouth or carried on by his children.

      It's not about physics or science though, you don't need those things to be able to do this.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    16. Re:Science! by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure how building a bridge displays knowledge of the science... Trial and error will suffice...

      Um... Trial and error *IS* science.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    17. Re:Science! by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Inca apparently didn't use the wheel, and they had no system of writing. With thousands of miles of road and no good way to share knowledge I'd basically guarantee that the Incas figured out how to build these bridges by trial and error. They'd throw a bridge across a ravine and it would work, and so next they would try and throw one across a wider ravine and it would fail (probably throwing people to their death). They would then take a good hard look at where it failed, and they would try something else next time.

      Heck, I've lived in the mountains of Peru, and I would argue that Peruvians are still designing their road ways more by trial and error than through any sort of rigorous engineering. Seriously, you absolutely wouldn't believe what passes for a road in the Andes.

      Of course, even in the modern first world we still do the same thing to this day. We understand a lot more about engineering than the Incas did, but that just means that when our bridges fail we probably throw more people into the ravine.

    18. Re:Science! by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      but did they understand the science behind it? i think not.

      the harsh reality is that acient non european's WERE stupid compared to us, hence why we were able to invade their arse so easily.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    19. Re:Science! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny
      When their injunuity is presented to us

      Injunuity: noun.
      The annual return of previously invested Native Americans.

    20. Re:Science! by kklein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, a lot of people are already saying this, but they're not being modded up, and I don't have mod points, so I'll just join in:

      But it's more revealing about the fact that non-western civilizations had an advanced grasp of the physics/science behind this stuff.

      There is absolutely no reason to think the Incas knew anything of the sort, any more than "nature" knows how to fly, because there are birds. It's evolutionary. Ideas that work stick around and propagate. Ideas that don't result in smashed Incas at the bottom of a ravine. Those ideas don't stick around.

      Most good cooks can't tell you the complex series of chemical reactions that result in deliciousness; they just learned via trial, error, and someone showing them what to do.

      How's your understanding of English grammar? Do you know how to diagram sentences down to the morphological level? Do you know how the tense/aspect system works in English? Do you know about semantic features, etc? I do, but I had to go to grad school to learn it. I have, however, been successfully speaking English for at least 31 years!

      Success at any task is not necessarily indication of an understanding of the theory behind it.

      I get so tired of people praising stone-age cultures as though they were so much more advanced than we like to think just because they could pile some damn rocks really high or, given several millennia of sky-watching, could notice patterns in the night sky. None of this is special and none of it is indicative of the kind of detailed, theoretical knowledge that the modern, largely Western, world has developed and is continuing to develop. If these filthy savages had been so great, they would have colonized us and our stupid hunter-gatherer lifestyles would have been destroyed (which, of course, did happen, when the Roman Empire came all the way up to the hellhole that was the British Isles, from whence my family originally hails).

      It's just simple evolution. Useful ideas that strengthen communities survive, others do not. That doesn't mean that the willful genocide of various primitive peoples the Europeans ran into was the "right" thing to do, but the destruction of their cultures and the re-appropriation of their resources was inevitable. I have no "white guilt," and I'm not sorry that I grew up on land my ancestors stole from people who had no written language, lived in animal-skin huts, and hadn't even developed farming. I don't feel any need to pretend any of these cultures were anything more than Paleo- to Neolithic cultures lost in time while the rest of the world (i.e. the cultures of Eurasia, each leading during different epochs) went on without them.

      Is the ability to build such bridges cool? Hell, yes! But it is not particularly special.

    21. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, they're still doing this in the Andes. Not sure why this is so special other than a bunch of nerds did it.

      I remember seeing this on Nova or some such program years ago. Each villager has an annual quota of rope they have to supply for rebuilding bridges. They then get together and strand all the small pieces together to make the big ropes.

    22. Re:Science! by Technician · · Score: 3, Informative

      and that non-European cultures were just as advanced even if they didn't use gunpowder or some of the other things the Europeans had.


      Don't give the Europeans credit for Gunpowder. Poor choice for the example.

      http://inventors.about.com/od/chineseinventors/a/gunpowder.htm

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    23. Re:Science! by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Meh, trial and error becomes easy if you have countless slaves to practice with.

      Indeed: http://despair.com/achievement.html

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    24. Re:Science! by jadavis · · Score: 1


      Don't give the Europeans credit for Gunpowder. Poor choice for the example.

      It's not about who invented the gunpowder.

      Europeans in the Americas had huge advantages because they made use of the inventions and discoveries made by a large number of people over a long period of time, whereas American natives were much more isolated. Even within the Americas, discoveries didn't move around as much, because the Americas are mostly North/South and discoveries move more easily along similar latitudes (because of climate).

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    25. Re:Science! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      > Heck, I've lived in the mountains of Peru, and I would argue that Peruvians are still designing their road ways more by trial and error than through any sort of rigorous engineering. Seriously, you absolutely wouldn't believe what passes for a road in the Andes.

      Kind of like most Perl, eh?

    26. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History has always been extremely biased (the winner writes the books) and tended to show ancient people as stupid compared to us, especially the ancient non-European people (here in the US at least, I'd guess that other countries have similar slants).

      Swap non-European for non-Roman and that would be right.
    27. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the stones were formed, not quarried and/or shaped, and i'm pretty sure there's an article about it here on /.

      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/01/170200&from=rss :]

    28. Re:Science! by PHPfanboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It doesn't take a genius to understand "wrap more rope, me not fall". As for "invading their arse", millions died from European diseases which is not really testament to your superior intellect.
      Yeah I know you wrote flamebait on purpose.

      --
      29 mpg. YMMV.
    29. Re:Science! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Apparently at that point in history a superior immune system was more of an evolutionary advantage than a superior intelligence.

    30. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sheets of paper won't fit through the gaps between blocks"

      Are you sure? http://pymd.com/climbing-Cheops-Pyramid.jpg or maybe here for a better view http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/viewPhoto?uname=jamieanderson02&aid=5127188818771634769&iid=5127190120146726370. Second picture shows some blocks preserving a good shape, but even there the space between them is easily visible.

      Or how about this http://www.cruisesrfun.com/images/BillonPyramid2.jpg picture?

      Those gaps look large enough in all photos, and the vast majority are hardly regular anymore.

      Ok, so some of the blocks may have been chipped by erosion, and the pyramid is thousands of years old etc. But then where did you get the impression that the blocks are so smooth as to be puzzling, or difficult to replicate, today?

      And by fitting a sheet in the gap between the stones I presume you mean the lateral (vertical) gaps. Weight alone, and there's tons of it, will ensure you can't easily slide something between the rocks in the horizontal gaps.

    31. Re:Science! by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "History has ... tended to show ancient people as stupid compared to us, especially the ancient non-European people (here in the US at least...). Yet again we're shown that ancient people had a grasp of the world that is surprisingly advanced, and that non-European cultures were just as advanced even if they didn't use gunpowder or some of the other things the Europeans had."

      I understand that this is the canon view, but seriously: where were you educated?
      I'm 40 so my main primary education was in the 70s in 100% public schools and frankly there was never any TRACE of a suggestion that early or indigenous people were "stupid". In fact, I'd say that the 70s were more about the 'noble savage' nonsense which in reality is just as paternalistic and just as racist & unrealistic as the stereotypes you're talking about.

      I daresay that my perception is that, due to the rigors of their environment, there was a higher Darwinistic pressure on humans in primitive circumstances, so that intelligence was more clearly 'selected for' than in our society where the stupid seem to breed freely and frequently, with government subsidies to make it even more encouraged.

      --
      -Styopa
    32. Re:Science! by E++99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      History has always been extremely biased (the winner writes the books) and tended to show ancient people as stupid compared to us.

      Yep. Just look at the Neanderthals. Based on the evidence we have to go on (brain size), they were a lot smarter than us. Yet look how we portray them.

      Admittedly part of this may be because they were discovered very shortly after the success of Darwin, and so automatically became the "missing link," and remained that way in the public consciousness. Maybe if they had only been discovered today, the general view of them would be less slanted. But maybe not. There seems to still be a strong bias against the idea that they were a more advanced species that went extinct, as we want to see ourselves as the end product of a continuous increase in advancement.
    33. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, get over yourself. All I got out huge block of text was how impressed with yourself that you are highly edumicated.

      WTG. Congrats. Good for you, and all that.
      Hey! Next time, try to post something meaningful.

    34. Re:Science! by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      Kind of like most Perl, eh?

      Precisely.

    35. Re:Science! by E++99 · · Score: 1

      I get so tired of people praising stone-age cultures as though they were so much more advanced than we like to think just because they could pile some damn rocks really high or, given several millennia of sky-watching, could notice patterns in the night sky. None of this is special and none of it is indicative of the kind of detailed, theoretical knowledge that the modern, largely Western, world has developed and is continuing to develop. If these filthy savages had been so great, they would have colonized us and our stupid hunter-gatherer lifestyles would have been destroyed

      I'm still waiting for modern society to perform a feat that is inherently greater than the building of the Great Pyramid of Khufu, or one of the other, non-surviving wonders of the ancient world. I agree that they didn't have the theoretical physics or chemistry that we had. So? We don't have the combination of government, culture, philosophy, religion, and engineering that the ancient Egyptians had. Until we build something as beautiful, awe inspiring, and lasting, as the Great Pyramid of Khufu, our claims to superiority based on our theoretical science rings as empty as your claim to superiority based on the fact that the British Isles were too far away and insignificant to be of interest for conquest to the Egyptian Empire. (Even the Mongols, the largest contiguous empire in history, couldn't find anything of interest in the British Isles.)

      Most good cooks can't tell you the complex series of chemical reactions that result in deliciousness; they just learned via trial, error, and someone showing them what to do.

      And by their learning, good cooks will acquire insight into how to accomplish deliciousness. Whereas you could take 10 years of graduate courses in chemistry and have no idea of how to make a good soup. Engineering can often gain insights from related theoretical fields, once those theoretical fields become advanced enough, but they are still separate areas of study.

      It's just simple evolution. Useful ideas that strengthen communities survive, others do not.

      Yes, and the same applies to modern Western society. So? The ideas still have to come from somewhere. "Simple evolution," if that's what you want to call it, also preserves good ideas amongst societies of chimps, such as tool making techniques and food sources, but they don't build bridges. The fact is that the Incas had the engineering skills necessary to clear-span a 150-foot gap when the Europeans did not.

      Engineering ability of humans has historically usually far surpassed theoretical models. While Western theoretical understanding of chemistry far exceeded that of Japan and China in 1912, metal workers in those countries had understood the differences in the hardness/brittleness and the toughness of high-carbon and low-carbon steel for 1,000 years, and had been using that knowledge to make swords with an inner core of tough low-carbon steel, surrounded by an outer layer of more brittle, but hard and sharpenable high-carbon steel. Meanwhile, European engineers, without those engineering insights, built an enormous ocean liner out of high-carbon steel, that was so brittle that it sank after hitting a chunk of ice.
    36. Re:Science! by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      "I understand that this is the canon view, but seriously: where were you educated?"

      Public school. The basic teaching was 'Here, look at these great Roman people, look what wonders they built. Oh and China was doing some interesting stuff too, but hey look! Conquistadors, weren't they great? Those silly Native Americans, not knowing how to use guns, too bad for them.'

      Every history class I've been in has treated the Roman culture as significantly more advanced than anything before or at the same time, and their descendants as the most intelligent and civilized people in the world. I remember quite clearly learning about the colonization of the New World, and not even having the Native Americans mentioned until the French and Indian War (where the teacher had to explain to the class that, yes, there were Native Americans here before us, they just weren't important to our earlier learning). And my school was no more than 15 miles from an Indian Reservation, with a large population of Native American students.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    37. Re:Science! by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the engineering of the pyramids is still surprising us; not only was the construction of the pyramid incredible, but the actual quarrying and shaping of the stones is still unsurpassed. Sheets of paper won't fit through the gaps between blocks, and there's no mortar. Attempting to build a duplicate pyramid today would still be a massive undertaking that would take years; hardly a trivial task.

      And while it is claimed that it would be technically possible for us to reproduce something like the Great Pyramid of Khufu, it will never be attempted by our society because of the enormous cost. So when taken as a group, it is the combination of engineering ability, and political, economic, and philosophical/religious abilities, made it possible for the ancients to build things as awe-inspiring, beautiful and permanent as Great Pyramid of Khufu. Even if it is possible to reproduce their efforts from an engineering point of view, it is not possible for us to do so from an economic and political point of view. It is impossible for the modern world to build something so expensive unless it will somehow pay for itself. And something that pays for itself is never going to be as beautiful, or awe-inspiring, or, for that matter, built to last as long, as something built under purer motives.
    38. Re:Science! by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Writing has historically had little to do with communicating engineering techniques. Europe has had writing for at least a few thousand years, but until the last hundred years or so, all our engineering knowledge has been handed down from generation to generation by means of apprenticeship, just like the rest of the world. This would have been how both Incan and European bridge-related engineering would have been communicated at the time.

      "Trial and error" implies that there were no principles of engineering applied to the design of the bridge, which if you look at the complexity of it, clearly there were. Obviously, new principles are learned from failures and from experimentation, but this is a different concept than "trial and error."

    39. Re:Science! by TheOriginalRevdoc · · Score: 1

      The finely finished blocks are only on the outside. Inside, the blocks are quite rough and don't fit together tightly.

      This is pretty common in ancient stonework. For example, the famous Inca stonework at sites like Sacsayhuaman look fantastic - the joints look almost organic, they're so close - but that's just the outer edges of the blocks. Behind the surface, the block edges are quite rough.

      The real engineering miracles in large structures like the pyramids are of social organisation and agricultural production.

    40. Re:Science! by dizzydogg · · Score: 1

      As it says under the second picture, it used to be covered by a layer of smooth granite. The Egyptians were fond of recycling the materials of old monuments of Pharoes who have fallen out of favor to build new monuments. Most of the pyramids originaly had a layer of smooth white granite, that would reflect the sun's light and shine. Those granite bricks as well as any bricks they could manage to remove were harshly ripped out to build future monuments. Under the surface, the bricks have very little space between them and you would be hard pressed to find a space to squeeze in a piece of paper, they are amazingly well shaped.

    41. Re:Science! by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Be carefull how you state that, the quarrying and shaping is surpassed. Using water beams it is both easy and fast. We can even shape them manually using sandpaper, it is just no one can imagine sandpapering that many rocks. What a grind, those egyptians must really have had no life at all.

    42. Re:Science! by penguin+king · · Score: 1

      Is brain size indicative of higher intelligence or bigger head? I'm fairly sure that male brains are on average bigger than female brains, we're also on average bigger, and have larger heads... however we are not necessarily more intelligent.

    43. Re:Science! by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1

      The Inca apparently didn't use the wheel, and they had no system of writing.
      Actually the current thinking is that Incan khipu served as a written language as well as a mathematical recording system.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    44. Re:Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read recently that some group had discovered evidence that most of the rocks were not quarried at all, instead they are actually cement poured into gaps. So no mortar is needed between the slabs, the whole slab is mortar...

    45. Re:Science! by sjames · · Score: 2, Funny

      The finely finished blocks are only on the outside. Inside, the blocks are quite rough and don't fit together tightly.

      Trust me, nothing's changed. The most common statements on a construction site today are:

      1. Don't worry, they'll sheetrock over it
      2. The whole world's an inch off plumb.
      3. Where's the sledgehammer?
    46. Re:Science! by socz · · Score: 1

      i gotta say something!...

      "Ubuntu 7.10 was the first Linux install I've ever done that worked! (Now what do I do with it?)"

      Now try FreeBSD! Right now you're still in the stone age of linux/unix. Who can't install linux now a days? Sure it's cool, but it's no longer special. And thats where you miss the point. Back in the day, it was a huge deal, knowledge that hadn't previously existed.

      Try coming up with a new way to do something that you already do. It's not easy starting from scratch. But when you do, it's a huge deal. Like the microwave bacon hanger! How many people have been waiting for that, eh?!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    47. Re:Science! by socz · · Score: 1

      one of the examples i like is that of the coral castle located in florida i believe. Not only did 1 man build it, but the same man moved it's location, ALONE!!#*!@)#*! It's awesome. But, how did he do it? Surely the old techniques he used aren't special, right? This according to the OP anyways. Knowledge like this should have stuck around because of it's usefulness right? Or is it just not impressive anymore?

      That was a big complaint of mine for a long time! How come the mexican pyramids weren't included in the wonders of the world? Although it was explained why, it was ridiculous to say that lesser pyramids counted because they were big, but more advanced designed pyramids were accepted!

      I should probably stop but i'm on a roll now! Not only were they built to specifications, not as "trial and error" as egyption ones where they still stand incomplete, but some are even "astronomically correct." One of the more impressive ones are in tune with the summer and winter solstice.

      EOF

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    48. Re:Science! by westyx · · Score: 1

      Metal workers in japan and china worked out how to use carbon in it's different forms to manipulate the types of steel produced, but they also refused to spread the knowledge and technology - they deliberately kept it to themselves.

      The titanic sinking was not because of a failure of knowledge of chemistry - it was a business and political decision to sail early while the ship was still being fitted (missing critical gaskets), stupidity on the part of the captain to use an area with icebergs reported, a decision to go full speed in said area, and an inability to realise that compartmentalising a ship requires no gaps be left between ceiling and walls.

      Then again, I don't remember too many japanese ships of steel on the waters around the time the british launched the titanic.

    49. Re:Science! by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for modern society to perform a feat that is inherently greater than the building of the Great Pyramid of Khufu, or one of the other, non-surviving wonders of the ancient world. I agree that they didn't have the theoretical physics or chemistry that we had. So? We don't have the combination of government, culture, philosophy, religion, and engineering that the ancient Egyptians had. Until we build something as beautiful, awe inspiring, and lasting, as the Great Pyramid of Khufu, our claims to superiority based on our theoretical science rings as empty as your claim to superiority based on the fact that the British Isles were too far away and insignificant to be of interest for conquest to the Egyptian Empire. (Even the Mongols, the largest contiguous empire in history, couldn't find anything of interest in the British Isles.)

      To put this in some context, there are more scientists alive now than people living in that ancient Egyptian empire. In my view, a year of effort probably yields as much scientific progress as everything up to the Age of Enlightenment (say around 1700 CE), but it doesn't look that impressive because the problems are harder. That knowledge with luck will outlast any physical object including the Solar System.

      Meanwhile, European engineers, without those engineering insights, built an enormous ocean liner out of high-carbon steel, that was so brittle that it sank after hitting a chunk of ice.

      I assume you are refering to the Titanic. The brittleness of the steel wasn't a big factor in its loss since better bulkhead engineering would have contained the flooding and saved the ship.

      Having said that, it's too easy to (as the grandparent does) dismiss the expertise of an ancient culture when virtually all records of it have been destroyed. We don't know what scientific knowledge the Incans had, because aside from the results like the rope bridges or stone construction, it has been lost. I really doubt that Incans could "evolve" such rope bridges without some understanding of what was going on.

    50. Re:Science! by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Wait, did you pick Sumerian Gods to fish me in?
      Since we are talking Incas, wouldn't Golden Condor Ufos have done it? Or is this some conspiracy I am not aware of?

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    51. Re:Science! by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Then again, I don't remember too many japanese ships of steel on the waters around the time the british launched the titanic.


      You might want to look again. Eight years before the Titanic sank, the Japanese navy sank two-thirds of the Russian navy without taking significant losses at the Battle of Tsushima.
      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    52. Re:Science! by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm not really sure that that's a fair statement. Trial and error can certainly be a very important part of experimentation, which is certainly a very important part of science, but just because you're using trial and error does not mean that you're accomplishing scientific research.

      I can take 20 different jars of baby food and give a spoonful of each to a baby until I find a list of flavors that she likes, that's some pretty basic trial and error. But at the end of the day, have I accomplished any science? No, I just found out what the kid will and won't eat.

      Using trial and error to test theories or refine an understanding of something is certainly a valuable part of scientific research, and it's one of the most basic ways to test things, but at a fundamental level, it only produces data. The compiling, understanding, and trying to explain that data is what makes it science.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    53. Re:Science! by westyx · · Score: 1

      You are totally right, to the point that i did a paper back in high school about that campaign.

      Whoops.

  6. Re:we can get there from here? by dvhirt · · Score: 0

    a bit paranoiac, aren't we today?


    right! This is slashdot! silly me...

  7. w00t-A close team. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If anyone has any questions feel free to ask."

    Did you tie each other up?

    1. Re:w00t-A close team. by Zackbass · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not on purpose as far as I remember, but when the rope reached a certain size it couldn't just be reeled up by hand anymore and we had to have two people act as a reel, twisting the rope around themselves as they walked down the hall. Eventually they'd be tied right up against each other with something like 70lb of rope around them.

      --
      You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    2. Re:w00t-A close team. by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mmm... kinky. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:w00t-A close team. by mollymoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not on purpose as far as I remember, but when the rope reached a certain size it couldn't just be reeled up by hand anymore and we had to have two people act as a reel, twisting the rope around themselves as they walked down the hall. Eventually they'd be tied right up against each other with something like 70lb of rope around them.

      In the light of that, I have three questions:
      Are you doing it again?
      Do you need volunteers?
      Are the rest of the volunteers likely to be hot, naked chicks?

      I have to admit that if the answer to the third one is "no" I may not be very interested.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    4. Re:w00t-A close team. by EvanED · · Score: 1

      "Are the rest of the volunteers likely to be hot, naked chicks?"

      After reading this part of the discussion, I'm not sure that would work out so well.

  8. Disppointed and not what I expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping for details of some sort of catapult where some poor person (or sacrifice) was given a lead line and flung across to the other side.

    1. Re:Disppointed and not what I expected by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Here, Icxtuatl, hold this."

      "Ok. Say, looks like you're building a bridge or som ... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!" {fwap!}

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Disppointed and not what I expected by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I was hoping for details of some sort of catapult where some poor person (or sacrifice) was given a lead line and flung across to the other side.

      You would've made a "good" Inca king (at least by their standards).

      Wait a second. I thought the Inca empire died out by the time the Spaniards came. The Aztec empire was the active one.

    3. Re:Disppointed and not what I expected by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Aztecs were in and around the region of Mexico, the Incas were in South America roughly where Peru is today. The ones who had died out were the Maya, although there were several small tribes in Central America (Chorotega, Guatuso, etc) between the two mighty empires.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Disppointed and not what I expected by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      That's the Mayans that disappeared. The Incas were down in Peru.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    5. Re:Disppointed and not what I expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      1) Aztec Empire, Mexico, Cortez, 1519-1521.
      2) Incan Empire, Peru, Pizarro, 1532-1535 (occasional resistance until 1570 or so)
      3) Mayan Empire, Mexico, was more of a federation of cities, First contact in 1517, a couple failed expeditions 1527-1535, success in 1540-1546 (last city only conquered in 1697 though)

    6. Re:Disppointed and not what I expected by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You're right. I got my South Americans mixed up. Thanx 4 correction

    7. Re:Disppointed and not what I expected by value_added · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe describing it in a context that any Slashdotter would understand might help.

      Aztecs:

      I, for one, welcome our Mesoamerican, Cortez-hating, Virgin of Guadalupe-worshiping, human-sacrificing, maize-and-bean-growing, empire-building Mexica overlords.

      Incas:

      I, for one, welcome our pre-Columbian, sun-loving-with-bare-titicas, Conquistador-fighting, Machu-Picchu coca leaf-chewing, Andean-whistling and bridge-building overlords.

    8. Re:Disppointed and not what I expected by bogjobber · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Maya hadn't died out. Quite the contrary, there were (and are) huge populations of Mayan people in Yucatan and Guatemala. They just weren't the dominant civilization at the time the Spanish arrived. There were probably about a million "Mayans" (exact numbers being impossible to come by for many reasons) while Central Mexico may have had as many as 25 million people (most estimates put it in the 10-15 million range).

  9. Re:we can get there from here? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't even bother replying to those cretins. Slashdot needs a semantic analyzer to weed out the obvious gibberish.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  10. Spaniards by waldo2020 · · Score: 1

    The only things they brought to Peru were horses, guns and syphilis! The only thing they took away was gold!

    1. Re:Spaniards by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The only thing they took away was gold!

            No. They took silver, too.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Spaniards by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Syphilis was present in the so called New World prior to 1492. They also brought back potatoes.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Spaniards by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      If memory serves (rare I know...) I believe I read that the syphilis thing was the other way around. The native people of the Americas were said to be rather "friendly," the European explorers (conquerors), horny. Along with the silver and gold the Europeans carried back with them the natives' gift of syphilis where it spread like wild fire among the well-bred.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:Spaniards by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, hence the country 'Argentina'.

    5. Re:Spaniards by camperdave · · Score: 1

      it spread like wild fire among the well-bred.

      ... and it spread like molasses among those who were rarely bred.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  11. Re:Why is a mouse when it spins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Cheddar cheese has no substitute.

    I thought everyone knew that?

  12. Re:Hemp rope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Sorry kid. I think you've got your cables mixed up.

    Better luck next time.

  13. my thoughts when i saw it by wrigglywrollypolary · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was walking around campus one day and saw the cement pillars going up. They were BIG concrete boxes, about 4 stacked up taller than me and about 2-3 feet on a side. I'm not sure what happened to that concrete but it seemed wasteful to make _just_ rectangular prisms. No offense, especially since I'm a 'utility-focused' engineer, myself, but I did think-- wow, these are harsh. It might have been fun to paint, or sculpt them (before being set, or with plaster afterwards), with Incan designs or information about the construction process.

    The rope bridge itself looked fun to walk on, but it had a sign saying no trespass. That sign was up the whole time the bridge was there, though it is possible people might have walked around the bridge for fun and jumped around to see how it swayed and bubbled. At that point the bridge might have been up a while and losing tension and so the sides of the shallow creek interfered with the hanging bridge aspect.

    It's great to see thought provoking structures go up around campus. Rock on.

    1. Re:my thoughts when i saw it by Zackbass · · Score: 4, Informative

      The deal with the concrete blocks was that they were provided to us quite cheaply by one of the companies doing construction at Sloan. They brought them in, put them where we told them to, and took them back when we were done so we couldn't do much to them. Without them stacked up like that it would have been horribly difficult to get the normal force required on the brick surrounding the Stata center (which of course we couldn't even think about touching).

      About the sign, we assumed it would be wholly ignored. We needed it to satisfy the safety office I think (I wasn't involved with that end of the planning much).

      --
      You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    2. Re:my thoughts when i saw it by plover · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about the concrete blocks being "wasteful". Construction firms use them all the time as weights, counterweights and for stabilizing temporary construction work. I'm sure these were just some from their stock, and were not cast specifically for being "temporary rope bridge pillars".

      --
      John
  14. Re:we can get there from here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But then I underwater fun cats amazes Buffalo buffalo!

  15. Bang those cables, guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Incan Rope Makers Union, or Bangbla, ...

  16. The traditional bridge builders still do this by psychgeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    The descendants of the original bridge builders still do this each year at one of the original sites, using techniques handed down by previous generations. Photos here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_rope_bridge#Renewing_the_last_bridge

    1. Re:The traditional bridge builders still do this by talkingpaperclip · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow, they must have been pissed when it got cut in half for that Indiana Jones movie.

  17. News? This was in May ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who needs archeology when you have Slashdot digging up stories of dubious merit from the past?

  18. is this really newsworthy ? by hagnat · · Score: 1

    some mit dewds built a rope bridge, so what ? rope bridges are really common here in Brazil... atleast in the good ole german colonies, where they are found crossing all kind of rivers... yeah, some of them use steel, but it's almost the same thing

    --
    "life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
  19. NOVA did an episode on this by Schwern · · Score: 3, Informative

    Back in 1997 NOVA did an episode, "Secrets of Lost Empires: Inca", where they went to Peru and filmed the natives building a grass suspension bridge in the traditional style. I'd recommend watching it if you want to see one of these things under construction, it really it amazing how they go from dry grass to a sturdy rope bridge.

  20. Stupid misleading titles. by untaken_name · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who was disappointed to learn that this article was about BRIDGES?!?!
    I was hoping to read about an Incan Evel Knievel, not some stupid bridge. Lame.

    1. Re:Stupid misleading titles. by Descalzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      No kidding. I've seen rope bridges before. I made like a finity of those at Scout Camp.

      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    2. Re:Stupid misleading titles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I had this image of Incas being pursued by Spanish horsemen pole jumping over canyons to escape. Then I figured those gorges are pretty deep, so you'd need a pretty long stick :)

  21. Thailand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I walked across a suspension bridge similar to these in Thailand when I was there a few years ago. It was somewhere outside Chiang Mai (NW Thailand). Perhaps this was not only "discovered" in South America, but was much more common. The article mentions China, but I suspect much more of Asia has been ignored.

  22. It's like the internet, except with people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bridges, appropriate to the vertical landscape of the Andes, made possible a system of messenger service unmatched until the 19th century. In other words the Inca were the first to transmit data "over" fiber and achieve unparalleled data transmission rates.
  23. Re:Who cares... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's special this time, because it was an invention that Dead White Men didn't make.

  24. Please tell me the "departments" are going. by Besna · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't see it here! As if we don't have enough smartass types here, it encourages them to no end. The removal of karma for +1 funny was the right step. Please eliminate the deparments!

  25. Summary is incorrect.. by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Informative

    These aren't suspension bridges, as the comparison to the George Washington bridge in the article clearly shows. They are rope bridges.

    The difference is that the walking surface is not suspended from the overhead cables. It is instead supported by tension in the ropes that compose it.

    The critical difference from the MIT bridge and the monkey bridges many of us made in the scouts is that it was supported by concrete blocks instead of lashed wooden A-frames and stakes. And that the MIT students put a rather impressive number of hours into making and thoroughly vetting their own rope and design.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Summary is incorrect.. by E++99 · · Score: 1

      These aren't suspension bridges, as the comparison to the George Washington bridge in the article clearly shows. They are rope bridges.

      The difference is that the walking surface is not suspended from the overhead cables. It is instead supported by tension in the ropes that compose it.

      According to the illustration of the Inca bridge that's next to the GW bridge in the linked NYT article, the walking surface clearly WAS supported by overhead cables (as well as its own ropes).
    2. Re:Summary is incorrect.. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Examine the engraving again. The lengths of the stays are critical, as is the shape of the rope bridge between the vertical lines.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  26. Re:we can get there from here? by evanbd · · Score: 1

    What, like this?

  27. Scoffing at the Ancients by handy_vandal · · Score: 4, Funny

    So the moral of the lesson is that ancient men weren't idiots.

    "We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." - Jack Handey

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  28. Scoffing at the Ancients by handy_vandal · · Score: 0, Redundant

    History has always been extremely biased (the winner writes the books) and tended to show ancient people as stupid compared to us, especially the ancient non-European people (here in the US at least, I'd guess that other countries have similar slants).

    "We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." - Jack Handey

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  29. How they did it by Descalzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Take the Pyramides. Yes, it's trivial for us today to build something like that (ok, trivial... but take a few machines and you'll have one of those heaps of stones assembled quite quickly). But we're talking something around 3000 BC, so ... how?

    From Red Dwarf:
    Rimmer: No, Lister, I mean like the pyramids. How did they move such massive pieces of stone without the aid of modern technology?
    Lister: They had massive whips, Rimmer. Massive, massive whips.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
  30. Typical... by professorfalcon · · Score: 1

    A third of the time was spent learning to work together

    Typical problem for PHDs and other academics. Seriously!

  31. Been there, done that, IIT Madras by KnowThePath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This happened years ago at IIT Madras, India http://www.civil.iitm.ac.in/events/paper-bridge.html

  32. Roman bridges had a maximum span of 95 feet? by brokeninside · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Trajan's bridge over the Danube (built between 103 and 105) was over a thousand meters long and 15 meters wides. Each individual arch that made up the bridge was over 35 meters long. Roman bridges in Spain that still exist extend over 800 meters. And then there are the various Byzantine bridges ... Not to mention the two mile long pontoon bridge built by the Persians so that their foot soldiers and cavalry could cross the Hellespont prior to the battle of Thermompylae. Sure, a 150 foot rope bridge is a neat design, but it doesn't really compare in scale of engineering to the bridges of the ancient world.

    1. Re:Roman bridges had a maximum span of 95 feet? by Riktov · · Score: 1

      What the article says is:

      "The Inca suspension bridges achieved clear spans of at least 150 feet, probably much greater. This was a longer span than any European masonry bridges at the time. The longest Roman bridge in Spain had a maximum span between supports of 95 feet." (my emphasis)

      Trajan's bridge was long destroyed by the time of the Spanish Empire, and it wasn't in Spain, thus the Inca bridges had longer spans than anything the Conquistadores had ever seen. They were duly impressed, as they certainly should have been.

    2. Re:Roman bridges had a maximum span of 95 feet? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      What the article says is:

      "The Inca suspension bridges achieved clear spans of at least 150 feet, probably much greater. This was a longer span than any European masonry bridges at the time. The longest Roman bridge in Spain had a maximum span between supports of 95 feet." (my emphasis)

      And what the post you replied to said is:

      "Roman bridges in Spain that still exist extend over 800 meters."

      The grandparent post was consciously directly contradicting the article, so I don't see your point.

    3. Re:Roman bridges had a maximum span of 95 feet? by Riktov · · Score: 1

      800 meters in total length, but the spans (distance between supports) were no more than 95 feet. The Inca bridges had spans over 150 feet.

    4. Re:Roman bridges had a maximum span of 95 feet? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Did they have any bridges that had more than 1 span?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  33. rtfm by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

    as usual /. makes it look like its a story about something it totally ain't about. incas leaping canyons. ok. i thought we're talking people leaping canyons in the same way that trinity and the agent leap from one tall building to another and in doing so fly across a rather wide street. i thought, maybe the matrix is real after all and i need to figure out how to get the hell out of here. then i open up the story and realize that /. is fscking with me once again.

  34. What I'm really interested about is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, they've built a 70ft rope bridge with ropes made from sisal twine fibers.

    But we should apply some modern techniques too, therefore my question is: how long rope bridge could be constructed using rope made from carbon nanotubes?

    1. Re:What I'm really interested about is... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      how long rope bridge could be constructed using rope made from carbon nanotubes?

      I think they call that a "space elevator".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  35. Some people build this kind of bridge all the time by ja · · Score: 1

    Here is a related item from Nepal

    --

    send + more == money? ...
  36. Something important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you realize... Someday people are going to look back on our civilization and say the same stuff
    You are living in it!

    Journalists Can't Hide News From the Internet
    In The US, Email Is Only For Old People
    Inside A Korean Rehab Camp For Web Addiction
    People Believe NASA Funded As Well As US Military

    Slashdot: Documenting the apocalypse.

  37. MIT bias? by kalamar · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does it seem like any MIT-related story gets automatically published on /.? I don't mean to criticize this article in particular, but it seems that every week there are 3-4 stories on something done by someone at MIT, even when these things are not always particularly important/interesting.

    1. Re:MIT bias? by rholland356 · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is editorial bias among the deciders at Slashdot, do you?

      It may simply be that MIT students have a proclivity toward Public Relations, and naturally flock toward stories of their own.

  38. Prof. Lechtman strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great story. My husband was course 3 and his advisor was Prof. Lechtman. He made ancient West Mexican bells using lost-wax bronze casting for his thesis.

    One question - did you get to use animal fat or another lubricant to keep from ripping your hands up completely?

  39. Re:Hemp rope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tl;dr

  40. Re:Science! - If you like by chawly · · Score: 0

    "(which, of course, did happen, when the Roman Empire came all the way up to the hellhole that was the British Isles, from whence my family originally hails)."
    And all hail to you, fellow. I bet that they hailed from the part of the British Isles which the happy old Romans actually took over, and not the more northern part

    "Ubuntu 7.10 was the first Linux install I've ever done that worked! (Now what do I do with it?)"
    You did that ? All by yourself ? And it worked ?! And now you want a suggestion concerning what to do with it ? You didn't know before you started ? Let me give you a suggestion to start off you're reasoning DON'T EAT IT !!

    --
    How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  41. That is a bit more clear than the summary by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    But let's be honest. The Spaniards were probably less impressed by a single span covering a given length than by the fact that these rope bridges were so high up in the mountains. This has less to do with impressive engineering than with the impressiveness of nature. The aqueducts of Cordoba or the ropes used to hold together Darius' pontoon bridge were far more impressive engineering feats than these bridges.

    This is not to say that these bridges aren't impressive. They just aren't all that impressive compared to the contemporary engineering in other parts of the world. The Hagia Sophia is still standing. Wither these rope bridges of 500 years ago?