"An Inconvenient Stone"

In Cusco (Peru), a vandal attacked a twelve-sided stone in a wall with a hammer, crushing some of the grains and scarring it in the centre of the face. There was some halfbrain discussion of "copper chisels" on some of the pseudo-archaeology sites, including this comment:

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐬𝐭 ["Archaeological troublemaker."] @plastolithic Feb 19
(Replying to @Alaricbarbarian and @BrightInsight6)
It's a very inconvenient stone. Inconvenient for the Inca narrative.

.

It is a bit weird to see somebody actually proposing that this attack was an attempt to erase "the truth" by destroying this stone. But then this is the same jerk who published a photo of a rock on the site of Saqsaywaman (Cusco, Peru) with holes in it, writing: 

There's also way too much directionality and alignment to those holes. Something that can be easily demonstrated with a broomstick. This stone is one that needs to be preserved and studied by scientists, not archaeologists. -13.505882, -71.981794

Which "science" would that be? Rockology? Karst Morphology Studies?

Riddled with holes

This is where the "looks-like" trap of the loony fringe meet Dunning-Kruger. While the walls at the site are mostly of andesite, some (much?) of the bedrock is Cretaceous limestone. What we see here is a fallen block of part of the hill's natural structure, the soil washed off and in two areas trimmed to accommodate block-built walls constructed next to and on it and then subsequently removed for reuse elsewhere (like Cusco). The holes are karst erosion, nothing more, nothing less, purely natural. 

It seems before somebody starts playing the archaeologist (or "archaeological troublemaker") it really would be good to get a basic grounding in soil and geological processes, so as not to come out looking like an idiot.