|
If you
know of any other ancient construction techniques...
...please
Contact-Us with references.
|
|
|
Prehistoric Construction Techniques.
A Comparison of masonry
techniques from around the ancient world.
The earliest examples of masonry in both the 'old'
and 'new' worlds demonstrate a high level of skill, which is often
suggested as being due to an existing knowledge of carpentry at the
transition in working from wood to stone. This idea is borne out
somewhat in Egypt where for example, the masonry of the ceilings in the temples of
1st dynasty Saqqara were carved to imitate the 'reed-bundle' ceilings
of pre-dynastic Egypt. There is however, no evidence of such a
transition in South America.
(Scroll down for more).
The transport and application
of unnecessarily large blocks of stone, the specific
selectivity of stone type along with various examples of 'extreme'
masonry at many of the most sacred ancient monuments is
starting to reveal a reverence for stone itself, an idea which
has foundation in mythology, religion and can still be seen
today at Jerusalem, Mecca, the 'Lignum' of India and at the
crowning of any new king/Queen in UK (i.e. Scottish
'Stone-of-scone', English 'kings-stone') etc etc.
|
Featured Masonry Techniques: The following examples
demonstrate the sophisticated masonry skills of prehistoric masons.
It is
noticeable that there are several specific construction
techniques in the masonry of (apparently unrelated) cultures
from around the ancient world. The specific similarity in
design, technique and engineering skills is, in certain
cases very suggestive of a common source of knowledge, or at
the least - of contact between cultures. In response, it has
been argued that such similarities are
'co-evolutionary', being the natural result of working with
stone.
|
'Folded' Corners.
Several structures show the
blocks cut
with an internal angle, so as to 'fold' the stone around corner's. It is
suggested that this was incorporated as an earthquake 'preventative'.
 
Valley-Temple,
Ghiza, Egypt.
- There are several stones with this design
feature in the valley-temple. It is interesting to note that the stones have been
cut so as to continue
only a short distance around the corner which hints at the idea that
style might have been involved (rather
than, or as well as, function).
Luxor, Egypt. (Left),
Machu
Pichu,Peru (Right).
|
|
Multi-facetted stones.
It is often suggested that this
design feature was incorporated into constructions as an 'earthquake'
preventative. The fact that the constructions exist in such good condition
after so long, in itself supports this idea.
Multi-faceted stones -
Valley-temple, Ghiza, Egypt.
While the Egyptian
examples (above), followed a horizontal plane, the South American examples
(below), are polygonal, apparently following neither vertical nor horizontal
planes, a process which would have required a considerably higher level of
technical skill.
The Inca masonry of south America is probably the
finest the world has ever seen.
S. America,
Cuzco.
'Stone of the twelve Angels'.
(2)
 
Sacsayhuaman -
One of the greatest walls of all time.
One of the 300 Ahu Platforms surrounding
Easter Island. Made of Basalt and with blocks
several tons each, The style of masonry shows a stark similarity to South
American masonry examples above.
|
|
Metal Block-Ties.
Another construction feature commonly suggested as
an earthquake preventative is the means used to join huge blocks together.
It is believed that copper (or silver) was
used at Tiahuanaco (below), both of which are soft metals. It has also been
suggested that these 'ties' were employed to 'ground' structures properly
(often made of conducting Quartzite).
Some examples from the 'Old-World' (Namely Egypt, and Cambodia)..
From left to right:
Angkor Watt,
Karnak,
and
Denderra.
And from the 'New-World'.:
Tiahuanaco,
and
Ollantaytambo.
|
|
Quarry-Marks (for splitting stone).
The megalithic builders employed the same method of splitting quartz, at different
locations all around the world. This is not unusual, as it is probably the best
method, and is still widely used today.
Examples from S. America:
Left: Machu Pichu (1)
and Right: Cuzco.
 
From
Egypt: Menkaure's pyramid, Giza (left), and
at Aswan (right).
From
Carnac, France, (left), and
Castleruddery, Ireland (right).
More examples from Portugal (left), and From Malta
(right).
(Click here for more on this
subject)
|
|
'Manoeuvring protuberances'.
These small protuberances are found on the oldest (and arguably most sacred)
Egypt and South American constructions. They are generally assumed to have functioned as
'hitching points' for
manoeuvring the blocks into place, however there are several examples where they
have been left as if to demonstrate some other meaning...
The 'Boss' mark on the stone above the passage entry into the 'King's
chamber' in the great pyramid is often suggested as being the remains of one
of these protuberances.
They are on the exterior granite facing-stones of Menkaure's Pyramid at Giza.
It is possible to see how the process of smoothing off of
the granite casing stones was started on the Eastern face of Menkaures pyramid. The smoothing process was achieved with
the use of Dolerite mauls which were able to pound the softer granite. This
process can still be seen today at the Aswan granite quarries, where the
granite for Giza originally came from.
The same marks are also found in the
Osireion, at Abydoss. One of the many reasons to support
the theory that it was
contemporary with the Valley temple at Ghiza.
The same 'protuberances' can be seen at several Inca sites
in South America.
At Ollantaytambo,
Peru, the 'protuberances' take on a whole different meaning altogether, as
they could almost be classed as stylised over functional.
Note: Although both locations have the same
'protuberances', the Inca block-work was multi-faceted, while at Ghiza,
they were laid in even courses.
|
|
Mortise and Tenon joins.
It is perhaps surprising to find that some of
the earliest known examples of masonry exhibit a sophisticated
understanding of joinery. This particular construction feature is reasonably
explained as having followed the transition from building structures
first from wood then stone.
Some examples of the Various 'Mortise and
Tenon' joins used in the construction of
The Osirion, at Abydoss,
in Egypt. This is considered one of the oldest buildings in Egypt, and
is quoted as having only one other structure of contemporary design, that being
the Valley-Temple at Giza. Both
structures used the technique of continuous-lintelled trilithon's, seen also
at Stonehenge III.
(Click here for a comparison of
the two structures)
Mortise-and-tenon joints had, of course, been used previously in Bronze Age
ships in Egypt, as in the construction of the Khufu’s boat at Giza (ca. 2600
B. C.) and Senwosret III’s boats (ca. 1850 B. C.) at Dashur (Lipke 1984, 64;
Steffy 1994, 25-27, 32-36, Patch and Haldane 1990). These early Egyptian
examples of mortise-and-tenons, however, were freestanding and not pegged to
lock adjacent strakes to one another. Rather, their primary function was to
align the planks during construction, which were then fastened to each other
with ligatures. This tradition of shipbuilding appears to have persisted at
least as late as the 5th century B. C. when Herodotus observed
nearly identical construction methods still in use in Egypt. In his
oft-cited quotation, Herodotus noted that short planks were joined to each
other with long, close-set tenons, which were then bound in the seams from
within with papyrus fibers (Haldane & Shelmerdine 1990). There is no
mention of locking the close-set tenons with pegs. The Egyptians were,
however, fully aware of pegged mortise-and-tenon joints at last since the
Old Kingdom (Dynasty III: ca. 2700-2600 B. C.) and used them in woodwork
requiring this type of fastening (Lucas & Harris 1962, 451), but, as far as
we can determine, they did not resort to their use in shipbuilding, unless
they restricted their use to seagoing ships only, for which we have
surviving examples. (9)
The
Stonehenge Sarsen Stones :
In its complete form the outermost stone setting would have consisted of a circle of 30
upright sarsen stones, of which 17 still stand, each weighing about 25 tons.
The tops of these uprights were linked by a continuous ring of horizontal
sarsen lintels, only a small part of which is now still in position. The
stones in the sarsen circle were carefully shaped and the horizontal lintels
joined not only by means of simple mortise-and-tenon joints, but they were
also locked using what is effectively a dovetail joint. The edges were
smoothed into a gentle curve which follows the line of the entire circle.
The sarsen-ring at
Stonehenge (whose
official inner diameter is 97ft or 1162.8 primitive inches), has a
circumference of 3652.4 primitive inches. Note: This is also exactly one
‘quarter-aroura’, as measured in ancient Egypt (1). Sir Norman Lockyer
also detected similarities between the masonry of the Blood/Chalice-well
at
Glastonbury and
that which
he
had seen in Egypt.
The pictures above illustrate the sophisticated
construction techniques applied to the
Stonehenge sarsen-stones, which are
dated at approximately 2,500 BC, however if we follow Lockyer's lead, and
look closer at Egyptian masonry, we find similar features were applied to
construction of the the Osirion (above), a temple dated to a far earlier
time, and a site suggested by Lockyer to have alignments suggesting an
association to the summer-solstice sunrise
(2).
(More about Stonehenge)
And finally, from the Indus Valley Culture...
This incredible stone casting is from Harappa in
Pakistan (c. 2,500-2,100 BC).
|
|
Prehistoric Drilling.
It was claimed by Petrie
that early dynastic Egyptians used drills for some of their
constructions. The following images suggest he was right.
Evidence for
drilling in ancient Egypt. Marks in the kings-coffer suggest that it
too was hollowed by core-drilling.
The Cap-stones of Pierres Plates in France
have what appear to be drill-marks on the top-sides.
 The 'Drill-marks' on some stones match those on
others, suggesting they were split in half.
(More
about Pierres plates)
|
Surgical Drilling in
Prehistory.
Although not directly
connected with construction, evidence for drilling goes back
several thousand years, as testified by the numerous examples
of prehistoric dentistry and Trepanning, both involving
drilling procedures.
Article: MSNBC (2006) - Proving
prehistoric man’s ingenuity and ability to withstand and inflict
excruciating pain, researchers have found that dental drilling dates
back 9,000 years.Primitive dentists
drilled nearly perfect holes into live but undoubtedly unhappy patients
between 5500 B.C. and 7000 B.C., an article in Thursday’s issue of the
journal Nature reports.
Researchers carbon-dated at least nine skulls with 11 drill holes found
in a Pakistan graveyard.
(Link to full article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168308/)
 Trepanation:
Skulls with signs of trepanning were found practically in all
parts of the world where man has lived. Trepanning is probably
the oldest surgical operation known to man: evidence for it
goes back as far as in 40,000 year-old Cro-Magnon sites. The
Egyptians invented the circular trephine, made by a tube with
serrated borders, which cuts much easier by means of rotation,
and which was then extensively used in Greece and Rome, and
gave origin to the "crown" trephine, used in Europe from the
first to the 19th century.
(Link to full
article:
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n02/historia/trepan.htm )
(Prehistoric Surgery) |
Hundreds of drilled holes on the stones at
Mnajdra, Malta.
(More about Drilling in Prehistory) |
|
The use of Concrete in Ancient Structures.
Egyptian Concrete:
'The Hair in the Rock'.
Maltese Concrete:
'Torba'.
 'The
Hair in the Rock'
- Prof. Dr. Joseph Davidovits of the French Geopolymer
Institute discovered a hair sticking out of a boulder of the Cheops (Khufu)
pyramid of Giza). He concluded that either the hair was older than the
rock surrounding it, (meaning the rock formed later), or the boulder is
synthetic. (5) Either of which is pretty amazing.
Examination and measurements of the boulders used in building
the pyramid show an unusually high moisture content (apparently the kind one
would expect to find in concrete).
The photo
(right), is from the pavement surrounding the pyramids at Giza. It has been
shown that this pavement was
accurately levelled to less than 0.5 inch
across the whole site, which makes it a spectacular masonry achievement in
its own right. However, of more immediate interest is the thin sliver of
limestone that has remained next to the black basalt rock behind it (in the
photo above). Any ideas?
The original advocate for this theory
was
Prof. Dr. Joseph Davidovits, whose original statements in the
1980's were at first ridiculed, but which have now, following rigorous
analysis, appear to have been reasonably substantiated.
The following scientific treaty was written in 2006 and
supports Davidovit's original theory. (Although Egyptologists still adamantly refuse to
accept such an idea it is gradually gaining support).
|
Article:
Science Daily. 2006:
Professor Finds Some Pyramid Building Blocks Were Concrete
In partially solving
a mystery that has baffled archaeologists for centuries, a Drexel
University professor has determined that the Great Pyramids of Giza were
constructed with a combination of not only carved stones but the first
blocks of limestone-based concrete cast by any civilization.
The longstanding belief is that the
pyramids were constructed with limestone blocks that were cut to shape
in nearby quarries using copper tools, transported to the pyramid sites,
hauled up ramps and hoisted in place with the help of wedges and levers.
Barsoum argues that although indeed the majority of the stones were
carved and hoisted into place, crucial parts were not. The ancient
builders cast the blocks of the outer and inner casings and, most
likely, the upper parts of the pyramids using a limestone concrete,
called a geopolymer.
The type of concrete
pyramid builders used could reduce pollution and outlast Portland
cement, the most common type of modern cement. Portland cement injects a
large amount of the world's carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and has a
lifespan of about 150 years. If widely used, a geopolymer such as the
one used in the construction of the pyramids can reduce that amount of
pollution by 90 percent and last much longer. The raw materials used to
produce the concrete used in the pyramids -- lime, limestone and
diatomaceous earth -- can be found worldwide and is affordable enough to
be an important construction material for developing countries.
(Click
here for full article) |
As well as the suggestion that the
blocks themselves may have been made of cement, Petrie
himself identified
that it was also used
between the
blocks. The whole of the Great pyramid was originally covered with a
coat of polished limestone blocks. The faces of these blocks have
butting surfaces cut to within 1/100 of an inch of mathematical
perfection. Petrie said this of it:
...'the mean
variation of the cutting of the stone from a straight line and from
a true square is but 0.1 inch in a length of 75inches up the face,
an amount of accuracy equal to the most modern opticians' straight
edges of such a length. These joints, with an area of some 35 square
feet each, were not only worked as finely as this, but
were cemented throughout.
Though the stones were brought as close as 1/500 of an inch, or, in
fact, into contact, and the mean opening of the join was 1/50 of an
inch, yet the builders managed to fill the joint with cement,
despite the great area of it, and the weight of the stone to be
moved- some 16 tons. To merely place such stones in exact contact at
the sides would be careful work, but to do so with cement in the
joints seems almost impossible'. (8)
(Other examples
of extreme Egyptian masonry)
Maltese concrete ( Torba)
 Ggantija , Malta
-
The
temples on Malta are claimed to be some of the oldest free-standing temples in the
world.
A. Service (6), mentions the 'contemporary cement of the floor'
in the pavement of the Ggantija temple on Gozo, Malta (see
left), and
although the idea was not accepted for a long
time,
The pictures below show how some of the
temple floors
were paved with huge stones, a process also visible at several Maltese temples (Tarxien,
left and
Ggantija,
right).
(More about the
Constructions of Prehistoric Malta)
|
|
The Specific Selection of
Stone.
While it is apparent
that the megalithic builders showed a preference for certain stone
types, the reason for this has yet to be explained satisfactorily.
The extra distance and effort required to employ specific stones in
ancient structures offers us with a clue as to the possible
motivation of the builders.
At Vale de Rodruigo, in southern
Portugal, geological analysis were carried
out at the stones used in four megalithic graves. The results were
surprising as the stones had been brought to the site from different
locations of up to 10km distance. Geological research suggests that this
choice was probably predominantly motivated by functional and practical
reasons. As different rocks had different appearances and physical
characteristics it is suggested that they were chosen according to a
pre-conceived design. In addition, the locations of the sites of origin
of the different material represents main celestial directions from the
megaliths. This makes it likely that the monuments also represent
certain symbolic values associated with the landscape and certain
cosmologies. (10)
It is reasonable to assume that
in certain cases specific stones were selected for their 'Aesthetic'
value, such as colour, reflectivity or rarity. However, there are noticeably
few examples of
European megaliths where granite can be seen to have been used for its
structural qualities.
As noted above, the pyramid builders at Giza went
to great lengths to include granite in their sacred buildings,
transporting it hundreds of miles in preference to the more readily
available limestone. At Giza, we can see that granite was used for
the lower levels of exterior casing blocks on both Menkaure and Khafre's
pyramids, whilst in the Great pyramid of Khufu, it is found only on
internal features (plugs, girdle-stones, antechamber portal stones,
kings chamber). The selection of features for which granite was
chosen reveals something interesting: namely, that it was not just
used structurally. So, at the same time as recognising that granite
is a stronger stone, there are other reasons why granite was
selected for use in sacred structures. This supposition is supported
by evidence from other megalithic structures, for example:
Stone Selection at the
Boyne Valley.
At the
Boyne-Valley complex in Ireland, the stone
material used in the major passage mounds of
Newgrange and
Knowth come from several sources, two of
which are approximately 40km south and 35km North east of the monuments
(Cooney. Antiquity. 2000: 135-8) in these cases, megaliths became "a
transported landscape in which structural elements were extracted,
carried and re-assembled to link together physically places that had
been distant" (Cooney. Antiquity. 2000: 136)
Although it is certain from old images of the site that the
reconstruction was 'fanciful', they were unarguably originally part
of the structure. The
same white quartz stones were found in front of both Knowth and
Dowth where they are being considered as having originally been a 'white
aprons' on the floors of the entrances to the mounds.
The 'function' or reason for placing so many white-quartz rocks at
the front of Newgrange (regardless of their original position),
can only be speculated upon today. Reynolds
(13)
suggested the following:
In his paper, he considers the case of
quartz rocks as animistic agents. Quartz is frequently
associated with animists. For example, the Amazonian Tukano Indians
consider quartz to be "living" or a "live rock," with special or
healing properties. He draw upon recent discussions on the possible
roles of quartz at Newgrange Site 1, Ireland, within the Neolithic
around 3000 cal. b.c. Although Newgrange has traditionally been
depicted as a place for the dead, he considers whether Neolithic
people conceived of quartz as having a "life-force".
'Archaeologists have only recently recognised
quartz as a significant part of prehistoric stone technologies in
Ireland and Britain. As a raw material, quartz is superabundant in
areas of Ireland and Britain and was utilised extensively in
prehistory. However, research biases have obscured a fuller
understanding of it'. (12)
The specific use of
white quartz is repeated at several other European megalithic sites such as:
The two white-quartz 15-ton portal-stones at
Castelruddery, also in
Ireland at which the prominent placement of such large, white stones
at the entrance of the henge gives them the site the
appearance of a giant 'Celtic Torque'. Quartz portals were also used at
Castlerigg W
Boscawen-Un, in
England is a granite circle of 19 stones, and was suggested by W. Stuckley as having been one of the first circles in UK. (The 19
stones being suggestive of the 18.6yr lunar cycle). Although the
whole circle is composed of granite stones, there is a single white
quartz stone at the S/SW of side the circle (aligning the centre
with the May-day sunrise).
At
Balquhain stone
circle (and Bannau-Sir-Gaer), in Scotland the builders chose white
granite for the outlying stones.
At
Glenquickan, also
in Scotland, a white granite obelisk was placed in the centre of the
circle. A central quartz menhir was also used at Maulatanvally
A t the
Hurlers
triple circle, the centre of the circle was coated with a bed of
quartz crystals, while at the three
Thornborough henges in
Yorkshire, the
banks of the henges were coated in brilliant white gypsum.
T he
perfectly flat 53-ton recumbent at
Old-Keig, Sotland, which was
quarried several miles from the site, and was positioned so that it
captured the moons major setting points on the horizon.
The qualities of crystal.
All of the above
examples highlight the fact that granite (or perhaps crystal), was
considered to have special qualities other than just strength.
Records show numerous examples of crystals and quartz being placed
alongside funerary remains (a feature that can be traced back to
Palaeolithic times), a fact that raises the question of whether or not
the megalithic builders were were aware of the other physical
properties of crystal.
The Excavation of the
Aztec 'Templo Mayor' site in Mexico, produced a funerary
casket, from the inner-most layers of the pyramid, beneath a
Chac-mool statue, 'thought to represent the god Quetzalcoatl'.
Within the casket were found several crystal artefacts which
included; Several crystal cylinders, thought to represent the 'feathered
tail of Quetzalcoatl'. Crystal Lip-plugs, crystal ear-spools and
a row of thirteen crystal beads 'thought to have been part of a
necklace'. (Ref: 11).
It is a curious fact that when a
crystal is placed under pressure it produces electricity.
Experiments by Marcel Vogel, a research chemist for IBM over 27
years, suggest that water can act as an electrolyte and pick up
charge from a crystal with which it comes into contact. Measurements
by spectrophotometer, an instrument for comparing light radiation,
show changes in the 'atomic footprint' of water before and after
exposure in this way. Paul Devereaux began the 'Dragon project' in
order to research this particular aspect of the megaliths.
Excavations
by the Stonehenge 'Riverside project' in 2005 uncovered a 'cremation
mound' which was found to contain the partially burnt remains of two
people, one of whose vertebrae survived the fire, along with an
assortment of artifacts, amongst which were: "Stone knives and
arrowheads, a piece of limestone carved into the shape of a
megalith, two pottery bowls, and a rare rock crystal were
also unearthed near the burial site."
The rock
crystal is described as having come to Britain from as far away as
the Alps.
(More about crystals in
prehistory)
Stone selection at Stonehenge.
Stonehenge has at least four different
types of stone in the overall structure, each brought from
different locations: Over 80 5-10 ton 'Bluestones''
from Wales, the huge 20-50 ton 'Sarsens' from 20km north near Avebury, the mica-sandstone 'Slaughter stone'
from Milford Haven, and the limestone packing-stones from Chilmark..
Although the area
just north of
Stonehenge is littered with
perfectly suitable sarsen stones, the builders chose to use over 80
Bluestones instead, requiring them to transport them over 200
miles from the Presily mountains in Wales. It is perhaps relevant
then that a piece of bluestone was found in almost every one of the
59 Y and Z holes (8).
At Stonehenge, it
seems that the specific selection of stones extended to the
slaughter stone which is unique at the site, being made of a
sandstone laden with Mica which came from the Cosheston Beds, composed of
Devonian sandstone, near Milford haven on the
coast of Wales, some 30 miles to the southwest of the Presily quarries.
While it is reasonably clear that the stone which once stood at the
centre of the site was chosen for its unique properties, the exact
relevance can only be guessed at.
Kalb suggests that 'Stones transported over long distances to build megaliths
were pieces of places' (10)
'There were also a small number
of limestone blocks and slabs used in the construction of Stonehenge
brought to the site for the specific purpose of packing material to
support the much larger sarsen uprights. The limestone quarries have
been identified as Chilmark, 12 miles west, and 3 miles southeast at
Hurdcot'. (19)
(More about
Stonehenge)
|
(Extreme
Masonry)
( Extreme
Egyptian Masonry) |
|
