|
|
Links to related
sites
(Do you want to be linked
with this page
Contact-Us with your details)
|
If you would like to
contribute to this page...
...please
Contact-Us with references.
|
|
|
 It is not surprising
if the occasional eyebrow is raised
when we are confidently informed that
the Egyptian pyramids, the last remaining 'Seven-Wonders' of the ancient
world, were constructed by people from the 'Neolithic' period. Apart
from the fact that eight of the largest 'Memphite' pyramids were supposedly constructed in
under 100
years, we are faced with numerous traces of applied mathematics, science and
technology within the structures themselves.
The extreme confidence of the Egyptian masons can be seen
through the numerous fantastic sculptures and obelisks (i.e.
unfinished obelisk-right), created in the middle kingdom. This
confidence and ingenuity can already be seen in the Egyptian masonry
from the earliest of dynasties, as the following examples show.
Scroll down for more:
|
Extreme Egyptian Masonry.
 'Machine-tools' -
Although the idea was first raised by Petrie, it has resurfaced recently
through the work of C. Dunn (1), who provides good evidence of 'Machined'
artefacts at Ghiza. He reminds us that Petrie also recognised that the few
remaining tools from the period were 'insufficient to explain Egyptian
artefacts'.
Dunn reviewed certain igneous
artefacts inspected by Petrie and concluded that they 'almost undeniably
indicate machine power was used by the pyramid builders'. (1)
Egyptologists maintain that
the work (including granite), was completed with copper and stone tools, although this has been contested on the basis that
the spiral tool-marks in
certain core samples indicate that a metal (or precious stone) stronger than copper would have
been required.
The photo (right), is a
close-up of the tool-marks on a granite sample. Their definition, length and
regular separation denote the use of both a harder-than-granite tip, and a
constant pressure.
The Giza Plateau.
It is often
forgotten that before the pyramid was built, that the limestone
plateau beneath was first levelled, and over it was placed a
platform of carefully cut stones which can still be seen to protrude
from under the pyramids base. This platform is around 0.5m thick and
despite the passing of time and several earthquakes, remains level
to within 0.8 of an inch (21mm) over a distance of over 13 acres
(5).
The whole of the
Great pyramid was originally covered with a coat of polished
limestone blocks (left), which would have given the whole of Giza a
smooth and perfect finish originally. 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 75 inches
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'.
(7)
The Saw-Marks in
the basalt stones on the east side of the Great pyramid at Giza:
The
basalt pavement stones are irregular in thickness, and sometimes
rounded on the bottom side. They were placed on top of blocks of
Tura limestone which had previously been fitted to the
underlying bedrock. It appears from the following photo's that
the basalt blocks were cut to level 'in situ' (after they had
been put in place on the ground).
The
crisp and parallel the edges demonstrate the high quality of
this work and indicates that the blade was held completely
steady. It appears that cutting basalt was not so slow and
arduous that extra cuts like these would have been avoided as
being an unnecessary waste of time. There are several places
where over-cuts like these can be seen. If you find this spot,
look around behind you to the north - there are several more
within 30 ft. In one place you can find many vertical parallel
saw cuts right next to each other.
(More
about the Giza Plateau)
|
Core-drilling - There is
plenty of evidence that core-drills
were used at Ghiza. The classic example being the tool-marks found inside
the sarcophagus of the Great pyramid. As the stone that was being cut is
granite, the surface of the drill-tip would have had to have included a
material of equal or greater hardness in order to cut through the stone.
In itself, this is an amazing achievement, but
when we look closer at the remaining drill marks, it is evident that a great
amount of downwards pressure was applied to the drills as well, more than
can be explained by conventional theory. The distance between the grooves
created by core-drilling can be use as a measure of how much force was
applied as drilling was in process.
Petrie said of this 'On the granite core, No
7, the spiral of the cut sinks 0.1 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or
1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out the quartz and feldspar which is
astonishing'.
The feed-rate of modern drills, Dunn calculates
to be 0.0002 inch per revolution, indicating that the Egyptians drilled into
granite with a feed-rate that was five hundred ties greater or deeper per
revolution of the drill than modern drills. (1)
There are several extraordinary sized stones recorded at the Ghiza plateau,
with the largest regularly estimated at over 400 tons....
Temple East of 'Khafres' Pyramid.
'Largest stone
estimated 468 ton block' (11).
(J. Cook; The Pyramids of Giza; p. 22). - 'Khafre
foundation stones > 400 tons'.
Mortuary temple
of Menkaure
(Mycerinus).
[Edwards, p. 265] - 200 tons
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/ - 285 tons
'Reisner
estimated that some of the blocks of local stone in the walls of the
mortuary temple weighed as much as 220 tons, while the heaviest granite
ashlars imported from Aswan weighed more than 30 tons'.
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Menkaure)
The
'Valley
Temple'
-
The Valley temple was built from huge granite blocks in the style of the Osireion at Abydoss.
They are estimated at around 50 tons + each. The whole temple in turn was encased in
even larger limestone blocks, the largest of which has been (enthusiastically) estimated at
around 200 tons.
The 'Great' pyramid of Khufu - The 'Kings chamber' in the Great
pyramid is covered over with several granite stones estimated at 50-70 tons
each. The Gable stones over the entrance (left) and several of the stones covering
the descending passage are also several cubic metres in size.
Maximum weight of stone in great pyramid:
( Guinness,
p. 119). 50 tons
(R. J. Cook; The
Pyramids of Giza; p. 22).70 tons
(The
largest stones of all time)
|
 Mass-Produced lathe-cut vases -
Petrie submitted evidence that showed that the ancient Egyptians used
Lathes.
It appears that vase
making was a considerable post in ancient Egypt. We can read an inscription
concerning 'Imhotep' which tributes him as the 'Chief vase maker' amongst
his many titles. There have been literally thousands of stone-carved vases
found in and around Saqqara, which are all
considered to have originated from the first dynastic periods. Many of the
vases have been cut from extremely hard stone, again requiring an equal or
harder blade to cut them with.
The evidence suggests that a specialised drill
would have been used to carve the interiors, which are remarkable in that
they have been carved equally well as the outsides, including the difficult
section inside and under the curve of the 'necks' of the vases.
The accuracy of the carving leads us to accept that they were
most probably lathe-turned, and cut with 'jewel-tipped' blades. The
difficulties involved with the internal angles can have only been overcome
with a specialised instrument although there is little explanation for why
such hard stones were chosen in the first place.
Dunn (1), says 'There is also evidence of
clearly defined lathe tool marks on sarcophagi lids'. The sheer scale
of these lids makes this a bold suggestion, which he confidently supports
with the observation that a Sarcophagus lid in the Cairo museum shows
evidence of 'tool marks that indicate these conditions exactly where one
would expect to find them'. (1)
Concrete in the
Pyramids.
It has been suggested that concrete
might have been used in certain ancient structures. As incredible as it
may seem, there is evidence to support this idea.
In addition to achieving
seamless joins between blocks, the builders of the great pyramid managed to
apply a fine 'cement' between each
block.
'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
(30). He concluded that either the hair is older than the rock surrounding
it, meaning the rock formed later, or the boulder is synthetic. (Either of
which is pretty amazing)
Examination and measurements of the boulders
used in building the pyramid show an unusually high moisture content (similar
to that found in concrete).
The seamless joins between blocks - The builders
of the Giza complex also cut granite stones with
almost perfect precision to fit side by side with their neighbours (i.e. the
Kings chamber). With
each stone being of a different size, it was a remarkable achievement to say
the least. It is currently believed that the stones were prepared at ground
level, then lifted into position.
The seam joins between
the basalt and the limestone pavements.
(The fine sliver of remaining limestone is
suggestive of either cement or 'moulded' masonry)
Concrete is also known to
have been used in the building of the
Ggantija
temple on Gozo (Malta).
(Other
examples of Concrete in prehistoric buildings)
|
Other examples: 
This schist disc was
discovered at Saqqara. Its purpose is only to be guessed at. It is
approximately 30cm in diameter, and is only 1cm thick. It is currently on
display in the Cairo museum, and is labelled as an incense container,
although there is no evidence to support this. What is certain is that at
this early time (Early Dynasty period), stone carving is already a sophisticated skill.
This finely carved stone
'funnel' is also from early dynastic Egypt. It is also currently on
display in the Cairo museum.
This Schist (slate) plate is from the 3rd
dynasty. It shows the same folded corners as the disc above from
Saqqara. It is currently on display in the Cairo museum.
(Other Egyptian Sites) |
|
