|
If you
know of any other examples of specific stone selection in ancient
structures...
...please
Contact-Us with references
|
Links to related
sites
(Do you want to be linked
with this page
Contact-Us
with your details)
|
If you
know of any other ancient construction techniques...
...please
Contact-Us with references.
|
|
|
Extreme Masonry:
(Extreme
feats of masonry from the ancient world).
The myth of a primitive society of megalithic builders is being gradually
dispelled by discoveries from various disciplines. Apart from the
self-imposed endurance of the physical extremes associated with transporting
and fitting stones weighing several hundred tons each in places, the
megaliths, pyramids and other prehistoric structures are examples of a human
relationship with stone and offer a glimpse into the mind of the builders,
through which we see a common human potential to conceive, engineer, and
create the most
unique, and majestic
structures possible thousands of years in the past.
(Scroll down for more)
|
Large Stones: Megaliths.
The word 'Megalith' derives from the Latin 'Mega'
and 'Litho' meaning 'big' and 'stone'. The fact that these megaliths
are found all around the ancient world illustrates that the use of
large
stones was considered an important factor to the prehistoric builders.
Using large stones is one thing, but when we come across
stones weighing hundreds of tonnes (when smaller stones would have been far
more
ergonomically efficient), it becomes clear that the size of the stone
was a key factor in the process of construction. The use of such enormous
stones such as those seen at
Baalbek, Giza,
Stonehenge, Carnac,
Jerusalem etc etc, reveal a level of
organisation and skill that has (naturally) reduced people to debate and disbelief
in the past.
|
 Ba'albek:
The largest carved stone ever, weighing approximately 1200-1500 tons, was left
finished by the constructors of in the quarry. The technical abilities of
the builders of the Ba'albek platform are equally matched by their
engineering confidence which required them next to manoeuvre the stones uphill
and fit them accurately into place. The inflicted difficulties of such a
labour provide an insight into the confidence of the builders, their
conviction and their purpose.
(Click here for more about Ba'albek)
|
(Click here to see the largest stones of
all time)
The Giza Plateau:
One of the most commonly quoted examples of the use of large stones
is at the 'Great pyramid' of Giza, in Egypt, where over
2 million stones with an average weight of 2.5 tonnes were used to
build the 'Great' pyramid. (The largest stones of the Great pyramid
have been estimated at around 70 tons (6), However, apart from this
obvious feat of 'extreme masonry', there are several other equally
astonishing physical feats to be seen at Giza.
-
The largest stone at Giza is estimated to weigh
around 468 tons (5), and can be seen in the wall of the temple
east of the second pyramid (Khafre's). Other limestone blocks
weighing 200 tons can be seen in the wall of the Valley temple,
next to the Sphinx.
-
The Pavement limestone beneath
the pyramids was levelled to an accuracy of within 0.8 inch across
the whole Giza complex (5)..
The use of large stones is repeated
again and again all over the ancient world, leading one to ask: Why
?
The most common suggestion is that
larger stones provide a structure with increased stability and
durability, which in essence is true, but the excessive size of some stones when balanced
against the additional time, effort and manpower suggest that other
factors may be involved.
(Return
to top)
|
The confidence of the megalithic builders
worldwide to work with such unnecessarily large stones is surpassed only by
their determination to transport specific stones over long distances to
previously selected sites.
|
Transportation of stone
over long distances.
Another common occurrence, visible at
several megalithic sites, is the transportation of specific stone
over long distances. It suggests one of two things (or both):
- The location of the
structure was more important than the type of stone used.
- The type of stone was more
important than the extra labour incurred transporting it.
There are several good examples of stone having been
transported over long distances:
é,
Carnac - The menhir was transported over a minimum of 50miles.
Great
pyramid, Ghiza - The Granite was transported over 500km
from Aswan.
Ollantaytambo, Peru -
Granite stones transported 7miles over mountains and valleys.
It is interesting to note that at all the
examples above, Granite was the transported stone.
Granite was also the common choice of stone for most of the
European megaliths, and for several prominent, visible parts of
the 4th/5th dynasty pyramids. This tends to suggest that the
qualities of the granite itself were of importance to the
megalithic builders.
(Return to the top) |
The specific selection of granite was not
restricted to prominent structures, but can be seen across the whole of
megalithic European. It is clear that the qualities of granite were
important to the megalithic builders - but Why?
|
The Specific Selection of
Stone types.
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
aspirations of the builders.
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 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:
 At
Newgrange in Ireland or example,
we are told that while the mound was built from 280,000 tons of
river-rolled stones, but that the builders also chose to travel 50 miles to the coast to
collect the white granite stones that are were used to make up the
face of the mound. (Guide) The specific use of
white quartz is repeated at several other megalithic sites such as :
The two 15-ton portal-stones at
Castelruddery, also in
Ireland.
Although the area surrounding
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 Prescilly 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, the
specific selection of stones was continued to the slaughter stone
which, while all the other stones were either sarsen or bluestone,
it alone is made of a sandstone laden with Mica (8).
Quartz = Crystal.
The idea that quartz
had a significance beyond its strength alone is reinforced by the
several findings of crystals in funerary remains (dating back to
Palaeolithic times). It is also common to find 'significant' stones
at the European megaliths either made entirely of granite or having
quartz seams in them, for example:
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.
And at the Hurlers
triple circle, the centre of the circle was coated with a bed of
quartz crystals.
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 several 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 qualities of crystal.
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.
(More about crystal)
(Return to the top) |
|
Extreme Egyptian masonry
It is not surprising that 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 'Memphite' pyramids were supposedly constructed in
under 100
years, we are faced with numerous traces of applied mathematics, science and
technology within structures that have no precedent.
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).
(More about the Giza complex)
...' 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 seamless joins between blocks - The builders of
the pyramids 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 between the
basalt and the limestone pavements.
In addition to achieving
seamless joins between blocks, the builders of the great pyramid managed to
apply a fine 'cement' between each
block.
The use of Concrete -
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.
'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).
Concrete is also known to
have been used in the building of the
Ggantija
temple on Gozo (Malta).
(Other examples of
concrete in ancient structures)
 'Machine-tools' - It has been suggested by C. Dunn (9), that there is 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'. (9)
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 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 suggest the use of both a harder-than-granite tip, and a
constant pressure.
Core-drilling - There is
plenty of evidence that core-drills
were used at Ghiza. The classic example being the tool-marks found inside
the Great pyramid (in the sarcophagus). 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. (9)
 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 (9), 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'. (9)
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, stone carving is already a well developed art.
This finely carved stone
'funnel' is also from early dynastic Egypt. It is also currently on
display in the Cairo museum.
(More about Ancient
Egypt)
(Return to the top) |
|
The Enigma of Puma-punka,
Bolivia
(Door of the Puma):
-
The nearby structure known as the Puma Punka is
still littered with giant, precisely shaped blocks, many of which
weighing appear machine made. The port of Tiahuanaco, called Puma
Punku or "Door of the Puma," which appears to have once been a wharf
with a massive four-part building, is now an area filled with enormous stone
blocks scattered around the ground like matchsticks, with several weighing
between 100 and 150 tons. One block still in place is frequently
estimated to weigh 440 tons.
The quarry for these blocks was on the western shore of Titicaca,
ten miles distant and the means or purpose of transporting such large stones
is still a mystery.
(The Top-50 Stones)
'A story was told by the local Aymara indians to a Spanish
traveller who visited Tiahuanaco shortly after the conquest spoke of the
city's original foundation in the age of Chamac Pacha, or First
Creation, long before the coming of the Incas. Its earliest
inhabitants, they said, possessed supernatural powers, for which
they were able miraculously to lift stones of off the ground, which
"...were carried [from the mountain quarries] through the air to the sound
of a trumpet'. (1)
(Other examples of Sonics)
It has been suggested that there
is evidence of basic machining at Puma-punka, as the following photo
demonstrates:
A close inspection of the stone
above reveals that there are regularly spaced drill marks in the
precision-cut 6mm groove
One of the most interesting things
to have transpired about the site is that many of the immense blocks were
built as if from a template, and amazingly appear to interlock as the
picture below illustrates. Such a discovery flies directly in the face of
all our concepts of the construction skills of the ancients. With no
previous examples of masonry at such a sophisticated level, nor on such
great scale leaves one to wonder at the confidence and skills of the
designers and masons.
(Left) Illustrating the sophisticated
way in which the Puma-punka stones fit together. (Right) A wall of the
Akapana pyramid shows the same modular feature. (3)
(More about
Tiahuanaco) |
|
