|
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 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 can still see a common human potential to conceive, engineer, and
create the most
unique, and majestic
structures possible thousands of years in the past.
|
Building With Large Stones: Megaliths: |
The word Megalith derives from the Greek ' Mega'
and 'Lithos' meaning 'big' and 'stone'.
One of the most noticeably impressive factors
about the megaliths is their sheer size, which has given certain sites an almost
'mythological' status, with local traditions often stating that they
were fashioned by 'giants' or 'gods'
'A story was told by the local Aymara indians to a Spanish
traveller who visited Tiahuanaco shortly after the conquest, 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)
Using large stones is one thing, but when we come across
examples of stones being moved weighing hundreds of tonnes when smaller stones would have been far
more
ergonomically efficient
(such as the three 'foundation' stones at Baalbek), it becomes clear that the size of the stone
itself
was a consideration in the process of construction. The use of 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 in the past.
Large Scale Megaliths:
|
Ba'albek:
One of the largest carved stone ever, weighing over 1000 tons, was left
unfinished by the constructors 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 seamlessly into place. The associated difficulties of such a
labour provide an insight into the builders, confidence, conviction and
ability.
(Click here for more about Ba'albek)
|
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 structures with increased stability and
durability, which of course is true, but the excessive size of some stones when balanced
against the additional time, effort and manpower suggest that other
factors may have been involved.
The movement of the larger
megaliths are evidence of a 'social enterprise', involving the
co-operative skills and labour of large numbers of well organised
people. Alexander Thom suggested that the Neolithic people had a
society with hierarchy, structure and specialised 'castes'. This
idea starts to explains the means whereby such stones may have been
transported, but not why...
Mendelssohn
(11)
suggested that the purpose of building fantastically large
structures (such as the early-dynastic pyramids of Egypt) was to
unite the people through a common purpose, at the same time as
reinforcing the social hierarchy of 'Kingship'. Extending this
theory, one could say that if the size of the monument reflects the
greatness of the builder, then the size (and type) of stone in turn, reflects
the greatness of the masons.
(Click here to see the largest
50-megaliths of
all time)
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.
There are some extraordinary
accounts of unfeasibly large stones being moved over unnecessarily
long distances, suggesting either the location or the stone were
believed to have special properties.
-
Stonehenge: Over 80 Bluestones
moved over 250 miles from Preseli, Wales.
-
Giza: 50+ ton Granite stones transported over
300 miles from Aswan.
-
Carnac: 300+ ton
Lochmariaquer menhirs transported over 25 miles.
-
Ollantaytambo:
50+ ton Porphyry stones transported 7-miles over mountains and valleys.
-
Teotihuacán :
90ft² sheets of Mica transported over controversial
distance of 2000Km
But what dies this
tell us, any more than that they wanted stone from one place to be
taken to another ?
In each case there must have been a large and
available work-force including skilled and un-skilled labourers,
support, organisers, all presumably under the
authority of an individual or caste. Such structures can be deemed as
'social constructions', and lend weight to Mendelssohn's theory of
large monuments/stones as symbols of 'greatness'. Assuming one of
the prerequisites of construction being the use of large stones, w hy
then select to move such large blocks of stone over such long
distances when other more local and readily available sources were
known - as was the case at Stonehenge ?
Although it is
arguably obvious that the granite used in
the Egyptian pyramids was structural,
the same cannot be said of all sites, noticeably the 90²ft Mica sheets at
Teotihuacán which were found sandwiched between stone layers of
stone and which served no apparent structural or aesthetic function.
Stones transported over long distances to build megaliths have
been described as 'pieces of places' (10)
The logistic difficulty involved with
long-distance transportation suggests that the stone itself was
considered to have qualities worth transporting it over such long
distances. However, the very fact that stones were
transported so far also suggests that the new location itself must
have been of
equal importance to the builders.
(More
about the Specific
Selectivity of stone)
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)
The transportation of specific
stone over long distances suggests one of two things (or both):
- The type/location of stone was more important than the extra labour incurred transporting it.
- The location of the
monument was more important than extra work required to move
the stone.
It is interesting to note that one of common
factors of these 'long-haul' megaliths is that they were
invariably composed of granite (quartzite), which was the leading
choice of stone around the prehistoric world, noticeably in areas
such as Neolithic Europe, Early-dynastic Egypt and Pre-Columbian
America. This prejudice to quarry, cut and haul one of the hardest family
of rocks, in cases over hundreds of miles, whilst ignoring more
locally available sources is a clear suggestion that the
qualities of the granite itself were important to the
megalithic builders.
Apart from being a particularly hard stone,
granite has several other physical properties which may have been
recognised by the ancient masons:
(More about the Electrical
Properties of Quartz-crystal)
Article: (ScienceDaily 2005).
|
Chinese Used Diamonds To
Polish Sapphire-Rich Stone In 2500 BC
Researchers have uncovered strong
evidence that the ancient Chinese used diamonds to grind and polish
ceremonial stone burial axes as long as 6,000 years ago -– and
incredibly, did so with a level of skill difficult to achieve even with
modern polishing techniques.
The work also represents the only
known prehistoric use of sapphire: The stone worked into polished axes
by China's Liangzhu and Sanxingcun cultures around 4000 to 2500 BC has
as its most abundant element the mineral corundum, known as ruby in its
red form and sapphire in all other colors. Most other known prehistoric
artifacts were fashioned from rocks and minerals no harder than quartz.
Peter Lu began the research in 1999,
as a Princeton University undergraduate. He studied four ceremonial
axes, ranging in size from 13 to 22 centimeters, found at the tombs of
wealthy individuals. Three of these axes, dating to the Sanxingcun
culture of 4000 to 3800 BC and the later Liangzhu culture, came from
the Nanjing Museum in China; the fourth, discovered at a Liangzhu
culture site at Zhejiang Yuhang Wujiabu in 1993, dates roughly to 2500
BC.
"What's most amazing about these mottled
brown and grey stones is that they have been polished to a
mirror-like lustre,"
(Click here for full Article)
|
|
Extreme Egyptian Masonry: |
Numerous impressive facts are regularly quoted concerning the astonishing
engineering challenges involved in the construction of t he
'Great pyramid' of Giza, in Egypt, such as the estimated 2 million blocks
with an average weight of 2.5 tonnes which were used to build this pyramid
alone. However, there are several other masonry feats at Giza that are
equally astonishing.
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 largest Early dynastic 'Memphite' pyramids are
believed to have all been constructed in
under 60
years (11), we are faced with numerous traces of applied mathematics, science and
technology within structures that have no apparent precedent in
pre-dynastic Egyptian culture.
|
The Giza Plateau.
It is often forgotten that before the pyramids
were built, the limestone plateau beneath was levelled to
an 'optical level of accuracy'
(8),
over which was placed a platform of carefully cut limestone
paving-slabs which
can still be seen to protrude from underneath the pyramids base
(Photo: left).
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 complex was carefully orientated to the cardinal directions.
The deviation of the Great Pyramid from a North is 2′28 “, South –
1′58″, East – 5′30 “and West – 2′30″ The largest stone at Giza is estimated to weigh
as much as 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 seamless joins between the
basalt and the limestone pavements.
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 Top-50 Largest Cut Stones of
all Time)
Concrete at Giza:
As well as claims
of whole blocks being composed of concrete, Flinders Petrie noted
that: 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 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)
(More about
'Concrete' in ancient structures)
(More about the Giza complex)
|
|
Machining in Ancient Egypt: |
The builders of
the Giza pyramids managed to 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 unique 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. Fortunately for us, the masons left their
marks on some of the stones as the following i mages from Giza demonstrate:
Although no large contemporary tools have been found at Giza, the 'saw'
marks above, along with others on the 'King's coffer' leave us with the
clear conclusion that the early-dynastic Egyptians were using tools tipped
with precious or semi-precious stones. This idea is borne out by numerous
discoveries of partially finished stone vases which have been
'core-drilled', also requiring the use of blades tipped with a harder stone.
The
use of core-drilling can be seen on the largest blocks of
stone such as the 'king's coffer' in the 'Great' pyramid at Giza, as
first noted by Petrie, down to the smallest ornamental trinkets
(right), and the apparently 'mass-produced' stone vases, frequently
carved from hard stones such as granite and obsidian.
The early-dynastic
masons were so accomplished at their art that there have been several
claims that not only were they 'machining' stone with the use of
the lathe and specialised drilling equipment, but that they also had
'high-speed' and 'high-pressure' tools.
(Other
Examples of Drilling in Prehistory) (Other
examples of Extreme Egyptian Masonry)
|
The Enigma of Puma-Punka,
Bolivia
(Door of the Puma): |
The photos below are the remains of an ancient structure nearby
Tiahuanaco known as the Puma-Punka, which is
littered with giant, precisely shaped blocks, many of which
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. 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)
(Drilling
in Prehistory) (Granite
'quarry-marks')
(Other
Prehistoric
Masonry Techniques) |
