Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by fbenario »

FractalSky wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:11 pm Image
That looks like the ruins of Lindisfarne Priory, Northumberland, England. Ruins supposedly date to the 12th century.

The overall structure, and that column, look Norman to me, not Roman.
FractalSky
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:43 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by FractalSky »

fbenario wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:12 am
FractalSky wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:11 pm Image
That looks like the ruins of Lindisfarne Priory, Northumberland, England. Ruins supposedly date to the 12th century.

The overall structure, and that column, look Norman to me, not Roman.
Corrected. Much appreciated!
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

glg wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:06 pmIsn't the question first, what these blocks of stone - unremarkable in comparison to a mind boggling array of mega structures outside the european sphere of ancient buiding tech. - even make it worthy of considering? [...] everyone thought of it as a ¨Pile of Stones¨.
What makes Stonehenge something other than a mere pile of stones is the origin and handling of the building material and the use of tenon joints, and, some would argue, the configuration and orientation of its components. The question of orientation is tricky and easily subject to fantasy and 'tweaking of facts' so I will leave that for some other time. The quarrying of the stone in locations far from the building site is an indication of organized and purposeful construction. I will try to find some time to post a summary of the topic.

Image
From the Wicked.

Now, the reason Stonehenge looks like little else than a pile of stones is not just the deteriorated state it has been in since it was painted in the 18th century, but the fact that only brute stones were used. In fact, nearly all prehistoric sites in Northwestern Europe were built with unhewn stones. It is tempting to conclude that the builders didn't have the technology to shape and dress the stone, but their use of effective tenon joints suggests otherwise.

Perhaps brute stone was what they wanted. Brute stone would have acoustic, magnetic and reflective properties different from those of blocks with flat and polished surfaces at right angles. And what may be equally important: the two types of building material imply a different spiritual perspective. Brute stone represents undifferentiated 'prime matter' and is opposed to hewn stone in the same manner as virgin nature is opposed to a garden. Before we classify this as romantic vagaries of the imagination, let us not forget there are examples in other parts of the world of the coexistence of altars of brute stone with buildings of hewn stone. For example, altars among the ancient Hebrews had to be made exclusively of unhewn stones.
glg
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by glg »

Flabbergasted wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:19 pm
glg wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:06 pmIsn't the question first, what these blocks of stone - unremarkable in comparison to a mind boggling array of mega structures outside the european sphere of ancient buiding tech. - even make it worthy of considering? [...] everyone thought of it as a ¨Pile of Stones¨.
What makes Stonehenge something other than a mere pile of stones is the origin and handling of the building material and the use of tenon joints, and, some would argue, the configuration and orientation of its components. (...)
I agree Flabbergasted and the rest of your comment is very interesting indeed. But alluding to it merely to a ¨pile of stones¨ which apparently Inigo Jones' contemporaries thought of it as, despite the structure asfaik already being termed a Stone-Heng (Hanging Rock?), may tell us more about the structures original design and in turn of its age.
The following is much conjecture on my part and based perhaps on to little data, but if indeed there was a time when that site was referred to as a ¨pile of stones¨ then perhaps there is another reason for this then mere simple-mindedness. Maybe IT WAS once a ¨pile of stones¨?!
There's such a clue in Inigo Jones' book ¨The most notable antiquity of Great Britain¨:
Thirdly, in regard of the Form of Stoneheng, which is circular. This figure was proper to the Temples of Coelus and Tellus, whom the Ancients called Vesta as Valerianus in his ¨Hieroglyphics¨confirms. And to this purpose also, Leon 'Baptista Albertus useth these words:
"Unto Vesta whom they reputed to be the Earth they built Temples of a round form globelike.
Now obviously there's nothing particularly ¨globelike¨ about Stonehenge and Inigo Jones himself just used this reference to further his contention that the structure was probably remains of roman origin and more specifically a temple structure in the tuscan architectural tradition devoted to Coelus.
Philander whom is also cited by Jones:
Although(saith he) the Ancients made some Temples square,some six sided others of
many angles they were especially delighted "with making of them
round, as representing thereby the Form or Figure of Coelum, Heaven.
Keeping this in mind, at the time of Inigo Jones one particular site which I want to point here, has only been found and excavated centuries after.
The tumulus of Gavrinis:
Image
Image
Image

Talk about a ¨globe or dome like structure¨!
Notice of course the heavy stones used as a skeleton similar to the naked Stonehenge.
But if there's a relation between Gavrinis and Stonehenge, then what happened to the covering at Stonehege? Well, perhaps those smaller stones were carried off?! Just like a ¨pile of stones¨ ready for reuse by later inhabitants of the region who later referred to the site as just a pile of stones.

Now Idk if anyone ever thought of that, or if it can be readily debunked, neither does my hypothesis shed light on how these stones were laid, but I thought I would throw it in here and see before perhaps I have more to say on this issue.

Edit: a link to Inigo Jones' ¨The most notable antiquity of Great Britain¨ https://ia802805.us.archive.org/19/item ... 00jone.pdf
Just for reference

Edit II: I must also remark - having just chanced upon this in said book - that Inigo Jones made sure: (...) for Stoneheng was never covered, but built without a roof. Which Decorum the romans ever observed, both in the Situation and aspect of the Temples dedicated to this their God (Coelum)(...)
Now might not just this peculiar certainty have stuck in many minds concerned with the structure?
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

glg wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:05 pmone particular site which I want to point here [...] The tumulus of Gavrinis
Gavrinis is an impressive site. I have seen a few burial mounds, but none with this level of walling. As you can see from the small Scandinavian mound pictured below which I stumbled upon a few years back, resting peacefully on a piece of farm land, the chamber inside is similar in design to that of Gavrinis (despite the absence of ornaments). It´s funny how European building techniques and architecture could have been so 'standardized' 5-6000 years ago.

Image

I am calling it a burial mound out of habit. Human remains have indeed been found in some mounds (the Wicked mentions a site with evidence of around a hundred burials), but it is important to keep in mind the symbolism of the cave as a place of initiation through 'death' and 'rebirth'. Actual funeral rites are inspired by this initiatic symbolism, although anthropologists have it the other way around. In short, these mounds could have been graves from the outset, or they could have become graves at a later stage. It´s hard to say for sure.

The notion of the mounds as 'wombs of alchemical transformation' rather than graves is supported by the ease of access to the chambers (see the picture above) and possibly by the orientation of the entrance. I haven´t looked into this latter aspect, but archeologists have decribed what they claim is the alignment of mound entrances to the position of the sun or the moon, as the case may be. This would not be surprising, regardless of the use of the mound.
glg wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:05 pma link to Inigo Jones' "The most notable antiquity of Great Britain"
That´s a cool book. I am looking forward to exploring it.
glg wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:05 pmInigo Jones himself just used this reference to further his contention that the structure was probably remains of roman origin and more specifically a temple structure in the tuscan architectural tradition devoted to Coelus
The similarity between temples in Northern India, Persia, Rome and Ireland is not difficult to explain. The ethno-cultural-geographical belt stretching from Kashmir to the Shetlands was for millenia dominated by the so-called 'Aryan mythologies' (Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Druidism, Norse paganism, classical Roman and Greek religion, etc.). Their pantheons, temples, languages and 'spiritual economy' display a strong affinity.

On the other hand, Fractal: not all round things are the same :)
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

I found this cutaway drawing of the internal chamber of a mound named Rævehøj. There is more know-how to it than meets the eye at first. In this case, birch bark was used to impermeabilize the chamber. It has kept it dry for over 5,000 years. Not bad.

Image
Leif Hammelev, 1993 (historiskatlas.dk).

The next one seems more like a proposal than proven fact. But a mound is not a pyramid, so it´s probably not far from the truth.

Image
Thomas Bredsdorff, 2004 (historiskatlas.dk).
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Art historian Vilhelm Wanscher (1875-1961) wrote mostly about classical art, esthetics and architecture, but he made an exception in 1935 when he published a surprising interpretation of the petroglyphs found in a royal tomb in Kivik, a small town on the east coast of Scania (Southern Sweden). The tomb, which differs from most European burials from the so-called Bronze Age (c. 1500 BC), contains at least eight standing slabs depicting what most people identify as “people, animals, ships, lurs, symbols and a chariot with four-spoked wheels”. Professional excavations started in 1931 so Wanscher was not a latecomer to the information.

Image

Wanscher’s knowledge of classical antiquity and egyptology made him see numerous correspondences between Egyptian religion and hieroglyphs, on one side, and Scandinavian cults, place names and the petroglyphs in Kivik, on the other. This may sound a bit crazy, and I am not qualified to judge the merit of his claims, but it is curious how pronouncing certain Scandianavian toponyms in Egyptian makes a lot of sense, perhaps more than their modern-day etymology.
Should someone object to the theory of our ancestors’ close spiritual connection with Egypt since the stone age, saying it is a delusion because Egypt is too far away, my answer is that in many important cases the Egyptian etymology provides the correct form and meaning of the words.
Wanscher: “Kivik Guldhorn og Edda”, p.42.
According to Wanscher, in the so-called Bronze Age, Egyptian tradespeople assigned religious names to many coastal landmarks on their way to the Baltic, dedicating them to the sungod Ra. Some examples (including four cultural terms) :

Image

Modern etymologists will have nothing of that, obviously. For them, the sea that bathes the western shores of Sweden is named ‘Kattegat’ because it’s “a narrow passage even a cat would find it hard to get through” (except it’s not). The name of the strait that connects Kattegat to the Baltic Sea, ‘Øresund’, is said to mean “the narrow waters of the gravelly shoreline.” And so forth.

As for the petroglyphs/hieroglyphs in the grave, Wanscher’s analysis is very condensed and difficult to digest, so I will show just one example:

Image
Right: Despite his numerous honours, awards and accomplishments, Wanscher was ‘cancelled’ after World War II for taking too much interest in contemporary German and Italian culture and not being sufficiently inimical to the German occupation. Nothing to do with the topic. Just gossip.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

On a recent visit to Rome I had the opportunity to see some of the most jaw-dropping architecture on the planet. Mostly basilicas and churches, but certainly not limited to it. On such visits I always keep an eye open for signs of stone-working technology beyond what is known to have existed at the time of construction. I found a single instance in the Basilica of St. John Lateran, but it was well worth the wait: two spectacular columns of red granite from Aswan, Egypt, which hold up the triumphal arch by the transept.

Image

It is quite difficult to find information on these columns on the internet, but they are said to be 11 meters high, and I estimate they weigh over 12 tons apiece (but I could be way off). I am not a stone mason, so I wouldn´t know for sure, but I doubt there is currently a machine which can carve out a perfectly circular 12-ton granite cylinder from a single block.

Image

Compare the material and workmanship with the column fragment found in BaalBek, Lebanon (two pictures on the lower left)

Image
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Flabbergasted wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:25 pm The Great Pyramid features at least 4 square "air shafts", two of which connect the "King's chamber" to the outside wall. The two shafts rising from the "Queen's chamber" are blocked by limestone doors with metal clamps (or handles) about 6 m short of the outside wall. Different robots have been designed to explore these shafts, but the quality of the images (when they are not 3D animations) is strangely poor.
The illustration I posted in 2019 depicts the so-called air shafts of the Great Pyramid as being completely straight. Three of them are indeed straight, but the north shaft rising from the Queen’s Chamber (I hate those 19th century sun/moon/king/queen burial appellations) is only straight when viewed in east-west cross-section. When viewed from above, the shaft is seen to make a curious detour, as if bypassing an obstacle. The presumed obstacle cannot be the Grand Gallery which, though very close to the shaft, is not directly in its way. In my opinion, the most likely explanation is the existence of chambers which have not yet been discovered, or which were opened long ago and then sealed up again. The hiding/sealing up of ancient structures by the Egyptian authorities, such as the tunnels, shafts and chambers below the Sphinx, is a common practice, for whatever reason.

Image

Image

The original grand entrance of the pyramid, surmounted by huge chevrons, would, if it were not blocked, give direct and horizontal access to the Queen’s Chamber. And, indeed, recent scanning experiments have revealed the existence of a large corridor right behind the grand entrance, the length of which has not been determined (in addition to other large galleries higher up). The finding of 20th century trash inside the ascending north shaft (a piece of scrap paper and a tourist ticket to visit the pyramids) proves that there must be an access to this area which visitors are currently not allowed to see. This access is likely inside the pyramid (possibly under the modern wooden steps in the Grand Gallery) because in drawings from the 1830s and in an early photograph from 1870, the external chevron-topped main entrance appears blocked exactly as it is today.

Image

Image

Image

Image

There are several good reasons to suspect the existence of antechambers to the King’s Chamber. Many share this suspicion based on scans and on comparisons with the Red Pyramid and other structures. One reasonable guess is the presence of two corbelled antechambers, like the “acoustic chamber” in the Red Pyramid (shown in an earlier post). Many egyptologists think corbels and chevrons were used to support the tremendous weight of the building. Without trying to play the expert, I would say the presumed corbelled antechambers to the King’s Chamber would be too small for this purpose, and the large chevrons over the main entrance (now blocked) are set in the surface of the pyramid and so need support no weight at all. In chambers elsewhere where the load is great the ceiling stones are often offset for greater resistance, but that is not to say the main function of such chambers is to support the building. Just think of the extravagant math required to justify the position, shape and location of such devices.

Image

Image

But let us return to the air shaft on the north side of the Queen’s Chamber. In the early 20th century, Morton Edgar attempted to explore it by inserting a series of slender iron rods joined together (which he left behind inside the shaft) but was surprised to find his progress arrested as the shaft bends to the left by 45 degrees, coinciding with the location of the suspected antechambers. The difficulty of getting around the corners was overcome in 2002 when a robot ascended the remaining 64 meters, until reaching a tiny door or slab, like the one blocking the south shaft (“Gantenbrink’s Door”). However, with the exception of a picture of the door, no images of the inside of the north shaft were made available.

Another robot was recently sent up the north shaft and we now have images of the trajectory and more views of the door or slab at the end. The quality is not great, but it is a fascinating addition to what was known before. If you watch the video, keep in mind the shaft is only 20 x 20 cm in cross-section, despite appearances. The rods in the video are very thin (about 1 cm), the debris is scant and the objects discussed are too small (15 cm) to be a spear or tool, or metal plates of any significance. In fact, they may very well be flakes of sandstone that came off the walls which, due to the poor lighting, resemble artifacts. By the way, plenty of salt and mercury residues are said to have been found on the inner walls of the shaft.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki0405ulvIY

Image

The door at the end of the shaft has two clamps or “handles” the size of a finger, much like “Gantenbrink’s Door” at the end of the south shaft, though not exactly the same. There are many hypotheses about these “handles”, and some say they look like an electrode and anode. Others believe the shafts were originally filled with water or provided air supply during the construction. As for air supply, it should be noted that the shafts in the Great Pyramid are too long and narrow to function in this manner, unless an air pump or bellows were used. The truth is, we are still clueless as to the ultimate purpose, not only of the shafts, but of any of the components in the building. Hypotheses are numerous and creative but none is even slightly convincing.

Now, at the height of the diversion, the north shaft features an opening or recess on the right side that may or may not originally have been there. If you watch the video, keep in mind that the hole is only about 10 x 30 cm across. The opening (assuming it is not simply a displaced block) points right to where the presumed antechambers would be. If the antechambers exist and can be accessed by a concealed entrance, this might explain the presence of modern garbage inside the shaft. In fact, there have likely been several explorations of the Great Pyramid over the years that remain unknown to the public.

Image

To wrap up this update on the air shafts, below is a schematic illustration of “Gantenbrink’s Door”, the slab blocking the extremity of the south shaft. A drill was mounted on the robot in order to make an orifice in the door large enough to insert a camera and have a look at the other side. Strange and perhaps disappointing, the camera didn´t reveal any exciting new structure. There is only a small additional space and another slab, this one without “handles”. Some crude red graffiti was found which is difficult to interpret. Some say it spells out the number “121”.

Image
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Up until the early 20th century, there was still some degree of freedom in science. Researchers could still explore possibilities and "anomalous objects" without being ridiculed or castigated by their institutions and the media. Archeologists and anthropologists in the 19th century could still report what they saw without too much academic censorship. So perhaps it is not surprising that in 1883 Flinders Petrie reported seing unmistakable marks of straight saws, circular saws, tubular drills and lathes on stone blocks in the pyramids and temples of Giza, something most present-day egyptologists obstinately deny.

Image
Illustrations from Petrie's book.

Petrie was wrong about the nature of the tools required to cut the blocks, but he admitted that even the ones he imagined might do the job (such as "jewelled bronze saws") have never been found.
A slice of diorite bearing equidistant and regular grooves of circular arcs, parallel to one another; these grooves have been nearly polished out by crossed grinding, but still are visible. The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw.
[...]
Next the Egyptians adapted their sawing principle into a circular, instead of a rectilinear form, curving the blade round into a tube, which drilled out a circular groove by its rotation; thus, by breaking away the cores left in the middle of such grooves, they were able to hollow out large holes with a minimum of labour.
[...]
The amount of pressure, shown by the rapidity with which the drills and saws pierced through the hard stones, is very surprising; probably a load of at least a ton or two was placed on the 4-inch drills cutting in granite.

Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (1883)
http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf_library ... _gizeh.pdf
Some enthusiasts have tested the bronze-saw-with-sand-and-water hypothesis, but the results have been unconvincing, to say the least. A time-motion study is enough to discard this crude procedure, without wasting further time. But thanks for testing!

Image

Definitely, something completely different was used for stone cutting in remote antiquity.

Image

(There may be some problems loading the images from https://ibb.co. Wouldn´t be the first time)
Post Reply