SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Did the Ancient Egyptians Cast Stone?

by Brian Dunning, Jun 10 2010

OK, it’s an attention-grabbing headline. No, I don’t believe that the ancient Egyptians cast stone, at least not in such a way that geologists would be fooled and think it’s naturally occurring stone. Most would probably agree.

However, a world-class engineer acquaintance of mine, whom I will call WK (not his initials), suspects differently. WK has visited Egypt a number of times, and has done quite a lot of sniffing and poking around, and seen a number of things that provoked him to question some core fundamentals of what we currently believe of Egyptian engineering. Namely, that some of what we consider to be solid, naturally occurring stone, cut or carved and fit into place, might actually have been cast into forms via some unknown method. He’s collected a number of examples, and I’m focusing here on the one I personally found most intriguing.

Click to see full size.

The picture shown is of some columns at the Karnak Temple Complex (the callouts on the image are WK’s, not mine). These are big, heavy columns, 10 meters high. Each is made of individual stone blocks, about 1 meter high. What caught WK’s eye were some lines all up and down each column, on opposite sides. He calls them flashing. They are akin to the casting lines you would get if these columns (or the individual blocks) were cast in molds, where the mold is made of two semi-cylindrical halves. I agree with WK that these lines do, to my ignorant eye, appear to be consistent with that.

Now, I have not discussed this with anyone knowledgeable about the subject, which would be an essential first step to forming an educated opinion. I have no idea whether petrographic or chemical analyses have been performed on these columns to characterize the material. I do not know whether WK has done so either.

What puzzles me most about the lines is that the rest of the columns have been polished smooth and covered with what I perceive to be hieroglyphs. The artisans who did the polishing and carving can be said to have done their job quite well. Why, then, were these lines left? Whether the lines are from casting, as WK suggests, or are an artifact of quarrying, or even an artifact of construction, why were they left? This question applies equally no matter how the stones were made, so to my logic, they are not evidence at all that the stones were cast. The presence of the “casting” lines is not adequate to suggest a need to introduce a new assumption, that Egyptians could cast stone. It seems someone wanted those lines there, or they would have been polished off. Maybe not, I’m not inside the heads of those artisans; and like I said, I’ve not consulted an expert on the subject. Maybe there’s a logical reason for those lines.

I want to hear what you have to say. If you know anything about the subject, enlighten us. If you don’t, but you have a guess, let us know your thought process.

49 Responses to “Did the Ancient Egyptians Cast Stone?”

  1. tudza says:

    Yes, I suggest you talk to an Egyptologist, they will have heard this one many times before. I don’t know about this temple, but for places like the pyramids where the same theory has been put forth there is the counter-argument that the quarries have been identified.

  2. PadainFain says:

    How very intriguing!

    I wonder if the lines are there to show the people constructing the pillars where the individual blocks are supposed to align? It doesn’t explain why they wouldn’t be removed afterward but it’s at least a possible reason for them being there in the first place.

  3. Mike says:

    I wonder if they’re an artefact of a brace used to hold the stone during the final stages of carving, or even to help with transport or subsequent alignment and raising on site. Their subsequent non-removal might be an aversion to accidental damage at a late stage.

  4. Max says:

    Simple explanation here
    http://www.buffaloah.com/a/archsty/egypt/columns/col.html
    “Column shafts and capitals were typically formed out of stacked stone drums or half drums. These could be centered atop each course by the use of plumb lines, either aligning the drums using markings at their centers or via vertical grooves along their sides.”

  5. dartigen says:

    Could have been used as guidelines for the engravers (to show them where the hieroglyphs etc. needed to overlap and keep them straight).
    Or possibly, considering that the columns are made with individual stone blocks, Max could be right and they may have used the lines to make sure that everything was centered. It’s possible that nobody thought of removing the lines after it was finished, or they anticipated the need to repair a column and left them as a helpful guide.

  6. Autochton says:

    The casting hypothesis can be dismissed out of hand, I think. Karnak is built from sandstone, a sedimentary mineral. It is impossible to cast such a material and have it come out even remotely akin to the actual material used.

  7. Gerd says:

    Well, the usual argument against casted stones simply is the amount of work required to create them.

    On the one hand there is the following: create stone blocks, round them, transport them, and carve them. While this surely is hard work, it’s certainly doable.

    On the other hand you need to do the following: Create a stone block and turn it into very fine grained stone powder. This of course takes extra ordinary more time and energy. Ancient stone mills are unknown, so this has to be done using chisels.

    Now the powder along with the same amount of water has to be transported. Which doubles the transporting costs.

    Finally you can create a cast stone, wait till it has hardend, and carve it.

    So: Even if the Egypts knew how to cast stones, they would have been be very, very stupid to do so.

  8. Jeremy says:

    The fact that there are quarries with half cut out obelisks of a similar size seems to be pretty strong evidence against the idea that they were cast.

  9. Dax says:

    Gosh, you guys don’t know anything! Those lines were formed by the laser cutting tools the Egyptians used. Those tools came from the same aliens that now hide in the hollow earth, abiding their time, while their sock-puppets (everyone at the Bilderberg conferences) are busy altering our atmosphere so the reptilian aliens can breath freely.

    • Beelzebud says:

      You dummy, everyone knows the aliens live in the hollow center of the Mars moon Phobos! Prof. Richard C. Hoagland Phd even has a web page all about it! He wouldn’t print that if it weren’t true!

      http://www.enterprisemission.com/Phobos2.html

      ;)

      • Dax says:

        Wait, he knows it’s a ship because he sees “fractal patterns” when zooming in on the image? I believe those are called ‘pixels’ and not ‘fractal patterns’.

        Besides, everyone knows that lighthuggers have an enormous shell of ice, not rock!

      • matt says:

        Whoa, whoa, whoa… We’re all friends here, and it’d be a shame if we got too excited and said something we don’t mean, but can’t take back, over an interesting but arbitrary, in most practical situations(plus, I get nose bleeds when I “get ants in my pants,”[as Mother calls it} and Mother will be POWERFUL MAD if I ruin my shirt!).

        So with that in mind, I suggest we do the safe thing, and wait for The Fuhrer to finish his daily jam session with Elvis, at which time “Dr.” Hutchinson will shoot him straight up here in his anti-gravity moped(yeah, moped; all “nerdy-chic but brilliant” genius scientists have one).

        Or if we’re lucky, he’ll just teleport here through the Mars Jump-room, which is MUCH faster!

        Seriously though, I don’t think it’s too likely here, or in many similar cases, but the idea of stunning, unexpected revelations as this would be are cool. In fact, I’ll even admit that even though the evidence led me toward skepticism and science, it was excitement and interest in the pseudo-science claims that first captured my imagination.
        Bigfoot, oh Bigfoot;
        Where for art thou,
        Bigfoot.

        (Oh yeah, he’s on Mars. And only 2 in tall; NO WONDER he’s so hard to find!)

  10. John Stewart says:

    So what is the Bilderberg Group? I had not heard of it before this morning. Curiously enough, this: http://blog.gwup.net/2010/06/07/die-bilderberger-der-euro-und-die-skeptiker/ came across my computer minutes before this Skepticblog report. Coincidence?

  11. Letodan says:

    Well, I don’t know for these stones but, I do remember reading about some theories about cast stones for the pyramids like someone else mentionned. And the theory seemed to be holding up pretty good. They analyzed some of the stones and could see organic matters like if it would come from some kind of mixtures (but, could also be natural stones I suppose) but also, the fit between some stones seemed so perfect, that one stone was almost overlapping the one beside it like if it would have been from some liquid poured just beside the other stone. Anyway, many theories suggest that egyptians could cast stones…

    • Gerd says:

      The pyramids were certainly not build of cast stones. First of all the stones are unique each. And second, it would be simply a waste of time and resources, as I already lined out in my previous comment.

      For a more detailed argumentation see: http://doernenburg.alien.de/arch/bau/bau_04_e.php

    • Martha Clayhood says:

      There’s been an article in Europhysics News about this.
      40/1 2009 pp27: Revisiting the Construction of the Egyptian Pyramids by Guy Demortier (DOI: 10.1051/epn/2009302)
      Quick summary:
      *Even 18000 people couldn’t have created the Kufu pyramid in the known time-frame.
      *Vertical sides of blocks are irregular, but fit quite well, even those originally hidden by the casing. Horizontal sides however are remarkably flat.
      *New Kingdom monuments are usually stone with dovetails. But their construction looks very different from the pyramids.
      *First proposal that the pyramids are built of concrete was in 1978 by Joseph Davidovits.
      *X-ray analysis shows that the pyramid blocks are limestone (85% to 92%) with a binder.
      *Pyramid element concentrations differ from local limestone quarries, and contain micro-constituents which are hydrated, unlike natural limestone, and amorphous or micro-crystalline, again unlike in nature.
      *Blocks don’t have natural parallel shells, too high water content and traces of mortar, mostly at the base.
      *Contours of the blocks indicate that they are not carved.
      *Suppose slightly irregular plank moulds are used and mortar for waterproofing. 2300 people could have finished the pyramid in the time frame.
      *Herodotus (Vth BC) possibly mentions the technique.
      The authors state that they intend to continue their research, but complain about the lack of co-operation from people in the field.
      For more details I urge you to obtain the article, as it is well written and I couldn’t possibly do it justice in a comment on a blog.

  12. BriansAWildDowner says:

    Years ago, in 9th grade, my science class watched a video about the pyramids. One of the people talked about how he thought the stones had been cast and everyone in my class (including me) laughed at him and thought he was crazy.

    Years after that I read this article on LiveScience:http://www.livescience.com/history/070518_bts_barsoum_pyramids.html

  13. RoaldFalcon says:

    Those lines running up the sides of the column are water lines from when the Hebrews floated the columns down the Nile River from Sheckem. It’s all in my book Everything in the World is Made of Wood. (The course of the Nile was a bit different back the Early Wood Age.)

  14. MadScientist says:

    Without having inspected the columns (and many like it), the flash might be an intended artifact of the carving rather than signs of a casting. Take a geologist’s hammer, whack off a chunk, cut it, then inspect it with a mineralogical microscope. The grain arrangement etc in something like cement is very different from natural concretions which you might see in something such as sandstone. Many of the stones used in construction were very obviously quarried (for example, the basalts – try casting a fake basalt) and tend to be fairly roughly hewn. In contrast some stones seem to be cast – or else perfectly joined. In such cases I would suspect casting because it takes a hell of an effort to fit such large pieces so well by trial and error and quite a phenomenal effort if one is to claim to create these blocks with inconsistent dimensions beforehand and simply slide them into place at the site. Some very soft stones such as sandstone and limestone (and soapstone, and alabaster, and …) can be cut and shaped pretty well on one side and put together much like bricks (but they would show gaps similar to what you’d get with modern bricks) and then the outer part sculpted to be nice and flat – so the casing stones of some pyramids may be cast or may be natural stone – that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

  15. quentin says:

    If they had such a great and widely used knowledge, I suppose they would have transmitted it to other neighbour civilisations, just as every great widely used knowledge (such as powder, …) was finally transmitted.

    so… prob(lines are from cast) * prob(they could cast stone) ~=0

  16. Loki says:

    To maintain proper alignment.

  17. itzac says:

    I find Max’s explanation quite plausible. Otherwise I might suggest the lines have some semantic meaning in the hieroglyphs.

  18. uzza says:

    Wrong civilization. this theory has been kicked around and debunked thoroughly, but in regard to the Incas. People have even reproduced the Incan stonework using only tools available historically.

    As to the lines, and speaking as a cement mason, I’d guess they were left on to serve as alignment marks. It’s what I’d do.

    • david says:

      I’m with Uzza.

      Imagine you’re trying to create a bunch of columns with writing on them. You know they’re going to be made on a number of individual pieces, and those pieces have to line up.

      Create a scroll with what each should have written on it, including an line on each one that will be used for alignment. That way when a person is working on the top piece, if they get their proportions right then when stacked on top of the next person’s piece they’ll line up exactly.

      Removing them before the column is put in place is counter-productive, and removing them after is tricky, as you may damage the column and have to replace a piece.

  19. Chas says:

    “As to the lines, and speaking as a cement mason, I’d guess they were left on to serve as alignment marks. It’s what I’d do.”

    -Could they also be points where they were clamped in some way to lift and/or adjust their placement without damaging the art? If you lifted them with ropes looped underneath, the ropes would get trapped when you set them down.

    Why are they still there and not smoothed off? How about budget cutbacks? Low-bid construction ;-) ?

  20. Grimalkin says:

    Why is it that whenever an ancient people can be shown to have done something impressive, we all have to assume that it’s some kind of magic (or aliens)?

    The people who cut the stones for pyramids spent their lives cutting stone. They were really good at it. They were able to select the right stones to fit in the right places and tailor them further so that they fit in seamlessly. That’s what they did, every day, from the time that they were old enough to be apprenticed. Same goes for the Incas.

    I grew up in Switzerland and anyone who’s been there and poked around in the mountains a bit knows that we have these very impressive and very old stone walls all over the place. They look shaggy and uneven, but they are incredibly stable and most have been there for hundreds of years (some are over a thousand years old) and don’t look like they’ll be coming down any time soon. Farmers are still building them from time to time. Getting it right is very difficult and comes with a lot of practice, but it’s do-able. There’s no reason to think that they had some magic stone-melting powers!

    As for the lines, who knows? But as a couple people have mentioned, we’ve found a couple quarries, some with broken columns still in them, only half-way carved out of the rock before they were discarded. I have personally seen some of these quarries, and there is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that stone casting is necessary.

  21. Max says:

    Anyone can come up with a puzzle by picking some non-obvious trick of the trade or tool, and having others who are not familiar with it guess its use.
    For example, what’s the use of this metallic ribbon?http://i48.tinypic.com/2z8418i.jpg

  22. Fran Blanche says:

    I have visited the Egyptian wing at the Metropolitan Museum in New York for many years and spent a lot of time examining the numerous artifacts there, especially the models and miniatures. It is clear that the Egyptians of this era were not only very well organized socially, but that they were inherently practical and smart about how they did things. It is very feasible that they used aggregates and some kind of simple concrete for building constructions, including the large monuments. The Romans had used concrete, and I have long accepted the possibility that the foundation stones of the great pyramids could have been cast. I do hope that Egyptologists will explore these possibilities with research to determine whether or not this is true.

    • marke says:

      But bearing in mind the Egyptian civilization largely preceded the Roman… in fact the time between the pyramid era and the peak of the Roman empire is greater than that between the Roman era and our current civilization.

  23. PaulRugg says:

    Registration lines, alignment marks, flashing left over from casting the stone…

    I think these all miss the mark. It seems the point is that the ancient Egyptian artisans were masters and perfectionists, so leaving any kind of manufacturing artifact on the final product would be simply unthinkable! They would have removed it and polished it away as part of the final installation of the piece.

    What if these lines were once part of a slightly larger structure that was an integral part of the columns, that has since either fallen away or been looted over time? Maybe the structures were intended to support something decorative like banners, curtains or…?

    Just my take.

    • I find this the most convincing possibility so far.

      • Bruce Seeds says:

        I agree. Purely conjecture here, but I could envision those rough vertical strips originally having been larger and more regular, maybe with a square or half-round profile, perhaps covered with gold leaf or colorful stone tiles – decorative accents – since fallen off or worn away, leaving the underlying profile exposed to wear and tear and to the elements, leaving what we see now.

  24. Cambias says:

    So is this what Jesus was referring to when he said “let him who is without sin cast the first stone?”

    (rimshot)

  25. Grinspoon says:

    You know i first dismissed this. I have read some theories before aboubt the pyramids. Dismissed because the quarries exist.

    Although just having a look at my own photo’s from karnak, i can clearly see such lines in many of my pictures of the hypostyle hall. I am willing to provide some if wanted.
    Sometimes they seem to run the length of the column, other times a few blocks.
    Here’s something for the noodle, on a few it looks like the carved hieroglyphs are slightly cut off. Like it was moulded on. No joke.

    The columns do show extensive restoration work. However this doesn’t appear as such but doesn’t mean it is. The standard grid drawing plan for carving shouldn’t explain this.

    I have to admit, the idea Karnak was filled with sand to the top of the columns to put each tone in place always seemed odd.

    Although looking at pictures of columns like Pharaoh bed at Philae the seams appear there on what are clearly columns built of half circle blocks. Even lines across other brick work.. hmmz

    What this artefact is should be investigated. Whether it’s restoration or something else.

  26. oldmoo says:

    Perhaps the vertical lines were left on to show the reader where to stop reading and move down to the next line.

    • marke says:

      Aha! oldmoo, I think you might have hit it! – We are all thinking of decorated supporting columns, but of course, the hieroglyphs are usually telling a story! Is that the case here?

    • marke says:

      … though the protruding flash does appear on both sides of the cylinder… :-(

  27. Oz says:

    Many Egyptian columns were meant to mimic the rustic columns of bound reeds that were used by their ancestors. If you look at them you see fluted tops and bottoms, followed by a banding (ropes maybe), and then a smooth center section. To my eye this looks like a column of reeds wrapped in a hide (or papyrus, maybe?), which was then decorated.

    http://historylink101.net/egypt_1/rf-columns.htm

    If the stonemasons were indeed trying to mimic a rustic, leather bound column then it seems likely that they would also add the seam line that would run the vertical length of the wrapped shaft. That the same line could then be used as plumb line would have been an added bonus.

    Oz

  28. Jason Loxton says:

    No idea what the vertical lines are (I quite like the idea that they are guide lines for positioning blocks carved individually on the ground, but what do I know). But I can tell you, as a paleontologist/geologist, that when I was in Egypt one of the things I found most interesting were the in-your-face examples of cross-bedding (and other sedimentary structures) in most of the sandstone blocks. (The limestone blocks, including the pyramids themselves, are massively fossiliferous!) I actually took photos of them to illustrate classic examples of bedding processes in lectures. Can’t see anything in these pictures, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that all the ones I saw were very clearly laid down by natural processes.

  29. Jason Loxton says:

    Via my friend and classicist Adrienne Mayor, here’s a link to a book (Dieter Arnold’s Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry) that covers this topic. See p. 19-20:

  30. Richard Lyons says:

    Well, here is another hypothesis. Perhaps the centre-markers were removed adequately to make them invisible at the time, but the technique used for this cleaning was different from the technique used to finish the carved surface — perhaps the latter involved much more working of the stone. In that case, the stone may have weathered differently, revealing the mark again centuries later.

    Variations on this hypothesis may include the use of oil-borne marking medium, which penetrated the surface and altered the weathering characteristics of the stone in the top few millimetres, even though this altered zone was invisible once the paint was washed off.

  31. Mel Holloway says:

    I recall seeing a documentary about the Karnak temple. In a far corner there is at least one uncompleted column. Rough stone with apparently finished (smoothed, trued) top and bottom was stacked to the desired height. The carving was then performed. This of course does not explain the “flashing”, but I think eliminates the likelihood that the pillars were made from cast stone.

  32. I Dont See why They Would Make a Special Casting Mold For these pillars Since Egypt Has Access to the Largest Free Casting Mold Out there. THE SAND. Other than That They Could Also be Casting Lines. Polished Down IN there prime. and Weather corrosion has Done Its Part Weathering the Softer Casting. as The Water Would naturaly Run out of the seams. cause these parts of the Stone to be harder/and more coarse.Also Could be carved for Alignment. As Im Sure Most of the Hieroglyphs Where caved As each section where on the ground. Making The Construction of this project more effecient. Having Multiple Carvers On each section, rather then one or two swinging in the air. Or Mabye Its Just a Line Used In Helping To Keep the Pillars Level. Since IM Sure There had to Be A Ton Of Ropes Wrapped around These things Going Every Wich Direction. Obstructing the View of the Sides of the pillars. Wich Would Of bein the only othere true Lines used for leveling. Hard to say From just a Picture though : )

  33. owen says:

    I’ve been a stone mason for 6 years and i dont believe that the Egyptian pyramids and temples were built using cast stone, aliens or any other such nonesense. In my opinion these “flash” lines were left over from the construction process. I’m not an expert in egyptology but I know a little about their construction techniques. These column drums would undoubtedly been fixed in place rough and been worked flat and carved in the final stages. These lines would of been used to apply a plumb line too and for whatever reason werent cleaned up properly after which would fit in with their techniques. Why they werent cleaned up I cant say, maybe the architects didnt consider them worth the effort to hide.
    If your interested in Egyptian construction methods you should read “Ancient Egyptian construction and architecture” by Somers Clarke and R Engelbach. With my experience in masonry I can vouch for the fact that while their techniques seem a little strange to modern masons it’s about as well as could be done with the materials they had available.