One Hundred and Seven Wonders of The Ancient World

Links for this list will be transfered to this page soon in the mean time see original One Hundred and Seven Wonders of The Ancient World at Tripod

Over One Hundred and Seven Wonders of The Ancient World

The ancients around the world created an enormous amount of spectacular structures that can't be fully explained by modern historians and scientists.
"You know there's something going on but you don't know what it is do you Mr. Jones??"
Bob Dylan
They created many wonders that modern technology would have a difficult time replicating.
In many cases modern technology can't recreate them at all.
How were these structures built?
How did they move colossal stones up to 1,000 tons?
How did they carve colossal statues out of cliff sides without dynamite, drills, jackhammers etc.?
Did the ancients have technology that was lost and still has yet to be found?
Does this raise doubts about the social evolution of ancient civilizations?
In order to figure out what happened in the past it would help to present this information in as organized a manor as possible. I know there are experts more informed about archeology than me and with better organizational skills; however they aren't presenting this information to the public in the most effective manor possible. In many cases simply organizing the facts and checking simple math raises doubts about the official explanation for sites like Egypt, Baalbek, Angkor Wat and Thom, Teohuanico etc. 
I have listed well over 107 ancient wonders of the world as well as a few more modern wonders to compare them. I have attempted to organize them by location and marked which ones moved colossal stones, carved large volumes of statues, carved colossal statues out of living rock and made structures that had extremely tight joints that can't be replicated today. I have provided links to help understand each wonder. I have attempted to use the most reputable links I could find but there are no guarantees. Sometimes the "reputable sites" make obvious mistakes and the "suspect" ones get things right so use your own discretion. I am attempting to sort out the hard facts and speculation so that if one hypothesis is disproved you'll still have hard facts that can be confirmed and you can be sure of when someone comes up with another hypothesis. I have also considered several ways that people can find out more about these structures. Some of the weights of these colossal stones are subject to confirmation. I explained that more in the section about calculating the weight of Colossal Stones. The most reliable source will always be the stones themselves. 
This site will be updated regularly at least for the time being.
In some cases the text may have come from the source sites. I will be reviewing them and citing sources as I go along. 


Reliability of Sources
Pseudoscientists and Sceptics

A-Ancient sites that moved Colossal Stones
Calculating the Size of Colossal Stones
How they moved the Colossal Stones
B-Ancient Sites That Made an Incredible Number of Sculptures
C-Ancient Sites That Built Colossal Statues out of "Living Rock"
D-Ancient Sites That Built Structures With Extremely Tight Joints
Definition of Cult structures and probable cult structures
Thou Shalt Worship Graven Idols
Middle East
Alexanders seige and bridge at Tyre
Herod's temple Mount-A5
Harbour at Caesarea-A1
Dome of the Rock Jeruselum-A1
Masada Israel
The Monastery at Petra Jordon-C
Great Ziggurat of Ur Iraq
Nineveh, Nimrud and Khorsabad Iraq-A2,B
The Great Walls of Babylon Iraq
Arch of Ctesiphon Iraq
Persepolis Iran-A1,B
Cliff tombs at Naqsh-i-Rustam and Naqsh-i-Rajab Iran-C
Marib Dam Yemen
Madain Salih Saudi Arabia
The Fortress of Van
The Buddhas of Bamyan Afganistan-C
Ai-Khanoum Afganistan

Egyptian Obelisks-A5
Egyption Statues-A5
The Great Sphinx at Giza-C
Egyptian Pyramids at Giza-A3,D
The Solar Boat at Giza in Egypt
The Bent Pyramid and the Red Pyramid-A3,D
The Pyramids of Abu Sir and Saqqara Egypt
The Pyramid of Amenemhet III at Hawara in Egypt-A4
Tomb of Seti 1-C
Egyptian Temples of Karnak and Luxor-A3,B
Egyptian Valley Temple-A4,B
The Great Temple at Abu Simbel-C
Philae Temple Egypt-A1,B
The Osireion Temple Egypt-A3
The Tomb of Tutankhamen
Temple of Queen Hatshepsut-A1
Pompey's Pillar at Alexandria Egypt
Deir el-Madinah Egypt
Ramesses IV at Wadi Hammamat
Dr. Zahi Hawass
Egyptian Sumation
Nubian Pyramids and Temples Sudan-A1,B
Leptis Magna Libya
Stelae of Axum Etheopia-A5
Bet Giorgis Lalibela Ethiopia-C
The Great Zimbabwe
Mud Mosques of Timbuktu
Benin Empire

Britany Brise-A4
Dol-de Bretagne, Champ Dolent, France-A4
Kerloas Menhir. Nr Plouharnel, Brittany, France-A4
The Bagneaux Dolmen and Roche aux Fees France-A3
Trophy of Augustus at La Turbie France
Mont Saint-Michel France
Cave of Altamira Spain
Cueva de la menga, Antequera, Spain-A4
Stonehenge England-A2
Rudston Monolith England-A2
Avebury Stone Circles, Wiltshire England-A3
Woodhenge England
Cerne Abbas Giant, The Long Man of Wilmington and Uffington White Horse England
Silbury Hill just south of Avebury England
Hadrian's Wall England
Stone Megaliths of Europe-A
Maiden Castle Dorset England
Megalithic tomb at Newgrange and Knowth Ireland
Browne's hill and Carrickglass Dolmens County Carlow, Ireland-A4
Maeshowe Orkney Islands-A2
Woodhenge at Goseck Germany
Externsteine Germany
The Baths of Caracalla-A3
Trajan's Column-A2,B,D
The Pantheon Rome-A3,B
The Ancient Roman Aqueducts
Ancient Roman Roads
Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli
Etruscan cemetery near the town of Cerveteri
Temple of Poseidon and Hera at Paestum Italy
Pompeii Italy
The Circuit Walls of Syracuse Italy
The Treasury of Atreus-A3
The Acropolis with the Parthenon and Erechtheion-A1,B
The Temple of Olympian Zeus-A3
Delphi Greece
The Great Altar of Pergamon Greece-B
Minoan Palace of Knossos
Haghia Sophia Istanbul Turkey-A3,B
Nemrud Dagi Turkey-A2
Cliff tombs of Caunus Turkey-C
The Temple of Artemis-A1,B
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus-A1,B
Fortress at Mycenae and Tiryns, Greece-A3
Hattusas Turkey-A1
Aphrodisias Turkey-A1,B
Temple of Apollo at Didyma-A1
Cappadocia Turkey-C
Göbekli Tepe Turkey
Nevalý Çori Turkey 8,400 BCE
Çatalhöyük Turkey 7,500 BCE
Sarmizegetusa Regia Romania
The Bronze Horseman and the Thunder stone St. Petersburg Russia
Temples of Malta-A3

I'd like to tell you that I can guarantee the reliability of my sources. It sounds good and many others gain trust by spending a lot of time convincing the public that they are credible. The public often believes this. In many other cases researchers spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is true and less time convincing the public they know what they are talking about. Demagogues often demonize these researchers. The public often believes those who do the best job hyping their credibility and less time actually earning credibility. Those that do the best job showing the work and allowing scrutiny are the ones that really deserve trust. In some cases there are conflicting estimates about the size of colossal stones that were moved by ancient civilizations. Simply providing dimensions and explanations about density are often all it takes to sort out which estimate is right but few sources seem to be doing this. When they do provide this information it is usually in an unorganized manor so that it is hard to confirm. In some cases I've attempted to sort it out and figure out which source is the most reliable but without looking at every detail there are no guarantees. In the calculating the weight of a stone section I attempted to explain how to calculate weight by measuring volume and density. This has shown some obvious mistakes in some cases but in most cases I don't have enough information to provide complete calculation so until this information is available I have no choice but to trust the source that seems the most reliable. In the moving colossal stone section I have compared a few experiments about how to move them and found that it can't be done nearly as easy as may experts claim it can or perhaps at all. I have attempted to do this in a way that could be confirmed in simple ways. I have seen enough obvious mistakes from even the sources that are supposed to be the most reliable to know there are no guarantees. So use your own discretion. 

Pseudo scientists and Skeptics

Many alternate scholars sometimes referred to as pseudo scientist or pseudo archaeologists have attempted to explain some of these wonders with extremely farfetched theories. whether they are pseudo scientists or not may depend on a few things including the following:
whether they ignore inconvenient facts.
whether they organize their information and present it to the public in the most efficient manner or not.
whether they need to use coercive tactics to convince others of thier point of view or not.
whether they present their theories as fact even when they don't have sufficient evidence.
whether they correct their mistakes when presented with evidence to contradict their beliefs.
whether they attempt to figure out what is true by looking at the evidence first or decide what is true then search for evidence to prove their decision is right.

There are also plenty of skeptics that debunk these pseudo scholars including some that I posted in the links below. In some cases skeptics who make a point of spending all their time debunking pseudo scientists often seem to have made up their mind before they begin debunking. In order to completely rule something in or out you have to first figure out what is true. When someone is a full time skeptic across the board about all subjects they can't take the time to understand everything. Unless they rely on specialists from different subjects I don't see how they could be certain of the difference between pseudo scientists and real scientists. For example Jeremy Sabloff has debunked certain aspects of Erich Von Daniken's theories when they apply to Mayan culture. He has done this well as far as I can tell. He isn't a full time skeptic he is a Mayan scholar, he just debunks things when they apply to his field. Michael Shermer is a full time skeptic. He always takes the orthodox scientific view. More often than not this is the right view but in some cases like the moving of colossal stones the orthodox scientific view hasn't been able to explain certain mysteries. In order to back up the orthodox view it is necessary to ignore inconvenient facts like the fact that no one can move these colossal stones without modern technology therefore there are some major unexplained questions. In many cases in order to back up orthodox views on this subject and perhaps others he has to avoid the issue or distort it. When the skeptics have to resort to more farfetched explanations than the pseudo scientists they appear to be pseudo scientists themselves. Therefore it would also be a good idea to use rational discretion when listening to the skeptics. Some of you may think that I am a pseudo scientist perhaps your right although obviously I don't agree, my advise is try to keep a open mind and don't let others try to make the final decision for you. We need rational skeptics but not skeptics that skip the part where they figure out which portions of someone’s theory are bunk and should be debunked and which portions are true or at least might be true. When skeptics ignore inconvenient facts they actually do more to debunk themselves than the pseudo scientists. they may actually make the pseudo scientists seem more credible by comparison in some cases. It is important to keep in mind that just because one side is wrong it doesn't mean the other is right.


Dozens of ancient societies around the world somehow managed to move an enormous volume of colossal stones weighing over 10 tons some over 1,000 tons. they supposedly did this without any of the modern technology available today. Worldwide more than 100 colossal stones 100 tons or more were moved; thousands of stones over 50 tons were moved; and dozens of millions of multi-ton stones were moved sometimes in very short periods of time according to the official version of history. The pyramid of Cheops was supposedly built in 23 years. That is 6 million tons including at least 9 stones weighing between 50 and 80 tons. That is over 700 tons everyday. 60 tons an hour if they work 12 hours a day. The biggest stone moved with ancient technology by modern man that I know of is 10 tons. This was in the fifties on Easter Island described below. 

sites with colossal stones over 10 tons are marked A1
sites with colossal stones over 30 tons are marked A2
sites with colossal stones over 50 tons are marked A3
sites with colossal stones over 100 tons are marked A4
sites with colossal stones over 400 tons are marked A5

Well sourced Wikipedia List of Megalithic Sites sorted according to size.

One notable omission from this list is the Thunderstone in St. Petersburg Russia. It may weigh up to 1500 tons according to some estimates however I suspect that may be an exaggeration. This is listed in the table of context above.

Many sources provide contradictory estimates of the weight of these colossal stones. They rarely if ever explain how they calculate their estimates. I have seen them hint at it in shows about these colossal stones but never explain it. It is surprisingly easy in many cases so there shouldn't be that much doubt about the weights.
If you know the volume of the stone and the density you just multiply them and get the weight.

For example the largest trilithon stone is approximately 3.4 meters by 4.5 meters by 19 meters. (sources: sacred sites and natural That comes to 290 cubic meters. If the stone weighs 3.5 tons per meter then the 1,000 ton estimate commonly used would be accurate. However the most reliable estimate seems to be about 750 tons which would mean a density of almost 2.6 tons. This would be higher than the average density for limestone but within the typical range. source: Alouf, Michael M., 1944: History of Baalbek. American Press. p. 129

The average weight of granite is about 3 tons per cubic meter according to Wikipedia. Limestone is supposed to be a softer rock so it is lighter. According to Natural limestone is about 2.4 tons per cubic meter. High density limestone may be 2.9 tons per cubic meter. Marble or sandstone is about 2.7 tons per cubic meter. These estimates have a margin of era of about 10 % but they are good enough to recognize some obvious mistakes.

After looking at a lot of stories about these colossal stones a large number of exaggerations aren't surprising. Many of these estimates may have to be revised since there are so many contradictory numbers. The most reliable source will always be the stones themselves.

This doesn't mean there isn't a major mystery and that the Ancients didn't move an enormous amount of colossal stone but it clearly means that a lot of the details need to be confirmed. If the experts did a better job fact checking most of this would have already been done.

An example of how big the difference between estimates is shown in the following site:

It shows 2 estimates 1 estimate is 230 tons and the other is 455 tons. The 455 ton estimate is used by the PBS site. If the base of this obelisk is close to 3 meters I'm sure the 455 ton estimate is much closer. If I had the exact dimensions I could figure it out for sure.

To calculate the volume of an obelisk multiply the height by the average area of the obelisk. The average area is the width of the base squared plus the width of the top squared divided by 2.
The volume of a pyramid is height by width by depth divided by 3.

In most cases I relied on the best estimates provided by my sources since I didn't have access to complete dimensions. The stones themselves are the best source but few people can travel around and measure all of them.

In the case of statues that are not square and easy to measure then the most effective way to get a precise estimate of volume might be to box it in. Measure the box. fill it with a measured volume of sand. Subtract the volume of sand from the volume of the box and you'll have the volume of the statue. this is probably more work than most people want to do but it would be more reliable than any other method that I know of.

List of over 70 Colossal rocks over 100 tons each moved by the ancients
3- 750 ton rocks
24- 300 to 400 ton rocks
Egyptian Obelisks
Cairo Sesostris I 67 ft. 120 tons
Ramses II 16.97M 120 tons
Gezira Island Ramses II 13.5 M about 108 tons?
Hippodrome, Caesarea, Israel 12 M about 100 tons?
Istanbul Tuthmosis III 95 ft. 380 tons originally now 65 ft.
London Tuthmosis III 69 ft. 187 tons
Hatshepsut 1 standing 1 fallen 97 ft. 323 tons
Ramses II 82 ft. 254 tons
Tuthmosis I 66 ft. 143 tons
New York 70 ft. 193 tons
Paris Ramses II 74 ft. 227 tons
Piazza S. Giovanni, Laterano Tuthmosis III 105ft. 455 tons
St. Peter's Square, Vatican, 83 ft. 331 tons
Piazza del Popolo Seti I 75 ft. 263 tons
Monte Citorio Psammetikos II 72 ft. 230 tons
Piazza Navona 16.54M 135 tons?
Piazza dell'Esquilino Probable Roman replica 14.75M 115 tons?
Piazza del Quirinale Probable Roman replica 14.64M 115 tons?
The top of the Spanish Steps Probable Roman replica 13.92M 110 tons?
Place de la République, Arles, France 15M 120 tons?
Egyptian colossal Statues
Colossi of Memnon 2- 59 ft. tall 700 tons each originally total of 6 statues
Temple of Amenhotep III 50 ft. newly found statue 300-500 tons?
colossus of Ramesses 69 ft. over 1,000 tons originally allegedly moved before breaking.
3 Colossal statues minimum at Luxor 2 at gate 200 Tons each?
100 ton statue of Ramses II recently moved closer to pyramids
8 or more roof slabs weighing 100 to 220 tons at pyramid of Sahure
Monolithic quartzite burial chamber of Khendjer weighing 150 tons
Monolithic quartzite burial chamber of Amenemhet III weighing 110 tons
Blocks of limestone at Valley Temple of Chephren some weighing upto 150 tonnes
The largest block at the Funerary Temple of Chephren weighs an estimated 400 tonnes.
The largest blocks at the Mortuary temple of Mycerinus were estimated at 220 tons
Herod's Temple Mount 560 ton foundation stone probably more
Britiny Brise Stone France 300 tons?
Dol-de Bretagne France 150 tons
Kerloas Menhir France 150 tons
Cueva de la menga, Antequera, Spain over 100 tons
Browne's Hill Dolmen Ireland over 100 tons
Mycenae 120 ton Stone
Axum Ethiopia
Stelae 520 tons
170 ton stelae
160 ton stelae
Ollantaytambo Peru 6 stones well over 100 tons
Tiahuanaco Bolivia
largest slab 131 tons
several others over 100 tons
Cuzco Sacsayhuaman largest stone 128 tons many more probably including some over 100 tons
Statue of Jain Saint Gomateswara India rough estimate 300-500 tons
Gochang Dolmen in Korea rough estimate 200 to 300 tons

How they moved the Colossal rocks

Quote from Josh Bernstein's Book "Digging for the Truth":

"So how were the stones transported? Julian (Richards) says that archeologists have found wooden tracks perfectly preserved in some of the peat bogs between Wales and Stonehenge. These tracks could have been built for the express purpose of moving stones across the countryside, pulled on wooden sleds not unlike the ones many say were used in Egypt to pull the building blocks of the pyramids. They would simply need a lot of manpower."

"We decide to put the theory to the test. At a place called Keates Quarry, there are plenty of stones that are about the two-ton weight of the typical bluestones at Stonehenge. Julian has arranged for a bunch of guys from the Swanage & Wareham Rugby Club to help us give the megalith a pull."

"Just dragging the stone on the bare ground is tough and terribly awkward. But after placing it on a wooden sled then placing the sled on a wooden track, it is surprisingly easy to move. In fact, we barely have to pull at all to move this two-ton slab. And Julian says he's done this with one of the massive, 50 ton sarsen stones, and found that to be just as manageable. To move the stones as many miles across Southern England, the creators of Stonehenge would've had to build a lot of track, or move and rebuild track in pieces, as the stones migrated to their final destination."

There is a picture that shows them pulling the sled on the track. There are at least 15 or 16 men pulling maybe a couple more since they are crowded together it is hard to count them. That is approximately 8 men to pull each ton.

The following Quote is from a PBS website:
"Theorist: Thor Heyerdahl"
"Date: 1955 - 1956"
"Location: Easter Island, Ahu Nau Nau - Anakena"
"Moai: 13-foot, 10-ton original moai from Easter Island"
"Method: Tied statue on its back to a sledge (sled) made from a tree fork. 180 islanders pulled the statue using two parallel ropes tied to each side. Recent tradition supports this theory, as sledge transportation was believed to have been enhanced by the use of lubricants such as sweet potatoes, palm fronds, and taro root."
"Limitations: Requires sizable work force. If it takes 180 people to move a 10-ton moai, it would take an estimated 1500 people to move the largest moai successfully erected on an ahu, Paro, which weighs 82 tons."

That is approximately 18 men to pull each ton.

These are both experiments that have actually been done and documented although they haven't been presented to the public in as clear a manner as they could have and should have. Both Thor Heyerdahl and Josh Bernstein made reference to experiments that allegedly moved larger stones but neither of them tried to replicate them or show testimony from those directly involved in these experiments.

If the number of people required to move the stones increases with larger stones as these experiments implies then when the stones get much bigger it may be impossible to move using this method.

Another experiment under the direction of Henri Chevier, a French architect who worked for the Egyptian Antiquities Service demonstrated how easy a heavy weight can be towed across land. A track was prepared by putting a layer of earth on firm ground in the first court of the temple of Amun at Karnak. When the earth had been lightly trodden down until it had been well compacted its surface was wetted and a sledge bearing a 6 ton block of stone was lowered on to one end of the track. ropes attached to the sledge were pulled by 2 squads of men, one squad on each side of the track and it was found that 6 men could pull the load without difficulty.

source: Edwards, Dr. I.E.S.: The Pyramids of Egypt 1986/1947 p. 273-4

This experiment is also described in Time Life Lost Civilizations series:Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs (1992). This book claims the weight was only 1 ton and he had 50 men on hand to tow it but was able to do it with only 1 man.

Other reports claim that Chevier's experiment required 3 men to pull each ton including Lehner, Mark The Complete Pyramids, London: Thames and Hudson (1997)p.224. These reports seem more credible since they would still involve each man pulling 670 tons. It is hard to imagine many people doing this for an extended period of time which would be necessary to build all these colossal monuments. A closer look at the original records might clear up the discrepancies. It seems hard to believe but if it is true then the experiment could be repeated to prove it.

"There are many theories concerning ramps and no one is able to accurately say which theory is correct but some are more feasible than others. One such theory is the helical ramp. A spiraling platform which winds its way around the pyramid until it is completed and is then removed to place the facing stones. This theory was tested by Mark Lehner, an Egyptologist, who built a 30 foot pyramid on the Giza Plateau using a spiral ramp, he also found that the huge stones which weighed an average of 2.5 tons would slide easily on wet desert clay using only 10-12 men." source:

This is a misrepresentation of the experiment done by Mark Lehner. For more accurate version read the book or see NOVA pyramid building experiment as reported on Wikipedia Source: Lehner, Mark The Complete Pyramids, London: Thames and Hudson (1997)p.202-225 ISBN 0-500-05084-8
there was no spiral ramp involved and they used the most favorable numbers to fit their views. The book provides several quantities of men required to pull the stones presumably moving faster with larger number of men. There sometimes seem to be just as many exaggeration by skeptics as there are by farfetched theorists.
"Experiments done by the Obayashi Corporation, with concrete blocks 0.8 m square by 1.6 m long and weighing 2.5 tons, showed how 18 men could drag the block over a 1-in-4 incline ramp, at a rate of 18 meters per minute." source:
This would involve about 7 men to pull each ton. Each man would be pulling about 278 pounds up a steep hill lifting it 4.5 meters per minute. This seems hard to believe but if they did it once they should be able to do it again. It is probable that they just did it once and wore themselves out. I doubt if I could have done this in my prime but I certainly wouldn't be able to keep up the pace. It is also worth noting that the source doesn't completely agree on it either. Many editors of wikipedia disagree with this. If you look at the discussion page of the article now you'll see evidence of a dispute. This type of dispute is almost certainly not uncommon in the academic community but at wikipedia you can actually observe it so you have a better idea about the debate going on about subjects. It may seem petty and it often is but it is better not to pretend these disputes don't happen. It reminds people that they are dealing with leading theory.

Another experiment was done in England according to "The Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre. This experiment involves using a concrete block mounted on railroad tracks. The description of the experiment is vague. It implies that the stone might be 40 tonnes but after looking closely the way it is worded says the largest stone is 40 tonnes then later it says the concrete block is the "appropriate size". They show a picture of the block from the end which is less than 1 meter high and 2 wide. It is hard to estimate the length from this angle but it is almost certainly not 25 to 30 feet long which would make it close to 40 tons. There are no details about how they got the block on the tracks etc. They do claim that they moved it with 130 people which would probably be less people per ton than Thor Heyrdahls experiment. If there was a list of experiments that have already been done including details about the weight of the stone and number of people pulling it etc. this would help understand how hard it is. Josh Bernstien conducted at least 1 other experiment in Egypt and his replacement conducted 1 in Mexico. I think the results of these were similar to the one Josh conducted in England. There is also a description of efforts made to move stones in the 1800's in the sections on the Shwedagon Pagoda Yangon, Burma, Nimrud and Khorsabad, Iraq. This includes one done by Layard to move a 10 ton statue with 300 men and one by Botta that had mixed results and incomplete details. 1 of them fell into the river. They didn't attempt to limit themselves to ancient technology for an experiment but for the most part they did it anyway since they were in a foreign country in the 1800's. Efforts in Angkor also resulted in rafts overturning and lost cargo. this could be partly due to insufficient planning but it gives you an idea how difficult it is.

On or about 1815 Giovanni Battista Balzoni found a fragment of a statue of Ramses including the head and shoulders across the river from Thebes. This weighed over 7 tons. It took him 17 days and 130 men to tow it to the river. He used levers to lift it onto rollers. Then he had his men distributed equally with 4 ropes drag it on the rollers. On the first day (July 27 he only covered a few yards, the second he covered 50 yards deliberately breaking the bases of 2 columns to clear the way for his burden. After 150 yards it sunk in the sand and a detour of 300 yards on firmer ground was necessary. From there it got a little easier and on August 12 he finally made it to the river where he was able to load it on a boat for shipment to the British Museum in London. In London they may have had better technology to move it easier. He was proud to succeed where others failed but it was still only a fraction of the statue and it wasn't even the largest statue or even close. Source: Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile (1993) p. 47-48
Additional experiments could be done on this if they haven't already been done. The people participating could start by see how much each individual can pull alone. Then they can see how many people it takes to move a 1 ton stone. Then a 5 ton stone etc. They could calculate the number of people it takes to move 1 ton each step of the way. If the number of people required to move a ton increases as the size of the stone rises it could indicate how big of a stone they could lift using this tactic. Based on the information available to me now I doubt if ancient technology allegedly available to the ancients could move stones over 50 tons if that. Which would mean that they had more advanced technology available to them than most people believe.

the Wikipedia List of Megalithic Sites also includes an abbreviated list of efforts to move colossal stones.
The ancient Romans and Greeks supposedly had cranes to lift large items but they were not motorized. They still had to use muscle to move things however the crane would give them more leverage. Using this tactic a smaller man can lift a larger object but they would have to work longer at it. This would not reduce the total amount of work involved; quite the opposite since the machine would not opperate at 100% eficiancy and they would have to do more work to build and maintain the machinery. They would also need rope or cable strong enough to hold the colossal rocks. If they had rope strong enough then it would enable them to lift larger blocks as long as they had enough men which I'm sure they did.
For more on this see the following sites:

Wikipedia: Ancient Roman cranes
The Romans and the Greeks may also have had a treadmill similar to the kind of treadmill you see in a gerbils cage but much larger. Once again this wouldn't decrease the total amount of work since they would have to build it and it wouldn't work at 100% efficiency but it would give them leverage. These machines would help them erect structure but they probably wouldn't help them move them long distances.

The Romans and some other societies may have had help from Horses, Oxen, elephants etc. An organized list of what animals were domesticated when and where would help clarify this. However I'm sure that many of these societies didn't have this advantage including the Easter Islanders.

The following site shows what someone can do that understands leverage and balance and does the appropriate amount of prep work:
I watched it without audio but I was able to determine that it is worth noting if it is put in proper perspective. This appears to be carefully staged. It would be important to know how much prep work was done and what technology was used. It doesn't seem to be limited to ancient technology. There is concrete involved which most of the ancients didn't have except for the Romans and those that followed in there area. It still doesn't deal with the heaviest blocks. The concrete blocks he moves don't appear to be much more than 10 tons.

A closer look at the work behind to sort out which technology the ancients might have had and which they didn't have is in order. If the audio attempts to claim this video is sufficient to explain all the ancient wonders of the world it is misleading.

Even with modern technology I doubt if they can move 700 to 1,000 ton stones. The biggest stone moved with modern technology that I know of is the Obelisk in Paris weighing 227 tons. This was moved to Paris in 1836. The closest description I could find of how they did this was on this web site. More recently they moved one of the Axum Steles back to Ethiopia. this was broken into 3 pieces and the biggest piece was 60 tons. several other ancient stones were relocated weighing from 10 to 30 tons. And there were also some examples where they were unable to move stones 20 to 30 tons even with modern technology. For more on these see the sites for the Shwedagon Pagoda Yangon Burma, Abu Simbal Egypt and Ninevah, Nimrud and Khorsabad Iraq.


Dozens of ancient societies somehow managed to carve a stunning volume of statues many out of stone. Many of them are made of very high quality that few sculptures today can replicate. Modern museums that try to recreate some of the ancient statues routinely use plaster casts. They don't even try to carve more than a handful of statues because of the enormous amount of work and skill involved in sculpting stone.

Many of these colossal carving projects were done in a very short period of time like Angkor Wat which was built in 22 years according to the official version of history. some experts have estimated that it would take 300 years to replicate it today.

These statues were especially hard when they used granite which is the hardest stone that I know of used for sculpture. the ancient Egyptians had copper and bronze but they were to soft to make an impression on granite. They may have used 10 pound dolerite balls to chip away at the granite. These were a basaltic rock even harder than granite. each blow would only remove a few flakes and it would take weeks or months to get much done. heating then cooling the granite may have helped create cracks and chip it away a little faster. what ever method they used was incredibly labor intensive and tedious. Granite was only a fraction of the stone the Egyptians used but it was still a lot when you consider the Egyptians used over 50 million tons of stone. Most of this was softer limestone but there were still over a dozen obelisks up to 455 tons and 1 unfinished obelisk almost 1,200 tons, a 1,000 ton statue of Ramses II, lining for dozens of burial chambers, columns for some temples etc. the Romans also created a lot of statues and columns out of granite but they may have had better metal to work with. source: Time Life Lost Civilizations series:Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile (1993) p. 54-57, Edwards, Dr. I.E.S.: The Pyramids of Egypt 1986/1947 p. 269-273
The following quote from an inscription by a sculptor from ancient Egypt describes how on artisan may have felt about his work:

"I was an artist skilled in my art, pre-eminant in my learning .... I knew (how to represent) the movements of the image of a man and the carriage of a woman... the poising of the arm to bring the hippopotamus low and the movements of the runner...No one suceeds in all this (task) but only I and the eldest son of my body" source: Edwards, Dr. I.E.S.: The Pyramids of Egypt 1986/1947 p. 209
Sites with large numbers of sculptures are marked with a B

Many ancient societies built enormous statues out of mountain sides or caves without the help of dynamite, drills or jack hammers etc. Mount Rushmore was built with these modern technologies and it was still an enormous project. There is so much work to do this even with modern technology that it is rarely done. Yet throughout the Middle East and Southern Asia there are dozens of sites where the ancient people did this with primitive tools.

Wikipedia List of colossal sculpture carved in situ
Sites carved out of "living rock" are marked with a C


There are many stone structures built with extremely tight joints that modern stone cutters can't replicate. But not only did the ancient people build them but they built them in an enormous volume. The most famous include the Pyramids of Egypt and the Sacsayhuaman wall near Cuzco Peru but there are more in India Burma and Easter Island etc.

Sites with extremely tight joints are marked with a D

I define a cult structure as a structure that is either used to indoctrinate followers; or a structure that is built by a cult; or in most cases both.

One example of probable cult structures is if you see a large structure that requires advanced knowledge in some fields and an obsessive amount of labor for a structure that provides little or no benefit for the people building the structure.

Cult structures are usually spectacular projects that astounds people but they provide little if any practical value. I don't mean a reasonable amount of beautiful artwork that people can take pride in. I like art as much as anyone else and if someone enjoys creating something I see no problem with that. As I wrote in the sculpture section there are some artisans who took great pride in their work and it would have brought them status in there culture. If they enjoyed their work this wouldn't be a problem. But if a large number of people are coerced into building an amazing Temple then they are not even allowed to enjoy it since it is the property of a king or pharaoh then the public is being used as slaves. The vast majority of these Ancient Wonders are spectacular and they are great pieces of art work but they aren't something that I would recommend society does again on such a large scale. In order to understand how these structures probably had to have been made you have to understand how early religion developed. You also have to understand how tyrannical leaders were able to keep their followers in a state of slavery or virtual slavery.

In many cases it is virtually guaranteed that a system was set up to teach people from birth to do certain jobs. However they wouldn't have taught people to stand up for their own rights. They wouldn't have taught people to figure out what is in their own best interest and do it. They wouldn't have taught people to form their own government and set up a democracy. Censorship would have been routine. They wouldn't have taught the public how to avoid wars quite the opposite the leaders of ancient governments would have been looking for ways to lead them into war when they thought it was in the best interest of the leader. Leaders would have been primarily interested in glorifying themselves and increasing their own power. Education systems would have been controlled by the governments and they would have been used to stick up for the best interest of those that governed not those that were governed. People would have been taught only what they needed to know for their particular job and if possible no more than that.

Many of these societies spent most or all there spare time either fighting wars or building monuments to glorify their leaders. One of the most obvious examples is the Taj Mahal where thousands of people put an enormous amount of time and work so that Shah Jahan could glorify his deceased wife. This did little if any good for the vast majority of the people of India quite the opposite. In stead of feeding the public and setting up a better education system they spent their time glorifying some one who could no longer benefit from it. Even today the majority of Indians receive little if any benefit for the Taj Mahal. It is used primarily as a tourist attraction for the rich. the story about Shah Jahan is considered romantic by many.

Most of these civilizations collapsed sometimes shortly after monumental building projects like Angkor Wat. the large amount of work put into glorifying King Suryavarman took up so much work that it supposedly led to the downfall of the empire. This was later restored but eventually it collapsed again permanently this time. They are great monuments now and they could be used for educational purposes as well including learning not to make the same mistakes they did. These monuments came at to high a price for those that built them and people are still paying the price today. If they had spent their time doing more practical things like feeding and educating the public first then spent a portion of the remaining time building monuments they could have built a much greater society that would have lasted longer. And without the many wars that led to the destruction of so many monuments in the long run they would have had just as many monuments.

Many of these statues have been worshiped as graven idols. religions have looked at them as representatives of their God that they love more than anything even though they have no idea what the true nature of this God is or even if he exists at all. God doesn't communicate so when a system was set up for representatives of God to speak for him the faithful allow the cult leaders to do all their thinking for them. Glorious Temples statues and miraculous colossal stones have been used as part of this cult worship to enslave minds. In most cases these spectacular monuments aren't used to improve the lives of the people involved in them quite the opposite they are used to manipulate them. The exceptions are the more mundane things that don't seem so spectacular like apartment buildings and irrigation systems that actually improve the quality of living of the people without lots of hype and propaganda, or modest volumes of artwork that don't involve excesses. In many cases once the people are indoctrinated they are often led to war. There are many examples of war being glorified including many of the carvings on these monuments. The Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans, Angkors and many others have created carvings glorifying war, making it seem like something desirable. It may be desirable for the tyrants that get an ego boost but it isn't providing benefits for the vast majority of people fighting the wars.

For many of these people life was dominated by the necessities of life, construction of monuments and war. Little if any time was devoted to education and figuring out what is actually in there own best interest. There are a lot of great art works no doubt and if this was done as a hobby by the people that they enjoyed passing time this would be a great thing but that isn't the way it worked it was coerced without any consideration for the best interest of the people building them. They only considered the most effective ways of manipulating them. The lower classes were routinely forced to do the work and the tyrants routinely took credit for the work. People like Ramses, Cheops, Carracalla Pakal etc. didn't actually do the work to create these monuments. They just dominated the actual workers and took the credit from those that deserved the credit.
Even today they still worship beautiful churches, statues and stone replicas of the ten commandments like Graven Idols.
Scientists and Pseudo scientists

Under the current conditions there appears to be a lot of pseudo scientists portraying themselves as real scientists and it is hard to tell them apart at times. There are also a lot of debunkers trying to discredit the pseudo scientists but unfortunately the debunkers often ignore inconvenient facts. In most cases the debunkers seem more rational and are more rational but not always. there are some cases where debunkers use hype and propaganda to get their point across, when they do this they often look like the pseudo scientists and they may wind up giving them credit by default. If a debunker makes an irrational argument and the public thinks they have to choose between the two they might choose the pseudo scientists even though they might be even worse. So how do you tell the real scientist from the fraud? It is not always easy but more often than not the one that does the best job showing the work will be the right one. In the short run this may not always work but after people have time to check the work then they will have a chance to fix mistakes and the finished theory will usually be much more reliable. I have demonstrated a few simple cases where just providing the dimensions for colossal stones helps expose flawed estimates even from traditional reputable scholars. Simply understanding density and geometry is all it takes in this case but in many other cases it may be something more complicated which will take longer to confirm. A better job needs to be done to explain things starting with the basics and working up from there. I have also seen many so called experts ignore the inertia principle and Keplers laws of planetary motion. If there were a better source for organized facts then the public could check the facts much easier and hold the experts accountable at least to some degree. When it comes to the most complicated things they may have no choice but to trust the experts at least until a better job organizing the facts and checking them can be set up. Sometimes simple things like organized and summarized inventories of archeology sites can help a lot.

Whether it is pseudo scientist or traditional scientists they often present there theories as package deals that your supposed to take or leave in their entirety. This is less likely to happen when different traditional scientist disagree but if the pseudo scientist create a theory to explain an unsolved mystery like how they moved these colossal rocks it is often presented as a package deal and ridiculed in its entirety. If the theory were put forward by a traditional scientist they might be more likely to dismiss only the part that is flawed or at least try to.

107 Wonders of the Ancient World (Blog entry)

One Hundred and Seven Wonders of The Ancient World: Introduction

Middle East Wonders of The Ancient World

African Wonders of The Ancient World

European Wonders of The Ancient World

South American Wonders of The Ancient World

North American Wonders of The Ancient World

Asian Wonders of The Ancient World

Preliminary Conclusions For One Hundred and Seven Wonders of The Ancient World

Prophets and Mystics

No comments:

Post a Comment