# How did they level, square, and plumb ancient stone walls



## matthew111 (May 21, 2017)

I saw a picture of an old stone building in croatia which I think was from medieval times and was damaged in the war their and inside was smaller, uneven sized stones, it seems like it would have been difficult to make it level, square and plumb. I also noticed some older wood homes near me from the 1800's have stone foundations. Were old stone walls and buildings actually level square and plumb or did they just try to get it close enough?


----------



## B.Johnson (Sep 17, 2016)

Plumb bob? Square isn't that complicated, you could check the diagonal with a piece of rope, or a wheel. I read that the Egyptians used a tube floating on a leaf in a bowl of water for a level.


----------



## sparehair (Nov 21, 2008)

The theodolite was first mentioned in writing in 1561. The modern spirit level was invented in 1660.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## sparehair (Nov 21, 2008)

And of course once you had a plumb line you could use the pythagorean theorem to establish square/level.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

sparehair said:


> And of course once you had a plumb line you could use the pythagorean theorem to establish square/level.


Wouldn't even need that. Once you have a plumb line, pick a center point. Measure up X", use a Y" length of string to draw an arc. Measure down the same distance and use the same string to draw another arc.

A line from where the arcs intersect to the original center point is at 90° to the plumb line. Look Ma, no math!


----------



## sparehair (Nov 21, 2008)

Geometry for the win!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## matthew111 (May 21, 2017)

B.Johnson said:


> Plumb bob? Square isn't that complicated, you could check the diagonal with a piece of rope, or a wheel. I read that the Egyptians used a tube floating on a leaf in a bowl of water for a level.


That's not what I meant. We use brick and block the same size and shape now. It must have been hard to use stones all different sizes and shapes and get a level plumb and square surface, especially to put thing like windows and doors in.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Take a look at old stone buildings,the corners in many instances have dressed stones on the corners and random rubble between corners. Even if the corners are not of dressed stone,the masons picked relatively flat stones for corners. Check out the book The Art of the Stonemason by Ian Cramb,you will see many examples in both pictures and line drawings.


----------



## EthanB (Sep 28, 2011)

sparehair said:


> Geometry for the win!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


I'm good at geometry because I took it twice!


----------



## Stevarino (Sep 28, 2013)

I once read that the Egyptians would dig a trench around the structure and fill it with water to have level reference point all around. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

Stevarino said:


> I once read that the Egyptians would dig a trench around the structure and fill it with water to have level reference point all around.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wonder how we figured out that they did that.

Egyptian stuff boggles my mind. History channel does some fantastic shows.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Stevarino said:


> I once read that the Egyptians would dig a trench around the structure and fill it with water to have level reference point all around.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




That makes perfect sense. They could just transfer to a several benchmarks then demo the trench.


Mike.
_________


----------



## Dirtywhiteboy (Oct 15, 2010)

Stevarino said:


> I once read that the Egyptians would dig a trench around the structure and fill it with water to have level reference point all around.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The water in the ditch was for the slaves to drink too.


----------



## stuart45 (Oct 7, 2009)

The Romans used a Groma to get a building square.
http://legioneromana.altervista.org/content/how-use-roman-groma?language=en

The plumb lines would be dropped into a bucket of on a windy day to steady them.
In years gone by the masons would usually spend the winter cutting the quoin stones etc to shape.


----------



## VinylHanger (Jul 14, 2011)

It is amazing there aren't really any real firm records about how they did some impressive things. They probably figured it was so commonplace and simple why waste time explaining it. Or maybe the real secrets were so secret they couldn't write or draw them or they would die.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Just some trivia,the three Pyramids on the Giza Plateau are approximately 13 acres at their bases. They have found they are all about three inches out of square. It is thought that it was not a miscalculation on the builders side,they are all short on their West elevation. That is attributed to the West wind sandblasting away the stone after thousands of years.


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

No power tools, or high wear cutting edges.....

1. Use soft stone.... limestone, sandstone, etc...
2. Use every size of material that has parallel top and bottom planes out side of the veneer face.
3.Remember lime based mortars have near zero tensile strength, thus gravity & mechanical bind is the mason only friends.
Most very large medieval structures are just a stone wall wythes with rubble ( well drained and usually alot of lime, some bond tie cross webbs prehaps...)filled 
centers.

almost Every large town had some Roman era work to monkey copy.... See PR China.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

1. But they didn't.
2. But they didn't.
3. Don't even use mortar.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

ah hell, the aliens had lasers....:thumbup::thumbsup::whistling


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

matthew111 said:


> Were old stone walls and buildings actually level square and plumb or did they just try to get it close enough?


I think you have to talk about stone walls separately, and there is a lot of variation even in them.

Up here, the stone walls around farms used stacked rocks of whatever size, generally no flat faces. The walls followed the topography. Level didn't come into play at all. These were just stacked, and some farmers were better at it than others. The next step up used some big rocks with at least one flat-ish face as a foundation, and the flat face was more or less leveled. The rest of the wall building was done as before.

That was all due to the materials at hand, and very little was done to the rocks found in the field. There were a bunch of feldspar quarries in this area, so quite a few house foundations used rocks that were a byproduct of working those mines. They were built similarly to the stone walls with a flat rock foundation, with little further concern about level until getting to the top part of the wall.

The more expensive foundations and walls around here used quarried granite, and that was all prepared for use in foundations, walls, whatever. They kept rough level all the way up.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

matthew111 said:


> inside was smaller, uneven sized stones,


Quarried stone faces with rubble fill. It goes back to the Romans, maybe further. The same general techniques were used with mud brick and "burnt" brick sometimes.


----------



## GC_contractor (Mar 25, 2018)

I was a late adopter of a transit since water levels were buillit proof, could not make a mistake and gave continual reads - in all ways superior to lasers. Not to mention only costing about $10 - and you were guaranteed LEVEL.



Tscarborough said:


> 1. But they didn't.
> 2. But they didn't.
> 3. Don't even use mortar.


Yes they did use mortar, in fact the new theory is, is that the pyramids are built of concrete and capped in sandstone which is seen on the uppermost layers (since townsfolk haven't removed it yet).

This completely explains the tight fitting between "stones" or rather poured sections, not to mention solving several huge logistical problems. lol Aliens lol.

As such 100's of 1000's tons of stone did not have to be quarried - and with a cutting and sizing precision hard to achieve without supernatural influence!  Then moving these stone - many of them weighing over 30 tons, over 100 miles.

Heck this idiocy created the foundations for Alien involvement. But it's really a a sad tale of bookish Ivoried towered ****heads being out of touch with physical realities.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Pretty sure a water level isn't more accurate than modern equipment they have today. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

GC_contractor said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I really do not believe that theory is correct. Here are the reasons why. I spent close to a month in Egypt,traveling from Alexandria to Abu Simbel visiting both sides of the Nile. The guy I traveled with was a born in Egypt Egyptian along with being a Egyptologist. We hit the high spots along with the obscure ,off the beaten path places. Some of those off the beaten path destinations were ancient limestone and granite quarries. In Aswan,there is a huge 'abandoned" obelisk that cracked prior to removal,therefore,it was abandoned. That is one of the tourist destinations.

Secondly,the reason why the center pyramid (which is on our dollar) is missing the majority of casing stones is because as time rolled on,it was a source of ready quarried stone to build other buildings. If it was concrete,there would be no advantage to remove it.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

To say nothing of the fact that it is simply easier to quarry and finely shape stone than it is to produce concrete. The formwork alone would probably preclude it (as well as leave obvious impressions).


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Here is the "abandoned" Obelisk in Aswan I mentioned previously,all 1,200 tons of it.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

It's a fascinating subject and there really is a lot of mystery regarding some of the oldest structures which are so well built, displaying the incredible precision of the cuts which is typical of ancient megalithic structures throughout the world. It's interesting because it's been pretty convincingly established that the oldest work is the best and progressively degenerates, which is the opposite of what one would expect.

It's very likely there was an extensive civilization in many parts of the earth with advanced stone working technology that got wiped out somehow many thousands of years ago. There are some really good videos on the subject (as well as an incredible amount of really dubious ones to put it politely).


----------



## GC_contractor (Mar 25, 2018)

Californiadecks said:


> Pretty sure a water level isn't more accurate than modern equipment they have today.
> 
> 
> Mike.
> _______________


You should of remembered your lessons in Gr 10 physics and you would of saved a $2000 on a transit 15 years ago. Since then laser levels haven't become more accurate but they have become much much cheaper by magnitudes of scale.

They're still much more expensive than a $10 water level. But what I really like about a water level is this: I know that it is ALWAYS correct.



Tscarborough said:


> To say nothing of the fact that it is simply easier to quarry and finely shape stone than it is to produce concrete. The formwork alone would probably preclude it (as well as leave obvious impressions).


You're being sarcastic right?


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

There is a lot of work that goes into making aggregate. Drill, blast, the small stuff get taken to the crusher, anything too big gets hammered into smaller pieces. There is really quite a lot of moving material around before it can be hauled to a plant.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Rio said:


> It's a fascinating subject and there really is a lot of mystery regarding some of the oldest structures which are so well built, displaying the incredible precision of the cuts which is typical of ancient megalithic structures throughout the world. It's interesting because it's been pretty convincingly established that the oldest work is the best and progressively degenerates, which is the opposite of what one would expect.
> 
> .




The architect / author Steve Mouzon would agree / concur with you on that statement and vise versa . In his book Traditional Construction Patterns,Steve offers this explanation as to why the oldest work is the best. His theory is that when construction was extremely difficult,it was also deeply honored. As it becomes easier,it is thought of as expedient . He references the ancient Greek and Roman time period as the pinnacle.I suppose one could argue for their "favorite" time frame as being the best. I absolutely had to visit Egypt,the sheer magnitude of work is almost beyond comprehension. Moving 1,200 ton blocks of stone and transporting them from their remote places would tax some of the best cranes we have available.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

I'd love to go see the pyramids, wouldn't like to deal with all of the people however. I've heard and believe that it's something one really can't grasp the scale of without seeing it in person, just so huge.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Californiadecks said:


> Pretty sure a water level isn't more accurate than modern equipment they have today.
> 
> 
> Mike.
> _______________





GC_contractor said:


> You should of remembered your lessons in Gr 10 physics and you would of saved a $2000 on a transit 15 years ago. Since then laser levels haven't become more accurate but they have become much much cheaper by magnitudes of scale.
> 
> They're still much more expensive than a $10 water level. But what I really like about a water level is this: I know that it is ALWAYS correct.
> 
> ...


I never said anything about a transit. Survey equipment can cost $50,000.00. Let's see a water level work with GPS. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Rio I've heard and believe that it's something one really can't grasp the scale of without seeing it in person said:


> How very true. For one with a construction background,it is difficult to imagine the sheer magnitude of building such monuments today. When thinking of them taking place thousands of years ago,it is almost unfathomable.
> 
> If you do choose to go there,I guarantee it will change your perspective of construction. It will never be the same. How it changes will remain to be seen,however,it will be impossible to remain unchanged.


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

The Egyptian Pyramids were the Wind mills, Light Rail, and solar cells of their days... giant sink holes the Pharaohs poured money and labor in to leave a lasting Monument to themselves.

Remember your contractors triangle: You can have two out of three, Cheap, quick, and or Quality....

Again I say the big rocks in Egypt were FLOATED out of the quarries to the work sites via the Nile and canals and locks.

The first and last mile probably were 'stone boats" on rollers or axles...

P.S. the canal served as the baseline 'water level'

Remember the Egyptians had to re survey all the flooded lands along the River Nile most years to return farmers to "their" land and to access TAXES......
Building a 400' square to within 4" was child's play


----------



## stuart45 (Oct 7, 2009)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ed-ancient-civilisation-channel-a7965916.html
Saw a programme last year about the discovery of a canal system used to transport the stones.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

I was not being sarcastic. The stones obviously do not contain large or scaled aggregate, they are composed of finely layered limestone. To place concrete that would resemble that is pretty much impossible and would be obvious if it were so. This is Egypt. They have a distinct lack of wood suitable to create planks to create formwork, and would, as stated, be obvious from surface impressions. 

Time is all they needed and a viable workforce. They had both.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Tscarborough said:


> Time is all they needed and a viable workforce. They had both.




And the ingenuity,they had that also.:thumbsup:


----------



## NYCB (Sep 20, 2010)

GC_contractor said:


> You should of remembered your lessons in Gr 10 physics and you would of saved a $2000 on a transit 15 years ago. Since then laser levels haven't become more accurate but they have become much much cheaper by magnitudes of scale.
> 
> They're still much more expensive than a $10 water level. But what I really like about a water level is this: I know that it is ALWAYS correct.
> 
> ...


Water levels are cool, but they are subject to heat fluctuations. They also don't do well once the temperature drops below freezing.

I made one for a job once where we had to keep going around corners, it was easier to drag a tube around than to keep resetting a laser.

About 99.99% of the time though, I would prefer a laser.


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

The pyramids were the "Wind mills" solar panels" and "passenger Rail" projects of their Era that kept the Egyptian economy from advancing to the next level, along with the negative effect of flood control on long term crop yields, i.e. more flood controls, less fertilizer/crops...fewer taxpayers = smaller monuments.

NYCB: @38: use antifreeze in your "water" level...... Just like the wood ones do......

FJN: @37: the Ancients had a lot of Necessity also.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Dirtywhiteboy said:


> The water in the ditch was for the slaves to drink too.


It's actually believed that there were not that many slaves used to build the pyramids. It actually took skilled labor to do most of the jobs and most slaves didn't have the skills.


----------

