Hi guys, today I’m going to continue discussing the ancient Rose City of Petra
with its spectacular and massive rock hewn caves carved into red sandstone. These caves are said
to have been carved about 2,000 years ago. The most iconic of them all is the Treasury, which
is located at the final twist of the towering walls of the Siq canyon. This stunning structure
is almost 40 meters or 130’ high and intricately decorated with Corinthian-styled capitals,
friezes, figures and reliefs. Looking at its magnificent exterior, one cannot help
but wonder how this incredible facade was created two millennia ago. Fortunately, I located some
great close-up photos of the Treasury’s exterior which are very telling. From these photos we are
able to get an idea what went into the creation of the façade. We can see clues showing that the
structure was possibly reworked on and repurposed in a later period; which might challenge the
current narrative and put the claimed creators of Petra into question. Let’s get started.
Archeologists suggest that the rock cut city of Petra was created by the Nabataeans as
early as 4th century BC. In my last video I explained why I disagree with this statement
by comparing Petra with other major Nabataean cities. Almost all surviving Nabataean cities look
nothing like the signature Petra style. The only ancient city that shares a resemblance with Petra
is Hegra in Saudi Arabia but it still contains significant differences in the rock carving scale,
quality and purpose. I believe the real creators of Petra predate the Nabataeans
by a long period of time. It’s likely that the Nabataens discovered Petra and adopted
the place as their own. If you want to check out that video the link is at the upper right corner.
The sizes of Petra caves are astonishing. One cannot fully appreciate their scale until you
see the structures photographed with people as reference points. How were caves this massive
excavated and created with accurate facades, sharp edges and 90 degree corners 2,000 years ago? In
order to study the potential construction method, we need to search for details. One of the most
revealing clues is the tool marks at the Urn tomb. These ancient tool marks are like finger prints in
our forensic investigation. The Urn Tomb has a cavernous chamber over 3,400 m3, or 120,000 ft3.
Whoever created this cave on a high cliff made the incredible effort to excavate out a humongous
amount of stone that can almost fill two Olympic swimming pools. An equally striking feature of
the Urn tomb is the fine markings that covered the entire walls and ceilings. These highly uniformed
parallel markings are impossible for hand tools to achieve and clearly resemble machine marks.
If Petra monuments are really 2,000 years old per mainstream academia, that means the Urn tomb was
excavated with traditional hand tools like chisels and hammers. Is this assumption by archeologists,
reasonable or practical? Here I’m showing a clip of today’s stone mason using chisel and hammer to
work on sandstone. It’s obvious that even with a relatively finished surface; it’s still difficult
for a mason to carve long, continuous, parallel markings within close proximity.
We also need to keep in mind that the sandstone in Petra is HARD with high quartz content.
The cave facades might look melted and soft due to long time erosion but the
stone is close to a 7 on the Moh’s scale which means it’s almost as hard as granite or steel.
Carving such hard stone in this tremendous scale would have been a daunting task,
not to mention creating these unbelievably uniformed marks in the Urn tomb. It’s unnecessary
and impractical to dress the gigantic cave with these tightly aligned markings with chisels.
Then what tools are able to excavate hard sandstone and leave such marks? The uniformity and
consistency of the markings remind me of current day continuous mining machines,
which can create similar parallel markings. But the Urn tomb is ancient. There were supposed to be
no advanced machines 2,000 years ago. Then how did the cave get excavated in the 1st place?
Was the Urn tomb unique? Can we find these markings at other impressive caves in Petra?
Let’s go to the most famous structure of Petra: the Treasury. According to archeologists, this
colossal monument represents the Hellenistic style and was most likely constructed in the 1st century
BC or the beginning of first century AD. We can see the natural stone veins extend from columns to
walls, which indicate that the elaborate facade was carved from stone instead of being cast.
Here are some great detailed photos I found on the Treasury. The flat surfaces
and columns look smooth from afar but they are not. If we zoom into these surfaces,
we can see that there are countless delicate parallel markings on the entablatures,
even the curved surfaces are finished with exceptional markings. On top of that,
we can see the same fine excavation marks on the round columns! This is incredible.
These markings, even though at some areas are changing directions, in general appear to be
highly uniformed and parallel with consistent spacing. Have you ever seen such fine carved
markings in a similar scale anywhere else, especially on curved surfaces? Carving short,
smooth, parallel and straight lines on flat surfaces is already hard enough, how did ancient
masons carve these accurate and amazingly aligned markings with the same curvature? Please don’t
forget that the bottom columns are about 15 m or close to 50” high which means the masons would
need to be working high above ground to carve these continuous parallel marks on round columns.
It almost looks like the work from today’s 3D stone carving robot,
which can also make clean-cut precise lines. 3D carving robots can create sculptures with
accurate details by using digital modeling, 3D scanning, 3D printing and robotic carving. But
we are talking about the ancient city of Petra which is at least a few thousands of years old.
There shouldn’t have been such advanced tools available.
Moreover, other parts of the Treasury show markings that are very much the same as the
ones we see inside the Urn tomb. These photos were taken close to the entrance of the Treasury.
Please be mindful that these walls have been damaged with graffiti, portions of the facade have
been restored, painted and/or refinished multiple times throughout history; still we can find some
areas have these distinct finely aligned markings. I think these could be the original stone work. I
also found similar markings at some other Petra’s caves such as the tomb of Sextius Florentinus.
Petra’s stonework is truly astounding. As mentioned earlier, dressing stone with smooth,
tightly placed and parallel marks is not easy for masons to do with chisels.
Imagine the insane workload needed to cover the entire exterior of the Treasury
with these fine tool marks. Could this be accomplished with hand tools? I highly doubt it.
It would be extremely difficult or impossible to carve these surfaces
with hand chisels especially at this high level of consistency.
In addition, was it really necessary to carve these parallel markings on the facades to achieve
flat or curved surfaces? In Hegra, the real Nabataean rock cut tombs also have flat surfaces
but were achieved by masons carefully chipping away extra stone and leaving small tool marks.
These irregular tool marks came from hand tools used in ancient times, while in Petra,
the Urn tomb and the Treasury are carved with exceptionally accurate markings
which present a much more sophisticated, machine-like technique.
Now I want to point out something else I noticed on the detailed photos of the Treasury facade.
Not all areas are created with the uniformed markings. It’s interesting to see that the
most elaborate column capitals and the decorative elements on the frieze present
a different kind of mark which is consistent with chisel marks. From these photos, I think it’s
fair to say that the parts contain ornamental reliefs showing inferior finishing stonework.
These different types of tool marks were probably done by different teams of masons
with dissimilar tools separated by time. If all the work was done by the same crew,
the finishing quality should have been consistent. The typical sequence of stone carving would be
1st to remove large quantities of stone and rough-out the basic forms; then to create
clear surfaces and give definition to the form; followed by adding details. The detail carving
comes last. Since we see chisel marks on the column capitals and other ornate patterns, which
mean these were likely done after the visibly superior, parallel markings on the main forms. So,
again we see the earlier work quality is more sophisticated than the later ones. Why is that?
The stonework on the Treasury’s column capitals resembles the ones on ancient Greek and Roman
structures. The two cultures are well-known for their monumental buildings with beautiful details.
But unlike the fine markings we see at Petra, the Greeks and Romans preferred a smooth look
and had left almost no tool marks on flat surfaces or columns. The smooth stone blocks
used in these constructions were presumably cut by stone saws,
and the columns carved onsite with chisel marks buffed out.
So the distinct markings at Petra do not belong to the ancient Greek or Roman masonry customs.
Did the Greeks and Romans remove their fine tool marks as the final finishing process
and that’s why we don’t see them today? I think not. Here are photos of some unfinished stone
works at ancient Greek and Roman sites. We can see that point or tooth chisels were used to create
forms and surfaces. These hand tools left typical chisel marks, which are not continuously parallel.
In another close-up photo we can see the irregular tooth chisel marks.
If the stone surfaces will be scraped or buffed smooth at the end, then why
bother painstakingly carving highly uniformed markings anyway? It doesn’t add up. Therefore,
the ancient Greek and Roman masonry techniques are different from the machine-like markings at Petra.
Let’s not forget that the Treasury is said to be created imitating the Hellenistic style,
with a broken pediment with a central tholos, columns, friezes, figures and more.
Yet if the Treasury was indeed designed to resemble the Greek/ Roman style,
then why didn’t its creators with their masons also emulate the Roman carving method? Why
choose a different and more difficult way to carve the columns, facade and interior?
Besides the tool marks, I want to bring up another point. Even though the Treasury looks Hellenistic,
its super Hellenistic details such as the Corinthian-like column capitals
and intricate relieves might have been carved much later than the original structure.
It’s possible that initially the Treasury’s facade was similar to the Monastery, another huge
rock hewn wonder in Petra, with simpler columns and less adornment. It’s obvious that these two
majestic structures share a lot in common. If the original bottom column capitals of the Treasury
were the same as the ones at the Monastery, then such capitals would have provided enough material
for a later reshaping. Also, we see the unaligned beam holes on both sides of the Treasury,
but we don’t see them at the Monastery. These holes might be evidence of a Roman era
scaffolding when masons were commissioned to make the Treasury’s exterior look more Greek or Roman.
The Roman era masons appreciated the existing exquisite parallel tool marks and left them alone.
Another intriguing thing I found is that the Palace tomb exterior appears to be painted
to represent a Hellenistic architectural detail, the dentils. Dentils are these small, rectangular
blocks used as a decoration under the soffit of a cornice in ancient Greek and Roman buildings.
Its precursor might come from when the Greeks were building with wood.
This could be another piece of evidence that argues in favor of the rock cut cave facades in
Petra having been modified one by one to be more ornate and Hellenistic. Being the 1st monument
seen at the end of the winding Siq canyon, the entryway to the Petra city, it’s conceivable the
Treasury was the primary building to be reworked on; while the even larger Monastery is far from
the city center and located on a high altitude thus able to preserve its authentic Petra style.
I heard that some caves in Petra have very smooth stone surfaces with no marks at all. From
photos it seems that Urn tomb’s facade is quite smooth. I would love to see some close-up photos.
So, in summary, the Treasury’s main structure, its columns, pediments and all areas that are covered
with highly uniformed carving marks, are likely the original stonework predating the Greek/ Roman
influence. The Treasury’s Hellenistic details such as the Corinthian-like column capitals,
the dentils and reliefs were probably carved later by Roman era masons with chisels revealing
a visibly cruder finish and masonry work. The tightly aligned markings are seen at the
Treasury, the Urn tomb and some other caves. Their existences indicate that the creators of the Petra
might have had advanced stone carving techniques that are more superior to hand tool chiseling.
Machinery like today’s continuous miners, other hard rock excavators, and even 3D stone carving
robots might have been utilized in creating these caves with huge interiors and beautiful facades
with precise details and finishing. There were no such technologies 2,000 years ago
and Petra is an ancient and heavily eroded site. Therefore, I propose the real possibility
that the Treasury, along with other large-scale caves in Petra might have been the work of a
prehistoric advanced civilization which had access to technologies on par with today’s modern world.
A final question, even without the ornamental carvings,
the main architectural form of the Treasury still resembles the Hellenistic style.
But if Petra’s rock hewn structures were created by an earlier advanced civilization
which predated the Greeks and Romans, that means Petra’s style came before the Hellenistic one.
What if the monuments in Petra were not influenced by the Hellenistic style but it's the other way
around: that the Hellenistic style imitated Petra’s architectures? What do you think? If
you have any insights, please leave me a comment. If you like my video, please give me a thumbs up
and subscribe. Don’t forget to hit the bell button so you will be notified when I upload new videos.
If you want to support me – my patreon link is below. I have a wide range of topics that I want
to share with you. This is Curious Being, I’m Tina. Thanks for watching and see you next time.