> Though the stones were brought as close as 1/800
> inch, or, in fact into contact, and the mean
> opening of the joint was a mere 1/50 [of an] inch,
> yet the builders managed to fill the joint with
> cement, despite the great area of it, and the
> weight of the stone to be moved -some 16 tons.
> To merely place the stones in exact contact at
> the sides would be careful work; but to do so with
> cement in the joint seams seems almost
> The is no punctuation 'full stop' after the word
Well spotted, Corp: I'd seen that, which was why I didn't insert it at the end the text that I quoted.
I don't know why it was omitted: typographers of that era were usually pretty careful. However, the omission doesn't of course explain the later addition of the "equal to opticians' work of the present day, but on a scale of acres" from another text altogether.
> Not being dogmatic, just for interest sake,
> but if they could join stone so solidly then when
> next perusing photographs or the real actual large
> megaliths at Giza (eg such as the stone in G2
> Valley temple), pause to note signs that smaller
> blocks (still arranged in correct strata),
> might have been welded together.
Reisner has not a word to say on the subject of welding, I'm afraid ... although on pg. 89 there is a brief discussion (and figure) of brickwork, stretcher-work and bonding (and, on pg. 90, free-standing walls). Plate 6b shows a wall, crude brick-casing partly stripped of plaster. All I can say is that nothing that might resemble evidence of welding, or geopolymer, seemed immediately visible ...