In my estimation the Ishi no Hoden is the single most mysterious, monolithic, carved stone on the planet. It is not necessary to dispel any false ideas about who built it because no one has conjured up any remotely viable proposals.
The Japanese consider Ishi No Hoden one of the 3 most enigmatic riddles of their ancient history. It is a colossal, monolithic, stone structure weighing a staggering 500-600 tons. The monolith is striking, not only because of its massive bulk, but also due to its odd, geometrical design.
Th Ishi no Hoden or floating stone is a giant, cube with an incised groove carved into the east and west sides of it. Why this feature was included is unknown. Rubble and vegetation sit on the top of the enigmatic structure.
The north facing side was further carved into a platform shape, the sides of which were beveled at an angle. On top of its upper, flat, square surface sits a peculiar protrusion.
It was carved in the form of two triangles and two rectangles facing one another, in a sort of pyramidal configuration which is truncated on top. It almost looks like the pyramid ought to be on top and that the monolith is lying on its side.
Again, why the builders would have gone to the trouble of adding the platform and protrusion remains unknown. The overall design gives the impression that the block was manufactured to fit into an even larger structure. However, no end use has ever been established and the builders remain unidentified.
It is obvious that the usual ‘tomb theory’ cannot be applied here since the stone is completely solid. Why any group of people would create such a colossal monument (or whatever it was) is baffling to say the least. But we have just scratched the mere surface of its mysteries so far.
The Ishi no Hoden is nestled within a semicircular pocket surrounded by native rock wall on three sides. A temple sits in front of the stone, serving as the visitor’s entrance. It is located in the Kansai Region of Japan near the town of Takasago in the Hyogo Prefecture about 100 km from Asuka.
We noted above that this monolithic block has a geometric design with peculiar features added. That means we must take all of this into consideration when trying to understand how it was constructed.
Given the above facts, we have to consider the level of stonemasonry skills that went into it. Next, try to identify the kinds of tools required to cut the stone. To do those things we must first identify the type of stone the monument was made from.
A brief examination reveals that the monolith was carved from native hyalocastite.
What is this rock exactly and where does it fit into the scheme of relative rock hardness and typical uses? We turn to Wikipedia for the answers:
“Hyaloclastite is a hydrated tuff-like breccia rich in black volcanic glass, formed during volcanic eruptions under water, under ice or where subaerial flows reach the sea or other bodies of water. It has the appearance of angular flat fragments, sizes range between millimeters up to a few centimeters.”
The comparison to tuff means hyaloclastite is a relatively soft rock, more so than limestone and much more so than granite. Soft is used in the context of measuring the comparative hardness of stones (MOHS scale), it is a rock and still hard, of course. Today it is used for countertops.
With the above established we can determine the kinds of tools that could be used to cut and carve this native rock. In fact, even stone tools made from granite could do the job. However, we have added issues to consider. It is true that a granite chisel, pickaxe or adze could be used to cut and carve hyalocastite.
But those tools would leave traces such as obvious gouges, grooves and such, on the face of the finished block.
📷
The kinds of marks that hand tools would leave are not evident on the surface however. In fact, no stone (or metal) hand tools were ever found at the site so we can safely rule out this option. Of course that leaves us with a conundrum. Since it is an ancient artifact, there was no electricity.
Problematic, because power tools are our only other choice. In fact, there is no trace evidence that power saws, or other types of modern technology were used either.
In addition to cutting the raw, rough native stone from the bedrock into the cubic shape required considerable stonemasonry skills. We see many 90-degree angles and curving cuts were also made, which created numerous edges all over the block; and we find them to be sharp and well-articulated.
All of those features would be extremely difficult, virtually impossible to achieve, with hand tools. Also it is clear that a master stonemason(s) executed this work. We must also note that the protrusion means that the raw block extended out another 8’ before that feature was carved . What a massive job that would have been to hack away and remove multiple tons of waste rock!
Now, if we follow the angle of the protrusion downwards it terminates in the flat, vertical (n?) side-wall facing it. However, continuing downwards a foot or so more we encounter an edge created by yet another angle which slopes inward and ends just above a pool of water.
All of these features factor into just how challenging this monolith was to create. Why was the lowest section angled? Raising the bar to an even higher level, note that the very bottom was also cut horizontally across, leaving that sharp, straight edge we see extending above the surface of the water.
That brings us to yet more very curious and difficult to create features. One of the names that the Japanese call this monolith is, ‘The Floating Stone’ as it appears to be floating above the pool. Below the pond is a stone tray or pedestal that the monument sits on.
According to temple records, this water reservoir never dries up, not even during the period of a lengthy drought. Because of the water, the base of the megalith which connects it with the ground, cannot be seen. That makes it look as if the megalith is floating in the air above the pond.
That brings up another name that the Ishi no Hoden has, “The Departing Stone”. From the foregoing, it is clear that the monument was cut flat toward the center of the monolith, for a distance on the bottom. But we must ask, how exactly was that done?
Comments