'Underwater Pyramid' Discovered Off The French Coast

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,053
Likes
4,344
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
#1

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,056
Likes
6,503
Points
294
#2

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,056
Likes
6,503
Points
294
#5

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,053
Likes
4,344
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
#6
not necessarily I really don't think there was a standard issue for size - I'm happy to be proved wrong. My families local beach has a few tank traps and they look just like the picture.
Certainly sounds plausible.
The carved rock just 5 metres away from the pyramid adds something to the woo factor though and, if it is an oversized "dragon's tooth" , the mystery remains of what it's doing on the seabed in fairly deep water.
 

Ringo

Sanitised for your protection
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,425
Likes
2,877
Points
169
Location
Stockholm
#7
It could be a cube of granite which has lodged itself into the sea bed on a corner, creating the illusion of a pyramid. Is it 3 or 4 sided?
 

Ringo

Sanitised for your protection
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,425
Likes
2,877
Points
169
Location
Stockholm
#10
The article states it is 3-sided ( "Elle possède trois faces lisses")
Excellent. My GCSE French didn't stand me in good stead for that article. Then it isn't a Dragon's Tooth as they were 4-sided, nor can it be a cube of granite as I suggested.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,053
Likes
4,344
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
#13
AFAIK all Egyptian pyramids, including small statues, were 4-sided.

The dragon's teeth anti-tank blocks were made from reinforced concrete, whereas the underwater object is described as granite.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,053
Likes
4,344
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
#17
Further details (in French), including photos on this diver's blog.
He maintains that its appearance is of granite rather than concrete. It is situated close to other megalithic structures, some of which are submerged, but the pyramid's location would last have been above the water around 10,000 years ago, whereas the other structures date to maybe 6,500 years ago. He suggests the pyramid is aligned along the cardinal points. The mystery remains.

https://www.plongee-infos.com/une-pyramide-engloutie-en-bretagne/
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,053
Likes
4,344
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
#20
Just been perusing this article (in English) about the famous Carnac stones and, in particular, how the straight lines of megaliths extend out into the Atlantic. The full extent of the underwater stones hasn't been definitively mapped. The whole complex is thought to date back to around 4,500 BC.
If you scroll down to Fig. 9.9 in this article, there is a photo of an underwater granite monolith (K11) with a vaguely pyramidal shape. It does look far more weathered than the subject of this thread, but I still thought the resemblance was worth mentioning.

http://www.academia.edu/22386245/Su...y_results_from_acoustic_and_underwater_survey
 

CuriousIdent

Not yet SO old Great Old One
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
1,419
Likes
1,026
Points
184
Location
Warwickshire, England.
#22
Just been perusing this article (in English) about the famous Carnac stones and, in particular, how the straight lines of megaliths extend out into the Atlantic. The full extent of the underwater stones hasn't been definitively mapped. The whole complex is thought to date back to around 4,500 BC.
If you scroll down to Fig. 9.9 in this article, there is a photo of an underwater granite monolith (K11) with a vaguely pyramidal shape. It does look far more weathered than the subject of this thread, but I still thought the resemblance was worth mentioning.

http://www.academia.edu/22386245/Su...y_results_from_acoustic_and_underwater_survey

In this day and age you wold think that such sites *would* have been mapped. We do now have the kind of technology which could extensively photo graph and film an area. Maybe even scan it topographically.

But I guess such an endeavour would potentially be expensive.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,053
Likes
4,344
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
#23
In this day and age you wold think that such sites *would* have been mapped. We do now have the kind of technology which could extensively photo graph and film an area. Maybe even scan it topographically.

But I guess such an endeavour would potentially be expensive.
Sadly, the Carnac site hasn't been well managed, with stones being reused as building material or removed to make way for roads.
 

Mikefule

Michael Wilkinson
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
386
Likes
1,055
Points
139
Location
Lincolnshire UK
#24
Hmmm. "1.7 metres of the pyramid is visible." That is less than the height of an average man. That is not especially big: just the size of a boulder. There is as yet no evidence that the "pyramid" extends further down below the sea bed.

The Gulf of Morbihan is a "natural harbour": a sheltered anchorage with many islands. It's maximum depth is 23 metres, so if this feature is 20 or so metres down, it is unlikely to extend more than2 or 3 metres below the sea floor.

It is described as "3 sided" which is not a common shape for a man-made pyramid. However, it is the shape of something that is roughly a cube, being tipped on one corner and half buried.

I'm sure we can all think of many reasons why large cube/cuboid blocks of granite might be found in an area where ships have anchored for centuries. At its simplest, it could have fallen from a ship or raft that was trying to transport it somewhere else.

Granite does not naturally fracture at any particular angle. Approximate right angles, or approximate 60 degree angles, or almost any other angle is more or less equally likely if it splits naturally, depending on how the split is caused. Certain angles look to us like they maybe deliberate, because we naturally think in terms of regular shapes and tessellations. Maybe the angles of this pyramid are no more than a coincidence — not unlike some of the more obscure alleged alignments of stone circles and the like.

The area is replete with ancient monuments. The existence of a carved stone nearby does not imply that they are linked in any way. It is one possibility among many.
 
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,761
Likes
4,191
Points
244
#26
I just posted a query on the French site asking whether they had considered it could be a dragon's tooth anti-tank obstacle.
It may be down to distortion (or visual impairmanet on my part) but when I try to mentally fill in the bits to create a three-sided triangle the geometry looks a little irregular. Which got me thinking: if dragons teeth were being transported by sea and one was lost overboard, or jettisoned in bad weather, and it settled on the seabed sideways, corner down and buried halfway in sand and silt, then you’d end up with an irregular three sided pyramid with a pointed apex (because it’s not really a pointed apex, it’s a corner). Erm…I think that makes sense.

(I see Mikefule has already suggested a tipped object, but it would work for a four-sided pyramid, as well as a cube).

Although it’s not mentioned on the Wiki page I’m pretty sure that dragons teeth were also used as defence against shallow draft boats, landing craft etc. This one would clearly be too deep to be of any use, but it could explain why they may have been being seeded offshore.

And, once you are past the basic principle, there seems to be no hard and fast pattern to such a device – some are ramp shaped (much steeper on the threat side of the block than on the leeward), some cubed, and some are bullet shaped - like huge bollards; the very striking ones at Cramond, on the Firth of Forth, are not much like the squat pyramids you see in most images (although, ironically, they look a lot more like I imagine dragons teeth to be).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,869
Likes
10,726
Points
279
#29
Looks a bit too regular to be a natural formation to me:

View attachment 13693
You can barely tell that from that picture. There's no scaling, no picture from the top which might show any regularity and no-one thought to apply (say) a tape measure so we might assess it's regularity. It's indistinguishable from a rock at this point.
 

AgProv

Master of Uncertainty and Doubt
Joined
Apr 6, 2014
Messages
531
Likes
690
Points
99
#30
Not necesarily a tank trap: the same principle was used, but bigger, and se tjust below low tide level so it would be unseen, to scupper flat-bottomed landing cradft as they came into shore (many designs were built with wooden rather than metal hulls to speed construction and make them "undetectable" to magnetic mines; the American Higgins Boat was a prime example - wooden hull with minimal armour protection on the hull sides). Ripping the guts out of a landing craft before it got to shore and disembarked its cargo was a nasty German defensive strategy on the French invasion coasts, which at the time included Brittany).
 
Top