Bimini Road - Physical Characteristics

Physical Characteristics

The Bimini Wall and two linear features lying shoreward of it are composed of flat-lying, tabular, and rectangular, subrectangular, polygonal, and irregular blocks. Descriptions of the Bimini Road found in various books and articles greatly exaggerate the regularity and rectangularity of the blocks composing these features. The Bimini Road, the largest of three linear features, is 0.8 km (0.50 mi) long, a northeast/southwest-trending feature with a pronounced hook at its southwest end. It consists of stone blocks measuring as much as 3–4 m (10–13 ft) in horizontal dimensions, with the average size being 2–3 m (7–10 ft). The larger blocks show complementary edges, which are lacking in the smaller blocks. The two narrower and shorter, approximately 50 and 60 m (160 and 200 ft)-long linear features lying shoreward of the Bimini Road consist of smaller tabular stone blocks that are only 1–2 m (3–7 ft) in maximum horizontal breadth. Having rounded corners, the blocks composing these pavements resemble giant loaves of bread. The blocks consist of limestone composed of carbonate-cemented shell hash that is called "beachrock". Beachrock is native to the Bahamas. The highly rounded nature of the blocks forming the Bimini Road indicates that a significant thickness of their original surface has been removed by biological, physical, and chemical processes. Given the degree that these blocks have been eroded, it is highly implausible that any original surface features, including any tool marks and inscriptions, would have survived this degree of erosion.

After a very detailed examination of the Bimini Road and the other linear features, Gifford and Ball made the following observations.

1. The three features are unconnected at the southwest end; scattered blocks are present there but do not form a well-defined linear feature connecting the seaward, middle, and shoreward features.
2. No evidence exists anywhere over the three features of two courses of blocks, or even a single block set squarely atop another.
3. Not enough blocks lie in the vicinity of the three features to have formed a now-destroyed second course of rocks.
4. Bedrock closely underlies the entire area of the three features (fig. 5), eliminating the possibility of excavations or channels between them.
5. Indications are that the blocks of the inner and middle features have always rested on a layer of loose sand. No evidence was found of the blocks being cut into or founded on the underlying bedrock surface.
6. In areas of the seaward feature where blocks rest directly on the bedrock surface, no evidence was found of regular or symmetrical supports beneath any of the blocks.
7. We saw no evidence on any of the blocks of regular or repeated patterns of grooves or depressions that might be interpreted as tool marks.

8. The inner and middle features are continuous only over a distance of about 50 meters. Though the seaward feature extends several hundred meters farther to the northeast, it too is not well founded or continuous enough to have served as some kind of thoroughfare. —J.A. Gifford and M.M. Ball, 1980

As noted below, these observations are disputed by other investigators. For example, some investigators state that where sand had washed away between the seams, another course of blocks can be seen along with small blocks underlying these blocks. However, detailed evidence that clearly documents the alleged presence of a continuous second layer (course) of stones beneath the stones forming the currently exposed "pavement" has not yet been published in a reputable, scientific venue with the detail that is needed for critical evaluation. Pictures posted on various Web pages of stones alleged to be artificial "wedge stones" and "prop stones" fail as convincing evidence for a second course of stones because they are typically smaller in size, do not form a continuous course, and too infrequently lie directly beneath the blocks that form the surface of the Bimini Road. This is not what would be expected of an actual underlying course of man-made masonry.

David Zink states:

Most of the blocks were now clearly resting on either the underlying bedrock or on smaller stones on the sea floor. —David Zink

This led him to conclude:

...this fact had an important archaeological consequence: it meant that the idea (held by some Atlantologists) that the blocks now visible were only the top of a more complex structure was likely incorrect.

In addition, early studies of the Bimini Road, i.e. Gifford and Ball and David Zink, report taking numerous samples and cores for examination. In addition, it is safe to presume that a certain number of the innumerable visitors to the Bimini Road have chipped off pieces of it. Scientific sampling and souvenir hunting would have left behind modern "tool marks" on the various blocks composing the Bimini Road for later investigators to find.