|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone Shifting |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
baza 1308 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 04:25
|
||
|
A cursus is a long neolithic enclosure, usually having a bank and ditch, which runs across the landscape. They vary in length from less than 100m to about 10km. They`re best seen in aerial photographs. There`s one very near to Stonehenge: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/image.php?image_id=7590 baz
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 08:48
|
||
|
Moth, I'm mortified as I was only 25% joking ;) as the idea of cursuses as racetracks was recently resurrected on the forum and got quite a bit of support. If they could really move stones so well, maybe they would take a sporting pride in it. Gordon, the more I think about this the better it seems, purely because it’s so simple. One thing I was wondering: In your system, the forward motion of the stone is powered by the oarsmen moving the levers backwards. In other words, they were levering it forwards, a bit at a time. As you say, this involves a high degree of synchronizing, and then a gap in proceedings whilst the levers are re-positioned and the exercise is repeated. It seems quite likely that they’d conclude that the effort would be made even easier if they harnessed men or animals to the front so that they were pulling as well as levering. If they did that, wouldn’t they rapidly realize that it was simplest to rely purely on pulling, and to forget about “forward levering”. After all, what they’d have is a virtually weightless stone, with little friction, on wheels effectively, (if the levers were round-section, as you’re suggesting) and all they’d need to be doing is overcoming the stone’s mass inertia by whipping a few bullocks (shut up, Moth!). In this scenario, the responsibility of the oarsmen would simply be to continuously press down on the levers (i.e. keep the stone permanently elevated) and at the same time keep walking forward at the same speed as the bullocks, keeping the levers at right angles to the stone. The levers would be continuously rotating in their hands, but I would have thought they could manage quite well. On this basis, in engineering terms the oarsmen would be carrying out a function analogous to a wheel nut! On this basis, perhaps they could move stones at a steady rate without stopping. They’d only need a continuously replaced track comprising 2 parallel lines of logs, and cross-logs would only be necessary as something to rest the stone on when they’d stopped the run. Having seen “Strong Men” pulling airliners along I could quite believe they could overcome the stone’s momentum and go at a fair rate, limited only by the speed they could lay the track. You’re right, your project is just screaming for further practical experiments. I think this site is absolutely full of potential oarsmen and wheel nuts so please bear us in mind! If you’re serious about an Avebury demo, Dr Mike Pitts is trying to get permission for a stone re-erection next year http://www.users.myisp.co.uk/~gtour/Dig2003/NtEh.htm and Pete Glastonbury is also connected I think. Someone here may be able to give you a contact email. But you MUST keep us informed, as I wanna be a wheel nut!
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 09:05
|
||
|
I've just got around to reading your site. Very interesting and very plausible. Nice one. A question: Is your 900 yards based on one team doing a days work or just the distance covered by one 'step' multiplied up? i.e. if there was a shift system with untired people could they go further? Another question: (only just thought of this one) could this method move a large basket of cairn rubble faster than a whole wodge of people carrying lots of small baskets?
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 10:44
|
||
|
Hi Fourwinds, Baza, Moth and Nigel Thanks Baza and Moth for the info. Fourwinds, I estimated 900 yards as a days work for one team. Second question, it would probably be quicker to move small stones by using a basket. Nigel, you've set me thinking now, your idea might work but there could be unexpected problems. as with moving the stones by the old idea of timber rollers. Unless the trackway is perfectly level the stone will veer off line, then it's a right job moving it back. Also going downhill you might lose control altogether, I'll give it some more thought. By the way there are no crosswise logs only the levers are crosswise. Regarding further experiments I've become obsessed with this thing, I am now hoping to try moveing a 10 ton stone and would welcome any help I can get. I don't think we will get much help from the archaeologist though, they have been ignoring me for the last four years which is why I've dragged myself into the 21st century and bought a computor Regards Gordon
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 11:41
|
||
|
Maybe they “pulled” when on the level and “rowed” downhill, relying on the track-friction to act as a brake? I can certainly see that using a combination of both methods you could get fantastic control – you could tilt the front upwards, just as you reached a small hillock, and you could steer it left and right by tilting one side but not the other, whilst pulling. Also, when you came to a bigger hill, by tilting the front, adding a packing log, tilting the back, adding a larger packing log, then pulling, you could get up the whole hill in a series of small horizontal pulls. By the time you’d got to the top, you’d have travelled by means of a combination of 2 vectors: horizontal, entirely by bullocks pulling horizontally, and vertical, entirely by levers. Both vectors would have been achieved by the most appropriate and energy-efficient means. I expect I mean oxen, not bullocks. But then, someone may tell me that bullocks is derived from bullox, so it might be right....
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 17:18
|
||
|
Hi Nigel Probably worth a try Steering is dead easy though, After step one (Lift the stone) move the levers on each side of the stone in opposite directions. The stone can be turned 360 degrees almost in its own length. (Theoretically anyway I never actually tried it). Going up a slope of one in eight is as easy as on level provided the stone is prevented from gaining any initial momentum in the wrong direction. Personally I think that oxon would be more trouble than help, believe me it really is that easy. One in eight is a pretty steep hill by the way but I think we could do steeper. How about forming a loose knit group to test these ideas? Regards Gordon
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 18:12
|
||
|
ABSOLUTELY! I'm not much use at lifting myself, but I have two hulking sons (more neanderthal than sapiens to be honest, but hopefully that won't discredit the experiment) and I know, for certain, there are a lot of people here who would be very up for it. You're a real tonic, just what we need round here!
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 18:21
|
||
|
"How about forming a loose knit group to test these ideas?" Rock and ROWll!! Get HH'rs off their keyboards and organised! Well done Gordon, it looks so simple and obvious, but ingeniously implemented, it would be amazing to put this theory to test in the field, as it were. ~o~
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 18:37
|
||
|
It won't be easy, but being a chippy I could soon knock up a mould for a 10 ton concrete stone. We'll need some sponsership though, the mold and the ready mix would cost £500 min. Six levers another £150 and if we decided to erect the stone as well as move it we'll need to lift it 7ft into the air, that'll take a fair lorry load of timber. Then we'll need somewhere to perform, might be able to do it at the tramway museum where I work. I'll leave you all to think about it. Regards Gordon |
|||
|
morfe 2992 posts |
Aug 16, 2003, 18:44
|
||
|
Gordon, Have you thought about writing a treatment for a televisual about your theory? That could be the ideal road to funding? Channel 5 comes to mind? Anyone here know anything about such things? And then there's radio (chortles at the idea of a radio broadcasted stone-rowing event) ;-)
|
| Pages: 16 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
