|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone Shifting |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 13:38
|
||
|
Yes, I was wondering whether you’d looked at rafts and cradles etc. I believe they did that at Easter Island, but could you make one that was strong enough? I would have thought the ancient people would have had something of that nature because so many megaliths are such awkward shapes. Maybe the most robust and lightest arrangement would be to lash the sarsen to a couple of longitudinal logs that would be lifted along underneath the stone, so the shape of the stone became irrelevant? (You’d need a raised “track” comprising occasional transverse logs, so there was room to put the levers underneath.) Something like that would be good because you’d have lengthened the whole contraption so there’d be room for more rowers and the weight would be evenly distributed – no-one would have a heavy bit compared with the others, and everyone would be doing the same rowing action at the same height. Also, distributing the weight along a greater length would improve the steering and enable you to tip the front up more easily when you needed to. PS have just tried it in the garden with an almost round rock, and it seems to work small-scale…. I’m glad people think you’re mad. My neighbours now KNOW I am! |
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 15:50
|
||
|
From what I have seen of Stonehenge photographs (I have never been) I think the sarsen stones would not need a raft. Some of the bluestones might be difficult without one though. As far as the weight of the raft is concerned the heavier the better, a few ton either way is immaterial. theoretically a big heavy load is easier in some ways. I would love to have a go at a replica of the Grand menhir Brise. What a challenge!!! Concerning your growing insanity, I'll tell you a story you might find amusing. I was filling the mould for the 4 ton stone (in the back yard of some business premises I had at the time) when a voice from behind a wall asked, "What are you making Gordon" it was my neibour Mick, who ran a car repair business. "A concrete block" "What for" "So I can move it over there" "Why don't you cast it over there" "Cause when I've moved it over there I'm going to move it back again" Total silence followed, after that I could swear he always looked at me strangely whenever we met. Regards Gordon and don't let it worry you.
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 19:26
|
||
|
Gordon, this thread has opened up a whole can of mental snakes in my head, and I'm having to keep a lid on it for the sake of my marriage ;-) What I mean is, I've been thinking about the wider implications and reasons from moving these stones all that way. In order to do this, I can only imagine that the incentive was very very strong, it is no mean task! And considering the distance involved, I can't help thinking, either: a. it was a communal effort supported by (tribes?) people in differing locales (i.e Wales/Wiltshire areas) or b. There was such a small population that itinerant megalithic culture needed only one group to orchestrate and implement the moving and erection. Also what inspired the work? Were these people self-governing, a collective? Were they ruled by feudal means (I think this unlikely as the land was big and wild) Or were they serving a cause under the jurisdiction of (Druidic?) religious/spiritual goals? The whole concept (nothing new here by way of enquiry I admit) forces me to think very carefully about many things from that age, i.e: Population, land use, land governance, time use, generational continuity (cultural), labour ethics/needs, social cohesion and/or organisation/s. On and on! What a great thread, it's like someone just turned the last page on an old and worn book of conjecture, and began a new one with the word "Or..." :-)
|
|||
ocifant 1758 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 20:41
|
||
|
Gordon, I may have a way forward for you (but no promises at this stage!) I'll email you later tonight with more info...
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 20:58
|
||
|
That’s exactly the thing that excites me about the concept. If it’s right it changes so many concepts and orthodoxies. If Gordon’s confidence e.g. “a few ton either way is immaterial” (wow!) is proved right then it could mean that there was much less effort involved in making stone monuments than has been thought – far less people, effort, time. Even distance effectively shrinks. It could mean that a family group might have made things that had been presumed to be wider community efforts. Like you say, wouldn’t that imply there would need to be a re-think of the nature of social organization? And ritual? And everything? On a specific note, Gordon’s use of the term raft, and his opinion the bluestones might need one, prompts yet another speculation. IF it was right that the bluestones came up the river it would be the devil’s own job to get them onto the bank and drag them away. How can you drag a heavy object off a floating raft without the whole thing immediately tipping? But equally, you couldn’t lever it off – how could you use a floating fulcrum? So it seems they must have beached the raft very solidly first, perhaps using a quay. But then, why take a stone off a river raft and put it onto a land raft to take it up the hill? You might, if the river raft was huge, but that river isn’t all that big, so it may not have been. So maybe they transported the whole lot, just as it came, raft and all? This cake that my daughter brought back from Morocco tastes really weird.
|
|||
TomBo 1629 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 21:06
|
||
morocco, hmm... is it a sort of herbal taste?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 21:14
|
||
Sort of. It doesn't half make you feel peckish.
|
|||
|
TomBo 1629 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 21:16
|
||
I reckon I'd give it a go! ; )
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 21:17
|
||
|
The point about the smaller population/effort only possibly applies to the Bronze Age monuments - stone circles, small tombs etc. It has no effect on the likes of Newgrange which has nearly a quarter of a million tons of cairn rubble. Likewise the big long barrows have a lot of small rocks in them too. 500 tons of it (the quartz and granite facia) came from 100km away :-) What has to be remembered is that most circles use reletively local stones. The blue stones are an amazing exception. Nigel's extended raft idea is a good one. If you had two canoes with a raft across them, like a catamoran (sp?) you could easily drag them ashore, jack them up and remove the boats, lower them and carry on moving them. Nice!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 19, 2003, 21:17
|
||
That's the trouble, I've eaten it all and now I don't half feel peckish.
|
| Pages: 16 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
