Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

nigelswift

8112 posts

Re: stones and people

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.

In reply to:
stones and people (morfe)

Replies:
Re: stones and people (TomBo)
Re: stones and people (FourWinds)

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone Shifting	Log In to post a reply

158 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded