FourWinds
|
Re: Nigel's reservations
Sep 03, 2003, 12:25
|
"That alone would "Wow" the archaeological establishment without denting too many egos ... "
They have *very* fragile egos :-)
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Nigel's reservations
Sep 03, 2003, 12:46
|
If Gordon is right (and I don't doubt that he is) I think we can show that stone rowing is better by far than any other method:
1. Stone rowing is highly efficient in terms of manpower.
2. If extra manpower was available they could have moved stones in procession thereby reducing the overall time.
3. The same method that works on the flat also works on hills with no extra people.
4. Even small escarpments could be tackled by using a log crib.
5. No special preparation of the ground is needed.
6. The materials (logs) are readily available and are recycled throughout the journey.
7. The stones could be rowed on and off boats, barges or rafts for crossing rivers. Tidal waters are ideal for this - dig a dry dock for the vessel, row the stone on, wait for high tide to refloat it.
8. This idea has been though up not by an academic, but by a craftsman, which is exactly what the builders of Stonehenge would have been.
Fragile egos are in for a shock!
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Nigel's reservations
Sep 03, 2003, 12:54
|
I fully agree with everything you say there.
You can't bake a cake etc ... :-)
I would say you have around an 80% chance of it working in an impressive way (something might fail on the day - however, the more you plan the more that percentage increases)
I really am "watching this space" to see how it all unfolds. I am especially keen to see what reaction a successful attempt brings from the establishment.
Sadly, I can do no more than wish you luck, which I do whole-heartedly.
|
jimit
|
Re: Is this a convincing method?
Sep 03, 2003, 13:29
|
|
I too have been having reservations as to where the project was leading. It seemed to me that Gordon's inspirational theory was getting lost. K.I.S.S.! Stone rowing is such an empirical method of great simplicity that if we can practice it with the 10 tonner in relative secrecy, then show the World what can be done with a 40 tonner the problems of erection can come later.
|
jimit
|
Re: Is this a convincing method?
Sep 03, 2003, 13:34
|
|
I can remember moving large stones when constructing garden rockeries using exactly Gordon's method using a scaffold pole and a brick for the fulcrum. Never occured to me to scale the whole thing up! Doh!
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Is this a convincing method?
Sep 03, 2003, 14:55
|
|
I wonder how many people will say "me too" when they hear about it. We've all been there, done that with levers, even the concept of shuffling something into place with sideways movements, but Gordon's application of the idea to large scale transportation is pure inspiration. Why has nobody (except the builders of Stonehenge, of course) thought of it before?
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Is this a convincing method?
Sep 03, 2003, 15:48
|
If they did, that is. Even if this works perfectly you will never be able to say "This is what the builders of Stonehenge did."
You will just be able to say this is a very good candidate (and perhaps the best candidate) for the methods used.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Is this a convincing method?
Sep 03, 2003, 16:21
|
Yes, of course you are right, we will never be able to prove it. However, I think the idea didn't occur to any modern person (except Gordon) because we just don't have a need to move big stones anymore, or if we do then we hire a crane/lorry/forklift, whatever. Hollywood has left everyone with the image of hundreds of slaves being lashed while they struggle to drag huge stones by rope and subconsciously we cling to that notion, even though it's pure fiction.
On the other hand, imagine you are around in 2500BC and there's a big lump of stone lying on (perhaps half buried in) the ground and you think to yourself, that would look rather nice standing up near my village. How would you go about even getting it out of the ground and onto a sled/track/rollers, whatever, in order to drag it? You'd use levers. For a big stone you'd need lots of people with levers and you'd have to co-ordinate the effort. A shared fulcrum log would make a lot more sense than individual bits of stone or timber. You'd soon realise that not only can you lift the stone, but you can move it sideways quite easily. We know that the lever method is more efficient than dragging, so why would you then bother to even consider doing it in any other way? Or if you did, you'd soon come back to using levers when you realised how much effort they would save.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Is this a convincing method?
Sep 03, 2003, 16:31
|
I fully agree.
I was just offering a word of caution, because the moment someone officially says "This is how they did it!" then you've got problems.
You (the royal "you" that is - not a personal comment) will be branded loony-fringe-new-ager and no one will listen.
You have to say that you have 'Probably the best method in the world.'
You never know, they could have levitated them into place :-)
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Is this a convincing method?
Sep 03, 2003, 16:43
|
"You never know, they could have levitated them into place :-)"
Oh, God! NO - don't get anyone started on that one. I've had enough of that kind of rubbish from Pyramidiots. :-@
|
