Steve Gray
|
Re: Ping - Nigel
Sep 03, 2003, 20:27
|
|
I think that "coming from a jumped up little chippie" is the whole point. The academics have missed this method entirely because they are academics. It has taken a practical man, a craftsman, to rediscover what the practical craftsmen of old almost certainly knew.
|
GordonP
|
Re: My problem (well the one I'll admit to)
Sep 03, 2003, 20:33
|
The problem of the Easter Island statues was the thing that bought the stone moving problem to my attention. Since reading the Kon Tiki Expedition as a schoolboy Thor Hyderthal has been something of an hero to me. (He also wrote among many others a book on Easter Island).
What that has to do with the present subject I don't know, but someone mentioned Easter Island.
Stone rowing/erection. After proving to myself (with the 4 ton stone) that stone rowing was feasible, I began to think "wouldn't it be wonderful if I could think of a way to erect the stones using the same simple tools, levers and logs." At no time did I limit my thoughts to doing it with a limited number of people, my thoughts were never limited to the number of people that had moved the stone, if 200 were required for the erection that would not have mattered. I was thinking only of utilising the same simple tools. No ramps, no massive "A" frames, no ropes, not in the quantity used in the ramp method anyway, just levers and logs.
The problem rolled around in my brain for ages, I thought of dozens of ways to try but abandoned them all as unworkable. Then one day when I had almost given up, I found myself thinking of Fred Dibnar (I was doing some heavy physical work at the time and my mind had just wandered off) and how he bought down factory chimneys with wooden props and fire. Urecka!!! Fire!! that was the answer, just reverse the proccess.
I threw down the shovel and went off to make a model. It worked every time. The fact that even fewer men would be needed to erect the stones was just a bonus, levers and logs, nothing else, mattered.
That is the true story, the archaeolists can like it or lump it.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: My problem (well the one I'll admit to)
Sep 03, 2003, 20:41
|
That's a superb story.
You know, don't you, that there's a book in all this for you.
Seriously.
"The Chippie that moved the World"...
|
nigelswift
|
Re: My problem (well the one I'll admit to)
Sep 03, 2003, 20:52
|
Maybe not. Sounds a bit religious!
Whilst I fully see you weren't aiming to show that a small team could have done it, I do think trouble will arise because people will interpret it as having that intention. After all, a small team COULD have done it your way, whereas a larger team would probably have done it another way.
There's always going to be a tension: archaeologists will see your efforts as an attempt to replicate what you think happened, whereas you're simply trying to prove that a system you've devised will work.
|
GordonP
|
Re: My problem (well the one I'll admit to)
Sep 03, 2003, 20:52
|
|
I started it 2 years ago, as a way forward after so many disappointments. I almost found a publisher but he suffered a stroke last christmas time (I hope he's OK) by the way I enrolled on a correspondence course to enable me to put my thoughts on paper, never did finish it, How'm I doing?
|
GordonP
|
Re: My problem (well the one I'll admit to)
Sep 03, 2003, 20:55
|
|
****um
|
GordonP
|
Re: Last Try
Sep 03, 2003, 21:20
|
Hi Baza
40 tonner? Lead me to it.
Don't worry about sounding negiteve, somebody should keep their feet on the ground.
Third point, Thanks
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Last Try
Sep 03, 2003, 21:28
|
I'm going to combine a few replies into one here.
Nigel,
I think if we do the stone-rowing first and show how efficient and viable it is, then the erection method is a natural follow-on of the technique. You seem to putting a lot of emphasis on the number of people. I don't think it matters that much. The small number is merely a consequence of the method, not the other way round.
FourWinds: "The people of Easter Island totally deforrested the island just to move and erect their statues."
How do we know that the deforestation occurred because of the statue erecting; perhaps they just used a lot of firewood? I don't understand how a method for erecting statues would consume timber. Gordon's method probably uses more than most for the crib building, but it is recyclable for the next statue.
Baza: "Don`t forget, Gordon suggests that his method was used to build the pyramids, too."
Nice to see you being positive. Now perhaps it's my turn to be negative. I only got involved in this Stonehenge project because of a posting that Gordon made in a Usenet group that I follow because of it's occasional Egyptian content. Whereas British Megaliths are the pet subject of most of the people on this forum, Egyptian construction is mine. I won't bore you with the detail here, but suffice to say that I do not think that Gordon's method is applicable to the two million or so core blocks that constitute the major part of the construction, though it may have been used for the 40 or so 70 ton blocks that roof the so-called King's Chamber. Sorry, Gordon.
|
GordonP
|
Re: Last Try
Sep 03, 2003, 21:34
|
|
That's OK Steve, I only got involved with pyramids when I learnt about the big buggers.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: My problem (well the one I'll admit to)
Sep 03, 2003, 21:34
|
Hey, Gordon, just write your book, warts and all and then give it to Nigel to proof-read. He's a bit of a poet on the side (not sure which side) but I'm sure he'll be able to hone it where necessary.
How are you getting on with sourcing a 10 ton block?
|
