=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Stonehenge »
Stone Shifting 3
Log In to post a reply
144 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: The hole for stone 56
Sep 06, 2003, 09:23
I like that, big time. It's definitely valid. Anyone who used a pivot and a rope would know the two could be used together.
It just feels so simple and right.

I'd written some ramblings, so I'll post them, but really we should be focussing on your idea.

______

I’m permanently pleased since you came here Gordon, so’s everyone else. This is the longest topic there’s been, I would think, by miles.

You forced me to go to Avebury yesterday!

I was talking to the archaeos at the digs. Forgot to ask them about hole profiles. What a loser. I specially went to look at the biggest stones. I mean really look at them. They’re scary mothers! 40 tons sounds innocuous on here but when you look at what we’re messing with it’s different.

Anyway, in the meantime I’ve got a bit lost as to where the conversation is going. I understand that the shape of one hole (was that the one the BBC and we are replicating?) wouldn’t allow a stone to stand up on it’s own. Is that right? If so, are we now talking of delivering the stone into the hole at a steep angle, at all times supported by the tower? In other words, no free-fall element? So that opens it up to several delivery systems, including effectively retaining Gordon’s? And the only definite thought we have is that we’ll have an element of hauling up? Sorry to be so dim but I could do with it being clarified.

If we’re having a re-think, can I mention a few random points, some of which arise from thinking about the problem whilst actually standing in front of the stones and quaking.

1) First, the lower and simpler and more robust the tower is the better. I know that’s obvious but it’s all you can think about when you’re standing there. If earth and large stones can be incorporated into it so much the better.

2) The downside of that is a lower angle on the stone and more hauling up is required, which again is obvious but which again is something the Avebury stones say to you very loudly, even the cove stone which is very Stonehenge-like. I was constantly thinking, no way were any of these things raised very high on logs.

3) Having imposed that parameter on my imaginings of how it was, I think we’re entitled to work on the assumption that the ancients will have used every other design feature they could to make it as easy as possible, so we’re quite entitled to do the same, which is good since it gives us the opportunity to use a lot less people than the BBC. I bet, for instance, we can deliver the stone into the hole at a steeper angle than them, and some of Steves ideas for hauling up would also give us an edge.

4.) Can I add to his list of possible design options the general thought of stone-rowing? If there’s some of that in the process it will be great because by then it will be flavour of the decade so will add to the authority of the process. It will probably be there on merit, anyway, since it’s so much more efficient than dragging.

I have a couple of ideas for it but want to try them out a bit more and I’ll see how your latest idea pans out. That might be the answer, pure and simple. And it's sort of elegant, because really it's vertical stone rowing!
In reply to:
Re: The hole for stone 56 (GordonP)		 Replies:
Re: The hole for stone 56 (GordonP)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index