|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone shifting 5 |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 09:56
|
||
|
I think we need to differentiate between evidence and opinion. What have we got at the moment? 1. One reference on Gowland's plan that shows a speckled area with the caption "Probable stoneholes and ramp". (Opinion) 2. Two references from carbon-dating sources, both to hole 56, that refer to construction ramps. In the first reference "the ramp fill" is in quotaion marks (Opinion). I think the RC people were dating antler fragments and merely used the term "ramp fill" as being the most readily understood description (i.e. fitting with accepted opinion) of where the fragments were found. It's my guess that Gowland and those that followed have noted the shallow slope on one side of the holes and taken this as evidence of an erection ramp. Because everyone has assumed that ramps were used and no other (known) theory for stone erection would otherwise explain them, this has become the accepted view (Opinion). If our method is viable and if it also requires a shallow slope on one side of the hole, then it also concurs with the evidence. The chalk fill could just as easily be "hole fill" as "ramp fill". So as I said before we need to know whether there is some real evidence that negates our method rather than what the current expert opinion is.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 10:16
|
||
|
I think that's very cogent. All we know is that the investigating archaeologist 100 years ago and the EH team more recently used the word ramp. However, we can say or assume they were wrong but we don’t know for sure if they had any other evidence or what the establishment thinks about the issue. Just one archaeologist saying we might be right would be a comfort. I’ve found one – the BBC’s archaeologist preferred the crib method but his view didn’t prevail, it seems. Just how careful the BBC were about being consistent with the evidence is debatable however, since in his radio programme he said the trilithons must have pre-dated the circle which is against the evidence, as you know. I think having their name and having archaeologists on board gave them a degree of freedom and authority to take a line that we lack unfortunately. I suppose in the end this resolves into a matter of tactics and calculated risk so I’ll leave it for you to decide.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 10:59
|
||
|
Actually, I think that illustrates my point. Archaeological evidence is rarely conclusive, so it's always subject to opinion. Even RC dating is not so accurate that it removes all doubt. Apart from the inherent error in the method, there are often issue like "old wood" and "later disturbance" that could add or remove several hundred years from RC dates. So, as you say it would be nice to have an archaeologist who is willing to consider our proposals as "plausible". He doesn't have to nail his colours to our mast, only to say that our interpretation of the evidence is reasonable. What about this BBC guy who favoured wooden cribs? Can we contact him?
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 12:06
|
||
|
Quote, Julian Richards & Mark Whitby. "The constraints of experimentation within a filming schedule inevitably meant that many avenues of research were identified but not followed. Alternative vehicles and tracks for stone transport may be suggusted and studies of lubricants should examine the properties of a wide range of substances available in prehistory. Experiments in rope making should continue and should involve the use of other types of fibre. Other methods of raising the uprights may be suggested, while those approriate for raising the lintel continue to to provoke debate amongst the authors. While one (Richards) still favours the crib method, the other feels that a variation of the method described by Hogg (1981) may be quicker and more efficient. Hogg suggests rocking stones about a central pivot placed between the paired uprights, a method which in priciple is described as being used in the construction of pyramids (Fitchen 1986). The methods of construction employed at Stonehenge will no doubt continue to exercise the imagination of both archaeologists and engineers. It would be preferable if their practical skills could also be exercised. After the completion of the experiment the trilithon was dismantled (by crane) and its components were donated to English Heritage. They are currently (1996) in store on the Salisbury Plain Trianing Area. Their fate is undecided but it has been assumed that they will eventually be re-erected at an appropriate venue. Far from being a static monument to a single experiment, the authors would prefer to see the replica stones used i9n a dynamic way, available for further experimentation to anyone with an idea to test and the resources to carry it through in safety. The stones are unlikely to be replicated again in a manner suitable for robust use and once permanently raised both they and the ideas that they generated will end up set in concrete. An annual Stonehenge trilithon raising (preferably timed for completion on 21st June) could also be a considerable visitor attraction."
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 12:47
|
||
|
Julian Richard's email address is: [email protected] I think we probably need to discuss an appropriate presentation and we should probably wait until our web site is up and running properly, but it sounds like he might at least give us a hearing.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 12:57
|
||
|
I've been wondering about how we actually place the lintel on top of the uprights. I can think of three methods: 1. Crib it up parallel to it's final position, but far enough away from the uprights to not impede the levering (20 feet), then lever it over bridging logs to its final resting place. 2. Crib it up at right angles to its final position (plenty of room for levers), lever it across the top of the uprights, rotating it into position as we go. 3. Crib it up in line with it's final position at the side of the trilithon (plenty of room for levers). Row it straight across the top of both uprights into it's final position. The last method seems like it works the best for our stone-rowing methodology.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 13:05
|
||
|
I'm still subbornly working on the tower and levers method. This is the latest version, launch the stone off the tower, say from an height of 14ft. The stone is now in the hole resting against the slope at say 70 degrees. Don't build the tower any higher, lever against the diagonal strutts, these will now be designed to work like an hydraulic ram. I'll explain, imagine a double extending ladder angled at 45 degrees running through the tower. As the stone is levered up the ladder is extended to follow the stone maintaining the same angle, therefore we will always be levering at 90 degrees to the strutts. We will need more manpower as the stone will feel heavier from lower down but it still won't need many men. Advantages, no need to build the tower up to the height of the stone, less distance to travel before the stone is upright. Great savings in time on the day. inherently safe and subject to Steves approval foolproof.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 13:08
|
||
|
I'd say that's as encouraging as we could possibly hope for. If he had "issues" and didn't get his way he might be rather keen to take part. I'm sure he would teach us stuff, and give us a steer about areas that might lead us into controversy. I presume that's from their paper, Gordon. Do you have any more?
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 13:11
|
||
We won't need many levers for a ten ton stone so we can lever from the ends, this will enable us to raise the lintel very close to the uprights then row it into position.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Sep 18, 2003, 13:14
|
||
I can post you the actual paper if you like, just email me your address.
|
| Pages: 15 – [ Previous | 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
