|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stone shifting - was it just about effort? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Jan 18, 2004, 16:31
|
||
|
I thought an interesting point raised at yesterdays Neolithic conference was that the whole point of moving a stone may have been to get as many people involved as possible, not to move it as efficiently as possible. In otherwords, there are societies to this day that build stone circles, they do it by dragging stones. It may be that the size of the stone erected was a testimony to the numbers of people involved - respecting the monument. It may also be that innovations that make stone shifting easier were frowned upon - seen as cheating. Discuss :o)
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Jan 18, 2004, 17:00
|
||
|
Who ever put that forward at the Neolithic conferance wants to try pulling a 40 ton sarsen uphill, He's probably an over-educated prat who has never done a day's hard work in his life. The whole point of "stone shifting" is not to prove how it was done, but how it may have been possible. I still believe dragging a forty-ton stone 20 miles across virgin countryside is simply impossible. When the archeaologists start pulling on ropes themselves instead of directing operations they may begin to understand.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 18, 2004, 17:00
|
||
|
"the whole point of moving a stone may have been to get as many people involved as possible, not to move it as efficiently as possible" It's a possibility, but he's speculating from a speculative starting point, that big stones imply big numbers of people shifting them. Post-Gordon Archaeology holds that his starting point may not be right! It just shows, Gordon really has made a mark. Who was it? Anyone famous?
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Jan 18, 2004, 17:03
|
||
Ooops, am I about to upset someone famous?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 18, 2004, 17:18
|
||
|
Gordon, if you do a good job of demonstrating stone rowing you'll mess up loads of people's lives. Someone, somewhere will get a letter something like "Sorry, your PhD thesis "Neolithic Dragging Techniques" has been rejected"...
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Jan 18, 2004, 17:24
|
||
I'm still working on it, don't know if lack of replies from TV means they think I'm "nuts" and best ignored, or they are still thinking about it.
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Jan 18, 2004, 17:29
|
||
|
I'll pull the name out. But to be honest it was a dig at Richard Bradley and the BBC tv prog that constructed rails. I know of three or four stone moving theories. Between the 10th and 19th of September I am setting up the archeao side of an archeo-art festival. Seems like a good time to put things to the test?
|
|||
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Jan 18, 2004, 20:40
|
||
|
Why dismiss the dragging theory out of hand. I think it may be perfectly valid. We may look for modern engineering theories to help us understand how to move large stones but our modern perspective may be totally off kilter with a Neoilithic/Bronze Age perspective. It reminds me of how until relatively recently pilgrims would undertake a sacred journey barefoot or place a stone in their shoe just to make the journey uncomfortable. Raising a monument like Silbury may seem improbable in theory but it was done all the same. Same applies to building monuments like Avebury and the great henges. I see the great monuments as a memorial to our ancestors deep held beliefs rather than to great feats of engineering.
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Jan 18, 2004, 21:14
|
||
|
Colin Richards was the chap. I found his premise appealing and I think what is most likely is something between the two. I'm not argueing that dragging was the way stones were moved. I think the exact method is very much open to question and that this alone validates research such as stone rowing. However, the bit I found appealing was his argument that the Neolithic people may not have been on a "technical efficiency kick", driven purely by the need to to move the largest stone possible with as few people as possible. I would say that the erection of each stone probably was an event in itself, and the erection of a single stone was potentially more important than the completion of the monument itself. The nature of a stone erection must be by was of a statement, as much to peer tribal groups as to the gods or ancestors that stimulated the erection (love these inuedo laden discussions) in the first place. There is a chap who says he has a technique that allows a person to raise one single handed. To me there would be little point in raising a stone without an audience and a ceremony. The best ceremonies are those where as many people as possible feel they have taken part. So, I am happy to accept, whatever method was used, it may not have been the most efficient, and this may well have been a deliberate decision.
|
|||
BlueGloves 858 posts |
Jan 19, 2004, 11:26
|
||
You may borrow this one - http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/11491 - just as long as you bring it back again afterwards.
|
| Pages: 10 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
