|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone Shifting 2 |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 07:38
|
||
I have asked. I now await.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 09:52
|
||
|
If the evidence from the holes is inconclusive we research both methods. I don't like to ignore my gut feeling though. At the end of the day I'm sure we can drop the stone in, if not vertical, then nearly so. From a near vertical position we don't need lots of manpower to make it so. In fact I'm sure we can get it vertical anyway. If we can get Mr Burl, or some other well repected archaeologists on the team, I'll try to be a good little chippie and keep my mouth in place, no promises though.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 10:22
|
||
|
He he he. One thing you ain't is a good little chippie! I’ve been thinking some more about methods (I have leisure –can’t mow the lawn as it’s full of holes!)… If there are several methods of raising stones, how can you hit on the one that’s going to seem most persuasive to archaeologists? I think it needs to be one that incorporates two elements. First, it should have some element of “hauling up” (it just looks like the simplest approach, and most monoliths, being irregular, would have been dealt with that way, as Mike Pitts is planning to demonstrate at Avebury). Second, it should involve as few people as possible (on the grounds that it’s good sense to assume that if the ancients had several options they’d have chosen the most efficient. That neatly disposes of the archaeo-speculation about whether it was 50 or 250 people. Either way, they’d have gone for efficiency so your main idea would be vindicated). So how about going for a hybrid solution? You hinted you were thinking a bit that way yourself. The BBC got the stone to 70 degrees, then hauled it up using hundreds of people. How about if we use your method to get it to, say, 85% degrees (or thereabouts - it wouldn't matter) then haul it up using just our small number of people? Steve could use the computer model to determine what exact angle would be optimum for our particular workforce, and we’d have a system that was a lot more robust and bug-free, and we could get away with a lower tower. We might even avoid having to construct a second A frame for the hauling up process. Who could argue that that it wasn’t the most efficient, and therefore most likely method? And of course, it would make a great show, as the same small team would have first rowed the stone to where it was needed.
|
|||
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 10:33
|
||
|
I'd like to clarify one point about my theory that the sloping side would be on the far side of the hole from the tower. The purpose is not to reduce the height of the tower (this is merely a consequence). The reason for having the slope is so that the block can start its descent into the hole while it is still rotating off the tower. When it makes contact with the near side of the hole (nearest the tower) and commences its rotation to vertical, it is already well located into the hole and merely has to drop to the bottom. Given that we need the block to be not too far from vertical as it enters the hole, any other arrangement involves the risk of the block missing one edge or other of the hole and/or impacting the edge of the hole with sufficient force to move earth. I'd like the block's rotation from the tower to be stopped by a good wall of earth of at least a foot or so. It also makes sense to erect the stones from the outside of the circle, otherwise you have to bring at least some of the stones inside before erecting them. Having said that, I would still like to know what the facts are. Surely there must be some documentation of the excavations that we can access.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 10:45
|
||
There is another way to get a stone up to vertical even from the horizontal and that is to use wedges and props. For our purposes, let's assume that the stone is already at some angle from the vertical. You place two layers of timber against the stone and then put in props from the ground to support the timbers. You then drive wedges from the top between the two layers of timber, forcing them apart and raising the stone a little. Follow the small wedges with bigger ones until the wedges are too big to be handled comfortably. Place more props between the original ones to support the stone and then remove the wedges. Replace the original props with longer ones closing the gap between the timbers. Start again driving in wedges. Repeat the whole process until the stone is upright. I believe (though I have no direct evidence) that this is the only method that the ancient Egyptians could have used to erect the 1100 ton unfinished obelisk at Aswan.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 10:45
|
||
|
About you saying surely there must be some documents we can access... Lord, why does everything English Heritage gets involved with annoy me… “Cleal, R M J, Walker, K E, and Montague, R 1995 Stonehenge in its Landscape: the twentieth-century excavations, English Heritage Arch Rep, 10, London (ISBN 1 85074 6052; 640p, 295 illus, 26 colour plates)” “This can be purchased for £70” On the other hand, there have been a lot of excavations: http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:IW9spUj81RYJ:apollo5.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/stonehenge/appendix1a.htm+stonehenge+excavations&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 but a lot was badly done and badly recorded. 55% has now been disturbed. It all looks very complex. I don’t know if anyone can make anything from the plan here… http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/chip.html Mike Pitts discovered and excavated a new hole in 1979/80. I’m sure he could help. Pete G could tell us…
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 11:04
|
||
|
Can someone with the book just let us know what it has to say on the matter? I don't fancy forking out 70 quid just for half a page of possibly inconclusive information. What I did find interesting from your two web links was that the bedrock is chalk. I wonder what depth of sediment lay above the chalk when the monument was built. There was mention of a pavement being discovered. That ought to give some idea of the original level. Although chalk isn't particularly strong, it's is likely to be a good deal stronger than the clayey loam in my back garden. My guess is that an 8 foot pit in chalk would arrest the roating column quite nicely, with maybe just a bit of fracturing near the top.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 11:12
|
||
The topsoil on Salisbury Plain is not deep, only a matter of inches.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 11:18
|
||
|
OK, I modified the model to allow the tower to give way in a horizontal direction. It doesn 't work very well unless there is a reasonably amount of friction involved. In any case the tower needs to be higher so that the smaller amount of rotational momentum it can induce in the block will still be able to rotate it to vertical in the time it takes to drop. To summarise or findings so far any of these would work: 1. A tower that can withstand a 10 ton side load and a normal amount of friction. 2. A tower that can withstand a 20 ton side load and a nice slippery track for the block. 3. A tall tower that can deform horizontally under load, but offers a fair amount of friction in doing so.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 11:21
|
||
So it's likely that the builders would be erecting the stones directly on the chalk bedrock. Are there any areas of Salisbury Plain where we could go and dig a little hole to test the strength of the chalk, without anyone shouting at us?
|
| Pages: 17 – [ Previous | 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
