The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Stonehenge and its Environs Forum Start a topic | Search
Stonehenge and its Environs
Re: The bluestone debate
390 messages
Select a forum:
"anyone who thinks that simply throwing more labour at the problem is the answer is simply wrong. As the labour force grows the efficiency of each man will decrease. (That is a fact and by as much as 50%) As will the efficiency of each man after just 5 mins of effort. (Another fact and if the effort is continued by as much as 100%). "

This is the crux. As you know, some of us concluded something quite different that day. In particular, that the exercise was hopelessly undermanned, hence any loss in individual efficiency as numbers were increased had a significant observable effect. Truth is though, individual declines in efficiency become irrelevant if there are enough people. 50-100% decreases in efficiency don't matter if you have 1000-2000% more people. If this was not true then a team of 50 in a tug 'o war wouldn't be always beaten by a team of 1000 without even raising a sweat.

For this reason some of us concluded that the lesson of the day wasn't that scaling up was impossible but that it was the only viable option. I know you postulate that a small team was used (and hence stonerowing had to be used) and quote Burl in support of the idea they wouldn't have many people available, but that was before the Durrington dig.

So I don't agree "Stone-rowing to date remains the only credible solution". "Lots of folks" seems much simpler and more certain.


Reply | with quote
nigelswift
Posted by nigelswift
18th November 2008ce
05:22

In reply to:

Re: The bluestone debate (GordonP)

1 reply:

Re: The bluestone debate (GordonP)

Messages in this topic: