The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian
Home Latest Posts Forums Maps Help
Browse Sites News Blog Contributors The Books
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:
"Sorry Nigel, even a team numbering 600 would be knackered before the stone had been moved 100 yards. Yet with a team of 600 ten trilithon uprights could be moved at once by splitting the workforce into rowing teams of 60, and at least four times as far."

But as you have yourself acknowledged a team of 50 stonerowers found it hard to move just a 12 tonner far.

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disgree on a very fundamental point, i.e. that huge jobs like 40 tonners require huge workforces, just as huge tug 'o war teams generate far more power than smaller ones. I seem to remember at Foamhenge when you added 25 rugby players to the team they pulled the stone right off the rollers and carried on moving it just on the grass. It was then that I felt that 250 rugby players would have shifted the thing a very long way and fast.

As you know, I don't see this as indicating stonerowing wasn't employed in difficult terrains or to get over obstacles or as an addition to the main pulling effort - and indeed it's entirely feasible they hit upon it due to their use of levers to get over obstacles - it's just that for me brute force can do anything at all if there's enough of it and that would have been pretty obvious to the ancients.


Reply | with quote
nigelswift
Posted by nigelswift
18th November 2008ce
09:06

In reply to:

Re: The bluestone debate (GordonP)

2 replies:

Bluestones (Stoneshifter)
Re: The bluestone debate (GordonP)

Messages in this topic:

Terms & Conditions  |  Home  |  Julian Cope presents Head Heritage Top of page