No wonder I couldn't find it. You put it under General and not Stonehenge where the others were.

Gordon, your orginal idea for the logs was to have a ripping taken off each side to make them of a uniform thickness and to give them a greater bearing surface. But, as you are aware, this is not likely to be historically accurate. As an alternative and because of the need to stabilise the tower you suggested that we notch out the logs so that they interlock with each other. This would be very time-consuming work and since the logs are likely to be of varying diameters, each joint would have to be tailored to the log it was mating with. This requires that the timbers are all sorted and numbered so they can be assembled in the correct sequence.

Suppose we just use raw logs and accommodate the inherent taper by laying them head to tail to maintain a level platform. We can easily make a plumb-line level out of primitive materials and use it to check that level is being maintained. If we find that one corner is a bit lower than another, we put the fat end of the logs to that corner for a layer or two. The weight of the stone would cause the surface of the logs to flatten where they meet and form a natural interlock. Raw logs would be much easier to insert into the crib than notched ones. If one or two of the logs below had twised under load, the notches might fail to engage properly and we'd be faced with making on site adjustments at a most critical time. We can still use birdmouth noggings as I suggested previously for the layers where the shoring props are attached. These are only required to take a compressive load, so they are self-retaining.

Speaking of shores, when I was talking about stopping the stone when it reaches vertical, the structure I had in mind is called a "flying shore". With a stop-log lashed to the top of the block, the shore would convert the rotational momentum into linear momentum in an upwards vertical direction. This would attempt to lift the stone back out of the ground, so we are using the stone's own weight to resist its momentum rather than brute force, which tends to smash things.

Before the erection method gets set in stone, as it were, can I have a final go at voicing my concern, then I’ll shut up it if no-one agrees.

It’s a clever method, that will show the ancient people COULD have used a pretty small team. So is Stone Rowing. But in terms of convincing archaeologists I have a feeling the erection method is much less saleable than the stone rowing method.

Stone rowing is highly efficient, so it’s logical to infer that if they hit on it they’d use it. I think archaeologists would easily accept that on the balance of probabilities they DID hit upon it, since they were so culturally immersed in stone shifting. Ergo, they’d have to agree that the team would be small – there’s only room for so many rowers. Thus, Gordon’s place in history would be assured.

But when it comes to erecting the stone, I’m concerned that he’ll get less acceptance. The problem is there are other methods, based on larger teams, so what he’s demonstrating will be seen as a “possible” rather than a “probable”.

There’s an argument to suggest that a large team was more likely for the erection stage, eg:

(a.) At Stonehenge, the man-hours spent on pounding the stones was enormous, and I think it’s realistic to guess that when the “small” stone walking team arrived with the latest stone, they would be joining a “permanent” on-site team of pounders and masons. So that’s one thought, at least, that points to a large workforce being available. OK, perhaps one team did both jobs, but as a simple guess, I doubt it.
(b.) Places like Avebury, with irregular stones in shallow holes, had to be created by “mass hauling up” as much as by ”elevating and pivoting”. Even those stones that were more Stonehenge-like, in deeper holes, that had to be elevated first, could have been tipped into their holes without much concern about leaning, since the muscle power (human or oxen) was available for those if it was available for all the others.

So I think the Establishment will say:
“Stonewalking – yes, it makes sense, we accept small teams were involved at that stage.”
“Elevation and Precision Tipping” – maybe. But you’ve only shown how it would have been done if they had limited manpower. If that’s right, fair enough, we have no other solution. But you haven’t shown their only possible solution if they had larger numbers. And we think they may have.

So, in a nutshell, I’m worried that the very success of this exercise could undermine it. If we deliver the stone into the hole with absolute precision, and it stands up straight, voices will be raised saying “Ah you’ve only done that in that perfect way to sustain your “small team thesis”. We don’t subscribe to that so we don’t subscribe to your method.

Personally, I think it’s good to keep with a small team for the stone elevation, but to deliver it into the hole by a method that shows less concern for it being dead straight, one that replicates a mindset that says “what does it matter, we have the power available”. Once it’s in, we can enlist the pulling power from however many or few people it needs. That way, I think, feels the most authentic way, and it leaves little room for academic sniping. I know very well this flies in the face of an ambition to do everything in 24 hours with a small team, but equally we could really trip up badly if we try to make a show rather than try to show. I think we’ll have a hell of a show anyway.

This topic has now moved from General to Stonehenge. Was that your doing, in which case how did you do it, or are higher forces at work? I would have liked to rename my "Computer Model Update" topic to be "Stone-Dropping Computer Model" but I haven't found a way to do it.

Right, well I’m not quite giving up yet, because no-one has actually addressed what I’m saying. Steve suggested it’s a question of undesirable dumbing down, but that’s certainly not what I meant. Jim says he has some reservations, and I’m encouraged by that as he has a good eye for this sort of thing and knows a lot about Stonehenge.

What worries me is this: in my opinion the method proposed is probably not the one they used. It’s tailored to show there could have been small numbers of participants, whereas there’s no evidence for that. The reverse, probably. The “small numbers” parameter seems to have come by way of default from the stone rowing issue, where it’s triumphantly vindicated, but what has that to do with stone erection? So I’m sure the establishment will say our approach is based on and tailored to a false hypothesis, and that we’ve gone to considerable trouble to design a system to demonstrate something that didn’t happen. (This is the same establishment to whom a prudent would-be sponsor will turn for advice).

If we think in terms of larger numbers we can all think of other ways the erection could have been done, probably quicker and safer. Maybe less sexy but in my opinion more likely. Most of them centre round “dump it in a hole and wedge and haul it up”, with variations. Following on from rowing the stones into place, I think that would be a pretty impressive enterprise and we don’t need to end with an academically controversial flourish. Let's do absolutely nothing to besmirch the good name of stone rowing, it's too perfect to be put at risk.

If we do go ahead with the current system I’ll support it all the way but I think the following would be relevant:

I think we should get our story straight. I know Gordon isn’t a fan of archaeologists but we might as well maximise our credibility as much as we can. Sorry to sound like I’m pushing for us to “spin” the project, but I spent years bringing a profession to accept a new concept and I know it’s easier if you build it onto current thinking.

FW’s suggestion for an initial Mission Statement: “"Let's see if Gordon's method of erecting stones is a viable alternative to the other theories" is actually exactly the aim Gordon has been working on from the start, and in some ways it’s an absolute stonker:

A “humble chippie”, having successfully stuffed a Truth down the archeos throats in a way that precludes all hope of regurgitation, to the effect that “The Stonehenge stones arrived without use of a rope” now calmly says to them”… and they were erected without use of a rope as well!”

But I anticipate that the furious reaction to this second stuffing will be “what makes you think they didn’t use a rope?” At the moment, we’re intending to say “they might have, so it’s just one more theory, pretty please.” But, I think it would be much funnier if we could say to them “look, just as you had to swallow stone rowing as the easiest and therefore most likely system, so you must now do the same for the Trilithon demonstration, because it’s the easiest system.” In other words, by moving the focus onto what is easiest we put our method ahead of other theories. It’s only words, I know, but why not use them? So instead of a Mission Statement saying “to see if the method is a viable alternative to other theories” lets publicise an intention to “show the most work-efficient method of erecting a trilithon”. It’s possible that an ergonomic study would show that it was. I bet we could get a university to do one for free.

In Stone Shifting 2, Gordon said:

“We must find out the profile of the holes for the Trilithon, whatever the holes say is OK by me.”

I`ve looked around and have yet to come across a profile of one of the holes, so I`ve asked on the Britarch list if anyone can point me to the relevant publication.

Still waiting.....

baz