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.