Re: Last Try | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Stonehenge 180

Image by photobabe

Stone Shifting 3

more_vert

FourWinds Sep 4, 2003 09:24:55

Replying to Steve Gray

They do know where they were quarried. As I mentioned earlier, there is an unfinished one over 60ft long in the quarry. It is lying down and is partially carved.

So, it is safe to say that they were at least 'partly' sculpted before moving them (to save on weight presumably) and that they were carved lying down.

I can't see that they would have stood them up before transporting them as a sane thing to do. Saying that the head cult was pretty insane anyway. It was very much a "My tribe's head is beiiger than your tribe's head" thing. As each tribe bettered the other two they responded with bigger and better.

I suppose they may have moved them standing up to really rub in the scale of the new head to the other tribes. That could have been worth the effort in the circumstances.

I am not sure if there's evidence of the heads being finished off in situ, but if they were then scaffolding would have been needed.

Anyway ... we digress ...

All I wanted to say is that just because something is obvious doesn't make it definite. Even if Gordon's method was known it may have been "ritualistically" important that each stone was dragged into place by 500 people. We will never know.

nigelswift Sep 4, 2003 11:21:44

Replying to FourWinds

That they may have done things ritualistically and perhaps illogically is a fog that we just have to accept.

But to me we would be best doing what we think was the most likely method. If we think the team was small then Gordon’s method is a good one, perhaps the only one, and we’d do well to adopt it. But if we think they called on the raw pulling power of several hundred people then presumably the most likely method would be different, eg. it wouldn’t need such a high tower or such precision or the ambition to drop the stone vertically.

All this “Nigel’s Reservations” stuff comes down to this: Replication or Demonstration.
Do we proceed on the basis of Gordon’s system (as somewhat amended by our input here). If so, fair enough, it’s his project. But in my personal opinion that would be a Demonstration. Or do we come to a consensus as to what we think was the most likely method (and our opinion of the most likely size of the team may determine that). In my personal opinion that would be a sincere attempt at Replication, and I prefer it.

I’m not going to contribute any more to this sub-thread as I’m happy to follow either Gordon’s final decision or a consensus view.

Steve Gray Sep 4, 2003 11:21:49

Replying to FourWinds

OK, at 60 feet long (high) it would be very silly to try to transport it upright. I hadn't realised they were that big. It just seemed that it might be easier to get a stone upright in the quarry (where there would be handy ledges and escarpments) than to haul it up onto its plinth later.

But as you say, "we digress..."

morfe lux Sep 5, 2003 17:57:35

Replying to FourWinds

This thread has set me thinking along the 'sporting' lines again. I wonder if moving great stones huge distances was considered to be sporting, in an olympic kinda way. What other evidence do we have of prehistoric sport, anyone? I see no reason to assume that the Neolithic mind was any less sporting than the Inca and soforth?

Just whibbling, carry on brigadier ;-)