The way I see it is this, if we can lift 40 tons of dead weight with levers, surely we can nudge the top end of 40 tons sideways. levering from the top must be much more efficient than driveing wedges in from the bottom.

Don't ask me why I just know it will work. When the stone has been dropped into the hole and is at rest at something like 70 or 80 degrees there will be a space between the stone and the tower, build the tower up until it is level with the top of the stone, (without the stone on top this will be quick and easy) then fix a fulcrum log across the tower say 6 inches from the stone. Place 6 men on top of the tower who will insert 6 inch diameter levers between the stone and the tower vertically. these men will hold the 12ft levers upright. This will give an advantage of 11 to 1 on each lever. 5 men on ropes attached to the end of each lever will be equal to 55 men. 6 times 55 equals 330 men. More than enough. As the stone is moved upright packings (chalk rubble) is slipped in behind the stone at ground level. Should that almost no time at all.

Sheesh!

Get a room, willya?

;o)

G
x

Remember Occam's Razor gentlemen!

Steves anchor stone would probably work more efficiently if it was half buried as well as staked.
On the other hand that would bring us into an interesting and perhaps dangerous dialogue with the archaeologists as to where was the archaeological evidence. It would be tempting for us to point at the Aubrey holes, but it would be a high risk claim. On the other hand, they are placed precisely opposite each part of the outer sarsen circle in the way you'd expect, and original use for construction purposes isn't precluded by the fact they had significant astronomical placement or subsequent ritual use.

It's a ticklish one. Should we stick to just stakes, on the grounds the evidence for those won't be there, even though we may secretly think putting the anchor in a hole might be more efficient and more likely?

Would it be good to get fully agreed on the details of stone rowing, on the grounds that we may get the green light quite suddenly and should be ready to go?

Eg. the 4 logs.
Do we drag them, and if so, how long will they stand up to it?
Should they be a bit flattened?
Should they be a bit angled at front and/or rear?
How do we fix the rope? Drill them?

And on the day:
What sort of terrain?
Any uphill?
What do you think is the steepest angle it could be done, Gordon?

Hi, folks

I've been back to the library and I have some photocopies from the "Stonehenge in its Landscape" book. Specifically those relating to stone 56.

I don't want to post them on the web because that may be seen as an infringment of copyright, but if anyone would like a copy by email, just post a reply to this mesasage and I'll send you one. There are 7 pages altogether (including the site plan and some other stones). I will scan them as TIFF files. If you want them in any other format, let me know and I'll do my best to oblige.

Here's my idea for the basis of a Megalithic Project home page, to start a discussion.

(Does anyone want to do a similar thing for a proposed submission to film/TV companies on "Stonehengineers - Moving the Megaliths"?

The Megalith Project aims to investigate the means by which Neolithic communities transported and erected large stones to produce megalithic monuments. The group comprises archaeologists and antiquarians based mainly in Britain, and the focus is therefore mainly upon the many British monuments, and with an eventual emphasis on Stonehenge.

Our focus is upon practical experimentation using full-sized stones and primitive technology in order to gain insight into the engineering and human difficulties encountered by the ancient peoples, and the solutions that may have occurred to them. The project has been inspired by a new and apparently highly efficient means of stone moving that has been proposed. < Link to pages about Gordon, contrasting efficiency of all previous solutions with his>.
In essence, our working hypothesis is that since this method appears to be vastly more efficient than all previous assumptions, it is not unreasonable to consider that it may have been recognized and used. Such a concept, which would imply many monuments could have been constructed by quite small teams, has wide-ranging implications for much currently accepted archaeological thought and is therefore worthy of rigorous practical testing.

The project is intended to be in the form of a series of experiments using the newly proposed method, which has been termed “stone rowing”. < Link to engineering-type explanation and diagrams> Several highly encouraging demonstrations have already been carried out by it’s originator, Gordon Pipes < link to more Gordon stuff >

The intended sequence of tests, with approximate dates, is listed below. Links to photographs and reports will be added shortly after each test.

Has this decended into a poetry competion or is there or was there any intention to erect a single or multiple stone complex.

detect