Re: new videos of granary model | Forum

Stonehenge 181

Image by Chance

new videos of granary model

beatles Mar 14, 2008 11:35:05

Replying to jimit

jimit wrote:

Hi Clyde,
There is speculation that the Sarsen Circle was not continuous.
When this full scale representation was made in 2005, the archaeologists suggested that the gap was bridged by wooden lintels. The short stone in the middle doesn't seem to have ever been any higher and it has not been broken.
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/38175/images/stonehenge.html

I still have too many problems with the practicality of the theory; as the "mill" is horizontal the chaff from one side would land on the rolled grain on the other side, the amount of corn produced on Salisbury Plain wouldn't warrant this huge "industrial" machine, the complete lack of archaeological evidence of domestic habitation in the area (2,000+ people x 1,000 years would leave a load of rubbish!), the difficulty of making lightweight ropes and sails, the danger involved in feeding new sheaves to the rollers and clearing the inevitable jams.

Any larger scale model must be made using ONLY Neolithic techniques. No polypropylene ropes or ready-made sails and all the wood shaped with flint axes.

Jim.

dear jim.

yes i would like to build a larger mill model but it would not be nesessary to do it entirely with stone axes. i noticed that the reconstruction that you mention of stonehenge that you participated in was built from styrofoam. not exactly a stone age thing. and you had polyethelene ropes did you not. still you must have learned a few things or may even have proved a few things.
just as in your foamhenge, my theory would not require using huge natural stones and flint axes to prove the point. we know neolithic man could work stone and wood. that is not the question here.

as for the gap in sarsen circle and its probable bridging with timber. i know about this and it has a place in my theory. here it is for your consideration.
the gap was a place where the wooden bridging could be lowered or removed (hence the lower upright in that area) so that the wooden rollers could be replaced or serviced without having to raise the entire carousel. this would have been needed for servicing the rollers. the gap could also possibly have been a place where the grain spilled off the circle into a sort of wooden hopper.

as to the chaff blowing across a 100 ft. circle and depositing on the other side. that is impossible. the chaff would have had to not drop at all in that 100 feet. not likely in less than a hurricaine.

i never proposed that there was "heavy habitation" ever in the stonehenge area. quite the contrary. the mill was only in operation once a year perhaps for a few weeks.........
you make this mill idea sound way more complicated to operate or build than it was...........we know that the people raised great stones at the site against all sorts of dangers and obviously using heavy rope. "light weight" rope is less of a problem to make. building the actual light-weight mill parts and operating them would have been child's play by comparison to raising megaliths.......

your arguments do not hold water. sorry
clyde

beatles Mar 14, 2008 12:01:47

Replying to beatles

first of all i would like to give you all a huge thank you for all your questions and comments...

i am getting much mail on my granary website that is pulling me away from this forum. i am determined to answer each of your posts reguardless of merit. my theory has been called silly, stupid, and other things here but i do not mind because it is far more logical than most of the dozens of theories out there.

this theory will continue to grow and gain acceptance until test are done at stonehenge to prove it........ if alien and giant theories can continue to gain followers and publish many books, surely this one will gain a life of its own.

you have had the opportunity to get this theory first hand from its author. you will hear much about it in the future and the practice you have had here in defending against it will come in handy. at some point a full size stonehenge mill will be built. i hope by then that some british engineers are involved.

perhaps we will meet someday in the future and one of us will have the chance to say, "i told you so." there is a 50/50 chance that it will be me speaking. if it is you speaking, at least we had a good run and a fun discussion.

the bottom line is that unlike any other theory, mine can be proved by soil testing and by building a full size operating mill. I'll send you all a bag of rolled oats or wheat

goodby for now with the utmost respect,
clyde hollifield, retired technical college instructor and department chair.

you can direct any future questions to the website.
http://www.granaryatstonehenge.org

jimit Mar 14, 2008 12:26:22

Replying to beatles

At home here I have two small flakes of flint picked up by a public footpath near Avebury. They come from a flint knapping site where some 4,000 + years ago someone sat and fashioned some stone tools. Ephemeral sites like this survive quite well and around Stonehenge people would have been doing the same thing. Even if they were only there for a very short time they still would have had to cook,erect shelters and dispose of their rubbish and sharpen their tools. They must and would have left evidence.

Wrong time of year to try I know but I would love to get a sheaf of corn, spread it on the ground and use an ordinary garden roller to process it. Using some domestic fans to provide the wind might give a rough idea of the feasibility of the idea.

When Foamhenge was built it was not intended to replicate Neolithic building techniques, only to see what the monument might have looked like when finished. The experimental archaeology I and many others were involved with was to investigate ways of moving the stones.

To suggest that the "missing" lintels facilitated the erection of the structure and a hopper was placed there (I thought the grain was on the ground all around the circle?) is pushing your theory a bit too far.

Jim.