Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by Howburn Digger
Stonehenge

Ball bearings used to build Stonehenge

close
more_vert
The Eternal T
The Eternal Nov 19, 2010 00:00:21
Replying to tjj

tjj wrote:
For anyone who lives in the south within travelling distance of Oxford; in the European Pre-history Room there is an interactive display whereby you can test lifting a stone with a lever. In one position it won't budge at all, in another it lifts easily.
I haven't really entered into discussions on how the massive stones at Stonehenge may have been moved - would have thought a combination of levers, ropes, rolling-logs, sledges and sheer man power. Is there any evidence of Neolithic people using wheels (they existed in the Middle East from around that time).

tjj

Is that the Ashmolean, tjj?
Also, I agree with your levers, ropes, rolling-logs, sledges, and sheer man-power.
But, the balls theory is a very good one in principle. Nowt has been found, basically meaning it is a non-starter, but a good theory in terms of the coeficient of friction, which can be applied to any condition.
However, to be realistic, the balls would have to vary in size, or be of maximum size, depending on the hardness of the ground. Smaller diameter balls will sink in soft ground. Maybe an optimum size could be produced, which would work well on all ground.
Nevertheless, some of these theoretical balls would have been found, especially in the numbers required. And in rock, not chalk, unless a chalk ball production team was constantly working round the clock.
TE.

R Rhiannon
Rhiannon Nov 19, 2010 07:26:29
Replying to The Eternal

The article actually says the researchers used wooden balls? Then they've got the copout that they've been chucked on a fire. But all the same, imagine trying to make that many, that perfectly round, out of something as variable as wood, all the exact same size, without modern machinery and without going insane. Does indeed sound like balls to me. Especially if there's an easier way, which I believe the Stone Rowers have elegantly showed?

T tjj
tjj Nov 19, 2010 08:03:23
Replying to The Eternal

The Eternal wrote:
tjj wrote:
For anyone who lives in the south within travelling distance of Oxford; in the European Pre-history Room there is an interactive display whereby you can test lifting a stone with a lever. In one position it won't budge at all, in another it lifts easily.
I haven't really entered into discussions on how the massive stones at Stonehenge may have been moved - would have thought a combination of levers, ropes, rolling-logs, sledges and sheer man power. Is there any evidence of Neolithic people using wheels (they existed in the Middle East from around that time).

tjj

Is that the Ashmolean, tjj?
Also, I agree with your levers, ropes, rolling-logs, sledges, and sheer man-power.
But, the balls theory is a very good one in principle. Nowt has been found, basically meaning it is a non-starter, but a good theory in terms of the coeficient of friction, which can be applied to any condition.
However, to be realistic, the balls would have to vary in size, or be of maximum size, depending on the hardness of the ground. Smaller diameter balls will sink in soft ground. Maybe an optimum size could be produced, which would work well on all ground.
Nevertheless, some of these theoretical balls would have been found, especially in the numbers required. And in rock, not chalk, unless a chalk ball production team was constantly working round the clock.
TE.
Oops! Came in from being out and really should have straight to bed .. yes, the Ashmolean, thanks for the nudge TE.

Goffick mentioned Orkney which is an interesting connection - am convinced that people were travelling around the coast of Britain by sea to trade, so the superb building techniques of Orkney could have found their way to Wiltshire along with materials.

I've just re-read the article which I only skim read last night - linking Aberdeen to Stonehenge is new isn't it ... but why not. Apparently the scientists are going to do further experiments up there using a team of oxen ...

S Sanctuary
Sanctuary Nov 19, 2010 08:19:08
Replying to The Eternal

[quote="The Eternal"
But, the balls theory is a very good one in principle. Nowt has been found, basically meaning it is a non-starter, but a good theory in terms of the coeficient of friction, which can be applied to any condition.
However, to be realistic, the balls would have to vary in size, or be of maximum size, depending on the hardness of the ground. Smaller diameter balls will sink in soft ground. Maybe an optimum size could be produced, which would work well on all ground.
TE.[/quote]

As I understand it TE the balls never touched the ground surface, they were placed between trackways like you would have in a roller door as an example.

'To test the theory, researchers from the University of Exeter constructed a model in which wooden balls were inserted into grooves dug out of timber planks.
When heavy concrete slabs were placed on a platform above the balls, held in position by more grooved tracks, they could be moved with ease'.

The precision needed to do this with the tools available at the time makes a nonsense of the whole idea. I have been a qualified carpenter/joiner for 45 years and if anyone thinks they can chop down trees and make beautifully precise planks with precision grooves in with just a stone axe then they need to wake up to reality. Using stone on stone we have seen how precise man can be, but not on green or seasoned wood...not a chance! Maybe the archaeo should gives us a demo of his woodworking skills (g)

N nigelswift
nigelswift Nov 19, 2010 08:33:57
Replying to The Eternal

The Eternal wrote:
but a good theory in terms of the coeficient of friction
Not sure it's even that. Steve Gray, one of the Stonehengineers who used to post here, noted that the Egyptians poured water on sand to make mud to make a highly effective lubricant and he spent a very happy afternoon in a field using a spring scale and pulling a big stone over cowmuck. He reckoned that was more efficient than logs or anything else he could find.