Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by GLADMAN
Stonehenge

Ball bearings used to build Stonehenge

close
more_vert
Sanctuary S
Sanctuary Nov 23, 2010 08:16:25
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
Now that we've all slagged the theory off I'd like to put a few points in its defence (without implying I actually support it) (though it would need amending) -

The lack of evidence of such balls isn't significant - a few dozen, used repeatedly, is all you'd need so the fact none have been found isn't necessarily significant.

I don't think their idea of two precise grooves for them to run in is necessary. Wide grooves, say 9 inches wide into which balls were thrown randomly would support a moving "stone-barge" adequately.

The above arrangement would mean all the balls wouldn't necessarily have to be of identical size as there would be a tendency for them to migrate laterally and take up a supporting position wherever the underside of the barge was subject to variations.

I think you'll find if a 'groove' is not perfectly flat and the balls of uneven size do migrate to various positions to suit their size as you suggest, then those in a 'lower' position because of the uneveness of the groove would act as a brake Nigel. They could not roll out of that position because the sheer weight of the barge above them would not allow it. The freely running balls would just jam up against them. And that's on a perfectly flat ground surface let alone the ups and downs reality!
And I doubt very much, due to the variable grain in timber, that a stone axe would have a snowballs chance in hell of producing the finish required. The idea of cutting down oak trees and producing the 'planks' would be a job probably just as difficult as shifting the stones themselves. I think we have to stand back here and just look at what you have. A tree that has to have all it's branches removed first then split into nice planks avoiding all the knots (which it couldn't) which prevents the timber from splitting evenly. Stone on stone has been proven to produce decent work but I don't see if for stone on wood.

N nigelswift
nigelswift Nov 23, 2010 08:49:18
Replying to Sanctuary

Some of the problems you cite with the balls bunching up and acting as a brake would no doubt happen but I think the same happened to an extent with the Stonehengineers' logs, which are comparable to the balls in some respects - but the net effect was that the logs (and I suspect the balls) would be helpful in toto. The secret, we decided, was pulling damn hard and then all the localised inefficiencies were overcome by the main effect. We even had logs getting stuck fast and the rest of the logs and a 15 ton stone simply sailing over them.

But then again, that "pulling hard enough" mantra makes me think balls and logs aren't necessary, you just mount the stone on two log runners with pointed ends and off you trot, flanked by lever-men each side to do a bit of adjustment, even a bit of stone rowing maybe, when the terrain gets rocky or marshy. The truth is, isn't it, whatever system you suggest they used it can be done twice as well with twice the number of people and 4 times as well with 4 times the people. Stonerowing was based on Burl saying there were only a few families available to do the job. Durrington suggests there may have been zillions available and that would cast doubt on an awful lot of the experimental archaeology on the subject up to now IMO. Who needs efficiency or cleverness if you've got a hundred rugby teams?