Moving massive megaliths.

slowburner

Might this simple technology have been used to create the massive monuments that puzzle us today?

bawn79

I think almost definitely - moving stuff is all about skill rather than brute force.

AngryHippie

Possibly for the lintels, but as for transporting stones using a lever and a fulcrum to spin them as he did in the early part of the video, there is nothing to suggest that there was a hard flat surface over which to transport them (needs to be hard enough to carry the weight of the stone on a point without sinking) and while it may explain some parts of the problem, the walking maoui statues is a more versatile solution for the columns.

(I watched the video muted as I'm at work, I'll have a closer look/listen later)

bawn79

AngryHippie wrote: »

Possibly for the lintels, but as for transporting stones using a lever and a fulcrum to spin them as he did in the early part of the video, there is nothing to suggest that there was a hard flat surface over which to transport them (needs to be hard enough to carry the weight of the stone on a point without sinking) and while it may explain some parts of the problem, the walking maoui statues is a more versatile solution for the columns.

(I watched the video muted as I'm at work, I'll have a closer look/listen later)

A fair point but there is nearly always a way around it - for instance just off top of my head - wait till the weather is really dry (like now) and the bearing capacity of the ground should increase making it possible.
Or two thin slabs of hard rectangular stone. Put one down in front of the block and then the other and repeat.

AngryHippie

bawn79 wrote: »

A fair point but there is nearly always a way around it - for instance just off top of my head - wait till the weather is really dry (like now) and the bearing capacity of the ground should increase making it possible.
Or two thin slabs of hard rectangular stone. Put one down in front of the block and then the other and repeat.

The ground does need to be fairly close to level for this to work also.

It may explain some of the technique, but it does nothing for any of the megaliths inconveniently located on top of a massive hill
Also, many of the hill based megaliths have stones of fairly irregular shape, with only one smooth regular surface, which would make levers of the sort indicated nearly impossible. I suppose it depends on whether the same technology was used to build Stonehenge as was used to build Fourknocks, Lougcrew, Carrowkeel etc.
I'm not convinced as there was probably 1,000 years between the construction periods.

It may be valid for Stonehenge, but considering the journey that the blue stones are thought to have travelled 240 miles, and the Sarsens 25 miles, I don't think that the method can explain it entirely.

It is an interesting video though.

slowburner

It is probably correct to suppose that the technique shown in the video would depend on reasonably, if not completely level ground.
This raises an interesting question. Do any monuments with enigmatically positioned megaliths demonstrate particularly level areas leading up (or down) to the site?
Avenues along which the megaliths could have been transported using the 'pebble & pivot' method, if you like.
With this in mind, a quick scan of Brownshill portal tomb (CW007-010), Kernanstown, Co. Carlow, shows that the ground might well be reasonably level. The cap stone is estimated to weigh 150 tons and is thought to be one of the largest in Western Europe. After a recent visit to the site I left with the impression that the monument sits in undulating land but revisiting the photos, this may not be the case. So, the technique is not necessarily ruled out in this example.
There is no reason to assume that the pebble & pivot method has any validity - or that it should be dismissed, but considering the possibility could open up other avenues of archaeological investigation. If there is any value in the theory, remains would surely survive which would point to use of the technique - embedded slabs, broken slabs or crushed stones, for example, and there would almost certainly be some evidence to show the avenue along which the megalith was transported.

tac foley

Explain, please?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kngM_Pz20bw

tac

Wibbs

I've heard about them earlier in the year. Nothing much more has come out, in English anyway. You would think that there would huge interest in something like this? Personally speaking and obv in my humble I reckon they're the result natural faulting in the particular stone. Some geological features can fracture and weather to look "manmade". That said they're usually underwater and sedimentary, but that looks like granite type rock. Fascinating either way.

bawn79

tac foley wrote: »

Explain, please?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kngM_Pz20bw

tac

I'm totally not a sceptic but have this is a great documentary which may help answer this Siberian megaliths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ

happyoutscan

He makes it look so simple, I like it!

chopper6

I found this interesting:


http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/stonehenge-engineering/

But then of course the obvious answer to all this in my opinion is They Had Wheels To Do It!..We assume they didnt because none have survived but wheels have been known for thousands of years. Likewise they may well have had metal tools of some sort.

slowburner

chopper6 wrote: »

Likewise they may well have had metal tools of some sort.

Don't think so.

chopper6

slowburner wrote: »

Don't think so.

Nobody thinks so but then nobody expected a stoneage corpse to have a metal axe until Otzi showed up.

Not saying for certain that they did OR that it was widespread but there's too many peices of the jigsaw missing to say for sure that they hadnt.

slowburner

Otzi lived in the mainland European Bronze Age, not the Neolithic.

chopper6

slowburner wrote: »

Otzi lived in the mainland European Bronze Age, not the Neolithic.

The corpse was 5300 years old.

This is when people were thought to be using stone tools not metal.

slowburner

It's impossible to be absolutely precise about the commencement or termination dates of prehistoric phases - they are based on the prevalence of iconic materials and as new finds are made, the span of these phases are re-examined.

Otzi's C14 dates are 3370 - 3100 BC which includes the generally accepted commencement date for the mainland European Bronze Age at c. 3200 BC. (The BA in Ireland is generally accepted to have arrived around 2500 BC)
Otzi's axe was not however, bronze - it was pure copper, and on the basis of this material, this puts Otzi squarely within the (debated) Chalcolithic period rather than the BA.
There is evidence to suggest that copper was being produced as early as 5000 BC in Serbia.
Furthermore, Bronze Age people still made and carried stone implements - as did Otzi. So again, this reinforces the fact that the transitional periods between the various ages cannot be considered as absolutes.

Going back to your original statement that metal tools could have been available to the architects of Stonehenge: there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case.