39 replies to this topic

[henge]

Just found this site, so Hello folks.

My interest in Megaliths goes back many years, and as an engineer could never accept how they were build, according to the 'experts' - the theories simply don't work.

I took on a different approach, instead of trying to join up the missing parts on other theories, I  started from the beginning -  I assumed I would walk into a field with an axe and had to build a megalith, and I did ( lots of them).


But with one big difference; I work on the fact that, 'that all man made products, have a tracable production process' - no mysteries. Then adapted a new process to archaeology - quality assurance ( originally used for aircraft production etc). This way all processes and materials must be traceable from evidence - not theories. This way I can also 'bust' any faulty theory.

Plus something new to megalithic building - physics, all the theories I have seen won't scale up to the 'big ones'. So I needed an axe based system that would uprate to say 100 tonnes for starters.

After years of examining 'dolmans' I found the process; tested it and started building a 5 tonne dolman in a quarry with the help of my brother usiing a wooden pole 3.5m long in one day - no probs. That was back in 1997, I then built more, erected standing 4 tonne stones ( again only one man to help), helped built a stone circle with stones up to 10 tonnes. Then worked out how to layout Stonehenge to match the origional specification - did it in one cloudy day, confirmed by 100's of measurements.

Then the really big problem - trying to get my work published = big headache, loads of stress = gave up.

So its all 'sat on the shelf' so to speak for the last 10 + years, just found this site so maybe give it another go. The basic problem is 'stonehenge' is seen as a 'mystery' therefore it can't be solved, but their is a good trade in the mystery market. As one freind said when he saw my work," every book on the subject will need revising".

Since then I have been doing axe work/hunting etc, and found the truth of early hunting techniques. On the down side I'm not very good on computors but if there is any interest I will try and work out how to put some of my B/W pictures on the forum. My favorite is my wife perched on top of a dolman I built and another of my daughter sitting on top of a 3 tonne bluestone loaded (by hand) on a very large sledge, for C4 TV / BBC Wales.

I know its all a big claim but it's all field tested and true - looking forward to hearing from you. Untill then I will hang onto my day job.

[shiny]

Hello Henge............I too have a background in engineering inspection, and look forward to reading about your experiments in megalithics.

[henge]

Cheers Shiny - Yep, I kept looking for 'ideas' but it didn't work, so I went for a structured approach using quality assurance - so for every detail I use the mantra," what evidence do you have to support that statment" so each detail must be traceable to the archaeological record - boring bit over.

When I found how to lift heavy stones I almost fell over laughing, it was staring me in the face for years. The dodgy bit was testing it out in a quarry with 5 tonne slabs. I didn't sleep the night before - bit worried about being flattened, but all went well and it was all witnessed by A. Burl. Then the press got hold of it added their 50%, causing Aubrey a lot of stress and my work discredited back in 1997.

Laying out Stonehenge was 'brill' I used beaches below cliffs for testing so I could view the results from above. I did a scaled down bit for German TV a few years ago  - laid out stonehenge in the morning and got my son then 11yrs old to lift an  8 tonne rock in the aftenoon but nothing much since.

The 'trick' was an interest in archaeology and a practical approach to engineering + alot of heavy engineering experience. I worked on the basis that all man made products have construction evidence, so to claim large megaliths don't have construction evidence is impossible. I examined as many sites as possible took hundreds of photos and looked for common links. By working on dolmans with them being a complex heavy structure was the breakthrough - point contact from the support stones against the capstone = it capstone was lowered into place. I worked out a safe procedure and built quite a few 5 tonne dolman.

For me the best bit was going back to Wales to see a dolman I hadn't seen before, and it was identical to mine I could identify with every detail of the origional builders - that was touching the past.

I will try and work out how to put some pictures on with  my sons help.

[Maju]

That, your work, looks fascinating to me. It seems a pity that you haven't got it published. Anyhow, nowadays you could easily publish it in e-format (of course, you'd get no money from it) in a personal site or whatever. I'd realy like to read about it and see those pics.  

Also, I'm curious about why your work got discredited. You don't seem convinced that your opponents were right but I'd like to read the two points of view so I can make up my mind better. Indeed that a regular dolmen could be built by only two people in a single day seems a challenging idea, specially when there are many areas where dolmens are really small - what is attributed normally to the lack of personnel to build them bigger.

In any case your ideas seem interesting, so I'd love to know more.

And, of course, welcome.  

[henge]

Hi Maju - bit busy over the weekend, helping out on a game shoot and building a jump bike for my son but I will try and get some pictures sorted out. Even from helping out on the shoot I have found out many old hunting techniques that must go back to the earliest of time - most are highly illegal old poacher techniques but some I have found from observing deer, and thats how I found all of my techniques by starting from basics with alot of experience. The idea of people running around hunting with sharp sticks never happened, nor did dragging rocks ( a rock with a rope around it is called an 'anchor').

Checking over my work after 10 yrs I can still find no faults and nor has anybody but I assume as all my work is field tested it would bust alot of theories - never popular. It always amused me how its possible to have set of lectures on megaliths from many of the current 'experts' without mentioning how they were built?

The Dolman building, comes down to the type and shape of local base rock - some areas have 20 tonne slabs others 2 tonne pear shaped 'plum stones' - hence the reason for no dolmans in some areas- that simple.

The technique is difficult and a bit risky - so I believe the large dolmans were built by lets say 'dolman engineers' with local help, and as most would have axe skills it would be easier the build dolmans 4,000 years ago than today. These engineers would move about and the skills passed on - just like any technology today. The same skills would be used for 1,000 years to build the large circles, and infact any  large stone lifting worldwide.

From building the Stone circle for a group of druids, they all pitched in so woman and children would be helping - it really gets a momentum when everybody is involved. This solves the logistics of megalith building + an efficient method of building is needed to match Neolithic lifestyle. With the Druid group all doing wood cutting for cooking fires and basic cooking etc it gave really good data, later they found the less people on site the more work was achieved. All the estimates for man hours are not based on field test construction data when they don't have the technique used.

Other work included how the Sutton Hoo ship was buried, took quite a few attempts to work it out to match the archaeological evidence and test it out, but I fear a 'friend' may have published it for me. When I started I expected the truth to be welcomed but it turned into alot of stress for me but its seams like a good time to start again. It really is a fasinating insight into the past.

Just looked up on Antiquity and one piece of work is there. Antiquity vol 75. num 288. page 293-298 Megaltithic Engineering Techniques:experiments using axe based technology (I have a few copies at home)

[Maju]

Well, I'd like to encourage you to retake your work and eventually publish it it (wether online or on paper is less important, right?). It looks most interesting, really.

Of course, take your time: nearly nothing of value was done in a rush.  

[Jimit]

I'd like to know Henge, how your stone moving techniques differ from this.. http://www.stonehengetheanswer.com/ ?

I was involved in the experiments in 2005 and the subsequent TV documentary. The theory works.
Jim.

[henge]

Morning Jim - I will try again to get my son to help me get some pictures on.

I like the work you have done, the only way to find out is to get stuck in.

To run a bit of theory on the problem of lifting very large stones.

1. using direct levering is linear - twice as long/men/ or levers = twice the lift. So for wooden levers this is about 15 - 1 as a lift ratio. I found 10 tonnes can be lifted using direct levering, if you look at the French experiment they used a 30 tonne block with x3 large levers and 20 men per lever giving 60 men with 3 levers.

2. the mass/weight of a stone increases at a cubic rate. So if we have a rock 4x4x4= giving a mass of 64. now if we increase it to 5x5x5 we have a mass of 125. So if the all round dimension increases by 25% the mass has increased by 100% = doubled.

3. now if we go back to the french experiment if their block was doubled in mass they would need x6 levers and 120 men but the end dimension has only increased by 25%, room only for x1 more lever. The direct lever system therefore peaked at 30 tonne, if a 100 tonne dolman capstone was lifted by direct levering they would need 200+ men and x10 levers the size of telegraph poles one side of a rock the base size of a small double garage = impossible.

4. If we plot a graph, direct levering will be a straight line and the mass/dimension graph will be a steeply rising upward curve, then overlay both graphs and we can see the limits of direct lifting @ 15-1 and to lift a 100 tonne capstone we need  a system  giving a lift ratio of 100-1. All that using only a stone axe and the system must match the archaeological record. Quite a problem to try and solve, and the reason why all the system I have seen fail.

Finding the solution; after years of experiments I nearly got there and was about to contact 'time team' when I spotted a fault - back to basics. I then decided to use Quality assurance as a method of 'traceability' - assessed more dolmans and after visiting my local dolman at the Rollright stones - one idea came to me. I tested it out with an electical safety tester as a 10kg load - and it worked, but at first I didn't know why. Excitement over, I  started testing and my son then 5 years old lifted 200 kg - I had found a system that gave a lift ratio of 100-1, and matched the archaeological record = jackpot, I now had a system that could lift 100+ tonnes. This opened everything up, from this I could solve the lot by walking into a field with an axe.

Try google - clifford osenton - don't believe all the descriptions of my work - they get a bit mixed up.

I just found I have been mentioned on 'stonepages' before - small world.

[Maju]

All your work (both of you) is very very interesting. But why nobody thinks in using oxen pulling instead of only human force?



Watching Jimit's graphs, one can see clearly that, once the stone is in the hole, it can be pulled carefully until it stands - and oxen would be the most adequate system to do it.

Obviously the people who built Stonehenge and other ancient monuments had cattle: they were not hunter-gatherers anymore.

...

And also, now that I think of it, why to use levers and not just use the rock as its own lever? I mean: in phase 1 of Jimit's graphs, when the stone is like 1/3 over the hole... why not to just sit or jump (or add mass in some other way) on that extreme of the stone until it falls in the hole. It seems so simple!

Then get the oxen to pull from the top until it stands.

[henge]

Morning Maju, the problem with extra force, is if the technique is not very efficient then it won't work, along with the scale up problem with large stones. I have erected quite a few stones and its controlled power I need, my first 4 tonne stone was erected by only 1-man lifing and myself stacking, can't get more efficient - the first 3 tonne stone erected by the druid group used 60 people pulling on ropes - they got alot better later on.

I will put on some detail of my later techniques later, but I can assure you that if set up well - they go up. The last one a 3 tonne bluestone was pulled up by a small group of 'mums & kids' but it was set up well first.
No A-frames, no pre setup with cranes etc, just axe techniques. Well set up my loaded sledge only needed 20 students and they pulled too hard, so some were holding the ropes back to slow them down.

Oxen are fine for hauling but they still need extra food and water for heavy work - rules out the 'sarsen trail'. The problem is the skill to work oxen as a group - not easy.

Have you seen the picture of the loaded sledge & dolman etc - its technique that counts.

Even with all the people who have erected stones in recent years, we all lack the worked up skill of the original builders - as a rule most jobs become twice as efficient given practice.

[Jimit]

I may be mis-informed but I don't think that there is any evidence that draught animals, horses, oxen etc. were used in the Neolithic period.
Just to clarify, I was just one of many participants in the stone rowing experiments. The credit for the idea must go to Gordon Pipes.
Jim.

[henge]

Jimit, on 17 January 2008, 12:10, said:

I may be mis-informed but I don't think that there is any evidence that draught animals, horses, oxen etc. were used in the Neolithic period.
Just to clarify, I was just one of many participants in the stone rowing experiments. The credit for the idea must go to Gordon Pipes.
Jim.

I looked at 'stone rowing ' 10 yrs ago but found it limited to small loads I have photos of it in use with 2 tonne blocks but my big sledges running at a walking pace proved themselves over all ground condition more effective and could carry 50 or 100 tonnes. Plus 'stone rowing' is direct levering and as such is a technique limited by the laws of physics.

The big limiting factor with 'stone rowing' is natural stones have irregular shapes - so wooden levers will slip out, as we found building the big druid circle 8 yrs ago, but it may be fine with a designer concrete block. I only used natural stone and axes - then all techniques are traceable to the archaeologicl record.

To me the prime objective of my megalithic experiments is to find the actual traceable techniques used, and that means all techniques often requiring  modern enginering that don't comply are 'non compliant'.

[Maju]

henge said:

Morning Maju, the problem with extra force, is if the technique is not very efficient then it won't work...

Yah, I can see that well planning and design are very important to get things straight. But a couple or a dozen of oxen could anyhow help with the heavier work, that's clear, requiring less people. You can have the sledge (looks like a good idea) but get the oxen to move it and they should be able to move it easier, faster and for larger distances.

Quote

I will put on some detail of my later techniques later, but I can assure you that if set up well - they go up.

Great. I trust your word, your practical experience and the pics of finished work you have posted elsewhere, but I still don't know the technique. "Axe-based technique" means nothing to me (except that they used axes for something, probably to cut the logs, not to erect the stones, right?).

Quote

Oxen are fine for hauling but they still need extra food and water for heavy work - rules out the 'sarsen trail'.

I also think that long distance transport was done on barrages or ships. Still, if they had to move them along rivers, they may have used oxen to pull the barrages against the current and also there's surely a distance from the river to the final monument's location. In the end oxen would have been very useful for some of that work, though many humans could have done it as well, I guess.

But in any case they eat basically grass and humans would also need food anyhow (and human diet is more complex and hence "expensive").

Quote

Have you seen the picture of the loaded sledge & dolman etc - its technique that counts.

Indeed. But I still don't know how it works: neither how you pulled the stone on the sledge nor how effective is the sledge in reducing friction, in comparison with the stone itself. I assume it's a lot better but still, if you have to carry the stone for kilometers, you would surely need animal traction.

...

Jimit said:

I may be mis-informed but I don't think that there is any evidence that draught animals, horses, oxen etc. were used in the Neolithic period.

I really don't know. All I know is that the oxen were there and it would be a waste to use humans instead of them. I know that horses as pulling force were not used before the Middle Ages but surely oxen were used for agrarian and transport purposes long before. They are basically much stronger (though slower) than horses and their force is exerted (and exploited by us) in different parts of the body (head or shoulders, depending on the yoke type, not chest as happen with horses). Domestic horse may not have arrived to Western Europe until at least the late Chalcolithic, as their spread seems associated with Indo-European expansion, but oxen were there since the early Neolithic, that's clear enough.

In any case, I feel that stone-hauling as it's done now for mere sporting reasons, without wheels or carts of any sort, looks like the kind of thing they could have done some 5,000 years ago as well. Stone-related sports exist among Basques and Scots, though the latter only seem to preserve human stone-lifting, while the former also have oxen stone-hauling. Of course these sports could have evolved at later date, we just can't know, but they are suggestive, aren't they?

...

Btw, I'd like to refine my proposal for erecting standing stones with oxen:

1. Dig and prepare the hole
2. Add a rampart to the side the stone will arrive to it: make it approx. half the length of the stone (not just 1/3).
3. Pull the stone towards the hole with the oxen until it falls in the hole by its own weight.
4. Get the oxen to pull from the top of the stone now until it stands vertical.
5. Secure the stone with ropes and sticks and add earth till it stands alone.

Of course, henge's method may be better... but I still can't figure out how he does it.

[henge]

Morning Maju - I am at work at the moment, so just a quick reply I will go into more detail on each point later.

I general all of your points are vaild and from my field testing I expect to have a 'hard time' so I tested everything I could. I must have lifted say a few hundred tonne of stone and alot of wood. My objective was to run the  tests to get into problems and work my way out again using axes - thats what happens on any construction site. So If I can run into the same problems then I must find the same axe based solutions as was used 4,000 yrs ago.

Axe techniques - is to get away from 'concrete blocks' set up by cranes with bench sawn timber - these dare I say experiments have no real value. The fact is all construction will come down to one technique, hence working with Dolmans - they are a complex structure with capstones up to 100 tonne - so you must start from the artifacts and work out using the technology of the period - that means solving all problems with an axe.

I worked on heavy lifting in the past so in my early work -'pulled in' some modern techniques, but they never fit the archaeological record so I applied 'quality assurance' as a standard - I just happen to also be trained as an BSI auditor, heavy engineering and an intrest in archaeology - doesn't come up on many CV's - not much will get past me, that also includes my own work.

You are getting 'warm' on transport - I must get something sorted out on publishing - the last time gave me so much stress I couldn't face it all again.

**********
Oxen - No archaeological evidence ??

I worked in Nicaragua for the Sandinistas during the Contra war. Great place for living archaeology, as its was lets say underdeveloped - so they still had 'iron-age type round huts' in some rural areas and I came across a pair of massive Oxen 'tacked' up on a timber cart. It had one piece of rough wood tied across the horns and another to form the shaft - all lashed together, with thin rope tied through there noses for control, with no metal used as with horse 'tack'. So there will be no artifact evidence after 4,000 yrs.

What evidence we have is the assessment of the task - moving 50 tonne rocks 20 miles, no matter how effective the transport system is its still a big job and if they had Oxen they would have used them - THATS IT.

More later + a few more pictures, including 'Stig' sledge building.

***************

Bit busy tonight - please see the extra photos on the other post.

[Maju]

Ok. I get what you mean by axe techniques... but that doesn't explain much.

What I'd like to know is how you managed to rise the capstones. In the other topic, the knee-high dolmen seems relatively easy to do with due care... but what happens when you have to rise a capstone over your head or even up to several meters, as in Stonehenge? How do you do that without cranes? I really doubt they had polleys and cranes back then and the system of filling all with earth looks like sooo wasteful of energies... so how are capstones lifted?

Another question would be: have you thought about the difference that makes working with stone axes and modern steel ones? (Copper axes are just to be ignored: too weak).

I'm glad that you see that oxen could perfectly have been there, doing at least the hardest and less delicate of jobs. It may have depended of the specific place but in a work of the dimensions of Stonehenge, for instance, where there was a large town nearby and possibly a large political and economical entity that could provide all sort of specialists and materials, oxen hauling should have been present. Same for other large works elsewhere, megalithic or not.