39 replies to this topic

[Pete G]

Jimit, on 25 January 2008, 12:59, said:

I still haven't found any suggestion that oxen were used. If anyone can point me to sources where information to confirm/deny this theory, I would be grateful.
Jim.

Jim,
If you fancy a walkabout I am in the process of checking out Marden Cowbag.
There are sone peculiar ramps up the escarpement onto Salisbury plain on the route the sarsens were said to have travelled.
I don't see dragging or stonerowing being able to get the Stonehenge stones up this hill without the help of Oxen.
PeteG

[Maju]

Ok. Thanks for the long explanation - and sorry to have doubted about your motivations. It's quite a lot to digest in a single read, so maybe I'll add more comments later on, as I understand all better.

I will most likely never in my life try that, so worry not about the risk, at least regarding me. I think everybody knows that lifting heavy weights and getting under them can be extremely dangerous. Even today with our modern cranes, steel chains and all that... there are deadly accidents now and then.

Still, I fail to undrstand the key issue (probably because I'm not too versed in physics or engineering). You say:

Quote

devised a safe working system of working the capstone near to balance to give me compound lifting. I now had a lift system that gave 100-1 against normal levering at 15-1, due to the cubic mass gain of the stone against its dimensions this now allowed me to lift 100+ tonnes.

I really don't understand how you change those proportions. I know though that famous sentence of... who was that Greek? Archimedes? Pithagoras? Well, whowever, the one who said: "give me a pivot point and I will move the Earth". So I do believe it can be done... but I fail to understand the logic. My fault probably.  

...

Regarding the use of oxen (and transport in general), I'd like to say the following:

1. About lubricating the path, as it's modernly done as (tolerated or not tolerated, unsure about the exact rules) "cheat" in Basque stone-hauling competitions, the key is to pur the lubricating agent after the oxen and before the stone, as the animals do naturally. Of course this allows only for a single group of animals working at one time and not for a "caravan" of stones. Anyhow, I just mention as a possibility. AFAIK, the animals don't seem to slip on the pebble road in any case.

2. A sufficiently organized/wealthy entity (such as the state, quasi-state or religious organization that created monuments like Stonehenge) could perfectly, I think, arrange, for successive groups of oxen to carry the stones by turns, so the real daily limit for transport can perfectly be of many miles. It's just a matter of organization (and of having enough cattle and drivers).

3. Another possibility could be the use of canals (or natural waterways where available). On first thought one could think that such elements if existent would be known (as the possible pebble roads and the like) but that's not necesarily the case. In a distant but related example, when reading on the Chalcolithic city of Zambujal (Torres Vedras, Portugal) some years ago there was no mention whatsoever about a canal, some years later I found this site on its more recent excavations and it mentions (among other stuff) the discovery of a "marine branch" that seems to have been essential for the settlement. What I mean is that we don't know everything: just what we have discovered and nothing more and this may apply to waterways, simple pebble roads or whatever.

[Anew]

Jimit, on 25 January 2008, 12:59, said:

I still haven't found any suggestion that oxen were used. If anyone can point me to sources where information to confirm/deny this theory, I would be grateful.
Jim.

It doesn't seem culturally impossible, given their apparent fondness for the great animal; as shown in depositions of cattle bones and/or teeth within Silbury Hill, the ditch at Stonehenge, and Irthlingborough I, (to name three places) .. One may interpret the carvings at Stonehenge to be representative/symbolic of an ox or aurochs -- particularly the larger of the recently discovered "new" ones, (stone 53), which, being faint, may have been made before (perhaps) cultural changes associated with the Bronze Age adapted this form to a (then) contemporaneous meaning .. This is (perhaps) reenforced by the carvings said to be at Er Lannic, "Two stones are carved with axes and a yoke," pictures of which i cannot find; (a yoke is more commonly associated with an ox than an ax ... unless said yoke is a misinterpreted bow)

This aside, stonerowing should be adaptable to a grade of 50% or more by loading the stones onto timber sledges the undersides of which were cut in a sawtooth (stair) pattern matched to the incline.  The pry surfaces would need to be similarly stepped, (and well secured, as with the stone) .. All that going well, with somewhat more effort they could proceed "one step at a time" .. (If this is the method they used for distance transport)

Pete G, on 25 January 2008, 16:59, said:

Jim,
If you fancy a walkabout I am in the process of checking out Marden Cowbag.
There are sone peculiar ramps up the escarpement onto Salisbury plain on the route the sarsens were said to have travelled.
I don't see dragging or stonerowing being able to get the Stonehenge stones up this hill without the help of Oxen.
PeteG

[henge]

quote from last post;

This aside, stonerowing should be adaptable to a grade of 50% or more by loading the stones onto timber sledges the undersides of which were cut in a sawtooth (stair) pattern matched to the incline. The pry surfaces would need to be similarly stepped, (and well secured, as with the stone) .. All that going well, with somewhat more effort they could proceed "one step at a time" .. (If this is the method they used for distance transport)

###

Is there any archaeological artifacts to support  the above - I doubt it, it looks a case of inventing a system for them to use. When an example is dug up please let me know, and please show me the full load test data - 50 tonne?

I have also tested roller sledges on gradients, and from the test data I can walk around a site and establish the approach route and stone transport system used.

[Maju]

Anew's concept looks like a great idea to me: it would allow the sledge not to fall backwards easily (specially if the rampart is made of earth). In any case, we can hardly have any archaeological evidence of whatever was done with perishable materials like wood, ropes or cloth. Very now and then there's a fascinating finding of that kind preserved in very special conditions but they are extremely rare in any case. For instance, there is one finding of a Neolithic Danish longboat but we have absolutely no direct evidence of ships in the Mediterranean in the same time (nor much later) - yet indirect evidence (colonization of the islands, remains of high seas fish) strongly suggest they had very good sailing abilities (and ships).

Anyhow, I have been thinking and, while the use of oxen looks quite reasonable in Europe (or Africa or Asia), we cannot forget that with similar technology (Chalcolithic) the Mesoamericans and Andean peoples built huge pyramids and cities. And these definitively had no heavy cattle to help them carry the loads. So guess pure human traction is equally possible (though a waste if oxen are available).  After all even cranes worked on human traction until quite recently - examples:



(By this I don't mean that megalith builders necesarily had cranes: surely concepts such as pulleys were not available to their culture, the same that the potter's wheel wasn't either - but anyhow, they worked on human traction, and, with whatever technological means, it was on pure manpower how the Olmecs, Toltecs, Mayans and Aztecs built their pyramids, as the only domestic animals they had were the turkey and the dog).

In any case, if I can see an animal in this image (in the visible scanned one):



... it is a goat (maybe meant to be a black billy, an ancient pre-IE deity or symbol of the divinity, as attested in Aquitanian slabs and Basque mythology. Having a black he-goat in your frontyard was said to give you luck - and even recently you could find them: not sure if they gave luck but they could scare any intruder for sure   ).

But the yoke can only be associated to oxen, that's for sure. Maybe it had symbolic meanings of unity and cooperation for success but the presence of that symbol (if real) means that they were familiar with real yokes, almost necesarily used with oxen pairs.

Anyhow, Henge: how do you "magically reduce the weight" of the stone? I still can't judge your theory because I still don't know the key factor.

[Anew]

It does rather look like a goat, doesn't it?


Interesting cultural information; which may apply, though i don't recall reading of any finds (specifically) of goat bone in the Isles .. Page twenty-seven of Understanding the Neolithic, (Julian Thomas), includes a figure showing a broad species-ratio of bones found in the 'faunal assemblage' context in southern England .. The early Neolithic shows a mixture of cattle and sheep bone finds, while the later Neolithic shows a mixture of pig and sheep bone .. The faunal assemblages are taken to be remains from feasts, and it is quite reasonable to assume that if they revered the goat, they might not have eaten it .. But goats also seem absent from the votive record, (where red-deer, ox and aurochs are not) .. It is not impossible, (only more complex), that the bones would have been ritually destroyed, or otherwise treated in a manner that downplays their importance .. It is also possible, (to my mind), that this was carved by someone from "out of town" .. ( If so and if it was carved first, the idea really took off )

However, there is a site-find developing roundabout Anatolia which may cast this general shape in a different light


I quite like the old illustration

[Maju]

When I read about neolithic animal remains, I normally read the term "ovicaprid", meaining they are unsure wether it's sheep (ovine) or goat (caprine). Equally they are usually unable to discern between wild boar and domestic pig remains. Maybe they are assuming it's sheep by default.

I think both domestic sheep and goat were introduced and extended about the same time, with the original Neolithic waves throughout Europe from SE to West, North and NW. Goats may never have been as common as sheep but they are both  ideal for mountainous terrain and also they make great clearers of land plots (saving a lot of job - they eat everything, you know, no matter it has thorns or whatever). Also, unlike sheep, wild goats were known in Western Europe since the paleolithic, when they made up a sizeable fraction of the hunt, at least in rugged areas like the Pyrenees and nearby regions (or the Alps for the case, though I'm less informed in that case).

A strange item in Franco-Cantabrian (or at least Cantabrian) Paleolithic paintings is that most animals are typically painted in ochre tones but when goat appears it's usually (always?) black. Maybe the link is too far fetched but to my mind it seems suggestive, as the myth linking the black billy to goddess Mari is there clearly, as there are the twisted but aboundant Inquisition records of "akelarres" (sabbats, "akelarre" meaning "field of the he-goat" in Basque) and the Aquitanian slab reading "Aherbels Deo" (Latin for "to the god Aherbelts", typically thought to be the very Basque Akerbeltz: the black he-goat). Of course, there's a point where all becomes "just speculative", you know.

On the other side, when you look at animal iconography in Iberian Neolithic (basically southern, eastern and south-central Iberia), it's all about bulls and deers. In fact there could have been some competition between both cults, as in some cases one is transformed into the other. No goats there.  

Not sure what you mean re. Anatolia. I'd say all European Neolithic (and maybe some of the Chalcolithic elements) are ultimately original from that area but the distance is big and any apparent direct connection between Western Europe and Anatolia/Middle East is questioned by huge temporal blanks of many centuries, maybe milennia. That is the case indeed with the tholoi, for instance, and it would surely be the case with the cup marks you mention in the other topic as well. Is there a missing link? Where?

[Anew]

Anew, on 26 January 2008, 12:44, said:

This aside, stonerowing should be adaptable to a grade of 50% or more by loading the stones onto timber sledges the undersides of which were cut in a sawtooth (stair) pattern matched to the incline.  The pry surfaces would need to be similarly stepped, (and well secured, as with the stone) .. All that going well, with somewhat more effort they could proceed "one step at a time" .. (If this is the method they used for distance transport)

To ammend this idea, i think the workable, (rather than theoretical), limit would be well below a 50% grade, (45 degree slope). . This because in addition to raising the stone to the level of the next 'step', the levers will need space on each side as they pivot to move the stone forward, (onto that step). . A slope of about 26.57 degrees gives a 2:1 ratio, which would have been much easier for those concerned. . One of 30 degrees yields about 1.73:1, and that, perhaps, is the useful limit of the method

[henge]

If I could answer the last few posts in a different way.

When my daughter was very young she got different phases of history mixed up, so I devised a simple way of sorting each period into a time scale.

It worked like this; Jesus. Henry VIII, Queen Victoria & Modern.

So a neolithic chamber was before Jesus, and a castle was after Jesus and before HenryVIII, and a steam train was Queen Victoria, and a Spitfire was Modern - simple enough for a child.

Now if we take technology we can separate it into small groups.

Pre history = neolithic - large uncut stones inaccurate construction.

Great civiliations = big cut block accurate construction.

Medieval - castles,churches.

Industrial revolution - iron/steam technology.

Modern technology - aircraft/computors, very accurate tolerances. Massive cranes

So if we have the foundations of a building suggesting a very large single roof span, it must be - Victorian industrial revolution as the earliest period, as it would require a metal framed roof. This could be confirmed by looking at the technology/skills used during this period.

Fact - all buildings will leave traceable construction evidence.

So for example if I want to look at medieval castle building I can use Roman technology but not include Industrial revolution technology - so no large castings or iron beams but I could use a forged lever and wooden pully blocks traceable to these in use on ships for that period and forged tools. Also the basic block lifting type of cranes shown by  - 'Maju'.

Now if we look at say Stonehenge its transitional big cut block construction, so its origin will be based on neolithic techology and skills. Now if we look at dolmans with capstone that can exceed 100 tonne which give a physics problem of how to extract and lift such large stones, and the only technology is a stone axe. Therefore all the traceable construction will be limited to what can be achieved with a stone axe. So with the techical problem of solving the physices of heavy lifting with a stone axe, this will only prove to be one system was used traceable to the archaeology - thats it, no mystery, or choice for the theories of the technology used.

All my work is therefore based on axe based technology - fully field tested with results that show the construction of dolmans, erecting standing stones and surveying out stonehenge - with all results verified to match the original construction/tolerances. This proves that its possible to build 'megaliths' using traceable technology - only axes, trust me it can be done.

Also with the surveying the system, will have to match the tolerances of the origional and not produce an exact replica. Again with stonehenge builders with have both surveying and construction errors, they would show a difference = the system building tolerance. For later periods greater accuracy would be expected , but the lift system for 100 tonne would be little changed until the 'modern' period with massive cranes.

So why every few years do clearly 'modern' technolgy based theories - untested in the field under load - produced using modern technology seam to convince so many people, keep popping up. These theories are 'Alien' to the technology available from the period - at best they are science fiction, so why not go the full 9 yards and join the alternatives, claiming that Stonehenge was built by Aliens??????

[Maju]

Henge: sorry but I'm still waiting for your detailed explanation on how to lift a 100 tons stone "with axe technology". It's not that I don't believe it, it's that I can't see nor judge your work with the spare pieces you gave us.

And, well, my house is 20th century built and all roofs are wooden.

But more importantly, you had Archimedes lifting, not a couple of barrels, but a whole warship with its crew inside in the "pre-Jesus" time (in your chrono-scheme for children). True that Archimedes was of the Iron Age (in a more realistic chronological frame) and quite a genius but, well, I really don't know for sure what the heck did Chalcolithic (not Neolithic mostly) megalith builders knew and could use. Maybe they had some sort of cranes? Or maybe they used huge ramparts and a special sledge as Anew suggest? Or maybe you can explain your ideas on how they did it... so we can understand, compare and judge them.

What is clear is that Chalcolithic cultures and civilizations were quite sophisticated, having extended trade networks (from the Baltic to North Africa for instance), large cities (like Zambujal or Los Millares or the one recently found near Stonehenge), elaborated building and astronomical knowledge and, in many cases, centralized political organization (states, kingdoms...). They may have not known elaborated metallurgy (bronze or steel) but they knew how to work softer metals (copper, gold, silver), stones (common or semi-precious), wood, clothes and ropes. The key issues for them having or not cranes is the knowledge or not of the principle of the wheel (as to use it for pulleys) and wether copper can do or not what bronze does in such simple machines  - or even if they could be built using only hard woods such as oak.

As for the wheel, we know for instance that Incas and other native American peoples (a good comparison because they also built large and elaborated structures and they were also in the Chalcolithic age for the most part at the European arrival) did not use chariots nor seem to have used pulleys, but they knew its principle and used it for toys, for instance. I am rather skeptic to this possibility of Chalcolithic peoples using cranes but it's not smething I can fully discard, really. I'm in any case quite sure they were able to build much more beautiful and elaborated woodworks than your very rustic sledges, using only axes and other stone and wooden tools.

For most dolmens (except the smallest ones, that don't seem to need any explanation whatsoever), I suspect the rampart is the answer. After all, they were usually covered by a mound (often disappeared now) that could well have been used as rampart in the construction process. The problem comes when we look at special buildings such as Stonehenge: in that case the rampart system doesn't seem to be a good explanation, so the issue of some sort of primitive crane arises.