New Theory of Megalithic Construction Techniques
hgauldin@feedme
A New Theory of Construction for Stonehenge and other Megalithic Structures
proposed by H.E.Gauldin (6/1/98)
This is a theory on the construction of the great stone circle at Stonehenge Eng
land. However, it has far reaching implications about the construction of megalit
hic structures worldwide, perhaps even the construction of the great pyramid comp
lex at Giza in Egypt.
While theories on the construction of megalithic structures abound , most of the
m raise more questions than they answer. How were the stones moved, often great d
istances, without the use of the wheel ? Assuming that the stones were dragged fr
om one site to another, where is the archeological evidence for the path of trans
port from the quarry site of the stones to the construction site and why do the s
tones not exhibit drag related markings ? How many people were involved in the co
nstruction process ? What forgotten technology was employed to lift the massive s
tones into upright positions ? How were the cross members hauled to the top of th
e uprights and positioned without being damaged ?
This theory addresses these questions and provides a simple yet elegant explanat
ion for the way in which these seemingly super human feats were accomplished. It
will show that a relatively small number of workers, comparable to the team resp
onsible for the construction of a modern office building , could have easily comp
leted the project at Stonehenge in just a few seasons without the need for any mo
dern or "lost" technology. In fact many of the methods which may have been involv
ed in moving the stones are still employed in various parts of the world today. T
he first aspect of this theory will undoubtedly be the most controversial, howeve
r if it is accepted (at least for the sake of argument) the rest of the theory wi
ll fall into place and many of the fundamental obstacles to megalithic constructi
on will begin to "melt" before your eyes.
Most theories about megalithic construction seem to approach the problem from th
e viewpoint that the work was carried out in much the same way and time of year a
s modern construction. That is to say, during the months of spring, summer, and f
all when the weather conditions would be "ideal" for outdoor work. This erroneous
assumption may be responsible for the present day confusion associated with thi
s type of construction. This assumption also eliminates from consideration one of
the most versatile (and possibly requisite) materials that may have been involve
d in the construction process.
Until the advent of modern machines, and currently in areas of the world where t
he expense and availability of modern equipment prohibits its use, any person inv
olved in a logging operation would be happy to demonstrate that the proper season
for transporting large massive objects is in the dead of winter. This is the sea
son when the ground is frozen solid and is literally covered with the mysteriousl
y overlooked element involved in ancient construction techniques. ICE. With the g
round covered in snow, even a single horse can easily move a tree weighing severa
l tons across miles of terrain that would be impassable at any other time of year
. Few can argue that a modern automobile (3 tons of steel and other materials), w
hen parked on an ice sheet , can almost effortlessly be maneuvered by a small gro
up of teenage boys into positions that will thoroughly amaze the driver upon his
or her return. By shifting the season of construction to the winter a whole new (
or is it ancient ? ) realm of techniques comes into play.
While many aspects of the process would still be carried out in the spring and s
ummer months, the transport phase would begin in earnest as soon as sub-freezing
temperatures arrived and the accumulation of the winter snowbase began. The trans
port path could easily be prepared by a small group of workers, using nothing mor
e technologically advanced than their hands and feet, by packing the snow and fil
ling in any holes or bare spots. By pouring water over the surface of the snow an
d allowing it to freeze, a smooth, concrete hard surface with an extremely low dr
ag coefficient can be produced in one or two days. This winter roadway would be v
irtually indestructible, self repairing (just melt it and let it refreeze) , and
the raw materials would literally fall from the sky. Best of all it would require
no special preparations other than an open , tree and large obstacle free path f
rom the quarry to the intended destination. After the spring thaw, there would be
no remaining trace of the roadway. No telltale drag marks would indicate the pat
h taken from quarry to construction site. Only the occasional stone which was en
route at the time of the thaw would have to be abandoned in place (there are many
examples of this worldwide). In many cases, local ground conditions would make r
ecovery of the stone impractical even after the return of the snow the following
season. This technique would eliminate the vast armies of manpower and the forest
s of trees that would be needed as rollers in other proposed methods. Once again
small teams of workers (or animals) could transport even massive stones over sev
eral miles of uneven terrain with minimal effort. Even allowing for two or three
days transport time from quarry to construction site, all of the stones needed to
complete Stonehenge could be moved in a single season. However, as will be seen
later , dividing the transport into two separate phases would have been more prac
tical.
This theory not only uses ice as a major material in the construction of a roadw
ay from quarry to destination, it also relies on ice as a necessary element in th
e erection and final assembly of the upright and cross members at Stonehenge. In
the spring and summer months, the crew would be busied building a retaining wall
that surrounded the entire site. Much of the material for this wall would be obt
ained by digging a ditch just inside the perimeter of the outer wall. A raised pl
atform would be left in the center of the site just inside the intended inside di
ameter of the circle of stones. The outer wall would be raised to the intended fi
nished height of the upright stones. On the raised platform in the center , a cir
cle of reinforced wooden post-and-beam scaffolding would be erected. The height o
f the scaffolding would also be approximately the height of the finished upright
stones (or approximately half the height in an alternate method). The entire stru
cture would then be flooded and kept at the level of the top of the scaffolding
until the onset of sub-freezing temperatures. Since much of the mass of water con
tained in the temporary enclosure would be above ground level, the entire mass wo
uld freeze into a solid block of ice from top to bottom in only a few weeks. An a
lternative to flooding the structure with water would be to fill it with packed s
now after the onset of snow season (this method would help to eliminate unnecessa
ry deterioration of the wood and rope structures from prolonged submersion in wat
er). The only preparation left would be to pack snow on the ramp leading to the t
op of the retaining wall. As the stones arrive from their cross-country journey,
they are simply slid up the ramp out onto the ice and positioned with one end ove
r the scaffolding and the other resting over what will soon be open water. Ropes
protruding through the ice would affix the end of the stone to the top of the woo
den beams just inches under the surface. With these preparations made, the worker
s now simply wait for spring. As the ice melts, the stones are gently lowered int
o their final upright position. The end lashed to the wooden beam serves as a piv
ot as the other end is lowered several inches a day by the melting ice. In a natu
ral pond, the ice would tend to melt from the bottom up and the stone would event
ually crash through the remaining surface ice under its own weight. But, with a s
ubstantial portion of its mass above ground , the ice would tend to melt more uni
formly lowering the stone consistently and predictably until it rested upright on
the bottom of the temporary pond. Fires could also be built on the ice between t
he stones to help insure even top-down melting.
The aforementioned alternate method would have each stone placed on the surface
of the ice with its center of gravity resting over the wooden beams just beneath
the surface. As the ice melted the stone would be left suspended by the wooden st
ructure and would then be tipped and lowered into position with the aide of ropes
. The first method however, would not only be easier to set up, it would also be
much safer and exert less strain on the wooden materials involved.
With the uprights in position, the next spring and summer would be spent trimmin
g the tops of the uprights to level and removing the wooden scaffolding . The pin
s to hold the cross members in position would also be carved at this time. With t
he coming of winter, the enclosure would once again be flooded and allowed to fre
eze solid. As was mentioned earlier, the transport of the cross members would nec
essarily have been delayed until the second season so that a continuous transport
from quarry to the top of the on-site ice pond could be achieved. The cross memb
er stones, with their sockets hollowed out, would be left in position just above
the pins on the uprights to await the spring thaw. With the advent of warm weathe
r, the cross members would be gently lowered the remaining few inches into their
final resting places.
The following warm months would be spent filling in the ditch and removing the o
uter retaining wall. This would incidentally nicely preserve a record of at least
two distinct silt layers (depending on the number of times the enclosure was flo
oded). The end result would be a ring of upright stones that extend below ground
level, with cross members in place awaiting whatever purpose the structure was de
signed for.
This is admittedly an oversimplified version of a complex and intricate building
process and does not attempt to account for the time involved in quarrying the s
tones, harvesting the timbers, or completing the retaining wall and ditch structu
res. Also there is no intention to belittle the advanced astronomical and mathema
tical knowledge required to design such structures. However it does illustrate a
method of transport and assembly that requires no exotic materials or methods. It
would explain why there are no obvious trails between quarry and the constructio
n site. It explains why there are no drag marks on the stones. It explains why kn
owledge of the wheel is unnecessary. It explains why large numbers of workers and
their peripheral support mechanisms are not required. The method outlined in thi
s theory could also be modified in several ways to accomodate variations on the c
onstruction method. In cases where there are only upright stones, lower retaining
walls could
enclose shallow ice ponds with the stones being positioned over pits dug into th
e ground (also filled by the ice). Once again as the ice melted, the stones would
be lowered into position without any fruther effort on the part of the workers.
This theory may also incidentally explain many other mysteries involving megalit
hic structures. Lines of stones that dot the English landscape (as well as many o
ther areas of the world) may be trains of stones that were caught in mid-transpor
t to a site by unexpected or unseasonably warm weather (some of them later stood
upright in an attempt to salv
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungry for NEWSGROUPS??? USE feedME.ORG
Read and Post to 30,000 groups through feedME.ORG
FREE FREE FREE http://www.feedME.ORG FREE FREE FREE
------------------------------------------------------------------