New Theory of Megalithic Construction (part1)
hgauldin@feedme
New Theory of Megalithic Construction Techniques
(part 1)
proposed by H.E.Gauldin (6/1/98)
This is a theory on the construction of the great stone
circle at Stonehenge in England. However, it has far reaching
implications about the construction of megalithic structures
worldwide, perhaps even the construction of the great
pyramid complex at Giza in Egypt.
While theories on the construction of megalithic structures
abound , most ofthem raise more questions than they answer.
How were the stones moved, often great distances, without the
use of the wheel? Assuming that the stones were dragged from
one site to another, where is the archeological evidence for the
path of transport from the quarry site of the stones to the
construction site and why do the stones not exhibit drag related
markings? How many people were involved in the construction
process? What forgotten technology was employed to lift the
massive stones into upright positions? How were the cross
members hauled to the top of the uprights and positioned without
being damaged?
This theory addresses these questions and provides a simple yet
elegant explanation 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 responsible for
the construction of a modern office building , could have easily
completed the project at Stonehenge in just a few seasons without
the need for any modern or "lost" technology. In fact many of the
methods which may have been involved in moving the stones are
still employed in various parts of the world today. The first aspect
of this theory will undoubtedly be the most controversial, however
if it is accepted (at least for the sake of argument) the rest of the
theory will fall into place and many of the fundamental obstacles to
megalithic construction will begin to "melt" before your eyes.
Most theories about megalithic construction seem to approach
the problem from the viewpoint that the work was carried out
in much the same way and time of year as modern construction.
That is to say, during the months of spring, summer, and fall
when the weather conditions are "ideal" for outdoor work. This
erroneous assumption may be responsible for the present day
confusion associated with this type of construction. This assumption
also eliminates from consideration one ofthe most versatile (and
possibly requisite) materials that may have been involved in the
construction process.
Until the advent of modern machines, and currently in areas of
the world where the expense and availability of modern equipment
prohibits its use, any person involved 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 season
when the ground is frozen solid and is literally covered with the
mysteriously overlooked element involved in ancient construction
techniques. ICE. With the ground covered in snow, even a single horse
can easily move a tree weighing several 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), when parked
on an ice sheet, can almost effortlessly be maneuvered by a small
group 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 summer months, the transport phase would begin in
earnest as soon as sub-freezing temperatures arrived and the
accumulation of the winter snowbase began. The transport path could
easily be prepared by a small group of workers, using nothing more
technologically advanced than their hands and feet, by packing the snow
and filling in any holes or bare spots. By pouring water over the surface
of the snow and allowing it to freeze, a smooth, concrete hard surface
with an extremely low drag coefficient can be produced in one or two
days. This winter roadway would be virtually 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 from 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 path
taken from quarry to construction site. Only the occasional stone which
was enroute 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 recovery 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 forests 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
several 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 practical.
This theory not only uses ice as a major material in the construction
of a roadway from quarry to destination, it also relies on ice as a
necessary element in the erection and final positioning 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 obtained by
digging a ditch just inside the perimeter of the outer wall. A raised
platform would be left in the center of the site just inside the intended
inside diameter of the circle of stones. The outer wall would be raised to
the intended finished height of the upright stones. On the raised platform
in the center, a circle of reinforced wooden post-and-beam scaffolding
would be erected. The height of the scaffolding would also be approximately
the height of the finished upright stones (or approximately half the height
in an alternate method). The entire structure 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 contained in the temporary
enclosure would be above ground level, the entire mass would freeze into
a solid block of ice from top to bottom in only a few weeks. An alternative
to flooding the structure with water would be to fill it with packed snow
after the onset of snow season (this method would help to eliminate
unnecessary deterioration of the wood and rope structures from prolonged
submersion in water). The only preparation left would be to pack snow on the
ramp leading to the top 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 over 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 wooden beams just inches under the surface. With these
preparations made, the workers now simply wait for spring. As the ice
melts, the stones are gently lowered into their final upright position.
The end lashed to the wooden beam serves as a pivot as the other end is
lowered several inches a day by the melting ice. In a natural pond, the ice
would tend to melt from the bottom up and the stone would eventually
crash through the remaining surface ice under its own weight. But, with
a substantial portion of its mass above ground , the ice would tend to melt
more uniformly lowering the stone consistently and predictably until it
rested upright onthe bottom of the temporary pond. Fires could also be built
on the ice between the 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 structure 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. (I will also mention here that the outer
retaining wall need only be raised to the level the center platform at this
time. With one end of the stones over the center platform and the other
extending out over the ditch, the melting ice would lower the stones into
position without the need for any wooden support structure at all.)
With the uprights in position, the next spring and summer would be
spent trimming the tops of the uprights to level and removing the wooden
scaffolding .The pins to hold the cross members in position would also be
carved at this time. With the coming of winter, the enclosure would once
again be flooded and allowed to freeze solid. As was mentioned earlier, the
transport of the cross members would necessarily 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 member 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 weather, 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 outer 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 flooded). 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 designed 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 stones, harvesting the timbers, or completing the retaining
wall and ditch structures. Also there is no intention to belittle the advanced
astronomical and mathematical knowledge required to design such structures.
However it does illustrate a method of transport and assembly that requires
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------
joshua geller
hgauldin@feedME writes:
> New Theory of Megalithic Construction Techniques
> (part 1)
> proposed by H.E.Gauldin (6/1/98)
> [ice engineering theory snipped]
you may or may not be right here. I don't think you are right.
but you are thinking originally, which is very good. keep it up.
best,
josh
Julian Barker
hgauldin@feedME.? wrote
>New Theory of Megalithic Construction Techniques
>(part 1)
>
<Snip>
>
>Until the advent of modern machines, and currently in areas of
>the world where the expense and availability of modern equipment
>prohibits its use, any person involved 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 season
>when the ground is frozen solid and is literally covered with the
>mysteriously overlooked element involved in ancient construction
>techniques. ICE. With the ground covered in snow, even a single horse
>can easily move a tree weighing several 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), when parked
>on an ice sheet, can almost effortlessly be maneuvered by a small
>group 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.
Only one problem, the climate of Southern England will not, and would
not, facilitate the use of ice and snow as a means of transport used in
the construction of Stonehenge.
Living less than an hour's drive from Stonehenge I can confirm that the
ground is rarely frozen solid in Winter for more than a week or so. In
fact, most of the winter the very chalky soil mixes with the rain to
produce an evil cloying mud that makes even walking along established
paths difficult. If anything, the stone would be easier to move by
wetting the soil and sliding the stones but that would be very hard work
as the stone would tend to stick in the mud.
In a normal winter snow often falls on three or four days a year in
Southern England. Even then it is not likely to lay on the ground for
more than a day before thawing and will normally fail to exceed an inch
in depth.
The climate is so mild that the Governemnt makes special social security
payments to poor pensioners etc when the temperature fails to rise above
freezing for seven consecutive days. Sometimes many years go by without
such payments being made in the South of England.
I would expect that in this region there would be sufficient ice to
support several tons of rock about once, for a max of two weeks, once
per decade.
Everything I have read suggests that the climate in the Late Stone Age -
Bronze age was no colder than today and might have been significantly
warmer.
--
Julian Barker
There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Fred Hoyle
joshua geller
Julian Barker <jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk> writes:
> hgauldin@feedME.? wrote
> >New Theory of Megalithic Construction Techniques
> >(part 1)
> <Snip>
> >Until the advent of modern machines, and currently in areas of
> >the world where the expense and availability of modern equipment
> >prohibits its use, any person involved 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 season
> >when the ground is frozen solid and is literally covered with the
> >mysteriously overlooked element involved in ancient construction
> >techniques. ICE. With the ground covered in snow, even a single horse
> >can easily move a tree weighing several 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), when parked
> >on an ice sheet, can almost effortlessly be maneuvered by a small
> >group 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.
> Only one problem, the climate of Southern England will not, and would
> not, facilitate the use of ice and snow as a means of transport used in
> the construction of Stonehenge.
He's saying it was colder, Julian.
my best,
josh
joshua geller
> >Until the advent of modern machines, and currently in areas of
> >the world where the expense and availability of modern equipment
> >prohibits its use, any person involved 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 season
> >when the ground is frozen solid and is literally covered with the
> >mysteriously overlooked element involved in ancient construction
> >techniques. ICE. With the ground covered in snow, even a single horse
> >can easily move a tree weighing several 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), when parked
> >on an ice sheet, can almost effortlessly be maneuvered by a small
> >group 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.
> Only one problem, the climate of Southern England will not, and would
> not, facilitate the use of ice and snow as a means of transport used in
> the construction of Stonehenge.
> Living less than an hour's drive from Stonehenge I can confirm that the
> ground is rarely frozen solid in Winter for more than a week or so. In
> fact, most of the winter the very chalky soil mixes with the rain to
> produce an evil cloying mud that makes even walking along established
> paths difficult. If anything, the stone would be easier to move by
> wetting the soil and sliding the stones but that would be very hard work
> as the stone would tend to stick in the mud.
If the temperature is low enough, you can make a nice icy surface
without too much work. You'd prepare the ground in the dry season, I
think. I bet it could be done. I'd smoothe the ground and the path
would be pretty well drained. then when it was cold I'd pour water on
it at sunset and push rock through the night. This wouldn't leave the
same kind of scars on the ground a real road would.
This is a charming idea. The more I think of it, the more I like it.
best,
josh
joshua geller
hgauldin@feedME writes:
> > Julian Barker <jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > hgauldin@feedME.? wrote
> > He's saying it was colder, Julian.
> In my opinion we need to stop underestimating the intellectual
> development of our ancestors and stop assigning primitive
> supersticious reasons for every bump and abandoned stone in the
> countryside. I am only examining the artifacts that we are left
> with and trying to understand how they were created.
I agree with this part. I still disagree with your conclusion.
How would you falsify this theory? I can't think of a way to, offhand.
best,
josh
Julian Barker
joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote
>He's saying it was colder, Julian.
On what evidence?
As I said in my posting, the evidence is that if anything the climate
was warmer.
Britain has a maritime climate and which means that it's variation in
temperature is limited by the temperature of the water around it. For
the climate of Southern UK to change to the extent were several feet of
ice could be predicted with accuracy every winter would require a
significant change in the water temperature round the UK and would
result in the North of England and Scotland having permafrost. As there
was also a period of monument building accompanied by extensive
agriculture in Cumbria, Scotland and Ireland amongst other places at the
same time I think this is unlikely. I believe the evidence points more
towards an affluent settled population taking advantage of a mild
climate to develop a prosperous agricultural community that was able to
spare the manpower to build Stonehenge.
Kathleen Gresham
On 4 Jun 1998, joshua geller wrote:
> Julian Barker <jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > Living less than an hour's drive from Stonehenge I can confirm that the
> > ground is rarely frozen solid in Winter for more than a week or so. In
> > fact, most of the winter the very chalky soil mixes with the rain to
> If the temperature is low enough, you can make a nice icy surface
> without too much work. You'd prepare the ground in the dry season, I
> think. I bet it could be done. I'd smoothe the ground and the path
> would be pretty well drained. then when it was cold I'd pour water on
> it at sunset and push rock through the night. This wouldn't leave the
> same kind of scars on the ground a real road would.
>
> This is a charming idea. The more I think of it, the more I like it.
I read years ago that the climate in Southern England at the time
Stonehenge was built was subtropical. Is that no longer considered to be
true?
H.K. Gresham
joshua geller
> >He's saying it was colder, Julian.
> On what evidence?
> As I said in my posting, the evidence is that if anything the climate
> was warmer.
Right. But as long as nights get significantly below freezing in the
winter you could work a variant on his little trick.
I am still not convinced; I await his response to my asking him for a
way to falsify his theory.
my best,
josh
joshua geller
I didn't say I thought it was a true, or what actually happened; I
said I thought it was a really cool and elegant idea. It should have
been true, even if it wasn't. I don't think it is what actually
happened.
my best,
josh
jthund...@my-dejanews.com
In article <3576d...@lightning.ica.net>,
hgauldin@feedME wrote:
>
> New Theory of Megalithic Construction Techniques
> (part 1)
>
> proposed by H.E.Gauldin (6/1/98)
You get the contract.
This is a truly elegant and ingenious concept.
In terms of abstract engineering, it is more economical than
any other technique I have heard proposed for moving large rocks,
within the framework of ancient technology.
Setting aside for a moment the issue of its factuality,
whether things were actually done this way in any particular
ancient construction, I agree with josh this is the way
it should have been done.
Really sound problem solving technique.
It is awkward that the temperature considerations make it a moot
question whether the best known megalithic constructions could
have been built in the way you describe. In Western Europe you
face a marginal possibility at the period generally construed
as the age of megalithic construction. josh was again perceptive
enough to note you can haul rocks at night in even a mild winter,
so as far as moving stones your plan is a contender. Yet as Julian
points out on your construction scheme, to create the ice platform
you envisage needs some really cold weather. You moderate this
chill a little by saying the flooded area was above the general
ground level, so a less severe freeze is required. Could be, and
there is the simple possibility that once the project was undertaken,
the builders could just wait around for a winter severe enough to
enable this sort of construction.
I don't think this would work for megalithic constructions on the Iberian
Peninsula nor in the Mediterranean basin. Just not icy enough. I was afraid
you would extend this to the Egyptian pyramids, and you couldn't avoid this
temptation. I shudder to think of the responses you may get on that thread.
Just try to keep from building your ice castles in Mesoamerica.
You are tempted to shift your preferred construction da>
<input type=
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Julian Barker
jthund...@my-dejanews.com wrote
>Yet as Julian
>points out on your construction scheme, to create the ice platform
>you envisage needs some really cold weather.
My other big concern is how you would stop one of these blocks once you
got it moving. With rollers and sledges it is not that difficult to
control a moving object. It will dissipate it's energy fairly quickly.
However, 3 tons of rock moving on ice will need a lot of people on the
end of ropes just to make sure that it keeps on the straight and narrow.
The original theory suggested that many fewer injuries would result from
the ice method because it will be easier to move the blocks. But how do
you stop them moving? Any worker who slipped on the ice would be dead
meat!
joshua geller
> >Yet as Julian
> >points out on your construction scheme, to create the ice platform
> >you envisage needs some really cold weather.
> My other big concern is how you would stop one of these blocks once you
> got it moving. With rollers and sledges it is not that difficult to
> control a moving object. It will dissipate it's energy fairly quickly.
> However, 3 tons of rock moving on ice will need a lot of people on the
> end of ropes just to make sure that it keeps on the straight and narrow.
> The original theory suggested that many fewer injuries would result from
> the ice method because it will be easier to move the blocks. But how do
> you stop them moving? Any worker who slipped on the ice would be dead
> meat!
You lose a few workers on every big project. Or more accurately, it's
exceptional when you don't.
Construction work is dangerous work.
my best,
josh
joshua geller
> >You lose a few workers on every big project. Or more accurately, it's
> >exceptional when you don't.
> >Construction work is dangerous work.
> With three ton blocks of stone sliding around on ice it is bloody
> dangerous work.
> Another issue, is how do you stop the blocks sliding off the prepared
> track? Water left to freeze will not be flat if there is any wind at
> all. You would need a lot of men on ropes just to stop the block sliding
> down the very slight incline to the leeward side of the track. The
> incline might be slight but it would be enough to generate a fair amount
> of work just to control.
I'd have two teams on ropes off the after sides of the block, and I'd
train my gangs to respond to commands. The foremen would all have to
be some pretty smart guys, and the ordinary workers would have to be
competent and quick.
These are not major objections you are coming up with.
Let me repeat *once again* that I don't know if this scenario is true;
I just think it is possible, and I know it is elegant.
my best,
josh
Julian Barker
joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote
>
>You lose a few workers on every big project. Or more accurately, it's
>exceptional when you don't.
>
>Construction work is dangerous work.
>
With three ton blocks of stone sliding around on ice it is bloody
dangerous work.
Another issue, is how do you stop the blocks sliding off the prepared
track? Water left to freeze will not be flat if there is any wind at
all. You would need a lot of men on ropes just to stop the block sliding
down the very slight incline to the leeward side of the track. The
incline might be slight but it would be enough to generate a fair amount
of work just to control.
hgau...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6lej95$j38$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jthund...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <3576d...@lightning.ica.net>,
> hgauldin@feedME wrote:
> >
> > (part 1)
> >
> > proposed by H.E.Gauldin (6/1/98)
>
> This is a truly elegant and ingenious concept.
> In terms of abstract engineering, it is more economical than
> any other technique I have heard proposed for moving large rocks,
> within the framework of ancient technology.
> Setting aside for a moment the issue of its factuality,
> whether things were actually done this way in any particular
> ancient construction, I agree with josh this is the way
> it should have been done.
> Really sound problem solving technique.
Thanks J for the feedback. I am happy for the input on this subject.
As I have stated in previous posts, I am not pushing for a redating
of any of the structures I have used to outline my theory of
ice-based construction techniques. I am simply offering a method of
construction that would require no "lost" technology of any kind.
As for the climate conditions at the proposed time of construction,
one good massive volcanic event would be all that is required to
block out enough sunlight to lower global temperatures into the
required range. The eruption of Krakatoa in the 1800's is a good
example of this phenomenon. For several seasons following this
eruption, temperatures around the world (including England, Meso-
America, and the Mediterranean basin) dropped to the point where this
event was labelled "a miniature ice age". Since global climate
fluctuations of this type are thought to be common occurences, I feel
no real compulsion to revise the dates of construction back to the
last ice age. Perhaps we need only look for a suitably catastrophic
volcanic event that occured during the proper time frame. The
eruption (and obliteration) of the island of Santorini in the
Mediterranean might be a suitable candidate.
I could go on (as you all know by now) but Im trying to keep this
post short because Im testing Deja News for the first time.
Thanks for all the input
H.E.Gauldin
email: hgau...@mail.mcg.edu
M.C.Harrison
Julian Barker wrote:
>
> With three ton blocks of stone sliding around on ice it is bloody
> dangerous work.
> Another issue, is how do you stop the blocks sliding off the prepared
> track? Water left to freeze will not be flat if there is any wind at
> all. You would need a lot of men on ropes just to stop the block sliding
> down the very slight incline to the leeward side of the track. The
> incline might be slight but it would be enough to generate a fair amount
> of work just to control.
The countryside around Stonehenge is pretty flat, aka Salisbury Plain.
Also, the rivers (notably the Thames) are known to freeze in winter
(depending on pollution and latent temperature, and it has to be a cold
winter).
As such, there wouldn't be any great danger from the large blocks
getting out of control. If you have half a dozen sturdy men with ropes,
three on each side of the Thames, you could drag a very large block many
miles a day, I'd say.
Getting off the Thames would require extra workers, I daresay, but only
at that point and they could do for all the blocks you want to move.
Having studied Stonehenge (nowadays you can't because of the anti-hippy
security measures) the blocks are not all that huge, really.
Even if they didn't use ice, it would be reasonable for them to use
barges or the like, that way most of the work is done by the river.