Comments on: Recreating Stonehenge with sticks & stones

Recreating Stonehenge with sticks & stones

madamjujujive — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:34:36 -0800

- "I am a retired carpenter with 35 years experience in construction ... I have began to build a replica of Stonehenge with eight 10 ton blocks on end and 2 ton blocks on top. One man, no wheels, no rollers, no ropes, no hoist or power equipment, using only sticks and stones." (some slow loading clips on the pages)

By: dg

dg — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:52:05 -0800

Very very interesting. A few of the photos would not load, so I missed some of the explanation, but an excellent link, all the same.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:53:22 -0800

we are not fucking doing stonehenge !

By: sunexplodes

sunexplodes — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:01:30 -0800

retired carpenters... no one knows who they were.... or what, they were doing...

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:03:58 -0800

Does he realize that this will attract flakes in droves? And good luck finding authentic Welsh labor in Michigan.

By: rory

rory — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:06:57 -0800

Great link, mjj. Carpenters 1, Archeologists 0, Von Daniken -1,000.

By: quiet

quiet — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:48:00 -0800

Excellent link. Firefox wouldn't play the short videos (which look like broken images, dg), but IE works. This is for pages 1,9, 10. And yes, it is worth firing up IE to see the clips

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:00:48 -0800

I just love madamjjj. thanks for the link

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:08:59 -0800

Did I miss the part where he actually explained his "technique," or is he merely a modern version of this guy?

By: angry modem

angry modem — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:21:05 -0800

I don't think Mayor Curley even read the whole link's contents. (this is cool madam)

By: lodurr

lodurr — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:31:31 -0800

...Archeologists 0, Von Daniken -1,000. Hey, cut the archaeologists some slack. Reputable egyptologists have known for years that there was no real trickery (nor even much forced labor) in the pyramids. For me, the great part about stories like this is that they demonstrate that those "primitive" old ancients might possibly have figured stuff out without help from aliens -- or without using kites. His discussion of how he would build the pyramid at Giza is revealing. In recent years, Egyptologists have taken similar approaches -- even going so far as to consult project management experts. There's not evidence that they used his specific techniques (and I think his overall labor estimates might be a tad optimistic), but I think approaching the problem the way he does, honors the builders. I.e., he assumes they were smart enough to figure something like this out, and "civilized" enough to organize themselves to do it. Previously, we've assumed that they were too stupid to do it without alien help or modern technological ideas, and so despotic they'd have to use slave labor.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:45:55 -0800

Yeah sure Stonehenge right , now my gf has seen me looking at the page and she now thinks she's the Druid of furniture and I'm the one who'll build her the temple....thank you madamjujujive !

By: delapohl

delapohl — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:01:15 -0800

My new stone-moving technique is unstoppable.

By: rory

rory — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:15:14 -0800

Hey, cut the archaeologists some slack. Yeah, okay. (Hey, cut the one-line quippers some slack.) But I didn't mean that archaeologists have assumed trickery. I meant that the various theories we've all heard over the years about using log rollers and ropes and brute force to construct Stonehenge, the Easter Island statues, and so on, have been shown to be unnecessary by this man's methods. There's a lot to be said for practical experience.

By: beagle

beagle — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:27:08 -0800

His theory that the air shafts in the Great Pyramid were used as conduits for ropes used in the moving of the stones is a new insight, as far as I can tell. National Geographic specials have made a lot of hay out of the investigation of these passages without ever mentioning such an idea.

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:19:53 -0800

This is awesome

By: lobakgo

lobakgo — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:26:26 -0800

I absolutely love that there are people like this and that they'll go to the trouble of making a website to share what they've done, learned, etc. Thanks, madam!

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:26:28 -0800

Maybe troutfishing will give him a hand.

By: evening

evening — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:39:42 -0800

I saw this on TV (some science news of the week show), and it was really cool to watch. I, too, love this kind of stuff.

By: raygirvan

raygirvan — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:11:18 -0800

rushmc: Did I miss the part where he actually explained his "technique"? It wasn't terribly clear, but I guess he has to save something for the video. It's basically standing a block on two closely-spaced fulcra, then adding a counterweight so that there's zero reaction on one and the block easily spins and tilts on the other. By doing it alternately on each fulcrum, shifting the counterweight back and forth at each step, you 'walk' the block forward. I'm sure it must have been independently rediscovered many times, and I bet this was what Leedskalnin did. Raising the megalithic roof mentions British engineer Cliff Osenton using a similar two-fulcra rocking method to lift capstones for dolmen reconstructions. I thought Wallington's "round road" idea for handling the counterweight shift was especially neat; same principle as Stan Wagon's square-wheeled bicycle.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:03:09 -0800

Beagle: Bear in mind that proving one thing about the air shafts wouldn't disprove another thing. E.g., even if the air shafts were used as rope conduits, they could still have had tremendous symbolic significance. In fact, the use as rope conduits (...rope passing like a thread between teh lower and the upper...) could have reinforced symbolic significance. In the context of the time, I doubt that the practical functions of the shafts (assuming that's why they were put there) could have been teased apart from the symbolic function. Rationalists often take a theory like this, find corroboration, and then go forth and say "See? These ancients were really very rational, scientific people..." Forgetting, all the while, about such paradoxes as Mayan astronomy and calendar systems co-existing with one of the more bizarre ritual-torture complexes yet discovered. Or, for that matter, consider how many modern scientists have been devout christians.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:02:26 -0800

It wasn't terribly clear, but I guess he has to save something for the video. I was hoping to see his son’s barn moved with his techniques. For 20 bucks I’ll go read up on my physics instead.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:13:49 -0800

His theory that the air shafts in the Great Pyramid were used as conduits for ropes used in the moving of the stones is a new insight, as far as I can tell.Thought that was how they locked up the tombs after placing the Pharos in their burial rooms. Large stones the sizes of a wall were lowered down from above sealing the rooms up.

By: kablam

kablam — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:05:41 -0800

The Smithsonian came up with the ultimate simple technique for pyramid building at least 25 years ago. First, imagine a square (one side of your stone block), then put four pieces of wood on the sides, pinned together, the outsides rounded. Properly done, you've turned a square into a circle. Eight pieces of reuseable wood and pins, and it takes a tenth of the manpower and time to move your stone blocks to and from ships. The rest of the project uses dirt ramps--something the ancients were very good at building. When you finish by putting the capstone on the pyramid, it is almost completely covered with earth. Then you take away the earth and there your pyramid is. Unsurprisingly, very little remains around where the pyramids were built. But there are lots of ruins and artifacts around where the stone quarries existed--where you would have to have most of your labor. Whole cities have been found there--where most of the work was done. They pyramids themselves were just assembly.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:14:19 -0800

When you finish by putting the capstone on the pyramid, it is almost completely covered with earth. May explain where some of the dirt came from that buried them.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:22:37 -0800

Unsurprisingly, very little remains around where the pyramids were built. But there are lots of ruins and artifacts around where the stone quarries existed--where you would have to have most of your labor. Whole cities have been found there--where most of the work was done. They pyramids themselves were just assembly. That's funny. Most of the news in regards to Egyptology over the last few years seems to have centered on the workers city that is less than a kilometer away from the great pyramid with population estimates ranging from 20,000 to 35,000 seasonal workers. Zahi Hawass describes Giza as a fairly well developed area with an ongoing presence aside from the pyramids. Giza was not just where the Old Kingdom dynasties deposited their dead, but was quite possibly one of the most important religious sites along the Nile valley. Even centuries later, the site was important enough for Amenhotep II to build one of his greatest public works there.

By: raygirvan

raygirvan — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:12:58 -0800

First, imagine a square (one side of your stone block), then put four pieces of wood on the sides, pinned together, the outsides rounded. I've heard of this, in conection with a story ending with archaeologists saying "So that's what those curved things are". They're called "rockers" or "cradle runners", as described here.

By: adamrice

adamrice — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:38:02 -0800

Stonehenge 2 I was riding out in the Texas hill country, miles from nowhere, and came upon this. It was already a long, discouraging ride for me and my companion, over bad pavement with steep hills, and when I rounded a bend I looked up and exclaimed "Holy Shit, it's Stonehenge." For a moment, I wondered if I were hallucinating.

By: kablam

kablam — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:03:11 -0800

KirkJobSluder: Cities around great edifices might be there before, during or after they are built. How do you connect them to the construction? Unlike quarry towns, mining towns, or sea ports, which are obviously there for their related purpose. For a truly huge city, the one around Mexico's pyramids of the Sun and the Moon are like endless condos, many designed for two or three families. But were they the people who built the pyramids, or something akin to the Aztec middle classes? Tikal, in Guatemala (another great visit), is an entire city reserved for the upper classes. They guess that the biodegradable city supporting it and surrounding it may have had hundreds of thousands of people--though almost no trace remains of their homes. Anyway, the rock of the pyramids can be traced to a given quarry, and from the quarry to nearby navigable water that would take it down river. But once on site, what relics (except the aforementioned rockers) would survive, except maybe the dwellings of workers? Quarrymen and stone masons were a professional class, and carved monuments to themselves accordingly; but except the site engineer, what remains of somebody who pushes rock or digs earth?

By: kablam

kablam — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:08:09 -0800

adamrice: BTW, I wonder why somebody re-creating Stonehenge insists on using that "rough-hewn" rock look? Imagine what a Stonehenge would look like made out of smooth, polished stone, maybe even with a silicone-glass glazing to protect the rock? Dang. Imagine a crystal-glass Stonehenge! Now that would be cool.

By: Tacodog

Tacodog — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:56:45 -0800

This is why I keep coming back to mefi. Thanks MJJ!

By: LowDog

LowDog — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:14:40 -0800

Everything old is new again...