|
|
Stonehenge Reloaded
Mark gets a supermassive no-prize for bringing us one man's quest to discover the techniques used to construct Stonehenge. The only problem I had with his techniques had to do with moving the blocks around. It appears he needs a concrete slab as a bearing surface to turn and move big things easily. However, the start of the tape showed a different "rolling" technique which utilized a sort of "wobble ramp." That wouldn't require a slab at all.
Now, what archaeologists should be doing is closely examining this guy's techniques, and try to determine if they leave any sort of characteristic marks in the ground. They could then go out and look for said marks at the site, and if they find them, well, Bob's your uncle!
...any characteristic marks that haven't eroded in the last 4000 years of English rain that is.
Posted by: Mark on September 12, 2007 12:02 PMWell, that's the thing... marks in the ground are surprisingly long-lived, and the deeper they are the more resilient they become. This guy looks to have made some serious pits in places. As long as *some* part of the track hasn't been plowed over, there should be something detectable.
Posted by: scott on September 12, 2007 12:11 PMSoil compaction is what gives it away, no?
Posted by: Ron on September 12, 2007 12:16 PMCompaction can be part of it, but the big thing is simple discoloration. That's why archeology pits are so damned smooth and neat... you need that to really spot color changes in the soil. Mapping these discoloration will usually give you a rough idea of what, if any, structure once occupied that spot of land.
Posted by: scott on September 12, 2007 12:44 PMCompaction can be part of it, but the big thing is simple discoloration. That's why archeology pits are so damned smooth and neat... you need that to really spot color changes in the soil. Mapping these discoloration will usually give you a rough idea of what, if any, structure once occupied that spot of land.
Posted by: scott on September 12, 2007 12:46 PMBut "soil discoloration" generally happens when something--say a wooden building support--rots in the ground (4500 years of English rain would certainly do that) permanently discoloring the soil as the wood breaks down.
But marks in the ground left by other stones as they're rolled over? I guess it might be possible, but it would certainly be a lot less obvious.
Posted by: Mark on September 12, 2007 01:38 PMWell, not really. Simply digging a hole and then filling it back in will leave an obvious (well, to an archaeologist anyway) discoloration pattern. That's how, for example, we know the monks dug *something* up at Glastonbury, even if it may not have been King Arthur's grave. The evidence is there, if you know how and where to look.
Plus, if they used things like ramps, those would've required posts for support, leaving the ubiquitous post-holes which pockmark just about every archaeological site in the whole world.
I'm not saying they'll find anything. Just that this guy's efforts should be making predictions as to what might be out there in the ground if they really were using his techniques. It's just a matter of going out and looking for it.
Posted by: scott on September 12, 2007 03:05 PMToo bad the real Stonehenge archaeologists keep getting run off by the mobs of new-agers shouting, "We don't want to learn, WE WANT TO BELIEVE!"
Posted by: Tatterdemalian on September 13, 2007 08:31 AM