[Sca-cooks] Circles (was Period gifts in jars + question)

[Martin G. Diehl]

Chris Stanifer wrote:

Thanks for your response.  Just a few selected comments 
now ... if I don't make all of my comments, maybe some 
more tomorrow.  

> --- "Martin G. Diehl" <mdiehl at nac.net> wrote:
> > Some other points to consider at the estimated time 
> > of constructing those sites ...

[snip]

>  > (2) Lifting tools ...
> >
> > The actual tools are unknown; e.g. use of "Block and 
> > Tackle", is very unlikely at that time.
> 
> Give me a lever long enough, and I will move the world ...

OK ... but did *they* have the lever *then*?  

> Your 'trench and hole' theory sounds good, and would 
> require much fewer workers than, say, lifting the stone 
> into an erect position with a lever and push-poles.  

Building the ditch around a site did not necessarily yield 
the stones for the ring.  

> Still, it wouldn't take that many workers very long to 
> get these bad boys into position.  

... after quarrying and moving ... perhaps as much as 
6 miles.  The stones at the Ring of Brogdar seem to have 
come from all over that island.  

> Weren't there only something on the order of 14 large 
> stones at Stennes?

NO ... 12 but only 11 were set in place.  See Colin 
Richards' web page, 
"Rethinking the great stone circles of Northwest Britain" 
http://www.orkneydigs.org.uk/dhl/papers/cr/

> > (3) Transportation ...
> >
> > In the worst case scenario, they would have had to 
> > drag the stones from where they occurred naturally 

[snip]

> Horses???  

No.  Before the invention and introduction of the horse 
collar in 600 to 800 AD, the maximum load a horse could 
pull was about 500 lbs.  

See: Geis & Geis; "Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel"

> Ropes and really strong guys??

Yep.  

> > (4) Food gathering ...
> >
> > While working, I think some time might have been 
> > related to food gathering -- even without that being 
> > a primary activity.
> 
> This was probably done by the rest of the 
> clan/tribe/whathaveyou while the work was being done.

Yes, it is still a reallocation of labor from food 
gathering to monument building.  

> > (5) Work time ...
> >
> > 12 hours per day seems a bit long -- using stone tools 
> > to break bedrock during dawn, twilight, fog, or rain 
> > would produce far more broken fingers than broken rocks.
> 
> I think that if we were to take a little trip back to 
> Neolithic times, we'd find these folks toiling away well 
> into the evening, 

Without efficient lighting ... how?  Was that possible in 
the Middle ages?  

[snip]

> 12 hours sounds like a long time by today's standards, 
> when the average workday is 6 to 8 hours long 

I don't know about your averages ... for most of my last 
11 years as an employee at the public accounting firm 
Deloitte & Touche, I worked 3000 hours a year.  A very 
good thing I could use a supermarket instead of gathering 
my own food.  As the learned lecturer, George Carlin has 
noted.  <g>

[snip]

> Injuries were probably quite common, as well.

Maybe ... but not by choice then or now.  

> > (6) Population ...
> >
> > In Burl, Aubrey; "A Guide to the Stone Circles of 
> > Britain, ...", the author proposes a methodology to 
> > estimate the population associated with a neolithic 
> > site.
> >
> > The upper population bound could be estimated by the 
> > number of people who could be comfortably accommodated 
> > within the stone ring.
> 
> What??  Where did the author come up with this number??  
> This is assuming that the entire social unit lived 
> within the confines of the ring/structure, 

No ... his assumption is that the ring would need to be 
large enough to accommodate the  population (congregation) 
at the time of a solar or moon alignment.  

[snip]

> These were, mostly, rings of stones with some kind of 
> socio-religious importance. 

Probably ... and needed to be big enough for everyone to 
observe the ceremony associated with the solar or lunar 
alignment.  

[snip]

> > The lower population bound could be estimated by the 
> > number of workers needed to erect the largest 
> > (heaviest) stone at the site.
> 
> No problem with this one.... there had to be at least 
> enough people to lift the heaviest stone.

Actually drag, not lift. ... But in any case, yes.  

> > You should see the web page, "Rethinking the great 
> > stone circles of Northwest Britain" (nearly the last 
> > web page I found for this topic) -- The author notes 
> > some of the same issues you raised about construction 
> > time and also notes a very different interpretation of 
> > the construction process.
> 
> Yeah, I have my doubts about the alleged length of time 
> it took to build a lot of these neolithic and prehistoric 
> monuments.  

That is exactly Colin Richards' point --- he notes that 
the time estimates for a given site keep decreasing,  
Possibly because each of our new estimate uses different 
(new) mechanical or managerial methods.  

Of course, we can think of a shorter time ... and prove 
that it's possible.  But how fast could they do it 5,000 
years ago using *only* what they knew then?  

> I'm no engineer, by any means, but it just seems to me 
> that, if I could do it, they could do it.  

Yes ... the whole basis of the SCA -- provided we act 
within what was known in historical period.  

> People, in general, seem to rally around an idea, if it 
> seems like it might benefit them in some way.  I'd wager 
> folks came from miles away to get a piece of this Stone 
> Standing action...

Sure.  But still had to feed them -- and might have been 
less to go around (hunter/forager) for all of those visitors.  

> WdG

Vincenzo

-- 
Martin G. Diehl

http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Yes&Artist=MGD

Reality: That which remains after you stop thinking about it.
  inspired by P. K. Dick