Moving Megalithic Stones-the Search for a Unified Theory

[Thanos5150]

How the pyramid builders were able to lift millions and millions of multi-ton stones hundreds of feet in the air with seeming ease is an enigma that has plagued the minds of all who have pondered the question. Various methods have been proposed ranging from all forms of ramp systems, water floatation schemes, and even levitation devices. The problem with these methods, among other reasons, is that they are only applied to pyramids, namely the Great Pyramid, when in reality to be viable they must be applicable to all megalithic construction of the ancient world.

The moving and lifting of large multi-ton stones is obviously not unique in history and is a practice found on nearly every continent going back at least 11,000yrs. What is required for any megalithic block theory is a method that is simple and repeatable by any culture using materials known to the ancient world.

Represented below is a sampling of over 5,000yrs of megalithic construction:

Ireland:

Korea:

France:

Malta:

Stonehenge:

Giza:

Luxor:

Greek:

Roman:

Tonga:

On and on it goes. Notice something in common? They all have multi-ton beams each lifted to a height of at least twice that of two courses of any Egyptian pyramid. This is known as "post and lintel" construction. The question is how did they all do it? Funiculars? No. Water systems? No. Levitation rays? As cool as that would be, probably not. As this pertains to pyramids, whatever methods were used would be no different than those utilized for post and lintel construction as each course, or "deck", is just a height to be overcome no different than the post is for the lintel. There is no need to invent some magical system as the physics and methods of lifting one beam on to two posts is the same as moving blocks from one pyramid course to the next.

The Greeks and Romans, of whose methods we can mostly attest to, used a various series of levers, pulleys, cranes, winches, and capstans sometimes augmented by the use of ramps to lessen the distance to be lifted. It is interesting to note Greek megalithic architecture did not begin until the 7th century BC, a time known as the "Orientalization Period", marked specifically by a renewed relationship with Egypt.

Regardless, what we know of these methods by way of the Greeks and Romans is that these feats were accomplished using some form of mechanical advantage utilizing leverage and fulcrums, physics no different in 4,000BC as they are today. There is no reason to believe the pyramids were not constructed in principle using the same methods and whatever system devised must be applicable to all megalithic construction. The same goes for moving large blocks as ancient man was moving stones hundreds of tons many miles thousands of years before the pyramids.  

As Archimedes once said: "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."

Edited August 1, 2022 by Thanos5150

[stereologist]

My guess without any knowledge of the subject matter is that different methods could be employed. Smaller places could be built by burying the uprights with dirt, sliding blocks into place and unearthing the buried uprights. It's slow but it works and would be less risky. I could also imagine some sort of stacking smaller rocks and using levers to lift the larger blocks. Each side could be lifted a few centimeters at a time and flat rocks slid into place to maintain the new gain in height. With lots of possible solutions I would think that different places used different methods.

[SHaYap]

The importance of regarding the form of measurements used and weights gauged is much too often overlooked... 

~

[Oniomancer]

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

It is interesting to note Greek megalithic architecture did not begin until the 7th century BC, a time known as the "Orientalization Period", marked specifically by a renewed relationship with Egypt.

Depends on your definition of megalithic. Mycenaean cyclopian architecture is considerably older than that.

[Thanos5150]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

My guess without any knowledge of the subject matter is that different methods could be employed. Smaller places could be built by burying the uprights with dirt, sliding blocks into place and unearthing the buried uprights. It's slow but it works and would be less risky.

This method, or variations of the theme, has been proposed for all cultures prior to the Greeks and the supposed invention of mechanical advantage lifting devices including even the Egyptians at places like Luxor and Karnac which is absurd. The rub, however, is that there are tens of thousands of such megalithic sites and no evidence of this method is to be found if only to the contrary.  If we take this example (Poulnabrone Dolmen pictured above c.3800-3200BC):

Tons of earth would have to have been brought in to create a large mound completely enveloping the "uprights" to support them in all directions including a long ramp for the cap stone which there is no evidence for. The assumption is that what is seen today is their "skeleton" in which this mound would have been left there but there is little to no supporting evidence for this either which we would keep in mind in the case of dolmens there are tens if not hundreds of thousands littered across the Old World. An interesting article: How to build a dolmen.

According to the authors: 

"After  the capstone had been quarried from the bedrock, the monument could be built  directly above it, allowing the stone to be raised in situ using levers. Once one end  had been raised even a few inches, chocks (probably a combination of timbers and  stones) could be placed underneath. The builders could then lever up the other  side and put more chocks under it. Repeating this process would slowly elevate  the capstone until it was in the right position.

It was then time to remove carefully small portions of this material in order to  put in the upright supporting stones. Finally, when all the uprights are in place, any  remaining chocks could be removed and — voila! — you have a finished dolmen."  

In short they are suggesting the capstone was raised first using a series of chocks then the uprights were placed underneath and the chocks removed which interestingly in principle was the function of one of the machines Herodotus said the pyramid builders used to raise stones. An interesting idea which unfortunately could not explain all of what is seen in historical times prior to the Greek "invention" of the crane in which it is clear the stones were lifted on top of the supporting stones.  

One thing that needs to be understood, which unfortunately does not get the attention it deserves in these circles though I have tried, is the vastness in scope of the megalithic world spanning the the 6th-3th millenniums. While places like Stonehenge or Newgrange get all the attention they but drops in an ocean. Millions of tons of massive stones were moved to create tens of thousands of these classes of similar structures throughout the Old World well before the the Egyptians built the pyramids. A bookend to this thread: Megalithic Strangers Passing in the Night.

Quote

I could also imagine some sort of stacking smaller rocks and using levers to lift the larger blocks. Each side could be lifted a few centimeters at a time and flat rocks slid into place to maintain the new gain in height. With lots of possible solutions I would think that different places used different methods.

While particular applications may have been more practical to use different methods, say lifting vs ramps, though it stands to reason they became more sophisticated over time, the evidence suggest the methods used were universal and over time, like the structures themselves, disseminated across a massive geographical area. With that being said, I believe that the secret to the Dynastic Egyptians, among other things, was their unparalleled carpentry and rope making skills that allowed them to innovate these methods and principles into standardized simple machines and formwork which enhanced if not allowed for the greater utilization of a lifting fulcrum which I would say went so far as to include the invention of basic cranes.       

[Thanos5150]

9 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

Depends on your definition of megalithic. Mycenaean cyclopian architecture is considerably older than that.

It appears it more depends on your definition of "Greek" which should be easily differentiated architecturally and historically from the Myceneans. Regardless, colloquially the use of stones in construction that weigh in tons though technically it refers to such used in prehistoric construction. Cyclopean walls are also sometimes referred to as "megalithic", the stones at Baalbek are "megalithic", as examples, so I use the term for convenience.     

[Wepwawet]

.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Wepwawet

[jethrofloyd]

Don't forget a one of the oldest, Arthur's Stone.The capstone, weighing some 25 tonnes. Arthur's Stone is erected some 1000 years before Stonehenge. It is assumed the construction was initially a quite higher, but  due to the capstones weight it sank into the ground over time.

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by jethrofloyd

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This method, or variations of the theme, has been proposed for all cultures prior to the Greeks and the supposed invention of mechanical advantage lifting devices including even the Egyptians at places like Luxor and Karnac which is absurd. The rub, however, is that there are tens of thousands of such megalithic sites and no evidence of this method is to be found if only to the contrary.  If we take this example (Poulnabrone Dolmen pictured above c.3800-3200BC):

Tons of earth would have to have been brought in to create a large mound completely enveloping the "uprights" to support them in all directions including a long ramp for the cap stone which there is no evidence for. The assumption is that what is seen today is their "skeleton" in which this mound would have been left there but there is little to no supporting evidence for this either which we would keep in mind in the case of dolmens there are tens if not hundreds of thousands littered across the Old World. An interesting article: How to build a dolmen.

According to the authors: 

"After  the capstone had been quarried from the bedrock, the monument could be built  directly above it, allowing the stone to be raised in situ using levers. Once one end  had been raised even a few inches, chocks (probably a combination of timbers and  stones) could be placed underneath. The builders could then lever up the other  side and put more chocks under it. Repeating this process would slowly elevate  the capstone until it was in the right position.

It was then time to remove carefully small portions of this material in order to  put in the upright supporting stones. Finally, when all the uprights are in place, any  remaining chocks could be removed and — voila! — you have a finished dolmen."  

In short they are suggesting the capstone was raised first using a series of chocks then the uprights were placed underneath and the chocks removed which interestingly in principle was the function of one of the machines Herodotus said the pyramid builders used to raise stones. An interesting idea which unfortunately could not explain all of what is seen in historical times prior to the Greek "invention" of the crane in which it is clear the stones were lifted on top of the supporting stones.  

One thing that needs to be understood, which unfortunately does not get the attention it deserves in these circles though I have tried, is the vastness in scope of the megalithic world spanning the the 6th-3th millenniums. While places like Stonehenge or Newgrange get all the attention they but drops in an ocean. Millions of tons of massive stones were moved to create tens of thousands of these classes of similar structures throughout the Old World well before the the Egyptians built the pyramids. A bookend to this thread: Megalithic Strangers Passing in the Night.

While particular applications may have been more practical to use different methods, say lifting vs ramps, though it stands to reason they became more sophisticated over time, the evidence suggest the methods used were universal and over time, like the structures themselves, disseminated across a massive geographical area. With that being said, I believe that the secret to the Dynastic Egyptians, among other things, was their unparalleled carpentry and rope making skills that allowed them to innovate these methods and principles into standardized simple machines and formwork which enhanced if not allowed for the greater utilization of a lifting fulcrum which I would say went so far as to include the invention of basic cranes.       

I see the first description matches my second suggestion.

And that tons of Earth problem? Not a problem. Look at the size of the mounds that have been built. Far larger than a pile needed for the photograph above.

And this I do not buy: "the evidence suggest the methods used were universal and over time, like the structures themselves, disseminated across a massive geographical area. "  There is no reason to suppose that any technology was disseminated.

[jethrofloyd]

6 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

..and no evidence of this method is to be found if only to the contrary.  

The aliens.

[Oniomancer]

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Tons of earth would have to have been brought in to create a large mound completely enveloping the "uprights" to support them in all directions including a long ramp for the cap stone which there is no evidence for. The assumption is that what is seen today is their "skeleton" in which this mound would have been left there but there is little to no supporting evidence for this either which we would keep in mind in the case of dolmens there are tens if not hundreds of thousands littered across the Old World. An interesting article: How to build a dolmen.

You are aware that dolmens are associated with barrow mounds of which there are numerous intact examples?

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

It appears it more depends on your definition of "Greek"

Did they live in Greece? Yes[] No[] (check one)

If you're distinguishing Mycenaeans from Dorians, it might be argued that the former are more Greek than the latter. 

[Abramelin]

The Thunderstone, Russia:

https://www.futilitycloset.com/2014/11/06/the-thunder-stone/

"It remains the largest stone ever moved by man."

Edited August 2, 2022 by Abramelin

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

More importantly. Does there need to be a unified theory on how they did it? Maybe each culture moved their big rocks in different manners?

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

More importantly. Does there need to be a unified theory on how they did it? Maybe each culture moved their big rocks in different manners?

That's what I was thinking.

[Thanos5150]

10 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

The aliens.

Always the aliens with you. 

[Thanos5150]

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

I see the first description matches my second suggestion.

It also matches Herodotus's or anyone else who has offered this method as a way to lift heavy objects. 

Quote

And that tons of Earth problem? Not a problem. Look at the size of the mounds that have been built. Far larger than a pile needed for the photograph above.

The "problem" is removing it as if it never happened. Maybe you missed that part. 

Quote

And this I do not buy: "the evidence suggest the methods used were universal and over time, like the structures themselves, disseminated across a massive geographical area. "  There is no reason to suppose that any technology was disseminated.

Given you are in your own words someone operating from a position of "guess[ing] without any knowledge of the subject matter" this means what exactly?  Disseminated by way of diffusion and cultural/occupational continuity over long periods of time.   

[jethrofloyd]

19 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Always the aliens with you. 

It's just that I like to use the alien smiley.

[stereologist]

15 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

It also matches Herodotus's or anyone else who has offered this method as a way to lift heavy objects. 

The "problem" is removing it as if it never happened. Maybe you missed that part. 

Given you are in your own words someone operating from a position of "guess[ing] without any knowledge of the subject matter" this means what exactly?  Disseminated by way of diffusion and cultural/occupational continuity over long periods of time.   

I didn't miss that part.

And you have posted no evidence to suggest a common manner of doing the job.

[Thanos5150]

3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

More importantly. Does there need to be a unified theory on how they did it? Maybe each culture moved their big rocks in different manners?

There is nothing to suggest this was the case which there are only so many way to do it with the tools available at the time regardless. They didn't need to use "different manners" as why would we think these people were not in contact with each other and they all just so happened to build the same exact megalithic structures but in different ways they just so happened to make up themselves? It's not like this is blasphemous transoceanic contact, it's Eurasia, spanning a period of more than 2,000yrs with tens of thousands of these monuments dotting the landscape. The fact they were able to accomplish these feats so ubiquitously, not to mention the similarity of the structures with otherwise no reason for them to be, speaks not only to the idea the methods of doing so were well known passing from generation to generation but also the ideology behind them.  

The need to understand how they did what what they did, other than for its own sake, is to put into context how later cultures like the Dynastic Egyptians of the Old Kingdom, for example, were able to do what they did which for many seems beyond their ability which as we can see from the past is not true. While they improved upon them, the methods of moving multi ton blocks and lifting them were tried and true and had been around for thousands of years before them. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

42 minutes ago, stereologist said:

And you have posted no evidence to suggest a common manner of doing the job.

Hence the title of the OP. 

Again, the similarity of the structures and archeological context clearly implies they did use common methods, which again, there are only so many ways regardless. 

[Thanos5150]

10 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

You are aware that dolmens are associated with barrow mounds of which there are numerous intact examples? 

And...?

Quote

Did they live in Greece? Yes[] No[] (check one)

If just calling them "Greeks" were not enough, given my reference to "the 7th century BC, a time known as the "Orientalization Period"" and picturing this:

Greek:

it should be understood I am reffering to the Classical Greeks. In the previous iteration of this OP pictured as well was this but for some reason it got lost moving it here:

Mycenae:

Interesting though that out of all what the OP was trying to get across this is what you cherry pick to niggle about.  

Edited August 3, 2022 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

15 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

Don't forget a one of the oldest, Arthur's Stone.The capstone, weighing some 25 tonnes. Arthur's Stone is erected some 1000 years before Stonehenge. It is assumed the construction was initially a quite higher, but  due to the capstones weight it sank into the ground over time.

 

The Brownshill Dolmen c.4000-3000BC, which I have visited, the capstone weighs in at a whopping 150 tons:

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

More importantly. Does there need to be a unified theory on how they did it?

And I'd love to know if there was a unified theory on why they did it? I think about the many cultures that built pyramids within a specific epoch,
and then, no constructions like that happened afterward. It makes me wonder about genetics. 

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Hence the title of the OP. 

Again, the similarity of the structures and archeological context clearly implies they did use common methods, which again, there are only so many ways regardless. 

I can easily say t his is wrong. Your claim to common method is wrong. Similarity of structures simply means what? Are you claiming a post and lintel can only be made using one method?

[Oniomancer]

37 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

And...?

That by "associated with" I mean "embedded in".

38 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Interesting though that out of all what the OP was trying to get across this is what you cherry pick to niggle about.  

OP as written implied that there were no megalithic structures in Greece prior to the 7th century BC. This was demonstrably false regardless of which culture produced them.

But hey, it's all Greek to me....