The Romans didn't invent the aqueduct. According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. rev., hydraulic engineering "was quickly adopted by the nascent cities of the Greek world and their leaders: ground-level aqueducts bringing water from extramural [outside the community] springs into Greek cities were at least as old as the 6th cent. BC: notable late-Archaic examples are at Athens, using clay piping, and on Samos, where the water was channeled by rock-hewn tunnel through the acropolis..."
Note: "Most aqueducts did not draw their water from a reservoir. They drew it from a river or a spring that fed water into the system as fast as it was used at the other end. Like an electric grid, the system worked on the principle of constant throughput, with no provision anywhere for storage worth mentioning. The water was supplied as needed and used as supplied -- immediately." -- Roman Aqueducts & Water Supply, A. Trevor Hodge (a classic, massively-detailed studies of aqueducts).
Comment: The fact that Stonehenge was built without modern construction equipment has always been considered to be an unfathomable mystery, but I don't see anything particularly mysterious about it. We'll probably never know the exact methods the Stonehenge builders used to quarry, transport, position and raise those massive stones -- the standing stones are something like 13 feet high, seven feet wide and weigh around 25 tons -- but generally speaking there are lots of fairly straightforward ways it could have been done.
The video above shows one way the capstones could have been set in place. There are lots of similar videos out there, each of them showing different techniques that someone dreamed up to explain how various stages in the construction of megaliths like Stonehenge could have been carried out using primitive technology . For example, this 2016 video shows a man moving a 20-ton block of stone (or cement) by hand using wood, pebbles, counterweights and raw muscle power. That's just one example.
The point is that the technology for building these fantastic megaliths did exist back in the Bronze Age and probably even earlier. There's no need to bring ancient aliens into it when the basic principles of leverage and so on are more than sufficient to explain how it was done. The people who built Stonehenge didn't have modern cranes, so they had to use other tools. That's all there is to it. The fact that Stonehenge exists proves that prehistoric people had the ability to construct the monument. We know they knew how to build it for the simple reason that they built it and their work is still standing today.
The whole premise behind the ancient aliens stuff is that prehistoric people were too primitive to have constructed the impressive monuments that date back to their time. According to this argument, they didn't have heavy-lift cranes, power drills or industrial stone-cutting tools; therefore, they couldn't have lifted heavy objects, drilled holes or cut blocks of stone. What nonsense. The ancient engineers who built Stonehenge, the pyramids, Gobekli Tepe and thousands of other megalithic sites and stone temples around the world were modern humans and they were just as smart and inventive as we are, if not more so. These ancient structures prove that prehistoric man was a lot more advanced than we think.
"Britain's ancient monument Stonehenge is still revealing secrets 4,500 years after the stone circle was first erected in the late Neolithic period." Source: The Weather Network (2017).
"Many theories have been suggested as to its exact purpose, but modern archaeologists generally agree it was some sort of prehistoric temple aligned to the movements of the sun.
"But it seems that these famous standing stones were positioned to enhance their acoustic properties as well.
"Machu Picchu is a city comprised of more than 200 buildings, temples, houses, pathways, fountains and altars all cut from grey granite from the mountain top. There is no evidence of any fortified walls, which means that it was not a fortress. Many of the stone blocks weigh more than 50 tons, and all are cut and fitted together in such a precise manner that it raises incredulity as to how [its builders could have] created such a monumental place." Source: Ancient Origins (2013).
Notes: A few years ago "[a] Polish-Peruvian archaeological team ... confirmed what has been suspected for many centuries – the Incas used the ancient city of Machu Picchu as a mountaintop observatory." (Ancient Origins) How the Incas constructed the city is apparently still a mystery:
According to Rediscover Machu Picchu, "[t]he Incas used dry stone technique to build the city. No mortar was used, the stone bricks were simply put together without any material to stick them together." The rocks were then "put together like a huge puzzle." This would've required an amazing amount of precision since "[s]ome of the bricks are so tightly put together that one cannot even put a knife between them."
The rocks were apparently split "with the so-called wooden wedge technique: holes were drilled into the rocks and wet wooden wedges were inserted into them. After that the constructors waited until the wet wooden wedges froze." The expanding wedges would then split the rock, "[b]ut the wooden wedge technique cannot explain the smoothness and perfect straightness of the bricks."
The construction of Machu Picchu required thousands of workers and a huge amount of detailed planning, but from what I've read the Incas didn't have iron tools, wheels, or a written language. The logistics involved are mind-boggling, but the city was built somehow so unless you believe in ancient aliens, Machu Picchu provides yet more evidence that early humans were more technologically sophisticated than commonly believed.
"The Inca Road ... was an essential part of the success of the Inca Empire. The road system included an astounding 40,000 kilometers (25,000 miles) of roads, bridges, tunnels, and causeways." Source: Thought Company.
"Road construction began in the mid-fifteenth century when the Inca gained control over its neighbors and started expanding their empire."
"The Capac Ñan [Great Road] network still exists in remarkably durable portions across six countries of South America, though it was built without iron tools, draft animals, a single arch, or the wheel. With suspension bridges and ramrod-straight roads laid out by ancient surveyors, the road functions as a kind of map of Inca ambitions, an eternal landmark imposed by a preliterate society that left no written documents." Source: National Geographic (2015).
"It has been an exciting time for Irish archaeology as many ancient finds have been uncovered in recent months. The latest discovery is one of the most thrilling of all according to local experts. Archaeologists in Meath, in central Ireland, have unearthed a passage tomb cemetery – and it is several millennia old. This find is being hailed as the most important discovery from the megalithic period in Ireland for half a century and is expected to increase our knowledge of some of the first farmers in Europe and stone age society." Source: Ancient Origins.
Note: If the dating is accurate, this passage tomb goes back to around 3400 BC. According to Wikipedia, "[t]he earliest evidence of human presence in Ireland is dated at 10,500 BC, demonstrated by a butchered bear bone found in a cave in County Clare. It is not until about 8000 BC, however, that more sustained occupation of the island has been shown, with evidence for Mesolithic communities around the island. These Mesolithic communities lived as hunter-gatherers across the island until about 4000 BC." By that time, the shift to agriculture had already started. "The earliest evidence for farming in Ireland or Great Britain is from Ferriter's Cove, Co.Kerry, where a flint knife, cattle bones and a sheep's tooth were carbon-dated to c. 4350 BC."
"Euan Wallace MacKie (born 10 February 1936) is a British archaeologist and anthropologist. He is a prominent figure in the field of Archaeoastronomy." (Wikipedia)
"Alexander 'Sandy' Thom (26 March 1894 – 7 November 1985) was a Scottish engineer most famous for his theory of the Megalithic yard[1], categorisation of stone circles and his studies of Stonehenge and other archaeological sites." (Wikipedia).
[1]: According to Wikipedia, the Megalithic yard is a unit of measurement that "some researchers believe was used in the construction of megalithic structures."
Video from 2017. The age of the Carrowmore megalithic cemetery varies from source to source.
"The advent of radiocarbon dating has forced archaeologists to re-think the entire the chronology of western European megalithic culture. Prior to radiocarbon dating, it had been believed that megalithic culture had been brought to western Europe from the Mediterranean region, however, this was proven to be utterly false when C14 dating methods showed that the megalithic sites of western Europe substantially predated those of the Mediterranean. Not only that, but the monuments of western Europe were found to predate those of Egypt and the Near Eastern cultures also, which had previously been thought to have been the inspiration for the European megalithic builders." Source: Newgrange.
"The earliest dates of construction for western European megaliths are found to be in the west of Ireland. These early dates were first put forth in the late 1970's early 1980's by a group of Swedish archaeologists led by Stefan Bergh excavating in and around the Carrowmore megalithic complex. Initially, the very early carbon dates produced were met with some scepticism. The accuracy of Swedish teams findings were questioned as they seemed to shatter preconceived notions of the progression of megalith building in Europe. With time however, the megalithic sites of western Ireland have been proven to indeed be the oldest such sites in Europe."
Comment: I have no idea what to make of this theory. So far I haven't been able to find out how old these Swiss archaeologists thought the Carrowmore tomb complex is. According to Wikipedia, the site dates back to around 3700 BC, "making Carrowmore ... among the oldest cemeteries of megalithic tombs in Ireland." By comparison, the general consensus is that Stonehenge was constructed somewhere between 3000 and 2000 BC.
Note: According to the Megalithomania video above, Carrowmore is 7,000 years old, but the dating in Wikipedia would make it around 5700 years old.
I was under the impression that the megaliths on Malta were the oldest in Europe, but that may not be the case. The Ggantija megalithic temple complex on the Mediterranean island of Gozo are "the earliest of the Megalithic Temples of Malta." (Wikipedia) They're older than the Egyptian pyramids, but they still seem to date back to around the same time (~3600 - 2000 BC?).
It appears that all of these structures were built during the same general period, so it's possible, I guess, that the megalithic culture in Europe could have originated in Ireland. Unfortunately for the theory, a circle of stone pillars at Gobekli Tepi in Turkey, dating back to 10,000 - 8,000 BC, is currently thought to be the oldest megalith in the world. If that's accurate, then it would appear that these fantastic stone structures originated in the East and then spread into Europe. That's the general consensus, anyway.
"...Pontefract Castle has attracted a phenomenal amount of death, decay and misery over the years. As an ominous precursor, the entire place was constructed on an old Anglo-Saxon burial ground.
"In addition to this, the castle was the spot of Richard II’s infamous ‘murder’ [1] ... and hundreds of soldiers were killed or imprisoned here during the Wars of the Roses."
[1] "King Richard II was certainly held in Pontefract Castle in 1399. We don’t know exactly what happened to him, but most sources think that he was either intentionally neglected until he starved to death; or was cruelly murdered in the dungeons." (Ibid)
Note: "In around 1285, the Count of Holland Floris V (1254 – 1296) ordered the construction of a stone keep at a strategic location at the mouth of the river Vecht, the most important waterway to the diocese of Utrecht. In 1296, Floris V was kidnapped during a falcon hunt and later murdered by his own nobles and his castle was destroyed. From 1370, the original Muiderslot was restored and expanded with a residential wing facing the Zuiderzee. The castle was strengthened with earthen walls and bastions in 1576." Source: The Muiderslot official website (English version available - click on the tiny Union Jack flag on the top right of the page)
The original Muiderslot has a dark and violent history. Floris V apparently built the castle in order to tax, i.e., shakedown, all the trade passing through the region on the River Vecht. "In 1296," according to Castles of Medieval Times, "he was imprisoned in his own castle by Geeraerdt van Velsen because Floris V had ordered the execution of Van Velsen's brother on false charges. Floris V managed to escape from the castle but was killed while fleeing."
The English sources I've found are sketchy and contradictory, but the real story of Muiderslot seems to be a lot more convoluted and bloody than suggested above. According to Wikipedia, for instance, van Velsen killed Floris because he raped van Velsen's wife, who then committed suicide. It also sounds like van Velsen was involved in a plot to overthrow the king. The sequence of events is obscure, but at some point the king apparently executed van Velsen's brother for treason. Whatever happened, van Velsen had Floris imprisoned, but the king managed to escape -- temporarily. Van Velsen is said to have stabbed the king to death personally, only to be captured later, tortured for a couple of days, then hanged, drawn and quartered.
And so it goes: A fairly typical example of royal mayhem.
Medieval kings had more in common with Tony Soprano than with the monarchs of chivalric legend. And their nobles weren't any different. Their "authority" was based on physical violence, so it's not surprising that their lives were chronicles of blood, betrayal, intrigue and vicious crimes. The violent careers of statesmen is a natural consequence of the fact that the State is the monopoly on violence over a given territory. Nothing has really changed since then, but ancient and medieval history gives us a look at the State in its most basic form, undiluted by the myths and self-serving propaganda of modern political machines. History is made by killers. That's the bottom line.
The Dark History Of Castle Muiderslot
Note: "In around 1285, the Count of Holland Floris V (1254 – 1296) ordered the construction of a stone keep at a strategic location at the mouth of the river Vecht, the most important waterway to the diocese of Utrecht. In 1296, Floris V was kidnapped during a falcon hunt and later murdered by his own nobles and his castle was destroyed. From 1370, the original Muiderslot was restored and expanded with a residential wing facing the Zuiderzee. The castle was strengthened with earthen walls and bastions in 1576." Source: The Muiderslot official website (English version available - click on the tiny Union Jack flag on the top right of the page)
The original Muiderslot has a dark and violent history. Floris V apparently built the castle in order to tax, i.e., shakedown, all the trade passing through the region on the River Vecht. "In 1296," according to Castles of Medieval Times, "he was imprisoned in his own castle by Geeraerdt van Velsen because Floris V had ordered the execution of Van Velsen's brother on false charges. Floris V managed to escape from the castle but was killed while fleeing."
The English sources I've found are sketchy and contradictory, but the real story of Muiderslot seems to be a lot more convoluted and bloody than suggested above. According to Wikipedia, for instance, van Velsen killed Floris because he raped van Velsen's wife, who then committed suicide. It also sounds like van Velsen was involved in a plot to overthrow the king. The sequence of events is obscure, but at some point the king apparently executed van Velsen's brother for treason. Whatever happened, van Velsen had Floris imprisoned, but the king managed to escape -- temporarily. Van Velsen is said to have stabbed the king to death personally, only to be captured later, tortured for a couple of days, then hanged, drawn and quartered.
And so it goes: A fairly typical example of royal mayhem.
Medieval kings had more in common with Tony Soprano than with the monarchs of chivalric legend. And their nobles weren't any different. Their "authority" was based on physical violence, so it's not surprising that their lives were chronicles of blood, betrayal, intrigue and vicious crimes. The violent careers of statesmen is a natural consequence of the fact that the State is the monopoly on violence over a given territory. Nothing has really changed since then, but ancient and medieval history gives us a look at the State in its most basic form, undiluted by the myths and self-serving propaganda of modern political machines. History is made by killers. That's the bottom line.
Posted at 06:59 AM in Architecture, Commentary, Culture, Medieval, Scandinavia, Videos | Permalink