reply to post by SLAYER69
G'day mate, cheers for the heads up. I think I saw this vid a while back. But I wont be able to watch it again until next week when I am back in 3G
range but I will - and, if it is the same one, I'll bounce a couple of thoughts off you then.
I'll make this brief as I am working on a debate with PatrickGarrow17 ATM, but I wanted to talk about the Hadjar el Gouble (the Stone of the
What has always piqued my interest with this Stone, regarding its resting place, is the topography surrounding the stone itself. I think it is no
coincidence that the quarry base gradient changes where the stone protrudes above the ground.
Q: If you spent so much time carving it, what reason would you have to leave it there?
Too Big and heavy to move?. No, otherwise why go through the exercise of carving it in the first place! Just chisel away a bit more until you can move
it. But this, imo, was not the reason.
I think it may have been inaccessible for a considerable period of time.
I think, at one point, the quarry was flooded (unorthodox winter / climatic rains) and this caused the stone to move to its current resting aspect
(from the horizontal). With such a quarry, the sludge build-up may very well have suctioned the stone in place once the water receded. This receding
may have taken months or more. Once the stone was again accessible to continue the work, the new angular aspect may have proven too difficult to
Once again, the ground around the stone is not flat - I would have thought a flat horizontal surface the best platform for stonemasons - especially
when working on something 69 x 16 x 13 feet, ten inches, and weighs about 1,170 metric tons.
Now, was the stone destined for the Trilithon some half mile away? Well, thats another debate I can't get into now but the three stones in her wall
show significant weathering compared to the Hadjar el Gouble. We'll save that one for another time.
S&F - good debates here mate
edit on 9-12-2012 by Sublimecraft because: spelling / grammar