Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ancient Vitrification?

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   
What is your take on it? Personally I think some of it is due to war such as the Scottish forts, but what amazes me is when it has been used to fuse rocks together. I know this is a popular topic with the Ancient Alien Theory, but I think it has to do with those civilizations just having techniques we're not familiar with, but if you feel it's the former, feel free to chime in.

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   

. Do vitrified forts exist, ancient stone walls with their sides melted into glass? This one's pretty easy to answer, because there's plenty of archaeological literature about them. Yes, they do exist, and the popularly given number of about sixty known examples in Scotland is correct.

When studying the vitrified forts, context is a crucial consideration. We must understand the technological context in which the forts were built. The first millennium BCE was smack dab in the middle of the British Iron Age, a historical era named after the smelting of ore into iron. Metalworking, forging, and vitrification were well known to the people of the age. It was not a mysterious technology. The melting of rocks to serve the purposes of mankind was the technological focus of the period. And even in this early date, it was not a new concept. The Iron Age was preceded by the Bronze Age. Mankind had been melting ore for perhaps 10,000 years, ever since (nobody really knows for certain) accidental discoveries were made in pottery kilns.





So when the archaeologists study the vitrified forts and report that we don't know how they were made, all we're saying is that we don't know exactly what method was used. We're not saying that it is a surprising or inexplicable accomplishment. Any number of methods could have been used; we just don't know which. The vitrified rocks require about 1100°C to vitrify in the observed manner.





skeptoid.com...
edit on 17-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   
The above post misses the point completely. The ancient vitrified forts, etc are anomalous NOT because they contain blocks of rocks formed by melting but because they show more random, vitrified features requiring much higher temperatures than ancient technologies could have provided. The fact that the ancient peoples who built these forts, etc were able to melt rocks is irrelevant and certainly does not explain the basic problem presented by the vitrified walls of these forts. They show signs of having been melted by some kind of heat blast which is inexplicable in terms of ancient technology that used fired to melt metals and rocks. The rocks were vitrified AFTER being assembled as building blocks in walls of forts, not BEFORE, and there is no conventional explanation for this. Conventionally, vitrification is explained through combustion of timber interlacing within the walls leading to melting that has been modelled in the granite system. However, considering Iron Age smelting technology, this leads to problems in obtaining high temperatures (≥1000 °C) over tens of metres of wall length. Geochemical analysis of the vitrification indicates that modelling the melting within the granite system is incapable of providing a partial melt matching the composition of vitrification. At Torr, one of the forts in Scotland, pelite fragments have been found near the base of the wall where partial melt occurs as black bubbles. In these fragments it appears that micas (largely biotite) have formed the melt via the reaction biotite + quartz = sanidine + orthopyroxene + liquid which takes place at temperatures c. 850 °C. Quench crystals in the melt include orthopyroxene, plagioclase, spinels, ilmenite, magnetite, anatase and apatite confirming that it was not a granite melt. These melted fragments are found next to material with biotite that, superficially, appears unmelted, suggesting that some of the heating took place perhaps away from the edifice and unmelted residue was utilised as part of the rubble fill, suggesting that in situ partial melting of the rubble is unlikely. In other words, the size of the areas of vitrified rock are too large to be explained by the methods available to ancient peoples and cannot be due to assembly of already vitrified blocks.

The posted article is a typical disingenuous comment used by academic sceptics to explain away a problem that their science cannot solve.
edit on 17-5-2013 by micpsi because: Added material



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
The emminent Ozzie archaeologist V. Gordon Childe did some experiments with vitrifying stonewalls constructed in the same way and was pretty successful, and if he'd had 100's of years of practice like our ancestors, no doubt he'd have achieved exactly the same results as they did.
As to precisely why it was done, i have no idea..but the very patchy and varied nature of the vitrification around many of the sites, is probably explaioned by the process being difficult, and eating up a lot of resouces and manpower so often uncompleted.
I just found this on the subject, whereas i have only read articles on the subject previously... it's V Gordon Childe's report on his experiments in vitrification to the Royal Society or somesuch. I have not had a chance to read it yet but it should prove very interesting

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, DECEMBER 13, 1937.

i am very much of the opinion that the phenomena is a result of well planned and practied burning by Ancient Britons - when one knows enough about fire, i'm certain this would be achievable by correct use of rocks, chooosing the right wood and perhaps the use of peat. Plenty of crazy stong winds to fan the flames too, Scottish hill-forts are unsurprisingly very blowy.
edit on 17-5-2013 by skalla because: clarity



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
There are reports of vitrification at an Ohio hill fort site. Report made in early 1800s. Ohio has a group of hill forts that not only bear what looks like an attempt at vitrification but are also similar in strategic design with hill forts in Briton.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
The above post misses the point completely. The ancient vitrified forts, etc are anomalous NOT because they contain blocks of rocks formed by melting but because they show more random, vitrified features requiring much higher temperatures than ancient technologies could have provided.

The fact that the ancient peoples who built these forts, etc were able to melt rocks is irrelevant and certainly does not explain the basic problem presented by the vitrified walls of these forts. They show signs of having been melted by some kind of heat blast which is inexplicable in terms of ancient technology that used fired to melt metals and rocks.

Easy for you to say, but impossible for you to provide evidence for. This is because what you state above if flatly untrue.

You've been told the temperature required. These stones would melt at that temperature. They will melt in exactly the same way at higher temperatures. Before or after they were put in place.

As an aside, if we don't know why they did this, then why on Earth do you even mention anything about "before assembly?"

Obviously, they were vitrified in place. What would be the point otherwise?

Harte



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Yes, context is important.

I think a lot of the "Ancient Alien" types miss the fact that the vitrification exists not only on the forts/structures but also in several area's around locations as well.

They are isolated patches and the vitrification occurs in small pocketed sections and spaced apart areas, this is why they are so confusing. These are not typical of nuclear explosions. Additionally "dessert glass" and other sites throughout the planet show this very similar process. Again they are not created in large circular areas similar to nukes and how we see it created during our own atomic weapons tests.

I believe the best explanation for these sites, and the only process that has been shown to duplicate the results observed, are plasma discharge. While it may sound like I am saying aliens were using plasma weapons, I would suggest a much more plausible explanation.

High Energy Plasma Discharge - a process used and observed here in the natural world creates these types of effects. Very strong lightning(a plasma discharge) has been observed in Australia and attributed to new formations of "dessert glass" and small scale vitrification of certain minerals.

To my knowledge there is no evidence of shocked quatrz or other similar process that would point at actual thermonuclear detonation present in any of these structures or the grounds around them. There are some instances of this in the dessert and we can leave those as unexplained for the moment.

There is also the recent experiments done in similar walls with nothing but timber fire that created vitrification. It's results were, however, inconclusive.




The experimental wall was 6 ft. wide and 6 ft. high, with horizontal timbers interlaced with stone slabs. After ignition through brushwood fires around the wall face, the wall began to burn and after three hours it collapsed. The core of basalt rubble became red hot, probably reaching 800 to 1200°C, and after excavation the bottom part of the rubble was found to be vitrified, with rock droplets and casts of timber preserved. The experiment proved that a timber-laced wall of this character could become vitrified through fire, but the explanation of the reasons for such widespread treatment of these Iron Age forts remains uncertain.


All in all I believe that that very strong lighting brought on by extreme solar activity is much more likely the casue of many of the more mysterious examples, and simple fire, can explain much of the others. I am not alone in this and if you have any famailarity with "Project Thunderbolts" then you have also heard very compelling evidence of these process.

I would post a link to another forum were these processes have been discussed at length by people and scientist that line in the area but ATS seems to frown on that.

Instead I will suggest this: google search: "project thunderbolts vitrification" the first link that comes up will be a long thread full of mumbo jumbo that you may or may not understand but Im sure it will be a decent read if only for an additional view of how these processes and events may have occurred.
edit on 17-5-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Thunderbolts that seem to congregate around Scottish and Irish forts?


Sorry. It's an implausible, ad hoc explanation. If this were the cause, one would expect to see examples of such vitrification in ancient fortresses and buildings all over the world because thunder and lightning are not confined to the UK. No "natural" explanation can explain the vitrified walls because it requires some kind of atmospheric condition that is unique to these areas in Scotland and Ireland. And why around only FORTS? Again, no explanation.

As for the posts in the Thunderbolts Forum linked to above, they amount to a bunch of wild suggestions involving highly speculative, exotic physics and pseudoscience. And they don't address the basic issue: why FORTS and not other ancient buildings?

The mystery remains.
edit on 17-5-2013 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Perhaps you should trying reading my post for comprehension.....

I opened the concerned areas beyond the forts.....the area's around the forts are effected, areas of flat ground all over the world are effected.

Furthermore being the tallest conductive objects in the area it would make sense.....I also called what was in the threads as "mumbo jumbo", as to my "sceicnetist" comment I was referring to the first hand blogs and accounts from people from megalithic uk, these people are over there and work on these things. You can take your psudeo science comments on a conspiracy site and jump off a bridge. Why you felt it necessary to repeat what I said in my own post about the questionable information I do not know. Perhaps try contributing to the post with some information of your own. I never said the mystery was solved. I presented a few explanations and gave my personal opinion, which I am entitled to do.

kids these days....
edit on 17-5-2013 by vind21 because: Sp*



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Um it was was the dragons duh, someone started a thread on if dragons really existed yesterday I believe, it was interesting.

Although its not a scientific explanation or plausible it certainly is a little more romantic imo.

[disclaimer this is not a true story, or based on actual events]

Lets set the mood its thousands of years ago the last of the dragons have hid away in the scottish highlands. The poor sheep farmers and villagers are driven from their home land. The lords and nobles are powerless against the mighty beast. The send word to the order of Draco Interficientis that they have a problem. The rag tag group of dragon hunters arrive days later and hold up in the first of the forts little by little they make their way through the land, fort by fort slaying the last of the wretched beasts. And voila vitrified forts.

Or it was aliens
edit on 17-5-2013 by CitizenJack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
This is summary of work on vitrification

Vitrification

latest scientific work on the matter - unfortunately behind a pay wall



These melted fragments are found next to material with biotite that, superficially, appears unmelted, suggesting that some of the heating took place perhaps away from the edifice and unmelted residue was utilised as part of the rubble fill, suggesting that in situ partial melting of the rubble is unlikely. However, in other parts of the edifice heat affected, yet unmelted, fragments are dominant. The new evidence indicates that vitrification occurred at lower temperatures than previously modelled and thus the melts could have been achieved more easily than previously thought.


More scientific work on vitrification


Spot geochemical evidence demonstrates the heterogeneity of the melts, plus varying contributions of Ca and Na that could be attributed to the onset of reactions involving feldspars and other minerals from the original assemblage. It is thus concluded that a similar temperature to that of c. 850 °C derived in the experiment was reached in the vitrification process at The Torr in order to produce the glass observed.
edit on 17/5/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by vind21
reply to post by micpsi
 

I opened the concerned areas beyond the forts.....the area's around the forts are effected, areas of flat ground all over the world are effected.


I believe that if you look at it, the area of affect is fairly small (something that could be covered by a large fire built up against the wall.) Also, it takes a lot less temperature to melt certain rocks (rocks containing ores, for example), and glass -- in fact, you can make glass with beach sand and a barbeque grill


Furthermore being the tallest conductive objects in the area it would make sense.....I also called what was in the threads as "mumbo jumbo", as to my "sceicnetist" comment I was referring to the first hand blogs and accounts from people from megalithic uk, these people are over there and work on these things.


Actually, most of the people there are simply fans of megalithic sites -- they're not professionals and don't do standard archaeological research on the sites. There are a number of archaeologists worldwide who research and actually help maintain megalithic sites, but they tend to hang out on specialized listserves and at conferences and at certain science blogs. However, they're not often found posting on that site, although Megaliths does republish some of the work they do.

Lightning strikes might account for a few of the vitrified forts, but doesn't explain the patterns of vitrification (the number of yearly lightning strikes at any specific spot, even using lightning rods to attract it) is very small and the area of vitrification change under the direct strike is small -- as you can see from this article on making Fulgerites. It would take hundreds of directed lightning strikes over the course of hundreds of years just to vitrify one section.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
i'm not sure if anyone here is familiar with work i came across some years ago, well i use the term "work" loosely, more like hypothetical concepts regarding the vitrification of hillforts in scotland.
this theory claimed that there was supressed history in relation to a comet which came right over mainland britain(mainly scotland) and hit somewhere in south america around the 400/500ad mark, which apparently co-incides with the dating of alot of activity of scotland's hillforts. the tail end of a comet certainly could be responsible for producing such heat as required to vitrify rock.
interestingly enough this also co-incides with the period that the high kings of ireland abandoned their royal sites on the east of the country, it is also evident in other parts of ireland that living moved from the lowlands to higher grounds and ring/hillforts became much more active. something around this period in my opinion definitely put these people into a more defensive style of living



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Concerning the Scottish forts, I forgot to ask if anyone knows if we are aware of ALL the weaponry used in that period, or if there was any material that we're aware of that could burn at the needed temps? The reason I'm asking is I'm pretty sure they were using catapults by that time (correct me if I'm wrong) and of course they would light the projectile on fire, so I'm curious of maybe some kind of oil or something else could have been used to set the projectile on fire before they were launched to create the effect? Of course this is all moot if they didn't have that kind of machinery back then, but the fact it's at a fort is very telling to me because it leads me to believe that it happened during some kind of battle.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by MadhatterTheGreat
 


Yes, they had such fire-based weaponry as early as the 8th century BCE.

Early Thermal Weapons wiki



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 





Lightning strikes might account for a few of the vitrified forts, but doesn't explain the patterns of vitrification (the number of yearly lightning strikes at any specific spot, even using lightning rods to attract it) is very small and the area of vitrification change under the direct strike is small -- as you can see from this article on making Fulgerites. It would take hundreds of directed lightning strikes over the course of hundreds of years just to vitrify one section.


I'm glad to see we are in agreement, as this is exactly what I stated:




All in all I believe that that very strong lighting brought on by extreme solar activity is much more likely the casue of many of the more mysterious examples, and simple fire, can explain much of the others.



Megalith IS a good source for first hand pictures, while the may not be academically employed, alot of those members are over there and visit those sites. I'll take my information first hand regardless of qualifications any day as I'd rather work from real pictures and first hand account than biased opinions and conjecture.


It's not like what I was saying is without precedent, see "Catatumbo Lightning" it is possible these conditions occurred else where in the past and the implausible explanation of thousands of repeat strike at least has a basis in reality.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by vind21
It's not like what I was saying is without precedent, see "Catatumbo Lightning" it is possible these conditions occurred else where in the past and the implausible explanation of thousands of repeat strike at least has a basis in reality.


Vitfification can be done with a fairly hot fire and would produce broad areas of vitrification (like melting a sheet of sand to produce glass) and is not beyond the pale of Roman-era technology. Vitrification by lightning would be a VERY spotty item, and the effect of a bolt of plasma hitting the stone would shatter some of the rocks.

The setup needed for Catatumbo Lightning includes warm moist air and lots of lightning storms. It's very localized. Not only is it hard to direct lightning to vitrify a contiguous section of rock (without shattering large areas) but there's no way to create the same conditions by geoengineering in all the areas where vitrified forts are found.

The landscape would show the effects of such geoengineering.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by vind21
It's not like what I was saying is without precedent, see "Catatumbo Lightning" it is possible these conditions occurred else where in the past and the implausible explanation of thousands of repeat strike at least has a basis in reality.


Vitfification can be done with a fairly hot fire and would produce broad areas of vitrification (like melting a sheet of sand to produce glass) and is not beyond the pale of Roman-era technology.


And in fact appears to be rather common



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
There is a mechanism that can account for vitrification and it has been alluded to in previous posts with mentions of "lybian desert glass",comets and Tunguska, an airburst of an st object.


This is a simulation of what happens when an object within a certain sizerange vaporized as it passes through the atmosphere. All of the directed energy is converted to heat, as a super heated plasma, which continues on to the ground producing localised vitrification, just like the lybian desert glasses.

I'm not saying that all of the vitified forts were underneath an airburst but might have been and the people attempted to recreate the process.
Ok I know that idea is out there but in a ground breaking paper W. Napier, an astronomer , has laid out how a very large comet was injected into an inner solar system orbit>30k years ago and has be breaking up ever since. The younger dryas boundary event was the product of our passing though the debris field of the "taurid progenitor".
In his theory this wasn't a one time event but a yearly event that occured for several centuries and tapered off to a series of event that happed over the several thousand years.






top topics



 
6

log in

join