sethnintendo said:
Okay it makes sense considering it is the most structurally sound for something to go high up. However, no one can explain Stonehenge and how such primitive people were able to move and lift such stones/boulders. You would need over 20,000 people for some of these boulders. Also, the stones in Stonehenge were moved from miles away. |
Here in Holland we have similar constructions. A bit more primitive than Stonehenge in set-up, but the idea is the same. In fact, there are numerous places across the northern hemisphere where stones have been placed in such a formation. In my country at least, and I take it this goes for the others as well, these stones were proven to originate from mountainous regions around the north pole, moved across the continents by ice advancing over the land due to the ice age. People found them and probably simply rolled them on top of each other. Sure, this needs a lot of force and it probably took a long time, but you could think of ways to make it a little easier.
There are a lot of possible sollutions for how they did it. Like the Pyramids however, the process wasn't recorded (that we know of) so there's no way to varify one way or the other. That's why we don't know for sure. I've seen theories of people (a couple dozen per stone) lifting the stones by themselves, the use of oxes and rope, rolling them over logs and this interesting one:
