-
The most logical explanation
Thing is, we know next to nothing about the people who built it, let alone their technology. Modern views are that they were primitive and only had the most basic creations we can imagine, the likes of which weren’t even invented by our species but by a preceding ape (homo habilis made tools 2 million years ago, neanderthalis made elaborate clothing and jewellery to decorate their dead in complex funeral rites tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago).
We believe homo sapiens sapiens has been physiologically pretty much the same for a couple hundred thousand years now. Was it really only a few thousand years ago that humans got creative and industrious enough to create wooden machines to lift things?
Not directed at you personally, but modern archeological convention strikes me as having a Victorian attitude to science, equating a (perceived) lack of cultural sophistication with an actual lack of cultural sophistication.
Leshaches-
Was it really only a few thousand years ago that humans got creative and industrious enough to create wooden machines to lift things?
So you think they used helicopters to fly the stones from Wales, then stand them upright on Salisbury Plain?
-
Our ancestors needed a sense of place to think about erecting anything of any permanence.
If you are a hunter gatherer tracking the herds of reindeer using what became the Ridgeway along the southern edge of a retreating ice sheet, you might revisit places each year for annual crops, (potentially hazel nuts), you aren't anywhere long enough to build more than a temporary structure.
Agriculture anchors (proto-/neo-)humans to a place. -
Modern views are that they were primitive and only had the most basic creations we can imagine
Um, whose modern views? Those don't sound like those current among archaeologists and other academics/scientists. Sounds more like the rather odd views you describe were your preconceptions that you've projected onto others having learned a bit better.
modern archeological convention
Really isn't the way you describe it.
andyp
mespilus
itsbruce
There was very little lifting required in building Stonehenge.
The most logical explanation is that they just built up earth banks around where they wanted to put things, rolled the stuff up with logs/ropes and then dug a hole to slide it down into. The lintels would have been rolled into place and then all of the surrounding earth removed.
Frighteningly time consuming but then think about what technology existed then and when the pyramids were built.