Rotherwas Ribbon

It takes a lot to hold up a bulldozer, but near Hereford works on a new road project are being held up by a serpent. Or at least that is what it might be.

Nobody knew the Rotherwas Ribbon existed until earlier this year, but archaeologists working ahead of the bulldozers on a new road project have found a new archaeological site. The Ribbon seems to be nothing like existing UK sites and because only part of it is exposed, we don't know what future excavations will reveal. It must be an exciting time for archaeologists waiting to see what else might turn up at this site.


View Larger Map

For those involved in developing infrastructure it is more complex. I am excited by this discovery like archaeologists, but events like this always concern me. It is human nature to personalise events and infrastructure projects are no different; people associate infrastructure projects with the people who design them, build them and those who procure them. If a project is seen in a bad light, the people who build it are also often seen in a bad light. Even worse the people who build it can be seen as evil people intent on destruction.

This is not helped because of the negative image that infrastructure projects often have in countries where there is a good existing infrastructure. In these countries the effect of a project can often be small, with the public finding it difficult to engage with it. There is little passion for the project, but in contrast there might be a lot of passion about some of the perceived negative consequences. People fight to protect things that they feel might be damaged by a project; culture, the environment, tranquility, history. And that fight is often vocal, makes good stories for the media and draws in the public.

The negative perception of engineers is important, but it is not what concerns me when problems like the Rotherwas Ribbon occur is not how the public sees it, but how those involved in the project manage it. Often projects are well managed and come out with a good outcome, but things do go wrong. It is these projects that do go wrong which are the most damaging both for for the perception of the industry, and for the legacy that we leave behind. Good decisions have to made to avoid costing the taxpayer, the environment and our cultural heritage both now and in the future.

I wish those working on the project well. I have no doubt that hard decisions are being made by everyone on the project and that there will be a good outcome. I look forward to the day that I can go an visit the Rotherwas Ribbon in an environment that befits such an important piece of archaeology.

Ancient mysteries and the Litho Lift

I have a deep fascination with the problems faced by ancient people in constructing their monuments. I know I'm not alone in this and it is a lucrative business these days with countless websites, television programmes and books all claiming to have cracked one of the ancient mysteries.

I stumbled upon another solution to the stonehange problem today (Stonehenge building riddle tackled). I love this solution, it is such a compelling machine; one of those solutions that seems obvious only when you've seen it. In some ways I wish I was the first person to have come up with this solution; and yet I know that it can not have been the way Stonehenge was actually built.

I would like to look at the Litho Lift initially from a pure engineering viewpoint. Looking at the scale model of the machine by simply taking moments it is clear that the force in the ropes are greater than the weight of the lintol stone itself. The inventor of the machine does propose a solution to this, by using counterweights to balance the load. To me, this is the start of the process of laying solutions on top of each other. You create a solution to a problem, it seems a nice solution so you decide to run with it. The only problem is that another problem is created. So you add some additional complication to your original solution to solve that second problem. That second solution then creates a third solution and so your original elegant solution ends up being surprisingly complicated.

Often, it is possible to have avoided the complex solution simply by picking different a different solution to begin with. The solution might not be as ingenious as the Litho Lift, but it would have been far easier to implement.

I have tried to put myself in the position of the people trying to build Stonehenge; I have no doubt these people were master craftsmen, with skills and knowedge often far exceeeding our own. I am not so sure that their ability to conceptually generate complex solutions to problems has reached our level of skill. Complexity and the tools used to manage it are features of the modern world , as are the tools and skills we have created to manage it.

I can not see the people building Stonehenge having used the Litho method to lift the lintols. To avoid creating a complex solution from scratch, large parts of the solution must have already been developed before Stonehenge was built. It is difficult to see how any of the individual parts of the machine would have benefited Neolithic man without the other parts. Of course I could be wrong, I am using essentilly the same argument against mans ingiuity that is used against natural selection evoving the eye.

My argument for not using the Litho Lift somehow does not appear to be as strong as my instinctive feeling that the Litho Lift is not the solution that was used. In the end, it is not my rational argument that sways the case. It is simply that I have moved one ton stones by hand as part of a team, and I have built large timber structures. I know how difficult it is creating a large timber structure and how simple it can be to move large loads with levers and brute force. I have no doubt that the people who built Stonehenge would have also gone for the simple solution - all they would have needed was patience and time, something which past generations have always demonstrated.

I am going to take it as my lesson for today. If I am going to try and develop an elegant solution, I must have experience of working with a problem. I must have an understanding of how much effort it actually takes to solve a problem with brute force and patience compared to inginuity and elegance. Sometimes the solution that involves the least work is not the right one.