Hello Simon. In AD 562, a comet passed over Britain from the North East to the South West, eventually passing over Bolivia. The country was devastated.... this is written in the ancient British texts. It also explains why the stones are vitrified towards the tops of the walls more than at the bottom. Hope this helps. Dr Charles John (Charlie)
A quick check on Google, the melting point of basalt ranges from 1175c to 1350c obviously depending on variation of chemical composition. That's well with in the range of any sufficiently sized charcoal fire.
My brother and I (12 years old) once built a tall furnace/chimney (5 ft) against a brick wall of our house. The aft side of the chimney/ furnace was the wall. We had a heap of kiln-dried pieces of white oak flooring as fuel. It burnt like hell! After 4 to six hours we let the fire go out. The next day we started dismantling our chimney/furnace. The chimney and wall bricks were fused together! The insides had turned to blue-grey-orange 'glass'! Our father did not appreciate our work. We thought it was fantastic!
You're overestimating the temp of molten basalt. It generally comes out of the volcanic vent at 1,200 to 1,400 C, and flows whatever distance, loosing heat as it goes. That's still pretty hot, but not as hot as molten iron (1538 C), and of course, iron was not very commonly actually melted, just heated to plasticity for beating, until fairly recently, though it could be done.
Totally agree. This is something I have done in my backyard with a common and garden pottery kiln, although not with actual basalt. I commonly fired a far more refractory ceramic material. The professors exaggeration rather took the shine off this presentation.
@@m3528i in moments too! You gotta watch those things together, never burn them in the garden bin at once. Had some cabinets, with paper inside in my metal burn bin. Chucked some A-1 Kero on it with a flare and WOW! Burned Smokey for a few minutes. THen It all melted into the garden at free fall speeds in a moments time!
First, this is truly fascinating and insightful. Second, am I the only one that thinks this professor looks strikingly like Adam Savage from MythBusters?
I think you have 2/3rds 9f the solution. In addition to charcoal and time, the missing ingredient is moving air which most forges use to increase the rate of combustion and increase temperature to the range where iron can be worked. Years ago, i found a description of how iron ore was processed into iron and steel. The process required selecting a hillside where the winds usually blew up hill. Then they dug out a deep trench going up the hill. Into the trench they loaded the iron ore and then filled the rest of the trench with firewood with a lot of smaller diameter branches, etc. Then, preferably when the wind was blowing uphill, they started a fire at the bottom and let the wind spread it up the trench and create a tremendously hot fire which smelted the ore into iron. Since this smelting was done in a carbon rich fire, the iron absorbed some carbon which turned it into steel which was then called Damascus steel and highly prized for its strength and hardness. Does any of this sound familiar? In the case of the vitrified stone forts, which i believe are always at the top of a hill and thus open to the Scottish winds. Now if an enormous pile of gourse brush was placed inside the ring of stones and set afire, it would create a lot of heat. If the wind was blowing fast enough, the heat generated would be much more intense and could probably vitrify the stones on the inside of the ring. If vitrification of stones was the intended purpose and they wanted to melt stones on the outside of the ring, an even larger pile of gourse brush would be needed as well as favorable winds. If the winds weren't favorable or even when they were, some purposeful focusing of the wind could be achieved via external structures using animal skins or woven materials, etc. Again, supplying that essential air supply to achieve much higher temperatures. This answers the "how?" question but not the "Why? question. It seems like a great deal of effort just to vitrify some stones, ostensibly to make stronger walls, so I suspect there may have been another more important objective.
That could be, but forges tend to be smaller operations unless there is an attempt at processing a large amount of iron ore. Where is the iron deposit? If was refined, there is slag left over. Slag is obvious. There could be a set of several forges using those areas over time. Attempting to process a huge amount of ingots of iron to make products usually isn't done. Normally a relatively small amount of charcoal is used. It is most likely these industrial areas were used for all three products. Charcoal and naval stores were made in large kilns and then the charcoal was used to melt iron ingots from elsewhere into products for local consumption. I think there is likely a general agreement forming that the melted stones weren't intended to help the fortification, but were the result of repurposing convenient structures. The Scottish forts - zoned heavy industrial.
Strengthened fort walls would be attractive to anyone whose neighbors come around with weapons. Especially if the work was to be done anyone, for example clearing gorse away from crops. Perhaps the pile was collected to the old fort all year and then burned to celebrate yet another year of prosperity and safety.
Given the reality that it's probably more resource intensive to vitrify a wall than it is to simply add more stone, I'm thinking it's probably a byproduct of another use. However, you can't rule it out completely, since a stone wall mortared together with molten basalt will likely last longer than a stone wall and conventional mortar would. They may have wanted a structure that would last for centuries without crumbling into a pile of rocks. A proper dig to find everything possible in the archaeological record would go a long way in solving this.
A wonderful video, thank you! We have such a distorted concept of time. If one thinks back to the medieval period, those that started work building a cathedral (the biggest buildings of the time), knew that they would never see it completed. We've almost universally lost this concept and I think it would do us a great deal of good to re-establish it.
The walls were built for fortification, but the walls also likely made a convenient tar kiln and charcoal manufacturing structure, and were likely repurposed between wars to make those. Charcoal was necessary for blacksmithing and the luxury of non-smoking fires in well to do households. But there are other products produced in this process. By reducing the air, destructive distillation occurs and turpentine and tar condense down into a liquid and pour from the bottom of the kiln. Before petroleum, this was how naval stores were made to preserve wood, ropes and make canvass. Fishing fleets had to have a tar fiber material as calking between boards and to fix hulls as well as the British merchant marine and navy which ran through a tremendous amount of this material. If the fortification was used as an industrial site to make charcoal and naval stores for decades, vitrification may have occurred. If all of that effort was made to build that structure, the inhabitants likely decided to repurpose it since they already had it.
Nice idea but I seriously doubt this is the case with vitrified forts. No one is going to drag lumber up tap o noth to make charcoal. Not when it can be done right at the source of raw material. There are stones down low not just ontop of hills. I like the thinking just let down by the practicalities.
@@optimoespacio Usually what happened was the iron ore was processed near the mining site. Iron ingots then left the site to go to local blacksmiths to be made into or repair whatever their consumers wanted. What was located there was a forge, not an iron refining site. This largely happens today. The iron refiner makes the iron and it is made into ingots, sheets, etc. and sent to manufacturers to make products for the end consumers. What we know as Scotland today was not like that in the Iron Age. It was forested. Over time, the forests were consumed by man and man's herbivore domestic animals, sheep, goats, pigs, cattle and horses which ate almost all plants. The grasses have a basal meristem and have evolved to be able to survive repeated eatings. Since it was possible to make a living from those animals and farming crops wasn't that great, any areas which could be used for grass chewing animals were turned to pasture. So there was a wood supply nearby and animal dung from grass eating animals could also be converted to charcoal. The Indians burn a lot of it still.
Cheers it's fascinated me ever since I lived up there I've witnessed the same thing in India that pre dates the Scottish rock by thousands of years I read that it's impossible to generate the heat required using that method to melt rock and it seems a bit odd to be burning the very places you live in
I remember getting stuck on gorse as a kid in the 60's and it was bloody painful- I'm not surprised that it will burn for a long time given that it is an extremely dense wood- much like Boris Johnson-extremely dense. Unfortunately teflon now protects him...
Gorse sounds as painful to get stuck in as the Mock Orange (Osage Orange), that I'd get stuck in as a young child in the Deep South in the US. It had many long thorns. It also burned quite well.
Great vid, I remember the Arthur C Clarke episode on the Hill forts, I loved that show when I was a kid. At times over the years I’ve wondered how they might have done it, thanks for giving us the answer Prof.
Are vitrified fortifications inherently stronger than their stone equivalents? I ask only because, if not, there's no reason to think that these structures were formed intentionally, i.e., the vitrification could have been an effect of needing large, high-temperature fires, as in the iron age forges.
@@williamevans9426 some archaeologists think it was accidental. Like, the fort burned down, then locals built gorse fires (because gorse is what was around) where all the handy stone was, over centuries.
I think a part of that answer depends on the surrounding wall structure. If they used the vitrified stone as the structural portion, i.e., the entire wall was vitrified as much as possible, they might be weaker and possibly easier to shatter with the stone being in an amorphous (glass/vitrified) state, but I don't know much about the properties of the amorphous state of basalt...it may or may not be stronger than well stacked and mortared stone. What I do know of amorphous solids is they tend to propagate cracks and spall with much less force than their microcrystalline (natural stone) states. However, if they used molten basalt to replicate a mortar holding loose stones together in a matrix, then absolutely...it would be far stronger and potentially longer lived than simple stone and mortar walls. A tough exterior layer of natural microcrystalline basalt and an interior of amorphous basalt glass permeating the spaces between stones might be a tough structure indeed. The interrupted and random nature of the amorphous basalt used as mortar within the spaces wouldn't propagate a crack or spall much when that force meets a stone along the way...there's no continuous shear line possible. Even so, the question remains as to whether it was intentional or a byproduct of a particular use. Perhaps the technique began as a byproduct of use and they realized it made for a stronger wall, so they began to replicate it in a purpose built wall. It's also possible that the unintentional vitrification of the stone as a byproduct ended up making the walls structurally weaker, so they never incorporated it as a defensive measure and instead only abandoned fort walls were ever used.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper This is fascinating, especially the relative strengths of vitreous material permeating from inside basalt structures, as a form of mortar, compared with its potential durability as an external structural element. Thank you so much for providing such a detailed, yet easily understood analysis for non-experts like me; it's greatly appreciated!
No mystery has been solved in this video though. If such a techinque would work, I see no reason why it hadn´t been tried and posted on YT and elsewhere.
Professor Simon, you certainly have a unique and wonderful way of blending the learning experience, with old-school story-telling, mystery, wonder... and awe. Thank You So Very Much for sharing your knowledge, your insights, suspicions, and occasional hints of uncertainty! All the while, encouraging us to put on our thinking caps, turn on our critical thinking, and for treating & including us to some fascinating discussions in the search for the truth.
Nice :) . Being local Pehta have always been fascinated by our sequence of vitrified forts and yes you've deffo brought a new idea to bear. Like it a lot Would like you to also note the other technology you mention, that of forced air. The forts tend to be what ate known as timber laced whereby the dry stone walls were threaded through with solid oak beams every 6 feet horizontally and vertically and that when a fire was set yhese beams would have burnt through bringing the heag of the fire deep into the structure and opening forcing flues throughout the structure which combined with the hot charcoal effects of the gorse may well have made this a reasonably 'easy' and rel8ably repl8cable technique . Tidy Ta gain :)
Sounds like your pap nailed it to me :-) not to mention it would be lovely and warm while its burning away, specially in winter, you get to reinforce the walls, keep warm and dont have to trek for fuel, it could be quite possible that the victrification of the rock was a by product of staying nice and warm in winter, i mean in summer in the old days you still needed a jumper for scotland :-) great share professor
I don’t think it would be very pleasant to be in the cave while the fire is on it would suck up all the oxygen and make smoke. I wonder if it would be warm on the outside of the cave
maybe they used a rocket stove idea, if so there might be an air intake channel from outside the fort to the inside base of the gorse fire, that would increase heat with complete combustion of charcol
A channeled venturi effect on different portions of the wall, according to various wind directions & strengths? Be interesting to know what oils are in gorse & any influence they may have on forced air combustion temperatures : )
yeah that makes sense! :) be very possible to build "arches" form branches covered with hides and clay to build a huge funnel for the wind We know natural funnels and rock chimneys were used ot make the first steel, wootz
The same occurs at the South American megalithic sites. Signs of stone vitrification and liquification running down the face of these brilliantly constructed stone walls. The way the stones fit together such that a penknife can't be forced between, may have been achieved through softening of the rock. If I remember rightly it was at Sacsuayhuman that featured parts of the wall turning to glass and running down the wall-face. Probably Cusco and other locations as well. Worth checking out
It seems more likely that the rocks in Peru and other S American countries were melted using a chemical stew derived from the leaves of a local plant. Fawcett reported that a small bird used to make nesting sites on a rock face by rubbing it with a leaf from a local plant. Only four leaves would melt enough rock to provide a nest. The chemical that the leaves produced could apparently also melt some metals.
@@gerardtuxen5069 Thanks for the comment. It drew my eye as in working with the Brochs of Mull Island ( Dun (s) ) I never ran across any vitrification of any note. That's more than likely owing to the significant gap between them and the vitrified forts in Scotland. But I've been confused by the "mystery" of the South American precision stone joints, for years now. Most stone masons can routinely still do this. They only use modern tools to speed up the process at large. I've personally done it in Small sections using softer to harder stones as tooling, compared to the Base stone. Really selling the native craftspeople short is a disservice. We are discussing a South American traditional building method that was not reached or surpassed outside of Mexico in North America until the 1800's. I do find the vitrified forts a fascinating subject. I am, like MANY others, Longing for more dating information. We do know a great deal about the Scottish Iron Age, charcoal, and forging. I - as I suspect many others - find this scale of resource expenditure astonishing. Even given a multigenerational time - span just the effort is breathtaking. Sure deserves some examination!
@@RolftheRed youre looking at damage caused by ANCIENT DIRECT ENERGY WEAPONS, yes WE had them years ago and use them to RESET earth every now and then, they are being used again for example maii hawaii,california,canada,greece wildfires WAS NOT natural,its all hidden because you will figure out the true reality of where you live and the cycle were in
That's GREAT!! It's also exactly what I've always maintained. I have never thought of "the ancients" as ignorant, despite the "caveman" allusion when I was in school. WE wouldn't be here if our ancestors weren't resourceful. I can also tell you those stone spheres, found in the NE of Scotland were used to knit gloves, socks and whatever else was needed. They were important items, and prob. handed down over the years. Same goes for all the Roman Stone Spheres. I recently saw a megalithic site that people were so baffled by. There was a "wooden box" filled with rubble and left hanging up high in the air. While there was another "box" empty and on the ground. They just could not figure out how or why they were like that. All I could do was scream at the screen..."HAVE YOU NOT HEARD OF SIMPLE PHYSICS?" LEVERAGE PEOPLE. Simple pulley system can lift just about anything. That one man built a scaled down Great Pyramid all by himself, by merely using one stone to lift the other. A pulley and weight system. Yes you can cut the pyramid stones and place them all by yourself. Don't get me started on the "nubs" everyone is so fascinated by. I feel like the fringe archaeology channels on YT want it to be aliens so bad, that when the obvious is staring them in the face, they simply say, ya but.......how did they move them, why, and so on and on. They can't accept that man wasn't stupid.
What a coincidence ... we just visited today Kildonan Dun. Thank you for the insights about these beautiful ruins left by our ancestors. We moved recently to Torrisdale, so we do want to learn more about this beautiful part of Scotland. Thank you.
Interesting . You have ommitted two factors here. Firstly the use of lime as a building material throughout the interior of stone structures and secondly the massive quantity of timber used in their intitial construction . This combination ,at the time of the buildings deliberate destruction by fire ,would raise the temperature to 1320+C assisted by the fluxing effect of lime to melt the rock's surface . It is my view that all the vitrification came about as a result of the demise of the structures by burning not as part of their construction .. This is almost confirmed as not all demonstrate any vitrification and all those that do have the majority displayed on the interior only . The gorse story may be a 'red herring' and not truly applicable here. In addition there is no structural or practical reason to vitrify the structure. . Lime , in its various forms , is an easy to use sealent and binder with horsehair or reed fibres to add rigidity in lining walls and ceilings and has been used for millenia. Lime is also used in certain types of glass making as a fluxing agent . . Thanks
True, it's vitrification, but not silicon dioxide. Hence, not glass. Glass beads date back to 1700 - 1900 BC, but glass windows and containers go back to the Roman Empire. Glass initially came as a byproduct of metalworking, so it's not anything exceptional really. Hell, smelting iron ore would do that and not exceptional. Hell, there are tons of videos of people picking up molten basalt from volcanoes with a regular shovel. Given that the basalt is already molten and steel melts around 1430 C, the temperature is obviously lower than the melting point of steel. But, turning basalt into glass, that is an accomplishment! Turning lead into gold would be a far lesser accomplishment, given basalt is iron or magnesium rich and very low in silicon. I do prefer my professors to speak precisely about fairly elementary chemistry.
I'm a union boilermaker. I have spent many years working in and around and repairing steel mills. Maybe these were not forts at all but open pitfoundries. Put all your iron ore inside pile up the gors light it on fire and keep feeding the fire for some time. Maybe they even made hollow balls of clay to put iron inside of to keep it from being exposed to the air while melting. 🤔 Intriguing. What if a lot of these forts actually started off as foundries and everybody else got it wrong. Just to later be used as forts after they were abandoned as foundries
There was only 1 melted rock fort outside of Scotland and it was in my hometown of Huddersfield , im looking at the hill on which it once stood out of my kitchen window right now.. My question is why bother melting the rock instead of just leaving it or pulling it down ? Seems like alot of work for no reward?
Similar examples of this type of ancient technology (melted and molded stone, even obsidian) can be found in several Indian temples that go back several thousands of years.
Hot topic - hot enough to melt rock. Those oddly shaped, yet impossibly snug fitting stone walls in Machu Picchu - I always thought were liquid stone (cement) poured into canvas bags and left to dry. Then the canvas was stripped away. I still haven't worked out the vitrification process, but I'm working on it. So far I've got a long list of what WON'T melt rock - ketchup, dirty socks ground to a paste, a car engine left to run it's gas tank empty with exhaust pipe shoved into the rock pile. And many more. Still solid rocks, though.
The BBC tried to do this in the 70's I think on a 12ft wall, they actually ran out of wood after 3 days and managed to find a tiny piece. The alternative is the theory of the meteorite in AD 562 ,which makes more sense than this.
3 days? I've had a fire going for longer, on camping trips when I was a teenager. And if you turned it into charcoal, you could store it up. Sure it would take a while, stop thinking of time, as getting back to your game of pong or your gameboy.
@@wayland063 The test was run for days, and proved, that you can melt stone with a wood fire, but it takes days to have a little melt, and the bigger the rock, clearly, the longer you'd need to keep the fire going. Of course, this depends on rock, and wood, and how long the fire was going. But, it's also how we make bricks. We fire them in a kiln.
@normbograham we fire bricks in a kiln to harden them so not sure wtf you mean. The test showed that it would take a whole forest to turn basically one stone to turn to glass. There is no way the ancients would have done that as wood was.precious.
This popped up recommended by UA-cam tonight. I live in Torrisdale and it just so happens that I visited the fort that your mother and father cleared this afternoon. How spooky is that! Great video by the way...really enjoyed it.
"but the ancients knew, that if you took your time with a project, you will succeed." Well, that, plus back then, there really wasn't that much to do, but wait.
So, Professor, I have a observation and a question. Viewing the video segments where the vitrified rocks are shown, I was examining, as best I could, the edges of the vitrified rock. The edges appear to be made up of smaller rock set between the 'larger stones'. When the segments of the Wall were fired, wouldn't the smaller stones be the first to achieve the needed temperature to melt? And as such temperature were reached to melt the smaller rock, the edges of the smaller rock would begin to melt or solidify to the adjacent larger stone. As the temperature of smaller rock increased, so would the larger rock's temperature at the edges also rise to the melting point. And then the material would 'flow' together and bond. It seems to me that the bonding of the two materials would have achieved the desired purpose to make the rock a whole singular combined stone, which would be stronger as a whole single section as opposed to two sections made of like stones, even if the smaller stones were vitrified and the adjacent smaller rock was not 'melted' into the larger rock. Just a thought. Good food for thought.
After watching half of this video, I discovered that I still knew nothing about how the ancients melted rock. Skip to the last minute or so. He just says it there. Or basically... ...they piled gorsewood charcoal inside the structures and made a fire burn for weeks on end which melted the rocks on the inside.
It would never burn for weeks the Scottish weather would see to that 1 day of heavy rain would stop it dead also the sodden ground would boil under the fire making energy les likely to happen , still NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA HOW IT WAS DONE
There are verified structures all over the world, on every continent, especially in the deserts, possibly something else happened, and it happened everywhere. Vitrified, not verified, silly text.
My guess: Dragons and Druids (wizards) are the two ingredients you need to melt a Scottish stone castle! Which were more common back then, then they are now, after English Knights arrived 'on the scene'. Now I'll watch the video!
In the 500's, according to what little records we have, there was a meteor that flew over the UK and essentially depopulated the land. I would assume it was this incredibly hot meteor that perhaps melted stone forts etc.
Can I just say I love you speaking style in these videos it's very calming and relaxing but keeps me intrigued and focused as well. Just subscribed, liked and now commented. Keep up the good work!
Sounds like a winner of a video and idea. It is slowly coming out that around the time of the Adena and Hopewell cultures in N America that an early culture in Appalachia was smelting iron impliments. These are not what is known as native americans or Indians but an entirely different race. Possibly these races came from Scottland or Wales but actually no one knows where they came from. The Adena most agree built the Serpent mound and other mounds throughout the Midwest. They also built the great clay pyramids which was the center of a city of about 10,000 people across the Mississippi River, the east bank of the river, from St Louis. They were in many respects more advanced than the Native American cultures than replaced them many years later. They existed during the time of the Mastadons in N America, an ancient wooly mamouth type creature and have been exhumed hunting them in the what was known as the Great Black Swamp of Northwestern Ohio that existed during the War of 1812 and where the far most western edges of where this war was fought. The manufacture of iron compliments is what is setting my minds imagination into action and the fact that people from Whales and Scotland did migrate into N America long before Christopher Columbus discovered it along with races from Norway and Sweden. This is all pre-last-ice age history. Most of these races never recorded the discovery of a new massive continent as most considered N America as a western extension of Europe. So throw you a mystery, who were these early Pre-Native American settlers of N America? The earliest settlements ran from Labridor in Canada to roughly Providence, Rode Island. The extended clear out to St Louis and Minneapoli-St Paul. They where far more advanced than the Indians and their DNA tests suggests that racially they were not the same race.
...some of what you speak of is related to Prince Madoc's odyssey following the cometary tsunami of 592 CE, that blew him to the North American coast, and his return to King Arthwys II who later relocated his kingdom's survivors anew over there.
@@razor1uk610 I still can't prove that the Adena & Hopewell were related to the Scott's, Welsh, or Norse but they where not of Asian blood line. We definitely have proof that all 3 have landed along the northeastern sea board long before Christopher Columbus was even born. Archaeologists have discovered reminents of man made stone structures in S Wisconsin. Aztec type structures in Georgia, obviously not the race or group of people I am talking about, and there is a large submerged city off the coast of Cuba that is yet to be fully explored. North America was far from backwards, unknown, and uninhabited before the great ice age. Just threw out some crazy but possible thoughts to Mr Holland. It makes for interesting learning and studying but it hasn't been an area of interest among most archeologists so there hasn't been too many discoveries.
@@informationcollectionpost3257 true! ..archaeologists can tend to be the slower to respond to new sciences academically, as the lecturer-professors are too busy guarding their positions from rivals to the educational stipend/grant, ...all the while trying to get their own papers published and finding anyway possible to smear a potential rival, especially if of a rival sect of thought to an Idea, ideology or theory. Archaeologists whom still dig, yearn to discover and learn, do not fall in to the same egotistically academic group of smearing paper pushers. Butt those more open minded digger types are as likely to be corralled and coerced by those academic egotistical purse-strings. Apologies for a bit of a rant, I have unfortunately a strong dislike of the egotistically striving humans, as they are the ones who'll shit on others before attempting re-evaluating anything else, let alone bothering to change an aspect of a fragment of their own outlooks of opinion on a subject.
Hello Sir, So I discovered your existence on UA-cam about 12 minutes ago and I'm happy I did. This particular video is my first time watching you and I must say YOU, Professor Simon Holland, are the first and only person to give a reasonable interpretation of past happenings. FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAS A BRAIN THAT THEY ACTUALLY USE!!! THANK YOU, ABerCul
This is so interesting! I’m thinking that there are maybe a couple of factors at work: 1) The thick pile of gorse and layers of smoldering charcoal and ash insulate the deepest part of the fire. I don’t know if there’d be enough oxygen getting through the layers of actively burning material above the lowest levels to support combustion there, but if any did at all, the heat generated from even minimal combustion would have trouble escaping. So temperatures could get much higher than in a normal bed of coals on a hearth. 2) Over short periods of time, the rocks would absorb and conduct away heat energy, but once they were heated to a significant distance/depth, the surfaces in contact with the coals could get very hot indeed. Rock isn’t a great thermal conductor, so given enough heat input over a long enough period of time, it would make sense that the surface facing the fire could get extremely hot. I think the main revelation here is that we tend to think of things as having various characteristic temperatures when burning, but we’re only seeing them when they’re in open air and the thermal energy generated is being radiated/conducted/convected away. In reality, the temperature we see is a function of how much thermal energy is being created vs how much is being taken away through various processes. Oxidizing a given amount of charcoal produces “x” amount of heat, but if you don’t let that heat escape, and then oxidize another amount of charcoal on top of it, the temperature is going to get much higher than as it was just burning normally on a hearth or in a furnace. I don’t know, a friend of mine once said that I could come up with a random theory to support any set of data in 10 minutes or less - and then just as quickly think of a totally different theory if it turned out the data was wrong - so my theories may not have a lot of merit. Still, this is a enormously interesting story, and shows that our “modern” thinking can often prove to be very limited :-)
That’s all very well but the Scottish climate won’t allow , no matter how hot one day of heavy rail will soon wipe it out and the sodden soaked ground will cause massive steam undue the fire cooling it down
I don't know the archeology/history of these vitrified 'forts'. But, rather than a fort, could they have originally been (or at least mostly) places of pilgrimage/festivals/ritual. Where they created large fires in these stone circles (using the wood mentioned). And, over generations of burning, these walls vitrified. Perhaps, with other times in their history, when they were used for habitation. I only say that as, the benefit of verified stone (in these walls) for the true 'fort' seems overkill (unless, created as a byproduct of some other ritual). If I actually wanted vitrified walls, using the ideas you mention: I would pile the gorse wood (or, charcoal, made from gorse - maybe better for the task) over and around the whole stone wall structure. Then, using earth and water, create a clay. Using that to enclose the wood/charcoal (and wall) in the earth/clay. But, leave the ends of this 'clay tunnel' open to the elements (and perhaps, even create openings around the clay structure at key points). Given wind power on the coasts of Scotland, that might allow (at the right times of year) for a sort of natural 'bellows' effect through the clay structure. Basically, your building a furnace ..with the wall at its centre :) Peace.
Nice, what about actually adding glass (broken bottles or jars) or sand into the stonepile? And maybe peat instead of clay...then a slow burn with that steady coastal wind.
The best explanation I've heard for vitrified stone forts in Scotland and I appreciate your point about time: As an engineer my decisions are not based on the economics of something not over it's lifetime or even a five year net present value but project economics are based on year quarterly rate of returns and therefor it's pure madness. I've seen melted staircases in Egypt and Peru that would seem to need to have a different mechanism however.
It's interesting how ever serious historians forget (a) how many people were actually in the countryside prior to the industrial revolution and the birth of the modern city, Thereby providing a vast amount of personpower. I say personpower because women and kids would have joined in. All it took was someone with authority to manage the people. Also (b) that a lot of things can be accomplished given a large amount of time. We think of things in terms of mechanical tools and machinery. But for instance the canals of England especially in the early stages were built using an almost infinite number of navvies and.... time. Yes, things took less time as machinery became involved and that's the sort of timescales that modern people assume things took back in antiquity. But turning a Basalt tower into basically a huge blast forge and leaving it lit for a year isn't beyond the technology of the time. Lots of fuel and an opening in the base to create a draught for the fire. Plus there was more wood and trees in Scotland back then. A lot more. Plenty of raw material to make charcoal if required.
This is something truly valuable that has sadly been lost from modern civilization and only to our detriment. When was the last time any of us walked miles with a group of friends and family to take part in the construction of a monument or large building, something that we would likely not even live to see completed. When I think of this, I don't see slaves beaten within an inch of their lives, wobbling on the edge of death under a scorching cruel sun and the whips of the masters. I see instead a happy, community affair, each person doing their part not to stay an executioners hand nor win riches or favor of the powerful, but to be part of something larger than themselves yet totally OF themselves as a whole. A landmark wrought by the hands of the people that will lend proof that they once lived. How sad that in this day and age we live our whole lives next to strangers, most of which we will never even speak to let alone build something amazing with. How sad that the most voluminous thing we will produce that proves that we were ever here was a huge pile of trash in a landfill.
We found a document, and translated it, and it was about labor for a wall. The wall took years. It's incomprensable that any group would commit to a 30, 50, 200 year project by todays impatience. We could not figure out how they did it, because we cannot comprehend that a project would take as long as a lifetime.
Always nice to learn something new every day.Thanks Prof. (Although there is only one T in Scots and i have no skin in the game having supposedly Pictish DNA).
My Grand Father was a Master Black Smith after retiring from Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the early 70s he mentioned such a marvel of melted basalt in ancient fort. I was very young but he rarely spoke and being a giant of a man I would listen. soda ash or potash are added to lower the melting point. Mining goes back to the Ne season or not making a blast furnace surrounding portions of walls taking years to make. Stones have been melted world wide all found in structures that predate man and later claimed by man for use. Maybe those before our history passed on a portion of the process. The Scotland walls are not polygonal architecture and much rougher still a mystery.
I think perhaps they used those big round stone towers as Iron smelting kilns. You can find glass and other melted minerals all along the inside of a mud brick kiln when you knock it down. I think they just kept dumping iron ore and fuel into the pre made stone kiln for weeks or until the walls started to glow.
Don't forget there is also peat and possibly even coal, while not widely used as an industrial fuel, coal and peat have been used since ancient times, that combine with things that other people have mentioned would explain the heat quote easily.
We see the same melting that happened in Egypt. Might I suggest what melted these rocks was not humans but rather a catastrophic solar event. That makes a lot more sense than this idea!
Very well put. iron age people were not under pressure to leap. They used what they had- including patience. Which is why my theory of how Stonehenge was built over generations during the farming off-seasons of Winter by 1., dragging sledges bearing the stones on snow and ice, and 2., cracking rocks in mining with fires and freezing ( as Hadrian did whilst crossing the mountains to get to Rome), makes perfect sense. 3/. The blue stones represent dead people (blue) and the positions of the stones in situ make for amplified vocal harmonic resonance of healing frequencies in ritual healing ceremonies.
I visited a vitrified fort at the Southern end of Bute. Couldn't find any obvious vitrification, but then I'm not an archeologist. What a stunning place though, St.Blane's chapel is nearby and I saw a juvenile white tailed eagle.
There is more than one way the ancients manipulated stone. In South America there is a bird known as the Pito bird, if you block the birds nest with iron or stone, it will fly off and collect leaves and bring them back to place them on the obstruction, melting the object placed in front of it's entrance like it never existed. Always watch how nature works.
Very fascinating subject ,for a side note we here on the left coast of Canada call gorse Scotch broom and I recently learned that the wood makes beatiful spoons and the like. Loved this video Simon and would love to visit your neck of the woods some day
"tens of thousands of years"? I was tought that the earliest settlers to Scotland came around 8000 years ago. The place was covered in ice a mile thick for about 120000 before that.
Ice age ended 16,000BC and sea levels rose very quickly. So as the ice retreated people could have migrated north and followed the animals. 8,000 sounds a bit later than might have been expected?
Both my daughters now live not far from your own upbringing place, eldest is in Dunoon and youngest is across the water in Clydebank, my own forebears come from Perth, Edinburgh and Aberdeenshire, one thing our family did was found village and town schools across northern Scotland as well as that school in Edinburgh, teaching and educating is a family business so to speak :D
You can't honestly believe that people did this. Its not just Scotland, this phenomenon stretches from Scotland to Russia. It was obviously an areal phenomenon, such as an asteroid, that vitrified that rock.
If you stacked the gorse, or gorse charcoal thickly about and on top of the walls, inside and out, then stacking thick mud bricks all over, leaving air openings and chimney holes, basically building a kiln around the structure, I can see that working faster than simply stacking gorse and setting it alight.
I read that goarse is not native to Scotland, and it was introduced maybe 2 or 3 centuries ago, it was stated by a University of Edinburgh teacher that looked at goarse as a source of protein that could be used to feed humans, as it was used to provide food for horses in the past.
Hello Simon. In AD 562, a comet passed over Britain from the North East to the South West, eventually passing over Bolivia. The country was devastated.... this is written in the ancient British texts. It also explains why the stones are vitrified towards the tops of the walls more than at the bottom. Hope this helps. Dr Charles John (Charlie)
Charles knows what he's on about. This by the way devastated much of Britain, allowing the Saxon's to move in virtually unnappossed
Here's the answer.
@@daniels4338 Sorry Daniel, I don’t understand. Where is the answer?
Spot on, totally agree, this is the reason for vitrification
Why only forts though, what of the other rock structures, houses and mountains themselves?
At first I thought the thumbnail was another Adam Savage one day build. In all seriousness thank you for this content. Great watch for sure!
Wish I had a teacher like you when I was at school, your an extremely interesting and well educated man.
A quick check on Google, the melting point of basalt ranges from 1175c to 1350c obviously depending on variation of chemical composition. That's well with in the range of any sufficiently sized charcoal fire.
That's really low. Interesting.
My brother and I (12 years old) once built a tall furnace/chimney (5 ft) against a brick wall of our house. The aft side of the chimney/ furnace was the wall. We had a heap of kiln-dried pieces of white oak flooring as fuel. It burnt like hell! After 4 to six hours we let the fire go out. The next day we started dismantling our chimney/furnace. The chimney and wall bricks were fused together! The insides had turned to blue-grey-orange 'glass'!
Our father did not appreciate our work. We thought it was fantastic!
You're overestimating the temp of molten basalt. It generally comes out of the volcanic vent at 1,200 to 1,400 C, and flows whatever distance, loosing heat as it goes. That's still pretty hot, but not as hot as molten iron (1538 C), and of course, iron was not very commonly actually melted, just heated to plasticity for beating, until fairly recently, though it could be done.
Totally agree. This is something I have done in my backyard with a common and garden pottery kiln, although not with actual basalt. I commonly fired a far more refractory ceramic material. The professors exaggeration rather took the shine off this presentation.
I'm pretty sure you can melt steel with kerosene, particleboard and burning paper.. that's what I was told anyway..
@@m3528i in moments too! You gotta watch those things together, never burn them in the garden bin at once. Had some cabinets, with paper inside in my metal burn bin. Chucked some A-1 Kero on it with a flare and WOW! Burned Smokey for a few minutes. THen It all melted into the garden at free fall speeds in a moments time!
Any chance it was an ancient light house/fire tower?
You have to smelt the iron to begin with so yes it needs to hotter than that actually
First, this is truly fascinating and insightful. Second, am I the only one that thinks this professor looks strikingly like Adam Savage from MythBusters?
I think you have 2/3rds 9f the solution. In addition to charcoal and time, the missing ingredient is moving air which most forges use to increase the rate of combustion and increase temperature to the range where iron can be worked. Years ago, i found a description of how iron ore was processed into iron and steel. The process required selecting a hillside where the winds usually blew up hill. Then they dug out a deep trench going up the hill. Into the trench they loaded the iron ore and then filled the rest of the trench with firewood with a lot of smaller diameter branches, etc. Then, preferably when the wind was blowing uphill, they started a fire at the bottom and let the wind spread it up the trench and create a tremendously hot fire which smelted the ore into iron. Since this smelting was done in a carbon rich fire, the iron absorbed some carbon which turned it into steel which was then called Damascus steel and highly prized for its strength and hardness.
Does any of this sound familiar? In the case of the vitrified stone forts, which i believe are always at the top of a hill and thus open to the Scottish winds. Now if an enormous pile of gourse brush was placed inside the ring of stones and set afire, it would create a lot of heat. If the wind was blowing fast enough, the heat generated would be much more intense and could probably vitrify the stones on the inside of the ring. If vitrification of stones was the intended purpose and they wanted to melt stones on the outside of the ring, an even larger pile of gourse brush would be needed as well as favorable winds. If the winds weren't favorable or even when they were, some purposeful focusing of the wind could be achieved via external structures using animal skins or woven materials, etc. Again, supplying that essential air supply to achieve much higher temperatures.
This answers the "how?" question but not the "Why? question. It seems like a great deal of effort just to vitrify some stones, ostensibly to make stronger walls, so I suspect there may have been another more important objective.
That could be, but forges tend to be smaller operations unless there is an attempt at processing a large amount of iron ore. Where is the iron deposit? If was refined, there is slag left over. Slag is obvious. There could be a set of several forges using those areas over time. Attempting to process a huge amount of ingots of iron to make products usually isn't done. Normally a relatively small amount of charcoal is used. It is most likely these industrial areas were used for all three products. Charcoal and naval stores were made in large kilns and then the charcoal was used to melt iron ingots from elsewhere into products for local consumption. I think there is likely a general agreement forming that the melted stones weren't intended to help the fortification, but were the result of repurposing convenient structures. The Scottish forts - zoned heavy industrial.
Strengthened fort walls would be attractive to anyone whose neighbors come around with weapons. Especially if the work was to be done anyone, for example clearing gorse away from crops. Perhaps the pile was collected to the old fort all year and then burned to celebrate yet another year of prosperity and safety.
Heard they can use wind funnels to even get bone hot enough to burn in Siberia.
Given the reality that it's probably more resource intensive to vitrify a wall than it is to simply add more stone, I'm thinking it's probably a byproduct of another use. However, you can't rule it out completely, since a stone wall mortared together with molten basalt will likely last longer than a stone wall and conventional mortar would. They may have wanted a structure that would last for centuries without crumbling into a pile of rocks. A proper dig to find everything possible in the archaeological record would go a long way in solving this.
A think the rock melting was a bye product to what they did. smelt iron and steel was the reason a doubt melting rocks was usfull to them.
A wonderful video, thank you!
We have such a distorted concept of time.
If one thinks back to the medieval period, those that started work building a cathedral (the biggest buildings of the time), knew that they would never see it completed.
We've almost universally lost this concept and I think it would do us a great deal of good to re-establish it.
People today are so dumbed down, stupid and lazy. They have to conceive of aliens instead of hard work and commitment.
love it i think you cracked it.i think dragons might have helped on some of the other projects.
The walls were built for fortification, but the walls also likely made a convenient tar kiln and charcoal manufacturing structure, and were likely repurposed between wars to make those. Charcoal was necessary for blacksmithing and the luxury of non-smoking fires in well to do households. But there are other products produced in this process. By reducing the air, destructive distillation occurs and turpentine and tar condense down into a liquid and pour from the bottom of the kiln. Before petroleum, this was how naval stores were made to preserve wood, ropes and make canvass. Fishing fleets had to have a tar fiber material as calking between boards and to fix hulls as well as the British merchant marine and navy which ran through a tremendous amount of this material. If the fortification was used as an industrial site to make charcoal and naval stores for decades, vitrification may have occurred. If all of that effort was made to build that structure, the inhabitants likely decided to repurpose it since they already had it.
Fascinating
Wow thank you for this analysis
Nice idea but I seriously doubt this is the case with vitrified forts. No one is going to drag lumber up tap o noth to make charcoal. Not when it can be done right at the source of raw material. There are stones down low not just ontop of hills.
I like the thinking just let down by the practicalities.
@@optimoespacio Usually what happened was the iron ore was processed near the mining site. Iron ingots then left the site to go to local blacksmiths to be made into or repair whatever their consumers wanted. What was located there was a forge, not an iron refining site. This largely happens today. The iron refiner makes the iron and it is made into ingots, sheets, etc. and sent to manufacturers to make products for the end consumers.
What we know as Scotland today was not like that in the Iron Age. It was forested. Over time, the forests were consumed by man and man's herbivore domestic animals, sheep, goats, pigs, cattle and horses which ate almost all plants. The grasses have a basal meristem and have evolved to be able to survive repeated eatings. Since it was possible to make a living from those animals and farming crops wasn't that great, any areas which could be used for grass chewing animals were turned to pasture. So there was a wood supply nearby and animal dung from grass eating animals could also be converted to charcoal. The Indians burn a lot of it still.
Cheers it's fascinated me ever since I lived up there I've witnessed the same thing in India that pre dates the Scottish rock by thousands of years I read that it's impossible to generate the heat required using that method to melt rock and it seems a bit odd to be burning the very places you live in
Brilliant film Simon , and credit to prof dad for solving a mystery 👍
I remember getting stuck on gorse as a kid in the 60's and it was bloody painful- I'm not surprised that it will burn for a long time given that it is an extremely dense wood- much like Boris Johnson-extremely dense. Unfortunately teflon now protects him...
Teflon! OH! I thought it was politics lol
Sir Starmer is all the protection Boris needs.
Gorse is full of oil/resin it burns like crazy and makes very dangerous hill fires
Gorse sounds as painful to get stuck in as the Mock Orange (Osage Orange), that I'd get stuck in as a young child in the Deep South in the US. It had many long thorns. It also burned quite well.
It covers my local mountain biking spot and we lovingly refer to it as the bastard Bush
Great vid, I remember the Arthur C Clarke episode on the Hill forts, I loved that show when I was a kid. At times over the years I’ve wondered how they might have done it, thanks for giving us the answer Prof.
Great show!!
thanks for watching
Are vitrified fortifications inherently stronger than their stone equivalents? I ask only because, if not, there's no reason to think that these structures were formed intentionally, i.e., the vitrification could have been an effect of needing large, high-temperature fires, as in the iron age forges.
They're actually weaker. The final stones are more brittle.
@@unclescipio3136 Many thanks. It makes one wonder why they'd be deliberately created, expecially when it was do difficult to do so.
@@williamevans9426 some archaeologists think it was accidental. Like, the fort burned down, then locals built gorse fires (because gorse is what was around) where all the handy stone was, over centuries.
I think a part of that answer depends on the surrounding wall structure. If they used the vitrified stone as the structural portion, i.e., the entire wall was vitrified as much as possible, they might be weaker and possibly easier to shatter with the stone being in an amorphous (glass/vitrified) state, but I don't know much about the properties of the amorphous state of basalt...it may or may not be stronger than well stacked and mortared stone. What I do know of amorphous solids is they tend to propagate cracks and spall with much less force than their microcrystalline (natural stone) states. However, if they used molten basalt to replicate a mortar holding loose stones together in a matrix, then absolutely...it would be far stronger and potentially longer lived than simple stone and mortar walls. A tough exterior layer of natural microcrystalline basalt and an interior of amorphous basalt glass permeating the spaces between stones might be a tough structure indeed. The interrupted and random nature of the amorphous basalt used as mortar within the spaces wouldn't propagate a crack or spall much when that force meets a stone along the way...there's no continuous shear line possible. Even so, the question remains as to whether it was intentional or a byproduct of a particular use. Perhaps the technique began as a byproduct of use and they realized it made for a stronger wall, so they began to replicate it in a purpose built wall. It's also possible that the unintentional vitrification of the stone as a byproduct ended up making the walls structurally weaker, so they never incorporated it as a defensive measure and instead only abandoned fort walls were ever used.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper This is fascinating, especially the relative strengths of vitreous material permeating from inside basalt structures, as a form of mortar, compared with its potential durability as an external structural element. Thank you so much for providing such a detailed, yet easily understood analysis for non-experts like me; it's greatly appreciated!
another great video thank you for sharing with us
I still think a Solar event could do the same. Maybe.
cheers Prof,
i remember climbing an enourmous hill (covered in gorse) a few years ago to see a vitrified fort, thanks for solving the mystery :)
No mystery has been solved in this video though. If such a techinque would work, I see no reason why it hadn´t been tried and posted on YT and elsewhere.
It was a Comet. This theory is nonsense
@@thedood73 a comet that only affected forts? seems pretty unlikely to me
Professor Simon, you certainly have a unique and wonderful way of blending the learning experience, with old-school story-telling, mystery, wonder... and awe. Thank You So Very Much for sharing your knowledge, your insights, suspicions, and occasional hints of uncertainty! All the while, encouraging us to put on our thinking caps, turn on our critical thinking, and for treating & including us to some fascinating discussions in the search for the truth.
Many thanks!
Grertings from england..hes great isnt he!wish i had teachers like him at school 👍
Brilliant, so many people have come up with all many of crazy theories to answer this problem. And it was so simple all along.
its only a theory but it kinda makes sense.
Occam’s razor.
Nice :)
.
Being local Pehta have always been fascinated by our sequence of vitrified forts and yes you've deffo brought a new idea to bear. Like it a lot
Would like you to also note the other technology you mention, that of forced air. The forts tend to be what ate known as timber laced whereby the dry stone walls were threaded through with solid oak beams every 6 feet horizontally and vertically and that when a fire was set yhese beams would have burnt through bringing the heag of the fire deep into the structure and opening forcing flues throughout the structure which combined with the hot charcoal effects of the gorse may well have made this a reasonably 'easy' and rel8ably repl8cable technique
.
Tidy
Ta gain :)
Due to the makeup of oak, it is hard to set alight however once alight it retains high heat longer than other woods like pine.
Sounds like your pap nailed it to me :-) not to mention it would be lovely and warm while its burning away, specially in winter, you get to reinforce the walls, keep warm and dont have to trek for fuel, it could be quite possible that the victrification of the rock was a by product of staying nice and warm in winter, i mean in summer in the old days you still needed a jumper for scotland :-) great share professor
I don’t think it would be very pleasant to be in the cave while the fire is on it would suck up all the oxygen and make smoke. I wonder if it would be warm on the outside of the cave
Thanks Professor! I'm pulling for your Dad!
Thank you too!
Me too.
maybe they used a rocket stove idea, if so there might be an air intake channel from outside the fort to the inside base of the gorse fire, that would increase heat with complete combustion of charcol
A channeled venturi effect on different portions of the wall, according to various wind directions & strengths? Be interesting to know what oils are in gorse & any influence they may have on forced air combustion temperatures : )
yeah that makes sense! :) be very possible to build "arches" form branches covered with hides and clay to build a huge funnel for the wind
We know natural funnels and rock chimneys were used ot make the first steel, wootz
The same occurs at the South American megalithic sites.
Signs of stone vitrification and liquification running down the face of these brilliantly constructed stone walls. The way the stones fit together such that a penknife can't be forced between, may have been achieved through softening of the rock.
If I remember rightly it was at Sacsuayhuman that featured parts of the wall turning to glass and running down the wall-face.
Probably Cusco and other locations as well.
Worth checking out
It seems more likely that the rocks in Peru and other S American countries were melted using a chemical stew derived from the leaves of a local plant. Fawcett reported that a small bird used to make nesting sites on a rock face by rubbing it with a leaf from a local plant. Only four leaves would melt enough rock to provide a nest. The chemical that the leaves produced could apparently also melt some metals.
Forgot to mention: - The scottish hilltop forts or "Brochs" also display similar vitrification !
@@gerardtuxen5069 Thanks for the comment. It drew my eye as in working with the Brochs of Mull Island ( Dun (s) ) I never ran across any vitrification of any note. That's more than likely owing to the significant gap between them and the vitrified forts in Scotland.
But I've been confused by the "mystery" of the South American precision stone joints, for years now. Most stone masons can routinely still do this. They only use modern tools to speed up the process at large. I've personally done it in Small sections using softer to harder stones as tooling, compared to the Base stone. Really selling the native craftspeople short is a disservice. We are discussing a South American traditional building method that was not reached or surpassed outside of Mexico in North America until the 1800's.
I do find the vitrified forts a fascinating subject. I am, like MANY others, Longing for more dating information. We do know a great deal about the Scottish Iron Age, charcoal, and forging.
I - as I suspect many others - find this scale of resource expenditure astonishing. Even given a multigenerational time - span just the effort is breathtaking. Sure deserves some examination!
@@RolftheRed youre looking at damage caused by ANCIENT DIRECT ENERGY WEAPONS, yes WE had them years ago and use them to RESET earth every now and then, they are being used again for example maii hawaii,california,canada,greece wildfires WAS NOT natural,its all hidden because you will figure out the true reality of where you live and the cycle were in
Being interested in blacksmithing since I was young my first though was they used charcoal and forced air
Isn't it ironic that ancient people were wiser without technology than modern people with technology?
errr...yes.
You're a real scientist, so rare to hear a passionate seeker of truth these days
That's GREAT!! It's also exactly what I've always maintained. I have never thought of "the ancients" as ignorant, despite the "caveman" allusion when I was in school. WE wouldn't be here if our ancestors weren't resourceful.
I can also tell you those stone spheres, found in the NE of Scotland were used to knit gloves, socks and whatever else was needed. They were important items, and prob. handed down over the years. Same goes for all the Roman Stone Spheres.
I recently saw a megalithic site that people were so baffled by. There was a "wooden box" filled with rubble and left hanging up high in the air. While there was another "box" empty and on the ground. They just could not figure out how or why they were like that. All I could do was scream at the screen..."HAVE YOU NOT HEARD OF SIMPLE PHYSICS?" LEVERAGE PEOPLE. Simple pulley system can lift just about anything. That one man built a scaled down Great Pyramid all by himself, by merely using one stone to lift the other. A pulley and weight system.
Yes you can cut the pyramid stones and place them all by yourself. Don't get me started on the "nubs" everyone is so fascinated by. I feel like the fringe archaeology channels on YT want it to be aliens so bad, that when the obvious is staring them in the face, they simply say, ya but.......how did they move them, why, and so on and on. They can't accept that man wasn't stupid.
We humans are more dumb now than any other time in history. IMO.
Please explain “ nubs.” I know you don’t want to get started, but…. 😆😊
Professor Simon super fascinating history of how the ancients melt rock!
cheers Mike
What a coincidence ... we just visited today Kildonan Dun. Thank you for the insights about these beautiful ruins left by our ancestors. We moved recently to Torrisdale, so we do want to learn more about this beautiful part of Scotland. Thank you.
Interesting . You have ommitted two factors here. Firstly the use of lime as a building material throughout the interior of stone structures and secondly the massive quantity of timber used in their intitial construction . This combination ,at the time of the buildings deliberate destruction by fire ,would raise the temperature to 1320+C assisted by the fluxing effect of lime to melt the rock's surface . It is my view that all the vitrification came about as a result of the demise of the structures by burning not as part of their construction .. This is almost confirmed as not all demonstrate any vitrification and all those that do have the majority displayed on the interior only . The gorse story may be a 'red herring' and not truly applicable here. In addition there is no structural or practical reason to vitrify the structure. . Lime , in its various forms , is an easy to use sealent and binder with horsehair or reed fibres to add rigidity in lining walls and ceilings and has been used for millenia. Lime is also used in certain types of glass making as a fluxing agent . . Thanks
So you think there was big buildings on top of /next to the rocks which were burnt down? Who burned them and why? Fascinating!
@@Pajune it was a comet
It was a comet. See the works of Alan Wilson
@@thedood73 Comets just pass by. Asteroids hit the surface of a planet.
Burntisland is in Scotland. Also, sedimentary rock when heated makes lime. Igneous rock makes a kind of glass like substance, but not glass per ce.
True, it's vitrification, but not silicon dioxide. Hence, not glass. Glass beads date back to 1700 - 1900 BC, but glass windows and containers go back to the Roman Empire.
Glass initially came as a byproduct of metalworking, so it's not anything exceptional really. Hell, smelting iron ore would do that and not exceptional.
Hell, there are tons of videos of people picking up molten basalt from volcanoes with a regular shovel. Given that the basalt is already molten and steel melts around 1430 C, the temperature is obviously lower than the melting point of steel.
But, turning basalt into glass, that is an accomplishment! Turning lead into gold would be a far lesser accomplishment, given basalt is iron or magnesium rich and very low in silicon. I do prefer my professors to speak precisely about fairly elementary chemistry.
Depends what the sedementry rock is made from. Sandstone isnt going to turn to lime, its chemicly impossible.
More science please . Interesting stuff .
Being scottish I do
think youve got one of thee best accents on UA-cam ;)
I'm a union boilermaker. I have spent many years working in and around and repairing steel mills. Maybe these were not forts at all but open pitfoundries. Put all your iron ore inside pile up the gors light it on fire and keep feeding the fire for some time. Maybe they even made hollow balls of clay to put iron inside of to keep it from being exposed to the air while melting. 🤔 Intriguing. What if a lot of these forts actually started off as foundries and everybody else got it wrong. Just to later be used as forts after they were abandoned as foundries
i like your ideas
There was only 1 melted rock fort outside of Scotland and it was in my hometown of Huddersfield , im looking at the hill on which it once stood out of my kitchen window right now.. My question is why bother melting the rock instead of just leaving it or pulling it down ? Seems like alot of work for no reward?
Brilliant, thanks for sharing👍
Similar examples of this type of ancient technology (melted and molded stone, even obsidian) can be found in several Indian temples that go back several thousands of years.
DIRECT ENERGY WEAPONS we get reset by our overlords every NOW and then nothing new under the sun
Hot topic - hot enough to melt rock. Those oddly shaped, yet impossibly snug fitting stone walls in Machu Picchu - I always thought were liquid stone (cement) poured into canvas bags and left to dry. Then the canvas was stripped away. I still haven't worked out the vitrification process, but I'm working on it. So far I've got a long list of what WON'T melt rock - ketchup, dirty socks ground to a paste, a car engine left to run it's gas tank empty with exhaust pipe shoved into the rock pile. And many more. Still solid rocks, though.
Yeah but have you tried mixing the dirty socks into the ketchup before attempting to melt?
As a Hawaii resident this is relevant to my interests.
Vitrifying a rock wall would be much more interesting than cementing it.
Your whole town got vitrified and pulverized by the same technology used back then, DIRECT ENERGY WEAPONS,yup you better believe it
The BBC tried to do this in the 70's I think on a 12ft wall, they actually ran out of wood after 3 days and managed to find a tiny piece. The alternative is the theory of the meteorite in AD 562 ,which makes more sense than this.
Yes! Finally someone talking sense...👍🏾✌🏾🙏🏾
3 days? I've had a fire going for longer, on camping trips when I was a teenager. And if you turned it into charcoal, you could store it up. Sure it would take a while, stop thinking of time, as getting back to your game of pong or your gameboy.
@normbograham wtf are you talking about, this was about melting stone not how long to keep a fire going.
@@wayland063 The test was run for days, and proved, that you can melt stone with a wood fire, but it takes days to have a little melt, and the bigger the rock, clearly, the longer you'd need to keep the fire going. Of course, this depends on rock, and wood, and how long the fire was going. But, it's also how we make bricks. We fire them in a kiln.
@normbograham we fire bricks in a kiln to harden them so not sure wtf you mean. The test showed that it would take a whole forest to turn basically one stone to turn to glass. There is no way the ancients would have done that as wood was.precious.
This popped up recommended by UA-cam tonight. I live in Torrisdale and it just so happens that I visited the fort that your mother and father cleared this afternoon. How spooky is that! Great video by the way...really enjoyed it.
how wonderful ....its a nice spot overlooking Arran. give my love to Kintyre
Holy Molly! The Scottish Adam Savage from 20 years in the future!
I was told by older relatives as a child it was Dragons attacking the Fort. I like that version to this day
i like it
Yep dragons for sure 👍
Lived in Inverness for a while. There was a vitrified fort on top of the hill near my father's house. Always had me puzzled how it was done
It’s still a puzzle !
Craigdunain is the name of the fort
"but the ancients knew, that if you took your time with a project, you will succeed."
Well, that, plus back then, there really wasn't that much to do, but wait.
Theres alot of paintings of fire falling from the sky around 1600s
Why would you want to vitrify the forts, what was the purpose?
decorating or added strength
@@ProfSimonHolland or windproofing maybe?
Professor Simon. Amazing video. Just think of time and labor involved in melting rock. Kenneth.
An experiment MUST be made!
It's everywhere in out world. Old castles and forts literally singed into mountains and volcanos
So, Professor, I have a observation and a question. Viewing the video segments where the vitrified rocks are shown, I was examining, as best I could, the edges of the vitrified rock. The edges appear to be made up of smaller rock set between the 'larger stones'. When the segments of the Wall were fired, wouldn't the smaller stones be the first to achieve the needed temperature to melt? And as such temperature were reached to melt the smaller rock, the edges of the smaller rock would begin to melt or solidify to the adjacent larger stone. As the temperature of smaller rock increased, so would the larger rock's temperature at the edges also rise to the melting point. And then the material would 'flow' together and bond. It seems to me that the bonding of the two materials would have achieved the desired purpose to make the rock a whole singular combined stone, which would be stronger as a whole single section as opposed to two sections made of like stones, even if the smaller stones were vitrified and the adjacent smaller rock was not 'melted' into the larger rock.
Just a thought. Good food for thought.
After watching half of this video, I discovered that I still knew nothing about how the ancients melted rock.
Skip to the last minute or so. He just says it there.
Or basically...
...they piled gorsewood charcoal inside the structures and made a fire burn for weeks on end which melted the rocks on the inside.
It would never burn for weeks the Scottish weather would see to that 1 day of heavy rain would stop it dead also the sodden ground would boil under the fire making energy les likely to happen , still NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA HOW IT WAS DONE
@@mikelandy2078
"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what every man wishes, that he also believes to be true."
Demosthenes
Perhaps what you are seeing is the destructive force of an ancient weapon that destroyed the fortress.
I am convinced this man is a wizard. Subscribed.
There are verified structures all over the world, on every continent, especially in the deserts, possibly something else happened, and it happened everywhere. Vitrified, not verified, silly text.
its not just goarse something else less primitive.
My guess: Dragons and Druids (wizards) are the two ingredients you need to melt a Scottish stone castle!
Which were more common back then, then they are now, after English Knights arrived 'on the scene'.
Now I'll watch the video!
Getting the dragon for the experiment is easy enough, but finding an actual Druid--not a new age wannabe--could be impossible these days.
Funny because this has been what some people actually believe did it lol
In the 500's, according to what little records we have, there was a meteor that flew over the UK and essentially depopulated the land. I would assume it was this incredibly hot meteor that perhaps melted stone forts etc.
I have heard this theory. It supposedly could be responsible for the destruction of Chamelot as well. Very interesting for sure.
Can I just say I love you speaking style in these videos it's very calming and relaxing but keeps me intrigued and focused as well. Just subscribed, liked and now commented. Keep up the good work!
Sounds like a winner of a video and idea. It is slowly coming out that around the time of the Adena and Hopewell cultures in N America that an early culture in Appalachia was smelting iron impliments. These are not what is known as native americans or Indians but an entirely different race. Possibly these races came from Scottland or Wales but actually no one knows where they came from. The Adena most agree built the Serpent mound and other mounds throughout the Midwest. They also built the great clay pyramids which was the center of a city of about 10,000 people across the Mississippi River, the east bank of the river, from St Louis. They were in many respects more advanced than the Native American cultures than replaced them many years later. They existed during the time of the Mastadons in N America, an ancient wooly mamouth type creature and have been exhumed hunting them in the what was known as the Great Black Swamp of Northwestern Ohio that existed during the War of 1812 and where the far most western edges of where this war was fought. The manufacture of iron compliments is what is setting my minds imagination into action and the fact that people from Whales and Scotland did migrate into N America long before Christopher Columbus discovered it along with races from Norway and Sweden. This is all pre-last-ice age history. Most of these races never recorded the discovery of a new massive continent as most considered N America as a western extension of Europe. So throw you a mystery, who were these early Pre-Native American settlers of N America? The earliest settlements ran from Labridor in Canada to roughly Providence, Rode Island. The extended clear out to St Louis and Minneapoli-St Paul. They where far more advanced than the Indians and their DNA tests suggests that racially they were not the same race.
...some of what you speak of is related to Prince Madoc's odyssey following the cometary tsunami of 592 CE, that blew him to the North American coast, and his return to King Arthwys II who later relocated his kingdom's survivors anew over there.
@@razor1uk610 I still can't prove that the Adena & Hopewell were related to the Scott's, Welsh, or Norse but they where not of Asian blood line. We definitely have proof that all 3 have landed along the northeastern sea board long before Christopher Columbus was even born. Archaeologists have discovered reminents of man made stone structures in S Wisconsin. Aztec type structures in Georgia, obviously not the race or group of people I am talking about, and there is a large submerged city off the coast of Cuba that is yet to be fully explored. North America was far from backwards, unknown, and uninhabited before the great ice age. Just threw out some crazy but possible thoughts to Mr Holland. It makes for interesting learning and studying but it hasn't been an area of interest among most archeologists so there hasn't been too many discoveries.
@@informationcollectionpost3257 true! ..archaeologists can tend to be the slower to respond to new sciences academically, as the lecturer-professors are too busy guarding their positions from rivals to the educational stipend/grant,
...all the while trying to get their own papers published and finding anyway possible to smear a potential rival, especially if of a rival sect of thought to an Idea, ideology or theory.
Archaeologists whom still dig, yearn to discover and learn, do not fall in to the same egotistically academic group of smearing paper pushers.
Butt those more open minded digger types are as likely to be corralled and coerced by those academic egotistical purse-strings.
Apologies for a bit of a rant, I have unfortunately a strong dislike of the egotistically striving humans, as they are the ones who'll shit on others before attempting re-evaluating anything else, let alone bothering to change an aspect of a fragment of their own outlooks of opinion on a subject.
Hello Sir,
So I discovered your existence on UA-cam about 12 minutes ago and I'm happy I did. This particular video is my first time watching you and I must say YOU, Professor Simon Holland, are the first and only person to give a reasonable interpretation of past happenings. FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAS A BRAIN THAT THEY ACTUALLY USE!!!
THANK YOU, ABerCul
awww thank you...and welcome....check out some of the older films
Very interesting. Thank you Professor Simon.
thanks for watching Sandra
Of course anything can be done, If one knows how to do it ! My late dad used to say "sometimes the impossible just takes a bit longer" haha
This is so interesting!
I’m thinking that there are maybe a couple of factors at work:
1) The thick pile of gorse and layers of smoldering charcoal and ash insulate the deepest part of the fire. I don’t know if there’d be enough oxygen getting through the layers of actively burning material above the lowest levels to support combustion there, but if any did at all, the heat generated from even minimal combustion would have trouble escaping. So temperatures could get much higher than in a normal bed of coals on a hearth.
2) Over short periods of time, the rocks would absorb and conduct away heat energy, but once they were heated to a significant distance/depth, the surfaces in contact with the coals could get very hot indeed. Rock isn’t a great thermal conductor, so given enough heat input over a long enough period of time, it would make sense that the surface facing the fire could get extremely hot.
I think the main revelation here is that we tend to think of things as having various characteristic temperatures when burning, but we’re only seeing them when they’re in open air and the thermal energy generated is being radiated/conducted/convected away. In reality, the temperature we see is a function of how much thermal energy is being created vs how much is being taken away through various processes. Oxidizing a given amount of charcoal produces “x” amount of heat, but if you don’t let that heat escape, and then oxidize another amount of charcoal on top of it, the temperature is going to get much higher than as it was just burning normally on a hearth or in a furnace.
I don’t know, a friend of mine once said that I could come up with a random theory to support any set of data in 10 minutes or less - and then just as quickly think of a totally different theory if it turned out the data was wrong - so my theories may not have a lot of merit. Still, this is a enormously interesting story, and shows that our “modern” thinking can often prove to be very limited :-)
That’s all very well but the Scottish climate won’t allow , no matter how hot one day of heavy rail will soon wipe it out and the sodden soaked ground will cause massive steam undue the fire cooling it down
I don't know the archeology/history of these vitrified 'forts'. But, rather than a fort, could they have originally been (or at least mostly) places of pilgrimage/festivals/ritual. Where they created large fires in these stone circles (using the wood mentioned). And, over generations of burning, these walls vitrified.
Perhaps, with other times in their history, when they were used for habitation.
I only say that as, the benefit of verified stone (in these walls) for the true 'fort' seems overkill (unless, created as a byproduct of some other ritual).
If I actually wanted vitrified walls, using the ideas you mention:
I would pile the gorse wood (or, charcoal, made from gorse - maybe better for the task) over and around the whole stone wall structure.
Then, using earth and water, create a clay. Using that to enclose the wood/charcoal (and wall) in the earth/clay.
But, leave the ends of this 'clay tunnel' open to the elements (and perhaps, even create openings around the clay structure at key points).
Given wind power on the coasts of Scotland, that might allow (at the right times of year) for a sort of natural 'bellows' effect through the clay structure. Basically, your building a furnace ..with the wall at its centre :)
Peace.
Nice, what about actually adding glass (broken bottles or jars) or sand into the stonepile? And maybe peat instead of clay...then a slow burn with that steady coastal wind.
I often wondered if they used peat , packed hard against the stone and then burnt from the inside
The best explanation I've heard for vitrified stone forts in Scotland and I appreciate your point about time: As an engineer my decisions are not based on the economics of something not over it's lifetime or even a five year net present value but project economics are based on year quarterly rate of returns and therefor it's pure madness.
I've seen melted staircases in Egypt and Peru that would seem to need to have a different mechanism however.
DIRECT ENERGY WEAPONS,your history is LIES
hi prof simon! it's interesting how they did it. but i wonder how you transported the molten stone....thanks for the great video. have a nice day!
they melted the rocks in their house walls
It's interesting how ever serious historians forget (a) how many people were actually in the countryside prior to the industrial revolution and the birth of the modern city, Thereby providing a vast amount of personpower. I say personpower because women and kids would have joined in. All it took was someone with authority to manage the people. Also (b) that a lot of things can be accomplished given a large amount of time. We think of things in terms of mechanical tools and machinery. But for instance the canals of England especially in the early stages were built using an almost infinite number of navvies and.... time. Yes, things took less time as machinery became involved and that's the sort of timescales that modern people assume things took back in antiquity.
But turning a Basalt tower into basically a huge blast forge and leaving it lit for a year isn't beyond the technology of the time. Lots of fuel and an opening in the base to create a draught for the fire. Plus there was more wood and trees in Scotland back then. A lot more. Plenty of raw material to make charcoal if required.
good ideas Mark
This is something truly valuable that has sadly been lost from modern civilization and only to our detriment. When was the last time any of us walked miles with a group of friends and family to take part in the construction of a monument or large building, something that we would likely not even live to see completed. When I think of this, I don't see slaves beaten within an inch of their lives, wobbling on the edge of death under a scorching cruel sun and the whips of the masters. I see instead a happy, community affair, each person doing their part not to stay an executioners hand nor win riches or favor of the powerful, but to be part of something larger than themselves yet totally OF themselves as a whole. A landmark wrought by the hands of the people that will lend proof that they once lived. How sad that in this day and age we live our whole lives next to strangers, most of which we will never even speak to let alone build something amazing with. How sad that the most voluminous thing we will produce that proves that we were ever here was a huge pile of trash in a landfill.
Love this channel.really enjoying the charismatic story telling.thank you .💙uk
We found a document, and translated it, and it was about labor for a wall. The wall took years. It's incomprensable that any group would commit to a 30, 50, 200 year project by todays impatience. We could not figure out how they did it, because we cannot comprehend that a project would take as long as a lifetime.
exactly...
Always nice to learn something new every day.Thanks Prof. (Although there is only one T in Scots and i have no skin in the game having supposedly Pictish DNA).
aww thank you.
Great topic, and Adam’s best costume yet!
My Grand Father was a Master Black Smith after retiring from Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the early 70s he mentioned such a marvel of melted basalt in ancient fort. I was very young but he rarely spoke and being a giant of a man I would listen. soda ash or potash are added to lower the melting point. Mining goes back to the Ne season or not making a blast furnace surrounding portions of walls taking years to make.
Stones have been melted world wide all found in structures that predate man and later claimed by man for use. Maybe those before our history passed on a portion of the process. The Scotland walls are not polygonal architecture and much rougher still a mystery.
I was always wondering what you've been up to since Mythbusters ended
I think perhaps they used those big round stone towers as Iron smelting kilns. You can find glass and other melted minerals all along the inside of a mud brick kiln when you knock it down.
I think they just kept dumping iron ore and fuel into the pre made stone kiln for weeks or until the walls started to glow.
Congratulations on this being one of your most viewed videos Professor!
Don't forget there is also peat and possibly even coal, while not widely used as an industrial fuel, coal and peat have been used since ancient times, that combine with things that other people have mentioned would explain the heat quote easily.
sounds like the fort was a blast furnace on an industrial scale maybe even a coke furnace that would account for the vitrification of the rock
We see the same melting that happened in Egypt. Might I suggest what melted these rocks was not humans but rather a catastrophic solar event. That makes a lot more sense than this idea!
A solar event that would be hot enough to melt certain buildings rock to glass would have wiped out the human race in the area.
Very well put. iron age people were not under pressure to leap. They used what they had- including patience. Which is why my theory of how Stonehenge was built over generations during the farming off-seasons of Winter by 1., dragging sledges bearing the stones on snow and ice, and 2., cracking rocks in mining with fires and freezing ( as Hadrian did whilst crossing the mountains to get to Rome), makes perfect sense. 3/. The blue stones represent dead people (blue) and the positions of the stones in situ make for amplified vocal harmonic resonance of healing frequencies in ritual healing ceremonies.
Archaeomagnatism would answer so many of the questions about vitrification
I visited a vitrified fort at the Southern end of Bute. Couldn't find any obvious vitrification, but then I'm not an archeologist. What a stunning place though, St.Blane's chapel is nearby and I saw a juvenile white tailed eagle.
Great video
Glad you enjoyed it
There is more than one way the ancients manipulated stone. In South America there is a bird known as the Pito bird, if you block the birds nest with iron or stone, it will fly off and collect leaves and bring them back to place them on the obstruction, melting the object placed in front of it's entrance like it never existed. Always watch how nature works.
Very fascinating subject ,for a side note we here on the left coast of Canada call gorse Scotch broom and I recently learned that the wood makes beatiful spoons and the like. Loved this video Simon and would love to visit your neck of the woods some day
Gorse and broom are two different plants. Gorse has spines and broom does not.
"tens of thousands of years"? I was tought that the earliest settlers to Scotland came around 8000 years ago. The place was covered in ice a mile thick for about 120000 before that.
Ice age ended 16,000BC and sea levels rose very quickly. So as the ice retreated people could have migrated north and followed the animals. 8,000 sounds a bit later than might have been expected?
Both my daughters now live not far from your own upbringing place, eldest is in Dunoon and youngest is across the water in Clydebank, my own forebears come from Perth, Edinburgh and Aberdeenshire, one thing our family did was found village and town schools across northern Scotland as well as that school in Edinburgh, teaching and educating is a family business so to speak :D
The comet that destroyed Britain in AD 562 may be of interest.
No comet destroyed Britain the comet hit Europe and no one knows exactly where.
Early glassmakers use certain plants that contained chemicals to help reduce the melting point of glass. Maybe the Scots used similar plants?
Wow, clicked for the content and read the comments first.
I tip my hat.
Missed seeing you after mythbusters shows.
You can't honestly believe that people did this. Its not just Scotland, this phenomenon stretches from Scotland to Russia. It was obviously an areal phenomenon, such as an asteroid, that vitrified that rock.
If you stacked the gorse, or gorse charcoal thickly about and on top of the walls, inside and out, then stacking thick mud bricks all over, leaving air openings and chimney holes, basically building a kiln around the structure, I can see that working faster than simply stacking gorse and setting it alight.
Gorse flower wine is also very pleasant 👍
I was sure this was Adam Savage from myth busters. Great vid.
Massive electrical discharge created the mounds in which the ancient people adopted them as fort’s or in some cases burial mounds
I read that goarse is not native to Scotland, and it was introduced maybe 2 or 3 centuries ago, it was stated by a University of Edinburgh teacher that looked at goarse as a source of protein that could be used to feed humans, as it was used to provide food for horses in the past.
that's interesting
So the melted rock is simply unintended damage as a result of iron age man using the fort as a factory to make charcoal for their furnaces?