We Are Devo?!

[Non Aligned States]

The day any of the people claiming to be smarter than our ancient ancestors can envision, plan, organize and build a Stonehenge, a Great Pyramid, a Machu Pichu, or even a section of any of the ancient municipal water systems that existed from Pergamon to Rome, using the exact same tools the real builders did and under the same conditions, THAT will be the day they can compare their brains to the ancients'.

This guy did. Using only tools available to that time period. By himself.

[Muravyets]

The day any of the people claiming to be smarter than our ancient ancestors can envision, plan, organize and build a Stonehenge, a Great Pyramid, a Machu Pichu, or even a section of any of the ancient municipal water systems that existed from Pergamon to Rome, using the exact same tools the real builders did and under the same conditions, THAT will be the day they can compare their brains to the ancients'.

This guy did. Using only tools available to that time period. By himself.

Then HE can talk about how smart versus strong a person has to be to build a Stonehenge. Are you him? No? Then...guess what?

I'm not saying you personally are one of the "huh stoopid cavemen durrr" type arguers. My point is that the arguments about how much stupider the ancients were than the moderns are themselves profoundly dumb arguments. In fact, the fact that a modern man managed to figure out how to build a large monolithic structure supports my position because it shows how much brain power is required for the job, which is a strong indicator that stupider people could not have done it, very likely.

My issue is with people denigrating the intelligence of people of whom they have zero experience, about whom they know and can know virtually nothing personally, but who have left pretty obvious evidence that at least some of them were able to accomplish tasks that the vast majority of those calling them dumb today cannot even begin to figure out, let alone do, themselves. And when some moderns do figure out how to replicate the more notable work of the ancients, it proves to be far from easy or simple, requiring a great deal of complex thought.

This kind of "we rule, they drool" assumption is not merely baseless, it actually goes against existing archeological evidence. The evidence argues strongly that, aside from physical prowess, it required a high degree of intelligence for humans in the paleolithic and ancient worlds not just to survive, but to thrive as they did, to adapt and conquer natural conditions as they did, and to develop beyond basic necessities and accomplish luxuries, ornaments, entertainment, and abstract intellectual speculations on such a grand scale.

10,000 years is next to nothing, march-of-time-wise. The notion that we today are significantly functionally different from the us of then is nonsense. Not only is it silly to think we could have significantly evolved as a species in that time, the archeological evidence indicates that there is no difference, either physical or mental, between people then and people now.

[Risottia]

My point is that the arguments about how much stupider the ancients were than the moderns are themselves profoundly dumb arguments. ...

(which is why I made an argument about technological and social advance, instead of personal IQ. oh well).

[Deus Malum]

According to Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister, modern man is a wimp:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 04&sp=true

According to McAllister, Tutsi initiates, Australian aboriginals and Neanderthal women, among others from past ages, were far superior physically to modern men, up to and including Olympic champion sprinters and javelin throwers.

Is this important?

Does it matter that most modern men (or women) can’t run down wild animals, throw spears long distances or run marathons in full armor like Roman soldiers? Are physical robustness and brute strength more important than, say, technological development? Or have we overemphasized sedentary activities and intellectual development at the expense of other abilities that we may need at some point?

IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.

I agree. Our greatest survival trait, and the one that has allowed us to reach the position we are at now, has been our intellect and capacity for invention. Physical ability is steadily becoming less important as we gain the ability to supplement that with technology.

[Gimmadonis]

The day any of the people claiming to be smarter than our ancient ancestors can envision, plan, organize and build a Stonehenge, a Great Pyramid, a Machu Pichu, or even a section of any of the ancient municipal water systems that existed from Pergamon to Rome, using the exact same tools the real builders did and under the same conditions, THAT will be the day they can compare their brains to the ancients'.

This guy did. Using only tools available to that time period. By himself.

Then HE can talk about how smart versus strong a person has to be to build a Stonehenge. Are you him? No? Then...guess what?

I'm not saying you personally are one of the "huh stoopid cavemen durrr" type arguers. My point is that the arguments about how much stupider the ancients were than the moderns are themselves profoundly dumb arguments. In fact, the fact that a modern man managed to figure out how to build a large monolithic structure supports my position because it shows how much brain power is required for the job, which is a strong indicator that stupider people could not have done it, very likely.

My issue is with people denigrating the intelligence of people of whom they have zero experience, about whom they know and can know virtually nothing personally, but who have left pretty obvious evidence that at least some of them were able to accomplish tasks that the vast majority of those calling them dumb today cannot even begin to figure out, let alone do, themselves. And when some moderns do figure out how to replicate the more notable work of the ancients, it proves to be far from easy or simple, requiring a great deal of complex thought.

This kind of "we rule, they drool" assumption is not merely baseless, it actually goes against existing archeological evidence. The evidence argues strongly that, aside from physical prowess, it required a high degree of intelligence for humans in the paleolithic and ancient worlds not just to survive, but to thrive as they did, to adapt and conquer natural conditions as they did, and to develop beyond basic necessities and accomplish luxuries, ornaments, entertainment, and abstract intellectual speculations on such a grand scale.

10,000 years is next to nothing, march-of-time-wise. The notion that we today are significantly functionally different from the us of then is nonsense. Not only is it silly to think we could have significantly evolved as a species in that time, the archeological evidence indicates that there is no difference, either physical or mental, between people then and people now.

I'd like to see Alexander the Great out-flank the U.S. Army.

[Muravyets]

I'd like to see Alexander the Great out-flank the U.S. Army.

I'd like to see YOU outflank Alexander the Great. Who the fuck do you think taught us all that military stuff, huh? Whose battles do you think the US generals study? What do you think they teach at West Point?

What this thread teaches is me is NOT that modern people are smarter than the ancients. It only teaches me that, in any era, the ability to comprehend even the most obvious points is a rare and valuable gift and the whole of humanity should be grateful that a few smart people get born in each generation. Wrap your mind around this: We are using Alexander the Great's methods and yet claiming to be smarter than Alexander the Great. Can you even begin to see the irony in that?

[Gimmadonis]

I'd like to see Alexander the Great out-flank the U.S. Army.

I'd like to see YOU outflank Alexander the Great. Who the fuck do you think taught us all that military stuff, huh? Whose battles do you think the US generals study? What do you think they teach at West Point?

What this thread teaches is me is NOT that modern people are smarter than the ancients. It only teaches me that, in any era, the ability to comprehend even the most obvious points is a rare and valuable gift and the whole of humanity should be grateful that a few smart people get born in each generation. Wrap your mind around this: We are using Alexander the Great's methods and yet claiming to be smarter than Alexander the Great. Can you even begin to see the irony in that?

I see your point. Yeah, people from that time period COULD have learned as we do. But they didn't. They (understandably) didn't have the materials nor technology to learn as fast or well as we did, though they did have their share of geniuses. But alas.

[Muravyets]

I'd like to see Alexander the Great out-flank the U.S. Army.

I'd like to see YOU outflank Alexander the Great. Who the fuck do you think taught us all that military stuff, huh? Whose battles do you think the US generals study? What do you think they teach at West Point?

What this thread teaches is me is NOT that modern people are smarter than the ancients. It only teaches me that, in any era, the ability to comprehend even the most obvious points is a rare and valuable gift and the whole of humanity should be grateful that a few smart people get born in each generation. Wrap your mind around this: We are using Alexander the Great's methods and yet claiming to be smarter than Alexander the Great. Can you even begin to see the irony in that?

I see your point. Yeah, people from that time period COULD have learned as we do. But they didn't. They (understandably) didn't have the materials nor technology to learn as fast or well as we did, though they did have their share of geniuses. But alas.

They managed to develop good enough tools for learning that we are still able to learn from them today. And the standards they set have been only nominally improved upon in all that time.

And considering the low quality of "hurr durr" intellectual arguments as well as the general other kinds of rampant idiocy (NWO conspiracy theories, anyone? 21st century American adults needing to be taught not to cough on each other, anyone?) that are so rife in the modern world, on what do you base the assertion that we learn "better" than the ancients did?

My argument is that it is not valid to claim that we are smarter or better than the ancients while we are still copying the ancients -- in both their smart moments and their stupid ones.

[Gimmadonis]

I'd like to see Alexander the Great out-flank the U.S. Army.

I'd like to see YOU outflank Alexander the Great. Who the fuck do you think taught us all that military stuff, huh? Whose battles do you think the US generals study? What do you think they teach at West Point?

What this thread teaches is me is NOT that modern people are smarter than the ancients. It only teaches me that, in any era, the ability to comprehend even the most obvious points is a rare and valuable gift and the whole of humanity should be grateful that a few smart people get born in each generation. Wrap your mind around this: We are using Alexander the Great's methods and yet claiming to be smarter than Alexander the Great. Can you even begin to see the irony in that?

I see your point. Yeah, people from that time period COULD have learned as we do. But they didn't. They (understandably) didn't have the materials nor technology to learn as fast or well as we did, though they did have their share of geniuses. But alas.

They managed to develop good enough tools for learning that we are still able to learn from them today. And the standards they set have been only nominally improved upon in all that time.

And considering the low quality of "hurr durr" intellectual arguments as well as the general other kinds of rampant idiocy (NWO conspiracy theories, anyone? 21st century American adults needing to be taught not to cough on each other, anyone?) that are so rife in the modern world, on what do you base the assertion that we learn "better" than the ancients did?

My argument is that it is not valid to claim that we are smarter or better than the ancients while we are still copying the ancients -- in both their smart moments and their stupid ones.

Not merely copying, but IMPROVING.

They may have invented books, but we improved upon it later.

They may have created advanced archetecture techniques, but we improved upon those.

Alexaner, Napolean, etc., may have invented brilliant military tactics... but they are improved upon and adapted to modern warfare.

This is how culture evolves, through the betterment of old techniques.

[Deus Malum]

I'd like to see Alexander the Great out-flank the U.S. Army.

I'd like to see YOU outflank Alexander the Great. Who the fuck do you think taught us all that military stuff, huh? Whose battles do you think the US generals study? What do you think they teach at West Point?

What this thread teaches is me is NOT that modern people are smarter than the ancients. It only teaches me that, in any era, the ability to comprehend even the most obvious points is a rare and valuable gift and the whole of humanity should be grateful that a few smart people get born in each generation. Wrap your mind around this: We are using Alexander the Great's methods and yet claiming to be smarter than Alexander the Great. Can you even begin to see the irony in that?

I see your point. Yeah, people from that time period COULD have learned as we do. But they didn't. They (understandably) didn't have the materials nor technology to learn as fast or well as we did, though they did have their share of geniuses. But alas.

They managed to develop good enough tools for learning that we are still able to learn from them today. And the standards they set have been only nominally improved upon in all that time.

And considering the low quality of "hurr durr" intellectual arguments as well as the general other kinds of rampant idiocy (NWO conspiracy theories, anyone? 21st century American adults needing to be taught not to cough on each other, anyone?) that are so rife in the modern world, on what do you base the assertion that we learn "better" than the ancients did?

My argument is that it is not valid to claim that we are smarter or better than the ancients while we are still copying the ancients -- in both their smart moments and their stupid ones.

Not to mention things like the Antikythera mechanism, which is thought to have been build in the second century BCE and is thought to have been used as a mechanical calculator for determining certain astronomical details.
And not to mention the sheer amount of ancient knowledge lost to us when the library of Alexandria was burnt to the ground.

[Fson]

I hope not

[Muravyets]

It's sometimes fun to day dream about what it would be like if we could bring the smart people of ancient times together with the smart people of today. I'll be frank -- I really believe that, if we could have a meeting between the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Alexander the Great, the ONLY difference between Alexander and our modern generals would be that Alexander would the most obviously gay and drunk one in the room.

Let's assume no language barrier for the moment. I honestly believe that once Alexander got the hang of the new maps and how to click a mouse, he would get up to speed within minutes on all tactical discussions. This would be because he would recognize half or more of what our generals were talking about as stuff he himself did and experienced, and the rest, which he could not have experienced -- such as long-distance missile-based warfare -- makes enough logical sense that he, being smart, would grasp the concepts pretty quickly. As for modern military technology, he might think it works by magic, or he might think there's exciting new stuff for him to learn, or he might not care how it works either way. Armored vehicles and troops, distance weapons, poisons as weapons, and spying on the enemy are easy enough concepts to follow for a man like him.

[Allanea]

People are sitting in the world the Romans built, using the tools the Romans invented, thinking the thoughts the Romans put in their heads, and calling the Romans stupid. We copy the Romans every single day, and yet we put the Romans down? WTF???

The Romans were only one of HUNDREDS of groups that contributed to the creation of modern society. Jews, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Americans have had contributions at least as important as those of the Romans, and thte Romans ripped off the Greeks a whole lot.

[Muravyets]

Not merely copying, but IMPROVING.

Yeah, like we improved on the whole "land war in Asia" problem. Oh, wait...

They may have invented books, but we improved upon it later.

How is shoveling bullshit into empty brains incapable of retaining it anyway better just because you can do it faster? The type of delivery system makes little difference. A person who is taught to think can learn just about anything by any means relatively quickly. A person who is not taught to think but only memorize or perform tasks to pass tests will learn nothing no matter how high tech the system of non-teaching is. Quantity does not trump quality on this point.

They may have created advanced archetecture techniques, but we improved upon those.

Architecture. And yes, engineers and scientists over the generations have improved on technology, medicine, communications systems, etc. But did we do that because we are SMARTER? There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Romans could not have come up with the same advancements that later people did because...now, brace yourself for this one...

We are NOT different people from them.

That's the whole point of what I meant when I said we are sitting in the world the Romans built, using the tools the Romans (and others) invented, thinking the thoughts the Romans put into our heads. The modern world is merely a continuation of that ancient dominant culture. We are still in that story.

We ARE them, and thus the ridiculous irony of us claiming they were dumber than us.

Alexaner, Napolean, etc., may have invented brilliant military tactics... but they are improved upon and adapted to modern warfare.

Yeah, right, see that "land war in Asia" reference above. Yep, we sure improved on those ancient tactics, didn't we? So then, how come we're still running into the same wall the ancients did and getting our high tech asses handed to us by the same goat herding mountain warlords that they did?

This is how culture evolves, through the betterment of old techniques.

Yeah...uh...no.

[Muravyets]

People are sitting in the world the Romans built, using the tools the Romans invented, thinking the thoughts the Romans put in their heads, and calling the Romans stupid. We copy the Romans every single day, and yet we put the Romans down? WTF???

The Romans were only one of HUNDREDS of groups that contributed to the creation of modern society. Jews, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Americans have had contributions at least as important as those of the Romans, and thte Romans ripped off the Greeks a whole lot.

I only cited the Romans because they were the last dominant cultural and political group in the western world at the end of the period commonly considered "ancient." So I picked them as the most convenient ancient culture to compare to. Also because another poster had already suggested we are somehow smarter than the Romans, which I consider ridiculous.

Yes, the Romans themselves stood on the shoulders of the giants before them, as it were, just as we still do. And I'm sorry, but all the later cultural groups you reference were themselves heavily influenced -- indeed their cultural identities and histories were shaped by -- the Romans. There is nothing in the western world today that is not Romanized. I personally find that a bit annoying, as a history nerd, but it cannot be denied.

[Gimmadonis]

Not merely copying, but IMPROVING.

Yeah, like we improved on the whole "land war in Asia" problem. Oh, wait...

They may have invented books, but we improved upon it later.

How is shoveling bullshit into empty brains incapable of retaining it anyway better just because you can do it faster? The type of delivery system makes little difference. A person who is taught to think can learn just about anything by any means relatively quickly. A person who is not taught to think but only memorize or perform tasks to pass tests will learn nothing no matter how high tech the system of non-teaching is. Quantity does not trump quality on this point.

They may have created advanced archetecture techniques, but we improved upon those.

Architecture. And yes, engineers and scientists over the generations have improved on technology, medicine, communications systems, etc. But did we do that because we are SMARTER? There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Romans could not have come up with the same advancements that later people did because...now, brace yourself for this one...

We are NOT different people from them.

That's the whole point of what I meant when I said we are sitting in the world the Romans built, using the tools the Romans (and others) invented, thinking the thoughts the Romans put into our heads. The modern world is merely a continuation of that ancient dominant culture. We are still in that story.

We ARE them, and thus the ridiculous irony of us claiming they were dumber than us.

Alexaner, Napolean, etc., may have invented brilliant military tactics... but they are improved upon and adapted to modern warfare.

Yeah, right, see that "land war in Asia" reference above. Yep, we sure improved on those ancient tactics, didn't we? So then, how come we're still running into the same wall the ancients did and getting our high tech asses handed to us by the same goat herding mountain warlords that they did

This is how culture evolves, through the betterment of old techniques.

Yeah...uh...no.

I never said they weren't equal to us as thinkers. after the initial culture shock, if you teleported little McPeasant dude from whatever time whatever, he could be educated just as well as any modern-day Cubical Office Warrior. Their brains were the same as ours, they could have learned these things. And they did, or rather WE did, slowly, as we learned and invented new things.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Roman, the Egyptinas, and Mayans were fucking genius. They could probably kick my ass at chess, even. And with period-appropriate weapons, I would shit my pants if had to go up against Alexander the Great.

[New Mitanni]

...You know, I think it would be interesting to see a study on how many ancient humans were multilingual. Actually multilingual, I mean, not just well versed in foreign curse words.

Far, far more than some might think - if only because there once far more languages than there are today.

Papua New Guinea can give us a basic model for estimating neolithic multilingualism since much of New Guinea had a lithic-based technology until the 20th century, and has been occupied by humans for (at a rough estimate) 40,000 years.

According to the Ethnologue website, there are almost 7,000 living languages in the world (let's ignore for the moment the debate regarding language v. dialect). Of these at least 820 are spoken in Papua New Guinea - that's over 10% of the world's languages in an area the size of California. While the situation in New Guinea is not directly comparable on a worldwide basis, there's every reason to believe (and reasonable evidence to prove) that much of the world - with the exception perhaps of Arctic and desert regions - had a much higher incidence of language diversity than exists today.

Multilingualism is traditionally common in New Guinean society; marriage outside the immediate kinship group often leads to marriage into a society speaking a different - sometimes completely unrelated - language. Therefore children often grow up speaking both the language of their social group and of a parent from outside that group. This in turn often leads to broad range of language skills within a specific social group.

But isn't it true that in the distant past there were actually fewer languages than now? Current language families developed from earlier proto-languages, which in turn developed from still fewer ancestral languages. Even accounting for extinction of languages and language families that may have existed thousands of years ago and left no descendants, there were probably considerably fewer languages worldwide.

In the case of New Guinea, the current language diversity is probably attributable to the isolation of various groups, originally speaking one or a few languages, which in turn led to divergences in their languages until the modern situation developed (as well as subsequent migrations of speakers of languages from other families, e.g., Austronesian in various coastal areas). Many tribes in New Guinea are still very isolated due to the rugged mountain and jungle terrains of the island.

I'm sure in the ancient past there was still the need for multilingualism, but maybe not to that great an extent.

[Muravyets]

I never said they weren't equal to us as thinkers. after the initial culture shock, if you teleported little McPeasant dude from whatever time whatever, he could be educated just as well as any modern-day Cubical Office Warrior. Their brains were the same as ours, they could have learned these things. And they did, or rather WE did, slowly, as we learned and invented new things.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Roman, the Egyptinas, and Mayans were fucking genius. They could probably kick my ass at chess, even. And with period-appropriate weapons, I would shit my pants if had to go up against Alexander the Great.

Okay, fine then, we agree. But let's look at the thread as a whole now. I say that some people seem to be operating on the assumption that not only are the look and operations of the cultures different, the PEOPLE are, too. Yet there is absolutely nothing in the bone evidence or the surviving cultural evidence to suggest any such thing. All the physical attributes that we have, they had. All the cultural factors that we address in our societies -- food, sex, war, class, comfort, etc -- they also addressed.

A few posts attempt to compare modern humans to neanderthals, but I skip over those arguments as meaningless because we and they are two different species of hominids. The scant bone evidence we have of neanderthals shows signs of biological differences, though what those differences might have been we can only blindly speculate. Yet still, is it unreasonable to assume humans and neanderthals were different? I say no, no more so than to assume humans and chimpanzees are different, being different species of primates. Such species differences tell us nothing at all about ourselves though, nor can we point to things we can do that another species can't and crow about how much better we are than them.

Let us compare people to people, homo sapiens to homo sapiens. When we do so honestly, I maintain we see no functional difference between humans today and humans tens of thousands of years ago. Anything one group could do, the other group is/was capable of learning or training to do. I refer back to Sarkhaan's post about going to the gym. Just because the conditions of the modern world put less demand on our physical prowess than the conditions of the ancient world did, that does not mean that, as a species, we have or are losing the ability to be that strong and athletic. Likewise just because the conditions of the ancient world did not demand universal literacy, that does not mean that ancient humans had not developed the mental capacity to invent writing and reading -- an assertion supported by the fact that they did actually invent writing and reading, when they needed to.

[Grave_n_idle]

The day any of the people claiming to be smarter than our ancient ancestors can envision, plan, organize and build a Stonehenge, a Great Pyramid, a Machu Pichu, or even a section of any of the ancient municipal water systems that existed from Pergamon to Rome, using the exact same tools the real builders did and under the same conditions, THAT will be the day they can compare their brains to the ancients'.

This guy did. Using only tools available to that time period. By himself.

He didn't actually, did he. He didn't use ancient technology to get the stone to the site. He didn't even use ancient technology to rotate the stones - oh sure, he SAID he did, but using a stone as a pivot is fine on concrete. Using a stone as a pivot on dirt wouldn't work. 5 gallon buckets are also not ancient technology. Possibly worth pointing out that using a hose to spray out the sand isn't entirely consistent, either.

What he's managed is a standing stone - and I've seen far bigger standing stones actually moved to site, and then erected, using several of the same principles he used. He hasn't managed to replicate the actual construction of a megalithic structure like stonehenge. At best, with materials already on site, he has managed to replicate a mechanism by which a cricle of standing stones could be orchestrated.

And he's yet to do it with actual ancient technology.

[Gimmadonis]

The day any of the people claiming to be smarter than our ancient ancestors can envision, plan, organize and build a Stonehenge, a Great Pyramid, a Machu Pichu, or even a section of any of the ancient municipal water systems that existed from Pergamon to Rome, using the exact same tools the real builders did and under the same conditions, THAT will be the day they can compare their brains to the ancients'.

This guy did. Using only tools available to that time period. By himself.

He didn't actually, did he. He didn't use ancient technology to get the stone to the site. He didn't even use ancient technology to rotate the stones - oh sure, he SAID he did, but using a stone as a pivot is fine on concrete. Using a stone as a pivot on dirt wouldn't work. 5 gallon buckets are also not ancient technology. Possibly worth pointing out that using a hose to spray out the sand isn't entirely consistent, either.

What he's managed is a standing stone - and I've seen far bigger standing stones actually moved to site, and then erected, using several of the same principles he used. He hasn't managed to replicate the actual construction of a megalithic structure like stonehenge. At best, with materials already on site, he has managed to replicate a mechanism by which a cricle of standing stones could be orchestrated.

And he's yet to do it with actual ancient technology.

Ancient people might have used lighter, flat stones in place on concrete

[Grave_n_idle]

The day any of the people claiming to be smarter than our ancient ancestors can envision, plan, organize and build a Stonehenge, a Great Pyramid, a Machu Pichu, or even a section of any of the ancient municipal water systems that existed from Pergamon to Rome, using the exact same tools the real builders did and under the same conditions, THAT will be the day they can compare their brains to the ancients'.

This guy did. Using only tools available to that time period. By himself.

He didn't actually, did he. He didn't use ancient technology to get the stone to the site. He didn't even use ancient technology to rotate the stones - oh sure, he SAID he did, but using a stone as a pivot is fine on concrete. Using a stone as a pivot on dirt wouldn't work. 5 gallon buckets are also not ancient technology. Possibly worth pointing out that using a hose to spray out the sand isn't entirely consistent, either.

What he's managed is a standing stone - and I've seen far bigger standing stones actually moved to site, and then erected, using several of the same principles he used. He hasn't managed to replicate the actual construction of a megalithic structure like stonehenge. At best, with materials already on site, he has managed to replicate a mechanism by which a cricle of standing stones could be orchestrated.

And he's yet to do it with actual ancient technology.

Ancient people might have used lighter, flat stones in place on concrete

Which they had to lift into place, manhandle into a solid footing in the right position, etc.

Take a big flat piece of stone, chuck a pebble on it, and drop your monolith on it to turn it - you've got a broken stone. What you need is sufficient sizwe and structure (in several dimensions) to handle the weight you're trying to bear. Which means, the stone you would need to position your monolith, would be sufficiently massive and heavy, you'd need a stone in place to move it.

[Conserative Morality]

Too true. I'd like to see Roman Leigionaires drive a car.

I'll take you up on that. Can I borrow your time machine this weekend?

[Tunizcha]

Too true. I'd like to see Roman Leigionaires drive a car.

I'll take you up on that. Can I borrow your time machine this weekend?

Eh, the repair man said I need a new flux capacitor. It should be arriving in a couple business days.