Forgotten Civilization by Robert M. Schoch

Author:Robert M. Schoch
Language: eng
Format: epub
Published: 2018-10-11T16:00:00+00:00

THE HOW AND WHY BEHIND VITRIFICATION

How did the Mote of Mark and other forts come to be vitrified? A number of explanations have been proposed (see Schoch 2010c). Some believe the builders of the forts did it purposefully, or alternatively that it was the result of attackers attempting to destroy the forts. If purposeful, perhaps vitrification was a way to bond and strengthen the rock walls in lieu of mortar. Huge amounts of wood and other flammable substances were presumably piled against the walls and set ablaze, creating intense heat and melting the surface rocks. The problem is that virtually all studies conclude that vitrified walls are actually weaker and more brittle than nonvitrified walls. The vitrification occurs only on the upper surfaces and tops of walls, which are otherwise built on foundations of rubble and thus could easily collapse.

Another popular theory suggests the vitrification resulted from enemy attacks. The forts were originally built of stone and wood, with wooden superstructures and in some cases wooden logs inside the stone and rubble walls. The assaulting enemy might have purposefully set the fort on fire, and the ensuing conflagration may have caused the vitrification. But could setting fire to a fort really generate the extremely intense heat necessary to melt rock? And why would the defenders continue to build structures containing so much wood that they were vulnerable to such attacks when there was certainly plenty of stone available?

Or, did the attackers possess a fire-based weapon that we no longer understand? Did they have something similar to modern napalm? Had they discovered a toxic mixture of flammable chemicals (the recipe a closely guarded secret that has since been lost) that could generate enormous temperatures and could not be extinguished? The classical ancients mention “Greek fire” that could be hurled and catapulted at the enemy and would even burn under water. But whatever Greek fire may have been, even if the accounts are not exaggerated, it is difficult to see how it could be used extensively enough to cause the amount and degree of vitrification seen in the forts.

Some researchers have suggested that vitrification along the tops of fort walls was the result of lighting beacon fires. But it is odd that beacon fires would be intense and hot enough to vitrify the rock. And those forts that are vitrified continuously around the perimeters, does that mean beacon fires were built in continuous lines along the tops of the walls? This too seems odd; it would perhaps make more sense to build beacon fires at designated spots best observed by those who were intended to see the fires. Or were the tops of the forts purposefully vitrified to make a sort of walking path?

At a loss to explain the reasons behind the vitrification of the forts, one researcher suggested vitrification was a purposeful ceremonial or religious rite, despite the fact that the vitrification weakens the structure! Perhaps, according to this theory, vitrification was used to dedicate or christen a fort, was an

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.