All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 4, 2012 - Skeptoid
16:33
Skeptoid #326: The Mystery of the Vitrified Forts

Some 60 ancient stone forts in Scotland have vitrified walls, with the stone melted into glass. Here's what we know. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Ancient Scotland's Vitrified Fort Mystery 00:07:01
Today we've got an interesting archaeological puzzle.
It's probably been solved, but not definitely.
And besides the archaeological explanation, there's no end of pseudo-scientific ones, even including, of course, extraterrestrial aliens.
To study this mystery, we're going to travel to ancient Scotland, to a type of ancient fortification that today we call a vitrified fort.
And we're headed there right now on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of Hyperfixed, listeners write in with their problems and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's Hyperfixed, the new podcast from Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
The mystery of the vitrified forts.
For over 250 years, archaeologists studying ancient Scottish ruins have reported a type of construction said to defy explanation.
About 60 of these rough stone-wall enclosures have been found throughout Scotland and even a few scattered across mainland Europe.
Most are prehistoric.
Called vitrified forts, they're notable for a unique and surprising feature.
The rocks that make up the walls were originally stacked dry with no mortar, but have been fused together into a solid surface through a process called vitrification, the transformation into glass.
How can rock be melted into glass using prehistoric technology?
Some say that it can't because the temperatures required to do it are far too high, and that the only plausible explanation is an ancient atomic blast.
Stories of primitives possessing advanced technologies are not new here on Skeptoid.
We run into them pretty routinely, and from what I've seen, they're usually a sort of shortcut detour from doing the extra work required to actually solve a mystery.
Strange glass-walled forts in Scotland?
Ancient atomic blast, the ancients possessed modern superweapons.
End of mystery.
Not only does that usually turn out to be factually wrong, it also deprives us of whatever the truly fascinating question is, and the answer, assuming we have one yet, and we don't always.
But at least we learn what we don't know and why we don't yet know it.
So here's the way we should explore the mystery of the vitrified forts.
I like to break it down into a four-step process.
First and most important, find out whether the observed mystery actually exists.
Are there really ancient glassy forts across the Scottish countryside?
And if there are, are they truly as reported?
Second, assuming we find that vitrified forts do exist, check the archaeological literature and see what's known about them.
See if the real experts have already answered these questions.
How were they made?
Why were they made?
Third is a step we take if the experts don't have a solution, which might well be the case.
We look at the atomic blast conjecture.
Are the forts truly consistent with that?
And will we find any evidence to support the claim?
Although this step can often seem silly, it's not at all.
Think how cool it would be if that did turn out to be the case.
Think of the neat stuff we'd learned about how to detect whether an atomic explosion happened somewhere.
Think of the ramifications for our understanding of history.
Fourth and finally, we take an assessment and establish our provisional conclusion.
It's entirely possible that we end up concluding the answer is not known.
That's also a positive outcome because it raises exciting possibilities for what the next steps should be.
So let's begin with our first and most important question.
Do vitrified forts exist?
Ancient stone walls with their sides melted into glass.
This one's pretty easy to answer because there's plenty of archaeological literature about them.
Yes, they do exist, and the popularly given number of about 60 known examples in Scotland is correct.
Some are small grassy lumps, hardly recognizable.
Some are large and exposed enough that visitors can walk right up and examine them.
They're great sloping piles of stone, often built on hilltops and enclosing an area that we usually presume was to be defended.
Timbers were often used to reinforce the walls from within, and from these timbers we've been able to get radiocarbon dating telling us when the forts were built.
Most were built or repaired in various centuries during the first millennium BCE, around 700 to 300 BCE.
The vitrification is not easy to spot.
It doesn't look like glass.
It looks like the native white rocks embedded in a sort of darker asphalt.
Sometimes there are lava-like bubbles in the darker vitrified stone and sometimes there are solidified drips.
But without knowing what you're looking at, it's unimpressive visually.
If you do know what you're looking at, it's really something else.
This brings us to our second step, finding out what's already known about the forts.
When studying the vitrified forts, context is a crucial consideration.
We must understand the technological context in which the forts were built.
The first millennium BCE was smack dab in the middle of the British Iron Age, a historical era named after the smelting of ore into iron.
Metalworking, forging, and vitrification were well known to the people of the age.
It was not a mysterious technology.
The melting of rocks to serve the purposes of mankind was the technological focus of the period.
And even in this early date, it was not a new concept.
The Iron Age was preceded by the Bronze Age.
Mankind had been melting ore for perhaps 10,000 years.
Ever since, nobody really knows for certain, accidental discoveries were made in pottery kilns.
So when the archaeologists study the vitrified forts and report that we don't know how they were made, all we're saying is that we don't know exactly what method was used.
We're not saying that it is a surprising or inexplicable accomplishment.
Any number of methods could have been used.
We just don't know which.
Fire, Rubble, and Atomic Blasts 00:07:48
The vitrified rocks require about 1100 degrees Celsius to vitrify in the observed manner.
So let's take a quick look at what various researchers have discovered.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding together.
Get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
The most famous experiment, widely trumpeted in virtually all writings about the vitrified forts, was performed in 1934 and repeated in 1937 by Wallace Thornycroft and Veer Gordon Child, who built a fire against an experimental stone wall, built to the observed specifications.
As described in the 1966-67 edition of The Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, The experimental wall was six feet wide and six feet high, with horizontal timbers interlaced with stone slabs.
After ignition through brushwood fires around the wall face, the wall began to burn, and after three hours, it collapsed.
The core of basalt rubble became red hot, probably reaching 800 to 1200 degrees Celsius.
And after excavation, the bottom part of the rubble was found to be vitrified, with rock droplets and casts of timber preserved.
The experiment proved that a timber-laced wall of this character could become vitrified through fire.
But the explanation of the reasons for such widespread treatment of these Iron Age forts remains uncertain.
By that they meant whether the vitrification was done deliberately by the builders, accidentally in a fire, or deliberately by attacking forces.
Unfortunately, this is an anthropological question, the certain answer to which is lost to history.
Is it the result of an attack?
Vitrification by attackers did not breach or destroy the walls, nor make them easier to scale.
Builders may have done it on purpose.
Why, we don't know.
It did not make the wall stronger or more difficult to breach.
It was not always done, and even on most vitrified forts, it was usually done inconsistently in various patches.
It could have been as simple as the practice was traditional or ceremonial or even merely aesthetic.
We know it was done, we're just not sure why.
All this suggests is that the reason is unknown, not that it was necessarily extraordinary.
Some evidence suggests that on a few forts, the vitrification was done from within the wall during construction.
Such walls were usually built with solid stone facings on the inner and outer sides, with rubble filling in the center.
During construction, the fires could have been built in the center of the wall, covered with turf for insulation, and allowed to vitrify the stone faces.
Rubble could then be filled in and the construction would move up to the next level, where the process would repeat.
Other vitrified walls show evidence that the fire was built against the outside of the wall, as Thornycroft and Child did in their test.
Keep in mind also that Thornycroft and Child were archaeologists with minimal stone melting skills, while the men who vitrified the forts two and a half centuries before them were expert professionals whose knowledge was based on centuries of experience.
It's important to keep in mind that wherever an Iron Age fortification was under construction, the supporting infrastructure of workers and local people would certainly have included blacksmiths, whose furnaces of the day reached some 1300 degrees Celsius.
There was no lack for expertise in the arts of building smelting fires or keeping them hot.
And so, without a complete explanation for the forts from archaeology, we proceed to step three, evaluation of the fringe conjecture that ancient atomic blasts were used to produce the vitrification.
This suggestion is unnecessary.
The temperatures required were well within the capabilities of the technology of the day, and have been repeated experimentally.
And of course, the elephant in the room is that atomic weapons were not available 2,500 years ago, or to be precisely scientific, not known to have been available.
At the earliest experimental atomic blast, the Trinity Test in 1945, the temperature reached 5.5 million kelvins, 4,000 times hotter than what was needed to vitrify stone forts, and left blatantly obvious chemical signatures that nobody has yet reported finding at a vitrified fort site.
This is all to say nothing of the virtually insurmountable task of rearranging practically all known human history to accommodate such a twist.
Some have also suggested that some variant of Greek fire may have caused the effect.
Greek fire was an ancient weapon employed by the Byzantines at about the same time in history, and although its exact composition is not known, it was probably simple petroleum collected from natural wells in the Middle East, useful in naval warfare for its ability to float on water while burning.
Although vaguely plausible as an explanation, Greek fire would have been logistically difficult to transport such a great distance to serve a purpose that could have been served more easily by local wood, and likely would not have burned hot enough or long enough to vitrify the rock.
This brings us to our final step, assessing what we've learned and establishing a provisional conclusion.
Like all science-based conclusions, it's provisional because it's always subject to new information that may arise.
We've learned that the technology required to create the vitrified forts was not extraordinary.
Nothing found at the sites requires any re-examination of the history of knowledge.
The questions that do remain are sociological.
Why were the forts vitrified?
And who vitrified them?
I'm happy to report that we don't know yet, and that this is one more item to add to our list of mysteries still to be solved.
Support Skeptoid for More Mysteries 00:01:39
Skeptoid is made possible only because almost enough of you have become members by supporting it financially.
The recurring micropayments make it really easy for you to make it possible for the show to continue.
Come to skeptoid.com and click on Support Skeptoid and see the cool free gift you'll receive for joining.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and moose.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection