|
The
Mensija Cartruts
 Maltese version
Cartruts have been described on practically every rock exposure on
Malta and Gozo. These are generally composed of parallel grooves in
bare rock running in pairs sometimes for long distances often forking
out or combining like railway sidings. These
parallel channels may be found in single pairs, but
are often
found in clusters as those at tal-Mensija. The most complex network named Clapham Junction is that found on the outskirts of Buskett.
The distance
between the channels may vary, but the average width is 1.4 meters from
centre
to centre of each channel. The channels are U or V shaped in section
with an
average depth of about 8 to 15 centimetres. There are rare instances
when a
depth of 60 cm is recorded. It seems likely that the channels were
deliberately
carved unto the rock and subsequently deepened by the continual passage
of
vehicles.
During the last
eighty years or so, the mystery of these “cartruts” has fired the
imagination
and intrigued the mind of local and foreign archaeologists, scholars
and laymen
alike. Unfortunately it seems that the mystery has been compouned by
extravagant proposals including the possibility that these served as a
message to extraterrestial visitors. The most common and likely
proposition is to associate these structures with a transport system
(hence the label “cartruts”). Transport
mechanisms were definately required
during the prehistoric period as evidenced by the need to transport the
stones to build the megalithic and large structures of the Temple
and Bronze Age Periods. The cartruts
may have been purposely dug out or were simply the result of continuous
wear and tear.
Despite
the
popular name, it is very unlikely that the channels were used by
wheeled
transport. Alternative mechanisms must have been used. One possibility
is the use of a system of slide cars using these sunken tracks in the same way that modern
railways
and trams
use rails. Such slide-cars
might have been used to transport
soil,
water or even blocks of stone, since “cartruts” are often associated
with
ancient quarries. This interpretation has been proposed on analogy with
the methods used in the deserts of Egypt. The late eminent Egyptologist I.E.S
Edwards (the
Pyramids of Egypt, Penguin Books, 1991 revised edition pages 255-256)
believed that the Ancient
Egyptians used sledges rather than wheeled transport
to move the large blocks of stones used to build the pyramids. He
wrote:
“For transport
over land, the method employed was probably the same whether the weight
to be
moved was 200 tons or 2 tons, the number of men pulling was calculated
by the
amount of the weight. What was this method? Transportation of blocks
probably levered
on a sledge either directly from the ground or by way of a low ramp
composed of
stone. The sledge and block was lashed together with ropes, maybe then
have
been raised again by means of levers, in order that wooden rollers
might been
placed underneath. Water or some other liquid is poured on the ground
to lesson
the friction and thus facilitate haulage. This loaded sledge would
subsequently
be dragged over a way paved with baulks of timber by men pulling on
ropes
attached to the sledge, although some of the carrying possibilities of
the
wheel had been realised at least as early as circa 2400 BC, scenes in
tombs of
circa 1573 BC demonstrate that, even after a lapse of a thousand
years,
statues and heavy blocks of stone were not moved by wheeled transport.
Instead,
sledges were used, and there can be little doubt that the Pyramid
builders also
used such method".
There is no definite proof that the same transport
mechanisms to carry heavy loads were used in Malta. The sledge system
is a better working model than the use of carts. An alternative
suggestion was made that the cartruts were previously dug out routes to
allow the carriage of large stone blocks using stone
ball-bearings. The use of these 15-30 cm diameter stone ball-bearings
to transport the megalithic blocks used in the Maltese Prehistoric
Temples has been confirmed. Using these ball-bearings may have been
useful to move blocks over short distances, but their use alone would
have made such a system of carriage unstable and overtly hazardous oner
long distances. The pre-cut parallel tracts in the ground could have
served as a railway system for the stone rollers. For lighter loads any transport contrivance would have
however served.
It is not possible to definately date these structures, though they
have been assumed to be definately older than the Maltese Punic Period
since a number of Punic
tomb cut through them in various localities. Because of their apparent
association with some Bronze
Age
settlements, the archaeologist
Dr David Trump
believed that while the evidence for his proposal was not "watertight",
the cartruts were possibly dug out during this period dated to about
1500 BC. However an earlier dating cannot be absolutely ruled out. The
archaeologist Prof. A. Bonanno believes the cartruts to date to the
Classical Age because of their frequent association to quarries dated
to this period.
Another controversial issue is the mechanism used to pull the cart or
sledge. Dr Trump concluded his piece on this problem of traction:-
“And
what it was that drew them along, apparently without making any contact
with
the ground – flying geese perhaps? – remains for the present a complete
mystery.” Quote from (Malta – An Archaeological Guide, Malta 1990,
pages 34–35).
On the other
hand Dr Louis Vella’s theory explains
that the quarrying method used by the Pyramid-builders in Egypt may
give us a clue to this mystery, reference is again made to the
excellent
description given by Edwards (op. cit., pages 252-3). Limestone,
whether
obtained from the surface of the rock, as at Giza, or
extracted
by tunnelling as at Tura, presented the pyramid builders with no
serious
difficulties in its quarrying.
The average
distance between the “cart ruts” or furrows are of circa 140 cm
corresponds
roughly to the standard width of the stone to be cut; their average
depth
(considering the deeper ones only for this purpose), ranging from 40 to
50 cm,
representing the thickness of the quarried stone. From sample
measurements
taken, it seems that the above-mentioned figures represent the average
size of
the megalithic stone utilised by our temple-builders, at least as far
as their
width and thickness is concerned. As to their length, although this was
unavoidably limited by the existing natural cleavage, cuts made in the
rock surface,
presumably at right angles to the parallel furrows, determined the
final
proportions of the block to be detached, depending, for instance, on
whether a
square or rectangular shape was required. His theory states the
quarrying
technique was probably as follows: 
- Rock surface was
furrowed by teams of “unskilled” labourers for considerable lengths in
a twin,
parallel formation, either in straight or curved lines, depending on
the final
form required, example rectangular, square or even horizontally, arched
blocks,
the latter, possibly, for roofing purposes.
- The actual
‘slicing’ of the hard rock into blocks or megaliths was then effected
by
skilled ‘quarrymen’ who inserted soaked, wooden wedges into slots,
specially
dug under the rock to be cut, at a level roughly corresponding to the
required
thickness;
- when these
wedges expand, the rock would split along natural cracks, known as
cleavage,
resulting, more often than not, in surprisingly smooth, straight cuts
(as
evidenced by the generally smooth ‘floor’ of the above-mentioned
surface
quarries, particularly at Ta’ Cenc, Gozo;
- Finally, the
detached block would be levered out and transported to the actual
building
site, using sledges moved over wooden rollers as in Ancient Egyptian
method.
Of course, the
best proof of all this lies in the “cartruts” sites themselves. The
one at San
Gwann provides an excellent example of a relatively ‘young’ quarry
whereas that
at Ta’ Cenc in Gozo represents an old ‘exhausted one.
|
