The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian
Home Latest Posts Forums Maps Help
Browse Sites News Blog Contributors The Books
Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Stonehenge Forum Start a topic | Search
Stonehenge
Re: More evidence on Stonehenge/Solar connections
51 messages
Select a forum:
"These anomalies have not been excavated or cored, so we do not know what they are, or how old they are. Antler from the west end of the Cursus has been dated to 3630–3370BC (1). The earliest known phase at Stonehenge is some five centuries later, at 3015–2935BC. The erection of the Heelstone is undated, but is generally assumed to have taken place at an early stage in the site’s history, perhaps as early as 3000BC – though as my excavation there in 1979 showed, at that date (we’re guessing these dates) the stone may have been standing a little bit north-west of its present site (2)."

That's just what I pointed out yesterday. If the holes haven't been dated yet, what chances are there of there being an allignment with a Heel stone (also badly dated in 1979) which might date from, say, 2000 years later (or not)? The fact that the new holes are on the cursus does not immediately consign them to the neolithic (judging from the varied SH landscape, with earlier postholes nearby).

It is all still possible if the dates coincide in the end or allowing for the recycling of sites down the ages, of course, but it's still all conjecture; and that's coming from someone who is all for equinox/solstice allignments as seen in other megalithic sites or tomb orientations (not so much for the so-called processions though).


Reply | with quote		Posted by Annexus Quam
29th November 2011ce
18:01

In reply to:

Re: More evidence on Stonehenge/Solar connections (juamei)

Messages in this topic:

Terms & Conditions  |  Home  |  Julian Cope presents Head Heritage Top of page