Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes | Forum

Stonehenge — dating the Y and Z holes

Dave1982 Dec 3, 2014 20:59:38

Dating the Y and Z holes -

For a 'sunrise season/weather forecaster' theory to be valid, the Eastern Y and Z holes arc must have been built before the Sarsen Stone structure as this blocks the view. So this is a critical point on which the theory could fail.
1
The carbon dating on organic remains must be treated with caution as regular cleaning of the holes would effect the date.
2
The blocking of the circular holes by the fallen SY8 can be considered for the Sarsen stone Y and Z arc, but not for a pre-existing Eastern arc - which covers Y30and Z30 to Y7 and Z7.
3
The cutting into the stones ramps and infill can give two alternatives; the digging of a new hole, or the re-digging of an already existing hole. i.e. the stones are so long that they could have been slid across the hole, which after the infilling would need to be dug out if the hole was to be part of the Sarsen stone structure.
4
The cutting across post holes is something that I have no information on, but again a redundancy of a post hole could result in the re-digging and use of an original Y or Z hole.

A further point that should be considered for the dating of the Eastern Y and Z arc is that in order to construct the arc it must have been laid out before the Sarsen stone erection, as these would obstruct the measurements and view from the origin of the arc. Furthermore, what would be the purpose of the arc, off centre to the Sarsen stones, which could not be used to view the sunrises progression in it’s entirety ?

For an illustration of the Y and Z holes positioning to the Sarsen ring please refer to Section 12, Figure 12.1 of -

https://sites.google.com/site/originsofstonehenge/home/a-season-weather-forecaster
(if link does not work just copy it into the address bar)

So it is possible that the Y and Z holes were extended from the Eastern arc with, or after, the Sarsen stone structure to balance and enhance it’s beauty. The Sarsen stone structure surrounded by a double circular arrangement of white holes and an outer white ditch ring would have looked very effective, especially in moonlight ! Thus the holes could be considered as two structures built at different times for entirely different purposes.

Dating is a tricky business, as demonstrated when a Roman coin found beneath a falling stone led to the belief that Romans built Stonehenge.

All comments on this are welcome and appreciated. : )

tiompan Dec 3, 2014 21:57:36

Replying to Dave1982

1) If there were cleaning of the Yand Z holes it would not impact on the date of anything dateable in the hole .

2) It seems likely that the Y and Z holes are a unitary feature with an obvious gap at Z 8 because of the fallen sarsen . That the other 29 Z holes are of similar spacing , depth and roughly concentric with the Y holes suggest contemporaneity rather than a pre sarsen eastern arc followed by a post sarsen much later continuation . There is also nothing to suggest stratigraphically ,from finds or dateable material from with the holes that either the Y or Z holes were pre - sarsen .

3) It is quite clear from Hawley’s report that the Z holes had cut into the ramps making them later .

The arcs of both are irregular (look at the kink in the Y circuit ) making it even more likely that they were not laid out pre sarsen monument .

Why should viewing the solar cycle even be considered for two rough rings of pits , that encompass 360 degrees .Maybe if there were four pits marking the solstices a relationship might be assumed but not an entire circle .

Dave1982 Dec 13, 2014 16:55:58

Replying to Dave1982

Hi Tiompan

2) Waywardness of the circuit and Z8 -
Figure 12.1 shows that if the Sarsen stones arc chord of Y&Z holes had continued on the same radius (anti-clockwise) the fallen Sarsen would not have blocked the holes. If fact Z9 lies at the end of the fallen Sarsen, so there is no reason why the Y&Z holes should not have continued on the same radius to form a complete circle - as would be expected. The Eastern arc chord, if continued clockwise, would have extended beyond the midwinter sunrise point and even if there was no obstructing fallen Sarsen, would have coincided with an existing Sarsen stones ring, which would not be sensible.

Z12 appears to be partially covered by another fallen Sarsen, indicating that the Y&Z holes were built before the Sarsen stones started to fall into ruin.

Y8 is an oddity that appears to be an attempt to join the two displaced arcs chords ends together. I suspect a Z8 lies hidden under the fallen Sarsen, which would again indicate that the Y&Z holes were built before the Sarsen stones started to fall into ruin.

Dave1982

Dave1982 Dec 14, 2014 16:24:40

Replying to Dave1982

3 Y&Z holes cutting into Sarsen stone erection ramps -
Cut by a new hole or, an alternative, reopening a pre-existing hole ? The stones are so long it would be a simple matter to cut a ramp across a pre-existing hole, slide the stone across, and recut the side of the hole after the ramp was in-filled. I am surprised that the ramp extended as far as Y2. It would be interesting to hear the views of the relevant archaeologists on this, and perhaps an explanation of why it is not possible ?

Dave1982

Dave1982 Dec 16, 2014 17:41:05

Replying to Dave1982

'The arcs of both are irregular (look at the kink in the Y circuit ) making it even more likely that they were not laid out pre sarsen monument.'

5) Irregularities indicating Sarsen stones obstructing sight lines -

The point about the irregularity indicating the obstructing presents of the stones is a very sound one, and caused me considerable thought, especially with regard to Y5. It can be seen that the Eastern arc is quite regular, with the exception of Y5. The Sarsen stone arc is not nearly so regular with both the radius and arc chord length between adjacent holes varying.

I gazed at Figure 12.1 for a couple of hours constantly switching screens from your post to Figure 12.1 with increasing despair for the survival of the sunrise theory! : ) At around midnight however I laid a plastic ruler - very carefully - over my screen across the sight line from the Eastern arc origin to Z5 and Y5, and found the displacement was not as sever as first appeared. I repeated this for all the pairs of the Y&Z holes and found that there is a reasonable consistency of the accuracy of the sight lines along the three points of the origin of the arc, and matching pairs of Y&Z holes. Please refer to -

https://sites.google.com/site/originsofstonehenge/home/datingyz
(if the link does not work just copy it into the address bar)

This consistency of sight lines makes it appear that a Neolithic surveyor (freeman) standing at the origin of the arcs shouted at two Neolithic assistants (slaves) to position them and mark the positions for the digging of the holes. This would explain (a) the irregularity of the arc chord length between adjoining stones which is dependent on the surveyor’s judgement by eye, and (b) the irregularity of the radius if measure by leather cord, as the cord over this distance would be quite elastic. ( I know this as I used leather boot laces in the 1960’s army, and they are quite elastic, hence the comfort ) The sight line from the origin across a Y&Z pair (3 points) would be easier to judge by eye and should be quite accurate, which it is.

It is difficult to understand how this accuracy could be achieved with the Sarsen stone structure present, as the stones would obstruct the sight lines, especially in the cases of Y6 and Y16. Thus the implication is that the Y&Z structure was built before the stones, but with less developed surveying skills. : )