Stonehenge — dating the Y and Z holes

close
more_vert
tiompan T
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 .

D Dave1982
Dave1982 Dec 4, 2014 21:17:22
Replying to tiompan

Hi tiompan

1) The carbon dating on organic remains must be treated with caution as regular cleaning of the holes would effect the date of the non-organic structure that is assumed by any organic remains - which indicates the date at which cleaning was abandoned - cleaning made necessary by debris and infilling from the winter storms.

2) Figure 12.1 shows that if the Sarsen stones arc of YZ holes had continued on the same radius the fallen Sarsen would not have blocked the holes. If fact Z10 lies at the end of the fallen Sarsen.

3) Cut by a new hole or reopening a pre-existing hole ? The stones are so long it would be a simple matter to cut a ramp across a hole, slide the stone across, and recut the side of the hole after the ramp was filled.

Yes, the arcs are irregular, but this just simply means that the surveyors of the holes were not as good as those of the stone. This could of been before, during, or after the stones construction. Surely assuming a date from this should be treated with caution?

I completely agree that the ‘two rough rings of pits , that encompass 360 degrees’ give no indication that a solar cycle orientation was intended. However the position of the pits, taken from the internet and confirmed by ‘Stonehenge, in its landscape’ by R M J Cleal, K E Walker, and R Montague 1995, show a clear Eastern arc that follows the annual movement of the solar cycle. An arc which has an origin not centred on the Sarsen stone structure.

Thanks for your comments.

Dave1982