Stonehenge — dating the Y and Z holes

close
more_vert
Dave1982 D
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

T tiompan
tiompan Dec 4, 2014 22:53:35
Replying to Dave1982

Dave ,

1) Whether cleaning took place or not it cannot impact on the RC dates of the antlers .

2) It is the non existent Z 8 which would be under the sarsen if the arc had continued , and because the irregular arc continues after 8 it shows that the fallen sarsen was in the way . Geophysical survey in 1994 found a couple of depressions outside the arc ,one being assigned 8a , if one or the other is a Z hole it provides even more reason to see the holes post dating the collapse of the sarsen .

3) Z2 and Z7 are new holes cutting into the earlier ramp meaning that they are later , no archaeologist having seen this evidence has suggested otherwise .
The Aubrey holes which predate the megalithic monument are not nearly as irregular the Y and Z holes , is it likely that the ability was lost prior to the setting up of the megaliths ? The Yand Z a holes being closer to the centre would also have been easier to scribe . Everything points to the reason for the holes being irregular is due to them being post the megalithic monumnet which got in the way . The other evidence supports this ,whilst there is nothing to support an earlier date for the holes .

It’s worth mentioning that David Field and Trevor Pearson in “Stonehenge Amesbury Survey Report pointed out that as Hawley did not provide decent co-ordinates some of the Y and Z positions in the north east are not quite right in the Cleal et al plans . However it doesn’t really change anything .
Just as a complete circle doesn’t follow the solar cycle ,the same can be said of the eastern arc as , it extends much further north than the solstice extreme .If it had some association with the solar cycle we might expect it to indicate the solstice but it blithely continues way past it .