Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by GLADMAN
Stonehenge

Roof on Stonehenge

close
more_vert
CGHW1 C
CGHW1 Jan 5, 2008 17:29:12
Replying to CGHW1

When I started this thread, I was expecting that people would tell me that all the things I was saying had been said a hundred times before in different guises. It seems to me now that this is not so. In addition, when one thinks of a new idea, it is important not to cling to every clue that appears to confirm your hypothesis and ignore those that do not fit. I have tried to keep to the known archeaological results, but as I am a rank amateur when it comes to archeaology, please let me know if I make an error of some kind.

In my last posting I briefly mentioned the Z holes. These holes were discovered in the 1920s during the excavations of Col. Hawley. They are dated to about 1700BC for the Z holes (carbon dating on antler picks if I remember correctly) and the Y holes somewhat later. There is one Z and one Y hole for each stone in the outer sarsen circle, with the Z holes just outside the outer sarsen circle and the Y holes furhter out still. The form of the pattern of holes is a slightly spiral shape, with the start and end of the spiral being either side of stone 8. This variable distance from the centre of the circle has been explained as being due to the sarsen stones (which were already in position) blocking the line of sight to the centre of Stonehemge and so they were unable to dig the holes in a regular circle. The usual explanation for these holes is they were dug to contain some small stones (possibly bluestones), but the stones were never placed in position. The holes are steep sided and the earth around the holes would have been disturbed if there had been stones placed in the earth.

I find the explanation for these holes a little strange. One could have simply placed a stone or similar object in the location where one intended to dig each hole before commencing the digging of any holes. This would have clearly shown that either side of stone 8 there was a clear difference in the distance of the holes from the centre of Stonehenge. The builders of stonehenge didn't even bother with this simple exercise. It would seem that these holes were dug in something of a hurry and had no religious significance. I have also previously suggested that the roof on stonehenge would have caused considerable stresses on the structure. The forces would cause the outer sarsens to lean outwards away from the centre of Stonehenge. In addition, rain wuld cause the ground to be wet outside the henge, but not inside which would soften the ground. In addition, freeze/thaw cycles would also preferentially soften the ground outside the henge. Eventually, the lean on the stones would have been quite noticable and those in charge of Stonehenge may have tried to prevent further leaning.

The most obvious thing to have done would have been to build some buttresses. Could this have been the purpose of the Y and Z holes? I cannot be certain. One thing against this suggestion is that in the previous posting, I suggested that stone 8 may have fallen before Z hole 8 had been dug. However, there is a Y hole 8, and apparently the Y holes were dug after the Z holes. So if stone 8 had fallen, why make a buttress for it? Also, the buttresses could have disturbed the earth around the holes, which is not consistent with the excavations.

Despite these last two problems I thought I would mention the idea to see if I get any positive/negative comments on this aspect. The idea of the Y and Z holes as showing evidence for buttressing is also espoused by Bruce Bedlam, but his buttresses are an integral part of the structure, not an afterthought to prevent stones from falling over...


Regards
Chris W

B brucebedlam
brucebedlam Apr 18, 2008 23:02:33
Replying to CGHW1

I have read that the Y Z holes were dug by mistake in about 1700BC which was much later than when the Stonehenge Sarsen Circle was erected. Then strangely enough they did not fill then in but left them to fill in naturally over time. Very strange! The explanation does not sound right.

One other possible explanation!

I believe the Y Z holes where dug at the same time as the rest of the building. They had stones in them which were footings for the buttresses which surrounded the building. See - Youtube - (Bruce Bedlam’s Stonehenge). The Y Z holes only became holes only when the stones were removed - years later.

I told a farmer from Cornwall about these stones. The size of them is 5ft long 3ft wide and 3ft thick. The Y Z holes look like bath tubs on the outside of Stonehenge. He asked me - did I know how to remove a stone from the ground? He explained! You dig a small hole at one side of the stone and build a fire. The stone will crack and then it can then be removed easily.

What he did not know was that most of the Y Z holes have had fires on one side of them. The Archaeologists say they were sacrificial fires but I think the farmer’s explanation is more plausible.