|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Dec 03, 2014, 20:59
|
||
|
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 5758 posts |
Dec 03, 2014, 21:57
|
||
|
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 83 posts |
Dec 04, 2014, 21:17
|
||
|
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
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 04, 2014, 22:53
|
||
|
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 .
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Dec 12, 2014, 18:54
|
||
|
'1) Whether cleaning took place or not it cannot impact on the RC dates of the antlers.' Hi tiompan I am sorry to have taken so long to reply - my health is poorly, and I'm aware that my dating query is contrary to current thinking, so it must be presented carefully and with caution... and fully justified if possible. I have not forgotten Blakeley Raise ! : ) 1) Reindeer antlers carbon dating - Yes, I do agree with the carbon dating, but there is no way of knowing how old the antlers were when placed in the hole, nor of knowing how old the holes were as previous organic material may have been cleaned out. It does seem unlikely that having dug these holes with their nice clean white chalk bedrock bottoms they would then be left to silt up from the winter storms. Current beliefs did place the holes at around 1600 BC, but there appears to be other organic material found in Z29 that place the date earlier. (source Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_and_Z_Holes) So there are doubts about the dating methods.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 12, 2014, 20:10
|
||
|
Dave1982 wrote: '1) Whether cleaning took place or not it cannot impact on the RC dates of the antlers.' Hi tiompan I am sorry to have taken so long to reply - my health is poorly, and I'm aware that my dating query is contrary to current thinking, so it must be presented carefully and with caution... and fully justified if possible. I have not forgotten Blakeley Raise ! : ) 1) Reindeer antlers carbon dating - Yes, I do agree with the carbon dating, but there is no way of knowing how old the antlers were when placed in the hole, nor of knowing how old the holes were as previous organic material may have been cleaned out. It does seem unlikely that having dug these holes with their nice clean white chalk bedrock bottoms they would then be left to silt up from the winter storms. Current beliefs did place the holes at around 1600 BC, but there appears to be other organic material found in Z29 that place the date earlier. (source Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_and_Z_Holes) So there are doubts about the dating methods. Hello Dave , No rush ,good to see you back and hope you have recovered . True you can't date anything from deposits if there is no stratigraphy to provide a context . Same applies to stone circles as well as pits . But , the dates make sense when considered along with the factors like the Z8 , the cut into the ramp and the waywrdness of the circuit . Yes , Z 29 was older (2030-1740 bc )than the others from Y30 which extended from 1880 to 1520 bc , but this was believed to have been because it had been curated . Even with the older date it still makes the hole or deposition much later than the sarsen monument .
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Dec 13, 2014, 16:44
|
||
|
I've been thoroughly checked out - and I mean really thoroughly! - by our wonderful NHS, and things seem ok (? : ) ) 'factors like the Z8 , the cut into the ramp and the waywardness of the circuit' Yes, I can see that, so will have a look at those. Thanks for the attention. Dave1982
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Dec 13, 2014, 16:48
|
||
|
'curated?' Auto-speller problem?
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Dec 13, 2014, 16:55
|
||
|
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
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 13, 2014, 19:17
|
||
|
Dave1982 wrote: I've been thoroughly checked out - and I mean really thoroughly! - by our wonderful NHS, and things seem ok (? : ) ) 'factors like the Z8 , the cut into the ramp and the waywardness of the circuit' Yes, I can see that, so will have a look at those. Thanks for the attention. Dave1982 Great stuff . Yes , it's a bit good isn't it ?
|
| Pages: 6 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
