|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 13, 2014, 19:21
|
||
|
Dave1982 wrote: 'curated?' Auto-speller problem? Nope , just means it was looked after i.e. not used for whatever reason ,dug out of the loft etc .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 13, 2014, 19:22
|
||
|
Dave , Yes , Z 12 is partially covered cover by stone 12 and stone 12 was depicted as fallen in Wood’s plan of 1740 , so we can say that stone 12 fell some time before that and Z12 was dug before it fell ,which gives us a lot of scope . There is a dramatic change in the radius from Z7 to Z 9 ,if Z8 really was under the sarsen it would be quite a coincidence that it should be the pit that gets covered by a fallen sarsen just where the a major change takes place in the radius .But there is a much simpler explanation which also fits in with the rest of the evidence . Y 6,7 and 8 and to a lesser extent Y 9 are all “off” ,Y7 is the closest to the monument and monument centre .
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Dec 14, 2014, 16:24
|
||
|
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 83 posts |
Dec 14, 2014, 16:35
|
||
|
Fully agree. Dave1982
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 14, 2014, 17:47
|
||
|
Dave , Hawley's (the excavator ) comments are on p256 in the Cleal book ,which I had linked in an e-mail .
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Dec 15, 2014, 18:07
|
||
|
I have read through Cleal et al to gather information a couple of years ago, or is it 3 ? (obtained from my local library) How the years fly by when you haven't got many left ! : ) A re-read of page 256 plus from your link, which I'd forgotten about ( there's nothing wrong with my memory, it's just full up, as I keep telling people ) came up with a couple of things. a) Positioning the holes was done using the Ordinance Survey grid system, and applying a graph principle (as per Cartesian co-ordinates) This can be resolved down as far as accuracy requires. The limiting factor is the hand tools used for measurement. My agricultural apprenticeship in 1965 included a surveying course with the hand tools of a chain for linear distance, magnetic compass for North, and optical theodolites. An effective practical theodolite was available in 1787 ( Jesse Ramsden's ) These hand tools are surprisingly accurate for building civil structures. With two axis marked out and a theodolite, the position of anything on that grid can be fixed and recorded as an x and y co-ordinate. An accurate diagram can then be drawn. The diagram Fig 151 in Cleal et al appears to have been done with some care and professionalism, which of course one does expect from British academia. : ) b) The hole widths of only 1 to 1.5 metres would not be a problem to sliding the Sarsen stones over them into their ramps, c) The edges of ‘some’ (not identified) holes are in a ‘slightly ruiness state’ which possibly indicates they once held stones. Bluestone chips have been found in ’some’ holes - markers for the midsummer and midwinter sunrises perhaps ? I noted a very good point you made about the irregularities of the holes indicating that the stones must have been present and interfered with the positioning of the holes. I’m going to try to resolve that point tonight and hope to post it tomorrow teatime. Dave1982
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 15, 2014, 19:50
|
||
|
Dave , a) But as Field and Pearson point out the siting of some of the pits in the NE on the Cleal plan are out because Hawley got the co-ordinates wrong . b) But the holes had been cut into the ramps ,as Hawley says “The Z hole was the later hole “ c) Bluestone chips have been found in quite a few holes and pits , even rhyolite in one of the car park post holes . When you look at the various holes with bluestone fragments there is no particular relationship with astronomical events .
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Dec 16, 2014, 17:41
|
||
|
'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. : )
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 16, 2014, 19:33
|
||
The reason that the Y and Z holes post date the megalithic is more than just the irregularity ,there is the stratigraphic evidence which supports the belief and also the dating evidence from the antlers .That is convergent evidence with the stratigraphy alone being sufficient to confirm the belief .The irregularity is in their non -concentricity ,Thom described them as being more like a spiral than a circle . The surveyors managed fine with the Aubrey Holes why should they have suddenly have lost their abilities with the Yand Z holes ?
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Dec 16, 2014, 19:50
|
||
|
'a) But as Field and Pearson point out the siting of some of the pits in the NE on the Cleal plan are out because Hawley got the co-ordinates wrong .' With reference to 'Stonehenge Amesbury Survey Report' - Field and Pearson, I was not able to find any reference to Hawley's lack of decent co-ordinates. So at present I cannot reply Did not Field and Pearson produce an update diagram? Dave1982
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
