Dave1982
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:19
|
|
tiompan wrote: Dave1982 wrote: What is the 'stratigraphic' evidence ?
The Z holes cut into the ramps .
But surely as the holes are lower than the ramps the stratagraphic principle puts the holes at an earlier date ?
|
Dave1982
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:20
|
|
As in simple human fraud ?
|
tiompan
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:20
|
|
Dave1982 wrote: Colonel Hawley was an officer in the Royal Engineers so would be more than capable of surveying work, and Robert Newall, his assistant, was a draughtsman from the Office of Works. So the required skills were there although whether or not they were applied conscientiously is another matter.
I don't know if the last paragraph of the following is of interest to you ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hawley
No I certainly won't be visiting .
Hawley was a bit of butcher , it's partly due to him that the monument is in such a mess .
Hawley used a surveyor but it looks like the mistakes were down to him .
|
tiompan
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:21
|
|
Dave1982 wrote: As in simple human fraud ?
no simple human behaviour .
|
tiompan
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:22
|
|
The holes are in the ramps .
|
Dave1982
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:25
|
Being a bit of a butcher is part of a successful soldier. So a professional surveyor was used.
What mistakes are these ?
|
Dave1982
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:27
|
|
With the ramps over the holes -
|
Dave1982
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:30
|
|
But fraudulent behaviour, otherwise the organic remains are valid evidence -
|
Dave1982
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:32
|
|
What evidence, other than that already considered and discounted ?
|
tiompan
|
Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes
Dec 18, 2014, 18:45
|
|
Dave1982 wrote: What evidence, other than that already considered and discounted ?
The evidence from the excavators . Why should it be discounted .
|
