|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes 56 messages | Select a forum: |
| 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 Reply | with quote |  4th December 2014ce 21:17 In reply to: Re: Stonehenge - dating the Y and Z holes (tiompan) |
Messages in this topic: |