|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Stonehenge Y&Z holes stratigraphy evidence doubts 10 messages | Select a forum: |
| Stratigraphy Evidence Statigraphy means static (stati) positioning (graphy) The principle that dating can be assumed by the position of datable material in vertical relationship to other material depends on a couple of assumptions - A and B. A) The position is in a structure that remains unchanged - static and stable, This can be applied to natural deposits, as in ground layering, that do not change over long periods of time. But less for a hole or ditch. that must remain without cleaning out, altering, or re-digging after construction, which is highly unlikely. Having constructed an open hole or ditch structure for functional, (defensive, rural, or observatory) ceremonial, or ornament use, it is not going to be left with no maintenance, further changes, or development - left undisturbed to silt up by the community that created it. B) The contents of the structure are left in their original position. The history of most archaeological sites is one of continual disturbances, and it is likely that this goes back to their date of deposit, An obvious cause of disturbance is scavenging, an example of which is the digging of a large, deep hole within the Sarsen stone circle in 1620 by George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, who was looking for treasure ! Source - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/567331/Stonehenge This destroyed any hope of finding central markers. The Y&Z holes do not fit either assumptions A or B and hence the stratigraphic evidence is in doubt. Dave1982 Reply | with quote |  17th December 2014ce 18:13 2 replies: Re: Stonehenge Y&Z holes stratigraphy evidence doubts (thesweetcheat) Re: Stonehenge Y&Z holes stratigraphy evidence doubts (tiompan) |
Messages in this topic: |
|
Top of page