|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Stonehenge Y&Z holes stratigraphy evidence doubts 10 messages | Select a forum: |
Dave1982 wrote: tiompan wrote: Dave1982 wrote: 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 There isn't a problem with the stratigraphy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy_%28archaeology%29 .The ramp was prior to the Z hole i.e. it would be very difficult to build a convincing ramp around a hole ,even if you could ,why should you do it . Given the size of the stones, would it not be built over it, or rather dug over it ? I don't see where the difficulty arises, you just telephone a contractor and get a JCB on the job. No problem. Why should you do it ? Because it is there, in the way of the Sarsen stone, late as usual, being pushed by 10 pine tree trunks and a 1000 slaves, and with the cost of slaves being what it is, you are not going to be delayed by a Z hole being in the way, now are you ? So I think that blows the stratagraphy theory out of the water ! Dave1982 : ) The size of the stones are immaterial , it's the ramp that matters . The ramp that has a hole in it , therefore the hole must have come after the ramp . "The why should you do it " Was in relation to building a ramp around a hole as if to pretend that the hole was later . A very unlikely scenario . Reply | with quote |  18th December 2014ce 18:15 In reply to: Re: Stonehenge Y&Z holes stratigraphy evidence doubts (Dave1982) |
Messages in this topic: |
|