Stonehenge Phase I: An Openpit Coalfield Model; The First Geologic Mining School

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Garry Denke, Apr 30, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    And still, nobody knows where the hell you're going with this nonsense! One thing's for sure.... you've been watching too much science fiction.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Garry Denke,
    Wales didn't exist when those rocks were excavated, in fact the whole country I believe wasn't even known as a whole country since it was split into small clans.

    To suggest a rock should be returned to Wales because it was taken from Wales in a time when Wales didn't exist is ludicrious. Thats like suggesting that water in the south pacific should be returned to the Arctic.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139
    6th Century BC Heelstone Scroll Trench

    ***Stonehenge in its landscape; Twentieth-century excavations, Rosamund MJ Cleal, KE Walker, and R Montague, ENGLISH HERITAGE, 1995, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 10, ISBN: 1850746052, Pages 321-322, Figure 183-183 continued, Lieutenant-Colonel William Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 of 9ft wide 33ft long WA3607 broad cut scroll trench to underneath Heelstone. Map of C6 cross-section at Page 269, Figure 156. Note: C6 cross-section at Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued, shown reversed.***

    Question No. 1.
    Concerning the mapping of easternmost Posthole at A (the 4th blackened circle on most Stonehenge maps), located 18ft due west of the Heelstone's west side; Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and blacken in on any map a posthole, such as the easternmost Posthole at A, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such easternmost Posthole at A does not exist? (see Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 in above publication: Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued)

    Question No. 2.
    Concerning the mapping of Heelstone's western elder circular ditch 9ft missing portion (the thinnest darkened portion on most Stonehenge maps), located 13ft west-southwest of the Heelstone's west side; Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and darken in on any map a ditch, such as Heelstone's western circular ditch 9ft missing portion, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such elder circular ditch portion does not exist? (see Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 in above publication; Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued)

    Question No. 3.
    Why is the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench not mapped honoring the detailed sample descriptions of the original C6 cross-section creators, Lt.-Col. William Hawley and Robert Newall, on most Stonehenge maps? (see Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 in above publication: Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued)

    Same original C6 cross-section at Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum:
    http://www.aboutbritain.com/SalisburyMuseum.htm?RefID=1504297

    --

    6th Century BC Heelstone Scroll Trench
    Stonehenge in its landscape; Twentieth-century excavations, Rosamund MJ Cleal, KE Walker, and R Montague, ENGLISH HERITAGE, 1995, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 10, ISBN: 1850746052, Pages 321-322, Figure 183-183 continued, Lieutenant-Colonel William Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 of 9ft wide 33ft long WA3607 broad cut scroll trench to underneath Heelstone. Map of C6 cross-section at Page 269, Figure 156. Note: C6 cross-section at Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued, shown reversed. Lydian lion electrum coins (7) in WA3607 scroll trench, 1 recovered. Described in daily Journal No. 4 at Stonehenge on 19th May 1923. Remaining artifacts along and at 12ft bottom of Inigo Jones' Stone-Heng Restored scroll trench East of coined Heelstone elder circular ditch (missing). Gold ark (2.5c-1.5c-1.5c), gold table (2c-1c-1.5c), gold altar (1c-1c-2c), gold candlestick, gold breastplate, gold ephod, gold censer, and brass laver, all, inside brass altar (5c-5c-3c) located beneath Hawley's Helestone lion head, calf head, man face, and eagle wings (pictured below). Jones' brass altar (5c-5c-3c) top side at 7.5ft augered depth. Scrolling trench 9ft wide 33ft long description from Stonehole B (WA3606) to 12ft below Heelstone 96 (Stonehole 163) surface: BEGINNING at mapped Stonehole B (WA3606), THENCE deepening Northeast, THENCE cutting Easternmost Posthole at A (missing), through C6 cross-section right triangle at southwest side, and Heelstone elder circular ditch (missing), THENCE East pass Stonehole 97 disturbance at northern side to beneath Hawley's Helestone lion head, calf head, man face, and eagle wings. Artifacts below Denoco Inc.'s ATT refraction seismic station No. 96 (sledgehammer source) recorded at Stonehenge on 1st April 1985. Salisbury Museum and above publication maps contour 33ft long broad cut scroll trench short by 25ft showing WA3607 only 8ft long. Robert Newall's 1923 scroll trench map contour short of Hawley's cross-sections and scroll trench East side under Heelstone (embedded 4.5ft). Three 1985 refraction seismic lines confirm Hawley's cross-sections and 9ft wide 33ft long scroll trench length and depths. Denoco Inc.'s ATT two north-south lines traverse WA3607 scroll trench width, and one east-west cross line ties along its length. English Heritage's AMLab 75 Ohm-m^2/m 1994 resistivity survey (above publication: Figure 261; Page 500) traceplot of raw resistivity data confirms ATT refraction seismic recordings. Upload of coined 6th Century BC Heelstone Scroll Trench 1984 magnetic-electromagnetic (EM-GPR) and 1985 refraction seismic maps and cross-sections to follow shortly.

    For MSN users:
    http://groups.msn.com/stonehengewhitestones
    http://groups.msn.com/arkarchaeology
    http://groups.msn.com/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics
    http://groups.msn.com/geomagnetism
    http://groups.msn.com/paleomagnetism

    For YAHOO users:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengewhitestones
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkarchaeology
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/geomagnetism
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleomagnetism

    For FORUM users:
    http://www.garrydenke.com/stonehenge.htm
    http://www.freewebs.com/garrydenke
    http://www.webspawner.com/users/garrydenke/index.html
    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke
    http://www.garrydenke.bravehost.com

    Discussion at this forum appreciated.

    Garry W. Denke
    Geologist/Geophysicist
    Denoco Inc. of Texas
    Wildcat Station, P.O. Box 866488
    Plano, Texas 75086-6488
    Tel: 972-422-8268
    Fax: 972-423-6337
    Cell: 940-521-1667

    http://www.garrydenke.com
    GarryDenke@garrydenke.com
    http://www.denocoinc.com
    GarryDenke@denocoinc.com
     
  8. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Without having ready access to the literature you cite, (Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage), it would be hard for most members of this forum to comment on your questions. We simply cannot see the diagrams you're referring to. Is there one you can link to or perhaps scan and put on the net?

    But one thing that strikes me as relevant in other archaeological sites as new data are examined is this: older data and site plans are revised and even discounted for their inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and flaws in methodology as time allows for more detailed analyses and new data provides new inferences.

    The diagrams I have include stone holes and Aubrey holes, but no post holes, though the texts I have mention them. The thing I don't see mentioned in the texts I have is "Heelstone scroll trench." Could you elaborate? Are you saying that the English Heritage publication (Rosamund et al, 1995) describes a 6 th century BCE trench at the heelstone and lists the artifacts you included?

    If not, what is the source for these artifacts as listed?
     
  9. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139
    The above publication is copyrighted, and out of print, but available through interlibrary loan at any public library. If one is so inclined comparison of the C6 cross-section cited in the above English Heritage 1995 publication, to the Hawley and Newall original 1923 map published in 1925, is available at most universities (at Southern Methodist University of Dallas for certain) in The Antiquaries Journal, 1925, published by Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, in Volume 5, at Page 21 preceeding, Plate IX. Nice photograph (black and white) in The Antiquaries Journal, 1925, in Volume 5, at Page 25 preceeding, Plate X, same in the above English Heritage 1995 publication, et al, including Stonehenge Complete by Christopher Chippindale, all 3 editions. But save and except for the C6 cross-section showing the detailed sample descriptions of the subject scrolling trench, none of the maps or photgraphs show it: because; Hawley and Newall did not excavate it completely so as not to disturb the Stonehole B (WA3606) area any further northeast of the scrolling trench origination (WA3607) area. Why? The subject scrolling trench was so large and deepening so rapidly to the northeast-east toward the west side of Heelstone, that if they had excavated it completely to the northeast-east, none of the features in its path would have been left to photograph, and present (sound familiar?), at the annual Report on the Excavations at Stonehenge reading, which occurred on 19th June 1924 covering the season of 1923. Basically, they were told to stop short and illustrate their to date findings, save and except for the large scrolling trench. Unfortunately, the Office of Works blocked any more excavation of the northeast-east scrolling trench, from Stonehole B (WA3606) to the Heelstone, and history has left us with the Hawley and Newall correctly drafted maps, incorporating dashed lines for undefinite features, and solid lines for definite features (see The Antiquaries Journal, 1925, published by Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, in Volume 5, at Page 21 preceeding, Plate IX.), and, of course, all of the misleading maps which followed in the solid lined Stonehenge publications. Thus, the historical question as to why the subject trench was neither fully excavated nor mapped any further than the northeast line of WA3607 is answered, the artistic question is is anyone here interested in expressing it artistically using our seismic refraction contour map as a basis, and the scientific question is when is the next seismic refraction survey going to be conducted over it because the first one is twenty (20) years old, and outdated. I think we should complete the excavation of 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench began by William Hawley and Robert Newall through artistic expression of it, based upon all the above facts of the matter, and any more facts that may be acquired.

    Note: the English Heritage publication (Rosamund et al, 1995) names 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench as the "later [most recent] trench", WA3607 on its west end, unumbered on its east end, the same later [most recent] trench scrolling further northeast than the map at Page 269, Figure 156, proven by Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 of its detailed sample descriptions shown at Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued, located further northeast than the WA3607 solid line contour.
     
  10. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    I've actually ordered that English Heritage publication via InterLibrary Loan at UTA, but I'm curious about the moniker "scroll trench." Is it so named because of the nature of the trench or the nature of the site? Was the trench shaped in a 'scrolling' fashion, rather than the customary rectilinear trench?

    Also, while the publications are, indeed, copyrighted, it would be within fair use to scan an image for the purposes of academic study and discussion. If you were to publish your own paper regarding this, you would simply obtain rights from the publication(s) to use the original graphics as points of discussion within your own paper. In fact, that too, might be covered under fair use, since it would be considered a critique of previous academic work.

    The antiquaries journal will be more difficult for me to get, you say they have it at SMU?
     
  11. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139
    ***I've actually ordered that English Heritage publication via InterLibrary Loan at UTA, but I'm curious about the moniker "scroll trench." Is it so named because of the nature of the trench or the nature of the site? Was the trench shaped in a 'scrolling' fashion, rather than the customary rectilinear trench?***

    It is not round, it is not straight, it is curved, bowed, like a scroll. The term "scroll trench" derived from the curve of a loosely or partly rolled parchment scroll or the curved head of a bowed stringed musical instrument was chosen to differentiate it from the elder circular Heelstone ditch which it completely cuts through as it scrolls East.

    For FORUM users:
    http://www.garrydenke.com/seismic.htm
    http://www.freewebs.com/garrydenke
    http://www.garrydenke.bravehost.com
    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke
    http://www.garrydenke.com/stonehenge.htm

    ***Also, while the publications are, indeed, copyrighted, it would be within fair use to scan an image for the purposes of academic study and discussion. If you were to publish your own paper regarding this, you would simply obtain rights from the publication(s) to use the original graphics as points of discussion within your own paper. In fact, that too, might be covered under fair use, since it would be considered a critique of previous academic work. The antiquaries journal will be more difficult for me to get, you say they have it at SMU?***

    In the Hamon Arts Library Collection (on the Hillcrest side of SMU).

    http://www.smu.edu/cul/hamon/collections/collections.htm

    Go through the double glass doors, first bookshelves to your left.
    Doors are opposite front desk, Antiquaries Journal books are tan.

    For MSN users:
    http://groups.msn.com/stonehengewhitestones
    http://groups.msn.com/arkarchaeology
    http://groups.msn.com/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics
    http://groups.msn.com/geomagnetism
    http://groups.msn.com/paleomagnetism

    For YAHOO users:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengewhitestones
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkarchaeology
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/geomagnetism
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleomagnetism
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2005
  12. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Garry:

    With regard to the notion of a "scroll trench," the only source of information that supports it to the extent that you describe appears to be you. You also haven't supplied data to corroborate a "scroll trench" at the WA 3607 context that matches your description.

    What is at the WA 3607 context is a ston hole, too small to have been a previous hole for the Heelstone. Hawley stated that he only excavated a small section of the trench, which was 9 feet wide and "down to solid chalk" –around 4 feet in depth. That's quite a bit shy of the "12 foot depth" you attribute to the this "scroll" trench. At this point, I'm assuming "scroll" is a term you've attached to the trench of antiquity that extends, according to Hawley, from the "no. 2 stone hole" to the Heelstone after making a turn a few feet from the stone hole. At any rate, Hawley stopped 10 feet short of the Heelstone "for fear of weakening the foundation of the stone."

    The dates of 7th and 6th centuries BCE that you apply to this feature (WA 3607) are also a bit dubious. While it is possible that the feature goes back as far as the Neolithic –even the Mesolithic- there is no reason to conclude that it was as created as early as 7th or 6th century. Indeed, it seems likely that the feature dates to after the main Stonehenge ditch, which can be dated to go back as far as 4410 ±60 BP, but before the Heelstone ditch, according to the excavations of Hawley. So the trench was etween the 3rd & 2nd milleniums. and early 2nd millenium so the trench has been around a bit longer than the middle of the 1st millenium.

    The Heelstone itself is considered to be a Phase I feature by Atkinson (1956) and the posthole at "A" at around 2600 BCE of the same phase. Modern phasing, as outlined in Rosamund (1995), place the posthole at "A" in phase 2 with the same date, while the Heelstone is moved to 3a with a date around 2550 BCE (3rd millenium) with the arrival of the Bluestones.

    But the part of your initial post that makes the least sense is the reference to several artifacts. There is no mention of a "Lydian electrum coin" in either Hawley's work or Rosamund. Such a coin could have been minted in the late 6th century BCE, though most numismatists hold that the middle 5th century BCE was the time when they first began to appear. But regardless of when a coin could have been minted, a Lydian coin of even the 5th century BCE would have been an unlikely artifact for the Salisbury Plain in the same century. The sorts of trade routes required to transport it there just didn't exist until later, though there is some evidence of long distance trade since amber shows up in Mesopotamia at an early date. Even still, a find of a genuine Lydian electrum coin of the 5th century wouldn't directly imply that it was deposited at Stonehenge soon after its mint. I found a 1963 dime in my change at a soda machine just today, yet I'm reasonably sure that the machine was stocked one or two times since then!

    I won't even bother with the rest of the artifacts –the table, altar, candlestick, breastplate, etc. all of gold. Again, there aren't any documented finds at any of the Stonehenge excavations that match these artifacts –certainly not within the tiny Heelstone excavation done by Atkinson. In fact, there's no evidence that these artifacts even exist beyond your own imagination, I'm sorry to say.

    I was also unable to find any mention of the bas relief figures you indicate to exist on the Heelstone. No lion head, calf head, man face, etc. Though it is a well-weathered rock and I'm sure I could pick out all sorts of figures if I looked long enough.

    But back to the original three questions you posted:

    1) Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and blacken in on any map a posthole, such as the easternmost Posthole at A, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such easternmost Posthole at A does not exist?

    Your question here isn't valid since the cross-sections are of different azimuths in figure 183 of Rosamund than the azimuth between Posthole "A" and the Heelstone, which would be the cross-section azimuth needed to show an intersection of "A" with feature WA 3607. That's the feature that runs between stone hole no. 2 and the Heelstone, 9 feet wide and as much as 4 feet deep. The post hole on plate IX of Antiquaries vol. 5 that is within WA 3607 most likely exceeds 4 feet in depth. The photo that is in both Antiquaries and Rosamund (fig. 184, p. 324) clearly show the excavated postholes as well as WA 3607 and the 3rd century trench from WA 3606 to just 10 feet shy of the Heelstone. Posthole "A" clearly exists!


    2) Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and darken in on any map a ditch, such as Heelstone's western circular ditch 9ft missing portion, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such elder circular ditch portion does not exist?

    But the Heelstone ditch clearly does exist. The feature WA 3607 and the 3rd century BCE trench, which you erroneously refer to as the 6th century BCE "scroll trench," cuts across the Heelstone ditch, but the Heelstone ditch is there and is well represented in magnetometer and resistivity surveys, both of which can be found in the appendices of Rosamund et al.

    3) Why is the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench not mapped honoring the detailed sample descriptions of the original C6 cross-section creators, Lt.-Col. William Hawley and Robert Newall, on most Stonehenge maps?

    First, we've established that there is absolutely no evidence to lead us to conclude that a date for the trench of antiquity that begins at context WA 3607 and heads toward the Heelstone dates earlier than the 2nd millenium BCE.

    Second, I'd guess that the reason for omission in maps of various texts is relevance. Publishers of various works don't see the need to represent it on a map, particularly if their work isn't calling upon its data. But I'd be inclined to agree with you that it should be better represented since I think it’s a feature that could stand a little more scrutiny. Hawley had two hypotheses regarding the function of this trench:
    a) workmen cut a wide trench to the Heelstone with the intent of taking it down after removing the stone in the "no. 2" hole, but decided not to and left it.
    b) they moved the stone from the "no. 2" hole, making it the Heelstone and used the trench to facilitate the move.

    Hawley found the second hypothesis to not be a tenable one, and I'd have to agree: the "no. 2 stone hole" is smaller than the Heelstone. There is also a third hypothesis and that is that the trench served as a ramp to erect the Heelstone itself –sort of a "middle" ground hypotheses between Hawley's two. It seems likely enough to me, and if it could be studied or demonstrated elsewhere on another Bronze Age site, then it could give insight into the labor methods of the culture. This, in turn, could give insight into the levels of complexity of the culture and how that complexity arose, making use of social, political, and resource capitals.

    Overall, Garry, I think you're making a lot out of nothing, though I have you to thank for improving my knowledge of Bronze Age culture in Great Britain, particularly with regard to Stonehenge. To that I give you my gratitude.

    For those that are wondering why this thread is even in the Pseudoscience sub-forum, I'd like to point out that Denke has posted several threads on sciforums in the past and many more throughout the internet in general regarding the fact that the Ark of the Covenant is buried under the Heelstone and that its release will cause global cataclysm. Hopefully, he's beyond that since he didn't mention it, but his casual mention of the gold artifacts seems a precursor of more to come from him.

    To Garry: I was interested when you were examining the use of coal in the Bronze Age and your hypothesis that Stonehenge was a site for coal mining, while a very wild speculation, was interesting. What ever happened to this line of investigation?

    References:

    Atkinson, RJC (1956). Stonehenge, London

    Hawley, W. (1925). Report on excavations at Stonehendge during the season of 1923. Antiquaries, vol. 5, 21-50.

    Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2005
  13. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139
    Now that SkinWalker has the Rice University copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" and access to many UTA scanners SkinWalker may simply scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322 "for the purposes of academic study and discussion". If SkinWalker does not scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was right about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website; if SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was wrong about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website. It is my hope that SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) proving me wrong about sciforums.com. According to the Rice University and UTA Libraries the copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" is still checked out to one 'SkinWalker' (a fraudulent name).

    Now that SkinWalker has the Rice University copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" and access to many UTA scanners SkinWalker may simply scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322 "for the purposes of academic study and discussion". If SkinWalker does not scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was right about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website; if SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was wrong about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website. It is my hope that SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) proving me wrong about sciforums.com. According to the Rice University and UTA Libraries the copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" is still checked out to one 'SkinWalker' (a fraudulent name).

    Now that SkinWalker has the Rice University copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" and access to many UTA scanners SkinWalker may simply scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322 "for the purposes of academic study and discussion". If SkinWalker does not scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was right about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website; if SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was wrong about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website. It is my hope that SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) proving me wrong about sciforums.com. According to the Rice University and UTA Libraries the copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" is still checked out to one 'SkinWalker' (a fraudulent name).

    http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ4379
    http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/c...l/lg&_IXimg=k127625.jpg&submit-button=summary

    BTW the 3rd millennium BCE is not the 3rd century BCE, and AML's 1994
    magnetometer and resistivity surveys only show where Hawley, Newall,
    Atkinson, Piggott, and Stone excavated deep in 1923, 1953, and 1956.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2005
  14. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Well... it was after 1:00 am

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Actually, the ILL came from Trinity University -in San Antonio I think.
    Sciforums does, indeed, have a Pseudoscience forum. This is it. But I somehow doubt that the entire reputation of sciforums rests on whether or not I scan a copy of the figure in question. I'm curious why you didn't do so, but I'll be happy to do it if the glass replacement works out on my scanner. Otherwise, I'll see about doing it at some point this week when I return the book -it's too heavy to lug around the campus at present.

    But have you given some consideration to what I said about the azimuths of the cross sections? I'll also scan the photo that depicts the post holes along with the WA 3607 context excavation.

    Please accept my apologies about the millenium/century screw-up... it was quite late and I finally spent about two hours looking over the material. I could blame it on caffeine deprivation, but I'll just say I was sloppy instead.

    What, though, do you attribute your assignment of 7th & 6th century dates to the "scroll trench?" Particularly when it's clear that both the trench and the ditch must have been in place around the time of the Bluestone arrival.

    Why do you suggest that there are artifacts recovered (or in situ) that haven't been documented?

    You mentioned another survey -why would that one yield yield different results? What is the citation for the survey results? What is the value of GPR over magnetometer and resistivity in this case?

    Figure 183 part a
    Figure 183 part b

    Site plan of the Causeway section of Stonehenge- shows excavations of Hawley and Atkinson.
    Figure 184 photograph- depicting the actual excavation units including the postholes and the partial excavation of the Heelstone trench, which crosses the Heelstone ditch.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2005
  16. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139
    O N . 1, 2, 3, . Y E A H !
    S C I . F O R U M S
    I S . S A V E D !


    3 question Text map Figure 156,
    at Page 269, was Not scanned.


    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/MAP_12.5percent.gif
    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/CenterMAP_25percent.gif
    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/MAP_25percent.gif
    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/CenterMAP_50percent.gif
    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/XsectionC6_183_321.jpg
    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/XsectionC6_183_322.jpg
    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/XsectionC6_1923photo.jpg
    http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/XsectionC6_1995map.jpg

    (Buy you lunch next time you're in Plano)

    Thank you SkinWalker!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2005
  17. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139
    1. I'm curious why you didn't do so

    Don't have the book or a scanner

    2. But have you given some consideration to what I said about the azimuths of the cross sections?

    Sure, but C6 runs at S50E right down the center of all 3 postholes

    3. Please . . . instead . . .

    Happy All Fools' Day! (I screw-up all the time)

    4. What, though, do you attribute your assignment of 7th & 6th century dates to the "scroll trench?

    Newall's electrum coin from scroll trench / circular ditch intersection

    5. Particularly when it's clear that both the trench and the ditch must have been in place around the time of the Bluestone arrival.

    The younger trench cuts through the elder ditch completely

    6. Why do you suggest that there are artifacts recovered (or in situ) that haven't been documented?

    Brass and wood have been augered from 7.5 ft. several times there

    7. You mentioned another survey -why would that one yield yield different results?

    Actually the raw resistivity data does respond to the older features

    8. What is the citation for the survey results?

    GDG's out of print, perhaps SEG's Leading Edge still has a copy

    9. What is the value of GPR over magnetometer and resistivity in this case?

    Cores override all EM methods, they are direct tangible evidence

    10. jpgs

    Thanks again for scanning these, they really look great
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2005
  18. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    I'll re-look that. Admittedly, it isn't easy to determine exactly what the azimuth of the cross-sections are since they aren't labeled well.

    Newall found the Lydian coin at the trench/ditch intersection? There's no mention in Rosamund of it. I haven't looked at Newall's article in Antiquity yet, but are you saying he lists this artifact? That would be kind of hard to imagine since this would certainly be the artifact that would warrant a chapter or at least a sub-section in the Rosamund text.

    Based on the backfill in antiquity, Atkinson attributes the date of the trench to before the Heelstone ditch. At any rate, it is at least datable to the 2nd millenium BCE based on the stone chips found in the back fill, which were representative of all the stones brought into the site in antiquity.

    Yet you mentioned gold artifacts.



    I can also scan figures 154 and 159 if you'd like them. I have the book for another few days.
     
  19. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139
    I'll re-look that. Admittedly, it isn't easy to determine exactly what the azimuth of the cross-sections are since they aren't labeled well.

    Round the Heelstone clockwise Start 12:00 o'clock

    1) A-A' (1979) C91 quadrant bearing; N 73 E
    2) B-B' (1953) C36 quadrant bearing; S 67 E
    3) C-C' (1923) C6 quadrant bearing; S 57 E
    4) D-D' (1923) C6 quadrant bearing; South
    5) E-E' (1923) C6 quadrant bearing; S 50 E
    6) F-F' (1923) C6 quadrant bearings; S 2 W - S 22 E
    7) G-G' (1923) C6 quadrant bearing; S 50 E
    8) H-H' (1956) C51 quadrant bearing; S 63 E
    9) I-I' (1979) C91 quadrant bearings; S 71 E - S 34 E - S 71 E / S 71 E

    Note that Figure 183 both Pages 321-322 show the 1923 cross-section C6 reversed (Southeast to your left, Northwest to your right). 1985 cross-section E-E' is opposite (Northwest to your left, Southeast to your right)

    Newall found the Lydian coin at the trench/ditch intersection? There's no mention in Rosamund of it. I haven't looked at Newall's article in Antiquity yet, but are you saying he lists this artifact? That would be kind of hard to imagine since this would certainly be the artifact that would warrant a chapter or at least a sub-section in the Rosamund text.

    Yes, two feet (2') East of the unexcavated triangle, Davies lists at Pages 431-432 "Only those coins actually examined by the author" in the Rosamund text (first sentence). Obviously he did not go to The British Museum

    Based on the backfill in antiquity, Atkinson attributes the date of the trench to before the Heelstone ditch. At any rate, it is at least datable to the 2nd millenium BCE based on the stone chips found in the back fill, which were representative of all the stones brought into the site in antiquity.

    The 'trench' you are referring to is the one Atkinson, Piggott, Stone (1956) cut at C51 claiming to be Heelstone's ramp (which is not scroll trench, untenable, remember?), Pitts' excavation (1979) at C91 proved them wrong

    Yet you mentioned gold artifacts.

    Only cartridge brass (70% Cu; 30% Zn) and liveoak wood (Quercus virginiana) in the core samples, and seven and a half feet (7.5 ft.) of conglomerate of all Stonehenge lithologies from scroll trench, yes, but gold not cored. The so-called "seven Spirits of God" (seven gold artifacts listed), historically recorded inside the box, identified by electromagnetic survey

    1) brass altar (5c-5c-3c)
    2) gold ark (2.5c-1.5c-1.5c)
    3) gold table (2c-1c-1.5c)
    4) gold altar (1c-1c-2c)
    5) gold candlestick
    6) gold breastplate
    7) gold ephod
    8) gold censer
    9) brass laver

    I can also scan figures 156 (changed, sorry) and 159 if you'd like them. I have the book for another few days.

    Figure 156, at Page 269, "Cuttings 5 and 6: phase plan showing all features", C6 map of the in line quadrant bearing S 50 E four (4) solid line bold blackened in circles labeled "Postholes at A" would be great, and Figure 159, Page 271 also

    Thank you SkinWalker!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2005
  20. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Figure 156

    Figure 159
     
  21. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139

    See that SkinWalker, I was wrong. The C6 map of the in line quadrant bearing S 50 E four (4) bold solid line circles labeled "Postholes at A" are not blackened in, no, the C6 map of the in line quadrant bearing S 50 E four (4) bold solid line circles labeled "Postholes at A" are reddened in.

    Thank you for both scans, and for showing me my error.

    Best wishes SkinWalker!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    Garry Denke,

    Welcome to sciforums. I am one of the moderators here.

    To avoid spreading your posts all over sciforums, I have consolidated all the posts on the same topic into a single thread - this one.

    Clearly, a lot of the material your have posted appears elsewhere on the internet. I wonder what you hope to achieve by duplicating it yet again here.

    One of the rules at sciforums is: do not cross-post to multiple forums or multiple threads. You have posted duplicate replies in a number of threads already. Since you are new here, no action will be taken this time. That will not be the case if you continue to cross-post.

    I urge you to read the various rules of sciforums and make yourself familiar with them before continuing to post. The rules are generally in a sticky thread in particular subforums.
     
  23. Garry Denke Banned Banned

    Messages:
    139
    Stonehenge Armageddon Prospect
    A TEXAS TYCOON Tenth Printing
    Date: March 24th, 2005 USPS $6.40


    Would it be alright to post the names, web addresses, dates and USPS costs of the Stonehenge Armageddon Prospect, Wiltshire County, State of Great Britain, United Kingdom, Garry Denke d/b/a TEXAS TYCOON Tenth (10th) Printing of http://www.garrydenke.com/seismic.htm republished and remailed March 24th, 2005 by USPS Dallas MPO Store A, et al, to the following one hundred and forty and four (144) recipients identified and described below and therein:

    1) Pope John Paul II
    http://www.vatican.va/
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    2) Queen Elizabeth II
    http://www.royal.gov.uk/
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    3) British Academy
    http://www.britac.ac.uk/
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    4) Council for British Archaeology
    http://www.britarch.ac.uk/
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    5) Current Archaeology
    http://www.archaeology.co.uk/
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    6) English Heritage
    http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    7) Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum
    http://www.salisburymuseum.org.uk/
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    8) Wessex Archaeology
    http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    9) Wiltshire Heritage Museum
    http://www.devizes-tc.gov.uk/museum.htm
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    10) Wiltshire Times
    http://www.mediauk.com/newspapers/13737
    03/24/05 USPS $6.40 cost of mailing;


    et al, (hardcopy list of 144 shortened for brevity) for the purpose of recording such Tenth (10th) Printing fact here in this Sci.Forums thread? I republished the same every other odd tax year since 1985. All the original mylar films of Volume 1, Pages 1-14 (1985 Line 1 seismic maps & seismic recordings), all the original mylar films of Volume 2, Pages 1-13 (1985 Line 2 seismic maps & seismic recordings), and all the original mylar films of Volume 3, Pages 1-15 (1985 Line 3 seismic maps & seismic recordings), totaling forty-two (42) original mylar films, mailed on March 28th, 2005 by USPS Plano Wildcat Station to THE HISTORY CHANNEL http://www.historychannel.com (NY). If anyone wants any more hardcopies, they will have to get them from them. No one was ever interested in this anyway, save SkinWalker, for awhile, and myself, so I am retiring from promoting this excavation. Best wishes, and thank you James R for your reply.

    Garry Denke d/b/a A TEXAS TYCOON
    Federal ID#, EIN'sTIN 75-2554014
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2005
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page