Thread: Anyone studying Stonehenge ?

I would like to chat with anyone who has been studying Stonehenge. By studying I mean trying to understand the history, archeology and construction of the site, as well as its purpose. My collection of SH books has reached insane proportions (just picked up two more last week!).

I am particularly interested in looking at how the surrounding sites affected it's location, alignments and, of course, construction.

Our resident Stone Hengist is Gary Denke. But good luck if it's reality you're interested in.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Our resident Stone Hengist is Gary Denke. But good luck if it's reality you're interested in.

Let me be clear: I am not interested in 'lay-lines', astronomical alignments theories, druidism, alien construction or such nonsense. If Gary, or anyone for that matter, would like to discuss the henge in a reasonable manner, I would be happy to endulge. I am on a couple of archeological forums, where we get our fill of crack-pot posts; for some reason Stonehenge brings out the nut cases!

Sorry if this is a little harsh...

To examplify: at the moment I am trying to get as much information as possible on the first two phases of construction, the ditch and bank(s), and especially the post holes located near the NE entrance. Were these posts used to create a structure, or as some believe, a sort of fenced-off walk-through to the centre of the henge ? Were the timbers in the centre supporting buildings ? Did the Aubrey holes contain posts at all ?

So why does it interest you if you're not into the arcane stuff? I like to entertain myself by bouncing around between all the various crazy theories about it.

Maybe I'll write up something Davinci Code - esq someday if I ever find a good enough one. It'd have to be pretty good to make up for my writing skills, but it'd sure be fun.

Originally Posted by kojax

So why does it interest you if you're not into the arcane stuff? I like to entertain myself by bouncing around between all the various crazy theories about it.

Maybe I'll write up something Davinci Code - esq someday if I ever find a good enough one. It'd have to be pretty good to make up for my writing skills, but it'd sure be fun.

I am very interested in what happened, how it happened, in short, the history of this incredible place. Reality is quite enough to keep me entertained...which is probably why I'm not into fiction that much either.

CShark I can help with some of this:

Current archaeological consensus is that the Aubrey Holes were originally post settings, but of course were later variously re-cut and the great majority of the resultant ‘sinkage’ into the soft fills provided a focus for cremation burials. I believe though that one well known archaeologist is suggesting that they were intended to house the bluestones, I can’t see that myself (re dating and the small size of some, also how do you ‘prove’ intention?). I’m not sure what you need to know about the bank and ditch circuit, but it’s all covered in Rosamund Cleal’s work ‘Stonehenge in it’s Landscape’ (English Heritage 1995).

Re the post settings on the causeway, these are certainly enigmatic, but they are not ‘lunar sight lines’ established over many years as suggested by some writers. They are radially aligned, but also lie on a series of concentric ‘shells’, they are likely to be a contemporary group to have thus been arranged. All kinds of suggestions have been made, there is no tangible evidence to say what purpose they served (by the way ignore the larger group that cuts across the causeway at 45 degrees, they are of a different phase, you often see them included in the purported ‘sightlines’). Note also that Hawley, when excavating the Stonehenge ditch in the 1920s hit these posts side-on (he hadn’t removed the turf and topsoil at that time). As a result the post settings to the SE were partly destroyed (exposed in section), some perhaps lost, so the picture is incomplete.

Hope this is useful.
AJ

Originally Posted by Anthony Johnson

CShark I can help with some of this:

Current archaeological consensus is that the Aubrey Holes were originally post settings, but of course were later variously re-cut and the great majority of the resultant ‘sinkage’ into the soft fills provided a focus for cremation burials. I believe though that one well known archaeologist is suggesting that they were intended to house the bluestones, I can’t see that myself (re dating and the small size of some, also how do you ‘prove’ intention?). I’m not sure what you need to know about the bank and ditch circuit, but it’s all covered in Rosamund Cleal’s work ‘Stonehenge in it’s Landscape’ (English Heritage 1995).

Thanks for the reply Anthony.
It has been hotly debated whether or not the Aubrey holes contained posts. According to Cleal, the expected postpipes were missing, leading her to conclude that if the holes did indeed contain timbers, they were removed and not allowed to rot or burn in situ. Aubrey Burl concurs, while Richard Atkinson (who has never excavated these features) is convinced they held posts. Personally I must side with Cleal: the variety in size and depth does indicate each hole was dug to contain a post, but these were removed at some later stage, then refilled with chalk. There is evidence that the chalk plugs were visible amongst the vegetation that grew on the plain (inner henge). It is my guess the posts were used as a guide to cut the trenches, that eventually became the henge's ditch. Once it was dug, the posts were removed, holes filled with chalk, which stood out nicely against the surrounding vegetation.


Regarding the possibility of stones being placed in the Aubrey holes; small chips of bluestone and sarsen were found only in the top layer of the holes, indicating the pits pre-date any stone work on the site. This in itself does not rule out the possibility that smallish stones were placed in the holes, but it is an indication that no preworked stone was used.

By the way, I have been trying to find a copy of "Stonehenge in its Landscape'. If you have a source, please let me know

Re the post settings on the causeway, these are certainly enigmatic, but they are not ‘lunar sight lines’ established over many years as suggested by some writers. They are radially aligned, but also lie on a series of concentric ‘shells’, they are likely to be a contemporary group to have thus been arranged. All kinds of suggestions have been made, there is no tangible evidence to say what purpose they served (by the way ignore the larger group that cuts across the causeway at 45 degrees, they are of a different phase, you often see them included in the purported ‘sightlines’). Note also that Hawley, when excavating the Stonehenge ditch in the 1920s hit these posts side-on (he hadn’t removed the turf and topsoil at that time). As a result the post settings to the SE were partly destroyed (exposed in section), some perhaps lost, so the picture is incomplete.
Hope this is useful.
AJ

Very! I have been trying to make sense of these posts, particularly the ones in the North-East entrance. The most likely explaination, which you alluded to, is that the concentric 'shells' were some sort of pallisade structure, blocking the view to the inner sanctum (where other structures may have stood ???), sort of a Neolithic turn-style! I was not aware of the work of Hawley, and will have to re-read both Burl and Pitts to see what they say about his work.

What do you think was the cause of the abandonment of the site after phase I ? For nearly three hundred years, after digging the henge, aubrey holes, wooden structures, stonehenge was apparently left to oblivion. Was it the Beaker Folk who re-started work by bringing in the bluestones ? Or perhaps a new cult was born, having nothing to do with Beaker people...

Hi CShark,

The only copy of Stonehenge in its Landscape I have seen recently was on

http://www.zavvi.co.uk/

Otherwise Amazon do list but it's very expensive, there I think you should be able to find it for £75 to £100 ? anything cheaper than £75 go for it!

Re the abandonment idea, If I remember rightly it was Johns Evans (late of Cardiff University) who suggested this, from land snail evidence mostly. There are so many different thing happening with the Aubrey Holes and the dating of their ‘re-use’ is vague to say the least, that perhaps there was some continuity through cremations. Some were not deliberately filled in but have ‘organic’ fills, others seem to show signs of exposure to weathering, but again much of it down to Hawley’s 1920 s work. You really need access to Hawley’s reports in the Antiquaries Journal (1-8 covering 1921 to 1926). Of course they are summarised in Cleal, which also includes some of his diary notes. Last part of query , Beaker Folk, no problem even though it's not 'fasionable'...Good luck with your work


..oops just noticed you are in Canada. I have a friend who may be visiting the UK from Canada July(ish). If you really can't find a copy of Cleal I will keep a look out here, and let you know. Providing he is willing to take it back to Canada of course, it’s quite a heavy volume. You may otherwise check the mail rates from UK, the book weighs around 6 lb
AJ

Originally Posted by Anthony Johnson

Hi CShark,

The only copy of Stonehenge in its Landscape I have seen recently was on

http://www.zavvi.co.uk/

Otherwise Amazon do list but it's very expensive, there I think you should be able to find it for £75 to £100 ? anything cheaper than £75 go for it!

Re the abandonment idea, If I remember rightly it was Johns Evans (late of Cardiff University) who suggested this, from land snail evidence mostly. There are so many different thing happening with the Aubrey Holes and the dating of their ‘re-use’ is vague to say the least, that perhaps there was some continuity through cremations. Some were not deliberately filled in but have ‘organic’ fills, others seem to show signs of exposure to weathering, but again much of it down to Hawley’s 1920 s work. You really need access to Hawley’s reports in the Antiquaries Journal (1-8 covering 1921 to 1926). Of course they are summarised in Cleal, which also includes some of his diary notes. Last part of query , Beaker Folk, no problem even though it's not 'fasionable'...Good luck with your work


..oops just noticed you are in Canada. I have a friend who may be visiting the UK from Canada July(ish). If you really can't find a copy of Cleal I will keep a look out here, and let you know. Providing he is willing to take it back to Canada of course, it’s quite a heavy volume. You may otherwise check the mail rates from UK, the book weighs around 6 lb
AJ

I really must read up on Hawley! Yes, the book is expensive but likely worth the cost. I have a number of books on the subject, most of which reference Cleal et. al. Apprecaite the offer: if your friend can make this happen, and you come across a copy that is not too dear, perhaps we can work something out.

The only details I have regarding the Aubrey holes are those written by Aubrey Burl. He does not mention the weathering, but does spend a sub-chapter on the subject, most of which seems to me to be conjecture. Would really love to have a look at the 'bible' :wink:

My 'Beaker folk' idea is nothing more than a blind stab. Actually, there is more evidence of the Groovedware 'cult' than more advanced beakerware... a person could spend a lifetime trying to unravell it all!

8) C-s

Canada Interlibrary Loan

Why spend any of your money for the book? You can get it through interlibrary loan free. An 120,000-year-old Stone Age coal hunting camp was discovered in 2005 by archaeologists in an opencast coal mine in Germany, its first use being campfire cooking fuel for German hunters.

Digging Up the Past: Stone Age Camp Found In Germany

British archaeologists claim that their ancestors were too stupid to use coal for heating and cooking. A German dentist: Dr. Garry Denke (1622-1699), a British officer: Lt.- Col. William Hawley (1851-1941) and a British draughtsman: Robert Newall (18_-19_) claimed otherwise.

--
Description of '56 Aubrey Hole bottoms filled with a thin layer of white Carboniferous (Mississippian) limestone above a very thin layer of grey Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) anthracite coal dust ('sooty matter') and bituminous coal dust ('sooty matter') begins on page 96 and ends on page 107. Anthracite and bituminous iron oxides in '56 Aubrey Hole bottoms located below high sulphur content bones and high phosphorus content bones recently confirmed as a 3000 BC coal cremation. Carboniferous (Mississippian) limestone and Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) coals are from the Pembrokeshire Coalfield - South Wales Coalfield mining area.

Cave Coal: 800000 BC; Hand Axes
Camp Fuel: Dates through Ice Ages

---> NW to SE --->

Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Salisbury Plain

outcrop map

Coalfield -> 40 miles -> Coalfield -> 40 miles -> Coalfield -> 40 miles -> Prospect Area

geology map

800000 BC Coalfield -> 800000 BC Coalfield -> 100000 BC Coalfield -> Stonehenge

---> dusters in white --->

Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Avebury coal duster

Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Cursus coal duster

Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Durrington Walls coal duster

Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Long Barrow coal duster

Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Robin Hood's Ball coal duster

Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Stonehenge coal duster

Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Woodhenge coal duster

---> dusters in white --->

800000 BC Coalfield -> 800000 BC Coalfield -> 100000 BC Coalfield -> Stonehenge

geology map

Coalfield -> 40 miles -> Coalfield -> 40 miles -> Coalfield -> 40 miles -> Prospect Area

oucrop map

Pembrokeshire Coalfield -> South Wales Coalfield -> Bristol Coalfield -> Salisbury Plain

---> NW to SE --->

Camp Fuel: Dates through Ice Ages
Cave Coal: 800000 BC; Hand Axes

Sad but true... Avebury coal duster, Cursus coal duster, Durrington Walls coal duster, Long Barrow coal duster, Robin Hood''s Ball coal duster, Stonehenge coal duster, Woodhenge coal duster, etc, all being originally simple coal hunting failures. Every one of them were coal exploration sites that did not yield any coal. Take away all of the dressed up cemetery headstone rocks and what have you got? Nothing more than a bunch of coal exploratory ditches and holes, that is what. Afterwards, these ditches and holes were utilised as grave plots, for tired disappointed coal explorers, and their cold disheartened families... Now coal dusters.

--
Stonehenge Mineral Rock Material

For those unfamiliar with the 7 mineral rock materials of Stonehenge
here is a list of them shown in chronological order of their appearance

85 MYA

Stonehenge White Chalk - The outcrop sedimentary rock of Stonehenge is Late Cretaceous Period, Santonian Age, calcium carbonate. Late Cretaceous Period outcrop sedimentary rock is the in situ mineral material mined by the Ancient. This mineral material is approximately 85 million years old. Stonehenge White Chalk stone is called Seaford Chalk Formation rock. White in color, this mineral rock is from the Aubrey Holes - Stonehenge Ditch - Salisbury Plain mining area.

3100 BC

Stonehenge Whitestone - The oldest limestone sedimentary rock of Stonehenge is Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) Period, Arundian Age, calcium carbonate. Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) Period limestone sedimentary rock is the first (1st) mineral material imported by the Ancient. This mineral material is approximately 340 million years old. Stonehenge Whitestone stone is called High Tor (Birnbeck) Limestone Formation rock. White in color, this mineral rock is from the Pembrokeshire Coalfield - South Wales Coalfield mining area.

3000 BC

Stonehenge Anthracite - The oldest coal metamorphic rock of Stonehenge is Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period, Westphalian Age, carbon. Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period anthracite coal metamorphic rock is the second (2nd) mineral material imported by the Ancient. This mineral material is approximately 310 million years old. Stonehenge Anthracite stone is called Metamorphic Coal Measures Formation rock. Blue in color, this mineral rock is from the Pembrokeshire Coalfield mining area.

Stonehenge Cosheston - The oldest sandstone sedimentary rock of Stonehenge is Devonian Period micaceous silicate. Devonian Period sandstone sedimentary rock is the third (3rd) mineral material imported by the Ancient. This mineral material is approximately 408 million years old. Stonehenge Cosheston stone is called Senni Beds (Old Red Sandstone) Formation rock. Green in color, this mineral rock is from the Pembrokeshire Coalfield - South Wales Coalfield mining area.

Stonehenge Bituminous - The oldest coal sedimentary rock of Stonehenge is Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period, Westphalian Age, carbon. Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period bituminous coal sedimentary rock is the fourth (4th) mineral material imported by the Ancient. This mineral material is approximately 310 million years old. Stonehenge Bituminous stone is called Sedimentary Coal Measures Formation rock. Black in color, this mineral rock is from the South Wales Coalfield mining area.

2600 BC

Stonehenge Bluestone - The oldest volcanic igneous rock of Stonehenge is Ordovician Period intrusive igneous diabase (dolerite) and extrusive igneous felsite (rhyolite) and tuff (basic). Ordovician Period volcanic igneous rock is the fifth (5th) mineral material imported by the Ancient. This mineral material is approximately 470 million years old. Stonehenge Bluestone stone is called Ordovician Volcanic Igneous rock. Blue in color, this mineral rock is from the Pembrokeshire Coalfield - South Wales Coalfield mining area.

2200 BC

Stonehenge Sarsen - The youngest sandstone sedimentary rock of Stonehenge is Oligocene-Miocene (Tertiary) Period silicate. Oligocene-Miocene Period sandstone sedimentary rock is the sixth (6th) mineral material imported by the Ancient. This mineral material is approximately 24 million years old. Stonehenge Sarsen stone is called Reading Formation rock. Gray in color, this mineral rock is from the Marlborough Downs mining area.

00 MYA

Dr. Garry Denke, Lt.- Col. William Hawley, Robert Newall cave chimney vent
holes' core samples have both anthracite coal and bituminous coal in them

John Aubrey Saw Aubrey Holes Not

--
Canada Interlibrary Loan

G-d

Everytime I venture into something all of a sudden everything to do with it crops up to do with it! Yes I am studying it. What do you want to chat about?

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Everytime I venture into something all of a sudden everything to do with it crops up to do with it! Yes I am studying it. What do you want to chat about?

I am specifically interested in the pre-stone age of stonehenge: looking at the purpose of the Aubrey holes, the post-hole clusters as the NE entrance (could it be a pallisade entrance to the central burial/ceremonial area ?). etc. Also, after the recent dig and discoveries by Parker-Pearson et. al. I'd like to discuss his theory, that Stonehenge was built to house the remains of a dynastic family, or at least the elite of the age. I've been a proponent of the 'house of he dead' theory for some time now, having been a 'fan' of Francis Pryor. Parker-Pearson's discoveries add meat to this theory!

The cursus also fascinates. What was it for (a barrier ?). Why
was this area chosen in the first place as a special, holy place ?

Mr. Denke, your comments are not welcome. I have no need for your brand of .... whatever you call history. I've seen your posts elsewhere, give it a rest Please ! cheeech.....

Originally Posted by CShark

Mr. Denke, your comments are not welcome.
I have no need for your brand of ....
whatever you call history.

Then why Your Interlibrary Loan request?
Durrington Walls Coal Ashes
Mr. Garry Denke

Originally Posted by CShark

I am specifically interested in the pre-stone age of stonehenge: looking at the purpose of the Aubrey holes, the post-hole clusters as the NE entrance (could it be a pallisade entrance to the central burial/ceremonial area ?). etc. Also, after the recent dig and discoveries by Parker-Pearson et. al. I'd like to discuss his theory, that Stonehenge was built to house the remains of a dynastic family, or at least the elite of the age. I've been a proponent of the 'house of he dead' theory for some time now, having been a 'fan' of Francis Pryor. Parker-Pearson's discoveries add meat to this theory!

The post-hole clusters dusters,
no coal in any of them either.

Durrington Walls Anthracite Coal Hearth Ash



Durrington Walls Bituminous Coal Hearth Ash

Pearson coal ashes proved Pryor wrong,
anthracite and bituminous coal cinders.

Originally Posted by CShark

The cursus also fascinates. What was it for (a barrier ?).

No, it was a coal exploration failure,
longest of the coal duster ditches.

Originally Posted by CShark

Why was this area chosen in the first place as a special, holy place ?

No, it just another coal failure,
40mi.->40mi.->40mi.->40mi.

Anything else ?

G-d

Did you see the special they had on it last Sunday on the National Geographic Channel?

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...-3372/Overview

"Stonehenge Decoded"

It seems they found another henge, made of wood, a little ways away. One interesting possibility they mentioned was that maybe the wood henge was symbolic of life and the stone henge symbolic of death. You know: the one is fleeting and the other is permanent?

They seem to have celebrated opposite times of year, like solstices I think, at the two separate sites.

Originally Posted by kojax

Did you see the special they had on it last Sunday on the National Geographic Channel?

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...-3372/Overview

"Stonehenge Decoded"

Yes. Good.

Denke Stonehenge Coal Trend




Just another coal bust ditch,
before any wood building.

Durrington Walls & Woodhenge



Henges first, Woods later

All simply coal failures,
thanks for telling us.

G. Denke

Originally Posted by CShark

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Everytime I venture into something all of a sudden everything to do with it crops up to do with it! Yes I am studying it. What do you want to chat about?

I am specifically interested in the pre-stone age of stonehenge: looking at the purpose of the Aubrey holes, the post-hole clusters as the NE entrance (could it be a pallisade entrance to the central burial/ceremonial area ?). etc. Also, after the recent dig and discoveries by Parker-Pearson et. al. I'd like to discuss his theory, that Stonehenge was built to house the remains of a dynastic family, or at least the elite of the age. I've been a proponent of the 'house of he dead' theory for some time now, having been a 'fan' of Francis Pryor. Parker-Pearson's discoveries add meat to this theory!

The cursus also fascinates. What was it for (a barrier ?). Why
was this area chosen in the first place as a special, holy place ?

Mr. Denke, your comments are not welcome. I have no need for your brand of .... whatever you call history. I've seen your posts elsewhere, give it a rest Please ! cheeech.....

I don't know what Denke is getting at, really but still. Anyway I'm interesting in Stonehenge believe it or not because I don't assinuate it with the mythical, I assinuate it with time travel of some sort, as many old Mythical stories. Merlin for example being perhaps a time traveller. For instance they back then described the unknown as 'magic'. Nostradamus said that he 'saw' flying pigs in metal birds, thats not far off fighter pilots looking at their perspective to ours.

Stonehenge is very significant of that I'm sure, I don't know why, but somehow its linked to King Arthur and my curiousity to it is a mystery to me.


I'm not sure what the holes are for and the pre establishement of it maintained whatever it was meant for, and thats why I don't usually question it, because my logic scientific rationality clashes with my mystical pseduo rationality.

Originally Posted by kojax

Did you see the special they had on it last Sunday on the National Geographic Channel?

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...-3372/Overview

"Stonehenge Decoded"

It seems they found another henge, made of wood, a little ways away. One interesting possibility they mentioned was that maybe the wood henge was symbolic of life and the stone henge symbolic of death. You know: the one is fleeting and the other is permanent?

They seem to have celebrated opposite times of year, like solstices I think, at the two separate sites.

Hi Kojaks, thanks for the post.

If you are referring to Woodhenge, it has been known for some time. Was originally discovered from the air in the 1920's I believe, then excavated by Maud Cunning..something ( I really should look this up...). Francis Pryor has long stated that Woodhenge was a place to celebrate the living, whilst Stonehenge was to honour the dead/ancestors. Looks like he may be correct.

No, I did not see the program, although I did record it on my PC (I have a decent TC card in this baby!). Have to make time to remove the commercials, then add it to my collection of history docs. Wood was seen as living, as you mention, and it is likely a safe bet the stability of stone was used to represent eternity. Interesting theory whether it's right ot not, as it seems to fit what they have found. The trackways seem to put the icing on the cake, imo.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

I don't know what Denke is getting at, really but still. Anyway I'm interesting in Stonehenge believe it or not because I don't assinuate it with the mythical, I assinuate it with time travel of some sort, as many old Mythical stories. Merlin for example being perhaps a time traveller. For instance they back then described the unknown as 'magic'. Nostradamus said that he 'saw' flying pigs in metal birds, thats not far off fighter pilots looking at their perspective to ours.

Stonehenge is very significant of that I'm sure, I don't know why, but somehow its linked to King Arthur and my curiousity to it is a mystery to me.

I'm not sure what the holes are for and the pre establishement of it maintained whatever it was meant for, and thats why I don't usually question it, because my logic scientific rationality clashes with my mystical pseduo rationality.

Well, I am not a big Arthur/Merlin fan To be blunt, I place them next to Frodo and Gandalf in terms of reality. Perhaps we can discuss this in another thread ? As for Stonehenge's attachment to time travel, again, it's right up there with lay lines and little green men. Sorry to be brutally honest, but that's my opinion.

I find it interesting that someone such as yourself with a scientific interest has these 'pseudo mystical' ideas as well. Note that I am not condemming or putting you down, not at all, I just don't think that way. At the very least, it will certainly make for some interesting discussions, which after all, is why most of us are here.

Mr. Denke is well known for his 'coal' theory-of-everything. May as well be looking for fairy dust imo, but hey, everyone has the right to their opinions.

Originally Posted by CShark

Mr. Denke is well known for his 'coal' theory-of-everything. May as well be looking for fairy dust imo, but hey, everyone has the right to their opinions.

Stonehenge ditch (actually pits) was not uniform in shape or depth, varying in width from 10 feet to 20 feet wide at depths ranging from 4.5 feet to 7 feet deep. No effort was taken in keeping any part of nonuniform Stonehenge ditch (mining pits) clean. Ancient coal explorers dug down into the solid base rock, haphazardly here and there, then upon finding no coal outcropping, moved on.

Pearson, Pryor, et al, think scientists are gullible enough to believe that Stonehenge ditch (mined pits) was dug 10 feet to 20 feet wide and 4.5 feet to 7 feet deep down into solid base rock for the express purpose of sprinkling handfuls of cremation dust into it. Pearson, Pryor, et al, think scientists are stupid enough to believe in their hocus-pocus "holy place" horseshit. Newsflash, we're not.

"Henges of Western Europe are Coal Busts"



- Dr. Garry Whilhelm Denke (1622-1699)



Quote the Dr. Garry Denke Diary of 1656

8) G-d

Originally Posted by Garry Denke

Stonehenge ditch (actually pits) was not uniform in shape or depth, varying in width from 10 feet to 20 feet wide at depths ranging from 4.5 feet to 7 feet deep. No effort was taken in keeping any part of nonuniform Stonehenge ditch (mining pits) clean. Ancient coal explorers dug down into the solid base rock, haphazardly here and there, then upon finding no coal outcropping, moved on.

Pearson, Pryor, et al, think scientists are gullible enough to believe that Stonehenge ditch (mined pits) was dug 10 feet to 20 feet wide and 4.5 feet to 7 feet deep down into solid base rock for the express purpose of sprinkling handfuls of cremation dust into it. Pearson, Pryor, et al, think scientists are stupid enough to believe in their hocus-pocus "holy place" horseshit. Newsflash, we're not.

Well I for one, being very much a 'scientist', DO agree with Pearson, Pryor, Pitts, et al. You say no effort was taken to search for this elusive coal...yet the diggers of the ditch managed to haphazardly create a nice circular feature, how odd Your entire premise is based on coal ? How do you ignore such trivial facts as the effort needed to create the ditches, then the aubrey holes (again, in a nice circle, all roughly the same size - i.e. NOT randomly dug soundages for coal), and of course, the stones themselves ? All the evidence, the village found at Durrington, Woodhenge nearby, the avenues, the cremation burials both in the ditch and many Aubrey holes, the large number of antler picks and shovels found at the bottom of the ditches, etc. it all says this area was very important, probably as a site of burial (hint - the burials the found, the most of any prehistoric site in Britain). Yet you persist in this coal nonsense.

(shaking head) well, at least you are mildly entertaining. Confused perhaps, way out there in my opinion (I don't think it is a stretch to think that most people would agree with me on this). If you can produce ANY evidence that coal was the reason for the digging, I would certainly like to see it. But please, make it in english so we can all understand ? Thanks.

Originally Posted by CShark

Originally Posted by Garry Denke

Stonehenge ditch (actually pits) was not uniform in shape or depth, varying in width from 10 feet to 20 feet wide at depths ranging from 4.5 feet to 7 feet deep. No effort was taken in keeping any part of nonuniform Stonehenge ditch (mining pits) clean. Ancient coal explorers dug down into the solid base rock, haphazardly here and there, then upon finding no coal outcropping, moved on.

Pearson, Pryor, et al, think scientists are gullible enough to believe that Stonehenge ditch (mined pits) was dug 10 feet to 20 feet wide and 4.5 feet to 7 feet deep down into solid base rock for the express purpose of sprinkling handfuls of cremation dust into it. Pearson, Pryor, et al, think scientists are stupid enough to believe in their hocus-pocus "holy place" horseshit. Newsflash, we're not.

Your entire premise is based on coal ? How do you ignore such trivial facts as the effort needed to create the ditches, then the aubrey holes (again, in a nice circle, all roughly the same size - i.e. NOT randomly dug soundages for coal), and of course, the stones themselves ? If you can produce ANY evidence that coal was the reason for the digging, I would certainly like to see it. But please, make it in english so we can all understand ? Thanks.

CShark

Yes, the ditch was first. Yes, the initial purpose. Yes, they came later. Yes, coal at Stonehenge.

Stonehenge ditch is just under 1/5th of a mile long averaging 15 feet in width and 6 feet in depth. Multiplying its 1,000 feet length by 15 feet width by 6 feet depth, the volume of Stonehenge ditch is roughly 90,000 cubic-feet. Michael W. Pitts, Francis Pryor, Michael Parker Pearson, et al, claim Ancient coal hunters excavated such 90,000 cubic-feet Stonehenge ditch volume for the express purpose of sprinkling 2 cubic-feet of cremated bones into it. They claim Ancient coal hunters dug Stonehenge ditch 45,000 times too large for this reason:

"The 2 cubic-feet of cremated bones in Stonehenge ditch were Ancient coal hunting Royalty,
therefore the ditch had to be 45,000 times too large for such handfuls of Royal cremations."

All 452 news articles agreed.

Denke

You have not answered my questions relating to the stones, the avenues, woodhenge, etc.
Why is there a need to 'replace' the dirt dug from the ditch with 95,000 cubic hogsheads of ash ? The ditch was not dug to fill with anything, it was dug to demark a special place, as was done on countless other henge and non-henge sites throughout Britain and many parts of western europe.

So, let me see if I understand your point: the entire salisbury plain area was created, over thousands of years and at massive cost in resources, to search for coal ? In all my reading, and I have done a fair bit, the word 'coal' has never been associated with any of these monuments. Not one. Yet you persist in this strange theory of yours, despite NO EVIDENCE to back up your claim.

I give up. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, no less than those who still believe the earth is flat, evolution is a total crock, or more appropriately, the Stonehenge was a grainery. Please do not waste your time responding with yet more Garry Denke charts and, well, dribble. I will not waste mine responding either.

Great thread, Thanks!

Yes, the good Dr. Garry Denke (1622-1699), historian, antiquarian, dentist, stated in 1655 that the "Great Pyramids are Coal Busts", in his '55 Diary, the same re-published in German text at FidoNet, over a decade ago. Thanks for re-stating the good Dr. Garry Denke (1622-1699), historian, antiquarian, dentist, conclusion of the Great Pyramid of Giza initial first purpose, and his discovery dated 21st June 1655.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

There are three known chambers inside the Great Pyramid. These are arranged centrally, on the vertical axis of the pyramid. From the entrance, an 18 meter corridor leads down and splits in two directions. One way leads to the lowest and unfinished chamber. This chamber is cut into the bedrock upon which the pyramid was built. It is the largest of the three, but totally unfinished, only rough-cut into the rock.

Many thanks Tom Jennings, FTP, Usenet, BBS, etc.

Bow Wow

Originally Posted by CShark

So, let me see if I understand your point: the entire salisbury plain area was created, over thousands of years and at massive cost in resources, to search for coal ? In all my reading, and I have done a fair bit, the word 'coal' has never been associated with any of these monuments. Not one. Yet you persist in this strange theory of yours, despite NO EVIDENCE to back up your claim.

I give up. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, no less than those who still believe the earth is flat, evolution is a total crock, or more appropriately, the Stonehenge was a grainery. Please do not waste your time responding with yet more Garry Denke charts and, well, dribble. I will not waste mine responding either.

Thanks y'all for another proof that;

Dr. Garry Denke (1622-1699)
historian, antiquarian, dentist

deserves Sole Credit for discovering:

The First Purpose of Stonehenge
The Artefacts below Heel Stone
The First Stone of Stonehenge

same of course being;

Coal Mining Purpose of Stonehenge
Ark of the Testimony below Heelstone
Carboniferous Limestone of Stonehenge

See y'all and, Thanks again!

Garry Denke (1955)

sigh

Originally Posted by CShark

You have not answered my questions relating to the stones, the avenues, woodhenge, etc. Why is there a need to 'replace' the dirt dug from the ditch with 95,000 cubic hogsheads of ash ? The ditch was not dug to fill with anything, it was dug to demark a special place, as was done on countless other henge and non-henge sites throughout Britain and many parts of western europe.

An 800,000-year-old bone in 8,000 BC holes at Stonehenge
First initial purpose "Cemetery Theory" disproven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining

Mine Angel is right, mining is the extraction of minerals (hence the word) of non-renewable mineral resources such as oil, chalk, gas, salt, coal, and water. As a miner himself, elementary mining also includes the extraction of not only the Ancient minerals discussed thus far, but other geological materials from the earth. For example (listed for non-miners) some other materials used by the Ancient might include that which is from ore bodies, or veins.

Mine Angel being the Ancient miner, materials recovered by mining include those mentioned (oil, chalk, gas, salt, coal, water), and sandstone, limestone, shale, bauxite, copper, gold, silver, diamonds, iron, lead, magnesite, nickel, phosphate, tin, uranium, and molybdenum, to name a few. Thus indeed, elementary correct, any material that cannot be grown from agricultural processes or artificially made in a laboratory or factory, is usually mined.

Mine Angel has reminded everybody of what the mining of minerals is all about, so now everyone can confidently continue with the Ancient investigation; the History of Stone Age mineral mining of fascinating Cretaceous chalk (a limestone mineral), the Cretaceous cover of Southern England. This is the site of Mesolithic mined Stonehenge and Neolithic mined Woodhenge, as well as the site of the largest onshore mineral field in Western Europe.

An 800,000-year-old bone in 8,000 BC holes at Stonehenge
First initial purpose "Cemetery Theory" disproven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

"Excavations in the Stonehenge car park by Faith and Lance Vatcher in 1966 revealed few features with the exception of three large pits and a possible treehole (Fig 24). The pits were relatively large, c 1.5-2m diameter and c 1.3m deep (Table 3). They all produced convincing evidence of having held large posts of about 0.75m diameter which had rotted in situ leaving post shadows; pit C did not contain such clear evidence of a postpipe (Figs 25 and 26). A post may have been 'slipped out' when the timber was largely rotten causing little disturbance to the pit fills. Carefully positioned 'wedges', apparently of wood, as well as other traces of 'decayed wood' were reported in pits B and C and were thought to have been used to support timber uprights (Fig 25); this material unfortunately does not survive in the collections. Apart from a single piece of burnt bone and quantities of charcoal they were devoid of artefacts and thus were, reasonably enough, assumed to be Late Neolithic (Vatcher and Vatcher 1973). Identification of the charcoal by Susan Limbrey was surprising as all of the material submitted to her was pine, a species thought not to have grown on the chalk and one that certainly should have been rare, if present at all, in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age (Sub-boreal) of southern England. This identification prompted the submission of two pieces of charcoal which produced Mesolithic radiocarbon dates (Radiocarbon 29, 79) which are in accordance with the known presence of pine during the Boreal (Godwin 1975)." -- Michael J. Allen

An 800,000-year-old bone in 8,000 BC holes at Stonehenge
First initial purpose "Cemetery Theory" disproven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining

Originally Posted by CShark

sigh

Stonehenge Chalk Extraction Mine
Chalkboard Bluestone Mine School



Black Igneous Bluestones
Chalkboards Blackboards

Mine Angel

We Never Ran Out of Chalk !

Stonehenge lecture hall was a large area outside the Double Bluestone Horseshoe used for instruction at Stonehenge college university. Unlike the inside Double Bluestone Horseshoe traditional Stonehenge classroom having a small capacity, the capacity of Stonehenge lecture hall outside the Double Bluestone Horseshoe measured in the hundreds. Stonehenge lecture hall had a pitched bank so those in the rear were elevated higher than those in the front, giving them visual access to the Bluestone blackboards and instructor. Bluestone chalkboard:



Stonehenge classroom at Stonehenge college university was a smaller area room inside Double Bluestone Horseshoe where teaching and learning activities took place. Interesting enough Stonehenge lecture hall and Stonehenge classroom each had their own large writing surface areas because of Double Bluestone Horseshoe, where the Bluestone blackboard Stonehenge lecture hall instructor and Bluestone chalkboard classroom instructor shared knowledge and notes with other members of classes. Lecture and classroom instructors taught simultaneously.



Happy Summer Solstice !

Hi CShark
I'm the author of the book The Stonehenge Observatory and would be willing to chat to you about the origin of the holes. My theory will almost certainly fit into the 'cranks and nutters' drawer of archeologists even though 75% of my book is devoted to a reanalysis of their mistakes. Sorry if that's a bit harsh but having spent the last 4000 hours of my life disecting Stonehenge In Its Landscape and a host of other material I believe some of the conclusions to be unscientific. Yes, I cover the X, Y and Z holes in depth and the pattern of post holes in the Entrance that C. A. Newham suggested had been used to chart the 18.61 year cycle of the Moon. To give you more of an idea of the level of my work please visit the web site that compliments my book www.stonehengeobservatory.com where you can get interactive with the 3D models used for the illustrations. I look forward to the chat.

Originally Posted by stonehenge observatory

Hi CShark
I'm the author of the book The Stonehenge Observatory and would be willing to chat to you about the origin of the holes. My theory will almost certainly fit into the 'cranks and nutters' drawer of archeologists even though 75% of my book is devoted to a reanalysis of their mistakes. Sorry if that's a bit harsh but having spent the last 4000 hours of my life disecting Stonehenge In Its Landscape and a host of other material I believe some of the conclusions to be unscientific. Yes, I cover the X, Y and Z holes in depth and the pattern of post holes in the Entrance that C. A. Newham suggested had been used to chart the 18.61 year cycle of the Moon. To give you more of an idea of the level of my work please visit the web site that compliments my book www.stonehengeobservatory.com where you can get interactive with the 3D models used for the illustrations. I look forward to the chat.

I look forward to discussing this with you asap. Being summer. and the weekend, my time is limited at the moment....
Where did you get a copy of SH in its Landscape ??? Ive been looking for one, reasonable priced that is, for some time now without success.

Will be getting back to you once I've had a chance to look at your site.
Thanks!

Originally Posted by stonehenge observatory

Yes, I cover the X, Y and Z holes in depth...

Jack Blackboards Upright Chalkboards Hard Rock



After the '56 X holes Chalk supply, Stonehenge University College used '30 Y holes Chalk supply.

After the '30 Y holes Chalk supply, Stonehenge University College used '29 Z holes Chalk supply.

Depth of X, Y, and Z holes Chalkboards supply Mine

The '56 X holes Chalk supply Depth ~ 4'
The '30 Y holes Chalk supply Depth ~ 3'
The '29 Z holes Chalk supply Depth ~ 3'

Stonehenge University College

Stonehenge University College

All the School Stones were Chalkboards



Stonehenge School Chalk Mine

Garry Denke

Stonehenge Star School

You either bring Chalk to the Chalkboards,
or you bring the Chalkboards to the Chalk.



Stonehenge Star School

Moby Rules!

S-f


I AM Neanderthal I AM

"Why do British archaeologists Destroy evidence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7466735.stm
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1331230.ece
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/scienc...ike-think.html
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...de-nice-tools/
http://bbctags.headshift.com/index.c...ch/7466735.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbhistory/F...thread=5599666

Why do British archaeologists Throw evidence Away?"

Jesus Christ! Why?
"Ugh Ugh"
G-d

Originally Posted by Sticky Mick

I believe it was a recording studio for those rock dinosaurs
"The Grateful Dead" and "The Rolling Stones". :P
The big slab in the middle is where the mixing desk was. :P

Stonehenge Free Festival in 1984 :P



Alan Lodge: Tash's - Stonehenge Festival 84 - Aerial Shots :P



Yes, those were the days, Sticky Mick. :P
Seismically, recording, correct! :P

G-d

Originally Posted by stonehenge observatory

Hi CShark
I'm the author of the book The Stonehenge Observatory and would be willing to chat to you about the origin of the holes. My theory will almost certainly fit into the 'cranks and nutters' drawer of archeologists even though 75% of my book is devoted to a reanalysis of their mistakes. Sorry if that's a bit harsh but having spent the last 4000 hours of my life disecting Stonehenge In Its Landscape and a host of other material I believe some of the conclusions to be unscientific. Yes, I cover the X, Y and Z holes in depth and the pattern of post holes in the Entrance that C. A. Newham suggested had been used to chart the 18.61 year cycle of the Moon. To give you more of an idea of the level of my work please visit the web site that compliments my book www.stonehengeobservatory.com where you can get interactive with the 3D models used for the illustrations. I look forward to the chat.

You are not being harsh at all. Difference of opinions is what thie forum is all about, what instigates interesting debate and discussion. I must admit I am fairly close-minded when it comes to what I consider to be 'outlandish' theories regarding Stonehenge, but in an effort to broaden my understanding of this wonderful site, I look forward to reading your work.

There must be a way we can discuss this without all the 'background babble' going on..... any ideas ?

Request a ticket from the contact page on the website

Originally Posted by stonehenge observatory

Request a ticket from the contact page on the website

I shall.

Is there a problem with asking questions via eMail?

Originally Posted by stonehenge observatory

Is there a problem with asking questions via eMail?

I think some of the rest of us might be interested in the discussion, too. If the lunatic Denke is causing too much of a problem, why not just use the ignore feature?

I don't think you are doing any good by refering to Garry Denke as a lunatic. He has his view and (it appears) a lot of time to copy and paste his replies to numerous posts. Perhaps he feels justified in his responses. Hey, maybe he's right?

I would really like to discuss my own theory openly, it's just that CShark asked to discuss it without the babble. Personally I find it really bizarre that no one wants to spend $9 to download 200 pages of my work before asking any questions! I don't think people realize how much it costs to prepare that much research. I have paid as much as $35 for one paper to understand what some scientist claims in the course of my own research. I've made the 3D models available online for all to see (around 1000 hours of work) and yet none of you are willing to read what I've written before asking me any questions. No probs. Go ahead and let's discuss what I found.

How y'doing Garry?

Originally Posted by stonehenge observatory

I don't think you are doing any good by refering to Garry Denke as a lunatic. He has his view and (it appears) a lot of time to copy and paste his replies to numerous posts. Perhaps he feels justified in his responses. Hey, maybe he's right?

I would really like to discuss my own theory openly, it's just that CShark asked to discuss it without the babble. Personally I find it really bizarre that no one wants to spend $9 to download 200 pages of my work before asking any questions! I don't think people realize how much it costs to prepare that much research. I have paid as much as $35 for one paper to understand what some scientist claims in the course of my own research. I've made the 3D models available online for all to see (around 1000 hours of work) and yet none of you are willing to read what I've written before asking me any questions. No probs. Go ahead and let's discuss what I found.

How y'doing Garry?

The reason I suggested we discuss this away from here is simply to avoid the aforementioned Mr. Denke. He has ruined many a decent discussion on various forums with his multi-postings. If they were in any way 'valid' or debatable, but clearly he simply wants to draw attention to himself.

If you wish, I have no problem keeping our posts here: I will simply not respond to Garry's nonsense. As for spending $9 for your work, I can certainly relate. I spent four years developing a game, which I sell for $15. Although many people have purchased my software, but there are those who try to steal it by posting messages asking for a keygen. Makes you wonder....

Let me have another look at your site: I need to refresh my failing memory on your stance and argument(s) before we begin. Looking forward to an interesting exchange of views!

Cheers
CartpetShark

Yes, our Garry does seem to steal a march on many a forum. I've found him in some of the most obscure places during my searches, like the Dorset Evening Post. Ironically, for someone like me looking to promote my own book, Mr. Denke is a regular tidal wave on which to surf. All I do is put his name into the search engines and Bingo! I find numerous places on which to post.

Originally Posted by stonehenge observatory

How y'doing Garry?

Never better!

PETROLEUM ($/bbl)
Nymex Crude Future 145.29
Dated Brent Spot 145.66
WTI Cushing Spot 145.29

NATURAL GAS ($/MMBtu)
Nymex Henry Hub Future 13.58
Henry Hub Spot 13.01
New York City Gate Spot 13.73

How y'doing?

http://www.stonehengeobservatory.com/
http://stores.lulu.com/stonehengeobservatory

Stonehenge: Ancient Megalithic Site Holds Secret to Earth's Turbulent Past

Computer systems analyst Dean Talboys has unlocked a previously overlooked aspect of an ancient megalithic site in Wiltshire, England, which indicates a major catastrophic event at the end of the last Ice Age 13,000 years ago that could have been caused by the rapid decline of the polar ice caps.

Malaga, Spain, June 11, 2008 -- By his own admission Mr. Talboys is a reluctant author on the subject of Stonehenge and only realized the original purpose of the site, comprised of stones weighing up to 40 tons, following a chance remark by his daughter. The book is the result of two years' dedicated research during which Talboys uncovered more than one glaring oversight in the archeological analyses of its features.

To quote R. J. C. Atkinson, Professor of Archeology and author of Stonehenge: "Nothing could demonstrate better that one sees only what one is expecting to see..." which is why Talboys believes his interpretation of the ancient monuments' purpose to be correct. This is not a flight of fancy, the product of one man's imagination gone wild like so many other Stonehenge theories in the past. In "The Stonehenge Observatory" Talboys considers every feature in a complete re-evaluation of archeological excavations during the 20th century, and corroborates his conclusions with related scientific studies.

One of the most exciting aspects is the use of 3D models that were used to illustrate the book, and which have been made available online (see below). With "The Stonehenge Observatory" as a guide the reader is able to move anywhere within an accurate reproduction of the site, not only as it is now, but also as it would have appeared originally (which would otherwise only be possible with a time machine), and even witness an animated recreation of the destruction of the site to see how individual stones have been affected.

Incredibly this remarkable work may have gone unpublished had it not been for the Internet. Talboys comments: "Fortunately the Internet has done for the written word what Punk Rock did for music to the extent that today, anyone can express their beliefs to a worldwide audience without the prior approval of a mainstream distributor or one of their so-called 'gatekeepers'." From the growing number of eBooks Mr. Talboys is not alone in his opinion of the publishing process.

http://www.google.com/search?q=stonehengeobservatory
http://www.pr.com/press-release/89654

Awesome!