| |
| Anyone studying Stonehenge ? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| CShark |
 Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: Anyone studying Stonehenge ? |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 169
Location: East Coast of Canada
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 850
|
| Our resident Stone Hengist is Gary Denke. But good luck if it's reality you're interested in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| CShark |
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 169
Location: East Coast of Canada
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
| 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 ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 1070
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| CShark |
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 169
Location: East Coast of Canada
|
| kojax wrote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Anthony Johnson |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 2
Location: UK
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| CShark |
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 169
Location: East Coast of Canada
|
| Anthony Johnson wrote: |
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 
| Quote: |
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... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Anthony Johnson |
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 2
Location: UK
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| CShark |
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 169
Location: East Coast of Canada
|
| Anthony Johnson wrote: |
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' 
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! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Garry Denke |
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: Stonehenge in its Landscape |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 135
Location: Plano, Texas, USA
|
 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
Last edited by Garry Denke on Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:06 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 3331
Location: England, UK.
|
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?
_________________
"Victory is in trying. Defeat is in not". - SVRDW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| CShark |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 169
Location: East Coast of Canada
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition wrote: |
| 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..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Garry Denke |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Durrington Walls Coal Ashes |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 135
Location: Plano, Texas, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Garry Denke |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: Durrington Walls Anthracite & Bituminous Coal Hearth Ash |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 135
Location: Plano, Texas, USA
|
| CShark wrote: |
| 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.
| CShark wrote: |
The cursus also fascinates. What was it for (a barrier ?). |
No, it was a coal exploration failure,
longest of the coal duster ditches.
| CShark wrote: |
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 1070
|
Did you see the special they had on it last Sunday on the National Geographic Channel?
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/stonehenge-decoded-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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
Page 1 of 3 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
