First Stones of Stonehenge Argument

From
Date
This exchange is posted to PaleoNet at the request of Garry Denke. The
origin of the Stonehenge bluestones has been controversial for a long time
and, as you will see, paleontology does have something to contribute to
this issue. Please post all comments and replies to the list.

Norm MacLeod

-----------------------------


BACKGROUND LETTER:

Date:   Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:08:05 GMT
From:   "M.Canti" <mcanti@eng-h.gov.uk>
To: GDenke@gnn.com
Subject: Re: Stonehenge Microfossils

I have to say that I am not familiar with the argument you are
trying to settle. It is generally the igneous bluestones that
are thought to have been hauled from South Wales, and not any
material used for backfilling. I would expect any fills around
the stones to simply reflect the local chalk microfossils.
Sorry if I have misunderstood. I do not have an email fro Wessex
Archaeology, but their phone number is 07122 326867.

Matthew Canti

BACKGROUND LETTER REPLY:

Dear Dr. Canti,

That's the problem.  Archaeologists "expect" these fills are local
chalk, but the microfossils say different.  The pelagic coccoliths
and planktic foraminifera which are the bulkwork of any true chalk,
including the local Upper Cretaceous Chalk of Stonehenge, are not
present in the backfill of the Aubrey Holes and Heelstone Ditch.
Neither pelagic coccoliths nor planktic foraminifera evolved until
the Jurassic (approximately 195 million years before present), so
aside from these fills' different lithology (expected to be the
same but previously not examined), these rocks in the Aubrey Holes
and the Heelstone Ditch are elder than one would "expect," whose
microfossils match those of the Lower Carboniferous Limestone of
South Wales, which has the visual appearance of white chalk, but is
not a true chalk.  First tonnage estimates of over fifty (50+) tons
(100,000+ U.S. pounds) of this hauled Lower Carboniferous Limestone
from the South Wales Coast are based on known volumetrics of the
Aubrey Holes and Heelstone Ditch.  Because it is generally accepted
that the first construction of Stonehenge (Phase I.) consisted of
the digging of the main outer Ditch and these Aubrey Holes, as
stated in the work "Stonehenge in is landscape, twentieth-century
excavations," English Heritage, 1995, the "new" evidence indicates
the Neolithic builders simply piled the excavated local chalk
material between the Aubrey Holes and the main Ditch creating the
main Bank which runs between them.  This supports the Arizona State
University (ASU) Sigma Chi Fraternity "Stonehenge Reversed Bank/
Ditch Theory" which accounts for the reason why Stonehenge is the
only stone circle in the United Kingdom where the main Ditch is
towards the inside of the circle and the main Bank is towards the
outside of the circle, e.g., the excavated local chalk from the
main Ditch and the Aubrey Holes was simply piled on the main Bank
running between them, an act of convenience.  It is also generally
accepted that the igneous bluestones which you referenced in your
letter; the rhyolite, dolerite, and volcanic ash stones from the
Cambrian (Preseli) Mountains area, were transported many centuries
after Stonehenge (Phase I.) construction; Save and Except, the
Australian "Stonehenge Glacial Erratic Theory," which even if true,
would not make the igneous bluestones the first "hauled" stones,
if the original backfill of the Aubrey Holes is indeed the elder
Lower Carboniferous Limestone.  So the question remains, are earth
scientists and engineers bound to "expect" and project lithologies
of the rocks at the most famous prehistoric monument in all of
Europe, or should earth scientists and engineers "examine" and
describe lithologies based on the Stonehenge microfossil facts?

I have done my best to present the argument to you.  If you know
of anyone who could verify (or negate) our findings based on facts
and not on any expectations, please forward this letter to them in
order that we might settle this ongoing argument once and for all.

Thank you,

Garry

Mr. Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist
Denke Oil Company (DOC)
Wildcat Station, P.O. Box 866488
Plano, Texas 75086-6488 USA
Tel: (972) 867-5306
Fax: (972) 612-9684
E-mail: GDenke@gnn.com