Re: First Stones of Stonehenge Argument

From
Date
Priority
Reply-to
I recently had some very interesting correspondence with Garry Denke on this intriguing subject 
of Carboniferous fills to the Aubrey Holes (my PhD was on Lower Carboniferous micropalaeo).  It 
might be useful if I forwarded this to the list; is this okay with you Garry?

>Date:          Sat, 30 Nov 1996 02:04:59 -0800 (PST)
>Reply-to:      N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk
>From:          N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (N. MacLeod)
>To:            Multiple recipients of list <paleonet@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
>Subject:       First Stones of Stonehenge Argument
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>



Dr Mark A. Purnell

Department of Geology, University of Leicester
University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K
tel: +44 116 2523645  fax: +44 116 2523918
http://www.le.ac.uk/depts/gl/staff/map2.html