Login    |    Register

connect and contribute... Click here for further options

Online Archaeology Forums

6th Century BC Heelstone Scroll Trench
Last Post 03 Apr 2005 05:29 AM by Garry Denke. 9 Replies.
AddThis - Bookmarking and Sharing ButtonPrinter Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrevNextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
AuthorMessages
Garry DenkeUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:25
Avatar

--
03 Apr 2005 05:29 AM
***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
SteveWUser is Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Send Private Message
Posts:662
Avatar

--
03 Apr 2005 01:16 PM
Garry - Welcome to forums. I've moved your post from the 'Online Archaeology Errors' forum to this one because the errors forum deals with coding errors and exceptions on the main site. regards, Steve White
Garry DenkeUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:25
Avatar

--
25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM
Here is the red tape that is currently holding up the recharging of Earth's magnetic field as it continues its decrease toward Tesla zero. On 26th July 2005 the Planning and Regulatory Panel of Salisbury District Council refused English Heritage's application for excavation and removal of A-344 road beside Heelstone: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5437 English Heritage's application, approved by the Northern Area Committee of Salisbury District Council at its meeting of 19th July 2005, was refused by the Planning and Regulatory Panel of Salisbury District Council on 26th July 2005, because it did not provide for excavating and removing the Heelstone artifacts: http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke 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 http://www.garrydenke.com/seismic.htm 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 http://www.salisbury.gov.uk/council/contact English Heritage was very surprised, and disappointed, by Salisbury District Council's decision, but they now know the grounds for refusal are ones which can easily be resolved when English Heritage submits the amended scheme providing for the excavation and removal of the Heelstone artifacts and A-344 road. http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=175616 The review will be taken forward by a steering group consisting of representatives from: the Department for Transport; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Highways Agency; the Government Office for the South West; and statutory advisers.
the_historianUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1825
Avatar

--
25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM
Gary, Nowhere in any of those links does it mention 'Helestone artefacts', let alone cite them as the reason for the planning application being refused. Are you sure about your facts? Regards,Gordon http://freewebs.com/thehistoryvault/
Garry DenkeUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:25
Avatar

--
25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by the_historian
Nowhere in any of those links does it mention 'Helestone artefacts', let alone cite them as the reason for the planning application being refused. Are you sure about your facts? Regards, Gordon http://freewebs.com/thehistoryvault/
Positive, Gordan Regards, Garry http://www.garrydenke.com http://www.denocoinc.com
the_historianUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1825
Avatar

--
25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM
So care to enlighten me then? Regards,Gordon http://freewebs.com/thehistoryvault/
Garry DenkeUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:25
Avatar

--
25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by the_historian
So care to enlighten me then? Regards, Gordon http://freewebs.com/thehistoryvault/
What specifically don't you know? Regards, Garry http://www.garrydenke.com http://www.denocoinc.com
the_historianUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1825
Avatar

--
25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM
The artefacts you mentioned. I've never heard them mentioned before, and you said the planning application was refused due to their presence, but none of the external links you posted mentions them either. So why are you so sure they exist, and that was the correct reason for the application being refused? Regards,Gordon http://freewebs.com/thehistoryvault/
Garry DenkeUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:25
Avatar

--
25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by the_historian
The artefacts you mentioned. I've never heard them mentioned before, and you said the planning application was refused due to their presence, but none of the external links you posted mentions them either. So why are you so sure they exist, and that was the correct reason for the application being refused? Regards, Gordon http://freewebs.com/thehistoryvault/
#1 was cored in 1656, the rest inside #1, read amended English Heritage scheme. Nice site btw, Gordon, freewebs is great, http://www.freewebs.com/garrydenke Regards, Garry http://www.garrydenke.com http://www.denocoinc.com
the_historianUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1825
Avatar

--
25 Apr 2008 09:01 PM
Thanks for clarifying Garry. Yep, Freewebs is great, and thanks. I can see a lot of work went into your own site too-nice one. Regards,Gordon http://freewebs.com/thehistoryvault/
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Active Forums 4.1

Go to email Go to delicious.com Go to digg Go to technorati Go to reddit Go to stumbleupon Go to facebook Go to newsvine Go to simpy Go to google bookmarks Go to yahoo bookmarks Go to yahoo myweb Go to ask Go to slashdot Go to rawsugar Go to mister-wong Go to backflip Go to diigo Go to tailrank Go to live Go to twitter Go to fark Go to blogmarks Go to linkagogo Go to wink Go to ma.gnolia Go to bluedot Go to netvouz Go to blinklist Go to sphinn

Section Content

 
Home · Connect · Contribute
Copyright 2006 - 2008 Online Archaeology   |   Terms of Use   |   Privacy Statement