Along the same line as the Newsletter Number 225 on the Lost Cities
of the Amazon,
see
http://www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/2003/091503_inca_eng.xml
and
http://www.quechuanetwork.org/news_template.cfm?news_id=684&lang=
(click "Espanol a Ingles" on that page to get an English translation
there online)
and
http://www.history-compass.com/Pilot/latin/Latin_incasmaps.htm
referring to the ancient 8500 km Inca Road (the Camino Inca)
in South America,
known as the "Gran Ruta Inca" in Spanish
and as the Capaq Ñan in the Quechua language,
meaning "the Great Inca Route".
At least 30,000 km of known roads branch off of this ancient road....
and I am sure it is much more than that.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Monday, September 22, 2003
Lost Amazon Cities and Ethnocartograpy - 225 LexiLine Journal
The article at
http://www.msnbc.com/news/967545.asp
covers "Lost Cities of the Amazon" which archaeologist Michael
Heckenberger of the University of Florida and colleagues
have "revealed", showing remains of roads apparently linking "a
network of large villages in a carefully organized, gridlike
pattern."
As written there:
"Road directions and the orientations of other structures are keyed
to the directions of the sun and stars.... Today, the Kuikuro
continue this sort of 'ethnocartography,' as Heckenberger calls it."
But of course these are remnants of a very ancient systematical
survey, as we see from my decipherment of the megaliths.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/967545.asp
covers "Lost Cities of the Amazon" which archaeologist Michael
Heckenberger of the University of Florida and colleagues
have "revealed", showing remains of roads apparently linking "a
network of large villages in a carefully organized, gridlike
pattern."
As written there:
"Road directions and the orientations of other structures are keyed
to the directions of the sun and stars.... Today, the Kuikuro
continue this sort of 'ethnocartography,' as Heckenberger calls it."
But of course these are remnants of a very ancient systematical
survey, as we see from my decipherment of the megaliths.
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Zahi Hawass, Nefertiti, Rosetta Stone - 224 LexiLine Journal
The weekly on-line Al-Ahram in Cairo Egpyt has a very interesting
article at
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/656/hr2.htm
by Zahi Hawass
Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities
and Director of the Giza Pyramids
on the subject of the alleged Nefertiti mummy and the Rosetta Stone.
article at
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/656/hr2.htm
by Zahi Hawass
Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities
and Director of the Giza Pyramids
on the subject of the alleged Nefertiti mummy and the Rosetta Stone.
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Egyptian to Greek Numbers - 223 LexiLine Journal
RBPaschal has sent me a link to a very interesting BBC article
by Paul Rincon, BBC Science, entitled
"Greeks 'borrowed Eyptian numbers' ".
see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3109806.stm
which refers to
Stephen Chrisomalis
and his September, 2003 article in Antiquity entitled
"The Egyptian origin of the Greek alphabetic numerals".
I am certain that this is surely true
especially in view of my 1999 chart on the origin of the alphabet at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi5.htm
which much precedes the work of Chrisomalis.
by Paul Rincon, BBC Science, entitled
"Greeks 'borrowed Eyptian numbers' ".
see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3109806.stm
which refers to
Stephen Chrisomalis
and his September, 2003 article in Antiquity entitled
"The Egyptian origin of the Greek alphabetic numerals".
I am certain that this is surely true
especially in view of my 1999 chart on the origin of the alphabet at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi5.htm
which much precedes the work of Chrisomalis.
Monday, September 8, 2003
Bizarre Mainstream Archaeology - Queen of Sheba - 222 LexiLine Journal
For some bizarre mainstream archaeology see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28514-2003Sep4.html
for the Washington Post story of one mainstream archaeologist's
erroneous vision of Sheba
and
http://www.bartleby.com/108/14/9.html
which is the Second Book of Chronicles in the King James Version for
the original story of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.
Here are some sites about Saba and the Queen of Sheba
http://www.windweaver.com/sheba/Sheba.htm
http://www.geocities.com/mandaeans/Sabians4.htm
For me, as a man trained in law and evidence, one of the most
disturbing things about mainstream archaeology is its academic
nihilism, its lack of intellectual depth and scope, its substitution
of flowery non-content for nuts-and-bolts factual materials, all of
which are combined with a near absence in archaeological circles of
a capacity for self-criticism and self-correction.
For example, when historic personages can not be found in the eras
assigned to them by archaeologists, it is presumed that HISTORY has
erred, but never have the grave-diggers themselves erred. This is a
unique academic concept of self-infallibility which archaeology
shares with many of the soft humanities, where people merely have to
claim their motor works, without it actually ever having to run.
For this reason, many so-called "archaeology scholars" have argued
that famous personages such as Abraham, Moses, King Saul, King David
and King Solomon, etc. never existed, because archaeologists have
never found any physical evidence for these persons in the historic
era to which THEY erroneously assign these persons.
see e.g. http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media/news-releases/1999-00/*events/biblesymp-events.html
but see also
http://www.geocities.com/elchasqui_2/ZSitchinbook3m.html
giving various data
showing that Abraham was initially - and CORRECTLY -
dated to a much earlier era originally than currently
i.e. Abraham as having lived at the same time as the early Elamites,
which is early in the third millennium BC, when Pharaonic
Civilization also started, for Abraham went "down into Egypt".
The entire record is there in the Bible.
[For that 3rd millennium date in the archaeology of the Elamites see
The Archaeology of Elam, Cambridge University Press, 1999.]
Some scholars have even denied the presence of Jews in Egypt in
ancient days and have declared Exodus and the Babylonian Captivity
as fictions.
We even have people in Germany today who deny that the Holocaust of
WWII and the near extermination of the Jews ever took place.
One way to try to destroy a people or a person is to steal their
identity or to take away their rightful history.
Look at the current Middle East - is this not in part a battle about
where the Jews belong? It is a historical question of great
importance. It is also a topic which fills our daily news - with no
end in sight. So, we really should get it right, should we not?
A man of intellectual depth - as opposed to mainstream archaeology -
would extend his questioning with regard to Biblical personages and
the age in which they allegedly lived. He would objectively
ask: "but what about other eras? could these persons have lived in
other periods?" - perhaps it is WE and not history, who have erred
in our time-keeping and our name-giving. Let us try to fit the
known facts to another period. Perhaps OUR chronology is wrong".
As indeed it is.
As I have pointed out, Biblical personages can indeed be found in
the physical historical record, albeit in different historical eras
than those now assigned to these personages by the clueless
mainstream archaeologists.
We now have another mainstream archaeologist
- see same link as at the top of the page -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28514-2003Sep4.html
who has added his voice to those who question the existence of
Jewish-related Biblical figures and kings. He alleges that the Queen
of Sheba may not have existed, because - as we might logically
expect - no physical evidence of her has been found in the erroneous
era in which the archaeologists have looked for her.
Interestingly, this archaeologist alleges that "Truth is but a
construction". What does this say about the "science" involved?
No man of the law, trained in logic would ever accept this
definition of Truth. Truth is NOT "but a construction". If you do
not eat and drink, and breathe, you die. That is a truth. It is a
fact, an inviolable fact. It is not a construction.
But what people "view" to be "their" truth based on "their" personal
prejudices and beliefs, may be THEIR truth for THEM, but it is not
THE truth. There is a difference. Truth is not that which
is "accepted" as a matter of academic construction, as the
archaeologists might claim. Rather, that which is accepted is merely
a "convention" - and archaeology consists almost entirely of
conventions, and very, very few truths.
One must ask in the case of the Kingdom of Saba - why not look for
the Queen of Sheba (Saba) in the period of the first historical
mention of this people? i.e. when they first made known contact with
the outer world - for the Queen of Sheba knew nothing of the outer
world until she visited Solomon. This first Sabaen mention is ca.
the 12th century BC, a period which corresponds to my dating of the
Biblical King Solomon, who was in my view Ramses II, Pharaoh of
Egypt.
[note: The name Ramses is a reading by the Egyptologists of one of
the several royal pharaonic hieroglyph name cartouches of this king -
the hieroglyph which actually reads "Solomon" is read incorrectly
by the Egyptologists as MERI-AMUN, thus AMUN is correct but MER is
not a part of the name but means "measure. The entire hieroglyph
means MENesis (MOON, AMUN), MER (measure), SAULE (RA - the Sun, from
RATS "the wheel") MEDZIS [born of] hence SAULE (SOL) AMUN (oMON) =
SOLOMON MEDZIS, born of the sun and the moon - and indeed this is an
eclipse during his reign, a meeting of the Sun and the Moon.]
THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE (!) indicates
(quoting p. 95 of C. Edens & T.J. Wilkinson, "Southwest Arabia
during the Holocene," Journal of World Prehistory, 12, Epigraphic
Chronology (1998) that "The stratigraphic context of these inscribed
sherds establish that a writing system appeared in S. Arabia [Saba]
perhaps as early as the 12-11th [century] BC, seemingly well before
the first identified monumental inscriptions (perhaps early the 8th
BC). This conclusion requires that the South Arabian writing system
was borrowed from northern antecedents as early as the Late Bronze
Age." [my comment - and this will be the Egyptians and King
Solomon's legacy to Sheba]
But, as one commentator notes at
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-April/008422.html
this would mean an impossible gap of hundreds of years from early
evidence of writing at Saba to the monumental inscriptions....
He is right. There is no such gap. The dating of the kingdoms of the
monumental inscriptions is off the mark by hundreds of years.
What this means in the evidence of SABA is that we have the same
several-hundred-year chronological error that we find everywhere
else. Obviously, evidence of writing goes hand in hand with
monuments - there is no hundreds of years inbetween. So, Sheba
learned the art of writing in Egypt and brought it to her country.
That fits the Biblical historical record, when Sheba visited Egypt
in the days of Ramses II, who was King Solomon.
The archaeologists are thus looking for evidence of the Queen of
Sheba in the wrong century. In their case, there is no truth,
but only self-deception and falsehood, lodged in an erroneous
archaeololgical convention of how history ought to be in THEIR
conception, and not how history actually was.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28514-2003Sep4.html
for the Washington Post story of one mainstream archaeologist's
erroneous vision of Sheba
and
http://www.bartleby.com/108/14/9.html
which is the Second Book of Chronicles in the King James Version for
the original story of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.
Here are some sites about Saba and the Queen of Sheba
http://www.windweaver.com/sheba/Sheba.htm
http://www.geocities.com/mandaeans/Sabians4.htm
For me, as a man trained in law and evidence, one of the most
disturbing things about mainstream archaeology is its academic
nihilism, its lack of intellectual depth and scope, its substitution
of flowery non-content for nuts-and-bolts factual materials, all of
which are combined with a near absence in archaeological circles of
a capacity for self-criticism and self-correction.
For example, when historic personages can not be found in the eras
assigned to them by archaeologists, it is presumed that HISTORY has
erred, but never have the grave-diggers themselves erred. This is a
unique academic concept of self-infallibility which archaeology
shares with many of the soft humanities, where people merely have to
claim their motor works, without it actually ever having to run.
For this reason, many so-called "archaeology scholars" have argued
that famous personages such as Abraham, Moses, King Saul, King David
and King Solomon, etc. never existed, because archaeologists have
never found any physical evidence for these persons in the historic
era to which THEY erroneously assign these persons.
see e.g. http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media/news-releases/1999-00/*events/biblesymp-events.html
but see also
http://www.geocities.com/elchasqui_2/ZSitchinbook3m.html
giving various data
showing that Abraham was initially - and CORRECTLY -
dated to a much earlier era originally than currently
i.e. Abraham as having lived at the same time as the early Elamites,
which is early in the third millennium BC, when Pharaonic
Civilization also started, for Abraham went "down into Egypt".
The entire record is there in the Bible.
[For that 3rd millennium date in the archaeology of the Elamites see
The Archaeology of Elam, Cambridge University Press, 1999.]
Some scholars have even denied the presence of Jews in Egypt in
ancient days and have declared Exodus and the Babylonian Captivity
as fictions.
We even have people in Germany today who deny that the Holocaust of
WWII and the near extermination of the Jews ever took place.
One way to try to destroy a people or a person is to steal their
identity or to take away their rightful history.
Look at the current Middle East - is this not in part a battle about
where the Jews belong? It is a historical question of great
importance. It is also a topic which fills our daily news - with no
end in sight. So, we really should get it right, should we not?
A man of intellectual depth - as opposed to mainstream archaeology -
would extend his questioning with regard to Biblical personages and
the age in which they allegedly lived. He would objectively
ask: "but what about other eras? could these persons have lived in
other periods?" - perhaps it is WE and not history, who have erred
in our time-keeping and our name-giving. Let us try to fit the
known facts to another period. Perhaps OUR chronology is wrong".
As indeed it is.
As I have pointed out, Biblical personages can indeed be found in
the physical historical record, albeit in different historical eras
than those now assigned to these personages by the clueless
mainstream archaeologists.
We now have another mainstream archaeologist
- see same link as at the top of the page -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28514-2003Sep4.html
who has added his voice to those who question the existence of
Jewish-related Biblical figures and kings. He alleges that the Queen
of Sheba may not have existed, because - as we might logically
expect - no physical evidence of her has been found in the erroneous
era in which the archaeologists have looked for her.
Interestingly, this archaeologist alleges that "Truth is but a
construction". What does this say about the "science" involved?
No man of the law, trained in logic would ever accept this
definition of Truth. Truth is NOT "but a construction". If you do
not eat and drink, and breathe, you die. That is a truth. It is a
fact, an inviolable fact. It is not a construction.
But what people "view" to be "their" truth based on "their" personal
prejudices and beliefs, may be THEIR truth for THEM, but it is not
THE truth. There is a difference. Truth is not that which
is "accepted" as a matter of academic construction, as the
archaeologists might claim. Rather, that which is accepted is merely
a "convention" - and archaeology consists almost entirely of
conventions, and very, very few truths.
One must ask in the case of the Kingdom of Saba - why not look for
the Queen of Sheba (Saba) in the period of the first historical
mention of this people? i.e. when they first made known contact with
the outer world - for the Queen of Sheba knew nothing of the outer
world until she visited Solomon. This first Sabaen mention is ca.
the 12th century BC, a period which corresponds to my dating of the
Biblical King Solomon, who was in my view Ramses II, Pharaoh of
Egypt.
[note: The name Ramses is a reading by the Egyptologists of one of
the several royal pharaonic hieroglyph name cartouches of this king -
the hieroglyph which actually reads "Solomon" is read incorrectly
by the Egyptologists as MERI-AMUN, thus AMUN is correct but MER is
not a part of the name but means "measure. The entire hieroglyph
means MENesis (MOON, AMUN), MER (measure), SAULE (RA - the Sun, from
RATS "the wheel") MEDZIS [born of] hence SAULE (SOL) AMUN (oMON) =
SOLOMON MEDZIS, born of the sun and the moon - and indeed this is an
eclipse during his reign, a meeting of the Sun and the Moon.]
THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE (!) indicates
(quoting p. 95 of C. Edens & T.J. Wilkinson, "Southwest Arabia
during the Holocene," Journal of World Prehistory, 12, Epigraphic
Chronology (1998) that "The stratigraphic context of these inscribed
sherds establish that a writing system appeared in S. Arabia [Saba]
perhaps as early as the 12-11th [century] BC, seemingly well before
the first identified monumental inscriptions (perhaps early the 8th
BC). This conclusion requires that the South Arabian writing system
was borrowed from northern antecedents as early as the Late Bronze
Age." [my comment - and this will be the Egyptians and King
Solomon's legacy to Sheba]
But, as one commentator notes at
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-April/008422.html
this would mean an impossible gap of hundreds of years from early
evidence of writing at Saba to the monumental inscriptions....
He is right. There is no such gap. The dating of the kingdoms of the
monumental inscriptions is off the mark by hundreds of years.
What this means in the evidence of SABA is that we have the same
several-hundred-year chronological error that we find everywhere
else. Obviously, evidence of writing goes hand in hand with
monuments - there is no hundreds of years inbetween. So, Sheba
learned the art of writing in Egypt and brought it to her country.
That fits the Biblical historical record, when Sheba visited Egypt
in the days of Ramses II, who was King Solomon.
The archaeologists are thus looking for evidence of the Queen of
Sheba in the wrong century. In their case, there is no truth,
but only self-deception and falsehood, lodged in an erroneous
archaeololgical convention of how history ought to be in THEIR
conception, and not how history actually was.
More Blundering Archaeologists - 221 LexiLine Journal
More "blundering archaeologists" are described by The Guardian
at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1034647,00.html
a link provided by "explorator" at yahoogroups.com,
a link listing provided through David Meadows,
who in my opinion is generally unduly hard on the non-mainstream and
here, at least, exceptionally "forgiving" to mainstream archaeology
blunders, where no forgiveness should be given.
Meadows writes:
"Not sure the press coverage is fair on this one ... petroglyphs
found this summer in Norfolk which were thought to be possibly
2000 years old have turned out to date from 1995 ... A.D."
In fact, the "excited" archaeologists in Norfolk had dated rock
carvings to ca. 1000 BC until a construction worker came forward
stating that the carvings (two intertwined serpents, a dragon and
runic symbols) were his, and made only 8 years ago.
Contrary to the opinion of Meadows, in my opinion, the press
coverage was in fact very KIND to the archaeologists. Here is what
The Guardian should have written.
"As far as rock carvings go, mainstream archaeology has not a clue
about what they are doing in interpreting prehistoric art and
megalithic sculpture, otherwise, they would have no trouble in
distinguishing the real things from falsifications or "modern art".
If the construction worker had not come forward, this "sensational"
find would have gone into archaeology books as "legitimate". Is this
a wider problem in archaeology?
As observed by Andis Kaulins - whose book, Stars Stones and
Scholars: Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the
Earth by Astronomy" appears this month - "Most legitimate ancient
rock carvings relate to astronomy. One has to know what the rock
carvings meant in their regional astronomical context in ancient
days to correctly interpret them. Knowing this context, legitimate
ancient art can be distinguished easily from art which has nothing
to do with ancient eras. Anyone finding runic symbols together with
intertwined serpents together with a dragon - now or in the future -
is the subject of a hoax, whether intended or not. No such themes
were actually used in the UK in ancient days. This is a case of a
modern myth propogating a myth, so-called imagined modern Druids
seeking mythical Druids - which seems to be the penchant of
mainstream archaeology. Stated simply, mainstream archaeology has no
clue on this score. If you want to know what significance attaches
to prehistoric art and megalithic sculpture, you have to read my
book."
__________
Ponder if you will, dear LexiLiners, what "scientific method" other
than "guesswork" and "wishful thinking" is at the root of the
numerous mainstream archeaological blunders which I have described
to you in the space of just the last few weeks. And imagine just how
widespread such archaeological blunders are - and how many of these
have not yet been shown to be the blunders they are.
I think then that all of you will obtain a better understanding of
the research that I present to you in LexiLine.
I know what the stones and drawings mean - the archaeologists do not.
at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1034647,00.html
a link provided by "explorator" at yahoogroups.com,
a link listing provided through David Meadows,
who in my opinion is generally unduly hard on the non-mainstream and
here, at least, exceptionally "forgiving" to mainstream archaeology
blunders, where no forgiveness should be given.
Meadows writes:
"Not sure the press coverage is fair on this one ... petroglyphs
found this summer in Norfolk which were thought to be possibly
2000 years old have turned out to date from 1995 ... A.D."
In fact, the "excited" archaeologists in Norfolk had dated rock
carvings to ca. 1000 BC until a construction worker came forward
stating that the carvings (two intertwined serpents, a dragon and
runic symbols) were his, and made only 8 years ago.
Contrary to the opinion of Meadows, in my opinion, the press
coverage was in fact very KIND to the archaeologists. Here is what
The Guardian should have written.
"As far as rock carvings go, mainstream archaeology has not a clue
about what they are doing in interpreting prehistoric art and
megalithic sculpture, otherwise, they would have no trouble in
distinguishing the real things from falsifications or "modern art".
If the construction worker had not come forward, this "sensational"
find would have gone into archaeology books as "legitimate". Is this
a wider problem in archaeology?
As observed by Andis Kaulins - whose book, Stars Stones and
Scholars: Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the
Earth by Astronomy" appears this month - "Most legitimate ancient
rock carvings relate to astronomy. One has to know what the rock
carvings meant in their regional astronomical context in ancient
days to correctly interpret them. Knowing this context, legitimate
ancient art can be distinguished easily from art which has nothing
to do with ancient eras. Anyone finding runic symbols together with
intertwined serpents together with a dragon - now or in the future -
is the subject of a hoax, whether intended or not. No such themes
were actually used in the UK in ancient days. This is a case of a
modern myth propogating a myth, so-called imagined modern Druids
seeking mythical Druids - which seems to be the penchant of
mainstream archaeology. Stated simply, mainstream archaeology has no
clue on this score. If you want to know what significance attaches
to prehistoric art and megalithic sculpture, you have to read my
book."
__________
Ponder if you will, dear LexiLiners, what "scientific method" other
than "guesswork" and "wishful thinking" is at the root of the
numerous mainstream archeaological blunders which I have described
to you in the space of just the last few weeks. And imagine just how
widespread such archaeological blunders are - and how many of these
have not yet been shown to be the blunders they are.
I think then that all of you will obtain a better understanding of
the research that I present to you in LexiLine.
I know what the stones and drawings mean - the archaeologists do not.
Friday, September 5, 2003
Protecting Thornborough Circles (Henges) - 220 LexiLine Journal
My decipherment of the Thornborough Circles ( Thornborough Henges )
see http://www.megaliths.co.uk/thornbor.htm
indicates that the land surrounding the circles is also of
special importance to an understanding of this ancient site.
In response to my letter voicing my concern about rumored future
gravel extraction very near the Thornborough Circles (Henges) in
England, I received the following e-mail today from John Hinchliffe,
Acting Regional Director, English Heritage, Yorkshire Region. Since
it is not a personal letter to me as such, but rather a statement of
English Heritage policy, I am forwarding it to the members of
LexiLine for your information.
______________
[Response of English Heritage to the e-mail of Andis Kaulins of 1
September 2003, addressed to Dr Simon Thurley, Chief Executive,
English Heritage, see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/, whose
job, as they themselves describe is: "It is our job at English
Heritage to make sure that the historic environment of England is
properly maintained and cared for. By employing some of the
country's very best architects, archaeologists and historians, we
aim to help people understand and appreciate why the historic
buildings and landscapes around them matter. From the first traces
of civilisation, to the most significant buildings of the 20th
century, we want every important historic site to get the care and
attention it deserves."]
Dear Andis
Thank you for your message of 1 September concerning Thornborough
Henges in North Yorkshire. Our Chief Executive Dr Simon Thurley has
asked me to respond to your query.
As monuments of national importance all three of the Thornborough
henges, the associated cursus and adjoining landscape are designated
as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Scheduling, or designation, allows
the Government, with advice from English Heritage, to give legal
protection to nationally important sites and monuments. The
Secretary of State must be notified of any works which might affect
a Scheduled Ancient Monument, and will not usually give consent for
works which may damage or disturb the site. The henges can
therefore be regarded as fully protected and not under threat.
The current mineral extractions at Thornborough, which are outside
the scheduled monument area, are the subject of permissions granted
to Tilcon-Tarmac by North Yorkshire County Council. At this stage
English Heritage has no statutory authority to limit or prevent the
extractions, which are within the remit of the local planning
authority. The current extraction work has been the subject of
archaeological sampling within a mitigation strategy agreed by North
Yorkshire County Council's Heritage Unit as a condition of the
existing planning consent.
English Heritage remains concerned about the wider landscape setting
of the monuments and is currently funding Dr Jan Harding of
Newcastle University to undertake extensive archaeological research,
at a cost of over £145,000. Dr Harding's work has two principal
components: firstly, he has produced an archaeological desktop
assessment of the monument complex, clearly defining their
significance and landscape setting, and assessing the archaeological
potential of the area. Secondly, he is undertaking a programme of
extensive fieldwork to ascertain more fully the nature and
preservation of the archaeological remains within the landscape
around the henges. The results of Dr Harding's work will inform the
future management of the henges and their landscape setting.
Until Dr Harding's work is completed, and the archaeological value
of the landscape adjacent to the scheduled henges is better
understood, English Heritage is firmly opposed to any further gravel
extraction in the vicinity of the scheduled site.
In order to ensure the conservation and appropriate management of
the henges and surrounding landscape, English Heritage has worked
hard to develop effective partnerships with the owner of the central
and southern henges and other relevant organisations. The owner has
entered into a Countryside Stewardship agreement with DEFRA which
has seen the reversion of the cursus, central henge and intervening
landscape from arable cultivation to pasture. In addition, our
Inspector of Ancient Monuments for the area has met with local
groups (including the Friends of Thornborough) to listen to their
concerns and discuss the problems and possible solutions with them,
and English Heritage is committed to the continuation of this
dialogue.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. Please be
assured that we aim to continue working in partnership with the
owners, the local community and North Yorkshire County Council to
ensure the survival and effective management of the henges and their
landscape.
Yours sincerely
John Hinchliffe
Acting Regional Director
English Heritage Yorkshire Region
see http://www.megaliths.co.uk/thornbor.htm
indicates that the land surrounding the circles is also of
special importance to an understanding of this ancient site.
In response to my letter voicing my concern about rumored future
gravel extraction very near the Thornborough Circles (Henges) in
England, I received the following e-mail today from John Hinchliffe,
Acting Regional Director, English Heritage, Yorkshire Region. Since
it is not a personal letter to me as such, but rather a statement of
English Heritage policy, I am forwarding it to the members of
LexiLine for your information.
______________
[Response of English Heritage to the e-mail of Andis Kaulins of 1
September 2003, addressed to Dr Simon Thurley, Chief Executive,
English Heritage, see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/, whose
job, as they themselves describe is: "It is our job at English
Heritage to make sure that the historic environment of England is
properly maintained and cared for. By employing some of the
country's very best architects, archaeologists and historians, we
aim to help people understand and appreciate why the historic
buildings and landscapes around them matter. From the first traces
of civilisation, to the most significant buildings of the 20th
century, we want every important historic site to get the care and
attention it deserves."]
Dear Andis
Thank you for your message of 1 September concerning Thornborough
Henges in North Yorkshire. Our Chief Executive Dr Simon Thurley has
asked me to respond to your query.
As monuments of national importance all three of the Thornborough
henges, the associated cursus and adjoining landscape are designated
as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Scheduling, or designation, allows
the Government, with advice from English Heritage, to give legal
protection to nationally important sites and monuments. The
Secretary of State must be notified of any works which might affect
a Scheduled Ancient Monument, and will not usually give consent for
works which may damage or disturb the site. The henges can
therefore be regarded as fully protected and not under threat.
The current mineral extractions at Thornborough, which are outside
the scheduled monument area, are the subject of permissions granted
to Tilcon-Tarmac by North Yorkshire County Council. At this stage
English Heritage has no statutory authority to limit or prevent the
extractions, which are within the remit of the local planning
authority. The current extraction work has been the subject of
archaeological sampling within a mitigation strategy agreed by North
Yorkshire County Council's Heritage Unit as a condition of the
existing planning consent.
English Heritage remains concerned about the wider landscape setting
of the monuments and is currently funding Dr Jan Harding of
Newcastle University to undertake extensive archaeological research,
at a cost of over £145,000. Dr Harding's work has two principal
components: firstly, he has produced an archaeological desktop
assessment of the monument complex, clearly defining their
significance and landscape setting, and assessing the archaeological
potential of the area. Secondly, he is undertaking a programme of
extensive fieldwork to ascertain more fully the nature and
preservation of the archaeological remains within the landscape
around the henges. The results of Dr Harding's work will inform the
future management of the henges and their landscape setting.
Until Dr Harding's work is completed, and the archaeological value
of the landscape adjacent to the scheduled henges is better
understood, English Heritage is firmly opposed to any further gravel
extraction in the vicinity of the scheduled site.
In order to ensure the conservation and appropriate management of
the henges and surrounding landscape, English Heritage has worked
hard to develop effective partnerships with the owner of the central
and southern henges and other relevant organisations. The owner has
entered into a Countryside Stewardship agreement with DEFRA which
has seen the reversion of the cursus, central henge and intervening
landscape from arable cultivation to pasture. In addition, our
Inspector of Ancient Monuments for the area has met with local
groups (including the Friends of Thornborough) to listen to their
concerns and discuss the problems and possible solutions with them,
and English Heritage is committed to the continuation of this
dialogue.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. Please be
assured that we aim to continue working in partnership with the
owners, the local community and North Yorkshire County Council to
ensure the survival and effective management of the henges and their
landscape.
Yours sincerely
John Hinchliffe
Acting Regional Director
English Heritage Yorkshire Region
Tuesday, September 2, 2003
More Archaeology Bungles - 219 LexiLine Journal
The archaeologists are at it again.
I read in my local German newspaper, Trierischer Volksfreund Nr.
202, of September 1, 2004, page 28, that the local archaeologists
discovered three important sarcophags in Weilerswist about a month
ago and then just left them there unopened and unsecured - with the
result that grave-robbers in the interim have destroyed the covers
and looted whatever was inside. It probably did not help that the
local paper recently ran a story giving the exact location of the
find. I laugh out loud - incompetence supreme.
See http://rhein-main.net/sixcms/detail.php/1235813
But Weilerswist thinks IT has problems. These are nothing compared
to what we find in Egyptology, where we find that the mummy recently
and sensationally alleged to be the famed Egyptian Queen Nofretete
(Nefertiti) is probably a man.
As noted at
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/01/mummy.nefertiti.reut/index.html
"There has been some confusion as to the sex of this individual."
I laugh out loud.
Do you now see why my confidence in mainstream archaeology is next
to zero?
"Guesswork" would be a good name for the allegedly "scientific"
methods employed by this humble craft.
I read in my local German newspaper, Trierischer Volksfreund Nr.
202, of September 1, 2004, page 28, that the local archaeologists
discovered three important sarcophags in Weilerswist about a month
ago and then just left them there unopened and unsecured - with the
result that grave-robbers in the interim have destroyed the covers
and looted whatever was inside. It probably did not help that the
local paper recently ran a story giving the exact location of the
find. I laugh out loud - incompetence supreme.
See http://rhein-main.net/sixcms/detail.php/1235813
But Weilerswist thinks IT has problems. These are nothing compared
to what we find in Egyptology, where we find that the mummy recently
and sensationally alleged to be the famed Egyptian Queen Nofretete
(Nefertiti) is probably a man.
As noted at
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/01/mummy.nefertiti.reut/index.html
"There has been some confusion as to the sex of this individual."
I laugh out loud.
Do you now see why my confidence in mainstream archaeology is next
to zero?
"Guesswork" would be a good name for the allegedly "scientific"
methods employed by this humble craft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
