![Image](http://onlineathens.com/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow__640x360/public/14130101.jpg?itok=o07UYF3G)
![Image](https://peopleofonefire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/1718-Apalachicola-272x300.jpg)
![Image](http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/French-spanish-Map.jpg?itok=v0IjULxn)
![Image](https://peopleofonefire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1670-HighResolution-POOF-1024x803.jpg)
The fellow who does this work is Creek and that may have influenced his views,
so it will require a field check to see what is actually there.
Note that he takes "Coosa" and turns it into "Kushita":
![Image](https://peopleofonefire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DeSoto-Pardo-towns-1280x640.jpg)
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
The tile will be The HENGES and Medicine Wheels of North America", with HENGES in big type.Tiompan wrote:The henges of North America , will be a very short book . You might imagine if there were any , someone might have a written it already .
It may however appeal to the alt nut crowd who are not very discerning when it comes to terminology , veracity or evidence .
The above is a perfect example of the confusion sown by not using the correct terminology .E.P. Grondine wrote:Any US archaeologgist who does not use the word "HENGE" when talking or writing about a henge site
will have the word "Henge" provided to him by his audience or editor.
Tiompan wrote:The reason that the US archaeos can communicate is due to using the correct terminology .
That is why they now put quotes around "woodhenge" and don't use the the term Henge with the anything like your made up definitions .
You have enough difficulty processing basic info when it is presented in it's most basic form , e.g. simple refutations of your henge definition .
It is unlikely that you will be able to follow the slightly more complex problem re. "woodhenge " and how it has nothing to do with your naive wood +henge .
But here it is again Stonehenge is an old name for the monument ,the henge component was not a type of monument .
Woodhenge was named after Stonehenge , but before the henge component was given it's modern meaning .
So the henge in woodhenge is not the same as henge as we know it today .
Wittry was probably unaware of this when he came up with his misnomer .Maybe he learned , later US archaeos certainly did .You never do .
Who was the idiot who asked "Was Gobekli Tepe a henge?".
Obviously it is not a henge . There are no known henges in Anatolia or the US for that matter .
It is the excavation that shows that GT is not a henge , the two plaques from elsewhere couldn't possibly prove anything about GT .
Have you ever seen anyone who knows the subject describe any of the sites at GT as a henge ? Bear in mind , nutcases , like who ever asked the original question , don't count .
"Entering the original builders mindset " Lol , funny how it's always the charlatans that believe they can do that .
Again , any results are literally , pure fantasy .
It looks like we have yet another addition to the fantasy list .
"Any US archaeologgist who does not use the word "HENGE" when talking or writing about a henge site
will have the word "Henge" provided to him by his audience or editor."
You seemed not to have provided any evidence to support this claim ?
OEDy usually do accept evidence of a neologism, and have a regular review process to do this.Tiompan wrote: I think the Oxford English Dictionary knows what it is doing . It is very unlikely to accept the use of made up definitions particularly self confessed ones .
My errors are pretty limited:Tiompan wrote: There has been no evasion on my behalf about putative astronomical alignments at GT or KT.
As a search of the discussion here will prove.
I am only too happy to repeat your errors concerning them too .
Oh really? you've been going on about the definition of "henge" for quite a while.Tiompan wrote: I don't get irritated over the use of language or the fact that people use the wrong terminology .