Talk:Gympie Pyramid

Gympie Museum ?

This article contains a reference to artefacts held at the "Gympie Museum". There is a Gold Mining and Historical Museum at Gympie, but to the best of my knowledge this does not hold the alleged artefacts. Ive read there is also a Light Horse Museum at Gympie. At Imbil, about 40 kms from Gympie is the Museum of Wonders, but I believe this is a private museum also specialising in militaria.--Nickm57 11:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Hi, yes the Gympie Goldmining and Historical museum holds the Gypmpie Ape and two J Green drawings, I gave them a call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Constructed by whom?

I've just followed the link here from the article "1421: The Year China Discovered the World" and there is a referenced statement saying that the Gympie pyramid was constructed by an Italian farmer yet here it states that it was constructed by a Swiss horticulturist. Both statements have sourced evidence, so which is it? Anyone know more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The evil jelly (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the same thing. The terms "Italian" and "Swiss Italian" seem remarkably interchangable in nineteenth century Australia. See for example, the village of Yandoit in central Victoria. [1]--Nickm57 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref to Dr. Brown's wotk in lead.

I moved the reference to Dr. Brown's work to the lead paragraph. Suspense has it's place but I don't think it's here. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

complete makeover

Hi, I would like to propose a complete makeover of the article. I spent a view hours scanning and reading about what they have in the Gympie library about the pyramids history and this are 4 independent thin collections of copies made from Gympie Daily articles. And those are telling of people who made assumptions over the last decades, from their point of view. So the Wiki article for example has a chapter ‘Discovery’ naming someone who said he discovered the pyramid in the 70’, which got to be nonsense, because there are claims that the wall was removed in the 30’, that even earlier shafts were filled due danger to fall in, and well, like at many other ancient and interesting land points, Aborigines were using the site far before the first settlers. So reading through a collection of what people assumed who the pyramid builders were, like one guy says Egyptians, because he was not aware that there are step pyramids in SAmerica, the next says Incas must have been in Australia, just because it looks like a step pyramid... Italians then Swiss Italians, just because they grew wine in the area? So wild assumptions, its just so low level, that I think the article should be shortened in that regards and focused more on... the polygamy wall itself, the artifacts found in the area, the history and claims of the Aborigine tribe, the try to reposition stones in the 50’ (I think I read something about that), grindig marks on the top (I made personally photos of them) and maybe a remark that there is a highway construction on the way through the site. Also that photo shows a real mountain in the near Pamona region, not anything of the pyramid. Let me know what you think? Chris Wikigetsme123 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

referring to ‘Polygonal’ Walls! Wikigetsme123 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Good on you for having a go Chris, but to be honest, I think it might be worth doing some editing on easier pages than this one! In the meantime I've removed the photo of Walsh’s pyramid, thanks for pointing that out. The user who added it has been blocked from WP for copy violations, so no point asking them about it. The dry stone walling may be worthwhile as a starting point. One place you can muck about in is your "Sandbox" at the top of your page. Fiddle about until you get it right. Sorry - I write offline mostly now, so only dip back into WP from time to time. Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thanks for the feedback. I think I am up for the task, was working as IT telephony engineer for 10 years holding Ciscos CCNP and at the end CCIP certs. That article needs editing, its not me who needs a new hobby :0)) So how can I proceed without tapping into drama? How do you find the arguments I have for a refresh of the article? Cheers Wikigetsme123 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well yes, "without tapping into drama" is the question. That very issue around the photo having being wrong for four months, that no one noticed until you identified it was wrong, points to just how much BS there is on this topic. That's what I meant by starting off on some easier pages! Anyway, as I indicated, maybe copy it all onto your sandbox page, while also leaving the article here for the time being. You can also write it up in Word offline but of course, its hard to learn the WP editing tricks if you do this.

At a guess, what you seemed to be suggesting sounded better. So maybe the first para is OK, but then a section on Indigenous Australians in the area - "their traditions and claims" sounds a good start. Maybe then - the terracing or polygonal walls? Im just not sure what reliable sources there are about that. Maybe then the alternative theories (Chinese/Egyptians/Incas/Yowies etc) could be briefly alluded to.

These links might help, Im not sure.

• Elaine Brown: http://home.yowieocalypse.com/Gympie_Pyramid_Hoax/
• Australian Skeptics: https://www.skeptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/magazine/The%20Skeptic%20Volume%2021%20(2001)%20No%202.pdf
• Tony Wheeler/skeptics: https://www.skeptica.dk/?p=8219
• Denis Gojak: https://secretvisitors.wordpress.com/

Good luck Nickm57 (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff, thank you Nick! I will have a look Wikigetsme123 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

So here we are to discuss hopefully some of my proposed additions to this article. Even thou I find it not informative whats written in the main paragraph (unfounded comments by people, who could have built the pyramid) I would keep it and add two more articles written by people, and both are contrary and they have their points, so its and interesting addition. Also next to the two additions I think mentioning the Kabi Kabi claim early as possible users of the site (not builders) before the argumentation would be good. I added (even thou I can't see it yet) a photo I shot this month, showing grinding grooves on a very large rock on top of the structure. Even thou there are no reliable photos of the pyramid, that would show it as such, this photo is key, as it would allow to mention the Kabi Kabi claim and the threatening distraction. So next to existing Anthony G. Wheelers paragraph, I would add the Brett Green theory with his grand fathers diary and Elaine Brown who investigated into the sites ownership and usage back into the early days. All those 3 under a new heading 'Who built it and how did it look like? ' Shall I add the proposed text in here?

The early paragraph 'history' would have the text: History The origins of the pyramid were widely discussed by several people over the decades. The earliest prove of use of the site is indubitable going back to Aboriginal ancestors, as there are several large grinding groves in rocks found at the Pyramid. This let suggest that the site has been used far before the first settlers reached the continent. After the Kabi Kabi tribe the site is associated with the ‘star dreaming’ story of the ‘7 sisters’ which is one of the most widely distributed stories amongst Aboriginal Australia.

The The 'Polygonal Wall' as a paragraph and 'Further Finds' before that. This wall is a key aspect in the pyramids history, it was always related with the pyramid, its origins are explainable. So it should be mentioned.

Also an article at the De L. Marshall, Gordon (February 2012). "Australia Historical Society / The Gympie Pyramid page 11" (PDF). shirehistory.org. is worth mentioning, and a survey by Archeo Cultural Heritage Service from 2008, which mentions the wall, brings it in comparison with very rough walls in Bundaberg and doesn't follow up afterwards. This survey states no Indigenous relevance of the site. So there is lots of interesting information that belongs into a Wiki article for this site, but we have just a few narrow assumptions if Egyptians or Inca might have built it. What do you say? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I am intending to change the whole article. Reason for it, it is not well written in regards to information available today. Here are examples why: ......were probably created by European immigrants in the late 19th or early 20th century. The feature is subject to speculation, especially suggestions by fringe authors that it was a pyramid constructed by an unknown civilization, such as Egyptians, South Americans, or Chinese. - prob. created by Europeans, but no reference - Egyptians, South Americans or Chinese are not unknown ....Rex Gilroy claims that he discovered the Gympie Pyramid in 1975 needless to write this anywhere, it can not be ..... constructed by a Swiss horticulturist in the late 1880s Swiss/Italian if so, and they did not construct the polygonal wall stones, which are a major part of this sites history and should be mentioned and not ignored At the current time I do not know who wrote the article, to offer him a discussion, which I would welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikigetsme123 I noted your comment here and elsewhere - about wanting feedback. Small WP articles like this one can take ages to get feedback on, one of the problems now with the whole project. There do no appear to be enough editors. I am sorry I cannot help more, but I have almost no time for devoting effort to anything significant on Wikipedia. I write extensively on the web - elsewhere - about unrelated matters. The advice on the teahouse website is the way to go. Bits of the article, changed slowly and steadily, maybe a couple of paras at a time. Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikigetsme123: - the article has had 88 editors, and the original author is long gone. Please read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and no original research before you start, and take seriously the advice you've been given. You can't add a photo to illustrate something because that would be your own research, our sources must discuss the Gympie pyramid. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank's Nickm57 I appreciate your feedback, and now I understand that smaller articles are less in the focus. It is a small article, but as the site is in focus at the moment, it is important to have it up to date with what we know, and objective. If the article had 88 editors, how come there was a wrong photo and two dead old web links. I kept the one main article with references and added new info of the same type. Please who are the 'sources'. Are this the editors? I understand that it could upset a writer if he doesn't get involved in a change, but in this case its a terrible short article with little and wrong information, easily to see. 'unknown civilizations like Chinese, South American or from Egypt... If somebody searches for Gympie Pyramid and reads this, they have no idea what its about. As being placed first row in google search is see a responsibility for the Wiki community to straighten this article up, as quick as possible actually, apart from all the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Some copy-editing, but still a Godawful mess. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I've reverted to an earlier version - is that better? The main problem with this article is deciding what sources to use - only from there can we build a decent article. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no knowledge whatsoever of the topic. I was just trying to provide some copyediting help. Closer to home, there is our own disputed stonework site America's Stonehenge. I have visited, and strongly agree that it is a combination of colonial era stonework followed by additions by the people promoting it as pre-Columbian, or at least, pre-colonial. In 2019 it was vandalized by a QAnon believer, who professed to be offended by it being a pagan worship site. David notMD (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Photograph vs. maps

I've had a look at the Google Maps 3D imagery for the area indicated by the coordinates for this article, and compared them to the photo. I can't see anything even vaguely resembling the photo. What gives? -- The Anome (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC).

That's because the (mislabelled) photo is of Walsh's Pyramid. Near Cairns. Nothing to do with this topic. As per discussion above!Nickm57 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There really isn't any way someone could confuse the two: they're over 1400 km away from one another. I've nominated the image on Commons for deletion: see here. -- The Anome (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing PDF of Cultural Heritage Survey

OK, I googled Gympie Pyramid and "Archaeo Cultural Heritage", this took me to an archaeological survey report. I then searched Dept TMR for it, no luck, then I tried copying the location from Google, but it gives a long google search result, so I pressed the archive button at google and it gave me a legitimate url, but it is a google archived url, not a current one. So we have a legally commissioned report, at one stage open to the public, but it is not now on the web except at Googles archive. The information is sound but the URL is no good. Can anyone find a stable url for this report? If not I may change it to "cite book" instead, with no url. Oh and by the way, it was commissioned to look at historical (i.e. non-Aboriginal) cultural heritage, therefore saying it does not mention any Aboriginal heritage is obscuring the fact that they were commissioned to look only at non-Aboriginal heritage. Brunswicknic (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: struggling for some reason to get the urls, and I'd copied the below and formatted it, only to have it vanish. Anyway, one source says:

This assessment has undertaken a series of careful investigations to clarify the nature of cultural heritage significance relevant to the study area along with the potential impacts and required mitigation as a result of the Bruce Highway Upgrade, Cooroy to Curra, This assessment includes:

• a review of existing research completed by Dr Elaine Brown for the study area;
• further research as required from the abovementioned review;
• the results of the cultural heritage field survey;
• the nature of cultural heritage significance within the study area and the potential impacts of the Project in relation to the study area;
• specific management recommendations for the protection of potential areas of cultural heritage significance.

A critical review of the work of historical analysis presented in the ‘Report on the Gympie Pyramid’ by Dr Elaine Brown was conducted and found to be sound according to the orthodox ‘historical method’, and is demonstrably reasonable in its use of evidence, its inferences and conclusions.

Secondly, explanation for the features present at the site contained in this report (that they are associated with terracing for agricultural purposes) is supported by the historical evidence presented. This explanation, insofar as it is a conclusion grounded in historical (rather than archaeological or geological) evidence and reasoning, was considered a more reasonable and thus more likely explanation than others not supported by evidence or logical reasoning. The field survey component of this study found that historic features were clearly restricted to the southern and south-western slopes of the sandstone ridge that dominates the study area (see Section 3.5.1). This site can best be described as representing a series of low retaining walls incorporating small ‘steps’ or ‘banks’ faced with loosely stacked stone most likely collected from adjacent areas and that these features were considered likely to have been created during initial clearing and partial levelling of the slope for agriculture.

Whilst this site has been highly disturbed by a number of more recent historic activities and factors, the investigations carried out as part of this assessment show that none of the features noted during the survey appear to reflect the use of a significant or skilled labour force. Predictions are that these features could easily have been constructed by an individual or small number of individuals in a relatively short timeframe.

That's at either [2] or [3]

The other has comments on the Brown report:

Part 2 of the report presents an overview and evaluation of the various claims made about the ‘Gympie Pyramid’ alleged to be situated at Rocky Ridge. The claims of four individuals(Gilroy, c. 1975; Pye c.1983; Green c. 1995-1999 and 2000; Menzies c.2002) expressed in either published articles or in book form are examined in turn. The comments point out a number of key issues that need to be considered in determining the value or veracity of each of these claims. While the points made might be considered arguable, they are difficult to acknowledge as demonstrably reasonable statements.In the case of Rex Gilroy’s claims, these include the observation that his opinion that theso-called ‘Gympie Ape’ is of Egyptian origin is purely conjectural; and that there is no geomorphological or geological basis for his claims of a ‘great harbour’ at Tin Can Bay. Similarly reasonable comments are also presented in relation to Marilyn Pye’s claim inc.1983 that stones from the ‘pyramid’ had been removed to construct a dry stone wall at the Surface Hill Uniting Church. Brown provides references to published and oral sources that document the construction of the retaining wall at Surface Hill “by depression labour in 1938 with stones obtained from the property of Mrs Patience Mulholland.” (Brown,2006: 2). She also observes that two secondary historical accounts have discredited the claims made. Again, while this evidence is not above dispute, the contentions made would seem to be reasonable.

Reasonable comments are also made with respect to claims in self-published works by Brett Green. Brown notes that the diaries upon which (purportedly) Green’s Tales of a Warrior series are based, of which is containing various references to the ‘Gympie Pyramid’, have allegedly been destroyed in a fire, and that they cannot therefore be authenticated. The claims cannot thus be verified or corroborated by independent analysis. More generally, Brown points out that Green’s publications contain factual inaccuracies about the history of the Wide bay district, (these however are not provided), that accounts of Aboriginal legends and customs that are inconsistent with other sources, and that the photographic material produced as evidence in Green’s books contain apparent inconsistencies. It is also noted that other family history researchers maintain that John Green was illiterate and never came to Queensland. This observation is supported by a reference to a Green family history published in 1999.

Finally, Brown makes the demonstrably reasonable observation that the views of Gavin Menzies in his book 1421: The year China discovered the world are controversial. This is substantiated by the critical treatment of Menzies’ theories in the ABC current affairs program Four Corners (in a story titled ‘Junk History’ broadcast in July 2006). Any search of the internet under Menzies’ title will demonstrate the liveliness of this debate among readers, historical scholars and the general community. In each of these cases, it is demonstrable that Brown’s commentary on the various sources for the ‘Gympie Pyramid’ hypothesis is presented in fair and reasonable terms.

2.1.4 Documentary Evidence and Analysis of Land-Use (in Part 3) As is conventional in historical consultancy, The Report presents a short narrative history of key historical developments in the Gympie district since European settlement. This overview provides a necessary contextual background to the site-specific research and analysis subsequently presented in the report. It also provides an opportunity to review to what extent the stone features at Rocky Ridge have been observed or commented upon by historical figures that have used or surveyed the site since the late 1840s. The overview is presented in three paragraphs on page 3, and outlines broad local developments in pastoral occupation from the late 1840s, early road surveys by Bidwill and Buchanan in the 1850s, and gold prospecting and mining from the late 1860s.

The discussion presented here is orthodox historical analysis. Specific historical evidence presented in this section relates directly to the documented history of the Rocky Ridge site, and demonstrates that known and verifiable historical sources (such as reports by government geologists, and the accounts of early surveyors and administrators such as Bidwill and Buchanan) contain no reference to an alleged ‘pyramid’ at the Rocky Ridge site or similar unusual remains or stone structures. Brown draws upon her own familiarity with the broad range of relevant historical sources to present her conclusion that “neither Bidwill nor Buchanan, nor the mailmen, timber-getters, stockmen, bullock-drivers or travellers who followed this route after them (except the elusive John Green) reported finding unusual remains or pre-settlement stone structures in the vicinity of the track.” (Brown 2006: 3). This statement might be contradicted on the basis of relevant evidence, but is nevertheless a sound example of historical reasoning based on the historian’s familiarity with the sources.

No major conclusions are drawn in the report in relation to the site’s geological character or its environmental history in a broad sense. The conclusions relating to the site’s historiography are presented cumulatively via a dot point “comment” in each sub-section of Section 2. Aspects of this commentary are simply statements or discussion, while others are supported with referenced evidence (as discussed above). The commentary underpins a broad conclusion presented in Section 4 that there is “no evidence to support claims that:

• the terraces on Rocky Ridge were part of a ‘pyramid’ built by ancient Egyptian, Phonecian, Extra-terrestrial, Mayan or Chinese visitors;

• gold was mined at Gympie before 1867; or

• a great harbour or a creek once connected Tin Can bay and the Mary River.(Brown, 2006, p.4)

These conclusions are then placed alongside an alternative interpretation or explanatory hypothesis of the site’s history and the likely origin of its features based upon documentary evidence of its environmental history in the post-settlement era (post-1849). The analysis and documentary evidence presented is orthodox in terms of the historical method. As well as presenting fairly broad inferences from her own specialist knowledge of the historical documents (as in statement such as) “Diggers scoured the countryside looking for alluvial gold and gold-bearing quartz reefs, but I have not found any mention of evidence of earlier diggings in the gullies or tunneling in the ridges, or of a pre-settlement structure of sandstone blocks at Rocky Ridge”), Brown presents more direct and verifiable statements based on specific documentary evidence. Cauper’s residence at Rocky Ridge, locally published in 1905, and by Cauper’s presence on the local electoral roll in 1890. The basic character of the earthworks and retaining potentially undertaken by settlers such as Cauper is suggested by another primary source, a handbook for Queensland settlers published in 1888. The quotation provided in Brown’s report (p.4) is strong evidence that the terracing visible today at the Rocky Ridge site was a commonplace solution to the challenges of farming on sloping and stony ground in colonial Queensland.

There is no reason not to draw the inference that Cauper followed this practice when faced with the difficulties of farming at the Rocky Ridge site. Importantly, Brown’s use of historical sources in this way (in order to develop a reasonable inference on the balance of demonstrable historical evidence) is fundamentally verifiable. References (endnotes) are provided and the evidence thus identified can be consulted by independent researchers in the public libraries and repositories concerned. The lack of a footnote documenting the source of Brown’s evidence for Cauper’s occupation of the four Goldfields Homestead Leases between 1875 and 1877, however, or the specific source for the 1890 electoral roll, can be considered as lapses in the otherwise scrupulous referencing standard of her report.

Ultimately, the explanatory hypothesis based on this evidence is presented in the report as a statement: “There is evidence that John William Cauper took up land at Rocky Ridge/McPherson’s Paddock in the period 1875-1877 and that he established a vineyard there. Furthermore, horticultural practices of the period support a local oral tradition that the terraces were constructed to provide well-drained sites for Cauper’s grapevines.” (Brown, 2006: 4) This explanatory hypothesis is thus an inference resulting from a critical evaluation of verifiable evidence relating to the site and its documented history. It is not established in the report as “fact”, but (as is discussed above) its status as an inference does not disqualify it from being a reasonable historical hypothesis or conclusion (if all available evidence has been incorporated or otherwise explained by the hypothesis). On the contrary, given that it is directly supported by documentary and circumstantial evidence, this inference is a stronger hypothesis (in the sense that it is more reasonable and more likely) than the alternative hypotheses reviewed in Section 2 of the report.

2.2 Corroborating Research

Additional research was undertaken in the course of preparing this report in order to verify or corroborate the evidential basis underpinning the ‘Report on the "Gympie Pyramid"

_____________________________________________ ____

ARCHAEO Cultural Heritage Services:

Cultural Heritage Survey, ‘Rocky Ridge’, Gympie, Southern Queensland 10

Searches at the Titles Office (Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water) indicated that the relevant Deeds of Grant for the parcels of land contained in the study area were issued in March and June 1995 (title reference numbers 18827218 and 17762024). This indicates that the land parcels concerned have only been freehold title since that time. Further research to clarify earlier ownership, occupation and title status was necessary using records held at the Gympie office of the Department of Natural Resources and Water. Research at the Gympie office indicated that the two parcels of land containing the Rocky Ridge site were leased as Miners Homestead Leases to George Preston (No. 2968, in an application dated September 7, 1903) and, in the case of the block known as ‘Macpherson’s Paddock’, to Richard H. James (No 1484, in an application dated August 28, 1891).

Leasing arrangements for the parcels prior to these dates, including the Goldfields Homestead Leases (GML) Nos. 215, 337 and 338 were taken up by John William Cauper according to Brown’s analysis. Research in records held at the Queensland State Archives indicated that on February 16 1876, Cauper successfully applied for a 40 acre block described as in the locality “120 chains from Bridge over Deep Creek” (Application number 215). He paid rent on this property until 1890. (QSA: Register of Applications to Lease Crown Land Under the Goldfields Homestead Act of 1870, 1871-1887 - QSA Item #84834) Original survey maps showing the location of these GML’s is provided in Appendix 2.

In addition to this title and leasehold research, basic verification of documentary sources used in the report was undertaken, including articles published in the Gympie Times and the 1905 publication Gympie and District Farming and Grazing Industries. The latter source is an anthology of descriptions of the Gympie district published in the Gympie Times in 1905 (and reprinted in 1995). It supports Brown’s contention that the Rocky Ridge site was occupied and farmed by Cauper:

The first settler’s home [the traveller comes to] is the neat cottage owned by Mr.Rich[ard] Edwards, known as the old Vineyard. Over 20 years ago part of this land was taken up by a Mr. Kauper [sic] and laid out as a vineyard, and hence the name.(Gympie and District Farming and Grazing Industries, 1905: 49) The general veracity of this account is corroborated by the appearance of Richard Edwards’ name on the Miner’s Homestead lease card (No. 1484, Gympie field; Department of Natural Resources and Water, Gympie Office). He successfully applied for occupation of the lease on February 26, 1903, and thus occupied the property at the time of the 1905 report.

On the basis of the foregoing discussion, several clear conclusions can be drawn from this chapter. Firstly, the work of historical analysis presented in the ‘Report on the Gympie Pyramid’ by Dr Elaine Brown is sound according to the orthodox ‘historical method’, and is demonstrably reasonable in its use of evidence, its inferences and conclusions. Secondly, the explanation for the features present at the site contained in this report (that they are associated with terracing for agricultural purposes) is supported by the historical evidence presented. This explanation, insofar as it is a conclusion grounded in historical (rather than archaeological or geological) evidence and reasoning, must be considered a more reasonable and thus more likely explanation than others not supported by evidence or logical reasoning.

Further discussion relating to this explanation is provided in the following sections, and more specifically at the conclusion of the field survey results for the study area in the following chapter.

There's more, eg

It was decided to refer to these finds collectively as Site Complex 1 (SC1), which includes what can best be described as a series of shallow ‘terrace-like’ features (F1, F3-6, F8-10) comprised of linear sections of low, loosely stacked local sandstone in combination with low earth banks or cutaway sections that vary considerably in height, length, and the number of courses of stones in their construction (generally no more than 40 - 50 cm or 3- 4 courses). Stone utilised in these features was of varying size and most would appear to have been of a scale that would have been moveable a short distance by one or two people. Similarly these features appear to utilise readily-available stones from the adjacent soil surface, with no stones showing any evidence of splitting, dressing, or other attempts at working to improve their flatness."

The majority of these features ran roughly parallel and approximately east-west at varying intervals up the southern slope, stopping below the outcrop of large sandstone boulders that forms the high point of the ridge in this area. These intervals appeared not to follow any particular pattern beyond the fact that the distance separating these features decreased the further up the slope they occurred [the widest gap being approximately 15 metres between Feature F1 and Feature F3 (F1A-D and F3A-D)]. The primary exceptions to this pattern appear to be Feature F2, an isolated stone wall that, although similar in construction to the other stone features at the site, differs in that it is more curved than linear, exhibits a more pronounced earth mound or fill section behind the stone, runs roughly north-south rather than east-west and consists of up to six courses of stones arranged to enclosing a slight depression perhaps 2.5 m diameter. Features F7 and F1A also differ from this general pattern by incorporating ‘L’ shaped sections featuring short segments running perpendicular (north-south) to the majority of similar features.

There's also a table, drawing, etc plus:

In the previous section the term ‘terrace-like’ was utilised in an attempt to describe the stacked stone features that were encountered during the survey. The use of this term was primarily due to the apparent lack of a more appropriate term to describe the stone features. However, the use of this term is problematic as these features only superficially resemble terraces. Subsequently, at this stage it is considered useful to enter into a brief discussion regarding terraces and other, similar agrarian structures and to examine how they compare with features noted during the survey.

A dry stone wall is simply a wall that is constructed from stones without any mortar to bind them together and is held up by the interlocking of the stones. In Australia dry stone walling dates back to the middle of the 19th century and was a construction technique favoured by both Anglo Celtic and European migrants. Representing one of the most economic forms of fencing, stonewalls were common in areas with a proliferation of stone. Several methods of constructing dry stone walls exist, with each dependant on the quantity and type of stones available, with most walls being constructed from stones and boulders cleared from the fields during preparation for agriculture.

This first alternative can be discount for several reasons:

• Dry stone walls are designed primarily to contain or exclude animals, i.e. to act as fences. There are too many “terraces” for all of them to have been fences.

• Dry stone walls are typically 1.5 m high and when partially collapsed through damage and lack of maintenance, the stones cascade over the adjacent land. This is not the case here.

• Dry stone walls are always built on a prepared base designed to take the substantial load of the wall. Such bases are typically 0.8 – 1.0 m wide. No such base exists here.

• Finally, a few metres of a traditional dry stone wall contains many more rocks than are present in Features F1-F10 combined. Even if some rocks have been removed, the quantities of rocks in question are far less than could realistically be expected from even a single dry stone wall designed to contain or exclude animals.

And later:

The explanation for historic features present at the site (that they are associated with terracing for small scale agricultural purposes such as a vineyard) is therefore not only supported by the historical evidence discussed in Section 2, but also the physical evidence, both archaeological and geological, provided by this field survey. Additionally, Comparative analysis of three similar and relatively local sites concludes that the study area does not provide any significant qualities or attributes of great value related to stone elements related to agricultural pursuit.

and

Swiss immigrant, William Cauper, took up four goldfield leases in the 1870s and, according to historical sources, appears to have established a vineyard on this land. Although the area has more recently been highly disturbed, stone like terraces located during this assessment are most likely the remains of :::Cauper’s early agricultural pursuits to grow grapes on steep and rocky slopes located within the leases. Whilst it is unclear whether or not Cauper’s venture succeeded, the remnant features remaining within the study area most likely demonstrates the nature of agricultural practices attempted by new, non-Anglo Celtic settlers during the middle to late nineteenth century in the Gympie area.

Sorry for the mess, no time to clean it up right now. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's very helpful Doug and great to come back and see some progress being made here. The above is very valuable, but without formatting is so hard to read! I hope you don't mind - I have had a go at formatting it for clarity. Nickm57 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nickm57: thanks, greatly appreciated. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggest delete the section on stone reuse

Thanks @Doug Weller: for the references to the Archaeo Cultural Heritage Report on Rocky Ridge at [4] or [5]. I have had time to read this report and its good to see Elaine Brown's report is included as well, I can recall reading that a long time ago. I have struggled to find Marilyn Pye's 1983 theory - that the stones at the Surface Hill Uniting Church were taken from Rocky Ridge - outlined at any length or analysed anywhere else, even on her own website. I have watched the video mentioned by Wikigetsme123, but the dry stone retaining wall around the Church is not unlike other Australian Dry_stone Walling - see here for example Old Great North Road, while its construction is also mentioned here in a local history and in The Courier Mail in 1938. . At very least the section needs to be reworded, particularly as some living people can recall it being built. Anyway, well done everyone on improving the mess. Nickm57 (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no evidence I can find for the source of the stones, and as they are so like other walls... Also, Elaine Brown says the Surface Hill walls were built "with stones obtained from the property of Mrs Patience Mulholland.” I can't find anything about her other than that one source. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

After some thought I didn't delete this section but reworded it and also provided some citations. I did delete the words "The origins of the pyramid were widely discussed by several people over the decades" as these seem to hang awkwardly at the start. Better to go right into the topic.Nickm57 (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

References

editing 'Claims of other finds' paragraph

Hi gentlemen, The following text was moved into the 'Claims of other finds' paragraph.

(No such examination has been found and When interviewed the archaeologist denied that he had even seen the inscriptions. Wheeler reported that the archaeologist also "described how investigation of the stone wall and "Iron Man" statue by a colleague of his in the Archeology Branch of the Queensland Department of Community Services had produced no support at all for the claimed existence of pyramids in the Gympie area, nor was there any archeological evidence for any pyramids elsewhere in Australia or the past presence of any pyramid-building cultures.)

I think it should instead be part of the 'History' paragraph. Discussions about 'pyramid or not' is in the history paragraph. Would that make sense? Wikigetsme123 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nickm57 great find, the Courier Mail article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen? Aren't you making something of an assumption!?

Anyway, do you mean this should be in the section headed "History" which deals with indigenous history and connection to Rocky Ridge? Frankly that doesnt make any sense to me.Nickm57 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I may have misunderstood. Did you mean putting it in the "Debunking Revisionist History" section? Nickm57 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nickm57 Hi, yes, I meant the it should be part of the 'Debunking revisionist history' paragraph as it discusses the existence of pyramid or not, and it doesn't list an item 'found'. Even its gov, it should line up with all other thoughts about its existent. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand but there's no need to think its gone, everything is archived on WP. Nickm57 (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I had a go at that. Nickm57 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that this section here ... Wheeler reported that the archaeologist also "described how investigation of the stone wall and 'Iron Man' statue by a colleague in the Archeology Branch of the Queensland Department of Community Services had produced no support at all for the claimed existence of pyramids in the Gympie area.".... doesn't belong into the paragraph 'other finds', because it is addressing the existence of the term 'pyramid' which has been explained at the beginning, that its a simple sandstone ridge, and also later in the 'debunking of revisionist...' paragraph we have examples of why its not a pyramid.

By the way, that the 'sun stone' has been found in 8m depth is astonishing if we think about the theory that civilizations could have been wiped out several times by mega floods (meteors hit icy poles) in modern humans 130t year history. But that's another story. Wikigetsme123(talk) 00:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't quite see how that works, but you should try it.

What reliable sources are there about this "sun stone"? I can't even find a photo online.Nickm57 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Kabi Kabi and Gubbbi Gubbi are two different tribes - suggest deletion of reference links

Hi @Nickm57 , I just spoke to Kabi Kabi people at the Pyramid site and they explained that the Gubbi Gubbi are a different tribe, localized in NSW. The Kabi work on their own wiki page to reference to. Could we delete the Kabi Kabi link to the Gubbi Gubbi page until we find a suitable online reference? I also recommended a change on the Gubbi Gubbi page, as they apparently claimed Kabi Kabi country once and argued that noone of the Kabi Kabi would still be alive. That was my mistake when writing the article Wikigetsme123 (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If you've made a mistake, you will need to fix it up. However, I must point out you need a reliable source for this, not just what you think someone told you. A quick glance at the Gubbi Gubbi facebook page and the AIATSIS map of Indigenous Australia here [6] indicates Gubbi Gubbi is the english spelling of the traditional owners of the Gympie area. Nickm57 (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

references to Kabi tribe and early maps

Hi, I received references to the Kabi tribe.

Reference to the Kabi Languages, and location in: Jefferies, A 2013 Leichhardt: His contribution to Australian Aboriginal linguistics and ethnography 1843-44. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum – Culture 7(2): 633-652. Brisbane. ISSN 1440-4788 https://network.qm.qld.gov.au/~/media/Documents/QM/About+Us/Publications/Memoirs+-+Culture/C7/mqmc-7-2-jefferies.pdf

A fairly accurate map made in the late 1800's by John Mathew who lived on Kabi Country and who studied and documented Kabi language, history and culture in: John Mathew, 'Two representative tribes of Queensland; with an inquiry concerning the origin of the Australian race'. (London, T. Fisher Unwin 1910), facing p. 67. available from: https://archive.org/details/tworepresentati00math/page/n71

The location of the Kabi Language group and Tribes was also mapped by Norman Tindale: 'Map showing the distribution of the Aboriginal tribes of Australia', (Adelaide,Govt. Photolithographer, 1940). Available from http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-230054338/view

This also mentions Kabi: E. G. Heap (B.A.) 'In The Wake of the Raftsmen: A Survey of Early Settlement in the Maroochy District up to the Passing of the Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1868', in Queensland Heritage, Volume 1, No. 5, pp.9-20, (Brisbane, State Library of Queensland, 1965/6) available here: https://www.gympie.qld.gov.au/documents/40008872/40011644/WildheartBountifulLand.pdf

Noosa website referring to Kabi Kabi people as the correct people for that area: https://www.visitnoosa.com.au/our-custodians

Book reference to Kabi: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=2tqPVekm6vMC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=Petrie,+Kabi&source=bl&ots=uHiVvfYkej&sig=ACfU3U3GK6S40CPpygBVWjF4nsEkM3JpMg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj10siO48jnAhXOT30KHTTQBe8Q6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Petrie%2C%20Kabi&f=false

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=e6WBCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT179&lpg=PT179&dq=Petrie,+Kabi&source=bl&ots=ldqEzS7dqo&sig=ACfU3U2-CWhmAUDAyIFQzJqyr67ak4A5TA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj10siO48jnAhXOT30KHTTQBe8Q6AEwCXoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=Petrie%2C%20Kabi&f=false

Photo reference in the National Library of Australia: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/191351845?q&versionId=208823367

Wikigetsme123 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)