Click to enlarge -- this is quite a spectacular image!
From top to bottom of this photo the distance is about 500m -- note that there are many rhyolite outcrops. Some of these have been sampled by Richard Bevins, and he and Rob Ixer are working to complete an accurate "geological picture" of the valley sides. They are now quite convinced that a good proportion of the "rhyolite debitage" at Stonehenge and in the Stonehenge area has come from this valley. The "dolerite debitage" makes up the bulk of this debris -- and there are other rock types in it as well. The origins of much of this material are currently unknown.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteIf I was to follow this green narrow valley down from where the photo ends, where will I eventually be? Will I come anywhere close to water?
The reason why I ask is because the narrow thumb-like ridge where the circle is and where the excavations are taking place seems to be at the bend of a dry river bed. Almost as if it could have been obstructing the flow of either ice or water.
Kostas
This is an old glacial meltwater channel -- the sea is a long way off. The water probably flowed from the bottom of the pic towards the top.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteThe findings by Ixer, et al were that none of the examined bits of bluestone chips found in the Stonehenge Layer are from the bluestones at Stonehenge. Rather, these chips have been matched to this site. Am I recalling your reporting on this correctly?
If so, and if the top of the picture is North, and this is a “glacial meltwater channel”, wont the bluestone debris be carried by the meltwater northward and not in the direction of Stonehenge?
Brian, the way the 'thumb-like ridge' in the picture points, the 'bend' in the meltwater channel bed, the bank and position of the rhyolite outcrops, etc. suggest to me that the flow of meltwater or ice was southwards towards the bottom of the picture.
But you haven't answered my question! Following this direction I have suggested (for as far as we need) what kind of terrain will we be encountering and will we end up on the Bristol Channel coast?
One final puzzlement! If the bluestone chips only trace to this location (and not the bluestones of Stonehenge) why are MPP and company interested on this location as the bluestone quarry?
Kostas
Brian,
ReplyDeleteIn the post Craig Rhosyfelin -- Hammer Stones galore you write,
“The river is only about 20m away from the dig site.”
Can you tell me in which direction from the dig site you have circled in the photo this river is? And how big is the river? Where does it drain?
Interesting!
Kostas
The river is in the trees to the right of the corcle / dig site. the river is flowing north, towards the Nevern River which flows into the sea in cardigan Bay. Suggest you look at Google Maps to get the full picture....
ReplyDeletethe river isn't very big here -- about 8m across, and not deep enough to get your knees wet!
Thanks, Brian.
ReplyDeleteClears up some questions! Of course the river now follows the contour and gradient of the land. But glaciers then followed there own inclinations!
Is the excavation site on the side of the ridge with the circle facing North (up) or the side facing South (down) in your picture?
If only the 'bluestone chips' at Stonehenge are traced to this site, and not the bluestones themselves, why are they excavating here?
What does any of this have to do with the provenance of the bluestones themselves and of the transport method?
Kostas
No it is more complex than that
ReplyDeletethe most recent Ixer and Bevins (in press)will state that this site Rhos-y-felin is the source of most of the loose rhyolitic 'debitage' (it is a petrographic match for a number of the recognised rhyolites found in the debitage) BUT may also be the source of SH32e one of the buried orthostats. It is not the source of SH38,40,46 or 48.
The assumption- reasonable I think is-that the debitage is the chipped remains of lost/buried orthostats.
Cue drum roll for Easter Island anthropology!!
GCU In two minds.
Quite so, Kostas. to thge best of our knowledge, the ice came in from the NW and flowed towards the SE. Meltwater flow in this channel may have occurred most recently when the ice was breaking up, so many channels, flowing in many different directions, may have carried torrents.
ReplyDeleteThe archaeologists only came here to dig because the geologists (Rob Ixer and Richard Bevins)traced the rhyolite "bluestone chips" in the debitage back to this general area. As you say, none of the bluestone standing stones seems to have come from here -- but the assumption is probably that some standing stones (which may have been useless really -- too flaky and crumbly) were simply destroyed and broken up. Why? To make magical healing necklaces, I suppose, if you believe Wainwright and Co.......
As I have said, MPP and Co came here to dog because they decided that there MUST be a quarry here. And did they find one? Of course they did.....
To dog? Sorry -- I meant "to dig"........
ReplyDeleteOf course, we then have the question: "If the orthostats from here were so lousy -- crumbly and flaky, with a tendency to break up, why would they have bothered to carry them all the way from here to Stonehenge, just to break them up?" The answer to that is probably that they didn't bother -- the stones were in the Stonehenge area already, having been carried there by ice, as part of the assemblage of glacial erratics.
ReplyDeleteCue to become side-tracked by checking on THOR HEYERDAHL and EASTER ISLAND and KON-TIKI (especially if you're too young to remember Heyerdahl's explorations before c. 1970). Only more erratic Geologists should venture down this route.
ReplyDeleteGCU in two minds/ Sandy Denny's
ReplyDeletemuse
Any chance that in the near future the buried orthostat SH32e might be sampled, in your opinion? It could be another of those famous "surgical incisions", I suppose?
Also,any notion as to WHERE the most recent Bevin and Ixer will appear in print? And when?
In Two Minds,
ReplyDeleteEaster Island has nothing to tell us about Stonehenge!
Take it from me! I was there!
Kostas
Except maybe that sometimes people do extremely silly things with very big stones, for reasons which are difficult to discern........
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteYou write,
"If the orthostats from here were so lousy -- crumbly and flaky, with a tendency to break up, why would they have bothered to carry them all the way from here to Stonehenge, just to break them up?"
The bluestone stump embedded in the bedrock at Stonehenge did not 'just crumbled' on its own. And even if we consider the weathering effects on a standing stone, you wont expect it to be so broken in half, but rather split off more vertically in slivers.
What I see in this stuck bluestone stump is 'compressure fracture', and not weathering break up.
The critical question is, why an erect and standing stone experience 'compression break up'?
There is only one answer that makes sense! If the stone was 'dropped from above' and hit hard solid ground at the place where it fell!
Once again, my theory provides the simple sensible and consistent explanations that make sense!
Kostas
Brian,
ReplyDeleteWhat happened at Easter Island has complete and comprehensible explanation in terms that every human can understand! It was very tragic and sad but NOT SILLY!
Kostas
The Bevins /Ixer paper “Craig Rhos-y-felin, Pont Saeson is the dominant source of the Stonehenge rhyolitic ‘debitage.’” should be in the next issue of "Archaeology in Wales " .
ReplyDeleteNo- sampling 32e is on his wish list alongside sampling the Altar Stone
ReplyDeleteIt seems unlikely, but who knows.
Ixer and Bevins is in presss in the 50th anniv edition of Archaeology in Wales - a sneak preview shows some wonderful photomicrographs of the 'Jovian' texture from one of the 'snowflake' rhyolites.
A further paper with them both and others discusses wider provenancing issues is anticipated.
I agree discussing what primitive man did with his big stones is for antiquarians not geologists and that is why I am
GCU In two minds.
Kostas -- I can see no evidence of compressive fracture in that stump shown in the Atkinson photo. Wishful thinking.....
ReplyDeleteRe this statement (or title for a paper): “Craig Rhos-y-felin, Pont Saeson is the dominant source of the Stonehenge rhyolitic ‘debitage.’ "
ReplyDeleteI wonder if thus isn't jumping the gun? I might agree that a 400-500m stretch of the valley is the dominant source, but to tie it down to Craig Rhosyfelin you need to demonstrate that the rocks with the Jovian structure -- and maybe the other demonstrably local rhyolites as well -- are actually restricted to that rocky spur. There is a clear grain here in the alignment of outcrops, and I'd like to be convinced that the rhyolites with Jovian fabrics do not continue in a strip which is broadly aligned SW-NE. In other words, are these "special" rock types also to be found on the other side of the valley, near the main road? If they are, you would need to take the name Craig Rhosyfelin out of the title......
Sorry -- I meant "near the bend in the minor road, to the east of the ford."
ReplyDeletere Easter Island. Point taken -- I apologize to any Easter Islanders who might have been offended.....
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteWould you be able to see in the Atkinson photo the compressure fracturing of this bluestone if there was compressure fracturing of this bluestone?
What is your explanation for the erect and standing bluestone to break in half or crumple? Was it weathering or men responsible? Is the 'other half of this orthostat found? Or is this half considered to be all the broken up pieces referred to as the 'bluestone debitage'?
Kostas
It's you who apparently saw a compressive fracture, Kostas -- not me! If that has happened, there would be a sheared face, with a flat surface left on the top of the stump. Instead of that, we see a jagged top surface, with foliated bands projecting upwards.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteSo how did the standing bluestone break up? What is your explanation?
Kostas
There might have been a natural fracture across it which held together until the stone was almost in place, and then actually gave way, leaving the builders with a useless stump in the ground. Or they may have been dissatisfied with the stone, for whatever reason, and broke it up deliberately before leaving the stump in its socket and burying it. All sorts of possibilities.....
ReplyDeleteThis should have resulted in lots of "debitage" in the soil layers.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteIf the builders were building a sacred monument at great expense of energy, time and resources, why would they leave a blue stump in the socket?
And if there was a 'natural fracture' in the stone, wont this give way when put under the much greater stress transporting the stone over hard terrain?
When a huge stone like this falls laterally (width wise) on a hard ground you will get a clean sheering plane (like the photo you have of a fallen big stone in another post). But when a big stone is dropped vertically and length-wise (as compared width wise) the pressure up from the impact of the stone hitting the ground and the pressure down from the fall and the force of gravity would result in a compressure fracture somewhere near the middle of the bottom half and possibly where there is a slight existing fault.
When I look at the Atkinson photo of the bluestone stump embedded in the bedrock, this is what I see. But I can be wrong. Seeing it and examining it close up may give a different story. Just thinking out loud!
Is the other half of the broken bluestone found anywhere? Or was it carried away by the Romans and used in a ramming device.
Kostas
When you consider that there are only six blustones standing in the circle which may have anything between 40-60 if complete . The 10 stumps , fallen (or pushed ?) and missing might suggest iconocalsm . The date for the circle is in the middle of the bell beaker period which saw iconoclasm at other sites in Europe in the same period e.g Aosta , Le petit Chasseur where earlier monuments including stelae , not dissimilar to standing stones were deliberately smashed .
ReplyDeleteGeo Cur,
ReplyDeleteSo now we are inventing periods of iconoclastic quirky behavior! Where does it end? Easter Island? No connection whatsoever!
Isn't it more likely that because of their size, shape and strength the bluestones were ideal ramming heads in ramming apparatus used by the Romans and even medieval people?
Check Brian's post Bluestone 69 for my comment on this last year!
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2010/05/bluestone-69.html
The problem with clever people is that they can easily lose sense and proportionality!
Kostas
Kostas , where did I mention Easter Island ? Iconoclasm and destruction of monuments is a common factor in all periods of history and we have quite a few examples of it associated with the period of the bell beaker culture in the UK and Europe , I gave some examples , this is not quirky behaviour or an invention it is what people do and we have evidence for it . Stonehenge would not have been immune to cultural change and as the erection of the bluestone circle coincided with the bell beaker period I thought it worthy of mention , merely a suggestion . The stones could have been broken any time by the Romans or medieval people do we have any evidence for that ? and would that not be quirky behaviour too ?
ReplyDeleteI had a look at your stone 69 comment ,have you seen the bases of many standing stones ? This is an extreme example but very often they are keeled even on much ruder monuments than Stonehenge . we have evidence for this but none that I know of Romans ramming anything at Stonehenge .
Geo Cur,
ReplyDeleteYou write, “...but none[evidence] that I know of Romans ramming anything at Stonehenge. “
You misunderstood! The Romans did not go around “ramming anything at Stonehenge”! What would be very silly and quirky behavior indeed! So totally uncharacteristic of Roman behavior!
If you read my comment carefully, I argue that Bluestone 69 may have been carved and used as a “ramming head” in a military apparatus used to ram open fortifications. Are you questioning that Romans and Medieval people had such apparatus?
As for your mention of Easter Island. This is often brought up as unexplainable iconoclastic behavior -- when people go around breaking up stone statues. Since your argument centered around the idea of such iconoclastic behavior, I thought that's what you had in mind – as many other do also!
I have been as intrigued and interested in Easter Island as I am in Stonehenge. And I have a sensible explanation what happened there. I can tell you there are absolutely no parallels with Stonehenge! Those that seek to make them will be making up more fairy tales!
Soon I hope to finish up an article I started a year ago on this, before I got involved with other personal and intellectual interests. My ideas on Easter Island (as those on Stonehenge) go back and built up over many decades. It's just now that I have the time to pursue them.
Kostas
Kostas , you didn’t propose anything against the suggestion that the reason for the stumps could possibly be iconoclasm /destruction , quirky behaviour notwithstanding ,but that is not a argument , particularly when the behaviour is found in similar situations for the period and every other period .
ReplyDeleteThere are 10 stumps some appear pretty quality , would the Romans or anybody else have needed or used that many of such poor quality and size and to what purpose in that area i.e. what fortifications ? Easter Island is a non sequitor , I didn’t mention it and it seems to have been suggested simply because of your own interest .
Geo Cur,
ReplyDeleteYou write, “you didn’t propose anything against the suggestion that the reason for the stumps could possibly be iconoclasm “
If iconoclasm happened here, wont it also destroy some of the other stones, or pull down the smaller lintels and smash them on the ground? That seems more likely to have happened, in my humble opinion!
WWII was also 'iconoclastic behavior' – as every war is in my opinion! One people destroying what another culture has built. But we have historical records that document such events and provide 'understanding'.
In the case of Stonehenge, no such understanding is possible because no such historical records exist. What we have are made-up stories by archeologists and others clever enough and determined to promote their fabricated view for whatever reason. I agree with Brian on this.
Stonehenge is in historical darkness! In the darkness we can 'see' what we 'imagine'! And although it is not logically possible to 'prove the negative' (ie that iconoclasm did not destroy Stonehenge), we can nonetheless use our 'sensible reasoning' to look for other explanations that do make sense.
Here is my explanation that makes sense to me:
The bluestones have certain special physical characteristics that would make them ideal for 'ramming heads' in a ramming apparatus. First they come just in the right shape and size – long, narrow and square. Second, they are very strong. Third, they were all available in one place, Stonehenge!
If you look at the photo of Bluestone 69, you will see concrete evidence for this claim. This stone was most obviously carved! The 'head' is shaped for 'ramming' while the 'tail' was shaped to fit into the ramming arm made of long wooden trunks with the stone tail fitting in between and secured in place. This ramming arm could have been part of an apparatus on wheels that could be put into action as needed in war; whether in Roman times or Medieval times. And many such ramming apparatuses would have been needed by an army. Not just one!
Although hard to know from the Atkinson photo Brian posted for the bluestone stub, one possibility for this stub is that the upper part of this bluestone was purposely cut off using metal tools by quarrymen wanting to use it as 'ramming head'. That may explain the markings on the stub.
The explanation above is not 'quirky'! There is real purpose and intent. It is based on known needs and utility for such stones. Contrast that with 'periods of iconoclastic behavior' ! Not that iconoclastic times do not exist in human history. We are going through one today! But there is a well recorded 'before' which is destroyed in favor of a well recorded 'after'. With Stonehenge, we have neither 'before' nor 'after' which is not totally fabricated by very clever and determined egos!
Kostas
Kostas , You don’t seem to be sure whether or not iconoclasm is quirky behaviour or not , it’s immaterial , it is perfectly normal human behaviour like criminality , belief in spirits and an afterlife and warmongering and is found throughout the pre and historical periods , whether you accept it or not . As a term it is not very useful as the definition seems to be based on what you think is acceptable , evidence for the behaviour and a less loaded term might be simpler more useful .
ReplyDeleteWhat we do know about Stonehenge is due to science and archaeology working together .Interpretation is something else , it’s another of those things that people do whether suggesting that ice extended to Brittany and was the cause of the all the prehistoric monuments or the wood / stone connection at Durrington /Stonehenge .Sometimes it is evidence based coupled with a fevered imagination , others there is no evidence at all ,as in the Brittany example . On the other hand iconoclasm and destruction of monuments in the prehistoric period is something that has been recorded and understood since the early days of archaeology .
You didn’t answer the basic question of why did the users of the rams choose such poor quality rocks and where they were to be used ,surely there would ahve been more suitable material closer to the site that was to be rammed ?
The question relating to whether you had ever seen many standing stones was ignored too, stone 69 looks like a typical keeled standing stone not a Roman ram ,wrong material too ,stone is a bit unwieldy for a ram ,wood was the material of choice . Were the builders thinking of those to come a couple of millennia in the future and provide them a ready made ram albeit in typical MPP mode , stone at Stonehenge and the more likely wood wood at Durrington .
Kostas ,You didn’t answer the basic question of why did the users of the rams choose such poor quality rocks , where were they to be used and the likelihood of superior and easier to access material closer to the site that required ramming .? The question relating to whether you had ever seen many standing stones ,removed from sockets was ignored too, stone 69 looks like a typical keeled standing stone not a Roman ram .Why would the builders have created a model of an instrument from a period in the future then buried it ?
ReplyDeleteConsidering battering rams were made of wood I wonder if there has been an unconscious influence of MPP ‘s wood at Durrington /stone at Stonehenge at work here .
Any understanding we have of Stonehenge is due to science and archaeology not fabrication and egos , there is also interpretation , that is something we have to live with and accept with as much salt as is necessary , often it is conjecture based on evidence other times it is not evidence based as in the case of the prehistoric monuments in Brittany being due to glacier that never reached that far south .
Iconoclasm is normal human behaviour like criminality ,belief in spirits /afterlife and warmongering etc with plenty of evidence for it in prehistory .
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBrain , apologies I have posted what is in effect the same post a few times . Could you please delete all but one of these posts . I have noticed that sometimes a post does seem to disappear so I just resend it 12-24 hrs later but it looks like in this case they have piled up .Sorry to be a nuisance .
ReplyDeleteGeo -- done. Because I have other things going on in life, like funerals and bookselling trips, I don't look at the blog all the times -- and sometimes things pile up! Then I might approve several things at the same time. A bit of repetition isn't a problem -- our discussions roll on and are quickly forgotten!!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Brian and not Brain!!
Geo Cur,
ReplyDeleteI support your quest for answers!
1)'quirky behavior' is a term used by Brian to 'explain the unexplainable' (like, for example, the many empty pits in the bedrock at Stonehenge). No serious argument can be based on 'quirky behavior'. More honest would be to simply admit that you have no explanation! None of my arguments use 'quirky behavior'!
2)'iconoclasm' has and does occur in History. But there must be some History to claim it has occurred! Just claiming it has occurred is no different than other 'quirky non-explanations'. Its fudging the dialectical logic.
3)'iconoclasm at Stonehenge”? Hard to argue for it without historical evidence. Your 'evidence' is not convincing. If the builders of Stonehenge wanted to destroy Stonehenge (why? more quirky behavior?) the most effective and easiest way of doing that would be to pull down the lintel sarsens and smash these onto the ground. That would have done more to deface Stonehenge (if that was their quirky intent) than breaking erect bluestones in half and leaving the stumps embedded.
4)You write, “why did the users of the rams choose such poor quality rocks , where were they to be used and the likelihood of superior and easier to access material closer to the site that required ramming “. Did you say “required ramming”!!! I think you are confusing 'ramming stones' for 'stones rammed'! I am not arguing that Romans went about 'ramming stones' (ie breaking stones) at Stonehenge in an iconoclastic frenzy! What I am arguing is that Romans (and possibly Medieval people) quarried the bluestones at Stonehenge for the purpose of using these as 'ramming heads' in their ramming apparatuses -- used to ram open enemy fortifications everywhere they did battle. This is known to have happened. No quirky behavior here! Very practical and deliberate. Just like Romans were! It makes sense!
5)No I have not seen the removal of any stone. I go by the photos I've seen. Have any photos?
6)You write, “Why would the builders have created a model of an instrument from a period in the future then buried it ?” The 'builders' did not carve Bluestone 69 for the purpose of it being used as a 'ramming head' in a 'ramming apparatus' 3000 years or more later into the future! The Romans did that! They had the skills, tools and purpose to do that! Doubt that?
7)You write, “... glacier that never reached that far south[Brittany]”. Perhaps! This is not an irrefutable fact, however. And if the submarine ridges off the coast of Brittany 200 meters deep in the English Channel – that Brian posted on not too long ago -- prove to be glacier till, than certainly such 'irrefutable (to you) fact' will be very refutable (by all) myth. And if these ridges further turn out to be (as I believe) more stone alignments, than my hypothesis that these stone alignments in Brittany and elsewhere were made by nature will not be 'absurd' but science! The World awaits the Truth!
8)You write, “... I wonder if there has been an unconscious influence of MPP ‘s wood at Durrington /stone at Stonehenge at work here .” Geo Cur! One think that you should know about me! I am not influenced by men, only by facts! I don't believe in 'personality cults' and rely on my own sense of sense. Selfishly, I only accept as valid what makes sense to me! Everything else, I question!
Brian! Why not Brain?
Kostas
Kostas ,
ReplyDelete1) The use of the term “ Quirky behaviour “ is clearly selective , and if it is defined by it’s use to 'explain the unexplainable' ,then despite what you say you do use it in your arguments e.g. is the throwing of rocks from the glacier of which there cannot possibly any evidence not “QB “ or the Romans lifting a bluestone carving one end and using it as a ram not “QB” there is no evidence for any those actions and the use of stone for a ram is extremely “QB” .In both those cases you have actually introduced “QB” when there was a perfectly normal explanation .In the first case the stones were erected by builders long after the glaciation to the north and in the second the builders of Stonehenge keeled the bluestone in typical fashion , I would suggest that other stones of the same size at the site will have had the same technique
used on them .
2) Iconocalsm and destruction of non utilitarian monuments clearly occurred in prehistory , the first time I mentioned it I also included two examples from the same period .
3) Bear in mind the original suggestion was in relation to the 10 stumps and possibly some of the toppled bluestones , not the sarsens .
4) The site in “The site that required ramming “ was not referring to Stonehenge but the site that the ram was to be used to ram . This should have been clear by the previous phrase which was suggesting that the site to be rammed would have just as appropriate material closer to hand i.e. wood .
5) http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_098/98_126_149.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lang_Stane,_Aberdeen
Aubrey Burl mentions other examples in “A guide to the stone circles ….etc “ but the url was too big . It tends to apply to those stones that are not much more than 2m above the ground , not the bigger examples .
6) There is no evidence for the Romans digging up any stones or carving that particular stone , which is hardly difficult , there is however evidence of the builders of stone circles etc using that technique . Considering the Romans belonged to the historical period there is not much to associate them with the site .
7)No one apart from you believes the glacier reached Brittany , of course it is not irrefutable but neither is “ aliens built the pyramids “ .
8) That was a joke ,due to the suggestion that Roman battering rams were made of stone .
Geo Cur,
ReplyDeleteKnowing how to argue is not knowing how to reason!
I might as well be talking to a Southern Revivalist and get endless quotes from the Bible! They 'know it all' as you 'know it all'. It's hard to reason with people that 'know it all'. I just 'question it all' !
Kostas
Finishing this thread now please, you guys. We are going round and round in ever-diminishing stone circles........
ReplyDeleteTime to move on!
""If the orthostats from here were so lousy -- crumbly and flaky, with a tendency to break up, why would they have bothered to carry them all the way from here to Stonehenge, just to break them up?"
ReplyDeleteMy guess would be that the stones at Stonehenge would have been taken from pre-existing circles. That is, first, a local circle was made from local stone. Then, by virtue of this circle, these stones acquired some special association. Maybe they were carried off as spoils of war, or they were considered magical, or carried around like the Ark of the Covenant.
I dont think that these stones were quarried FOR Stonehenge. My guess is that they were components of smaller circle(s) brought TO Stonehenge for political or other reasons.
It would be interesting to look for stone circles in the vicinity, or remains thereof. I see a sort of circular feature to the left, a couple of fields away, quite large. Center 51°59'45.14"N 4°44'12.07"W, bordered by trees to the top and the road to the south.
Thanks Sardonyx -- that is an interesting proposition -- and it seems top be the way that MPP & Co are thinking -- their suggestion seems to be that there was a big circle incorporating foliated rhyolite orthostats at Waun Mawn, not far away.
ReplyDeleteI have done a couple of posts about that -- use the search box.
This isn't new -- of course HH Thomas suggested that the Stonehenge bluestones were once in a circle near Cilymmaenllwyd, which was later dismantled and moved to Stonehenge.
But this is all just as speculative as everything else -- and I don't know of any megalithic monuments in Pembrokeshire or anywhere else where foliated rhyolites are used preferentially -- or indeed at all.
Sardonyx -- I can't make head or tale of that map reference. Can you give it as a grid ref? Where are we talking about here? Doesn't seem to be anywhere near Craig Rhosyfelin......
ReplyDelete