There is now a fantastic high-definition "panorama" of the rock face at Craig Rhosyfelin, made by Adam Stanford and using Gigapan technology. Take a look at it here:
http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/118443
You can look at the whole face exposed during the 2012 dig, and you can also zoom in for high-definition images of the bedrock, the clutter of broken rock debris, and the "abandoned orthostat" which MPP thinks was intended for Stonehenge but which never quite made it.......
It all looks entirely natural to me, although of course the pit on the extreme left-hand edge of the photo is more convincing as a man-made feature.
If you sign up for a free account with Gigacam, you can take snapshots too. Unfortunately, they are not of very high definition, but you can also use your own "snapshot facility" on your own computer if you want images of better quality.
Above is a snapshot of the side of the "orthostat" -- where some of the marks are thought to have been man-made. The horizontal gouges and scratches appear entirely natural to me -- but it may be that the archaeologists are homing in on the two very faint vertical marks which are almost parallel. If you look very carefully -- and enlarge the photo by clicking on it -- you can see one mark in the centre of the photo and another to the left of it.
Not much to go on -- if I was wanting to argue that this is a quarry site, I would want rather better evidence than that.... so let's see what MPP and the boys and girls come up with.
9 comments:
Has anyone had a look at Rhosyfelin since it was backfilled this Autumn?
Doesn't give the impression that the machine driver had any sympathy for the potential importance of the site.
I might take a photo next time I pass by.
..... or maybe the driver has a finely-tuned awareness of the UNIMPORTANCE of the site?!!! Maybe he's just fed up with all this quarry-hunting mania...
So it seems MPP was giving a talk at the Merlin Theatre in Haverfordwest for Archaeology Day last Saturday. Did anyone in the West Wales vicinity go along? I believe he's doing a talk at Salisbury around now.
Mike PP's talk at Salisbury took place on November 13th. Amongst its topics was to be the "Feeding Stonehenge" project.
I looked at the face before the back-fill and marks from bulldozer (?) were clearly visible. Perhaps these will be interpreted in future as early forms of writing?
Basically I saw nothing to convince me this was a purposeful quarry. If anything it persuaded me further towards a glacial intervention.
Still this is a fascinating outcrop, most of which has not yet been explored and, given the context of spectacular rocks in a river valley, has probably much more to reveal. Not exactly monument valley, however.
Tony -- no, I wasn't there to hear MPP myself, and I haven't heard from anybody who was. The National Park's "Archaeology Days" are very popular -- I think GW was one of the speakers last year. This time all of the tickets went very quickly, and apparently there was a long waiting list. I assumed it would be aimed at a general audience, including lots of youngsters from local schools -- so I assumed (maybe wrongly!) that it would be very similar to the presentation given in Brynberian. So it's certainly true that Mike is hoofing about on the lecture circuit these days -- I suppose it helps to pay the bills....
Brian,
Concerning the “orthostat” at Rhosyfelin, you write
“The horizontal gouges and scratches appear entirely natural to me -- but it may be that the archaeologists are homing in on the two very faint vertical marks which are almost parallel.”
Judging from the position of this “orthostat” away from the face of the outcrop, it is reasonable to assume it slid/dragged down over other stones. And judging from the down slope of the terrain it also is reasonable to assume the “orthostat” turned/pivoted on its sides as it slid to its final resting position.
Under these reasonable assumptions, isn't it plausible “the two very faint vertical marks which are almost parallel” could have been made as the “orthostat” naturally slid over (lets say) two protruding sharp points on underlying stones?
Please comment on this possibility!
Kostas
I too am inclined to look on these two faint marks as natural, maybe caused when the block was rolling / sliding down from the rock face. They really are incredibly faint. The interesting thing about them is that you can see a percussion point or puncture mark at the bottom of each of the little scratches -- as if the rock had hit two pointed stone tops and then scratched along afterwards, as it moved. If these marks had been hand-made, I would expect the percussion point to be at the top of each scratch and the groove to be dragged downwards from there. See what I'm getting at? Human beings tend to hit things and then drag downwards with their tools, rather than the other way round.
Brian,
Thanks for confirming such simple, sensible and natural explanation! Occam's Razor should prevail to cut through MPP's fantasy.
Kostas
Post a Comment