Deja vu all over again

I've been reflecting on all this Neolithic quarry mania, and thinking to myself:  "Haven't we heard all this before?"  Well, of course we have, but last time it was in relation the the famous Carn Meini Neolithic Quarry, which now seems to have been given the push........

Let's remind ourselves.

Two craggy outcrops -- two quarries? 

The Carn Meini "Quarry"

The prsence of a quarry at Carn Meini was hinted at by HH Thomas and promoted with even more enthusiasm by Richard Atkinson in his 1956 book on Stonehenge.  Since that time it has been more or less accepted as fact, on the following grounds:

1.  The stone is very special, since the whitish spots in the local dolerite made it appealing to our ancestors, since maybe it reminded them of the starry night sky.

2.  The stone breaks naturally into tubular columns which are ideal for use as orthostats at Stonehenge.

3.  There are several stones in the bluestone assemblage that appear to match geologically the outcrop at Carn Meini.

4.  The site is an easy one from which to extract elongated blocks of stone and to trundle them off towards Stonehenge.

5.  There are traces of prehistoric activity in the immediate vicinity -- cf the "enclosure" described in the last few years by Darvill and Wainwright.  Perhaps the enclosure was to protect the quarry or to provide shelter and protection to the quarrymen who lived inside it?

6.  There is a splendid stone lying right in the middle of the supposed quarrying area which is just perfect for use at Stonehenge.  This is "the one they left behind" for some unknown reason.

7.  There is a nearby ancient trackway which shows that the area was a centre of Neolithic activity  -- there is also a small burial site nearby, assumed to be Neolithic.

8.  There is a "broken stone" not far away -- damaged during transport and subsequently rejected.

9.  According to Roger Worsley, there is a length of "hidden track" leading downslope from Carn Meini towards the "stone stream" where resistivity and other measurements show heavy compaction of the soil, consistent with heavy loads passing across it.

10. There are occasional small sub-angular or rounded stones in the area -- assumed to be hammer stones used in working the rocks taken from the quarry.

 The ones that got away -- or rather, that didn't get away, and stayed where they were.......

The Craig Rhosyfelin "Quarry"

1.  The stone is very special, since the bluish colour in the local rhyolite made it appealing to our ancestors.  Maybe its sharp edges also made it desirable for cutting or slicing tasks.

2.  The stone breaks naturally into elongated columns which are ideal for use as orthostats at Stonehenge.

3.  There are many fragments in the bluestone debitage that appear to match geologically the outcrop at Craig Rhosyfelin.

4.  The site is an easy one from which to extract elongated blocks of stone and to trundle them off towards Stonehenge (according to MPP).

5.  There are traces of prehistoric activity in the immediate vicinity -- cf the "hearth" described recently by Prof MPP.  Perhaps the hearth was used by many generations of quarry workers?

6.  There is a splendid stone lying right in the middle of the supposed quarrying area which is just perfect for use at Stonehenge.  This is "the one they left behind" for some unknown reason.

7.  There is assumed to be a nearby ancient trackway which shows that the area was a centre of Neolithic activity  -- there are also burial site nearby, including Bedd yr Afanc.

8.  There are abundant "broken stones" in the quarry -- damaged during quarrying operations and subsequently rejected.

9.  According to MPP, damage to smaller stones beneath and downslope of the "proto-orthostat"  is consistent with heavy loads passing across it.

10. There are occasional small sub-angular or rounded stones in the area -- assumed to be hammer stones used in working the rocks taken from the quarry.

 Broken stones galore -- not good enough for Stonehenge?

It's almost spooky how similar the "case for Carn Meini" is to the "case for Rhosyfelin."  It's also rather entertaining that the case for the former is now dismissed as unreliable, while the case for the latter is being trumpeted from the rooftops as the latest great archaeological discovery.