The things above are conventionally referred to as mauls, in that they are more irregular in shape than hammerstones and sometimes show evidence of grooves or gripping protrusions to assist in using them for hammering or shaping other stones or organic materials. Some of them were primitive hammers in that they were bound to a shaft or handle -- and in some cases they were used as weapons, with quite large and heavy stones fixed to a shaft maybe more than a metre long, and used for bashing mammoths or men (if you could get close enough to them while carting around something weighing 10kg or more). So are there any of these at Rhosyfelin? I don't recall any mention of them thus far......
As for hammerstones, we have heard about these in MPP's lectures, but I recall seeing just one photo. Hammerstones come in all sorts of sizes, but of course there is an upper limit to what can be handled and wielded in the process of smashing chunks off larger rocks or breaking boulders or slabs down into smaller fragments. The illustrations above, by the way, have nothing to do with Rhosyfelin.......
Some hammerstones -- like the one at top left and the middle stone in the group of three -- have clear evidence of fracturing or percussion marks, and one might find such marks to be good evidence of human use as tools. But as I have said before, many rounded cobbles and stones have natural markings on them (fractures, grooves pits), and one person's natural phenomenon is another person's hammerstone. If the presence of hammerstones at Rhosyfelin is crucial to the argument that this place was a Neolithic quarry, it will be interesting to see how strong the evidence actually is that certain stones were used for the bashing of orthostats intended for export to Stonehenge. Where exactly did they come from in the Rhosyfelin stratigraphy, and how convincing are the percussion marks?
Then we come to the erratics, which are quite frequent at Rhosyfelin. The top photo here shows a collection of stones taken from the excavations and dumped on the edge of the dig site. As we can see, some of these are bits and pieces of local rhyolite, and other boulders and stones are rounded or sub-angular in shape, some so big that they can just about be handled by one man -- but certainly too big to be used as either a weapon or a tool...... Mostly these seem to be made of dolerite, but they need to be examined in more detail. The photo below shows one of these stones in its natural position, embedded in the glacial deposits near the base of the sediment sequence.
It would clearly be ludicrous to suggest that these boulders are anything to do with a quarry -- but I have not yet heard any mention of them from the Rhosyfelin dig team. Do they admit that there are glacial deposits and glacial erratics here, or have they been airbrushed out so as not to make the story too confusing? Even more interesting -- have they been interpreted as rather large hammerstones?
10 comments:
Mauls amd hammerstones, rather like suspected microliths, may be, like Beauty, in the mind of the archaeologist beholding them.
We've been over this possibility many times before on this Blog:
"A Man sees what he wants to see..
....and disregards the rest"
PAUL SIMON
I wonder what Myris makes of the Rhosyfelin erratics you illustrate here; also any assumed hammerstones - given that he appears to know a Man who is often involved in Geological matters at Rhosyfelin?
So far as I know, Richard has made more frequent visits to the site, and may be more familiar with the things turned up by the diggers. It would be good to get his thoughts too..... and indeed those of Mike and Charly, who clearly advise om geomorphological matters.
Mr John, I as an American am interested in Hammerstones and Stone henge. Could you tell me how much some of the big hammerstones weigh in kilos or pounds, thank you , Sir.
Interesting question. Hammer stones found at Stonehenge typically weigh between 1 pound and 6.5 pounds (around 0.45 to 3 kg), while the much larger mauls range from about 36 pounds to 64 pounds (around 16 kg to 29 kg). I have no problem with the hammer stones, but a srtange mythology has built up around the mauls. I am extremely sceptical about the use of small boulders weighing c 25 kg as tools, unless the builders of Stonehenge were a race of giants with superhuman strength. Hundreds and hundreds of these small boulders with percussion marks on them were used at Stonehenge as packing stones, in the pits dug to receive the big sarsens. It's a part of the mythology that these percussion marks were the result of the boulders being used as tools -- but I think it much more likely that the percussion marks were the result of efforts ro make them small enough and suitable in shape for use as packing stones.
Thank you for your Reply and your candor. My research has me thinking that The larger hammer stones were the majority found at and near the Stone Henge, site? I am pondering how an average Neolithic Man could use these 36-64 pound mauls, all day long-compfortably? I have read many Stone Henge archeological very good books recently and have found Holes in their timelines and theories. I am just an old retired American who stumbled onto this Stonehenge and Neolithic Monuments in Ancient Britain just very recently. Please excuse my English Prose' and sentence structuring. I tend to just type exactly what I feel at the moment. I guess the question I would really like to ask is: Were the Majority of Mauls and Hammer stones found at the the Stone Henge site- Were they on the Large size, almost too big, for a grown man to handle Comfortably.? Thank your for your Time, and Respects,..
"A Man sees what he wants to see..
....and disregards the rest" As Humans, that appears to be our one Blind spot. It is hard to search for the Truth, the Real Truth; when we are blinded by even a hint of bias, even if we dont see it or recognize it in ourselves. Well said; and Well Met, Sir.
Mr. John, I have looked up your book in my country and going to get it for my Library. I have never been to Europe or Britain. My Question is a Strange one , but very Important to my Research: Out of all the Stone Mauls and percussion stones found at and near the Stonehenge site: What Percentage of the larger Mauls , 50-64 pounds has been found out of the total found, so far.? These large stones can barely be weilded by a grown man all day long, but I was interested the Percentage of them found at the Neolithic Site? Also have these stones been found at any Neolithic Funeral Barrows , around StoneHenge? Thank you for your time and Excellent advice and Commentary. From America. My Respects,
Greetings from Wales! As for percentages, I don't know what the answer may be. I share your concern about the ability of "normal" human beings to use these very heavy stones as percussion tools. Because these stones have been grouped with hammer stones and packing stones and considered to be "rubbish stones", they have not been properly enumerated or recorded. See my other more recent post dating from 18 November.
I have seen AI reports that large hammer-stones, or mauls have been found in pits, near neolithic burial barrows.? Also the books on Stonehenge say that only one.? side of the giant Sarsens in the Circle were smoothed and dressed? This is odd, considering if they must have moved these Giants,(and I dont believe it is Theoretically possible, unless they were very fit Giants), why only dress one side and the inner side of the circle stones only.? So many Questions to this Amazing Mystery. I wish I could go to Britain from my America to see Stonehenge for myself. I would not go IF a tourist has to look at the circle from behind a chain link fence , after paying an Entrance Fee.?? I presume? Too many of these World Heritage sites are turned into Money making operations. We in America have a Wilderness/Mountain pass we have to pay to go in our own mountains and ride a bike or motorcycle in.! It is George Orwellian, Sadly. Respects,
Post a Comment