I have done some work on this document posted on SCRIBD. Available for viewing online and download here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/270896438/A-Long-History-of-Rhosyfelin-3
The revised version incorporates some of the recent observations at the site, but essentially I repeat that I have seen NOTHING to make me think this is a Neolithic quarry site. The features described seem to me and my geomorphologist colleagues to be rather interesting from a Quaternary point of view, giving us additional information as to Anglian and Devensian events and helping us to understand what has happened here within the past 20,000 years or so.
One common comment from the experienced geomorphologists concerns the extent of the till and fluvio-glacial exposures, and the obvious traces of ice moulding and turbulent water flow across some of the rock surfaces on the col near the SW end of the dig site and also at the tip of the spur. Surely the geologists and archaeologists whose learned paper we so eagerly await cannot have failed to notice these things?? Surely not.......?
Please, somebody, put us put of our misery and convince us that even archaeologists and pet rock boys can recognise glacial deposits when they look at them and dig into them.
6 comments:
Pigs might fly, the wild goose chase for "quarries" may still stubbornly continue, but we can but hope COMMON SENSE and use of objective intellect will prevail.
It is about time that some members of the MPP "Inner Circle" (or perhaps, more realistically, some younger archaeologists who are OUTSIDE the Inner Circle) broke silence, acted with greater professional expertise, and EXPRESSED THEIR RESERVATIONS about some of the statements being made under the Brilliant Banner of MPP's Ruling Hypothesis. I certainly have a pretty good idea that at least ONE of his Senior archaeologist enclave thinks he is inclined to over - egg his findings at archaeological sites. I heard it from his own lips.
Rhosyfelin like the Preselau ridge seems to have an effect on the "unprepared visiting human transport sceptics " to the area. I have seen the most dedicated sceptics crumble on site and begin explaining how it all could have done by hand many times... Then when back out of the area become sceptics again , it is truly odd to witness over again. Rhosyfelin did not look like a quarry before the dig started , but selective removal of sediments and leaving questionable features which would have been dismissed as natural elsewhere are left as golden smoking guns to the theory. I am looking forward to seeing National Geographics expensive CGI explaining how the abandoned orthostat got to where it is and buried itself. Then show how efficient the communication system must have been to have holes in the ground at Stonehenge ready to take it .
Who are these wimps who turn up at Rhosyfelin in a sceptical frame of mind and who crumble when confronted by all that propaganda? I assume that these poor people must have turned up when the dig was in progress, and that they were subjected to some form of indoctrination with a guarantee of long-term enlightenment? Luckily, I have not met any of these people, and I have personally been spared the evangelist's sermons. On the couple of occasions when I made appointments to meet the diggers, I was the only one who turned up.....
These are people / friends who have walked with me in the eastern Preselau area and visiting Rhosyfelin a couple of times and once when a dig was in progress at the site. They did get involved in a chat on one occaision with the trench diggers which had an effect but even seperate to that visit I have witnessed it happening and explanations get offered.. I suppose it can be Human nature to wish a legend to be true, I think Walt Disney style childhood brainwashing must be to blame for such wishful thinking.... :)
Yes of course -- people often do love a story more than they respect science. Many people have said to me that their head tells them that the glacial transport theory is the right one, but that their heart wants the human transport theory to be true, since the story is so wonderful and heroic. Herbert Thomas knew that in 1922, and Prof MPP knows that today. It's all about capitalising on people's fantasies --- that's why the National Park also sees a great marketing opportunity in Rhosyfelin and is prepared to promote Rhosyfelin as a quarry in spite of no evidence ever having been published to support the idea. Good storytelling and crap science.
Post a Comment