"In September 2011 we started by digging a trial trench. We came down right on top of a prone 4m-long monolith, lying 4m from the edge of the outcrop. It seemed to have been manoeuvred into position by prehistoric quarry-workers and then left there. A large, jagged block had splintered off its underside, perhaps the reason why it was never moved out of the quarry."
Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Schlee, D., and Welham, K. (2016). "In search of the Stonehenge Quarries," British Archaeology, Jan/Feb 2016, pp 16-23.
Leaving aside the host of questions that are begged in that short extract, what intrigues me is the ongoing insistence on the part of the archaeologists that the pseudo-proto-othostat is in an un-natural position. Let's explain yet again that there is nothing remotely problematical about the large rectangular block, given its position beneath the highest part of the crag. As I have asked before, if it is deemed to be lying in the "wrong" position, what is the "right" position supposed to be?
I bring this up now because today we went for a pleasant walk to Abereiddi and Porthgain. At the latter place there is a dolerite quarry which worked till about 1930, with clean faces up to about 20m high. If you think there is anything at all unusual or "man-made" about the rock face and rockfall bank at Rhosyfelin, just take a look at these pics:
I still cannot understand that in the Brit Arch article, and in the Antiquity article, the authors (including two geologists) have not made ANY mention of the dramatic and prominent rockfall accumulations that mask the base of the Rhosyfelin rock face and which are interbedded with the radiocarbon dated horizons. Have they really spent 5 seasons crawling about all over this rockfall bank, laboriously recording the position of every largish stone, without knowing what it is they have been looking at?