The Rhosyfelin "Quarry" -- is common sense breaking out?

One of the AerialCam images of the Rhosyfelin dig site, 2015.

It appears that common sense might be breaking out.  In the new edition of "British Archaeology" (March / April 2016), on pages 12-13, there is a letter from John Sorrell with the title "Where are the Mauls?" it is a response to the article by Mike Parker Pearson et al in the last issue of the magazine, which we have already discussed at length:
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-new-britarch-article-by-mpp-et-al.html
It appears that we have at least one archaeologist who shares the view that there is no quarry at Rhosyfelin; probably the one who speaks out represents the views of a good many more......

I reproduce the letter below, with thanks to the magazine. It's worth looking at some of the points JS makes.

" I read the feature through straight away expecting to have my ideas reversed. But is seems as if pre-held ideas drive the interpretation." So it appears that John Sorrell, too, thinks that the quarry "discovery" is a non-event, based upon the over-zealous use of a ruling hypothesis.......

"As Craig Rhos-y-Felin is a perfect place to make a summer camp, some prehistoric activity should be expected."  Quite so -- exactly what Dyfed, John and I have been saying.

"Two important items were missing from the excavation:  mauls and chippings." Agreed.

"You would expect many tens (or hundreds) of mauls and huge amounts of chipped stone. Without these there is no case for quarrying."  Agreed.

"The occupation was dated to at least 300 years before bluestones appeared at Stonehenge: the statement that the stones loitered around in a local circle seems like special pleading."  Agreed.

 In making his "balancing" argument that the glacial transport hypothesis also has problems, JS says:
"It is not feasible that the “stone hunters” took every stone, and that they were all of the desired size and shape.  Somewhere there must be a moraine, now buried, from which the bluestones were obtained."   We will part company on this.  As I have said before, I think that the Stonehenge builders were looking for stones of some "desired size and shape" is not supported by the evidence.  The bluestones are a mottley collection of boulders, slabs and pillars that suggest that ALL the stones they could find, no matter what their characteristics might have been, were collected up, until there were no more left to gather.  And you do not need a "lost moraine" either.  As I have tried to explain many times on this blog, glacier snouts are not always marked by moraines.
 
"Although questioning the interpretation of these claims (by MPP and his team), I applaud the time and money going into this exercise."  I think I would disagree with that.  If vast budgets are being spent on archaeological research, on topics that are entirely fanciful with no secure underpinning in the form of preparatory work, God help us all.....

Where are the mauls?

Having had a long-time interest in the
origin of the Stonehenge bluestones,
I read the feature about quarries with
great enthusiasm (Jan/Feb 2016/146).
It is a story that always has had a
fascination for me.

I have come down on the side of the
glacial transport theory, having read
Brian John’s book (Books Nov/Dec
2009/109). Possessing a logic-driven
scientific mind, however, I am
perfectly willing to change my view
when confronted with sufficient
evidence. I read the feature through
straight away expecting to have my ideas
reversed. But is seems as if pre-held
ideas drive the interpretation.
As Craig Rhos-y-Felin is a perfect
place to make a summer camp, some
prehistoric activity should be expected.
The fireplace, orthostat and platform
are exactly what anyone living there
would do for themselves. There seems
to be no clear evidence that stones were
quarried from the rock face.
Why quarry at all when all around there
are shattered dolerite outcrops of all
sizes of stone ready to hand (look at
Carn Goedog)?

Two important items were missing from
the excavation:  mauls and chippings.  Stones
would most likely have been dressed on site to
reduce the weight for transport.  You
would expect many tens (or hundreds)
of mauls and huge amounts of chipped
stone. Without these there is no case
for quarrying. The “monolith” is a
product of glaciation; it is also, at 4m,
too big. The “threshold” stone is just
debris. The “lever point” stone is most
probably associated with household
living by the hut shelter occupants. The
“wedge” marks are more likely natural.
In my explorations over the Black
Mountains and Brecon Beacons of
many years, corners missing at fractures
in boulders are commonplace. The
occupation was dated to at least 300
years before bluestones appeared at
Stonehenge: the statement that the
stones loitered around in a local circle
seems like special pleading.

For balance, the major objection to
the glacial transport theory is the fact
that no relevant glacial debris has been
found anywhere between the Bristol
Avon area and the start of Salisbury
Plain. It is not feasible that the “stone
hunters” took every stone, and that they
were all of the desired size and shape.
Somewhere there must be a moraine,
now buried, from which the bluestones
were obtained. One day spotted dolerite
may turn up on a building site, but the
discovery will probably go unrecorded.

Although questioning the
interpretation of these claims, I
applaud the time and money going
into this exercise. It is only by finding
proof at the origin quarry or the glacial
moraine that the human transport
theory can be proved, so I look forward
to future excavations.

John Sorrell, Caerleon