At long last the National Park has published the Rhosyfelin RIGS designation, years after it was formally approved and submitted for inclusion in the Supplementary Planning Guidance. The guidance note is currently out for consultation, and will no doubt be formally adopted very soon. This has taken an age to work its way through the system. So now, at last, we have official recognition that the prime source of interest here is geomorphological and geological, and that there is also a highly disputed claim that this site was the site of a Neolithic bluestone quarry. It's quite something for the NPA -- or any other "official" organisation, to admit to a scientific dispute -- although of course the wording of the citation was determined by the RIGS committee, and there was nothing the NPA could do, other than to publish it.
6 comments:
This is now in my Facebook site to challenge those amongst the archaeological fraternity who think no further than "quarry".
Note that in the wording of the citation, all that is said is that samples from Rhosyfelin have been "matched" with samples from the debitage at Stonehenge. The wording does not say that the matching by Richard Bevins and Rob Ixer is definitive or correct, and no mention is made of the bluestones or orthostats used in the Stonehenge stone settings. This is a properly cautious or circumspect -- and dare I say it, scientific -- way to describe the situation, in contrast to the irresponsible claims made about "precise provenancing" made by MPP and his team in assorted publications. The reference to the quarrying claims being "strongly refuted" is perfectly correct. Finally, the RIGS committee accepted that cosmogenic dating should be done here, to resolve the dispute. Now, five years after the completion of the Rhosyfelin dig, no such dates have been reported, although we all know that samples were taken. We may draw our own conclusions.
Brian, in the interests of further dissemination of accurate information to the great and the not - so - good, would you mind stating again your comment on the RIGS citation on this Post I shared from you on Facebook recently?
Did you wipe it off accidentally? Here it is again, if it has disappeared...
Note that in the wording of the citation, all that is said is that samples from Rhosyfelin have been "matched" with samples from the debitage at Stonehenge. The wording does not say that the matching by Richard Bevins and Rob Ixer is definitive or correct, and no mention is made of the bluestones or orthostats used in the Stonehenge stone settings. This is a properly cautious or circumspect -- and dare I say it, scientific -- way to describe the situation, in contrast to the irresponsible claims made about "precise provenancing" made by MPP and his team in assorted publications. The reference to the quarrying claims being "strongly refuted" is perfectly correct. Finally, the RIGS committee accepted that cosmogenic dating should be done here, to resolve the dispute. Now, five years after the completion of the Rhosyfelin dig, no such dates have been reported, although we all know that samples were taken. We may draw our own conclusions.
I gather from a mysterious source that samples were taken and sent off for analysis, but for some reason were either not analysed or not reported. I have no idea what may have gone on between the MPP team and the lab involved....... my own view is that if the team had wanted those results badly enough, they would have done the sampling, prioritised the money and got them done.
All I know is that samples were taken for cosmogenic analysis, but we don't know what the sampling process was, or precisely which technique was due to be used. MPP says (so we understand) that he chased up the lab several times, with no response. So there we are then. Make of that what you will........
I know pretty well where samples should have been taken on the Rhosyfelin outcrop in order to answer the question "Was there a Neolithic quarry here?" but unfortunately my opinion was not sought! If somebody would like to give me a grant, we can start this process all over again....
Post a Comment