The eastern "recumbent monolith" at Waun Mawn, which would also have required a massive stone socket if it ever was a standing stone.....
I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed that in the recent 'Antiquity" article about Waun Mawn, Parker Pearson and his colleagues provide no evidence whatsoever that the two big "recumbent stones" reputed to lie in the "surviving" portion of the "giant stone circle" were ever standing. They are big and bulky stones, each one weighing in at around 6 tonnes -- and far bigger than any of the standing or fallen unspotted dolerite bluestones at Stonehenge. I think it can be argued that both stones are simply lying where they were at the end of the last glacial episode. I shall continue to believe this, so long as nobody comes up with any evidence to convince me otherwise.......
On the dolerite plateau to the west of the Cnwc yr Hydd summit there is an extensive area of dolerite boulders and stone settings, with some rock outcrops, and a number of deep pits and small mounds and ridges. It's difficult to assess what might be natural and what might be fashioned by Neolithic or Bronze Age tribal groups. But one stone stands out -- a very large recumbent stone deeply embedded in the turf which is strikingly similar to the two large recumbent stones at the "circle" site about 450m away. If the people who supposedly had grand designs for building a giant stone circle using unspotted dolerite pillars, and if they were supposedly capable of carrying stones from 4 km away, why did they ignore this one, which could easily have been transported 450m downhill across a relatively dry surface?
And since the supposed stone-holes or sockets at Waun Mawn look as if they might have held stones no taller than 2m, why did they also ignore the two small pillar stones that still lie in the turf no more than 50m away from the "circle"? Nothing about this site makes any sense at all.......
Finally, when I was up in "them thar hills" yesterday, I took a close look at the "slight mound" that is assumed by MPP and his colleagues to have some significance, associated with the western of the two recumbent stones. I am convinced that this "mound" is entirely natural, since it is no more prominent and no more extensive than innumerable other small grassy mounds or undulations across the local landscape. As I have mentioned before, the landscape of Waun Mawn and Cnwc yr Hydd is also pitted with innumerable hollows, some holding water and rushes, which are much more prominent that those at the "circle" site thatv are supposed to have held standing stones.
No comments:
Post a Comment