According to Brian John's blog the stone built structure 'might' be a
mill, but as he also says it requires further investigation.
So whilst we are not certain that this structure is a mill we ought
not be fabricating theories around it being one.
Even if 'Rhosyfelin' means 'the moor by the mill' it doesn't
necessarily mean that this structure is the mill. This could easily be
a just a cottage whilst the mill itself has been dismantled. The
cottage could be constructed form the quarried material from the mill.
However, either way, we need definitive proof before we can call this
a mill and as far as I can tell we haven't got it yet.
On 10/15/15, Constantinos Ragazas
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> John Wood,
> For some mysterious but recurring reason my earlier post to you on this was
> not posted. I include this here now below.
> You wrote: "If there was a mill in the past, but isn't one now, the flow of
> the stream now is as likely the flow before the mill interfered with the
> If Crag Rhosyfelin isn't underwater now, it is unlikely that it was in the
> distant past."
> My unposted post: "It depends where the mill ruin is located. If at an
> elevation higher than the current river, than it is plausible the river was
> deeper and wider than it is today. That is also what the aerial photos of
> the area show".
> You write, "If the quarry isn't in flood now it is unlikely that it was in
> flood in the Neolithic/Bronze Age."
> "Unlikely"? I would argue "more likely". Since the closer in time we are to
> the glacier great melt, the more meltwater we have to be drained from the
> surface. The glaciers at their maximum were said to have been 2 miles thick!
> (not my estimate!). That is a lot of water!
> But we don't need to go that far back to recognize water levels of rivers
> and lakes have declined over the years. In my own lifetime I have seen some
> rivers and streams in the countryside of my youth nearly dry up. And we can
> also see the water levels drop if we look at current river banks. Where the
> higher water volumes carved and eroded vertical layers of sediments tens of
> meters thick. I have seen these too in the countryside of my youth. And of
> course you must have too. But if you really want to be amazed, come over and
> look at the Grand Canyon! Formed and shaped by once much bigger deeper and
> "better" Colorado River.
> Pleases take a look at these aerial photos in Brian John's blog (links
> above) of the Craig Rhosyfelin landscape where the River Brynberian flows
> past the Crag just meters away. In these aerial photos, the wider and higher
> banks of the River Brynberian can be clearly seen. And there are also
> discernible "meltwater channels" that go right by the crag rock face where
> MPP's Neolithic "quarry" is purportedly found.
> The only question is WHEN the water levels of River Brynberian were higher
> to have engulfed Craig Rhosyfelin. I have on several occasions gone on
> record to suggest "more recently"; and after the Neolithic when the
> bluestones purportedly were quarried and carried from Wales. Some recently
> reported C14 dates of samples taken under the "proto-orthostat" MPP claims
> was quarried and readied on its way to Stonehenge were in the EBA. I am
> vindicated! But if my intuitions about this "Rhosyfelin mill" are true --
> that the mill was situated higher up the river banks because that marked the
> water level at the time of its operation -- I will also be proven right!
> If Rhosyfelin could not have been a Neolithic "quarry" for Stonehenge
> bluestones, the BIG question then is "how did the Rhosyfelin rhyolite debris
> got to be at Stonehenge"? Surely not by people!
> [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wood <[log in to unmask]>
> To: kostadinos <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: BRITARCH <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 05:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Was the Rhosyfelin Neolithic bluestone "quarry"
> engulfed in water?
> <div id="AOLMsgPart_1_4cb0052b-821e-4509-9a59-d3fb62bed476" style="margin:
> 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color:
> #000;background-color: #fff;">
> <pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>>>On 10/13/15, Constantinos Ragazas
> href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>>
> The ruin near
> Rhosyfelin could have been used for a similar purpose.
> With water flowing
> through it over a "washing floor" and the two
> fireplaces used for drying the
> linen. Or, a wheel and pin was used to
> drive machinery that substituted for my
> mother's paddle pounding of
> the linen. A prototype of a "washing machine"! And
> as you say, such
> machinery could have subsequently been removed and used
> elsewhere. As
> the water level of the river declined to make the original
> Perhaps this might have been the use of the
> 'cottage', but it would
> have required the management of the watercourse to
> obtain the
> necessary flow. Most watermills require similar
> However when the 'mill' goes out of the use the management of
> water course tends to revert to its natural state.
> As I said before the
> state of the watercourse now, would be the state
> of the watercourse before
> If the quarry isn't in flood now it is unlikely that it was in
> in the Neolithic/Bronze Age.
> </div> <!-- end of AOLMsgPart_1_4cb0052b-821e-4509-9a59-d3fb62bed476 -->