What "definitive proof" do we have for MPP's Rhosyfelin Neolithic bluestone "quarry"?
But if there is a shred of evidence that could exonerate our "ruling hypothesis", shouldn't we thoroughly and thoughtfully examine it? David Petts would call this "due diligence". I agree! MPP has failed doing "due diligence" on this ruin. As he also failed sampling and examining stump SH32e/d. Both with the potential of ruling out his "ruling hypothesis".
So when are you heading out to excavate this ruin?
[log in to unmask]
From: John Wood <[log in to unmask]>
To: kostadinos <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: BRITARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Was the Rhosyfelin Neolithic bluestone "quarry" engulfed in water?
<div id="AOLMsgPart_1_261f0877-a15d-4344-a7ab-279a81c62f7c" style="margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color: #000;background-color: #fff;">
<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>According to Brian John's blog the stone built structure 'might' be a
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
necessarily mean that this structure is the mill. This could easily
a just a cottage whilst the mill itself has been dismantled. The
could be constructed form the quarried material from the mill.
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.