<div id="AOLMsgPart_2_5b31da88-f1ac-4050-b528-b8175c2ecd66"><div class="aolReplacedBody">
Using their collective expertise, what this team of geologist/geomorphologists recognized at the Rhosyfelin excavation site are natural rockfall scree and sediment buildup. The same as what exists at any other exposed vertical rock-face.
What the archaeologists claim they found is a Neolithic bluestone "quarry". The burden of proof lies with them. But they have provided no evidence for such claims. And if the evidence is not there, we must not make up stories.
If Rhosyfelin was a Neolithic quarry, why not also all the other similar natural rock outcrops? Any arguments based on lack of evidence are pure fantasy. Akin to convicting the innocent on hearsay testimony.
<a href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>
From: George Currie <<a href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>>
To: BRITARCH <<a href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>>
Sent: Mon, Nov 30, 2015 03:05 AM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] published peer-reviewed paper disproves Stonehenge quarry
The area around Craig Rhosyfelin ,and the Preseli area in general has documented accounts of the removal of rocks from the landscape by local farmers .These sites have never been recorded or recognised by the three geomorphologists/geologists , they simply don’t have the credentials or ability to recognise them . If they can’t recognise the sites of relatively recent historic removal what hope have they for suggesting it didn’t take place . This problem is exacerbated if the removal took place in the prehistoric period .
A telling comment was “There are no artefacts, bones or tools. “ , as if this is what might be expected to be found at a site where rocks have been removed .
That they won’t be able to tell us where anthropogenic rock removal in any period , in the area , has produced similar evidence , explains the level of their understanding and thinking on the problem .
What might be expected from geologists/geomorphologists who accept the glacial transport theory would be evidence for glacial entrainment ,at least that is closer to what they might be able to recognise ,but despite anthropogenic removal of rocks from the landscape being far more ephemeral than glacial entrainment they didn’t find evidence for the latter either . Even if they had it doesn’t exclude the possibility of anthropogenic removal .
“I see no ships “ .Is exactly what we might expect from those not in favour of the possibility of human transport , but more importantly also from those who are incapable of commenting meaningfully on something they couldn’t recognise in the first place .