Print

Print


On 10/16/15, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> For me, it all comes down to the following two questions:
>
> Was this ruin (so near to Craig Rhosyfelin) a watermill?
> If so, at what elevation did the mill draw its water from the River?
>
> These questions have answers. The first through onsite excavations and
> examination of local historical records. While the second by examining the
> topography of the River banks. And Prof. Mike Parker Pearson had to have
> answers to these questions before proclaiming to the World he has found his
> "quarry".
>
> For me, it is not one theory vs. another theory. Rather, any theory vs. the
> objective truth.

No, Kostas, Mike Parker Pearson doesn't need to address your personal
theories before addressing his own.

Why should he address you mill theory, when a) we have no evidence
that it is a mill, b) you are making an assumption that the are was
still under the influence of glacial meltwater as late as the
neolithic again without evidence or a reservoir for this meltwater.

Where in the landscape are you proposing that there is this reservoir
of glacial meltwater that would still be flooding the quarry area in
the neolithic? Grid Ref please!