but Kostas, there is currently absolutely no evidence whatsoever the structure was a mill beyond a vague placename and even if it was a mill there is no evidence that it was anything but a totally conventional mill supplied in the bog standard way just like thousands of other mills across Britain via a leet. There is absolutely no point in getting ahead of our selves and trying to rewrite the glacial history of Wales before you get those very basic building blocks in place

Please please please go away and do some research on

(1) the form of Welsh fulling mills
(2) Welsh vernacular architecture
(3) the geomorphology and holocene/quaternary environment of West Wales

When you can show some evidence you have done this, then we can continue the discussion ( I say this in absolute confidence that you won't)

we have already been through this all before with your previous discussions- you wade in with half-arsed hypothesis that show no evidence of having done any of the background research. Any body can have put forward a controversial idea, it really is remarkably easy (people of Iron Age were remarkably long-lived because we hardly find any graves so they were clearly did not die; Kostas does not exist, he is a Turing test; the Anglo-Saxons reached Britain in biodegradable plastic boats; Avebury was jam factory; the people of Swindon evolved from some kind of primitive badger; Barry Cunliffe and Jeremy Corbyn are the same person, you never see them in the same room together; there was an unrecognised Bakelite age between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age; -
- see it's really, really, REALLY easy!). There is nothing remotely clever or remarkable or iconoclastic about having a wild hypothesis. The key element of archaeology (or indeed remotely any other academic endeavor) is to actually put some effort into developing some kind of methodology that might proof or disprove an idea and then carrying out this research. It might be a bit dull sometime and involved some time and effort, but, hey, that's life!

Research does NOT involve having a 'hey, what if?' moment and then rather than carrying out any basic research yourself, you simply take it to other people, lay out your idea without having done ANY obvious basic research yourself, simply ignore all the other constructive advice about how you might actually test, support or rebut your idea and continue to assert rather than argue your hypothesis and support this by making more hypotheses again without actually doing any research.

If you are really sceptical of the quarry hypothesis, if it really exerts profound cognitive dissonance, then why can't you be bothered to make an effort and do some research yourself? Britarch subscribers are not your data bitches- I think I can speak on the behalf of a lot of people on this list when I suggest you treat the list with a little respect and stop seeing as research gimps when you patently can't be bothered to do it yourself.

Kostas, this is the last communication you will ever get from me- you are a waste of my time, I've got better things to do...


From: British archaeology discussion list [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Constantinos Ragazas [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15 October 2015 18:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Was the Rhosyfelin Neolithic bluestone "quarry" engulfed in water?

John Wood,

Glaciers from the last glaciation still exist in places like Norway, Iceland and the Alps. When glaciers melt their meltwaters collect in many various reservoirs above or below the surface. Rivers can draw their waters from other sources besides rain. For example from lakes slowly draining or from underground caverns also initially formed by glacier meltwater and slowly depleting according to underground topography and the location of their ground springs. River Avon flowing by Stonehenge bottom is sourced in such a way, for example.

But we really don't need to know all that to know if a mill drew water directly from a river the river had to be flowing at that elevation, whatever the reason. And whether the mill latter was converted to a cottage or a pig stall really does not matter.

[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: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Was the Rhosyfelin Neolithic bluestone "quarry" engulfed in water?

<div id="AOLMsgPart_1_05992207-0bf1-4dd5-bbf8-9db34149b956" 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 10/15/15, Constantinos Ragazas
<<a href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>> wrote:

"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, Kostas, when the Rhosyfelin quarry was being used the
and their meltwater had long gone!

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
too in the countryside of my youth. And of course you must have

Are you saying that we are rivers our still carrying water from
last glaciation, and this meltwater has just got less and less over
time? In this country most of our river water comes from rain, it
falls out of
the skies, though looking at pictures of your formative
homeland you probably
never had that there, so an alternative such as
glaciation might be more
</div> <!-- end of AOLMsgPart_1_05992207-0bf1-4dd5-bbf8-9db34149b956 -->